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.

 Ouze wrote:
Morally, of course, he should probably have listened to the damn dispatcher and let the police handle it. He doesn't have to listen to the dispatcher, but he sure should have. Bad judgement in this case was not a crime, though.

He says he did, of course. The assumption that he continued to follow Trayvon - while lying about no longer being able to see him and going to get a street address to give to the dispatcher - is merely that: an assumption.

I haven't really been keeping up with this lately... has the helter skelter started yet?

Nothing new. Most everyone want Z convicted over something due to emotions while ignoring facts and basically all the witness's were matching what Z gave of an account. Mostly people wanted Z charged with manslaughter at least. Which I'm lucky because I would knee cap the individual trying to opt me out since it concerns me or my family. If I see an altercation where I see someone getting beat down MMA style I'm going to keep walking. For I do not want to get charged "Man Slaughter" also probably getting sued because the individual I just saved now has PTSD due to me knee capping someone or possibly killing the aggressor

"Why I didn't help Officer? Well I wasn't wearing my glasses and it looked to me at the time two grown up jerking around playing WWF."
"I'm also partially deaf and have constant ringing in my ears due from combat in Afghanistan. So if he was screaming for help it'll be muffled again thinking they're screwing around playing WWF."

"Well Officer if I had notice something really bad was going to happen I would have called 911. Informed the dispatcher what's going on. Take pictures and audio. Inform the aggressor I am armed but quite willing to take my chances with court with Manslaughter if he makes me the next target."

"Sorry Officer. I have over time of four deployments see one of my soldiers die from heat stroke, another from arterial bleed at the carotid, and one burned alive inside a Stryker. So yes I am harden mentally watching an individual die. I will risk the Manslaughter charge if the aggressor comes at me. I will though inform the aggressor he is about to kill the bloody victim and I have the pics and audio to send his butt away for a very long time. Again I will only draw my weapon if the aggressor comes at me."

"Yes Officer I saw the individual get his weapon taking from and was shot by his own weapon while on his back. Yes Officer I did see the aggressor pull the trigger and opt the guy out. I just moved away still facing him with my hand on my weapon. No Officer I won't draw the weapon yet unless he makes the attempt to engage me. Then I will duck, dodge, hop, low crawl, high crawl, catapult, sprint, and try everything to put distance and obstacles between me and the shooter. I'm not going to draw my weapon and attempt to engage him back in a residential area. One I do not want to get a Manslaughter charge on me for opting out the shooter or a round from my sidearm hitting anyone in one of the housing unit around here or both.


Trust me. I had an asshat of neighbor who didn't like the fact I own weapons due I might go crazy and start killing people. So I pretty much ignored him. Got bad enough he was telling his kids and all their friends kids not to play with my daughter when she comes over to visit. I've no idea what he did nor did I care since I put him in my "No issue" column. I do know his wife was a gentle soul. So one Saturday morning he was in his front yard getting his ass kicked by two of her brothers. I just kept walking to get my newspaper and morning mail. Cocked my head at the older brother and said "Morning". Slowed my walk a bit and informed them I was going to call the cops when I get back in the house. Grabbed the paper and the mail. Slowed walk back to the house looking at mail and seeing the headlines of the paper. So a min walk took three min. Yelled out "Calling the cops soon as I find my cell" which I saw suddenly become uninvisible which took like another two minutes. Picked it up an stepped back the door and announce I'm calling the cops. They stopped, walked to their car and left. Heard one mention never to touch their sister again and off they went. I in turn just flipped the switch to turn on the lawn sprinklers since it was going to be a hot sunny day. Chuklehead still on the ground bleeding but moving slowly. Later I gave the cops as much info as I know. Was asked why didn't I help to try to stop it. My reply "I did not want to get involve in what seems to be a family matter. They're not family to me."

 Crimson wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Respectfully, you have no idea what you're talking about. In the United States it is absolutely legal for a citizen to carry a firearm.

It is one thing to carry a firearm and quite other to intentionally go to a possibly explosive situation with that firearm.

I think 'possibly explosive situation' is exactly when I want the gun.

Huh, what's that? Not-guilty? Rentedtritium was right count: 1.

No riots in florida? Rentedtritium was right count: 2.

Apparently there was a small riot in oakland, but it appears to have just gone a few blocks and dispersed. Barely even anything for oakland. The whole "there will be riots" thing was just racebaiting from the right wing blogs.

 CptJake wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Respectfully, you have no idea what you're talking about. In the United States it is absolutely legal for a citizen to carry a firearm.

It is one thing to carry a firearm and quite other to intentionally go to a possibly explosive situation with that firearm.

I think 'possibly explosive situation' is exactly when I want the gun.

That may be the case, but half of the arguments in Dakka are based around being at home and being burgled, or walking along minding your own business and being mugged. Not taking yourself from a position of complete and utter safety into a position where you are almost certain to need to draw the gun at the very least.

I think what Cincycooley is trying to say is that You have the right to own a gun, you don't necessarily have the right to go around acting like a vigilante and causing events where the use of that gun is required for your own safety.

Not sure what you're supposed to do if an armed man pursues and confronts you at night in the US. You should just let them do what ever they want I guess, because if you try to tackle them then they can shoot you dead and it's apparently self defence.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Not sure what you're supposed to do if an armed man pursues and confronts you at night in the US. You should just let them do what ever they want I guess, because if you try to tackle them then they can shoot you dead and it's apparently self defence.

Great post! Care to try to apply any of the known facts in the Zimmerman case to it though? Or is there some other situation we haven't heard about which you think your hypothetical situation may apply to?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Not sure what you're supposed to do if an armed man pursues and confronts you at night in the US. You should just let them do what ever they want I guess, because if you try to tackle them then they can shoot you dead and it's apparently self defence.

This has what to do with anything about this?

None of what you just said was at all in line with any of the known facts.

Zimmermans weapon was concealed, Martin did not know he was armed. So right away your entire point is baseless.

Maybe Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, or stayed at home. Instead of playing policeman and creeping around the neighbourhood at night with a loaded gun. He had to defend himself from a confrontation he provoked. What a needless death.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Maybe Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, or stayed at home. Instead of playing policeman and creeping around the neighbourhood at night with a loaded gun. He had to defend himself from a confrontation he provoked. What a needless death.

And maybe Martin should have gone home, not left his home, not assaulted a guy he didn't know... It works both ways. Again, the prosecution showed NO evidence Zimmerman 'provoked' a confrontation. You insisting he did based on emotion seems a weak argument at this point.

I have personally approached suspicious people more than once (most recently a couple weeks ago). That does not justify assault.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Maybe Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, or stayed at home. Instead of playing policeman and creeping around the neighbourhood at night with a loaded gun. He had to defend himself from a confrontation he provoked. What a needless death.

There was only one person who provoked the confrontation, as the facts showed, and the basis by which Zimmerman was acquitted. That person was Martin.

Keep yourself willfully ignorant of all the facts surrounding the matter all you want, it won't change that.

This thread should probably be shut down now. Everything has been discussed about it already, all of the evidence has been analyzed, there is no point in rehashing it over another 15 pages and keep walking this same circle again and again.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Maybe Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, or stayed at home. Instead of playing policeman and creeping around the neighbourhood at night with a loaded gun. He had to defend himself from a confrontation he provoked. What a needless death.

I blame you, frankly. You appear to know exactly what happened, yet it's obvious you did not make yourself available to be deposed by the prosecution.

It's clear there are different perspectives regarding the outcome of the case. Regardless, lets try to follow d usas example of disagreeing objectively and politely. Thanks.

Ryan

I'm a model citizen everybody!

I just don't understand how people are saying the prosecution 'blew' the case.

WHAT CASE?

The evidence spoke for itself. Zimmerman may not be genius, but guess what folks, thats NOT A CRIME. What is a crime is assault, and the evidence showed that Trayvon Martin did not flee when he could have, but instead confronted and attacked Zimmerman.

Why is TM somehow not responsible for his part in this?

There was no case to blow for the prosecution. They did their best to paint Zimmerman as a malicious bastard and convict him on pure emotion.

This only even made it to trial because a police chief was fired due to political and social pressure and the lead investigator was demoted and removed from the case (both of which should sue the crap out of the PD/city).

It was a kangaroo court from the get go.

 Seaward wrote:

You'll need to clarify what you believe was reckless about Zimmerman's actions.

I only imagine it will be ignored again as I've done so multiple times in this thread. At this point its apparent people are just being willfully dense.

A question, though: do you believe you have the right to assault anyone who follows you in public? Or anyone who asks you a question you don't like?

You know that's not what I'm trying to say. My purpose in arguing that Martin had a justifiable fear for his life is to point out the reality of the situation. My problem is that he shouldn't be allowed to follow Martin, escalating a situation to the point where arguably Martin could fear for his life. It's stupid to look at this situation and say "Martin punched first so Zimmerman is a okay. Following isn't a crime." People need to be willfully ignorant to ignore that had Zimmerman died, Martin could have gotten off as well on the same evidence. I don't like the idea of this situation repeating itself, both because its an insane way to handle citizen watch groups and is horribly open to be abused intentionally or unintentionally.

Martin committed no crimes prior to Zimmerman's assumption he must be up to no good. While I have no problem with calling the police because you think someone is suspicious, I do have a problem with Zimmerman's apparent certainty that Martin was up to wrong and his pursuit. I have that problem because its reckless behavior. It's reckless because it created a situation that was extremely dangerous both for himself and Martin (obviously seeing as someone was beaten and the other is dead). Had Zimmerman simply called the cops and not pursued, which is what he was supposed to do, no one would be bruised, bloody, or dead. I feel that should spark questions about how we handle citizen action and whether a citizen should be held responsible for reckless behavior that ends in death (but I've said all this before).

Zimmerman had no legitimate reason to think Martin was doing something wrong. Having a hoodie on is not evidence of anything. Zimmerman wasting the polices time isn't my problem. He can go ahead and waste it. His decision that he can be the police, creating a situation where a person died, and people being so caught up in other polarized political debates happily ignoring the implications of his actions is my problem.

 LordofHats wrote:
You know that's not what I'm trying to say. My purpose in arguing that Martin had a justifiable fear for his life is to point out the reality of the situation.

And that's where you're wrong. The standard for self defense is never so low as to encompass, "The other guy was walking in the same direction as me."

My problem is that he shouldn't be allowed to follow Martin, escalating a situation to the point where arguably Martin could fear for his life.

And he says he didn't. There's no evidence to dispute that.

But for the sake of argument, let's say he did follow him. I have no problem with that. It's not illegal. It's not even immoral. It certainly doesn't justify an assault in response.

It's stupid to look at this situation and say "Martin punched first so Zimmerman is a okay. Following isn't a crime." People need to be willfully ignorant to ignore that had Zimmerman died, Martin could have gotten off as well on the same evidence. I don't like the idea of this situation repeating itself, both because its an insane way to handle citizen watch groups and is horribly open to be abused intentionally or unintentionally.

Well, no. Had Zimmerman died, and we had the same evidence we have now, Martin'd likely wind up with a manslaughter conviction at the least. You have several eye witnesses who saw him pounding Zimmerman, for example. We know perfectly well who was kicking whose ass.

Martin committed no crimes prior to Zimmerman's assumption he must be up to no good. While I have no problem with calling the police because you think someone is suspicious, I do have a problem with Zimmerman's apparent certainty that Martin was up to wrong and his pursuit. I have that problem because its reckless behavior. It's reckless because it created a situation that was extremely dangerous both for himself and Martin (obviously seeing as someone was beaten and the other is dead). Had Zimmerman simply called the cops and not pursued, which is what he was supposed to do, no one would be bruised, bloody, or dead. I feel that should spark questions about how we handle citizen action and whether a citizen should be held responsible for reckless behavior that ends in death (but I've said all this before).

Again, you are simply giving far too much credence to the notion that "someone is walking in the same vicinity as me, and I'm pretty sure they're following me," is justification for assaulting them.

I don't know how to make this more clear. At no point in the "someone is stalking me" chain of events do you get to a threshold where assault is acceptable.

The Neighbourhood Watch is an important role. It makes up for the failings of police to respond timely to disturbances. There is nothing wrong with a man being suspicious of a stranger in a GATED community.

If this was the UK, you'd be mugged, beaten to a pulp, stabbed, raped and any host of things...then...in maybe half an hour, the police would arrive. Florida proves to have a system that is far more efficient at dealing with thug scum.

honestly... i agree with the verdict from a legal stand point...

BUT from a moral stand point i think zimmerman is to blame.

*sigh* I just broke my facebook truce. I am sick to death of this "crusade" of white on black death, when it's the smallest segment of murder when examined by race.

Of course, now I'm going to be labelled a racist by pointing the facts out, but such is life.

 djones520 wrote:
*sigh* I just broke my facebook truce. I am sick to death of this "crusade" of white on black death, when it's the smallest segment of murder when examined by race.

Of course, now I'm going to be labelled a racist by pointing the facts out, but such is life.

Yeah, silly black people, won't they get their gak together and realize that it is never about race? I mean, look at all the white people trying to tell them it isn't about race, you'd think they would get a clue.

 Seaward wrote:

Well, no. Had Zimmerman died, and we had the same evidence we have now, Martin'd likely wind up with a manslaughter conviction at the least. You have several eye witnesses who saw him pounding Zimmerman, for example. We know perfectly well who was kicking whose ass.

Now we pass in to the realm of the hilarious. Martin on the stand "he chased me into the alley and pulled a gun on me so I hit him and he kept trying to shoot me." Unless we pull out the race card there's no way I can see Martin being convicted with the exact same evidence. It's clear from the evidence Zimmerman's intent was to pursue Martin but then I'm used to people taking and leaving 'evidence' in this case. Kicking someone's ass is also not a sole basis to believe Martin started the fight. For all we know Zimmerman throws a lousy punch and Martin knows how to side step. The joys of being the only person still alive who knows exactly what happened is that you can tell whatever version of events you want.

Zimmerman didn't get off because his version of events is true. He got off because his version of events is the only version of events that can be attested to and there was no evidence to counter it. That's fine for Zimmerman's case, but If that's our standard for dealing with this kind of situation, we have a problem (but I'm the only one who seems to care). It's a big open door for vigilantism in the future.

Again, you are simply giving far too much credence to the notion that "someone is walking in the same vicinity as me, and I'm pretty sure they're following me," is justification for assaulting them.

You're standard for following is equally hilarious. Its the middle of the night and Martin disappeared down an alley, to which a guy who had previously been following him in a truck got out and went down the same alley. Martin may not have been a model student but it's pretty evident from fact that he wasn't so stupid that he couldn't tell he was being followed.

But of course ZImmerman is the hero of the story simply by chance that he lived and the other guy didn't so we're all apparently okay with this chain of events. So now we have accepted a standard where citizens can play cop, decide someone's guilt, pursue them, and if someone dies, either party can tell whatever version of events suits them, and we're just okay with that scenario right now. I'm not just talking about Zimmerman. There are citizen watch groups all over the country and it seems now that they can play cop and have none of the oversight or accountability for doing so. That's dangerous both for citizen watch members and whoever they arbitrary decide is suspicious.

Florida proves to have a system that is far more efficient at dealing with thug scum.

Oh yeah. That's totally what happened. I mean, if ZImmerman hadn't been there to get assaulted, who knows what horrible crimes Martin would have commit- Wait, what kind of logic are you using here?

It's Mr Hyena, he's using maximum troll logic.

 Ahtman wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
*sigh* I just broke my facebook truce. I am sick to death of this "crusade" of white on black death, when it's the smallest segment of murder when examined by race.

Of course, now I'm going to be labelled a racist by pointing the facts out, but such is life.

Yeah, silly black people, won't they get their gak together and realize that it is never about race? I mean, look at all the white people trying to tell them it isn't about race, you'd think they would get a clue.

Well. I think Zimmerman did something very wrong and even I find this somewhat vindictive:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/zimmerman-civil-rights-charges-142917019.html

The NAACP, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and other civil rights activists are calling on the U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney Gen. Eric Holder to press federal civil rights charges against George Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watchman who was acquitted by a Sanford, Fla., jury Saturday in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

“The most fundamental of civil rights — the right to life — was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin," NAACP President Ben Jealous wrote in a letter to Holder shortly after the verdict was announced. "We ask that the Department of Justice file civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman for this egregious violation. Please address the travesties of the tragic death of Trayvon Martin by acting today.”

“This verdict represents a tragic miscarriage of justice," Barbara Arnwine, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said in a statement. "Yet, there is still the potential for justice to be served through a civil suit brought about by Trayvon Martin’s surviving family members, and also through civil rights charges being brought against Mr. Zimmerman by the Department of Justice."

The Justice Dept. launched a probe of the Zimmerman case earlier this year, but has yet to comment on Zimmerman's acquittal.

“If we find evidence of a potential federal criminal civil rights crime, we will take appropriate action," Holder said in April during a keynote speech to Al Sharpton's National Action Network convention. "And at every step, the facts and law will guide us forward.”

But Holder, the nation's first African-American attorney general, cautioned in subsequent comments that there is a “very high barrier” when seeking to bring federal criminal charges in such cases, TheHill.com noted.

A Justice Department official told CNN late Saturday night that it "continues to evaluate the evidence generated during the federal investigation, as well as the evidence and testimony from the state trial."

On Sunday, Jackson called on the Justice Department to "intervene" and “take this to another level.”

"I remain stunned at the decision," Jackson said on CNN's "New Day." "That the grown man, armed, murdered the unarmed boy going home."

"I think that we clearly must move on to the next step in terms of the federal government and in terms of the civil courts," Sharpton said on MSNBC Saturday. "Clearly, we want people to be disciplined, strategic. This is a slap in the face to those that believe in justice in this country."

If a civil suit is allowed, that's the Martin's right to bring one, but the state already blew it's chance to convict Zimmerman. It shouldn't get to throw another rule book at him after a court says he isn't guilty. I can't imagine any new evidence could be produced at this point to warrant more charges.

 djones520 wrote:

Facepalm all you want but I am not the one pretending that there isn't a history of issues between the black community and the US justice system. If you can't understand why a large proportion of African-Americans are upset you might want to read a few books on American history, or even just watch TV on occasion.

I don't think a federal investigation or trial would be appropriate. I do think that it was appropriate to have a trial because there was a good deal of evidence a crime may have been committed, but now that we have had that trial there is no set of facts, no fumble by the jury, no real reason to try a civil rights investigation.

I do think there is almost certainly going to be a civil lawsuit, unless it's precluded by statute in Florida, and I can't imagine Mr. Zimmerman winning that since he did contribute substantially to inflaming the situation by any version of what happened, even if it didn't rise to the level of murder or even manslaughter.

Frankly the whole thing is just sad; there is no cause for rejoicing regardless.

This whole case really came down on who took the first punch.

It doesn't matter if M turned aroun and followed Z, since everybody already admitted that it is no crime to follow people.

It doesn't matter if M confronted Z and asked him why he was following him, since everybody already admitted that it is crime to do that.

So it really came down to "who started the physical fight". And this verdict really does not mean that the jury thought that Z told the truth. All it means is that the state was unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Z lied.

The state tried, they failed, the case is over, the national guard is not needed to restore order in Florida. Some people are pissed, some are happy, the cities are not burning.

Life goes on.

It's not even a black-white issue. Zimmerman is pretty clearly Hispanic. The media did a great job of hiding his very Hispanic mother during the circus they called a trial.