So the 911 police calls were finally released, and while there are still some questions about what exactly went on, we do now know a lot more answers about the Trayvon Martin case.
The fact that there was a shooting and that Zimmerman wasn't even arrested even though he disobeyed the 911 dispatcher's word is fairly shocking. He even chanced down the young man on foot, taking his sidearm with him.
I'm mainly wondering why there's is so little news about it, only really just heard about it on the news now with them talking about the 911 tapes.
So I leave this here for you all to make of it what you will.
TLDR? Here's a lil snippet of what happened, and listen to the tapes yourself.
On Friday, the Sanford, Fla., police department released a flurry of 911 tapes from the night an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin, was killed by a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain on patrol after a string of neighborhood break-ins.
The Feb. 26 shooting touched a nerve in a town that has in the past seen flare-ups of racial tension, raising the specter of racially-fueled profiling.
But when police refused to arrest the shooter, 28-year-old George Zimmerman, in the weeks that followed, those allegations became compounded by complaints that police, as one attorney said, “are letting a murderer walk the streets.”
The teenager who was shot was visiting Sanford(i.e. "not a resident" or someone that this "neighborhood watch captain" would have encountered), and the "self-appointed neighborhood watch captain" saw him walking while wearing a hoodie in an area which recently had a month long spat of break-ins.
Kanluwen wrote:If you want to present it properly:
The teenager who was shot was visiting Sanford(i.e. "not a resident" or someone that this "neighborhood watch captain" would have encountered), and the "self-appointed neighborhood watch captain" saw him walking while wearing a hoodie in an area which recently had a month long spat of break-ins.
That doesn't really make the story seem any more sympathetic to the shooter.
Kanluwen wrote:If you want to present it properly:
The teenager who was shot was visiting Sanford(i.e. "not a resident" or someone that this "neighborhood watch captain" would have encountered), and the "self-appointed neighborhood watch captain" saw him walking while wearing a hoodie in an area which recently had a month long spat of break-ins.
That description is at least as self serving of a desire to insert a personal narrative, if not more so.
Kanluwen wrote:If you want to present it properly:
The teenager who was shot was visiting Sanford(i.e. "not a resident" or someone that this "neighborhood watch captain" would have encountered), and the "self-appointed neighborhood watch captain" saw him walking while wearing a hoodie in an area which recently had a month long spat of break-ins.
I am shocked to see Kanluwen coming in to a thread to defend the side of law and order. Shocked I tell you.
Kanluwen wrote:If you want to present it properly:
The teenager who was shot was visiting Sanford(i.e. "not a resident" or someone that this "neighborhood watch captain" would have encountered), and the "self-appointed neighborhood watch captain" saw him walking while wearing a hoodie in an area which recently had a month long spat of break-ins.
That doesn't really make the story seem any more sympathetic to the shooter.
It's not meant to. It's meant to frame the situation in context--which the news articles on this that I have been seeing lately do not.
The guy may be an absolute idiot, but it's not like he just picked a random black kid and shot him.
This was not a racially motivated incident; although it most likely did play a factor in the incident occurring.
This was not an incident which was motivated by a discriminatory attitude against teenagers; although it again most likely did play a factor in the incident occurring.
The area had a series of crimes occur, and then there comes a situation where he sees an individual he does not recognize walking on foot in a hoodie.
This led to a convergence of circumstances which resulted in a tragic ending.
The fact that the Sanford PD has by all accounts "sat on" the 911 tape is slightly suspect, but emergency calls aren't always made available for any number of reasons.
It's also worth noting that the shooter supposedly had a "history of violence" which makes me curious as to why he had a gun.
Kanluwen wrote:This was not a racially motivated incident; although it most likely did play a factor in the incident occurring.
In your haste to defend anyone with a badge, I think you just looped the swing. You appear to have just said that the incident wasn't because the guy was a racist, even though he was probably a racist.
Kanluwen wrote:
It's not meant to. It's meant to frame the situation in context--which the news articles on this that I have been seeing lately do not.
The guy may be an absolute idiot, but it's not like he just picked a random black kid and shot him.
This was not a racially motivated incident; although it most likely did play a factor in the incident occurring.
This was not an incident which was motivated by a discriminatory attitude against teenagers; although it again most likely did play a factor in the incident occurring.
The area had a series of crimes occur, and then there comes a situation where he sees an individual he does not recognize walking on foot in a hoodie.
This led to a convergence of circumstances which resulted in a tragic ending.
The fact that the Sanford PD has by all accounts "sat on" the 911 tape is slightly suspect, but emergency calls aren't always made available for any number of reasons.
It's also worth noting that the shooter supposedly had a "history of violence" which makes me curious as to why he had a gun.
Parts highlight in red = lol.
So far the only motivation that led to the tragedy were....
he is black
he is in a hoodie
In all fairness, I think it is mostly Trayvon's fault. If he only had also exercised his 2nd amendment rights, this whole thing could have been avoided; as Frazzled is so fond of pointing out, "an armed society is a polite society", yes?
Ouze wrote:In all fairness, I think it is mostly Trayvon's fault. If he only had also exercised his 2nd amendment rights, this whole thing could have been avoided; as Frazzled is so fond of pointing out, "an armed society is a polite society", yes?
Sorry, I forget this is an international community sometimes. The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution is what give citizens the right to own firearms with few restrictions.
If Try had a gun and did shoot back, though yes his death could be averted, but maybe it'll end in another tragedy.
And another convenient story would be painted up for us to read on dakka dakka xD ( alternate universe... )
Kanluwen wrote:This was not a racially motivated incident; although it most likely did play a factor in the incident occurring.
In your haste to defend anyone with a badge, I think you just looped the swing. You appear to have just said that the incident wasn't because the guy was a racist, even though he was probably a racist.
Seems legit.
You realize that the guy in question doesn't even have a badge, right?
Anyways:
A "racially motivated incident" means that the incident was motivated solely by the race of the victim. If one were to try to persecute this as a hate crime on the part of a racist, there would have to be proof that the shooter chose his victims based upon the primary factor of their race.
That said, seeing a black kid in a hoodie does not necessarily mean that he's up to no good--which is what anyone would tell you.
The circumstances changed however because of a neighborhood watch captain who saw a teenager in a hoodie in an area which had recently been the victim of a series of break-ins, called the police and followed the teenager.
I understand this is complex to follow; but being under the impression that a teenager in a hoodie in an area which had recently been the victim of a series of break-ins might be up to something doesn't make you a racist.
Kanluwen wrote:]That said, seeing a black kid in a hoodie does not necessarily mean that he's up to no good--which is what anyone would tell you.
The circumstances changed however because of a neighborhood watch captain who saw a teenager in a hoodie in an area which had recently been the victim of a series of break-ins, called the police and followed the unarmed teenager and then shot him to death, claiming he acted in self defense, despite the recorded 9/11 call clearly showing the shooter was the aggressor and was chasing the teenager.
I understand this is complex to follow; but being under the impression that a teenager in a hoodie in an area which had recently been the victim of a series of break-ins might be up to something doesn't make you a racist.
It's not complex to follow at all because you omitted some key elements, which I have helpfully added back for you in red.
Surprised? No
Shocked? No
Expecting shooter to be brought to justice? No
Of the opinion that this happens every day and this one just slipped through the PR filter? YES
Kanluwen wrote:That said, seeing a black kid in a hoodie does not necessarily mean that he's up to no good--which is what anyone would tell you.
The circumstances changed however because of a neighborhood watch captain who saw a teenager in a hoodie in an area which had recently been the victim of a series of break-ins, called the police and followed the unarmed teenager and then shot him to death, claiming he acted in self defense, despite the recorded 9/11 call clearly showing the shooter was the aggressor and was chasing the teenager.
I understand this is complex to follow; but being under the impression that a teenager in a hoodie in an area which had recently been the victim of a series of break-ins might be up to something doesn't make you a racist.
It's not complex to follow at all because you omitted some key elements, which I have helpfully added back for you in red.
What exactly does that have to do with your statement which I replied to--which was:
In your haste to defend anyone with a badge, I think you just looped the swing. You appear to have just said that the incident wasn't because the guy was a racist, even though he was probably a racist.
Seems legit.
I never said that the shooter was not aggressively following the teenager, nor that he's in the right or the Sanford Police Department has behaved professionally. You seem to have inferred it from past discussions on the matter.
Anyways:
The fact that the teenager was unarmed is something we learned after the incident in question. The 9/11 call you so helpfully mentioned has Zimmerman stating this:
"Now he's coming towards me. He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male...Something's wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is...These donkey-caves, they always get away."
This is where things start putting the incident into a wee bit of a strange area.
Zimmerman is not a police officer. He does not have a reasonable duty to protect the public at large; and him chasing the teenager was clearly beyond the scope of what little "duty" he had.
The fact that he gave chase when Trayvon Martin could potentially have been armed makes it seem as though he's got a hero complex.
However...look at the article you linked. Read the parts regarding Florida's concealed carry and self-defense laws. It makes things a bit clearer as to why the police did not arrest Zimmerman--but not as to why they lied afterwards.
That last part is crucial. That's the crux of the matter. Why did the Sanford PD act in such a conspiratorial manner in regards to the circumstances of this case.
I would, in fact, love to read more. These kinds of cases are always fascinating to read.
It's interesting to see about Florida's extension of the castle doctrine and how this could play a part.
I will also say that at 2:21 in the 9/11 call, I don't know how in the hell anyone is hearing a specific racial slur unless they are just kind of following the flow of people who've claimed they've heard it. It's too soft, even when I crank my headphones up all the way.
Edit note:
I removed a part which I felt was overly confrontational; I'm not looking to pick any fights here. Simply stated a piece in regards to the case,
Kanluwen wrote:Seems like you're just trying to get away from the fact you look kinda silly claiming that I made a mistake "in my haste to defend anyone with a badge". It's okay, I'll give you a mulligan..
Because you have. So far you have failed to come up with anything that supports as to why Zimmerman is justified to do
ANY of the actions he did.
It has EVERYTHING to do with the statement you replied to.
I have no idea how can you fail to see such a basic thing.
The fact that the teenager was unarmed is something we learned after the incident in question. The 9/11 call you so helpfully mentioned has Zimmerman stating this:
Whats your point? Infact, that further reinforces Try was murdered, as he was NO THREAT at all to Zim.
Just because its something WE the readers found out, is irrelevant to what Zim may or may not know when he pursuit Try.
Yet, from the recording when Try was begging for help, is it not obvious that he was not in a state to threaten Zim's action?
aka execution?
Now if only we could get guns in the hands of all the children of the United States. Maybe this tragedy could have been avoided and it would be Zimmerman dead instead of an innocent Trayvon.
SaintTom wrote:So the 911 police calls were finally released, and while there are still some questions about what exactly went on, we do now know a lot more answers about the Trayvon Martin case.
The fact that there was a shooting and that Zimmerman wasn't even arrested even though he disobeyed the 911 dispatcher's word is fairly shocking. He even chanced down the young man on foot, taking his sidearm with him.
I'm mainly wondering why there's is so little news about it, only really just heard about it on the news now with them talking about the 911 tapes.
So I leave this here for you all to make of it what you will.
TLDR? Here's a lil snippet of what happened, and listen to the tapes yourself.
On Friday, the Sanford, Fla., police department released a flurry of 911 tapes from the night an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin, was killed by a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain on patrol after a string of neighborhood break-ins.
The Feb. 26 shooting touched a nerve in a town that has in the past seen flare-ups of racial tension, raising the specter of racially-fueled profiling.
But when police refused to arrest the shooter, 28-year-old George Zimmerman, in the weeks that followed, those allegations became compounded by complaints that police, as one attorney said, “are letting a murderer walk the streets.”
The argument is that Zimmerman (who is Hispanic FYI) got into fisticuffs with the youngin for some reason, and capped him in self defense.
Problems.
Train of causastion. Like thieves breaking in and causing murder, you generally can't initiate the incidents and then claim self defense. Well you can, but its way more difficult.
Especially when the Po Po tell you to stop it and wait for the PD.
Sure, but are those problems sufficient to preclude a local prosecution? The stand your ground doctrine seems pretty strong. As a Texan, you're reasonably familiar with these laws, right - they're about the same? Have you seen these kinds of defenses generally work?
I think it's probably a moot point anyway since they will like be a federal civil rights indictment at this point - the plebes demand it - but I wonder how a local prosecution could even succeed.
Ouze wrote:In all fairness, I think it is mostly Trayvon's fault. If he only had also exercised his 2nd amendment rights, this whole thing could have been avoided; as Frazzled is so fond of pointing out, "an armed society is a polite society", yes?
Whats 2nd amendment rights? Im Canadian :'P
Its the right to conquer Canada with seven arned rednecks, and a girl scout selling cookies. Protip - the girl scout is the dangerous one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:Quit beating around the bush kanluwen.
The victim other then being black and in a hoodie,
what did he do to warrant the shooting?
Enlighten us kan. And no this certainly is not complex to follow.
You need to realize, to pull a trigger and take someone's life is not a small thing.
So in black and white , tell me why Try should be shot.
Because he was eating skittles. Skittles cannot compare to the greatness that is chocolate.
Again the argument made is that Z confronted the teenager. There was some sort of engagement and Z defended himself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:Seems like you're just trying to get away from the fact you look kinda silly claiming that I made a mistake "in my haste to defend anyone with a badge". It's okay, I'll give you a mulligan..
Because you have. So far you have failed to come up with anything that supports as to why Zimmerman is justified to do
ANY of the actions he did.
It has EVERYTHING to do with the statement you replied to.
I have no idea how can you fail to see such a basic thing.
The fact that the teenager was unarmed is something we learned after the incident in question. The 9/11 call you so helpfully mentioned has Zimmerman stating this:
Whats your point? Infact, that further reinforces Try was murdered, as he was NO THREAT at all to Zim.
Just because its something WE the readers found out, is irrelevant to what Zim may or may not know when he pursuit Try.
Yet, from the recording when Try was begging for help, is it not obvious that he was not in a state to threaten Zim's action?
aka execution?
You have the right to defend yourself. If the teenager attacked Z then he has the right to defend himself. If Z started the confrontation then he basically doesn't.
Don't make up anything because the information is extremely limited.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tibbsy wrote:As a Brit - I hope I can be forgiven for initially thinking that this thread was about Hot Fuzz
Now that was excellent.
Alternatively Sanford and Son could have become cops.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Problems.
Sure, but are those problems sufficient to preclude a local prosecution? The stand your ground doctrine seems pretty strong. As a Texan, you're reasonably familiar with these laws, right - they're about the same? Have you seen these kinds of defenses generally work?
I think it's probably a moot point anyway since they will like be a federal civil rights indictment at this point - the plebes demand it - but I wonder how a local prosecution could even succeed.
Well, fyi this is all over the CHL forums, and being "discussed' intensely (lots of modding).
Now there's the law, court decisioning, and reality.
The law in general, you can defend yourself. If you are in fear of your life or grievous harm (this includes rape, or in Texas, going for the last slice of pizza), then you can defend yourself until that threat has stopped.
HOWEVER:
-You can not do so in furtherance of a crime (burglar can't shoot a homeowner and calim self defense)
-There has to be evidence that your fear was reasonable in light of your circumstances (you can't say grandma was gng to beat you to death, inversely grandma can cap a fluffy bunny)
-In the real world you can't be an active participant in creating the situation. This is the touchy part.
1. We don't know yet (if ever) what happened.
2. We don't know the chain of events.
In Texas Z would have serious legal problems, and would likely get hit with criminal charges of some sort.
from what I know:
- Zimmerman sees the kid and calls 911
- He then claims he is acting suspiciously
- he then is told not to pursue him
- Zimmerman pursues the kid and then pulls a gun and kills him.
Also on the police call you can hear him say f ing c ns.
Seems like a cut and dry case: unfortuneatly the local PD seem to not care. If it was the reverse situation the Black guy would be in jail and charged by now.
The kid was on his cellphone and people heard the incident.
Their Neighborhood Watch handbook specifically states :
It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers. And they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles.
This is also another article that doesn't mention some crime wave in the neighborhood. Even when I first read about this a few weeks ago there was no mention of some crime wave in the neighborhood. The only place I have seen that is in one of the posts in this thread.
Frazzled wrote:No, meaning he speaks Spanish and just happens to have a German sounding name.
We don't know that he speaks Spanish; Hispanic is not a synonym for bilingual. I'm not sure what good it does anyway to bring it up that he was pf Spanish descent, as that that still counted as European to most. Would you feel better if it had been phrased that a man of European (Spain) descent shot a kid of African descent becuase he was eating some candy and talking to his girlfriend while walking back to his relatives house?
Zimmerman is clearly in the wrong here, IMO, and deserves to be punished.
But, Florida law is absolutely insane. Between the ridiculous laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons, the "stand your ground" law, and the burden of proof for self defense on the state and not the accused, there's no way Zimmerman is going to jail.
As long as this law remains on the books, the body count will continue to climb with police and prosecutors unable to punish anyone. It may even get to the point where it's a "reasonable belief" to think that anyone around may misinterpret your actions and be able to justifiably kill you. Once that happens, cold-blooded murder will be completely legal in Florida.
Frazzled wrote:No, meaning he speaks Spanish and just happens to have a German sounding name.
We don't know that he speaks Spanish; Hispanic is not a synonym for bilingual. I'm not sure what good it does anyway to bring it up that he was pf Spanish descent, as that that still counted as European to most. Would you feel better if it had been phrased that a man of European (Spain) descent shot a kid of African descent becuase he was eating some candy and talking to his girlfriend while walking back to his relatives house?
We do actually. His dad said so on NPR this morning. Remember this is a widely viewed story and has actually been ongoing for some time.
Not sure what the rest of all that you posted was about.
Last week, Zimmerman’s father released a statement to the Orlando Sentinel saying that his son did not try to pursue or confront Martin. And he disputed allegations that his son targeted Martin because he was black.
“George is a Spanish-speaking minority with many black family members and friends,” Robert Zimmerman wrote. “He would be the last to discriminate for any reason whatsoever.”
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grakmar wrote:Zimmerman is clearly in the wrong here, IMO, and deserves to be punished.
But, Florida law is absolutely insane. Between the ridiculous laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons, the "stand your ground" law, and the burden of proof for self defense on the state and not the accused, there's no way Zimmerman is going to jail.
As long as this law remains on the books, the body count will continue to climb with police and prosecutors unable to punish anyone. It may even get to the point where it's a "reasonable belief" to think that anyone around may misinterpret your actions and be able to justifiably kill you. Once that happens, cold-blooded murder will be completely legal in Florida.
So says the guy from the city with murder as a recreation passtime, and effecitvely no 2nd Amendment Rights.
This has nothing to do with anything you said. It has everything to do with what actually happened.
Orlanth wrote:Someone explain why FBI are being asked to get involved. Isnt this a state jurisdictional matter if local PD need external 'help'.
There is a strategy by the federal government to get involved in high profile cases, where the argument is that the civil rights of the victim were violated. I guess murderizing them qualifies as a violation of their rights.
Orlanth wrote:Someone explain why FBI are being asked to get involved. Isnt this a state jurisdictional matter if local PD need external 'help'.
There is a strategy by the federal government to get involved in high profile cases, where the argument is that the civil rights of the victim were violated. I guess murderizing them qualifies as a violation of their rights.
Central government needs this like a hole in the head.
Too much anger, not enough info = a powderkeg with a fuse of unknown length.
Zimmerman is already claiming self defense so he may say he was turned upon and stood his ground. This may well be sufficient for reasonable doubt given a good enough lawyer, cue civil unrest.
Kanluwen wrote:If you want to present it properly:
The teenager who was shot was visiting Sanford(i.e. "not a resident" or someone that this "neighborhood watch captain" would have encountered), and the "self-appointed neighborhood watch captain" saw him walking while wearing a hoodie in an area which recently had a month long spat of break-ins.
Being that I live in the area, your assumptions are entire incorrect.
He was wearing a hoodie because 1) it isn't illegal to do so and 2) it was RAINING.
Zimmerman is one of "those guys", as he calls 9/11 on average 36 times a week for things like, "my neighbor kept his garage door open" and "Suspect kids are walking around with their pants around their ankles".
He is a paranoid racist in a town where the authority has a decades long history of racism towards blacks. Nothing more, nothing less.
Frazzled wrote:We do actually. His dad said so on NPR this morning. Remember this is a widely viewed story and has actually been ongoing for some time.
Not sure what the rest of all that you posted was about.
And yours is the first that mentioned that he spoke Spanish, not that it matters at all, and it still does not mean that Hispanic is a synonym for bilingual. Hispanic (White) is person of Spanish descent, and is what has been in all the descriptions of Zimmerman. You brought up his ethnicity, I just clarified it.
"I have black friends" still isn't a good enough reason to shoot a teen.
Feds can get involved for a lot of reasons, and not always improperly or becuase of some big government conspiracy. If the local police force covered up or ignored the crime, either intentionally or through gross neglect, then this kids rights were violated, on multiple levels.
Orlanth wrote:Someone explain why FBI are being asked to get involved. Isnt this a state jurisdictional matter if local PD need external 'help'.
There is a strategy by the federal government to get involved in high profile cases, where the argument is that the civil rights of the victim were violated. I guess murderizing them qualifies as a violation of their rights.
Central government needs this like a hole in the head.
Too much anger, not enough info = a powderkeg with a fuse of unknown length.
Zimmerman is already claiming self defense so he may say he was turned upon and stood his ground. This may well be sufficient for reasonable doubt given a good enough lawyer, cue civil unrest.
Well civil rights violations are substantially different animal so I don't know. Standards are less and state concepts don't really apply.
Usually this is only in play against bad cops (ROdney King) or racist types, so slightly surprising. Or not depending on your paranoia level / view of the current DOJ.
NOTE: Frazzled thinks Z would get punded hard under state criminal statutes if enugh evidence can be obtained. Of course thats the same problems with federal prosecution.
Ok, Well I myself do not like an armed populace(I love the idea, but people aare stupid) because things like this happen.
Even worse is someone armed who think of themselves as a lawman. Police go through massive training. This would have ended differently if it was an officer.
If they really did want their neighborhood secure, talk to an officer. See if you cant get them to make more rounds in your neighborhood, The very idea that officers are watching is a massive deterent.
Frazzled wrote:We do actually. His dad said so on NPR this morning. Remember this is a widely viewed story and has actually been ongoing for some time.
Not sure what the rest of all that you posted was about.
And yours is the first that mentioned that he spoke Spanish, not that it matters at all, and it still does not mean that Hispanic is a synonym for bilingual. Hispanic (White) is person of Spanish descent, and is what has been in all the descriptions of Zimmerman. You brought up his ethnicity, I just clarified it.
"I have black friends" still isn't a good enough reason to shoot a teen.
Feds can get involved for a lot of reasons, and not always improperly or becuase of some big government conspiracy. If the local police force covered up or ignored the crime, either intentionally or through gross neglect, then this kids rights were violated, on multiple levels.
I brought it up because people were throwing around white/black nonsense. Don't get confused by the name.
Frazzled wrote:I brought it up because people were throwing around white/black nonsense. Don't get confused by the name.
No one accused Zimmerman of being white, or blamed white people. Ethnicity was postulated to be a motivating factor in Z's paranoia, and even knowing that it was Hispanic(White) that shot a Black kid, hasn't changed that at all. There is still a racial component to it either way.
Frazzled wrote:I brought it up because people were throwing around white/black nonsense. Don't get confused by the name.
No one accused Zimmerman of being white, or blamed white people. Ethnicity was postulated to be a motivating factor in Z's paranoia, and even knowing that it was Hispanic(White) that shot a Black kid, hasn't changed that at all. There is still a racial component to it either way.
Frazzled wrote:
NOTE: Frazzled thinks Z would get punded hard under state criminal statutes if enough evidence can be obtained. Of course thats the same problems with federal prosecution.
Bold heighlight.
Zimmerman admitted pulling the trigger, its the why which will be problematical. With no witnesses to support the prosecution it may be hard top prove. It could be easier if a 'self defense' shooter didn't have a lot of bonus rights under Florida law.
A non-black guy shot a black kid. There is a racial component. Just not wanting there to be one won't make it so.
I reject that. Under that mantra everything is racial. Absence actual evidence, its not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
NOTE: Frazzled thinks Z would get punded hard under state criminal statutes if enough evidence can be obtained. Of course thats the same problems with federal prosecution.
Bold heighlight.
Zimmerman admitted pulling the trigger, its the why which will be problematical. With no witnesses to support the prosecution it may be hard top prove. It could be easier if a 'self defense' shooter didn't have a lot of bonus rights under Florida law.
And the feds have the same problem.
No justice no Peas!
Orlanth wrote:Someone explain why FBI are being asked to get involved. Isnt this a state jurisdictional matter if local PD need external 'help'.
There are several reasons the FBI may have some level of jurisdiction. The FBI can take a case if their is significant evidence someones civil rights have been violated, as they are responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws (including some hate crime laws). They also can investigate "color of law" types of crimes, if there is the possibility that local law enforcement participated in a coverup.
I'm not saying any of the above scenarios happened, or didn't happen - just that those are the grounds for the FBI looking into a case to determine if they should\could get involved. Finally, and the most likely one - local law enforcement can request FBI assistance. In this case, the governor of Florida, Rick Scott, directed the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to allocate "appropriate resources" to the case. While it's speculation to say they asked for FBI assistance, it's probably pretty good speculation.
A non-black guy shot a black kid. There is a racial component. Just not wanting there to be one won't make it so.
I reject that.
That doesn't change anything. It isn't "should there be a racial component", there will be a racial component, for right or wrong. It is already there. You can deny the sun in the sky but it is still there as well. Racial component doesn't mean "the guy was a KKK member", but whether race will play an element in the incident, which includes discussion of the incident.
Even you actually know that race is a consideration since you felt the need to point out the man was Hispanic, even though no one had claimed he was white. It is already in the dialogue of what happened, you can't just wish it away becuase you don't want to believe that people aren't going to consider it. Even by talking about whether race should be talked about we are adding a racial component to the dialogue.
Perhaps you are solely referring to the altercation in specific, which is still questionable as to racial issues, and that is where the confusion is coming from. I'm talking about the entire incident, including the politics, news coverage, and overall discussion.
My personal opinion is that race played some part in it, though not overtly. I don't think he wanted to go shoot a black guy or anything that blatant or overt. I do think if it had been a white teen, or hispanic (white) teen, it is likely that he wouldn't have been as quick to jump to the 'criminal' conclusion and would not have been as belligerent in his treatment of the situation. Even so, that isn't something you can prosecute for, and if he is arrested and prosecuted, it will be becuase he chased down a teenager and shot him in cold blood. He attacks a teen who fights back, then shoots him and claims self defense. If someone chased you down and tried to grab and question you, wouldn't you be in fight or flight mode as well?
A non-black guy shot a black kid. There is a racial component. Just not wanting there to be one won't make it so.
I reject that.
That doesn't change anything. It isn't "should there be a racial component", there will be a racial component, for right or wrong. It is already there. You can deny the sun in the sky but it is still there as well. Racial component doesn't mean "the guy was a KKK member", but whether race will play an element in the incident, which includes discussion of the incident.
Even you actually know that race is a consideration since you felt the need to point out the man was Hispanic, even though no one had claimed he was white. It is already in the dialogue of what happened, you can't just wish it away becuase you don't want to believe that people aren't going to consider it. Even by talking about whether race should be talked about we are adding a racial component to the dialogue.
What are you on about? WHy the hostility? I merely remarked
The argument is that Zimmerman (who is Hispanic FYI) got into fisticuffs with the youngin for some reason, and capped him in self defense.
As the argument at issue, that some sort of altercation started, and that Z is stating it was self defense. You're the one going on and on about the hispanic. Work through your issues somewhere else.
Then everything has a racial component, and as a consuence its not more important than any other case. Sorry, absent actual evidence its not special.
Frazzled wrote:Then everything has a racial component, and as a consequence its not more important than any other case. Sorry, absent actual evidence its not special.
Choosing not to look at the specifics of the situation are your prerogative, and so is coming to a poorly thought out conclusion as well. Evidence shows a non-black guy saw a black teen and thought he was up to no good, armed himself and chased him down, and shot him. There are a myriad of studies that show that black men in America of all economic and educational backgrounds are consistently more likely to be treated as criminals first and questioned second. The evidence and history are there, I can't help it if you choose not to want to see it.
No one has said this case is solely important becuase there is a racial component. This is news becuase a teenager was shot for doing nothing wrong, which a is tragedy, and then compounde3d by the fact the guy who did it was never held or charged. This would still be news even if it the players involved had been of the same ethnicity, but since they weren't it just adds another dimension to it.
Frazzled wrote:Then everything has a racial component, and as a consequence its not more important than any other case. Sorry, absent actual evidence its not special.
Choosing not to look at the specifics of the situation are your prerogative, and so is coming to a poorly thought out conclusion as well. Evidence shows a non-black guy saw a black teen and thought he was up to no good, armed himself and chased him down, and shot him. There are a myriad of studies that show that black men in America of all economic and educational backgrounds are consistently more likely to be treated as criminals first and questioned second. The evidence and history are there, I can't help it if you choose not to want to see it.
No one has said this case is solely important becuase there is a racial component. This is news becuase a teenager was shot for doing nothing wrong, which a is tragedy, and then compounde3d by the fact the guy who did it was never held or charged. This would still be news even if it the players involved had been of the same ethnicity, but since they weren't it just adds another dimension to it.
NO.
Evidence shows that local goody goody saw a teenager, called 911, and followed him against advice of the 911 operator. Everything else is disputed and the subject of any potential criminal prosecution.
Maybe you are unaware of this, but putting a word in all caps doesn't change anything.
Frazzled wrote:Evidence shows that local goody goody saw a teenager, called 911, and followed him against advice of the 911 operator. Everything else is disputed and the subject of any potential criminal prosecution.
Since I think you passed it over earlier I wil restate:
Perhaps you are solely referring to the altercation in specific, which is still questionable as to racial issues, and that is where the confusion is coming from. I'm talking about the entire incident, including the politics, news coverage, and overall discussion.
And again, refuting any racial element is still discussion of race, and is a racial component to the discussion. Your are proving my point by trying to refute it. If it wasn't there, you wouldn't have to deny it.
Frazzled wrote:
Evidence shows that local goody goody saw a teenager, called 911, and followed him against advice of the 911 operator. Everything else is disputed and the subject of any potential criminal prosecution.
Really?
Its disputed that the teenager was visibly a black teenager?
I mean, if you can tell someone is a teenager, then I'm fairly certain you can also tell he was black.
If you argue the sky is comprised of fluffy bunnies and used tampons, and I disputed that, it wouldn't mean that there's a component there, just that you are 1) drunk; or 2) wrong.
The case doesn't need the racial component. Boil it down a teenager got murderized by the local crime watch Batman wannabe who thought he was someone casing the place.
Frazzled wrote:The case doesn't need the racial component.
Need isn't a factor, nor is should, want, or hope.
Frazzled wrote:Its up to the jury to decide.
It wasn't a hate crime, so I doubt it. The racial component isn't "Let's go kill a black kid". You seem to be confusing recognition of a racial component with calling for prosecution for a racial component, among other errors.
Frazzled wrote:
The case doesn't need the racial component. Boil it down a teenager got murderized by the local crime watch Batman wannabe who thought he was someone casing the place.
The point isn't that this was a hate crime, the point is that the fact that the kid was black likely played into the determination that he was casing the place.
Frazzled wrote:The case doesn't need the racial component.
Need isn't a factor, nor is should, want, or hope.
Frazzled wrote:Its up to the jury to decide.
It wasn't a hate crime, so I doubt it. The racial component isn't "Let's go kill a black kid". You seem to be confusing recognition of a racial component with calling for prosecution for a racial component, among other errors.
If its not a hate crime then its not racial and why ar you even arguing the issue?
Batman wannabe sees teenager. Thinks teenager is suspicious. Thats either because - he dresses like your standard loser suspicious tennager and/or he's black.
Ok.
He calls 911. He seems to have had them on speed dial. They say thanks. He follows said kid.
Now here's the only thing thats important, the actual incident. 1. Did he confront the kid? Did the kid confront him? 2. Did he just blast the kid? 3. If 2 is no, then was there a fight, and why did the defendant cap the kid? 4. If the defandant confronted the kid and a fight started then who started it? This has legal ramifications as the defendant stated it was self defense. Are there any witnesses?
protip - its a losing argument to start a fight and then claim self defense. Starting a confrontation and then having that turn into a shoot is an almost equally hard row to hoe if you're claiming self defense in this type of circumstance.
In short absent witnesses confirming that teenager attacked him out of hand Batman SHOULD be in a world of hurt, at least in how that sort of thing is adjudicated in Texas, regardless of why teenager was singled out in the first place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote: The case doesn't need the racial component. Boil it down a teenager got murderized by the local crime watch Batman wannabe who thought he was someone casing the place.
The point isn't that this was a hate crime, the point is that the fact that the kid was black likely played into the determination that he was casing the place.
Indeed may be so (see my post below yours). I'm not saying it didn't. I'm not saying it did. I'm just saying Batman's goose would normally be cooked regardless.
Frazzled wrote:If its not a hate crime then its not racial and why ar you even arguing the issue?
Because issues of race and ethnicity aren't only relegated to whether something is a Hate Crime or not. In fact most discussions about race don't involve Hate Crimes prosecution.
Now the interesting question to be explored on other gun related sites is, if you're Z and these guys show up and try to arrest you, can you cap them?
Answer of course:in Texas, a lot...
Now the interesting question to be explored on other gun related sites is, if you're Z and these guys show up and try to arrest you, can you cap them?
Answer of course:in Texas, a lot...
Why don't you tell those guys there is no racial component to the situation (meaning the entire situation, not just the shooting). I'm sure they will believe you.
Now the interesting question to be explored on other gun related sites is, if you're Z and these guys show up and try to arrest you, can you cap them?
Answer of course:in Texas, a lot...
Why don't you tell those guys there is no racial component to the situation (meaning the entire situation, not just the shooting). I'm sure they will believe you.
I make it policy not to converse with racists. Thanks anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: GF of victim now testifying he was on the phone with her. This still doesn't say who started any physical altercation (Z' argument), but it supports that the defendant actually confronted the teenager. That certainly doesn't help his case.
Martin was shot and killed while walking to his father's fiancee's house in Sanford after a trip to a nearby convenience store February 26. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, has acknowledged shooting Martin.
Although she did not hear the shooting, minutes earlier Martin told her someone was following him, and that he was trying to get away, Crump said.
The girl heard someone ask Martin what he was doing, and heard Martin ask why the person was following him, Crump said. The girl then got the impression that there was an altercation in which the earpiece fell out of Martin's ear and the phone went out, Crump said.
Even if the teenager did start the fight, what does that prove? If you were walking to the shops at night in a rough area and some creep gets out of a car and starts following you...
This is probably the very reason that the 911 operator told him not to follow the lad and leave it to the police.
This may be a rough neighbourhood with high crime, but in this case the most dangerous person on the street was a guy carrying a gun looking to deal out vigilante justice.
Even if the teenager did start the fight, what does that prove? If you were walking to the shops at night in a rough area and some creep gets out of a car and starts following you...
(NOTE: This is NOT tied to the perquisite case)
If the teenager starts fisticuffs that supports a defendant's claim that they are acting in self defense, and that they were in reasoble fear of death or grievous bodily harm. Its a piece of evidence.
Just as someone can't just blast away, someone else can't start a fight and be free from potential consequences resulting from that fight. If the penumbra of facts, including both shooter and shootie's physical states, support that reasonable fear, then the claim of legally justified self defense is supported.
Now as you noted, in the real world, following someone can be bad and supports an argument they may make to the same claim. But we should remember, just following someone is not criminal. Security officers do it. Cops do it. Bystanders witnessing crimes have done. On a what should you do basis- Reporting the teenager: fine. FOllowing the teenager in the vehicle while on the line. Generally ok dpeending on circumstances. Confronting someone - you just crossed the line.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoneLictor wrote:If the kid had been white, he wouldn't have shot him.
You have zero proof of that, just smoke out your ass. Here's the newflash. To neighborhood Batman, hooligan looking teenagers in hoodies in the middle of the day (remember this was during school hours as the kid was suspended from school) look suspicious regardless of how tanned they are.
LoneLictor wrote:If the kid had been white, he wouldn't have shot him.
You have zero proof of that, just smoke out your ass. Here's the newflash. To neighborhood Batman, hooligan looking teenagers in hoodies in the middle of the day (remember this was during school hours as the kid was suspended from school) look suspicious regardless of how tanned they are.
Yeah, I have zero proof. I'm just basing my opinion off of similar instances where crazy old white guys have done stuff like that. And you have zero proof for your opinion too. As you said about me, all you have is smoke outta yer ass.
Also, imagine what I'd be like if he was white. The guy's dad says he has, "black friends." Imagine if you shot a white person and said, "I have white friends! I'm innocent!"
LoneLictor wrote:If the kid had been white, he wouldn't have shot him.
You have zero proof of that, just smoke out your ass. Here's the newflash. To neighborhood Batman, hooligan looking teenagers in hoodies in the middle of the day (remember this was during school hours as the kid was suspended from school) look suspicious regardless of how tanned they are.
Yeah, I have zero proof. I'm just basing my opinion off of similar instances where crazy old white guys have done stuff like that. And you have zero proof for your opinion too. As you said about me, all you have is smoke outta yer ass.
Also, imagine what I'd be like if he was white. The guy's dad says he has, "black friends." Imagine if you shot a white person and said, "I have white friends! I'm innocent!"
When he called 911 and was told to stand down, his words were "No, they always get away."
A question to ask is who does he mean by "they"? People wearing hoodies, people eating skittles, or black people?
From reading a lot of the news he has a history of picking out black people, claiming a black family in the neighborhood stole the bikes they owned as an instance.
d-usa wrote:When he called 911 and was told to stand down, his words were "No, they always get away."
A question to ask is who does he mean by "they"? People wearing hoodies, people eating skittles, or black people?
From reading a lot of the news he has a history of picking out black people, claiming a black family in the neighborhood stole the bikes they owned as an instance.
d-usa wrote:When he called 911 and was told to stand down, his words were "No, they always get away."
followed by F*****g C***s under his breath
A question to ask is who does he mean by "they"? People wearing hoodies, people eating skittles, or black people?
From reading a lot of the news he has a history of picking out black people, claiming a black family in the neighborhood stole the bikes they owned as an instance.
he was also 100lb and 10 years the boys senior. I think there were multiple opportunity before it the kid attacked him to stop him before resolving to shooting him: I mean just drawing the gun would make most people stop never mind a warning shot into the air or ground or if it is really needed the attackers arm or leg.
There is no way this guy isn't racist.
He lived in a gated community: the kid was visiting his dad: how else could he get in?
The kid was also walking on the street, when he was being followed by a vehicle. Then that vehicle suddenly stopped and a man started to follow him. Said man started to confront him.
If that kid was old enough and had a CWL he would have been in the right to shoot Mr. Z. I wonder if he would still be on the street in that situation.
You never, ever ever do warning shots. Thats Hollywood nonsense.
Further, if they are struggling there isn't that sort of distance.
Further, if Z is able bodied and outweighs the teen by 100 lbs (assuming its not all fat and not otherwise having a medical condition) unless teen gets him in some sort of Klingon Death Grip then there is not sufficient grounds for a good shoot (at least in Texas).
Thats why all the racism stuff isn't necessary in this case. The available facts are grievous and indicting without that.
d-usa wrote:If that kid was old enough and had a CWL he would have been in the right to shoot Mr. Z. I wonder if he would still be on the street in that situation.
He'd have been completely in the right if he shot Zimmerman.
And this is the lesson to learn from all of this. If you're in Florida and feel threatened, start shooting before the other guy feels threatened and shoots first.
d-usa wrote:If that kid was old enough and had a CWL he would have been in the right to shoot Mr. Z. I wonder if he would still be on the street in that situation.
He'd have been completely in the right if he shot Zimmerman.
And this is the lesson to learn from all of this. If you're in Florida and feel threatened, start shooting before the other guy feels threatened and shoots first.
And if there is one thing that I learned when taking my concealed carry class it is this: Drawing your gun is ALWAYS your very last option. The first step is to have situational awareness and notice any threads early and then attempt to remove yourself from the situation if safely able to do so. Chasing after the thread to begin with makes any attempt at using self-defense as justification laughable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grakmar wrote:Here's his actual picture. Judge for yourself.
I like the shade of "outstanding citizen orange" of his clothes in that picture I hope that is County Clothing(TM) or else he just has horrible taste.
d-usa wrote:And if there is one thing that I learned when taking my concealed carry class it is this: Drawing your gun is ALWAYS your very last option. The first step is to have situational awareness and notice any threads early and then attempt to remove yourself from the situation if safely able to do so. Chasing after the thread to begin with makes any attempt at using self-defense as justification laughable.
That depends on the state. In Oklahoma, you have no duty to retreat at all if you're in your home, car, or business. In Florida, you can be absolutely anywhere, and as long as you're not engaging in a crime, you can use deadly force with no duty to retreat.
d-usa wrote:
Grakmar wrote:Here's his actual picture. Judge for yourself.
I like the shade of "outstanding citizen orange" of his clothes in that picture I hope that is County Clothing(TM) or else he just has horrible taste.
Grakmar wrote:Here's his actual picture. Judge for yourself.
How is that Hispanic (White)? I think we all know the categories are flawed, but a good deal of the articles I read all said Hispanic (White). The only reason to make such a distinction is when the person looks European (ie white) but is of South American origin, meaning they have a Conquistador somewhere down the line. Until the picture was released I could only go by the multiple descriptions given. Still, it doesn't change much as it is still two different ethnic groups involved, as far as that is concerned. I still don't believe it is a hate crime, but I do think profiling was involved on the part of Z, which is not illegal. That isn't going to matter much to the community in the area who are just as pissed at the authorities as they are at Z for appearing apathetic.
I still haven't found any articles that say that there was a crime wave going on in the gated community so I'm not sure where that comes from. Anyone got a link to a reputable source that has statistics for that? I will continue to look.
ZImmerman doesn't have to be some "all black people are this and that" kind of racist, but it is just stupid that anyone could assume that race didn't play a role in what happened. He was clearly prejudiced when it came to skin color.
Mr Hyena wrote:If the suspect was Black and the victim was White...would it be a hate crime?
It probably wouldn't be, but you can be sure that the suspect wouldn't of just been let go.
d-usa wrote:If that kid was old enough and had a CWL he would have been in the right to shoot Mr. Z. I wonder if he would still be on the street in that situation.
He'd have been completely in the right if he shot Zimmerman.
And this is the lesson to learn from all of this. If you're in Florida and feel threatened, start shooting before the other guy feels threatened and shoots first.
only if you want to go to jail for a long time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alexzandvar wrote:Zimmerman would make a good Inquisitor.
I hear the teachers always harassed him for passing notes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Hyena wrote:If the suspect was Black and the victim was White...would it be a hate crime?
Hispanics have their own special interests and census form notation. I'd proffer shooting someone is on its face a hate crime.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ma55ter_fett wrote:I think they said that the Florida "hold your ground" law will make it very difficult to prosecute in this case.
From what I gather, if you claim that it was self defence then you usually walk.
Thats inaccurate. You can't be in the furtherance of a crime at the time. Further, you still have to apply reasonable person standards. the law was put in place to prevent criminals and overzealous prosecutors from suing people who didn't flee as NY law requires.
Mr Hyena wrote:If the suspect was Black and the victim was White...would it be a hate crime?
It isn't a hate crime now, so why would it be then? If a black person were to kill a white person just becuase they were a white person it would fall under a hate crime. Here the question is whether he assumed the kid was a criminal becuase he was black, or was more quick to go to lethal force because the kid was black. Those are more questions for society to talk about, but aren't criminal as far as prosecution goes.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:I think they said that the Florida "hold your ground" law will make it very difficult to prosecute in this case.
From what I gather, if you claim that it was self defence then you usually walk.
Thats inaccurate. You can't be in the furtherance of a crime at the time. Further, you still have to apply reasonable person standards. the law was put in place to prevent criminals and overzealous prosecutors from suing people who didn't flee as NY law requires.
Mother Jones wrote:Many readers have asked whether, given the 911 recordings, a case against Zimmerman would be easier than most homicides in which "self-defense" is cited by a defendant. In Florida, the answer probably is no: The courts' interpretation of the stand-your-ground law has been extremely broad—so broad that, to win an acquittal, a defendant doesn't even have to prove self-defense, only argue for it, while to win a conviction the prosecution has to prove that self-defense was impossible.
Numerouscases have set the precedent in Florida, with the courts arguing the law "does not require defendant to prove self-defense to any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere probability; defendant's only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable." When a defendant claims self-defense, "the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." In other words the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the prosecution, so it's surprisingly easy to evade prosecution by claiming self-defense.
This has led to some stunning verdicts in the state. In Tallahassee in 2008, two rival gangs engaged in a neighborhood shootout, and a 15-year-old African American male was killed in the crossfire. The three defendants all either were acquitted or had their cases dismissed, because the defense successfully argued they were defending themselves under the "stand your ground" law. The state attorney in Tallahassee, Willie Meggs, was beside himself. "Basically this law has put us in the posture that our citizens can go out into the streets and have a gun fight and the dead person is buried and the survivor of the gun fight is immune from prosecution," he said at the time.
Terrible situation. I'm kinda glad that around here, if someone has a handgun, you know its either a cop or a bad guy. Makes things simple.
Democracy Now devoted yesterdays show to the topic, including interviews with the family's lawyer, the chair of the Florida Legislature Black Caucus, the President of the Black Law Students Association at Florida A&M University, and a black reverend about the situation. There's also a discussion about the 'shoot first' law. Here's the link for anyone who is interested:
murdog wrote:Terrible situation. I'm kinda glad that around here, if someone has a handgun, you know its either a cop or a bad guy. Makes things simple.
Democracy Now devoted yesterdays show to the topic, including interviews with the family's lawyer, the chair of the Florida Legislature Black Caucus, the President of the Black Law Students Association at Florida A&M University, and a black reverend about the situation. There's also a discussion about the 'shoot first' law. Here's the link for anyone who is interested:
Umm, I don't think they claim to be unbiased. I mean they call themselves 'the exception to the rulers'. Besides, what news source is unbiased?
And what is the propaganda they are spreading? That florida's gun laws are slowed, and that black people are outraged? That the family has been given the run-around? Please point out what you think is propaganda there.
If you watch their programs you'll find that they do host debates featuring those on both sides of an issue. Maybe they couldn't get anyone from the Sanford PD, the prosecutor, or the NRA on short notice. I thought the guests were relevant anyhow.
To each his own.
Edit: lol Dakka turned the word 're tar ded' into 'slowed'. Sorry to offend anyone.
Hopefully not, on this occasion. Unlike the occasion when the two gangs killed an innocent bystander and got off because they both argued they were standing their ground.
Mannahnin wrote:Hopefully not, on this occasion. Unlike the occasion when the two gangs killed an innocent bystander and got off because they both argued they were standing their ground.
Well now we're getting telephone conversations between the girlfriend and teenager exactly when it happened, and the 911 call itself has something that could be interpreted as a very quiet racial term. The AG is now looking at and will problem go to the grand jury for charges presently. This er is toast.
Mannahnin wrote:Hopefully in this instance there's sufficient evidence. The law (and the way the FL courts interpret it) is clearly fethed, though.
The law is not. Thats the problem, people are using this to impugn the law, when the law has nothing to do with it. It was put in place to avoid the nightmare scenarios that occurred in New York. Evidence does and its now coming.
Kanluwen wrote:
It's not meant to. It's meant to frame the situation in context--which the news articles on this that I have been seeing lately do not.
The guy may be an absolute idiot, but it's not like he just picked a random black kid and shot him.
This was not a racially motivated incident; although it most likely did play a factor in the incident occurring.
This was not an incident which was motivated by a discriminatory attitude against teenagers; although it again most likely did play a factor in the incident occurring.
The area had a series of crimes occur, and then there comes a situation where he sees an individual he does not recognize walking on foot in a hoodie.
This led to a convergence of circumstances which resulted in a tragic ending.
The fact that the Sanford PD has by all accounts "sat on" the 911 tape is slightly suspect, but emergency calls aren't always made available for any number of reasons.
It's also worth noting that the shooter supposedly had a "history of violence" which makes me curious as to why he had a gun.
Parts highlight in red = lol.
So far the only motivation that led to the tragedy were....
he is black
he is in a hoodie
Mannahnin wrote:Hopefully in this instance there's sufficient evidence. The law (and the way the FL courts interpret it) is clearly fethed, though.
The law is not. Thats the problem, people are using this to impugn the law, when the law has nothing to do with it. It was put in place to avoid the nightmare scenarios that occurred in New York. Evidence does and its now coming.
The law has nothing to do with it? It's the law under which people have killed innocent bystanders in the street and walked away without criminal penalty. It's the law which results in police departments not arresting a guy who guns down an unarmed teenager, because the law says "If I say I was threatened, the government has to prove I wasn't."
If this guy gets off, will you acknowledge that the law is fethed?
Mr Hyena wrote:If the suspect was Black and the victim was White...would it be a hate crime?
Hispanics have their own special interests and census form notation. I'd proffer shooting someone is on its face a hate crime
This isn't directed at either of the people I quoted, I just wanted the context, but this is why I find hate crimes legislation in general to be problematic and troubling. Lets say you have
A.) A white guy smashes a black guy in the head with a brick for no reason at all
B.) A white guy smashes a black guy in the head with a brick while yelling (insert your racial epithet of choice here)
In many jurisdictions, case B would be eligible for either special charges or enhanced sentencing as a hate crime. I don't really get the distinction, because the core crime was the same (smashing a guy with a brick), and the injury was the same (got smashed with a brick). For these types of crimes I don't feel the intent is really relevant*, only what the person actually did. I'd prefer that people be prosecuted for their crimes evenly.
I know someone here, maybe Sebster, once wrote a good rebuttal to why these make sense but it escapes me.
*but intent is obviously relevant sometimes, such as accidental homicides. Obviously.
Killing someone purely based on race is, essentially, so stupid and senseless that it gets an enhanced punishment. A guy who shoots someone in a robbery wants money. A guy who shoots the man who slept with his wife wants revenge. A guy who runs over a black man just becuase he doesn't likes blacks wants?
Hate Crime (and I agree it can be problematic) isn't termed that because one person dislikes another, it has to do with senseless motivation that tears even more greatly at the fabric of society. We find it such a reprehensible motivation for committing violence that it attaches more penalties.
I know there is more than that but I am tired and I don't think I even worded this part all that well atm.
Ahtman wrote:Killing someone purely based on race is, essentially, so stupid and senseless that it gets an enhanced punishment. A guy who shoots someone in a robbery wants money. A guy who shoots the man who slept with his wife wants revenge. A guy who runs over a black man just becuase he doesn't likes blacks wants?
I'm not going to read what I assume to be 4 pages of pure hyperbole (I did skim to read the opinions of posters whose posts I deem to be worth reading), I'm just going to say that there is a lot that we don't know about this case, and my official personal opinion is being withheld until this case is investigated sufficiently.
My unofficial opinion is, however, that the guy who did the shooting in this instance is a complete and utter jerk-off and I fully expect the facts of the case to bear this out.
At any rate, I'm sad that a 17 year old of any race has been killed so senselessly.
Frazzled wrote:Thats the problem, people are using this to impugn the law, when the law has nothing to do with it. It was put in place to avoid the nightmare scenarios that occurred in New York.
Point of fact, earlier tonight I read an article interviewing one of the legislators who wrote and sponsored the law in question, explaining why it wasn't applicable here (which is obvious) but stated it was in response to Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath in New Orleans. I'll google up the link if you don't believe me but too lazy to at the moment.
Mannahnin wrote:If this guy gets off, will you acknowledge that the law is fethed?
I won't because I don't see a problem with castle doctrine laws in general and I also support (a little more reservedly, granted) stand your ground laws. I don't think (in principle) a citizen has an obligation to retreat before using deadly force to protect themselves from imminent threat of death or grievous body harm. I think the concept is sound, and totally not applicable in this case anyway, since he can argue it but it's probably not going to fly; the shooter will not be able to successfully argue he felt he needed to use deadly force to defend himself.
The real story in my mind is not the shooting per se, which is tragic in and of itself, but how it was handled by the local PD: no arrest, no drug or alcohol tests, etc.
Mannahnin wrote:Hopefully in this instance there's sufficient evidence. The law (and the way the FL courts interpret it) is clearly fethed, though.
The law is not. Thats the problem, people are using this to impugn the law, when the law has nothing to do with it. It was put in place to avoid the nightmare scenarios that occurred in New York. Evidence does and its now coming.
The law has nothing to do with it? It's the law under which people have killed innocent bystanders in the street and walked away without criminal penalty. It's the law which results in police departments not arresting a guy who guns down an unarmed teenager, because the law says "If I say I was threatened, the government has to prove I wasn't."
If this guy gets off, will you acknowledge that the law is fethed?
Unless you have a whole lot of instances, you're blowing smoke out your ass. The law only says I don't have to attempt to flee if I am in fear of my life. It was done because of a rash of actions where overzealous prosecutors went after people defending themselves, who didn't happen to be track stars.
Seriously people going after the law in this instance are pushi g their pown personal agendas. The law doesn't have a damn thing to with what happened or the police lack of activity. They aren't related.
Mannahnin wrote:Hopefully in this instance there's sufficient evidence. The law (and the way the FL courts interpret it) is clearly fethed, though.
The law is not. Thats the problem, people are using this to impugn the law, when the law has nothing to do with it. It was put in place to avoid the nightmare scenarios that occurred in New York. Evidence does and its now coming.
The law has nothing to do with it? It's the law under which people have killed innocent bystanders in the street and walked away without criminal penalty. It's the law which results in police departments not arresting a guy who guns down an unarmed teenager, because the law says "If I say I was threatened, the government has to prove I wasn't."
If this guy gets off, will you acknowledge that the law is fethed?
Unless you have a whole lot of instances, you're blowing smoke out your ass. The law only says I don't have to attempt to flee if I am in fear of my life. It was done because of a rash of actions where overzealous prosecutors went after people defending themselves, who didn't happen to be track stars.
Seriously people going after the law in this instance are pushi g their pown personal agendas. The law doesn't have a damn thing to with what happened or the police lack of activity. They aren't related.
I don't think the law is fethed personally, but I can see how idiots like Mr. Z give ammunition to the "we need stricter gun control" crowd. I don't think Stand-Your-Ground laws breed cowboys, but I can see how cowboys like him make people weary of those laws.
It does look like the neighborhood watch had guidelines that encouraged not being armed and not following or stopping people. That didn't stop him from being armed and following the kid. So saying that not having the self-defense laws would have made a difference is pure speculation. Mr. Z got a record of attacking a police officer, so being a law abiding citizen doesn't seem to be his first priority.
Mannahnin wrote:Hopefully in this instance there's sufficient evidence. The law (and the way the FL courts interpret it) is clearly fethed, though.
The law is not. Thats the problem, people are using this to impugn the law, when the law has nothing to do with it. It was put in place to avoid the nightmare scenarios that occurred in New York. Evidence does and its now coming.
The law has nothing to do with it? It's the law under which people have killed innocent bystanders in the street and walked away without criminal penalty. It's the law which results in police departments not arresting a guy who guns down an unarmed teenager, because the law says "If I say I was threatened, the government has to prove I wasn't."
If this guy gets off, will you acknowledge that the law is fethed?
Unless you have a whole lot of instances, you're blowing smoke out your ass. The law only says I don't have to attempt to flee if I am in fear of my life. It was done because of a rash of actions where overzealous prosecutors went after people defending themselves, who didn't happen to be track stars.
Seriously people going after the law in this instance are pushi g their pown personal agendas. The law doesn't have a damn thing to with what happened or the police lack of activity. They aren't related.
I don't think the law is fethed personally, but I can see how idiots like Mr. Z give ammunition to the "we need stricter gun control" crowd. I don't think Stand-Your-Ground laws breed cowboys, but I can see how cowboys like him make people weary of those laws.
It does look like the neighborhood watch had guidelines that encouraged not being armed and not following or stopping people. That didn't stop him from being armed and following the kid. So saying that not having the self-defense laws would have made a difference is pure speculation. Mr. Z got a record of attacking a police officer, so being a law abiding citizen doesn't seem to be his first priority.
The law was good in theory but apparently no one looked at the wording of it becuase it has not had the intended effect. It is supposed to help people be able to protect themselves, but instead it is letting gang bangers get away with murder. They need to amend it, or scrap it altogether, and try again. They meant well with it but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ahtman wrote:The law was good in theory but apparently no one looked at the wording of it becuase it has not had the intended effect. It is supposed to help people be able to protect themselves, but instead it is letting gang bangers get away with murder. They need to amend it, or scrap it altogether, and try again. They meant well with it but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I hear that but I am not seeing a lot of proof of that.
Frankly in my neighborhood getting out of your car and following someone is Looking for Trouble, and pretty much negates any possibility of a Stand Your Ground defense. Doing so after a dispatcher specifically told you not to just makes it a slam-dunk.
Vulcan wrote:Frankly in my neighborhood getting out of your car and following someone is Looking for Trouble, and pretty much negates any possibility of a Stand Your Ground defense. Doing so after a dispatcher specifically told you not to just makes it a slam-dunk.
Exactly. Indeed the author of the legislation in Florida said the same exact thing.
Further, Z - now officially "the BG" could use the same defence argument in "must retreat" states.
Instead of "he attacked me yea...attacked me," its "I tried to run away and he attacked me yea...attacked me."
Frazzled, you should probably stop claiming that Mannahnin is blowing smoke out of his arse. He has offered real and very strong evidence that it is much, much easier to walk away from murder in Flordia because the onus is on the prosecution to disprove self-defence the whole time. In this particular case he may still be convicted but there are other cases (which Mannahnin has shown) where this has led to real injustice.
Also, I'm not really on top of the law in the US but I don't think there is a legal requirement to flee from an attacker. The difference in Florida is that the defendant has no onus to prove self-defence.
Mannahnin wrote:Hopefully not, on this occasion. Unlike the occasion when the two gangs killed an innocent bystander and got off because they both argued they were standing their ground.
That's not what actually happened. The 'innocent bystander' was the gangmember who fired the first shots.
Harry, in many states there is a duty to retreat before using deadly force in self defense.
I actually agree with Frazzled and 2nd Amendment advocates that a person should have the right to respond to the threat of deadly force with deadly force without necessarily having to retreat; in many cases retreat really isnt an option, especially for older or disabled people.
That being said, the law on the books in Florida, and the way it is interpreted by their courts, clearly is a bad one, and goes further than Texas' law, apparently. And that's saying something.
Frazzled is lazy in discussions like this, and rarely actually looks at links, even when they provide the exact documentation (many court cases, the opinions of the State Attorney General, etc.) that he's asking for. That's his choice. If he blinds himself and claims someone else is blowing smoke, hopefully everyone else can see that he's being silly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bookwrack wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Hopefully not, on this occasion. Unlike the occasion when the two gangs killed an innocent bystander and got off because they both argued they were standing their ground.
That's not what actually happened. The 'innocent bystander' was the gangmember who fired the first shots.
Thanks for the correction; my apologies. Looking further the judge's decision does note that one/some of the witnesses said that someone in his car fired first.
In his order, Judge Terry Lewis was critical of the stand your ground law, however. "The law would appear to allow a person to seek out an individual, provoke him into a confrontation, then shoot and kill him if he goes for his gun. Contrary to the State's assertion, it is very much like the Wild West."
It does seem strange that someone who kills another person can completely avoid arrest or any real investigation in some cases by simply claiming they were acting in self defense, without having to prove it.
Yeah, the recent judicial decision that catching someone burgling your vehicle, and when they run away, you chase them for a block and stab them to death = 'standing your ground,' is bizarre.
In NY, you are required to retreat first. Attacked in your car? Nope, you've to to run before you can fight. Caught in your apartment? I hope you can get to the fire escape. People have gone to prison for getting cornered and killing their attacker... in their own homes.
Vulcan wrote:In NY, you are required to retreat first. Attacked in your car? Nope, you've to to run before you can fight. Caught in your apartment? I hope you can get to the fire escape. People have gone to prison for getting cornered and killing their attacker... in their own homes.
I think this has really devolved into a debate of racism and when use of force is applicable. After reading through the topic I want to share a few things on self-defense, law, and police procedure. I don't know (or care) if it is relevant to you, but I am just compelled to give some facts on them.
First off, New York and most states don't require you to retreat in your apartment. The section that outlines when you can use force in self defense in NY is in their criminal code in section 35.15. The vehicle one is a grey one, but would be very dependant on the situation.
To clear a few things out of the way I want to start with the idea of mutual combat which would be your typical idea of two guys trading blows outside a bar. It's called that because the fight is on equal grounds. Mind you, this is still not legal, most states/cities have laws against fighting or general disorderly conduct laws (or both). So, if Guy A and Guy B are fist fighting and Guy B all the sudden picks up a piece of wood laying near by and starts swinging it at Guy A, Guy A then gains the right of self defense. That means once you have the right of self defense you can use force that is reasonable and necessary to stop the attack. That is how most state laws have it exactly written. When I was trained at the police academy, and every year and retraining, this is what they tell us as well.
So the question is: When is deadly force justified? Well the legal definition is, "whenever someone is danger of death or serious bodily injury." Obviously, you can repel your own slaying by killing your attacker. You have to be put under the reasonable person test though which asks the question of, "did that person act as any other reasonable person would?" If you can look at the prima facie evidence of that, then it can be determined by a jury. This goes for any level of force.
Police and people have the ability to use what is reasonably and necessary to defend themselves and others. I have been straight up told in use of force training to use the +1 rule, which is if you are being punch at kicked, you can use an intermediate weapon to stop the attack. An intermediate weapon is something like pepperspray, a baton (with proper training as striking for the head is deadly force), or a Taser. There are levels of 'resistance' and levels of 'control.' I won't go through them as its not really necessary, unless someone decides they want me to later. This can be open for debate too. If a female officer who is 5'1, 110 pounds is attacked by an unarmed male who is 6'6 350 pounds and she has attempted intermediate weapons on him, they have failed, and he continues to attack her? I would think she would be justified in shooting him. Remember, she's not trying to kill him, she's trying to stop him.
On the question of why the police did what they did. So here's the thing. Cops are not experts on constitutional law. Neither are their Sergeants, or Captains, or even Chiefs. I understand, but do not condone, why they did not arrest Zimmerman. Because there are facts in this case that may or may not lead to arrest. So what happens in a case like that, you write up the report as a police officer would, you collect all the facts, you interview witnesses, you get statements, you attach any evidence. Then you forward that report to the city, district, or states attorney. Then if the attorney (who'd job it is to determine if a law has been broken in some situations) would end up filing the report for criminal procedings and issuing a warrant for arrest. It happens this way for several reasons. One time I made a double traffic stop between two cars. I found that each car had paint transfer for eachother and that each was accusing each other of road rage. Because no one was being forthcoming with the truth, I used the available facts to me to collect and finish a report. I talked to my supervisor and had him look it over, he agreed that we didn't have enough to charge anyone with anything as it was. I forwarded it to the city attorney and he ended up citing both drivers for a few different things.
Why did I (or other officers do that?) Limit liability. If i go all Wyatt Earp (There is my Tombstone reference) and start deciding who is guilty and who isn't just because I know in my gut that they are (and they probably are) doesn't mean I should. Because if I arrest a guy and he turns out to be innocent then the fault is my own, and honestly, it should be. That is how you keep police honest and make sure it doesn't come to some sort of police state. I'm not saying this is the reason why they didn't arrest Zimmerman on scene, but it gives you an idea of the level of liability. In some cases I have everything I need to make an arrest, and don't. "You cad!" you're thinking. On a completely different traffic stop, I make a stop, find that the driver has a suspended license and cannot be driving. I cite and release him, but because I'm feeling lucky I ask him if I can search his car. He tells me yes. I search, find a cigarette carton with a small amount of dope in it under the drivers seat. I tell him that if he admits to me it's his, I will write up a report, he will still be charged, but I won't take him to jail to sit till Monday (It was a Friday or Saturday I think.) Why fill up the jail with some guy who's probably not going to hurt anyone, when I know that the county jail is already overcrowded as hell? Again, I wrote the report and forwarded it to the district attorney, I don't know what happened with that, must have plead guilty.
So why did they 'cover up' the tapes? Probably to finish the investigation. This is a little out of my league now because I'm not a detective. Occassionally they will keep evidence from press if they think that it will hinder the investigatory process. I honestly don't know what happened with that in Sanford PD's case, because this department has a history of racial problems and whether or not people like it this has been a racially motivated story.
In conclusion,
So that was probably not interesting to anyone and maybe confused or enraged others but that is all fact. It was probably a little less relevant to most but for some reason I needed to get that off my chest. I am in no way condoning what anyone did here. George Zimmerman brought a gun to a fist fight. Even if he is unaware of everything I just posted, ignorance of the law is never an affirmative defense in court. The police clearly have not done what was in the public's best interest, so please don't accuse me of this thin blue line crap. Whenever a cop does something stupid, it makes the rest of us look bad. No one wants that because it makes my job a hell of a lot harder. The reason charges may or may not surface is because the facts are muddled and a lot of people and poor state law is to blame.
Editted for a few spelling mistakes, its real late...
Brennus, that was an excellent post. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
I think one of the reasons folks are critical of the law and the lack of arrest are that they seem to have had the effect of motivating the officers to not investigate properly.
Hazardous Harry wrote:Frazzled, you should probably stop claiming that Mannahnin is blowing smoke out of his arse. He has offered real and very strong evidence that it is much, much easier to walk away from murder in Flordia because the onus is on the prosecution to disprove self-defence the whole time. In this particular case he may still be convicted but there are other cases (which Mannahnin has shown) where this has led to real injustice.
Also, I'm not really on top of the law in the US but I don't think there is a legal requirement to flee from an attacker. The difference in Florida is that the defendant has no onus to prove self-defence.
He hasn't but thats ok. The Manster and I routinely accuse each other of blowing smoke out of our asses. In his defense I eat a lot of Cajun food still, so its easier for me.
When Manster makes it to Austin I'll introduce him to something called "dark" rum. We'll end up in a ditch somewhere smelling of wiener dog pee but it will be so worth it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: If he blinds himself and claims someone else is blowing smoke, hopefully everyone else can see that he's being silly.
ON the positive, per the Texas legal code i'm legally blind
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bookwrack wrote:Yeah, the recent judicial decision that catching someone burgling your vehicle, and when they run away, you chase them for a block and stab them to death = 'standing your ground,' is bizarre.
Can't do that in Texas fyi.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote:In NY, you are required to retreat first. Attacked in your car? Nope, you've to to run before you can fight. Caught in your apartment? I hope you can get to the fire escape. People have gone to prison for getting cornered and killing their attacker... in their own homes.
And thats how the no retreat needed laws got started.
Looks like the whole issuing is getting less clear cut now (but more like I thught might have happened). Its an interesting legal discussion. If you confront someone, and in response they start beating you to death, can you then claim self defense?
ing c 
