Unnarmed 17 year old shot dead "in self defence"

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

Would this story have gotten this much attention if Zimmerman was black?

Obviously not. Of course - two white guys - who were nationals of one of our best allies - killed by a black man doesn't even register on the scope of the president....

http://ironicsurrealism.com/2012/03/...-out-at-obama/

Not that Obama would pander to race baiting or anything.

@Bubblehead - stop quoting tribesman. Arguing with idiocy makes you what?

The president has a half caucasian parent and a "Black" (Kenyan) parent and is deemed to be African American. Thus Zimmerman - being born half caucasain and half hispanic - is (and can legally claim to be) hispanic. The key is that this doesn't fit the race baiting scenario that some on the left want to exploit, so it is ignored as much as possible.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Following him while reporting him to the police does not count as provocation, as have tried to tell you before. Now, had Zimmerman attempted to detain him, then that would but following someone so can report them to the police is not stalking, it is not provocation.Trayvon attacked Zimmerman without provocation and lost his life, stand your ground protects Zimmerman.The Police realized this based on the physical evidence and witness statements, as did the State Attorney's Office which is why he was not charged.Now due to manufactured outrage, now taxpayer money is being wasted.

Yes it does, b/c the guy being stalked has no means of identifying why you are tracking him, as I've tried to explain to you before. That's why the police are deemed to be not doing a good job.

If he tried to detain him, it would pass over the realm of provocation, into the realm of assault.

Originally Posted by breadcatcher101

The police report noted he was injured as described and did in fact get attention to those wounds, so not seeing blood in the poor quality tape shown is no surprise.

With that logic I don't see him with a gun either.

How can a man shoot someone without a gun?

Had to have been someone else, maybe Martin was wounded already?

Well, it is possible for a small amount of blood to be lost in the admittedly crappy image, but I don't see a large amount of blood or any other sign this guy was nearly killed. It was noted that the police recommended hospital (but then, in America it seems they'll recommend hospital for a abrased knee), but Z wound up not going which puts a dent in the claim that he was really in fear of his life. Without that, exception condition (a) in Article 776.041 or even the conditions for using deadly forced specified in 776.012 cannot be achieved.

Originally Posted by Aramike

You know the worst part of this tragedy? It exposes that most people are arrogant and rush to judgement in a way profoundly opposed to the moral sense of justice our system is based upon.

Everyone should take a moment and step back - you're not debating theory, here. Something ACTUALLY happened, and a kid is ACTUALLY dead, and a man's life ACTUALLY hangs in the balance upon the best deduction law enforcement can interpret from sparse evidence.

I'll argue the inverse. From what has already been leaked, the police already have the essential elements. They know Z tracked T (provocation), a scuffle happened, and Z wound up killing T with his gun. The only part they don't know is who punched first but since Z tracked T it is of secondary importance.

That flaw is simple: the key witness is the survivor. As such, this type of law gives great leniency to the "winner" in a two-person conflict that both people are equally responsible for, and that prospect is rightfully scary.

On the other hand, it seems to me that a morally proper position for one to take is that any individual should have the right to stand their ground from an aggressor. Yet, I can't help but to worry about how this type of law results in a "he said/she said" type of investigation, but without the "she said" part of it.

I'll say the problem is not so much agreeing with Stand Your Ground, than the concept that you don't have to inconvenienced by even a short period of arrest and in-station interrogation or trial after popping someone.

The nature of self-defense is that it is an Affirmative Defense Justification. You have to agree you killed the guy, thus effectively confessing to manslaughter, before trying to justify it by asserting and proving that a self-defense situation occurred.

Still, there's another side to this story that bothers me: Trayvon Martin, by many accounts, was a fairly troubled youth. We're not talking about an Eagle Scout, here. Yet, it took quite some time for that information to surface. Anytime such an obvious component of a story is clearly either overlooked or outright repressed, my BS detector goes into overdrive.

From what I've heard so far, T's biggest crimes are supposedly having a marijuana bag (maybe it means more elsewhere, but this is America), which may even be empty and some wierd clothing choices. Obviously, the victim family is not interested in publicizing such elements, but they are really inconsequential to the situation especially in comparison to the accusations laid on Z.

Zimmerman is half hispanic. Sure, he has a white name but perhaps his father is white and mother is hispanic. Does not matter though, race is a bs issue put into this by the media and people with the "victim" mentality.

It appears the people making an issue on that here are those who have a problem with him being white.
It also appears those people are absolutely clueless on some really basic concepts of the matter.

@Bubblehead - stop quoting tribesman. Arguing with idiocy makes you what?

So you are back to your old trolling habits again

The president has a half caucasian parent and a "Black" (Kenyan) parent and is deemed to be African American. Thus Zimmerman - being born half caucasain and half hispanic - is (and can legally claim to be) hispanic. The key is that this doesn't fit the race baiting scenario that some on the left want to exploit, so it is ignored as much as possible.

Well now Haplo where does this go ah yes, idiocy wasn't it?
How many really stupid errors did you fit into that single post Haplo?
Can you spot the 4 real biggies
well done Haplo you certainly excel, you can join the class of bubbles

Perhaps there is a lesson there, if you actually read what you are trying to slag off there is a chance you wouldn't be making such a complete fool of yourself by making so many glaringly obvious errors

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The key is that this doesn't fit the race baiting scenario that some on the left want to exploit, so it is ignored as much as possible.

Because as everyone knows, only white people can be racist.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Because as everyone knows, only white people can be racist.

You're right Mookie, whites certainly aren't the only ones who can be racist but i'll bet that when the Crown Heights type riots start this summer over this tragedy it'll be whites and not hispanics who are targeted by the mob.

[Aramike]

But where I completely disagree is that Martin's past has any relevance here. How on Earth does the fact that he was suspended from school make a lick of difference to the fact that by all accounts he was simply walking down the street when Zimmerman first chased him down? I think the transformation of Trayvon Martin from an average middle class high school student who was walking down the street into a dangerous thug who was asking for it is absolutely appalling. It allows the simple minded and those who don't have the mental capacity to overcome their "just world" biases to categorize the whole event - "a thug n**** deserving of punishment got what he deserved. Chances are Martin would have ended up in jail anyways, so better to take him out now before we pay for his time in a resort prison." But the reality is that he was a pretty average school kid who said and did the stupid things that most teenagers say and do. I guess reality is too complicated for some.

I don't think I stated my point well. I agree with you that being suspended for a little pot has no bearing on the case itself. My issue is that this information should have been made as public as everything else before judgements were rushed to.

What if Trayvon was suspended for beating the crap out of another student? What if it was something worse? These things COULD be relevant.

The problem is that many in the media decided to create a story rather than simply report it. Innocent black kid shot by overzealous, racist white guy. What they SHOULD have done was simply report the story without portraying the details specifically to support the narrative that they knew would result.

Oh, and Zimmerman is white ... in the same way President Obama is white. The skin color discussion is absurd, as the man identifies himself as hispanic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...orge_Zimmerman

[Aramike]

From what I've heard so far, T's biggest crimes are supposedly having a marijuana bag (maybe it means more elsewhere, but this is America), which may even be empty and some wierd clothing choices. Obviously, the victim family is not interested in publicizing such elements, but they are really inconsequential to the situation especially in comparison to the accusations laid on Z.

That's the problem, isn't it? From what you've heard so far...

Maybe they are inconsequential, maybe they aren't. But I can't lie, Trayvon's Twitter accounts are indeed troubling.

I think it would be highly relevant to the case if the boy had a propensity toward violence. And, like it or not, despite what the 911 dispatcher instructed, Zimmerman WAS within his rights to follow the kid. And if Trayvon attacked him, this information would lead to Zimmerman's credibility.

But it seems that no one is interested in Zimmerman's credibility. Rather, many of us just assume the man was completely in the wrong.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Now, let's say he does have a "prospensity towards violence". Still doesn't mean very much legally given the already reasonably established elements of the case. Z provoked T with his tracking. That's all that's required to shift him from the protected 776.012 to 776.041, which is not at all immunized under 776.031. This opinion is apparently supported by the guy who scribbled the law:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/2...-hearings.html

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Because as everyone knows, only white people can be racist.

No mookie - racism isn't limited to whites....

But then again - the assumption is that this was a racist crime - and that is based off of the media and politicians feeding the frenzy. Partially doing so by calling Zimmerman "white".

Why refuse to deal with his ethnicity - unless some people have an agenda that is furthered by black vs white angst...

This doesn't apply to you - but rather many others on the left who are intentionally using this situation to create anger encourage resentment - which will lead to more problems.

Because as everyone knows, only white people can be racist.

You don't mean to say some people are playing the white mans victim card.
Naughty mookie, how dare you suggest such a thing

Partially doing so by calling Zimmerman "white".

poor bubbles still stuck on getting the basics wrong .
oh sorry thats Haplo

Why refuse to deal with his ethnicity

Do you mean as a white hispanic?
The people here who seem to have a problem with it are those who don't like him being white.
And that is white not "white"

but rather many others on the left who are intentionally using this situation to create anger encourage resentment

So from the right I wonder what the situation is?
When this story went national then international I wonder how many posts it took the Stormfront forums before the shade of his skin got those people ranting about what WHITE is and how the ****** ******* media(and those ar two normal words not curses, guess what they are?) are waging a war on the white man.
Bonus points for how long it took someone to call George not white but Jewish? which if anyone who holds those far right ideologies had a functioning mind would raise a bit of a paradox over their rants about the liberal media and its anti white agenda

[AVGWarhawk]

I still say he is bisque color.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

But it seems that no one is interested in Zimmerman's credibility. Rather, many of us just assume the man was completely in the wrong.

And others are convinced he was completely in the right. No one knows for sure which is correct at this point, but I am sure that when proof positive comes out the people who are are convinced are going to be crowing about how they were right and the other guys were idiots.

It's a game people play, and it's a bad one. Being convinced before the facts are in is always wrong. Period.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I still say he is bisque color.

Only a matter of time before someone throws down the soup card.

[MothBalls]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Being convinced before the facts are in is always wrong. Period.

That's called marriage.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And others are convinced he was completely in the right. No one knows for sure which is correct at this point, but I am sure that when proof positive comes out the people who are are convinced are going to be crowing about how they were right and the other guys were idiots.

It's a game people play, and it's a bad one. Being convinced before the facts are in is always wrong. Period.

Personally - based on the facts as they are known currently - I'd say BOTH of them were wrong. I have already stated that Zimmerman should be held accountable - likely for neglicent homicide (as his negligence - IE refusal to listen to the police dispatcher when he was told he didn't need to follow the suspect) contributed to the situation.

But hey, apparently because I am conservative and for gun rights, I must be racist....