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.

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/trayvon-martin-911-audio-_n_1354909.html#5_trayvon-martin-news-page

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.”

It's pretty horrible. And racist.

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.

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.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

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.

I think justice will be served eventually. It is just a little sad that it takes this sort of community uproar to get the ball rolling.

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.

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?

Whats 2nd amendment rights? Im Canadian :'P

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... )

Ouze wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Here is a recounting that I found that summed up some facts on it, if you guys would like to read more.

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

nvm, will look at this in the morning :3

wow that adam guy sounds pretty calm 0.o
the wife is so calm and cool as well, impressive.


This is why I HATE cop wanabes , the guy screaming for help all that time = Try right?
sounds like an bloody execution.

GUILTY

Ouze wrote:

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.

Here is a recounting that I found that summed up some facts on it, if you guys would like to read more.

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/trayvon-martin-911-audio-_n_1354909.html#5_trayvon-martin-news-page

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.

As a Brit - I hope I can be forgiven for initially thinking that this thread was about Hot Fuzz

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.

LunaHound wrote:

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.

What is with the current obsession of being anti-police?

Mr Hyena wrote:What is with the current obsession of being anti-police?

Current?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4NkkAQllfo

Anti-police? Or anti-self-appointed-neighborhood-watch-captain who started a fight and then cried self defense?

I am very much pro-gun, pro-self defense, pro-concealed carry, and pro-shooting bad guys.

It is idiots like the good watch-captain that are a thread to the 2nd amendment IMO.

d-usa wrote:Anti-police? Or anti-self-appointed-neighborhood-watch-captain who started a fight and then cried self defense?

Indeed, but I am not sure that is what is being referenced in the question.