Now we have racist Trayvon T shirts

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**reds8n**

Frazzled wrote:

What if you just drive a van around.

.. do you have a few other people with you and a strangely anthropomorphic dog with you, and solve mysteries ?

... 'cause that would explain a lot for a lot of people on here you know.

I know if I am in the country at night I attract deer like chocolate attracts Frazzled.

I'm sure there's a song developing here, I'm sure we can squeeze you into Eurovision someway or other.

**Frazzled**

reds8n wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

What if you just drive a van around.

.. do you have a few other people with you and a strangely anthropomorphic dog with you, and solve mysteries ?

... 'cause that would explain a lot for a lot of people on here you know.

I know if I am in the country at night I attract deer like chocolate attracts Frazzled.

I'm sure there's a song developing here, I'm sure we can squeeze you into Eurovision someway or other.

It would require a good fiddle player, or alternatively a brace of kazoos.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/trayvon-martin-shooting-details-emerge-facebook-twitter-accounts-180103647.html

Trayvon Martin shooting: New details emerge from Twitter account, witness testimony
By Dylan Stableford

Senior Media Reporter

PostsEmailRSSBy Dylan Stableford | The Cutline – 19 hrs ago

Martin (AP/File, Twitter)
As George Zimmerman's supporters work to stem the rising tide of public outrage aimed at the neighborhood watchman who shot and killed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin last month, a new picture of the victim—culled from the 17-year-old's Twitter account and witness testimony leaked from local law enforcement—has emerged.

"With a single punch," the Orlando Sentinel, citing police sources, reported Monday, "Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer ... climbed on top of [him] and slammed his head into the sidewalk several times, leaving him bloody and battered."

"That is the account Zimmerman gave police," the paper said, "and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say."

Zimmerman's attorney, Craig Sonner, says that Zimmerman acted in self-defense and is not a racist as some have portrayed him.

"I think we need to let the investigation come forward and let all the facts in this case come out," Sonner said on the "Today" show. "I think it's going to tell a different story than the way it's been related and portrayed in the media."

According to a CNN poll released Monday, 73 percent of Americans think police should arrest Zimmerman.

Meanwhile, the difference between the typical teenager Martin's family and supporters say he was and the way he presented himself on social media is the subject of increasing debate.

As Dan Linehan, a blogger at Wagist.com, pointed out, correspondence with Martin on Twitter before he died alludes to an incident with a bus driver. "Yu ain't tell me you swung on a bus driver," Martin's cousin wrote to him on Feb. 21.

The same week, Martin was suspended for 10 days from Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School in North Miami-Dade. "He was not suspended for something dealing with violence or anything like that," his father said. "It wasn't a crime he committed, but he was in an unauthorized area [on school property]," declining to offer more details.

But a family spokesman told the Associated Press on Monday that Martin was suspended because marijuana residue was found in his book bag.

More than 25,000 were expected to attend an afternoon rally in Sanford, Fla., on Monday for Martin, including the Rev. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and other civil rights leaders.

"The media is getting the Trayvon Martin story wrong," Michael Brendan Dougherty wrote on BusinessInsider.com, comparing it to the 2006 Duke lacrosse case, in which three members of the lacrosse team were accused of rape, resulting in a media firestorm and public outcry. The accuser's case unraveled, and the charges were eventually dropped.

"Oh how little we have learned," David Shane wrote on PolicyMic.com. The media has rushed to judgment yet again. Now, it's quite possible that Zimmerman is guilty of everything his worst foes accuse him of. There is plenty about this case that troubles me. But that's exactly the point—I don't know. Neither does anyone else, and both the scope and tone of the media coverage ought to reflect that fact."

**Manchu**

TBH, the idea that the cops won't arrest Zimmerman because of pervasive institutionalized racism seems like a wacko conspiracy theory.

**Seaward**

Manchu wrote:TBH, the idea that the cops won't arrest Zimmerman because of pervasive institutionalized racism seems like a wacko conspiracy theory.

I agree. They won't arrest him because, when they arrived on the scene, he had, according to them, pretty clearly been physically assaulted.

Where "Stand Your Ground" laws become tricky is cases like this; Zimmerman clearly could have not pursued the kid. In Virginia, if he'd pursued, provoked a confrontation, and then wound up shooting, even to save his own life, he'd still be going away for manslaughter at the least, because you give up your right to cowboy up the second you start carrying concealed. Florida law's much less clear.

**Ouze**

I fail to believe that if you start a fight and start to lose, you can shoot your opponent and claim self-defense.

**Manchu**

Also, for a crowd that loves to point out leaps in logic I'm surprised no one has pointed out that while thinking all black kids in hoodies are up to know good is despicable and murdering someone is certainly despicable, being the type of person who thinks all black kids in hoodies are up to no good is not actually the same thing as being the type of person who murders people.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:I fail to believe that if you start a fight and start to lose, you can shoot your opponent and claim self-defense.

That's a nice soundbyte but don't gloss over the distinction between verbal and physical confrontations. If Zimmerman verbally offended Martin and Martin punched him in the face, it's Martin that has "started" the fight giving rise to the self-defense claim.

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:TBH, the idea that the cops won't arrest Zimmerman because of pervasive institutionalized racism seems like a wacko conspiracy theory.

In defense of that statement, in many of the states prior to the 1960s this would not be an unreasonable suspicion.

**Ouze**

Ah, but now we're in a fact free zone, where what actually happened is TBD.

**Frazzled**

Seaward wrote:
Manchu wrote:TBH, the idea that the cops won't arrest Zimmerman because of pervasive institutionalized racism seems like a wacko conspiracy theory.

I agree. They won't arrest him because, when they arrived on the scene, he had, according to them, pretty clearly been physically assaulted.

Where "Stand Your Ground" laws become tricky is cases like this; Zimmerman clearly could have not pursued the kid. In Virginia, if he'd pursued, provoked a confrontation, and then wound up shooting, even to save his own life, he'd still be going away for manslaughter at the least, because you give up your right to cowboy up the second you start carrying concealed. Florida law's much less clear.

Depends on "provoked" and confrontation doesn't it. Of course, Z's statement is that he did neither.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:I fail to believe that if you start a fight and start to lose, you can shoot your opponent and claim self-defense.

You are correct. You can't do that.

**Manchu**

Frazzled wrote:
Manchu wrote:TBH, the idea that the cops won't arrest Zimmerman because of pervasive institutionalized racism seems like a wacko conspiracy theory.
In defense of that statement, in many of the states prior to the 1960s this would not be an unreasonable suspicion.

Oh, I agree. But in this case, it's not the police who are stuck in the 60s ...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:Ah, but now we're in a fact free zone, where what actually happened is TBD.

It would take a fact-free zone to determine that Zimmerman killed Martin because Zimmerman was a racist and the police refuse to arrest Martin because they're all racists, too. So yeah, I can see that much of this thread has indeed been a fact-free zone.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:Ah, but now we're in a fact free zone, where what actually happened is TBD.

Thats the problem.

We know:
* T was shot by Z
* Z was bloodied.
* 911 call to police about soeone suspicious. Police warn Z not to follow. Sounds on 911 call have someone screaming.
* Witnesses report the screaming is Z. Other witnesses report that T was afraid he was being followed.
* Skittles are awesome.

**Kilkrazy**

CptJake wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:This is exactly the kind of case where the trial determines if there has been a crime or not.

Are they investigating?

You are gaking me right? You actually advocate arresting and detaining a person without a charge, or making up a charge for some crime you are not sure happened?

If this had gone differently and the kid was arrested and held on charges of theft until a trial to see if maybe a theft had occured and maybe the charged was the perp would you have been happy? Or would you then bitch and whine because some poor kid was detained and charged before it had been established a crime had occured let alone that he may have been the perp?

A trial determines if an accused/charged suspect has committed the crime he/she is charged with. If the cops and prosecutor don't have damned good evidence that 1) a crime has occured and 2) the charged subject is the perp, you don't go to trial.

Maybe where you are from the system is different.

You may not realise it but the US and UK systems are far more similar than different, as the US system derived from the UK law.

The police can arrest someone on suspicion of murder, for example, and hold them for a period in order to make further enquiries.

A judge may then be requested either to remand the suspect into custody or release them on bail. The suspect may of course simply be released without charge if there is no convincing evidence against him.

In this case the only evidence immediately available is the word of the shooter, which obviously could be biased, so one would expect the police to have to make further enquiries.

**Alraz_ka**

sebster wrote:

Amaya wrote:I'm pretty sure he's disagreeing with you and I can understand why.

There has been a great deal of mistreatment of minorities by whites, but for the past couple of decades whites have been bending over backwards to correct these tragedies.

Except, of course, that the above is wrong.

Black people earn about 2/3 less than white people, per capita. Fix that, everything else will go away, more or less. Continue to have that problem, and any claim to 'bending over backwards' remains bs.

Then why do African immigrants earn more than any other ethnic group other than Asians?

Manchu wrote:TBH, the idea that the cops won't arrest Zimmerman because of pervasive institutionalized racism seems like a wacko conspiracy theory.

Pretty much. If there is solid evidence, he would've have been arrested immediately.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The police can arrest someone on suspicion of murder, for example, and hold them for a period in order to make further enquiries.

Here's where you are incorrect. The "period" you are referring to in the US doesn't effectively exist. You have to be charged or be talking with the police. If you declare your right to 5th amendment protections you can only be held for a very short period of time, else you must be charged or released. Further, you cannot then be held without a bail hearing.

**Manchu**

Kilkrazy wrote:In this case the only evidence immediately available is the word of the shooter, which obviously could be biased, so one would expect the police to have to make further enquiries.

Like speaking with witnesses who corroborate the shooter's account?

**Seaward**

Frazzled wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Manchu wrote:TBH, the idea that the cops won't arrest Zimmerman because of pervasive institutionalized racism seems like a wacko conspiracy theory.

I agree. They won't arrest him because, when they arrived on the scene, he had, according to them, pretty clearly been physically assaulted.

Where "Stand Your Ground" laws become tricky is cases like this; Zimmerman clearly could have not pursued the kid. In Virginia, if he'd pursued, provoked a confrontation, and then wound up shooting, even to save his own life, he'd still be going away for manslaughter at the least, because you give up your right to cowboy up the second you start carrying concealed. Florida law's much less clear.

Depends on "provoked" and confrontation doesn't it. Of course, Z's statement is that he did neither.

It does indeed depend on "provoked," and as far as I'm aware, there's no legal definition of what that involves. Thus, it's a jury call.

**Frazzled**

I'd bet there's no "provoked" in the law.

Under the law, its not generally legal to "be provoked" unless you yourself are acting in defense of self or others.

**Seaward**

Frazzled wrote:I'd bet there's no "provoked" in the law.

Under the law, its not generally legal to "be provoked" unless you yourself are acting in defense of self or others.

There isn't. Here's the actual Florida law, I think:

"776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013."

**Frazzled**

Yep, thats what I thought. Its defined in similar manner to most other castle doctrine type self defense statutes.

**Seaward**

That does indeed seem to give someone the right to shoot someone else in the face if they pick a fight and start to lose.

**Manchu**

Again, what's with the assumption that a verbal insult gives someone the right to commit physical assault?

EDIT: Nevermind, I see that you weren't necessarily commenting on the case at hand.

**halonachos**

The kid was a punk, it sucks when people get killed but sometimes you put yourself in situations that do get you killed. The kid was suspended from school and was not the 11 year old that most of the media show him as. He was 17 and over six feet tall.

Zimmerman was bloodied and cut which is evidence for his story that Trayvon assaulted him. Zimmerman followed against police wishes, but followed him nonetheless.Then the same guy who had just kicked his ass said "What's your problem?" while on the phone and had reached into his waistband for the phone. Typically gangbangers will carry firearms in their waistband.

So let's have at this part about Zimmerman not knowing Tryvon's past.

1) Zimmerman probably knew the typical locations of where troublemakers store their weapons.
2) Zimmerman didn't know it was a phone that Trayvon was holding.
3) Zimmerman knew that he had just been beaten by this guy.

So we have somebody holding a cellphone which can look like a small handgun in the night and we have Trayvon yelling "What's your problem!". I can understand why Trayvon got shot.

**Frazzled**

Seaward wrote:That does indeed seem to give someone the right to shoot someone else in the face if they pick a fight and start to lose.

I would proffer no. Generally this claim cannot be justified in the furtherance of a crime (either in the statute or by case law), and has to be reasonable. Reasonable is its own case law standard, but in most jurisdictions losing a fistfight is not permitted self defense with a firearm as its not reasonable. However, being attacked and the circumstances of that attack are a determining factor.

**Kilkrazy**

Manchu wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:In this case the only evidence immediately available is the word of the shooter, which obviously could be biased, so one would expect the police to have to make further enquiries.
Like speaking with witnesses who corroborate the shooter's account?

Indeed.

In this case I understand there are witnesses who support and witnesses who deny the shooter's overall account, although there are no actual eye witnesses to the immediate shooting incident.

**Seaward**

Manchu wrote:Again, what's with the assumption that a verbal insult gives someone the right to commit physical assault?

EDIT: Nevermind, I see that you weren't necessarily commenting on the case at hand.

Yes. Given what we know of the case at hand right now, I suspect Zimmerman will end up just barely within his legal rights, given the way the Florida law's written. Doesn't mean he did the right thing.

**Manchu**

The generalized story is that Martin is dead because Zimmerman is an overzealous weirdo. Put it another way, if Zimmerman was not a weirdo, Martin would still be alive. But what about the beatdown Martin allegedly gave Zimmerman? It is possible that had Martin not beaten Zimmerman that Zimmerman would have still killed Martin. But is this likely? Also, if Zimmerman could not plausibly allege that Martin had beaten him, Zimmerman would not doubt currently be in jail.

**halonachos**

If Zimmerman had not been beaten by Trayvon then Zimmerman would indeed be in jail and maybe Zimmerman would have just brandished his firearm instead of actually firing.

Anyways, this has quickly become an issue of race and its disgusting.

Don't wear a hoodie at night in a neighborhood that doesn't know who you are.

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:The generalized story is that Martin is dead because Zimmerman is an overzealous weirdo. Put it another way, if Zimmerman was not a weirdo, Martin would still be alive. But what about the beatdown Martin allegedly gave Zimmerman? It is possible that had Martin not beaten Zimmerman that Zimmerman would have still killed Martin. But is this likely? Also, if Zimmerman could not plausibly allege that Martin had beaten him, Zimmerman would not doubt currently be in jail.

Reportedly there is now a witness that saw T on top of Z, punching him and Z screaming. The witness ran upstairs to call police and in that period saw that T was now on the ground having been shot.

**Manchu**

halonachos wrote:Don't wear a hoodie at night in a neighborhood that doesn't know who you are.

Nah, the lesson is "if you see someone suspicious in you're neighborhood, lock the door and call the police rather than grabbing a firearm, following them, and confronting them."

**Ouze**

Manchu wrote:
Ouze wrote:Ah, but now we're in a fact free zone, where what actually happened is TBD.
It would take a fact-free zone to determine that Zimmerman killed Martin because Zimmerman was a racist and the police refuse to arrest Martin because they're all racists, too. So yeah, I can see that much of this thread has indeed been a fact-free zone.

What I mean is that we're in that phase of the media where, absent actual determinations of fact, they're just spinning their wheels and coming up with random nonsense. Eventually what actually happened will come out, it will be reported, and we can move on to the Media Fatigue phase.