http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/1 ... 88743.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/13/george-zimmerman-not-guilty_n_3588743.html)
I just don't know how I feel about this.
I never really agreed with murder charges - but I don't think he should get off scott-free either.
What say you?
Not knowing how you feel is an appropriate response when you don't really know what happened. I still wouldn't know if he had been found guilty. I haven't followed this closely at all, but I haven't seen any substantial evidence one way or the other. I began reading an article on the verdict this morning because I was hoping to read something about why the jury gave that particular verdict, but after 6 or 8 paragraphs of reading about how angry protestors were and how happy supporters were, I decided this was just a continuation of the media exploiting an event for it's controversy.
It reminds me of the creationist strategy of teaching the controversy, rather than the theory. It's a good strategy when controversy is the only asset. I'll tune in to NPR this afternoon and see if there is any light that can be shed on it.
As a side issue, NPR has recently dropped one of their most helpful blockbuster programs, Talk of the Nation, and replaced it with nothing much as far as I can tell. I hope this is not the beginning of an NPR trend toward modern "journalism".
I'm not exactly sure how I feel about it either. I'm not surprised by it. I find it interesting and somewhat disappointing that more attention wasn't focused on the stand your ground statute during the trial and/or deciding whether Zimmerman met the criteria adequately.
Did Zimmerman have cause to 'reasonably believe he was in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm'? I didn't see where that was really discussed at all but I might have missed it.
My fear is that this verdict sets a dangerous precedent in terms of what counts as fear or great bodily harm and the burden of proof required to justify use of deadly force in self defense.
Are we going to get to the point where the cops show up to a person standing over a lifeless body and person says 'well he was threatening me and pushing me and saying he wanted to kick my ass and I was in fear of my life so I shot him in the face' and the cops say ok you're free to go, have a nice night. That is what I'm afraid this could lead to. Time will tell I suppose.
k... I feel a little less crazy. Thanks guys. Seriously, I felt weird for not knowing my own opinion. I just do not know what to make of it.
too many empty holes for me
If I'm approaching someone hiding and he jumps out of the bushes comes running toward me and knocks me down and start pounding my head into the concrete and I have a gun I would think my life is in danger. And if I thought he was trying to get my gun when reaching behind me I'd shoot him too. The prosecution did a really poor job, it was like watching the OJ trial, accept for a glove it was done with a box of skittles.
The jury didn't buy a word of what they said. The only thing Zimmerman did, that he shouldn't have, was not wait for the police because he didn't want him to get away when he ran and hid. It's one thing to profile like Arpaio and the police do in Arizona because they are prejudice and do it because they fit the description of known criminals in a crime area. I don't agree with Bill Maher on his take on this. Solitary
a young man is dead for seemingly no reason and that is a shame. how someone can shoot another person and not have anything happen is beyond me. even in self defence killing another person should be a man slaughter crime.
as long as people can use the self defence argument for justification of killing someone then there will be results like this.
//http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/313726.html
in another case the "stand your ground" law didn't work and now a mother goes away for 20 years leaving 11 month toddlers to grow up with out her. obviously circumstances are a bit different but perhaps it would have been better for this woman if she would have killed her husband.
Florida...you are one fucked up state.
Quote from: "Solitary"If I'm approaching someone hiding and he jumps out of the bushes comes running toward me and knocks me down and start pounding my head into the concrete and I have a gun I would think my life is in danger. And if I thought he was trying to get my gun when reaching behind me I'd shoot him too. The prosecution did a really poor job, it was like watching the OJ trial, accept for a glove it was done with a box of skittles.
don't follow people around and make them jump out of bushes.
Have you ever been attacked by someone by surprise? I have, and when they were saying they were going to kill me while bashing my head into a brick wall I would have killed him if I had had a gun. I did say he should have waited for the police and that he didn't want him to get away. I also had, who I thought was a stranger, following me one dark night too, I didn't turn around and run toward him and start beating his head into the ground after I ran and hid. Are you trying to tell me that you would have done what the perpetrator did while being followed? When he attacked Zimmerman he was no longer innocent even if he was before, which I doubt very much. Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"Have you ever been attacked by someone by surprise? I have, and when they were saying they were going to kill me while bashing my head into a brick wall I would have killed him if I had had a gun. I did say he should have waited for the police and that he didn't want him to get away. I also had, who I thought was a stranger, following me one dark night too, I didn't turn around and run toward him and start beating his head into the ground after I ran and hid. Are you trying to tell me that you would have done what the perpetrator did while being followed? When he attacked Zimmerman he was no longer innocent even if he was before, which I doubt very much. Solitary
doesn't mean that the guy deserved to die and that the person who shot him shouldn't be charged with man slaughter or similar crime. when you have a literal get out of jail free card at your disposal then stuff like this will continue to happen. you have zimmerman with a gun doing something he's not trained for and ends up shooting a person, and does so because he has the law to back him up to defend himself. if it's self defence, he don't go to jail.
this..."when martin attacked zimmerman he was no longer innocent" bullshit has to end. both were wrong but neither needed to die but zimmerman started following the kid in the first place. that's fucked up.
Manslaughter carries the same weight as murder in the 2nd (30 yrs to life). It is not in terms of punishment, anything lesser.
He deserved to die because he was beating Zimmerman's head into concrete which could have killed him. What would say if he had, that Zimmerman deserved to die, or that he didn't either?
Tell me: What would you do if all you were doing is following someone in a high crime area at night and they ran away and hid and you went looking for them and they jumped out of the bushes and started beating your head into the concrete? Nothing? Solitary
Quote from: "wolf39us"Manslaughter carries the same weight as murder in the 2nd (30 yrs to life). It is not in terms of punishment, anything lesser.
then why have it? that makes no sense.
Quote from: "Solitary"He deserved to die because he was beating Zimmerman's head into concrete which could have killed him. What would say if he had, that Zimmerman deserved to die, or that he didn't either?
Tell me: What would you do if all you were doing is following someone in a high crime area at night and they ran away and hid and you went looking for them and they jumped out of the bushes and started beating your head into the concrete? Nothing? Solitary
i have no idea what i would do because i don't follow people around at night. i don't play policeman.
Quote from: "Solitary"Tell me: What would you do if all you were doing is following someone in a high crime area at night and they ran away and hid and you went looking for them and they jumped out of the bushes and started beating your head into the concrete? Nothing? Solitary
Which bushes are you referring to exactly? The bushes that Zimmerman claimed Martin jumped out of that don't actually exist? You mean those bushes?
I say that the news media is really good at riling people up.
The reason people think this murder case was so much more important than the thousands of others that have occurred since, is because the media told us to think it was more important. A hint of controversy and racial tension and it gets turned into a sensationalized national affair.
What concerns me is how the media spin affects the judicial process. Was there ever enough real evidence to bring this to trial, or was it the political pressure caused by biased media?
Quote from: "Jack89"I say that the news media is really good at riling people up.
The reason people think this murder case was so much more important than the thousands of others that have occurred since, is because the media told us to think it was more important. A hint of controversy and racial tension and it gets turned into a sensationalized national affair.
What concerns me is how the media spin affects the judicial process. Was there ever enough real evidence to bring this to trial, or was it the political pressure caused by biased media?
There was enough evidence to bring to trial, just not enough to convict. DA's are voted in in Florida aren't they?
Quote from: "Jack89"The reason people think this murder case was so much more important than the thousands of others that have occurred since, is because the media told us to think it was more important. A hint of controversy and racial tension and it gets turned into a sensationalized national affair.
I can't and won't speak for other people but that is not at all why the case caught my attention. What irked me from the start was the fact that police showed up to find a body and a man with a gun. The man with the gun says yeah I shot him but i felt my life was in danger so its justified and after only cursory investigation the police said ok good enough for us and let him go.
Race had nothing to do with it for me. Make either person any race gender or creed you like and I still would have found it odd that someone with only minor injuries could kill another then say it was self defense because I say so and have the police accept that was good enough leave it at that.
Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "Jack89"I say that the news media is really good at riling people up.
The reason people think this murder case was so much more important than the thousands of others that have occurred since, is because the media told us to think it was more important. A hint of controversy and racial tension and it gets turned into a sensationalized national affair.
What concerns me is how the media spin affects the judicial process. Was there ever enough real evidence to bring this to trial, or was it the political pressure caused by biased media?
There was enough evidence to bring to trial, just not enough to convict. DA's are voted in in Florida aren't they?
I'll have to take your word for it, I don't know enough to say otherwise, and I don't know if DAs are voted in in Florida. It was kind of a rhetorical question anyway.
To me, this case is another example of how easy it is for the media to suck people in and manipulate them. I live in Arizona and I saw people at work glued to the trial on TV and having heated debates about it with coworkers. Why are Arizonans so concerned with a murder that occurred in Florida and ignore the dozens that have occurred in their own home state since? The only Arizona case that people were recently concerned with was the Jodi Arias trial because, once again, that's what was sensationalized and spoon fed to us by the media. It's really kind of sad.
Quote from: "Jack89"I'll have to take your word for it, I don't know enough to say otherwise, and I don't know if DAs are voted in in Florida. It was kind of a rhetorical question anyway.
To me, this case is another example of how easy it is for the media to suck people in and manipulate them. I live in Arizona and I saw people at work glued to the trial on TV and having heated debates about it with coworkers. Why are Arizonans so concerned with a murder that occurred in Florida and ignore the dozens that have occurred in their own home state since? The only Arizona case that people were recently concerned with was the Jodi Arias trial because, once again, that's what was sensationalized and spoon fed to us by the media. It's really kind of sad.
don't take my word for it...there was a trial.
At the beginning I thought Zimmerman's actions were racially motivated. About halfway through, I started to see that there was more going on than what the media was reporting, and there may have been circumstances that would justify Zimmerman's actions. I think on balance it was a good verdict, so shoot me.
I didn't buy into the media sensationalism, and it looks like the jury came to the same conclusion I did. I wonder what that says about the American news media.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"I didn't buy into the media sensationalism, and it looks like the jury came to the same conclusion I did. I wonder what that says about the American news media.
No need to wonder. The only thing the media gives a shit about is ratings. They get ratings by views, and they get views by covering significant events. Thats why the current news style is so inflammatory and divisive. Its a tool to turn otherwise uninteresting events into some sort of huge deal. This is also why the coverage of the 'verdict aftermath' was so intense. They were hoping someone would start a riot or some other drama so they would have something else to report on.
The media is in the business of creating news and then reporting it in such a way that it creates more news.
Quote from: "Johan"I'm not exactly sure how I feel about it either. I'm not surprised by it. I find it interesting and somewhat disappointing that more attention wasn't focused on the stand your ground statute during the trial and/or deciding whether Zimmerman met the criteria adequately.
My understanding is that a person in Florida can invoke a separate stand your ground hearing, which can result in them receiving immunity from prosecution for their acts if they win, but they have to meet the burden of showing a preponderance of evidence. Zimmerman('s defense team) chose not to attempt to meet this burden, instead relying on the difficulty the prosecution has in proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quote from: "Poison Tree"Quote from: "Johan"I'm not exactly sure how I feel about it either. I'm not surprised by it. I find it interesting and somewhat disappointing that more attention wasn't focused on the stand your ground statute during the trial and/or deciding whether Zimmerman met the criteria adequately.
My understanding is that a person in Florida can invoke a separate stand your ground hearing, which can result in them receiving immunity from prosecution for their acts if they win, but they have to meet the burden of showing a preponderance of evidence. Zimmerman('s defense team) chose not to attempt to meet this burden, instead relying on the difficulty the prosecution has in proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Well that helps clear it up but I'm still fuzzy on it all. So did the stand your ground law have any bearing on this case legally speaking?
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Poison Tree"Quote from: "Johan"I'm not exactly sure how I feel about it either. I'm not surprised by it. I find it interesting and somewhat disappointing that more attention wasn't focused on the stand your ground statute during the trial and/or deciding whether Zimmerman met the criteria adequately.
My understanding is that a person in Florida can invoke a separate stand your ground hearing, which can result in them receiving immunity from prosecution for their acts if they win, but they have to meet the burden of showing a preponderance of evidence. Zimmerman('s defense team) chose not to attempt to meet this burden, instead relying on the difficulty the prosecution has in proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Well that helps clear it up but I'm still fuzzy on it all. So did the stand your ground law have any bearing on this case legally speaking?
That is not very clear to me. I believe that the police/DA said that they did not consider stand your ground in deciding not to initially charge Zimmerman, deciding instead that it was "normal" self-defense. However, I think it may have had an impact in the initial investigation and decision not to file charges at least in as much as the law is seen as increasing the burden of proof necessary to overcome a self-defense claim (showing the defendant passed a reasonable opportunity to retreat doesn't weaken his claim to defense) and any elected official involved (DA, sheriff, ect) may have view the law as the public showing more support for self-defense and could be unwilling to risk backlash by going against the public wishes. But that's really off into speculation
I watched the trial and I don't remember stand your ground being brought up in the trial, nor the race card. It was hearsay on the prosecutions part and actual physical evidence by the defendants attorneys that persuaded the jury. And bringing up skittles as prosecution evidence was just ridiculous. The prosecutions evidence was zero to find him guilty of manslaughter much less murder. Solitary
If it wasn't for that pesky sixth commandment, this wouldn't have been an issue. :twisted:
Quote from: "Solitary"Tell me: What would you do if all you were doing is following someone in a high crime area at night
In uniform or off-duty? I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to play cop and follow someone if I weren't on the job. It's not a civilian's responsibility to ensure that someone who hasn't done anything wrong "doesn't get away".
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Solitary"Tell me: What would you do if all you were doing is following someone in a high crime area at night
In uniform or off-duty? I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to play cop and follow someone if I weren't on the job. It's not a civilian's responsibility to ensure that someone who hasn't done anything wrong "doesn't get away".
This.
Also, the U.S. Justice Department, FBI and Attorney's office is now going to be conducting their own investigation as well.
Quote from: "wolf39us"Manslaughter carries the same weight as murder in the 2nd (30 yrs to life). It is not in terms of punishment, anything lesser.
Second degree murder, in Florida, carries a minimum sentence of 16-3/4 years. Second degree manslaughter (this would have been culpably negligent manslaughter, which is 2nd degree) carries a minimum sentence of 9-1/4 years. The maximums are up to life (for murder) and up to 30 years (for manslaughter).
Florida Statute 775.087(1) for manslaughter and 10-20-Life for murder.
Quote from: "Poison Tree"I believe that the police/DA said that they did not consider stand your ground in deciding not to initially charge Zimmerman, deciding instead that it was "normal" self-defense. However, I think it may have had an impact in the initial investigation and decision not to file charges at least in as much as the law is seen as increasing the burden of proof necessary to overcome a self-defense claim (showing the defendant passed a reasonable opportunity to retreat doesn't weaken his claim to defense)
Before Stand your Ground, he would have been required to retreat if retreat were possible. Considering that Martin wasn't armed (it couldn't have been evident to Zimmerman that he was, and that's what matters), and that Zimmerman was initially in a truck and Martin was on foot, retreat would have been trivial. Without considering Stand your Ground, not arresting Zimmerman was a wrong move. It would only be self defense under that law, not under previous laws. The whole thing back then just smells.
Quote from: "Colanth"It's not a civilian's responsibility to ensure that someone who hasn't done anything wrong "doesn't get away".
well I would suggest that every, even "self-appointed" neighborhood watch dogs would be following someone who may not belong in that neighborhood, this is what they do. Now take into consideration a neighborhood that has been hit before and due to the police inability to respond fast enough would certainly want someone, especially a homeowner in the same area to make sure no hanky panky is afoot.
I think the more I learned of this the less judgmental I became against ole georgy. Not to excuse the death away, non-the-less I find it harder to say the man killed this kid with malice aforethought, or even had any malicious intent other than making sure the kid did not " do anything wrong yet", and since I wouldn't know if he had already done something wrong or not, making sure he didn't "get away" would rather be a priority.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Solitary"Tell me: What would you do if all you were doing is following someone in a high crime area at night
In uniform or off-duty? I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to play cop and follow someone if I weren't on the job. It's not a civilian's responsibility to ensure that someone who hasn't done anything wrong "doesn't get away".
This.
Also, the U.S. Justice Department, FBI and Attorney's office is now going to be conducting their own investigation as well.
What federal crime could they charge him with?
Quote from: "Colanth"It's not a civilian's responsibility to ensure that someone who hasn't done anything wrong "doesn't get away".
Be that as it may, Zimmerman's reaction was prompted by police repeatedly failing to act quickly enough in the past. The neighborhood had been hit multiple times by a burglar who matched Martin's description. It may not be his job to keep an eye on the guy, but if the police have never been quick enough on the draw then what else is he supposed to do? Funnily enough, the police initially choosing not to arrest Zimmerman backs up this alleged incompetence beautifully.
I am
not saying he should have escalated it to an on-foot pursuit (much less what happened after), but I can't really blame the guy for a lack of confidence in the local police force if this is their typical MO.
Civil rights crimes.. He may or may not be charged and there are still civil lawsuits.
So...what have we learned. Well, if you're Florida, nothing. But if you are the rest of the world, you learn once again that you cannot rush to trial if you do not have a case. You would think that the Casey Anthony debacle illustrated this well enough. I don't know what it is about Florida that they allow themselves to be rushed to trial without a solid case against a suspect simply because Nancy Grace howled loudly enough. What it comes down to, plain and simple, is that it is difficult to convict someone of a crime even after exhaustive and painstaking case-building. It is damn near impossible when you have large holes in your presentation, as we have now learned for the second time in just a few years.
Johnny Cochrane famously said "If the glove does not fit...you must acquit." The mantra in Florida is clearly "If you have no case...get outta my face." Bring some evidence, Florida prosecutors, or don't come to trial. Clearly letting Nancy Grace bully you into the courtroom prematurely is not working out so well.
I kind of doubt that particular town in Florida is anything even resembling Detroit where calling an ambulance can take hours and police? Forget it. They're to busy protecting the Ford family fortune to be bothered with crime..
I wasn't there so as to what actually happened only Zimmerman can say for sure and he ain't really telling, but one thing particularly bothersom is the ONLY jurors they could seat were 6 old white ladies and that was because they were the only people they could find who hadn't heard about the case ahead of time..6 ignorant old women out of touch with society at large..
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"I kind of doubt that particular town in Florida is anything even resembling Detroit where calling an ambulance can take hours and police? Forget it. They're to busy protecting the Ford family fortune to be bothered with crime..
I wasn't there so as to what actually happened only Zimmerman can say for sure and he ain't really telling, but one thing particularly bothersom is the ONLY jurors they could seat were 6 old white ladies and that was because they were the only people they could find who hadn't heard about the case ahead of time..6 ignorant old women out of touch with society at large..
Such are the consequences when the media chooses to sensationalize a court case. If you blast that information over the airwaves like they've been doing, the only way you can get an impartial jury is to search out in the boondocks. As mentioned earlier, it probably didn't help that it was a horribly rushed trial. The prosecutors either had or took no time to get their arguments in order, nor to find appropriate charges (of which 2nd degree murder clearly was not one).
I wonder how long until we get a movie about this...
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"I wonder how long until we get a movie about this...
Probably not long. If I was George Zimmerman I would have had my book/movie deal inked before the verdict came back.
The media did indeed go out of its way to convict ole georgy. Starting with posting trayvons pick as a what? 14 yr old still being weaned and ole georgy as a pudgy ex-con? It was like the media was going out of its way to present itself as being anti-racist instead of just reporting the news. "Hey, lets make sure no one can call us racists by being pro-trayvon all the way". They started the snowball rolling and it ran right into a giant camp fire.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"I wonder how long until we get a movie about this...
Probably not long. If I was George Zimmerman I would have had my book/movie deal inked before the verdict came back.
get Bruce Willis to play and call it "almost die hard"
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Colanth"It's not a civilian's responsibility to ensure that someone who hasn't done anything wrong "doesn't get away".
Be that as it may, Zimmerman's reaction was prompted by police repeatedly failing to act quickly enough in the past. The neighborhood had been hit multiple times by a burglar who matched Martin's description. It may not be his job to keep an eye on the guy, but if the police have never been quick enough on the draw then what else is he supposed to do? .
What else was he supposed to do? Nothing. If doing that meant it took that much longer for a criminal to get caught, so be it. There is no justification for Zimmerman following Martin. None.
Quote from: "Johan"There is no justification for Zimmerman following Martin. None.
what? Of course there was. The neighborhood had been the scene of recent robberies. The man did not appear to be from the area, (he would know after all, he lives there) Natural suspicion, hell the guy had every right to follow him. I would have done the same thing If I gave a shit enough to be in a neighborhood watch, and I damn sure would be carrying a piece.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Johan"There is no justification for Zimmerman following Martin. None.
what? Of course there was. The neighborhood had been the scene of recent robberies. The man did not appear to be from the area, (he would know after all, he lives there) Natural suspicion, hell the guy had every right to follow him. I would have done the same thing If I gave a shit enough to be in a neighborhood watch, and I damn sure would be carrying a piece.
Bullshit.
"Did not appear to be from the area"?
What's the criteria for looking like you belong? Do they have a pamphlet they hand to all the residents? "We do not wear hoodies in this community".
This whole "that guy looked different" defense pisses me off. Who decides who looks "suspicious"? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
And while you have a constitutional right to follow and walk behind someone, you're escalating the situation. That's why 911 told Zimmerman to back the fuck off.....because people don't like being actively followed by strangers. It weirds them out. Bad things can happen. Sure, you have the right to follow people, that doesn't mean it makes sense.
Being part of a neighborhood watch means you report things to the police....it does not mean you're fuckin' Batman.
To many thousands of neighborhood watches they appreciate that their neighbors are looking out for them. It sure is easy to make judgment calls after the fact, but when the cops have a history of being too late to do anything, it sets in motion the idea that "we" must look out for each other and I would suggest that we most certainly need more of that. It is not the governments job to protect us we should all do that instead of hiding in our homes hoping the bad guys hits the neighbor and not us.
QuoteThis whole "that guy looked different" defense pisses me off. Who decides who looks "suspicious"? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Smarzie, they live in a gated community. One of the things about gated communities is that people tend to know each other and tend to recognize people who may not be. Gated communities are gated for a reason, people who don't belong there should not be there, thats why they have gates that close at certain hours. I don't see the reason for all this, it is a perfectly acceptable thing. If someone is walking around your neighborhood at a late hour and is not from your neighborhood I would sure hope you get suspicious. If not, you're not the neighbor I want.
Quote from: "aitm"To many thousands of neighborhood watches they appreciate that their neighbors are looking out for them. It sure is easy to make judgment calls after the fact, but when the cops have a history of being too late to do anything, it sets in motion the idea that "we" must look out for each other and I would suggest that we most certainly need more of that. It is not the governments job to protect us we should all do that instead of hiding in our homes hoping the bad guys hits the neighbor and not us.
Yeah, that sounds all well and good until someone is harassing your relative because they "look suspicious" according to some random person's opinion.
Again, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I've seen trashy-looking teens in hoodies that are actually quite nice and polite. Slapped the shit out of my pre-conceived notions. You know what could have stopped this entire tragedy from happening? Zimmerman not being prejudiced against someone who didn't look like him.
If you see someone breaking into a car, report it! If you see someone walking down the street, LEAVE THEM THE FUCK ALONE.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "aitm"If you see someone walking down the street, LEAVE THEM THE FUCK ALONE.
The reason that neighborhoods have neighbor hood watches is because people do tend to leave them the fuck alone. When that happens, then things tend to go missing. This is what criminals know very well. If no one bothers you and the cops take two hours to show up, hell its like walking into a market place.
Quote from: "aitm"QuoteThis whole "that guy looked different" defense pisses me off. Who decides who looks "suspicious"? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Smarzie, they live in a gated community. One of the things about gated communities is that people tend to know each other and tend to recognize people who may not be. Gated communities are gated for a reason, people who don't belong there should not be there, thats why they have gates that close at certain hours. I don't see the reason for all this, it is a perfectly acceptable thing. If someone is walking around your neighborhood at a late hour and is not from your neighborhood I would sure hope you get suspicious. If not, you're not the neighbor I want.
I've lived in gated communities. You don't know EVERYBODY. I knew a few neighbors close to me and that was it. To assume you know every fucking person that lives there and all their friends is stupid. There's no other word for it.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Zimmerman not being prejudiced against someone who didn't look like him.
Why don't you try reading what the man is saying before making ridiculous statements like this?
Pardon my rudeness, but folks have been doing this all day and it's getting on my nerves.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "aitm"If you see someone walking down the street, LEAVE THEM THE FUCK ALONE.
The reason that neighborhoods have neighbor hood watches is because people do tend to leave them the fuck alone. When that happens, then things tend to go missing. This is what criminals know very well. If no one bothers you and the cops take two hours to show up, hell its like walking into a market place.
Well, shit, I guess we should just harass everyone we don't know, eh? "Hey, you! Prove you're not a criminal!"
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Zimmerman not being prejudiced against someone who didn't look like him.
Why don't you try reading what the man is saying before making ridiculous statements like this?
Pardon my rudeness, but folks have been doing this all day and it's getting on my nerves.
Care to elaborate on what exactly is getting your goat?
Because as far as I know, Zimmerman followed Martin because he looked "suspicious" and like he didn't belong in Zimmerman's neighborhood.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Well, shit, I guess we should just harass everyone we don't know, eh? "Hey, you! Prove you're not a criminal!"
There are few things more annoying in discussions like this than an argument from absurdity.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Well, shit, I guess we should just harass everyone we don't know, eh? "Hey, you! Prove you're not a criminal!"
There are few things more annoying in discussions like this than an argument from absurdity.
Oh, I can think of a few things that are more annoying....
For instance: Criticizing a post without providing anything of substance.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Care to elaborate on what exactly is getting your goat?
Because as far as I know, Zimmerman followed Martin because he looked "suspicious" and like he didn't belong in Zimmerman's neighborhood.
Trayvon Martin matched the description of a man who had been breaking into several homes in that gated community. The police failed to respond quickly enough every time George Zimmerman called them in. This is why he was on the lookout that night, and this is why he followed Trayvon Martin against the 911 operator's request.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Because as far as I know, Zimmerman followed Martin because he looked "suspicious" and like he didn't belong in Zimmerman's neighborhood.
but........that is exactly what neighborhood watches are supposed to do.....really...thats the whole idea. It really is.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Because as far as I know, Zimmerman followed Martin because he looked "suspicious" and like he didn't belong in Zimmerman's neighborhood.
but........that is exactly what neighborhood watches are supposed to do.....really...thats the whole idea. It really is.
Follow and confront? or Report to police?
Because there's a big difference.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Care to elaborate on what exactly is getting your goat?
Because as far as I know, Zimmerman followed Martin because he looked "suspicious" and like he didn't belong in Zimmerman's neighborhood.
Trayvon Martin matched the description of a man who had been breaking into several homes in that gated community. The police failed to respond quickly enough every time George Zimmerman called them in. This is why he was on the lookout that night, and this is why he followed Trayvon Martin against the 911 operator's request.
Well, gee, I'm glad he went against more experience advice. He really saved the day, huh?
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Well, gee, I'm glad he went against more experience advice. He really saved the day, huh?
Sarcasm will get you nowhere with me. If you want to argue, present an argument. If you want to piss and whine, do so in private. I have no patience for dealing with children.
I have no issues with the following, none at all, and the confronting is not something I would do, however, how does trayvons actions get a free pass? Who actually started the fight? Why not just ask the guy whats up instead of throwing punches? All I am replying to is that he didn't do anything inherently wrong by following a person who seems suspicious while watching out for his and his neighbors property.
with that, its bed time.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Johan"There is no justification for Zimmerman following Martin. None.
what? Of course there was. The neighborhood had been the scene of recent robberies. The man did not appear to be from the area, (he would know after all, he lives there) Natural suspicion, hell the guy had every right to follow him. I would have done the same thing If I gave a shit enough to be in a neighborhood watch, and I damn sure would be carrying a piece.
I didn't say he didn't have the right. I said there is no justification. He wasn't a sworn officer. He wasn't trained at all to handle pursuing suspects safely. Therefore he had no business doing it. Therefore there is no justification for it.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Well, gee, I'm glad he went against more experience advice. He really saved the day, huh?
Sarcasm will get you nowhere with me. If you want to argue, present an argument. If you want to piss and whine, do so in private. I have no patience for dealing with children.
Oh, please. As far as I'm concerned, YOU entered this conversation with the chip on your shoulder, not me. I've presented my opinions concisely and openly and if you don't care for the "in your face" format, you can go fuck yourself. Most of your responses to me have been nothing but criticism of
how I post, not the content (I give no shits if you don't like sarcasm). You're the shallow one. Tough pill to swallow, eh?
Here, I'll make my points easier for you to address, if that's what you're into:
-Looking "suspicious" is a ridiculous reason to accuse someone of wrongdoing
-Neighborhood watchers are not vigilantes, they are there to observe and report, nothing more
-Zimmerman was a fuckhead for taking matters into his own hands, especially after he was told not to by more experience people
-Ergo, Zimmerman was not completely innocent (speaking ethically, if not legally) in the death of Martin
There. I have presented my arguments (again), if you care to address them. Or you could piss and whine about how I express myself some more.
Quote from: "aitm"I have no issues with the following, none at all, and the confronting is not something I would do, however, how does trayvons actions get a free pass? Who actually started the fight? Why not just ask the guy whats up instead of throwing punches? All I am replying to is that he didn't do anything inherently wrong by following a person who seems suspicious while watching out for his and his neighbors property.
with that, its bed time.
I've been thinking a lot about Martin's actions.
They were wrong, as well. But he didn't deserve to die from them.
The best course of action would have been to ignore Zimmerman's advances. But I can
understand why he didn't. That shit's creepy! I'm not sure I wouldn't have thrown a punch in that situation, as well. No, he doesn't get a "free pass". We all know what would have been the better course of action.
But we're talking about a person's life. He threw some punches and was shot for it....and there are not reprecussions for the person that did THAT? Zimmerman wasn't completely innocent, either. Frankly, I think the manslaughter charge should have stuck. His decisions led to an altercation that cost a man his life.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Oh, please. As far as I'm concerned, YOU entered this conversation with the chip on your shoulder, not me.
I have been at this a good chunk of the day with people who are constantly misinterpreting my words to make it look seem I think George Zimmerman is without fault in this incident, so forgive me if I'm a little frustrated with you for repeating arguments that have been addressed at least five times already.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"-Looking "suspicious" is a ridiculous reason to accuse someone of wrongdoing
Agreed.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"-Neighborhood watchers are not vigilantes, they are there to observe and report, nothing more
Agreed.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"-Zimmerman was a fuckhead for taking matters into his own hands, especially after he was told not to by more experience people
Agreed.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"-Ergo, Zimmerman was not completely innocent (speaking ethically, if not legally) in the death of Martin
Agreed.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"There. I have presented my arguments (again), if you care to address them.
At what point did I say I think it's a justification? You seemed to think Zimmerman was going after Martin because he looked funny, I corrected this information. If you're gonna hate someone, hate them for something they actually did at least.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Or you could piss and whine about how I express myself so more.
If I think someone is making a poor argument I will point it out. It doesn't mean I disagree with you or that I'm "pissing and whining." You're the one who decided to break out the sarcasm and condescension. I only commented on how childishly you were reacting to simple criticisms and corrections.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Oh, please. As far as I'm concerned, YOU entered this conversation with the chip on your shoulder, not me.
I have been at this a good chunk of the day with people who are constantly misinterpreting my words to make it look seem I think George Zimmerman is without fault in this incident, so forgive me if I'm a little frustrated with you for repeating arguments that have been addressed at least five times already.
We don't all read every post you make. Just a heads up.
QuoteQuote from: "Smartmarzipan"There. I have presented my arguments (again), if you care to address them.
At what point did I say I think it's a justification? You seemed to think Zimmerman was going after Martin because he looked funny, I corrected this information. If you're gonna hate someone, hate them for something they actually did at least.
[/quote]
Fair point. Although, Zimmerman wasn't exactly working off of an incredibly detailed description. Martin looked "suspicious" based off of what, exactly? Young black male? I wouldn't say I'm far off in saying that Zimmerman didn't think he belonged based on some of his prejudiced presumptions. To pretend Zimmerman was being 100% fair-minded is incredibly naive.
QuoteQuote from: "Smartmarzipan"Or you could piss and whine about how I express myself so more.
If I think someone is making a poor argument I will point it out. It doesn't mean I disagree with you or that I'm "pissing and whining." You're the one who decided to break out the sarcasm and condescension. I only commented on how childishly you were reacting to simple criticisms and corrections.
Oh, come now. You felt in a thrill in telling me I was...what was it? "Arguing from absurdity"? You piss and whine just as much as the rest of us, no point in acting like you're above it all.
EDIT: Might be the beer talking, but I've decided I like you. You're the kind of poster this forum needs, even if we never agree on anything. :)
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "aitm"I have no issues with the following, none at all, and the confronting is not something I would do, however, how does trayvons actions get a free pass? Who actually started the fight? Why not just ask the guy whats up instead of throwing punches? All I am replying to is that he didn't do anything inherently wrong by following a person who seems suspicious while watching out for his and his neighbors property.
with that, its bed time.
I've been thinking a lot about Martin's actions.
They were wrong, as well. But he didn't deserve to die from them.
The best course of action would have been to ignore Zimmerman's advances. But I can understand why he didn't. That shit's creepy! I'm not sure I wouldn't have thrown a punch in that situation, as well. No, he doesn't get a "free pass". We all know what would have been the better course of action.
But we're talking about a person's life. He threw some punches and was shot for it....and there are not reprecussions for the person that did THAT? Zimmerman wasn't completely innocent, either. Frankly, I think the manslaughter charge should have stuck. His decisions led to an altercation that cost a man his life.
This is the fundamental disconnect I have with those who share your view of those events. For the life of me I cannot understand why Martin would ever assault Zimmerman. If you are scared because you think someone is following you whats the first thing a normal person thinks to do? The obvious answer is run away. Zimmermans weapon was concealed this whole time, so its not like Martin would think to worry about being shot if he just booked it. Martin was a fit 17 year old. Theres no way he wouldn't have left the older, heavier Zimmerman in the dust in a matter of seconds if he had decided to run.
But He didn't. Instead he decided to deal with his fear of the person following him by...attacking him? What kind of response is that?
I think theres a bit too much innocence being applied to Martin. I think Martin knew damn well that Zimmerman had called the police on him and was now following him to make sure he could tell the police where to find him later. So he decided to beat the shit out of him. Thats the only though process I can imagine to explain the use of violence instead of flight or calling for help or just simply confronting Zimmerman in a non-violent manner.
Of all the options available to him, he decided to do the one thing that escalated the situation to violence. That doesn't speak of fear to me, it speaks of rage.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"We don't all read every post you make. Just a heads up.
There are two very active threads on George Zimmerman right now. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that maybe things are a little heated and you might get your head bitten off the instant you pipe in. Just a heads up.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Fair point. Although, Zimmerman wasn't exactly working off of an incredibly detailed description. Martin looked "suspicious" based off of what, exactly? Young black male? I wouldn't say I'm far off in saying that Zimmerman didn't think he belonged based on some of his prejudiced presumptions. To pretend Zimmerman was being 100% fair-minded is incredibly naive.
Never claimed he was.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Oh, come now. You felt in a thrill in telling me I was...what was it? "Arguing from absurdity"?
You suggested that because a person thought a particular pursuit was justified, that therefore every act of harassment is justified. That is
absurd and you know it.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"You piss and whine just as much as the rest of us, no point in acting like you're above it all.
I don't actively attempt to piss farther and whine louder than everyone else in the thread, now knock it off.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"We don't all read every post you make. Just a heads up.
There are two very active threads on George Zimmerman right now. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that maybe things are a little heated and you might get your head bitten off the instant you pipe in. Just a heads up.
Oh, don't I know it! You tried to bite my head right off. :-D
QuoteQuote from: "Smartmarzipan"Fair point. Although, Zimmerman wasn't exactly working off of an incredibly detailed description. Martin looked "suspicious" based off of what, exactly? Young black male? I wouldn't say I'm far off in saying that Zimmerman didn't think he belonged based on some of his prejudiced presumptions. To pretend Zimmerman was being 100% fair-minded is incredibly naive.
Never claimed he was.
So....what are we arguing about? I said that Zimmerman was being prejudiced in how he viewed Martin and..... *shrugs in confusion*
QuoteQuote from: "Smartmarzipan"Oh, come now. You felt in a thrill in telling me I was...what was it? "Arguing from absurdity"?
You suggested that because a person thought a particular pursuit was justified, that therefore every act of harassment is justified. That is absurd and you know it.
I suggested that every pursuit based on prejudices is absurd. To me, they are akin to those "Are you a citizen?" checkpoints you see popping up out west. I can see how you got confused, though.
QuoteQuote from: "Smartmarzipan"You piss and whine just as much as the rest of us, no point in acting like you're above it all.
I don't actively attempt to piss farther and whine louder than everyone else in the thread, now knock it off.
[/quote]
Just accept it, already. Shh, shh.....don't fight it.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Fair point. Although, Zimmerman wasn't exactly working off of an incredibly detailed description. Martin looked "suspicious" based off of what, exactly? Young black male? I wouldn't say I'm far off in saying that Zimmerman didn't think he belonged based on some of his prejudiced presumptions. To pretend Zimmerman was being 100% fair-minded is incredibly naive.
Incredibly naive? What does Zimmerman's black neighbor think about that?
QuoteThough civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.
"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/ ... 8H20120425 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425)
The Reuters article is a pretty good read. Some of the members of this forum might learn about a few things that led up to this tragic event that didn't rate a mention on CNN.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"So....what are we arguing about? I said that Zimmerman was being prejudiced in how he viewed Martin and.....
And I explained that he wasn't. You took it rather badly for some reason.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"I suggested that every pursuit based on prejudices is absurd. To me, they are akin to those "Are you a citizen?" checkpoints you see popping up out west. I can see how you got confused, though.
That's... not how I'm reading it even looking back, but thanks for clarifying.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Of all the options available to him, he decided to do the one thing that escalated the situation to violence. That doesn't speak of fear to me, it speaks of rage.
And now we'll never know.
I see your viewpoint and I think it's a valid argument against Martin. But this is all speculation, on both sides. All I
do know is that Zimmerman made decisions that led to a confrontation that cost a man his life. The moment he decided that Martin was a bad guy in his own opinion....well, that's when it all went downhill. And maybe that's not enough to charge him legally (although I think we should be asking ourselves some serious questions about responsibility after this), but it sure as hell condemns him ethically in my book.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Fair point. Although, Zimmerman wasn't exactly working off of an incredibly detailed description. Martin looked "suspicious" based off of what, exactly? Young black male? I wouldn't say I'm far off in saying that Zimmerman didn't think he belonged based on some of his prejudiced presumptions. To pretend Zimmerman was being 100% fair-minded is incredibly naive.
Incredibly naive? What does Zimmerman's black neighbor think about that?
QuoteThough civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.
"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/ ... 8H20120425 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425)
The Reuters article is a pretty good read. Some of the members of this forum might learn about a few things that led up to this tragic event that didn't rate a mention on CNN.
Would I care less if this was a white neighbor?
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"So....what are we arguing about? I said that Zimmerman was being prejudiced in how he viewed Martin and.....
And I explained that he wasn't. You took it rather badly for some reason.
Okay, wait. Let's clarity our positions on this. I say that Zimmerman was being (at least) somewhat prejudiced against Martin because he was black and fit the vague description of "young black male". That....that could be anybody. Zimmerman saw him and decided that Martin was a bag guy because he looked the part.
Are you saying that Zimmerman was not prejudiced in any way towards Martin? Or...something else?
Quote from: "Nonsensei"This is the fundamental disconnect I have with those who share your view of those events. For the life of me I cannot understand why Martin would ever assault Zimmerman. If you are scared because you think someone is following you whats the first thing a normal person thinks to do? The obvious answer is run away. Zimmermans weapon was concealed this whole time, so its not like Martin would think to worry about being shot if he just booked it. Martin was a fit 17 year old. Theres no way he wouldn't have left the older, heavier Zimmerman in the dust in a matter of seconds if he had decided to run.
But He didn't. Instead he decided to deal with his fear of the person following him by...attacking him? What kind of response is that?
Of course, under Florida law Martin had no legal obligation to attempt to run away, as he had every legal right to stand his ground, right? (To me, that's the prime stupidity of the law. Even if neither side actually ended up invoking that defense, both may well have had it play a part in their feeling justified in their actions.)
Quote from: "Nonsensei"I think theres a bit too much innocence being applied to Martin. I think Martin knew damn well that Zimmerman had called the police on him and was now following him to make sure he could tell the police where to find him later. So he decided to beat the shit out of him. Thats the only though process I can imagine to explain the use of violence instead of flight or calling for help or just simply confronting Zimmerman in a non-violent manner.
Why is it you think Martin would have been so concerned about the police knowing where to find him?
EDIT I should rephrase that question to make it more precise: I intended to ask, "In you attempt to guess Martin's thought process, why is Martin so concerned about the police knowing where to find him that he decided to beat some guy up?"
Okay, the main point of contention I'm seeing in these discussion is:
Who was the instigator?
Who was at fault for the confrontation?
Zimmerman for following some random guy he saw, or Martin for throwing the first physical punch?
This is the main thing being argued, I think. And.....which is worse under the law?
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Would I care less if this was a white neighbor?
From the sounds of things you don't care period. You and others here seem to think that Zimmerman should have ignored his suspicions about Trayvon just because he was black. Apparently any time a white person is worried about what a black person is up to it is racial profiling, and racial profiling it seams is always bad. But if the black neighbor who was intimately familiar with the events leading up to this tragic event felt Zimmerman was justified being suspicious of the black kid walking from house to house through the neighborhood who are you to say he wasn't?
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"So....what are we arguing about? I said that Zimmerman was being prejudiced in how he viewed Martin and.....
And I explained that he wasn't. You took it rather badly for some reason.
Okay, wait. Let's clarity our positions on this. I say that Zimmerman was being (at least) somewhat prejudiced against Martin because he was black and fit the vague description of "young black male". That....that could be anybody. Zimmerman saw him and decided that Martin was a bag guy because he looked the part.
Are you saying that Zimmerman was not prejudiced in any way towards Martin? Or...something else?
I think you're confused. I was responding to this specific post:
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "aitm"The reason that neighborhoods have neighbor hood watches is because people do tend to leave them the fuck alone. When that happens, then things tend to go missing. This is what criminals know very well. If no one bothers you and the cops take two hours to show up, hell its like walking into a market place.
Well, shit, I guess we should just harass everyone we don't know, eh? "Hey, you! Prove you're not a criminal!"
That's an argument from absurdity in a nutshell. You take someone's position, blow it up to the biggest extreme possible, and roll with it... even though that's clearly not what your opponent is advocating. Now granted, I could have been less obnoxious about pointing it out, but the point stands.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Would I care less if this was a white neighbor?
From the sounds of things you don't care period. You and others here seem to think that Zimmerman should have ignored his suspicions about Trayvon just because he was black. Apparently any time a white person is worried about what a black person is up to it is racial profiling, and racial profiling it seams is always bad. But if the black neighbor who was intimately familiar with the events leading up to this tragic event felt Zimmerman was justified being suspicious of the black kid walking from house to house through the neighborhood who are you to say he wasn't?
I just want you to tell me why I should care that some black person is okay with racially profiling other black people.
"Oh, I see a black kid walking around the neighborhood. Some other black kids have done bad stuff. It's totally okay if I assume THIS black kid is one of them!! You know...especially because I'm black."
I give no shits if some random black person felt they were justified in targeting another random black person.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"I could have been less obnoxious about pointing it out, but the point stands.
Now you're accepting it. Welcome. =D>
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "aitm"The reason that neighborhoods have neighbor hood watches is because people do tend to leave them the fuck alone. When that happens, then things tend to go missing. This is what criminals know very well. If no one bothers you and the cops take two hours to show up, hell its like walking into a market place.
Well, shit, I guess we should just harass everyone we don't know, eh? "Hey, you! Prove you're not a criminal!"
That's an argument from absurdity in a nutshell. You take someone's position, blow it up to the biggest extreme possible, and roll with it... even though that's clearly not what your opponent is advocating. Now granted, I could have been less obnoxious about pointing it out, but the point stands.
No, I don't think it's absurd at all, actually.
He says it's okay to follow people you suspect based on....what, exactly? Not sure. "Suspicions", or something.
I say this is not unlike stopping every stranger you know to ask them if they are up to no good. How is it not? Based on his previous comments about "not looking like they belong in the community", it's not that absurd. Might as well set up checkpoints if that's your position on the matter. I'm not the one blowing it up.....the point is being made by people on the other side. "Do you look like a suspicious stranger I don't know? Good enough for me!!"
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Would I care less if this was a white neighbor?
From the sounds of things you don't care period. You and others here seem to think that Zimmerman should have ignored his suspicions about Trayvon just because he was black. Apparently any time a white person is worried about what a black person is up to it is racial profiling, and racial profiling it seams is always bad. But if the black neighbor who was intimately familiar with the events leading up to this tragic event felt Zimmerman was justified being suspicious of the black kid walking from house to house through the neighborhood who are you to say he wasn't?
I just want you to tell me why I should care that some black person is okay with racially profiling other black people.
"Oh, I see a black kid walking around the neighborhood. Some other black kids have done bad stuff. It's totally okay if I assume THIS black kid is one of them!! You know...especially because I'm black."
I give no shits if some random black person felt they were justified in targeting another random black person.
That is the point Smartzie. Martin wasn't just a random black person. He wasn't just walking down the sidewalk minding his own business. He was walking through yards staying up against the structures. Zimmerman wasn't suspicious just because the kid was black. He was suspicious because the kid was acting in a suspect manor.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Because as far as I know, Zimmerman followed Martin because he looked "suspicious" and like he didn't belong in Zimmerman's neighborhood.
but........that is exactly what neighborhood watches are supposed to do.....really...thats the whole idea. It really is.
No its not. That is the exact OPPOSITE of what they are instructed to do, which the NHW association publicly said.
QuoteYou and others here seem to think that Zimmerman should have ignored his suspicions about Trayvon just because he was black.
Not a SINGLE person I have seen today, or in previous threads earlier, have said this.
Not a damn, single one.
We HAVE said that getting out of the tuck and pursuing on foot was a stupid choice.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"From the sounds of things you don't care period. You and others here seem to think that Zimmerman should have ignored his suspicions about Trayvon just because he was black. Apparently any time a white person is worried about what a black person is up to it is racial profiling, and racial profiling it seams is always bad. But if the black neighbor who was intimately familiar with the events leading up to this tragic event felt Zimmerman was justified being suspicious of the black kid walking from house to house through the neighborhood who are you to say he wasn't?
I just want you to tell me why I should care that some black person is okay with racially profiling other black people.
"Oh, I see a black kid walking around the neighborhood. Some other black kids have done bad stuff. It's totally okay if I assume THIS black kid is one of them!! You know...especially because I'm black."
I give no shits if some random black person felt they were justified in targeting another random black person.
That is the point Smartzie. Martin wasn't just a random black person. He wasn't just walking down the sidewalk minding his own business. He was walking through yards staying up against the structures. Zimmerman wasn't suspicious just because the kid was black. He was suspicious because the kid was acting in a suspect manor.
Yeah.....standing around is suspicious. Gawd forbid someone isn't being "normal", according to someone else's social norms.
I'm
tired of people jumping to conclusions all the goddamn time. "Oh, well, MOST of the time, people who do this certain thing are blah, blah, blah..." I just get so goddamn sick of it all. There is no more "innocent until proven guilty" in this fucking country any more. If you look like a bad person to someone, that's apparently enough of a reason for them to target you. Whatever happened to the idea that it is better to let 100 guilty men go free before chaining up 1 innocent man? Is it not better to err on the side of caution? Sure....a thief might go free. But maybe you're not killing an innocent kid.
There was no justification for targeting Martin. Standing around outside while being black does not make you suspicious. If we let that slide, what's next?
I think if you watch the trial from beginning to end you will get over assuming so much about what happened. Putting an innocent man away with a trial after his head was slammed into concrete just because he was following someone would be OK in your opinion? Just out of curiosity, do you think OJ was innocent too? Solitary
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"There was no justification for targeting Martin. Standing around outside while being black does not make you suspicious. If we let that slide, what's next?
Who was standing around? Trayvon Martin wasn't standing around. He was off the sidewalk, in people's yards close to their houses. That is when he wasn't hiding in the bushes.
Zimmerman thought he was doing his job. Perhaps he did it wrong or he did it badly, but whatever the circumstances, the evidence presented to the jury did not add up to 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. We do not know everything that was presented to the jury. I guarantee the jury was well aware of the racial overtones of their decision. I therefore believe they acted correctly, according to the evidence and testimony presented.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"There was no justification for targeting Martin. Standing around outside while being black does not make you suspicious. If we let that slide, what's next?
Who was standing around? Trayvon Martin wasn't standing around. He was off the sidewalk, in people's yards close to their houses. That is when he wasn't hiding in the bushes.
I'm curious if you have a good source as to which yards Martin cut through (or the paths of MArtin and Zimmerman in general) and which bushes he hid in. I've looked for maps of the incident, but have found really poor speculation as to the start of the incident, though they get a little more concordant closer to the end. As far as I can see from google maps (no street view, unfortunately) and crime scene photos, the only bushes are smallish and up against the houses, down where the shooting happened, not up where Zimmerman says he was confronted.
I really can't find any good sources that seem to agree with each other about much anything at as as far as establishing a map/timeline of the two people's movements.
Quote from: "Johan"I didn't say he didn't have the right. I said there is no justification. He wasn't a sworn officer. He wasn't trained at all to handle pursuing suspects safely. Therefore he had no business doing it. Therefore there is no justification for it.
I disagree, and I will step in the pile even deeper. As a homeowner and as a neighbor I believe we have a moral obligation to look after our own property and that of our neighbors. Instead of hiding behind the curtains and calling the po-po and wait for them to show up I think we should get our butts out in the street and take back our neighborhood from thieves.
It is completely irrelevant to me what the kid was doing, we have a right and obligation to make sure we and our neighbors are safe from criminals so following someone suspicious is indeed very easily justifiable. If I was the kid and I was being followed I sure as hell would not hide in he bushes and wait for him, I would have hastened my ass to the house where I would be safe and then while walking I would call the cops as well. Because when your in a strange neighborhood, hell even in your own neighborhood and someone is following you, then you have every right to call the cops as well, unless you don't want the cops around.
Quote from: "Poison Tree"Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"There was no justification for targeting Martin. Standing around outside while being black does not make you suspicious. If we let that slide, what's next?
Who was standing around? Trayvon Martin wasn't standing around. He was off the sidewalk, in people's yards close to their houses. That is when he wasn't hiding in the bushes.
I'm curious if you have a good source as to which yards Martin cut through (or the paths of MArtin and Zimmerman in general) and which bushes he hid in. I've looked for maps of the incident, but have found really poor speculation as to the start of the incident, though they get a little more concordant closer to the end. As far as I can see from google maps (no street view, unfortunately) and crime scene photos, the only bushes are smallish and up against the houses, down where the shooting happened, not up where Zimmerman says he was confronted.
I really can't find any good sources that seem to agree with each other about much anything at as as far as establishing a map/timeline of the two people's movements.
The only source I am aware of for what Martin was doing when Zimmerman first saw him is Zimmerman.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Johan"I didn't say he didn't have the right. I said there is no justification. He wasn't a sworn officer. He wasn't trained at all to handle pursuing suspects safely. Therefore he had no business doing it. Therefore there is no justification for it.
I disagree, and I will step in the pile even deeper. As a homeowner and as a neighbor I believe we have a moral obligation to look after our own property and that of our neighbors. Instead of hiding behind the curtains and calling the po-po and wait for them to show up I think we should get our butts out in the street and take back our neighborhood from thieves.
It is completely irrelevant to me what the kid was doing, we have a right and obligation to make sure we and our neighbors are safe from criminals so following someone suspicious is indeed very easily justifiable. If I was the kid and I was being followed I sure as hell would not hide in he bushes and wait for him, I would have hastened my ass to the house where I would be safe and then while walking I would call the cops as well. Because when your in a strange neighborhood, hell even in your own neighborhood and someone is following you, then you have every right to call the cops as well, unless you don't want the cops around.
Pretty much this.
I'll even go a step further and say that I wouldn't want some of the people posting in this thread as neighbors seeing as how they seem to think it is some kind of crime for neighbors to look out for each other.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Johan"I didn't say he didn't have the right. I said there is no justification. He wasn't a sworn officer. He wasn't trained at all to handle pursuing suspects safely. Therefore he had no business doing it. Therefore there is no justification for it.
I disagree, and I will step in the pile even deeper. As a homeowner and as a neighbor I believe we have a moral obligation to look after our own property and that of our neighbors. Instead of hiding behind the curtains and calling the po-po and wait for them to show up I think we should get our butts out in the street and take back our neighborhood from thieves.
It is completely irrelevant to me what the kid was doing, we have a right and obligation to make sure we and our neighbors are safe from criminals so following someone suspicious is indeed very easily justifiable. If I was the kid and I was being followed I sure as hell would not hide in he bushes and wait for him, I would have hastened my ass to the house where I would be safe and then while walking I would call the cops as well. Because when your in a strange neighborhood, hell even in your own neighborhood and someone is following you, then you have every right to call the cops as well, unless you don't want the cops around.
This, of course. When it comes right down to it, an individual is ultimately responsible for protecting themselves, their property, and to a certain extent, their community. The "protect and serve" motto is a fallacy. The police are under no obligation to protect individuals or their property (Castle Rock v. Gonzales), and they shouldn't be expected to do so. It's simply not possible.
This whole thing was probably just a tragic misunderstanding between the two people involved. The "stay your ground" thing however should be looked into. Under those provisions both Zimmerman and Martin could have felt that they did just that. With the tragic result we know occurred. People don't always respond rationally when someone else frightens the shit out of them. That's what may have happened here. Zimmerman was in contact with the police and should have stayed in his car as he was told. For that he is to blame I think. It was over zealous. Martin probably shouldn't have lounged to him from the bushes, if that is what happened. But if it did that was certainly bad judgement on his side. At that point he became the attacker while Zimmerman was 'merely' stalking. It's wiser not to pick a fight with someone you know nothing about. Even if he scares you.
About "not letting him get away".... that was the wisest thing Zimmerman could (and should) have done. After all he couldn't have known what danger Martin could have been to him or others in that particular situation. For his own safety!
There are gated communities in the US? Wow. We abolished those back in the sixties. The eighteensixties that is.......
Gerard
They are not common. I've seen maybe less than 5. They are usually comprised of high priced homes, with a guard at the gate. You can find them around some of the fancier ski hills with million million dollar homes. When I was in California, I saw gated communities in upscale beach front areas.
There are also lower priced gated communities. I have a friend that lives in a retirement community that is gated. He has a tiny one bedroom duplex apartment with a car port. I don't see the advantage there, but if I had an expensive home that might lure thieves, I could see the point. But that's so far out of my price range it's absurd to even think about it. So I don't.
I think part of the appeal may also be just to keep out guys like Trevor Martin, not necessarily criminals mind you, just people who don't have any business there.
QuoteI think part of the appeal may also be just to keep out guys like Trevor Martin, not necessarily criminals mind you, just people who don't have any business there.
Except he lived in said gated community :P.
Really? I didn't know that. Did Zimmerman know that?
No he didn't. They were guests at his father's girlfriend's house.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"No he didn't. They were guests at his father's girlfriend's house.
Your right, my bad... his relatives were living there. That is so different...
And that seems like a pretty good reason to be there.
The latest from the transcript via Wiki:
The girl he called right before the encounter:
During an ABC News exclusive report, Crump allowed portions of his recorded interview with Martin's friend to be aired. She said that Martin told her that a man was watching him from his vehicle while talking on the phone before the man started following Martin. Martin told his friend at one point that he had lost the man but the man suddenly appeared again. The friend, originally known only as "Witness 8", said that she told Martin to run to the townhouse where he was staying with his father and the father's girlfriend. She then heard Martin say, "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding, "What are you doing around here?" She said that she heard the sound of pushing before the phone went dead. She immediately attempted to call him back, but was unable to reach him.
If he knew he was being followed why didn't he skedaddle to the house? Why not call the cops instead of his girlfriend? Indeed lots of unanswered questions that may never be known. But at this point its kind of just a spectator sport now. Speculation will not accomplish anything except to establish more firmly everyones own perception of what they want it to be.
Sorry for asking but.... Why would a gated community need a neighborhood watch? Or how can a gated community be infested by burglaries....? Since it is gated. Are they afraid of people coming in while the gates are opened? Are they opened at some times in the day? Are the gates unwatched when people can walk in? Do they have to identify themselves? If this gated community was unsafe when it comes to burglaries, what is the point of a gated community anyway? When are the gates open..... Do burglars come in when the gates are open and how do they get out when they are closed.....?
Gerard
QuoteIf he knew he was being followed why didn't he skedaddle to the house?
Apparently he tried to lose the guy, since he said he lost him. I wouldn't want to lead some strange guy following me to my house (or a friend's) either.
And damn, if that's what was said that really is condemning for Zimmerman...
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"No he didn't. They were guests at his father's girlfriend's house.
Your right, my bad... his relatives were living there. That is so different...
And that seems like a pretty good reason to be there.
The father's girlfriend lived there. The father did not. They were visiting, and yes Trayvon had reason to be in the neighborhood. Just no legitimate reason to physically assault Zimmerman. And before you go off on rant about being stalked that was the jury's conclusion not mine.
QuoteJust no legitimate reason to physically assault Zimmerman.
Just as Zimmerman had no excuse to approach him.
Both parties are to blame, get over it.
Quote from: "Gerard"Sorry for asking but.... Why would a gated community need a neighborhood watch? Or how can a gated community be infested by burglaries....? Since it is gated. Are they afraid of people coming in while the gates are opened? Are they opened at some times in the day? Are the gates unwatched when people can walk in? Do they have to identify themselves? If this gated community was unsafe when it comes to burglaries, what is the point of a gated community anyway? When are the gates open..... Do burglars come in when the gates are open and how do they get out when they are closed.....?
Gerard
I suppose it depends on the community. Some may be more lax than others. I do remember going by a gated community in California and looking at an unattended gate with what appeared to be an empty guard house. But the gate was closed. Perhaps it could be activated by calling someone in the community, who could open the gate remotely.
I visited someone in a gated community in Park City Utah, and I got the impression there was always a guard on duty there. He didn't know us, but seemed satisfied with a name and where we were going. Perhaps the person we visited had alerted the guard.
I suppose a cat burglar type could climb a fence and rob a home, though. Nothing will keep out a determined thief. At best it's an added level of security. It would probably keep out the gawkers, though. "Don't want the riffraff, gawking at my house." :-D
Really? There are gated communities all over the place in Texas (Houston [or the burbs around it], San Antonio, Austin and some of the river towns in the SA/A area) and I have seen a few here in New Mexico. Also quite a few in Hawai'i, but that makes a bit more sense.
I always thought they were normal...
Gated community=false sense of belonging and security
If someone wants in to cause problems a gate or fence isn't going to stop them to long. Granted it'll keep out the casual jackass, but determined thieves and killers generally try to at least be a little ahead of the rentacop system.
Lots of gated communities are merely street gates and a fancy road side facade of a fence, 9 times out of ten the other three sides are wide open.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Really? There are gated communities all over the place in Texas (Houston [or the burbs around it], San Antonio, Austin and some of the river towns in the SA/A area) and I have seen a few here in New Mexico. Also quite a few in Hawai'i, but that makes a bit more sense.
I always thought they were normal...
Well, I have to admit, I'm hardly a world traveler. If I go someplace it's usually to visit someone, or to seek out solitude on the order of wilderness. I tend to avoid cities and places where people congregate. So it would be unusual for me to end up near places where there are gated communities. My ideal vacation would take me to a place more remote than where I live, and I live in a fairly remote place to begin with.
Seems insanely silly to visit a well to do suburban town where the street crime rate is essentially zero, the cops have NOTHING to do except pass out red light tickets and live in a 'gated community'. Really? Just how fucking paranoid and chicken shit do you need to be in life to want to live there? I'm assuming enough to invest vast sums in weapons to kill the people who'll never drop by for tea.
Quote from: "Shiranu"QuoteJust no legitimate reason to physically assault Zimmerman.
Just as Zimmerman had no excuse to approach him.
Both parties are to blame, get over it.
I'm over it. Justice prevailed. Zimmerman goes home and gets his gun back. You are the one with a problem with the way things worked out.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "Shiranu"QuoteJust no legitimate reason to physically assault Zimmerman.
Just as Zimmerman had no excuse to approach him.
Both parties are to blame, get over it.
I'm over it. Justice prevailed. Zimmerman goes home and gets his gun back. You are the one with a problem with the way things worked out.
And yet here you still are, putting people down who thinks this was a failure for the law to adequately protect its citizens...
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "Shiranu"QuoteJust no legitimate reason to physically assault Zimmerman.
Just as Zimmerman had no excuse to approach him.
Both parties are to blame, get over it.
I'm over it. Justice prevailed. Zimmerman goes home and gets his gun back. You are the one with a problem with the way things worked out.
Just like OJ.
Quote from: "Jmpty"Just like OJ.
You have to be 100% psychotic to think the Zimmerman case is "just like" the OJ case.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Colanth"It's not a civilian's responsibility to ensure that someone who hasn't done anything wrong "doesn't get away".
well I would suggest that every, even "self-appointed" neighborhood watch dogs would be following someone who may not belong in that neighborhood, this is what they do.
That may be what they do, but it's not what they're authorized to do. Following someone can add justification to his claim of self defense.
Real neighborhood watch members observe and report. I.E., if a suspicious person (or vehicle) appears in your neighborhood, you call the appropriate number (911 in some places, another, not immediate emergency, number in others). You don't follow, you don't confront, you call. If you're involved in NW, you're trained WHAT to observe, but you're NOT trained to follow or approach, you're trained to NOT follow or approach. Even a cop doesn't have probable cause to harass someone because he looks like he may be going to do something wrong. Thoughts - even felonious ones - aren't illegal yet.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Colanth"It's not a civilian's responsibility to ensure that someone who hasn't done anything wrong "doesn't get away".
Be that as it may, Zimmerman's reaction was prompted by police repeatedly failing to act quickly enough in the past. The neighborhood had been hit multiple times by a burglar who matched Martin's description. It may not be his job to keep an eye on the guy, but if the police have never been quick enough on the draw then what else is he supposed to do?
Move. The one thing he's NOT supposed to do is take the place of the police, which acting to make sure that Martin didn't get away was doing. When I was still carrying, if Zimmerman had done to me what he did to Martin, in a jurisdiction in which I had peace officer status, he would have been questioned at the end of the barrel of my off-duty weapon. He had no authority to follow or approach but if he did, I would have had probable cause to question his behavior.
What would I do now, as a partially-disabled 71 year old? Probably take good note of my surroundings, so I knew where a weapon was close to hand (a large rock, a stout stick, etc.) and kept walking. Then, if he approached me I'd challenge him. And if he assaulted me, which doesn't require physical contact, a reasonably perceived threat is enough, I'd react to defend myself.
Florida law defines assault as a threat of harm that leads to the victim's fear of imminent harm. It doesn't define any physical contact. A threat of word, gesture or intimidating act is enough. (I'm not black and didn't grow up in the south, but I'd suspect that a white man following a black teenager at night in the south is intimidating to the teenager, so it would constitute assault.)
Quote from: "Colanth"Real neighborhood watch members observe and report. I.E., if a suspicious person (or vehicle) appears in your neighborhood, you call the appropriate number (911 in some places, another, not immediate emergency, number in others). You don't follow, you don't confront, you call.
apparently not as some REAL NW do that, including my neighborhood when we got hit four times in two weeks.
QuoteIf you're involved in NW, you're trained WHAT to observe, but you're NOT trained to follow or approach, you're trained to NOT follow or approach.
Training? I suppose in some areas they have training...meh
QuoteEven a cop doesn't have probable cause to harass someone because he looks like he may be going to do something wrong.
so you are quite comfortable that if someone is standing on the sidewalk looking at your kids bedroom window that the cops should drive by and wave at him? Nonsense, they will stop and question him..hello? What part of the world do you live in?
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Jmpty"Just like OJ.
You have to be 100% psychotic to think the Zimmerman case is "just like" the OJ case.
I agree. Good thing no one said that then, eh?
Quoteapparently not as some REAL NW do that, including my neighborhood when we got hit four times in two weeks.
If they do that, they are breaking NW protocol.
QuoteSo you are quite comfortable that if someone is standing on the sidewalk looking at your kids bedroom window that the cops should drive by and wave at him? Nonsense, they will stop and question him..hello? What part of the world do you live in?
Considering that's not even remotely what happened, and that counts as probable cause...
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Jmpty"Just like OJ.
You have to be 100% psychotic to think the Zimmerman case is "just like" the OJ case.
I agree. Good thing no one said that then, eh?
I gotta admit, your usual posting MO of coming to within a hairs breadth of outright claiming something, and then pulling a "gotcha!" when the person responding to you dares to assume that extra micrometer is pretty fucking sad, but this brings it to a new level. Claiming nobody ever said something in a response...that quotes someone saying exactly that.
Its almost admirable Shiranu. You are a gem of absurdity. Keep shining.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Jmpty"Just like OJ.
You have to be 100% psychotic to think the Zimmerman case is "just like" the OJ case.
Oh but it is. Justice prevailed.
Lots of "what if s"...... just too many. Why spend time projecting things that didn't even happen? None of us were there. Martin can't speak for himself so a court of law spoke for him. Many people seem displeased with the court's response but the decision has been made. What matters is what we do with the decision ... next.
well lets all agree with this, you guys that don't mind suspicious acting people wandering through your neighborhoods can let them. I prefer to live in an area where people wandering around acting suspicious are followed and watched. I live in Palm Bay Florida so you can avoid that area.
QuoteClaiming nobody ever said something in a response...that quotes someone saying exactly that.
Just like OJ.
JUST LIKE OJ.
Not, "Just like the OJ Simpson CASE.".
Zimmerman received justice just as OJ did. Not that the cases had anything to do with each other, that the outcome was similar. You are taking, "Just like OJ (judgement)" and reading into it, "Just like the OJ Simpson CASE (trial)".
But thank you for admitting that you are shit-teir at arguments and have to QQ about it.
LOL
Yeah, your stupid attempt at setting up a strawman and blowing it away was pretty lawlz worthy, I'm glad you got to see the humour in it as well :).
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Lots of "what if s"...... just too many. Why spend time projecting things that didn't even happen? None of us were there. Martin can't speak for himself so a court of law spoke for him. Many people seem displeased with the court's response but the decision has been made. What matters is what we do with the decision ... next.
I agree. And that's the problem; the pro-Zimmerman club is also the people who are saying, "Let's not make sure this never happens again!" It is perfectly fine, no need to fix a problem!"
Quote from: "Shiranu"Yeah, your stupid attempt at setting up a strawman and blowing it away was pretty lawlz worthy, I'm glad you got to see the humour in it as well :).
Man you are just furious aren't you?
P.S.: Spare me the cool as a cucumber routine. You are one bitter man.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Shiranu"Yeah, your stupid attempt at setting up a strawman and blowing it away was pretty lawlz worthy, I'm glad you got to see the humour in it as well :).
Man you are just furious aren't you?
P.S.: Spare me the cool as a cucumber routine. You are one bitter man.
Hahaha... you actually made me grin, that is rare.
The fact that you think a douche nozzle like yourself is getting under my skin by setting up strawmen and blowing them down... that was enough to NEARLY get a chuckle from me.
Edit: Annoyance? Certainly. But bitter? Nah. There are people I am bitter against... Erdogan, Hitler, the Saudi royal family... but I'm afraid you don't get to be on their level :(.
Quote from: "Shiranu"I agree. And that's the problem; the pro-Zimmerman club is also the people who are saying, "Let's not make sure this never happens again!" It is perfectly fine, no need to fix a problem!"
Because there's no problem. Two people acted stupidly and one of them died. Oh bloody well.
I've seriously stopped giving a shit. The trial is over and done with. Have fun with your pointless argument.
QuoteBecause there's no problem. Two people acted stupidly and one of them died. Oh bloody well.
Your right, no problem... the law just now says you can be an idiot and kill someone, and oh well.
I don't know how that could at all be a problem...
See to me what the law is saying is that you can be an idiot and if you die as a result its your own damn fault.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"See to me what the law is saying is that you can be an idiot and if you die as a result its your own damn fault.
Um, what?
One second you are arguing that Martin's actions were idiotic, now you are saying they... weren't? Or that Zimmerman WAS found guilty?
Also, idiot and KILL someone, not GET killed. Jesus christ...
Quote from: "aitm"I disagree, and I will step in the pile even deeper. As a homeowner and as a neighbor I believe we have a moral obligation to look after our own property and that of our neighbors. Instead of hiding behind the curtains and calling the po-po and wait for them to show up I think we should get our butts out in the street and take back our neighborhood from thieves.
It is completely irrelevant to me what the kid was doing, we have a right and obligation to make sure we and our neighbors are safe from criminals so following someone suspicious is indeed very easily justifiable.
Well I'm sure it will not come as a surprise to hear that I think this attitude is reckless and just plain wrong. I have no desire to try to convince you away from your beliefs but I will offer my thoughts on the subject in the interest of conversation only. First of all let me level the playing field by saying that I am also a homeowner and a neighbor. So I have just as many dogs in this race as you.
And similar to you, I also believe keeping an eye on your own property and that of your neighbor is something a good neighbor does. I would be reluctant to call it a moral obligation because I tend to not throw around the moral obligation label lightly and this just doesn't meet that high bar IMO. But be that as it may, I think we're in agreement here. If you want to be a good neighbor, you keep an eye on things.
Where you and I differ is the whole get out and take back our neighborhood thing as well as the right and obligation to keep your neighbors safe from criminals. You do not have that obligation nor should you take it upon yourself to try and make it happen IMO. And the reason is simple. That is a job for professionals. And neither you nor I are professionals. And when non-pros get out on try to 'take back their streets' bad things can happen. If you don't believe me, just ask Treyvon Martin. Oh wait, you can't ask him because someone like yourself who wasn't a professional tried to do the job of professionals and now that kid is dead because of it.
The point is, people can get hurt when no pros leave their homes and try to police their streets themselves. There is not one single possession in my home that is worth risking harm to myself, my neighbors and innocent civilians in the name of protection. Not one. If a criminal enters my home while myself or my family are there, he or she will have myself and family to deal with. If a criminal enters my home while no one is home, he or she can have anything they want. Its all insured and its all replaceable. And even the few things that are not replaceable are not worth anyone dying over.
And I carry that attitude to my neighbors as well. If a criminal enters their home while they're there, that criminal should be ready for a fight. And if a criminal enters a neighbors home while they're out, so be it. If that neighbor doesn't feel the need to carry as much insurance as I do, that is not my problem. Possessions are not worth dying over. Ever. And when amateurs try to do the job of law enforcement professionals, people can end up dead. Its not worth it and it never will be worth it. You observe and you report. The moment you do more than that, you cease to be a good neighbor in my book because you put the lives of innocent people in danger for no good reason. Like I said, that's not meant to convince you of anything. I'm just saying how I feel about it and nothing more.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Jmpty"Just like OJ.
You have to be 100% psychotic to think the Zimmerman case is "just like" the OJ case.
I agree. Good thing no one said that then, eh?
:)
Quote from: "Johan"Where you and I differ is the whole get out and take back our neighborhood thing as well as the right and obligation to keep your neighbors safe from criminals. You do not have that obligation nor should you take it upon yourself to try and make it happen IMO. And the reason is simple. That is a job for professionals. And neither you nor I are professionals. And when non-pros get out on try to 'take back their streets' bad things can happen. If you don't believe me, just ask Treyvon Martin. Oh wait, you can't ask him because someone like yourself who wasn't a professional tried to do the job of professionals and now that kid is dead because of it.
The point is, people can get hurt when no pros leave their homes and try to police their streets themselves. There is not one single possession in my home that is worth risking harm to myself, my neighbors and innocent civilians in the name of protection. Not one. If a criminal enters my home while myself or my family are there, he or she will have myself and family to deal with. If a criminal enters my home while no one is home, he or she can have anything they want. Its all insured and its all replaceable. And even the few things that are not replaceable are not worth anyone dying over.
And I carry that attitude to my neighbors as well. If a criminal enters their home while they're there, that criminal should be ready for a fight. And if a criminal enters a neighbors home while they're out, so be it. If that neighbor doesn't feel the need to carry as much insurance as I do, that is not my problem. Possessions are not worth dying over. Ever. And when amateurs try to do the job of law enforcement professionals, people can end up dead. Its not worth it and it never will be worth it. You observe and you report. The moment you do more than that, you cease to be a good neighbor in my book because you put the lives of innocent people in danger for no good reason. Like I said, that's not meant to convince you of anything. I'm just saying how I feel about it and nothing more.
Thats fine. In my neighborhood we have had to call the cops maybe 6 times in 10 years. 6 times in 10 years and 4 times was within a week span when we were targeted by a gang (maybe). The cops were never on time, now how many times does one suggest a neighborhood wait until maybe someone gets hurt or killed by a "bad-guy"? We suggest you don't wait at all, it is our job to take care of ourselves because we know the police cannot be everywhere at once. It is OUR job to take care of ourselves.
How many times were the police called to zimmerman neighborhood?
[spoil:gjh8zixo]From January 1, 2011 through February 26, 2012, police were called to The Retreat at Twin Lakes 402 times[/spoil:gjh8zixo]
are you fucking kidding me? In 13 months?
How many times did zimmerman call the cops?
[spoil:gjh8zixo]During the 18 months preceding the February 26 shooting, Zimmerman called the non-emergency police line seven times.[/spoil:gjh8zixo]
okay.
How many times did zimmerman mention the race of the suspects?
[spoil:gjh8zixo]On five of those calls, Zimmerman reported suspicious looking men in the area, but never offered the men's race without first being asked by the dispatcher[/spoil:gjh8zixo]
What kind of crimes were happening in his neighborhood that some here think should be poo-pooed for the sake of not being judgmental?
[spoil:gjh8zixo]Crimes committed at The Retreat in the year prior to Martin's death included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting. Twin Lakes residents said there were dozens of reports of attempted break-ins, which had created an atmosphere of fear in their neighborhood.[/spoil:gjh8zixo]
SO what happened when zimmy did what everyone says he should have done?
[spoil:gjh8zixo]Three weeks prior to the shooting, on February 2, 2012, Zimmerman called police to report a young man peering into the windows of an empty Twin Lakes home. Zimmerman was told a police car was on the way and he waited for their arrival. By the time police arrived, the suspect had fled. On February 6, workers witnessed two young black men lingering in the yard of a Twin Lakes resident around the same time her home was burglarized. A new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen. The next day police discovered the stolen laptop in the backpack of a young black man, which led to his arrest.[/spoil:gjh8zixo]
so what did zimmerman really say in his phone call?
[spoil:gjh8zixo]Zimmerman stated, "We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy." He described an unknown male "just walking around looking about" in the rain and said, "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something." Zimmerman reported that the person had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes. On the recording, Zimmerman is heard saying, "these assholes, they always get away.[/spoil:gjh8zixo]
so you have a terrified neighborhood being somewhat of a target and a police department that has not proven to be effective. I and many like me say, "you get off your ass and you take care of yourself".
He did what he thought he needed to do to help his neighbors.
When did the cops actually tell zimmy not to chase after martn?
[spoil:gjh8zixo]About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running." The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?" The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door. Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay." Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location. Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[/spoil:gjh8zixo]
Now what happened after that is anybodies guess. But I am not of the belief that zimmerman "murdered" the kid. Oh he killed him alright, but I don't think he murdered him.
Quote from: "aitm"so you have a terrified neighborhood being somewhat of a target and a police department that has not proven to be effective. I and many like me say, "you get off your ass and you take care of yourself".
He did what he thought he needed to do to help his neighbors.
....and now a kid is dead. Worth it to you? Cause it sure as shit isn't worth it to me.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "aitm"so you have a terrified neighborhood being somewhat of a target and a police department that has not proven to be effective. I and many like me say, "you get off your ass and you take care of yourself".
He did what he thought he needed to do to help his neighbors.
....and now a kid is dead. Worth it to you? Cause it sure as shit isn't worth it to me.
and you are welcome to use that as your mantra for all that life may present to you in the future, that any action in the service of protecting us may just go awry so lets just let the bad-guys take whatever the heck they want. I will choose not to be mandated by this particular incident.
"If it keeps one innocent person out of jail, it is worth it!"
"Well, if I kill an innocent kid... shit, sorry! It was all for the safety of the nieghbourhood!"
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Johan"Where you and I differ is the whole get out and take back our neighborhood thing as well as the right and obligation to keep your neighbors safe from criminals. You do not have that obligation nor should you take it upon yourself to try and make it happen IMO. And the reason is simple. That is a job for professionals. And neither you nor I are professionals. And when non-pros get out on try to 'take back their streets' bad things can happen. If you don't believe me, just ask Treyvon Martin. Oh wait, you can't nask him because someone like yourself who wasn't a professional tried to do the job of professionals and now that kid is dead because of it.
The point is, people can get hurt when no pros leave their homes and try to police their streets themselves. There is not one single possession in my home that is worth risking harm to myself, my neighbors and innocent civilians in the name of protection. Not one. If a criminal enters my home while myself or my family are there, he or she will have myself and family to deal with. If a criminal enters my home while no one is home, he or she can have anything they want. Its all insured and its all replaceable. And even the few things that are not replaceable are not worth anyone dying over.
And I carry that attitude to my neighbors as well. If a criminal enters their home while they're there, that criminal should be ready for a fight. And if a criminal enters a neighbors home while they're out, so be it. If that neighbor doesn't feel the need to carry as much insurance as I do, that is not my problem. Possessions are not worth dying over. Ever. And when amateurs try to do the job of law enforcement professionals, people can end up dead. Its not worth it and it never will be worth it. You observe and you report. The moment you do more than that, you cease to be a good neighbor in my book because you put the lives of innocent people in danger for no good reason. Like I said, that's not meant to convince you of anything. I'm just saying how I feel about it and nothing more.
Thats fine. In my neighborhood we have had to call the cops maybe 6 times in 10 years. 6 times in 10 years and 4 times was within a week span when we were targeted by a gang (maybe). The cops were never on time, now how many times does one suggest a neighborhood wait until maybe someone gets hurt or killed by a "bad-guy"? We suggest you don't wait at all, it is our job to take care of ourselves because we know the police cannot be everywhere at once. It is OUR job to take care of ourselves.
How many times were the police called to zimmerman neighborhood?
[spoil:1t6sam7f]From January 1, 2011 through February 26, 2012, police were called to The Retreat at Twin Lakes 402 times[/spoil:1t6sam7f]
are you fucking kidding me? In 13 months?
How many times did zimmerman call the cops?
[spoil:1t6sam7f]During the 18 months preceding the February 26 shooting, Zimmerman called the non-emergency police line seven times.[/spoil:1t6sam7f]
okay.
How many times did zimmerman mention the race of the suspects?
[spoil:1t6sam7f]On five of those calls, Zimmerman reported suspicious looking men in the area, but never offered the men's race without first being asked by the dispatcher[/spoil:1t6sam7f]
What kind of crimes were happening in his neighborhood that some here think should be poo-pooed for the sake of not being judgmental?
[spoil:1t6sam7f]Crimes committed at The Retreat in the year prior to Martin's death included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting. Twin Lakes residents said there were dozens of reports of attempted break-ins, which had created an atmosphere of fear in their neighborhood.[/spoil:1t6sam7f]
SO what happened when zimmy did what everyone says he should have done?
[spoil:1t6sam7f]Three weeks prior to the shooting, on February 2, 2012, Zimmerman called police to report a young man peering into the windows of an empty Twin Lakes home. Zimmerman was told a police car was on the way and he waited for their arrival. By the time police arrived, the suspect had fled. On February 6, workers witnessed two young black men lingering in the yard of a Twin Lakes resident around the same time her home was burglarized. A new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen. The next day police discovered the stolen laptop in the backpack of a young black man, which led to his arrest.[/spoil:1t6sam7f]
so what did zimmerman really say in his phone call?
[spoil:1t6sam7f]Zimmerman stated, "We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy." He described an unknown male "just walking around looking about" in the rain and said, "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something." Zimmerman reported that the person had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes. On the recording, Zimmerman is heard saying, "these assholes, they always get away.[/spoil:1t6sam7f]
so you have a terrified neighborhood being somewhat of a target and a police department that has not proven to be effective. I and many like me say, "you get off your ass and you take care of yourself".
He did what he thought he needed to do to help his neighbors.
When did the cops actually tell zimmy not to chase after martn?
[spoil:1t6sam7f]About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running." The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?" The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door. Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay." Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location. Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[/spoil:1t6sam7f]
Now what happened after that is anybodies guess. But I am not of the belief that zimmerman "murdered" the kid. Oh he killed him alright, but I don't think he murdered him.
Damn good post!!!!
Like I said, the jury heard shit we didn't and were well aware of the racial overtones of the trial. If they found him not guilty, there had to be lack of reasonable doubt that he provoked the situation and caused the events. Poor Trayvon Martin, I feel for his family. But that doesn't mean he was squeaky clean innocent, and he did show a pattern of behavior that certainly tainted the prosecutions's case. And Zimmerman himself was not the gun happy nut case as the media initially portrayed him.
QuoteAnd Zimmerman himself was not the gun happy nut case as the media initially portrayed him.
Nope, just a guy arrested for assaulting a cop, domestic abuse and being charged with several decades of molestation who lied to the court multiple times.
Not a nut case though...
I guess I don't even understand why he had a gun. Who feels the need to drive around with a fucking 9mm in their pants? Who does that? Seriously? I live in fucking LA, and I don't drive around with a gun in my pants.
Quote from: "Jmpty"I guess I don't even understand why he had a gun. Who feels the need to drive around with a fucking 9mm in their pants? Who does that? Seriously? I live in fucking LA, and I don't drive around with a gun in my pants.
It's just... a culture thing. It's a stupid cultural thing that leads to innocents dying, but fuck all if you question it; It is our RIGHT, even if it is moronic and gets innocent people killed.
I have worked as a cashier in a city where people would walk in with a loaded pistol at their hip... you want to talk about uncomfortable, just wait till you are standing over a commonly robbed machine full of cash and a guy walks in with a gun.
Quote from: "aitm"and you are welcome to use that as your mantra for all that life may present to you in the future, that any action in the service of protecting us may just go awry so lets just let the bad-guys take whatever the heck they want. I will choose not to be mandated by this particular incident.
So dead kids are worth it to you. Good to know. Well the criminals had better watch out in your neighborhood. And everyone else too.
First of all, I want to mention that I live in one of the worst neighbourhoods in our city. We have gunshots every couple of months, usually drug related crap. Of all the people living or passing by, seventeen year old kids wearing skinny jeans are probably the least threatening looking, especially if they are armed to the teeth with skittles.
Second, Zimmerman is the one who was arrested for assulting a police officer and accused in dommestic violence. He was the one who grew up in a super racist family and he is the one who either lied or greatly exadurated the harm caused him by Travon. The injuries he sustained were found to be insignificant. Zimmerman was also the one who followed a kid without any good reason.
We don't know who threw the first punch, but as someone who had been followed and attacked multiple times, I can tell you that when a creepy guy with a gun follows you, sometimes you have to punch him. Or in my case put a knife through his hand :twisted:
The whole case was built around stand your ground law, but did anyone ever think that Travon was the one standing his ground?
I would also like to mention that the whole trial was very unfair. How were they supposed to prove that Zimmerman killed the kid for being black when they couldn't even use terms like racial profiling?
This is a clear case of not just Zimmerman's racism, but racism on the police and court side of things. After all, when a kid gets shot, you'd think police would do toxicology on a shooter instead of on the dead kid. You'd think police would at the very least arrest the killer. How long did it take them to arrest him?
I feel like we are back in 1950s.
Quote from: "Armada"Second, Zimmerman is the one who was arrested for assulting a police officer and accused in dommestic violence. He was the one who grew up in a super racist family and he is the one who either lied or greatly exadurated the harm caused him by Travon.
Source, please. I haven't found one source outside of the tabloids, and the background article Reuters published doesn't suggest this at all. (Also if you try to look up George Zimmerman's criminal record you'll find that there's quite a preponderance of men named "George Zimmerman" living in Flordia, so it's highly probable someone had a critical research failure here.)
Quote from: "aitm"so you are quite comfortable that if someone is standing on the sidewalk looking at your kids bedroom window that the cops should drive by and wave at him? Nonsense, they will stop and question him..hello?
Question? Maybe. But a perfectly legal response to "what are you doing here", in your scenario, would be "standing, and no, I'm not being a wise-ass". What probable cause do they have for questioning him? None. Therefore anything resulting from the questioning is inadmissible. Even if, as an indirect result of the questioning, they find out that he's just committed a Class-A felony.
Which is why the police don't just question people at random. Doing so could blow a serious case. (And why stop and frisk laws are so bad. They destroy the notion of probable cause.) It's really bad that houses in some neighborhoods get robbed all the time, and the police never catch the criminals. But breaking the law to possibly catch someone (and it usually doesn't work) isn't the answer. (And harassing someone just because you have a badge is still illegal.)
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Armada"Second, Zimmerman is the one who was arrested for assulting a police officer and accused in dommestic violence. He was the one who grew up in a super racist family and he is the one who either lied or greatly exadurated the harm caused him by Travon.
Source, please. I haven't found one source outside of the tabloids, and the background article Reuters published doesn't suggest this at all. (Also if you try to look up George Zimmerman's criminal record you'll find that there's quite a preponderance of men named "George Zimmerman" living in Flordia, so it's highly probable someone had a critical research failure here.)
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03 ... ficer?lite (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/27/10894561-zimmerman-accused-of-domestic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer?lite)
(//http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/120328-george-zimmerman-mug-7a.380;380;7;70;0.jpg)
That was taken in 2005 when he assaulted an officer.
Same report here as well...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/0 ... 35984.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin_n_1335984.html)
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Armada"Second, Zimmerman is the one who was arrested for assulting a police officer and accused in dommestic violence. He was the one who grew up in a super racist family and he is the one who either lied or greatly exadurated the harm caused him by Travon.
Source, please. I haven't found one source outside of the tabloids, and the background article Reuters published doesn't suggest this at all. (Also if you try to look up George Zimmerman's criminal record you'll find that there's quite a preponderance of men named "George Zimmerman" living in Flordia, so it's highly probable someone had a critical research failure here.)
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03 ... ficer?lite (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/27/10894561-zimmerman-accused-of-domestic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer?lite)
[ Image (//http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/120328-george-zimmerman-mug-7a.380;380;7;70;0.jpg) ]
That was taken in 2005 when he assaulted an officer.
Thank you for that.
Quote from: "aitm"The cops were never on time
Then you complain to the city council, or whoever you elect in your town. You don't just up and decide to do their jobs yourself. If you do, and they show up just as you're about to threaten someone with a firearm, YOU could be the one who gets killed. (And it would be a righteous shoot.)
Quotenow how many times does one suggest a neighborhood wait until maybe someone gets hurt or killed by a "bad-guy"?
Once. But so far, in your neighborhood, it never happened.
QuoteWe suggest you don't wait at all, it is our job to take care of ourselves because we know the police cannot be everywhere at once. It is OUR job to take care of ourselves.
Then I suggest that you be prosecuted any time you do anything illegal to protect yourself. (Shooting someone to make sure that he's not one of the people who is going to hurt you is a felony.)
QuoteHow many times were the police called to zimmerman neighborhood?
Again, irrelevant. Zimmerman had no right to follow and harass. (Florida law is plain - if MARTIN thought he was in danger, his "attack" on Zimmerman was self defense.)
QuoteFrom January 1, 2011 through February 26, 2012, police were called to The Retreat at Twin Lakes 402 times[/spoil]
are you fucking kidding me? In 13 months?
In some neighborhood that's about normal for one month. In my neighborhood that's excessive for 13 YEARS. There's no "normal amount" that police are called to a neighborhood. Some neighborhoods get 10 calls between 8 and midnight on a slow night.
QuoteHow many times did zimmerman call the cops?
QuoteZimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.
Because, contrary to what he was told (over and over - he was asked where to be met, which means "pick a spot and stay put"), he had decided to follow Martin.
QuoteNow what happened after that is anybodies guess. But I am not of the belief that zimmerman "murdered" the kid. Oh he killed him alright, but I don't think he murdered him.
Of course not. That would have involved Zimmerman going out that night knowing that Martin would be out and planning to kill him. No one ever claimed that he did that - which is where I blame the prosecutor. But he's most likely guilty of culpable manslaughter - doing something that, had he thought about it, he could have foreseen would result in someone's injury or death.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Also if you try to look up George Zimmerman's criminal record you'll find that there's quite a preponderance of men named "George Zimmerman" living in Flordia, so it's highly probable someone had a critical research failure here.)
How many George Zimmerman's had a fiance named Veronica Zuazo? She's the one who filed against Zimmerman for domestic abuse. It was also his cousin who accused him in years of mollestation. Unless you think his cousin might've accused some other George Zimmerman... I couldn't find anything that would prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it was this Zimmerman and not some other who ressisted arrest and assulted a police officer, because the only way to do that is if you have Zimmerman's SS#, but the domestic violence and molestation was him.
If any of you are researching Zimmerman you're crazy involved. :shock:
The court has ruled and unless I'm mistaken he can't be tried twice for the same crime.......... so........ whether you agree or disagree with the court's findings, Zimmerman walks.
Now I'm not sure I want everyday citizens taking the law into their own hands - BUT - I also don't live in that neighborhood. Sometimes it's best to not judge something unless you can say you 'live it'. Just saying.
I've seen two threads going on and on with a hundred "What Ifs" and I don't see where that really helps. Every situation of a 'what if' would carry it's own specifics. You can't make blanket statements like "Oh....so you're alright with people going around shooting unarmed teenagers?" No. No one would say "Sure - that's a great idea." The idea is preposterous. Blanket statements like "Sure we should just ALL start taking the law into our own hands" doesn't accomplish anything.
My opinion? I think Zimmerman should have gotten a bit of jail time for (1) shooting someone who was unarmed. Excessive force carries penalties, last time I heard. and (2) for disobeying the police and following anyway. He *was* told to stay put.
But
The court didn't see it the same way as me.......... so............ nothing can be done with *my* little opinion.
I'll tell you one thing, though, I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist and argue my fellow forum mates that MY opinion is ANY more valid than someone else's Because......... the court has ruled and there's not one damn thing to be done about that.
Since this IS America and we are sick-minded crazies --- I'd not be surprised if Zimmerman doesn't get a book deal or movie deal.......... and THAT moreso than the boy's death will be pitiful.
::: sigh :::
No......... I don't have to like it. Yes, I do have to abide by a court's ruling. No, I don't think it's worth Fighting people over. If I had my way Martin would still be alive. He's not. I feel SO Soooo sorry for his family.
IF any of you REALLY feel some sort of travesty has taken place here --- then move your butt and get busy helping write decent laws & legislature to avoid such things. Ranting on a forum proves what? That you can type your rantings? DO SOMETHING about it........ if you really disagree with what's gone down. Arguments without action are just self aggrandizing hot air.
IF you really believe - then DO something. IF not....... don't argue decent people over something you don't care enough about to take action upon.
(and don't give me the lame-ass 'I don't live in Florida'............. screw that..... everyday citizens CAN and DO affect the laws of this country everyday. Take your ranting self and get busy)
What's excessive force Bri? Florida law allows the use of deadly force by anyone with a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. It doesn't take a gun to cause serious injury or death. According to FBI statistics twice as many people are killed every year in the US with just hands and feet than are with rifles. Reasonable is subjective, but it is left up to the courts to decide if someone's fear was reasonable or not. Other mitigating factors aside in Zimmerman's case the jury weighed the available evidence and decided it was.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"What's excessive force Bri? Florida law allows the use of deadly force by anyone with a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. It doesn't take a gun to cause serious injury or death. According to FBI statistics twice as many people are killed every year in the US with just hands and feet than are with rifles. Reasonable is subjective, but it is left up to the courts to decide if someone's fear was reasonable or not. Other mitigating factors aside in Zimmerman's case the jury weighed the available evidence and decided it was.
I'm not making a case *for* nor *against* the use of guns. I have no leg to stand on where gun-use is concerned. I just said that I thought "excessive force" was still against the law. 'Excessive force' is obviously determined by the courts.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"If any of you are researching Zimmerman you're crazy involved. :shock:
The court has ruled and unless I'm mistaken he can't be tried twice for the same crime.......... so........ whether you agree or disagree with the court's findings, Zimmerman walks.
Actually I heard they are trying to get Zimmerman for civil rights violating because he followed Travon for being black. I don't think Zimmerman will get a conviction in that one either as it's much harder to prove. They can also go after him for discharging a gun btw. He broke many laws, so they can keep coming at him from many different angles.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"What's excessive force Bri? Florida law allows the use of deadly force by anyone with a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. It doesn't take a gun to cause serious injury or death. According to FBI statistics twice as many people are killed every year in the US with just hands and feet than are with rifles. Reasonable is subjective, but it is left up to the courts to decide if someone's fear was reasonable or not. Other mitigating factors aside in Zimmerman's case the jury weighed the available evidence and decided it was.
I'm not making a case *for* nor *against* the use of guns. I have no leg to stand on where gun-use is concerned. I just said that I thought "excessive force" was still against the law. 'Excessive force' is obviously determined by the courts.
What you wrote was, "I think Zimmerman should have gotten a bit of jail time for (1) shooting someone who was unarmed." I am asking you to define excessive force. Given what you wrote it sounds to me like you believe anytime a gun is used against an unarmed opponent it is excessive. Is that your position?
Quote from: "Colanth"snip
Duly noted, I think we'll stick with our method though thanks.
One of the jurors said this:
QuoteOne of the jurors who acquitted George Zimmerman told CNN she believed "George got in a little too deep" and that things "just went terribly wrong.
http://us.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justice/zi ... ?hpt=hp_t1 (http://us.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justice/zimmerman-juror-book/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)
Quote from: "Gerard"One of the jurors said this:
QuoteOne of the jurors who acquitted George Zimmerman told CNN she believed "George got in a little too deep" and that things "just went terribly wrong.
http://us.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justice/zi ... ?hpt=hp_t1 (http://us.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justice/zimmerman-juror-book/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)
Damit! How am I supposed to get into an emotional rant over that? Are you trying to derail this thread? :-D
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"What's excessive force Bri? Florida law allows the use of deadly force by anyone with a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. It doesn't take a gun to cause serious injury or death. According to FBI statistics twice as many people are killed every year in the US with just hands and feet than are with rifles. Reasonable is subjective, but it is left up to the courts to decide if someone's fear was reasonable or not. Other mitigating factors aside in Zimmerman's case the jury weighed the available evidence and decided it was.
I'm not making a case *for* nor *against* the use of guns. I have no leg to stand on where gun-use is concerned. I just said that I thought "excessive force" was still against the law. 'Excessive force' is obviously determined by the courts.
What you wrote was, "I think Zimmerman should have gotten a bit of jail time for (1) shooting someone who was unarmed." I am asking you to define excessive force. Given what you wrote it sounds to me like you believe anytime a gun is used against an unarmed opponent it is excessive. Is that your position?
I thought Zimmerman needing to shoot an unarmed kid was a bit excessive - yes. But I'd feel the same way had he beat him to death with bare hands too. Excessive force means going past just stopping someone - right?
And maybe I'm wrong but I think that's where the whole thing went terribly wrong.
Don't want to get into a bunch of 'what ifs" - but I once held an intruder at gun point till the police arrived.
Now..... I'm not Zimmerman and I wasn't there. I found great wisdom in Aitm's long post outlining the specifics....... so I'm not saying Zimmerman was all in the wrong.
AND
it's just my opinion that a little jail time might have been in order. But...... I wasn't on that jury. The court has spoken and that's that.
my reasoning for giving him some jail time is that This Very Much is one of those cases which seems tried by media and public attention and reminding people NOT to take the law into their own hands might be helpful.
That does NOT translate into NEVER protect yourself - so please don't go there.
I'm actually really in the middle on quite a bit of this Zimmerman stuff right now. Sadly, a court had to rule guilty or not guilty. No middle ground where they can help reach some common sense for one and All.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Excessive force means going past just stopping someone - right?
Yes, excessive force means going beyond just stopping someone. However shooting someone when that is best and sometimes only available means of stopping them isn't necessarily excessive even if they die. You said you once held someone at gunpoint until the police arrived. What would you have done if they hadn't cooperated? If they had continued doing whatever it was you didn't want them to do would you have shot them? Would it have been excessive force if you had?
People shouldn't use guns to intentionally kill other people. If you point a gun at someone raping your grandchild and tell them, "I'm going to kill you you fucking piece of shit!" Then proceed to shoot them in the head nine times you just murdered them. On the other hand if you point the gun at them and think, "I have to stop this animal from hurting my baby!" Then shoot them until they stop it is in my opinion justifiable use of deadly force whether they die or not.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Excessive force means going past just stopping someone - right?
Yes, excessive force means going beyond just stopping someone. However shooting someone when that is best and sometimes only available means of stopping them isn't necessarily excessive even if they die. You said you once held someone at gunpoint until the police arrived. What would you have done if they hadn't cooperated? If they had continued doing whatever it was you didn't want them to do would you have shot them? Would it have been excessive force if you had?
People shouldn't use guns to intentionally kill other people. If you point a gun at someone raping your grandchild and tell them, "I'm going to kill you you fucking piece of shit!" Then proceed to shoot them in the head nine times you just murdered them. On the other hand if you point the gun at them and think, "I have to stop this animal from hurting my baby!" Then shoot them until they stop it is in my opinion justifiable use of deadly force whether they die or not.
Yes. Had they not remained still with a gun pointed at them (till police arrived) - yes - I'd have to say I'd have shot them. But...... that might not be the right thing to do. That might be excessive force to some.
I really don't know.
If they were trying to kill me and I protected myself using a gun - that makes sense to me.
I truly think you HAVE to be in the scenario to Know for Sure what you'd do. We are doing a lot of speculating in this thread. Tooo many 'what ifs' to make any real sense if you ask me. I'm not callousesd nor unfeeling one way or the other - I just am not sure. For me......... it falls into that gun control thing...........where I sit (always) in the middle.
:: sigh ::
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Excessive force means going past just stopping someone - right?
Yes, excessive force means going beyond just stopping someone. However shooting someone when that is best and sometimes only available means of stopping them isn't necessarily excessive even if they die. You said you once held someone at gunpoint until the police arrived. What would you have done if they hadn't cooperated? If they had continued doing whatever it was you didn't want them to do would you have shot them? Would it have been excessive force if you had?
People shouldn't use guns to intentionally kill other people. If you point a gun at someone raping your grandchild and tell them, "I'm going to kill you you fucking piece of shit!" Then proceed to shoot them in the head nine times you just murdered them. On the other hand if you point the gun at them and think, "I have to stop this animal from hurting my baby!" Then shoot them until they stop it is in my opinion justifiable use of deadly force whether they die or not.
By the way ---- I don't know what this says about me --- but if someone was hurting one of my grandbabies I'd shoot them without any hesitation. I wouldn't even blink twice. Now, I'd not shoot them 9 times in the head. One bullet would get the job done.
But No......... GET OFF my grandchild - for sure. I'd gladly go to jail for doing so too.
If you can't use your weapon on someone who is smashing you skull against concrete, when can you use it?
Quote from: "Nonsensei"If you can't use your weapon on someone who is smashing you skull against concrete, when can you use it?
Yes. That would suck. I'd probably use a weapon (if I had one on me) if that happened to me.
The issue seems to be with this Zimmerman business that people don't really agree on what actually went down....on what happened. Yanno? That makes discussing it all the more difficult.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "Nonsensei"If you can't use your weapon on someone who is smashing you skull against concrete, when can you use it?
Yes. That would suck. I'd probably use a weapon (if I had one on me) if that happened to me.
The issue seems to be with this Zimmerman business that people don't really agree on what actually went down....on what happened. Yanno? That makes discussing it all the more difficult.
Yeah I know that. But its not like this case was totally devoid of forensic evidence. What there was in terms of forensics supported Zimmerman's version of events. He was the only one wounded, the bullet casing was still in the chamber, etc.
So people have a choice. They can choose to believe the version of events most supported by the available evidence, or they can choose to fabricate a series of events with reasoning largely fueled by, in my opinion, the initial impressions they got from the media when they first heard the case (i.e. Zimmerman the racial profiling white supremacist and Martin the 14 year old buying skittles).
Those initial falsehoods were not accidents. They were intentional, meant to get people very emotional. And it worked so well that even people on these forums who value the evidence above all else in other topics we discuss here are willing to mistrust the evidence in this case just so they can assert a version of events they are more comfortable with.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"The issue seems to be with this Zimmerman business that people don't really agree on what actually went down....on what happened. Yanno? That makes discussing it all the more difficult.
I'd guess that some of what has been presented to us or to the jury isn't even true in the first place. Some of it is, sure, but both the prosecution and the defense have different objectives. They're going to tell us what they want us to hear. If not an outright lie, it will be skewed. In addition, many people take it a step further, and insert their own assumptions, and get emotional about that. For others, the fact of guilt or innocence isn't as big an issue as some philosophical ideology. Some would fry Zimmerman for an ideology. Others would exonerate him for an ideology. Enter the media, whose main objective is to stir the pot. You have a circus.
In the middle of this environment, the jury is asked to sort through the shit, and render a verdict. Sometimes a not guilty verdict is the result of a lack of information, which seems to be the case here. Sometimes, you get a jury with an ulterior motive that convicts or frees the defendant based on an ideology. Juries are not legally trained, they are average people with average intelligence. Hardly the crème of the crop. It's really a flawed system. At most, we could do a little tweak here, and a little tweak there, but we will never make a truly fair system out of it.
And of course, some laws are going to piss us off. They represent values that offend some of us. The system is so far from perfect, it's a wonder society survives at all.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"The issue seems to be with this Zimmerman business that people don't really agree on what actually went down....on what happened. Yanno? That makes discussing it all the more difficult.
I'd guess that some of what has been presented to us or to the jury isn't even true in the first place. Some of it is, sure, but both the prosecution and the defense have different objectives. They're going to tell us what they want us to hear. If not an outright lie, it will be skewed. In addition, many people take it a step further, and insert their own assumptions, and get emotional about that. For others, the fact of guilt or innocence isn't as big an issue as some philosophical ideology. Some would fry Zimmerman for an ideology. Others would exonerate him for an ideology. Enter the media, whose main objective is to stir the pot. You have a circus.
In the middle of this environment, the jury is asked to sort through the shit, and render a verdict. Sometimes a not guilty verdict is the result of a lack of information, which seems to be the case here. Sometimes, you get a jury with an ulterior motive that convicts or frees the defendant based on an ideology. Juries are not legally trained, they are average people with average intelligence. Hardly the crème of the crop. It's really a flawed system. At most, we could do a little tweak here, and a little tweak there, but we will never make a truly fair system out of it.
And of course, some laws are going to piss us off. They represent values that offend some of us. The system is so far from perfect, it's a wonder society survives at all.
Sometimes we scream and yell and shake our fists at our TVs with a news cast......... then we realize that we've got it better than MANY people out there trying to get by.
I try to focus on what's good whenever I can.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Excessive force means going past just stopping someone - right?
Yes, excessive force means going beyond just stopping someone. However shooting someone when that is best and sometimes only available means of stopping them isn't necessarily excessive even if they die. You said you once held someone at gunpoint until the police arrived. What would you have done if they hadn't cooperated? If they had continued doing whatever it was you didn't want them to do would you have shot them? Would it have been excessive force if you had?
People shouldn't use guns to intentionally kill other people. If you point a gun at someone raping your grandchild and tell them, "I'm going to kill you you fucking piece of shit!" Then proceed to shoot them in the head nine times you just murdered them. On the other hand if you point the gun at them and think, "I have to stop this animal from hurting my baby!" Then shoot them until they stop it is in my opinion justifiable use of deadly force whether they die or not.
By the way ---- I don't know what this says about me --- but if someone was hurting one of my grandbabies I'd shoot them without any hesitation. I wouldn't even blink twice. Now, I'd not shoot them 9 times in the head. One bullet would get the job done.
But No......... GET OFF my grandchild - for sure. I'd gladly go to jail for doing so too.
The only difference in the two scenarios is the state of mind of the shooter. If the intent was to kill it is murder. If the intent was to stop it is justifiable use of deadly force. So if you are thinking "GET OFF MY GRANDCHILD!" when you pull the trigger you should be good as long as you don't reload then calmly empty another magazine into their crotch as they lay there twitching. But if you are screaming (or even thinking) "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU, YOU SICK BASTARD!" then do exactly that the intent was murder not just stopping him from harming those you love. That doesn't mean I would vote to convict if I was on the jury deciding your fate, but then I believe in jury nullification. Something that most courts these days claim does not exist.
I don't know if someone else has already mentioned this, but there is a very interesting (not to mention disgusting) video clip of Shawn Hannity interviewing Zimmerman in 2012 where he is asked if he (Zimmerman) would do anything differently if he had it to do over. His answer was "no, it was all part of God's plan".
Unfortunately I don't know how to copy and paste the clip. Anybody want to enlighten me?