Unnarmed 17 year old shot dead "in self defence"

[RickC Sniper]

Originally Posted by August

The same people who didn't think Zimmerman shouldn't be charged?

I believe those were the ones, yes, who decided not have the recordings analyzed after listening to them.

Cannot find the reference anymore.

Interesting that in your cited article a newspaper sent them to be analyzed but no investigators.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I don't think that's fair, mookie. My first reaction was similar to yours, but then I thought about it.

People are arrested for many things. If someone is arrested merely because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, then exonorated and released, they did NOTHING wrong.

Someone suspended from school can't say the same thing, generally.

Your example does not apply to Zimmerman he went though a first time offenders program which means that he and his lawyer must have very strongly felt that he would have been convicted on the battery charge therefore they went the first time offender route which does still count in a court because if ever you get arrested again for any serious charge you do not get the kid gloves next time and the judge will also consider the fact that it appears the person learned nothing form there previous court room appearance.

Battery on a law enforcement officer does not sound like being at the wrong place at the wrong time it means that a person was at the wrong place at the wrong time and also made a very poor choice.It is not like the Dr.John song.

Not everyone is a perfect person but past history alone does not mean one or the other is guilty.But in the case of these two one has a traceable past of making poor choices and having encounters with the law the other has had encounters with school administration(who has the power to get LE involved if deemed necessary)

What happens then when two people with a criminal record have an encounter and one dies do you simply say"this guy has a worse looking record than the other one so that makes him guilty because the other man went through first time offenders and only has one incident." but Sgt.Smith the first time offender guy his arrest was for a violent crime the other guy has only been busted for possession never anything violent, Corporal when will you learn more arrests always mean that he got what was coming to him." "What part of the state statues is that law in Sgt? "The one that I made up."

[Aramike]

Your example does not apply to Zimmerman...

I wasn't referring to Zimmerman, I was referring to the point itself.

[Stealhead]

Well if your point was that if a person has gone though a first time offenders program and that has no relevance upon their record then I highly disagree with you.They made a mistake and they went through a form of punishment (that only around as a way to save prison space to be frankly honest)It does show up on your record if you went through a first time offender program then you did admit guilt in effect you just got kid gloves treatment but you where kept track off and in many places those first time offenders are very lax. Regardless it does still show up on your record and it should people have the right to know.

Again past alone should not mean guilt or innocence but it most certainly is a factor to consider.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

perceptions can be very skewed. American perceptions especially ingrained ones may be at the very root of this issue.
Not that it is an American thing as Britains Met have just shot themselves in the foot again with it.

I realize perceptions can be skewed. I was merely referring to the fact that perceptions can make us see things certain ways, and those ways can be valid based on where they come from. By our standards Zimmerman can be considered white or not, not that it should matter, but I don't see faulting people for that perception to be a fair arguement.

How on earth is that crapping on people?

It is if you're insulting someone's intelligence directly. It's not if you're making an obscure literary reference, which from your PM you were.

Are you having one of your moments again?

Apparently so.

I apologized in private and now am apologizing publically.
(Larger font so it doesn't get lost in the text.)

Just in case anyone else missed it, as I did, Tribesman was making a reference to Agatha Christie.

...your synapses are not snapping at all or your perception is skewed beryond belief.

Both are possibly true. Maybe it's age. Maybe it's my innate insanity shining through.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Again past alone should not mean guilt or innocence but it most certainly is a factor to consider.

Agreed - but why should one past be irrelevant while the other is not? Its a double standard, and that is what I am against.

Both of these people had past "issues'. Neither had a criminal conviction. Both acted in ways that night that resulted in the outcome. One is dead - he has paid the ultimate price for his actions. The other - should be held to account. Period.

[Stealhead]

See this is where I have a problem with what you say you do not have the evidence at hand nor does anyone else on this case and it has not been put on display in a court of law to be judged so you can not say that one paid the price.You are making a call on no solid information and assuming guilt where none can be proven.To say with out doubt that Zimmerman was right or wrong or that Martin was in the wrong when you can not know how the investigation is going or what they know you can simply not say.

And you keep harping on the no conviction rubbish when in fact Zimmerman does have blemish on his record you are trying to say that he is just like you(I assume that you have never been convicted of a crime or in a first time offenders programs) or me who have never been in trouble that is simply incorrect and for any job that requires a national security check they do see all of your record even your one FTO program they will see it know what you did and will more than likely not hire you in the military you may be bared form entry(right now they are blocking even those with DUIs) and you will never ever get any security clearance.

Such a thing alone does not imply guilt but it does show that in the last decade the man did commit battery on a LE officer which should be alarming to anyone it should at least get ones attention.What FTO should do is give someone a chance but it should still show up fully and not partly but at least it shows up where it counts and Zimmerman will never get a job as a LE officer anywhere because no cop is going to hire someone that got charged (note the italics because to go through FTO your butt got charged with a felony) with battery on an LE and then went through FTO program that is a no hire and it should be it would be a no hire for any person having gone through FTO.

Also Zimmerman can had no way to know that Martin had been suspended a few times and that really dose not matter very much either I know guys that got several suspensions in high school and they never got into any serious trouble in adult life some I know a guy that never got into trouble in school that got locked up because he robbed a bar a month after graduating his clean school record was a sign of nothing.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

See this is where I have a problem with what you say you do not have the evidence at hand nor does anyone else on this case and it has not been put on display in a court of law to be judged so you can not say that one paid the price.You are making a call on no solid information and assuming guilt where none can be proven.To say with out doubt that Zimmerman was right or wrong or that Martin was in the wrong when you can not know how the investigation is going or what they know you can simply not say..

Martin paid with his life - that seems pretty clear to all involved, no?
Or would you dispute that?

The question is - paid for "what" exactly.

What is known is that Martin was a 6'3" football player. Zimmerman is 5'7" and no reliable listing for his weight. So what is known is that Zimmerman ran after Martin for about 2 minutes, was all huffy and puffy out of breath, and somehow ended up - per witness statements - underneath the 6'3 guy. In the process, his nose got whacked and he hit the back of his head on the sidewalk. This from the report witnesses at the scene - oh and of the cops who WANTED to charge him with negligent homicide....

Martin was roughly 70 feet from the building where he was staying. He chose to turn and - if not start - take part in a confrontation. That decision cost him his life. Had he just kept on walking and gotten shot, it would have been in the back and there would be no question on Zimmerman's total culpability. Instead he decided he was gonna pound on this short little dude who was messin with him. So yes - one bad decision cost him his life. I don't see why that is unclear.

On the other hand, Zimmerman made a LOT of wrong decisions that night. Whether he was truly in fear of his life or not, we have no way of knowing. Either way, the decisions he made led directly to the confrontation - which means he is culpable regardless.

In the end - Martin made one bad decision - no to keep on walking. Zimmerman made a lot of bad ones. Martin is dead. Zimmerman has to be held accountable.

I apologized in private and now am apologizing publically.

Not needed

By our standards Zimmerman can be considered white or not, not that it should matter, but I don't see faulting people for that perception to be a fair arguement.

For the perception to be anywhere above the faultline it must be able to show some sort of definition which applies and works, caucasian was tried and failed, european heritage was tried and failed, hispanic was tried and failed. The only one left which could be used was shade of the skin which speaks for itself.



@Stealhead

Battery on a law enforcement officer does not sound like being at the wrong place at the wrong time it means that a person was at the wrong place at the wrong time and also made a very poor choice.

Maybe, maybe not.
It would depend on the integrity of the police officer/s involved which unfortunately can never be a given.
Which indeed comes back to the actual issue of this topic.

[August]

And more updates to the story:

NBC apparently doctored the 911 tape recording of the shooting to make Zimmerman look like a racist:

In the NBC segment, Zimmerman says: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

The full version, though, unfolds like this:


Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”
911 operator: “Okay. And this guy, is he white, black or Hispanic?”
Zimmerman: “He looks black.”

http://articles.businessinsider.com/...lic-discussion


Deliberate or a mistake? You decide.

Also:

Enhanced police station video shows what appears to be wounds on the back of Zimmermans head.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...ad-police-say/

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Martin paid with his life - that seems pretty clear to all involved, no?
Or would you dispute that?

The question is - paid for "what" exactly.

What is known is that Martin was a 6'3" football player. Zimmerman is 5'7" and no reliable listing for his weight. So what is known is that Zimmerman ran after Martin for about 2 minutes, was all huffy and puffy out of breath, and somehow ended up - per witness statements - underneath the 6'3 guy. In the process, his nose got whacked and he hit the back of his head on the sidewalk. This from the report witnesses at the scene - oh and of the cops who WANTED to charge him with negligent homicide....

Martin was roughly 70 feet from the building where he was staying. He chose to turn and - if not start - take part in a confrontation. That decision cost him his life. Had he just kept on walking and gotten shot, it would have been in the back and there would be no question on Zimmerman's total culpability. Instead he decided he was gonna pound on this short little dude who was messin with him. So yes - one bad decision cost him his life. I don't see why that is unclear.

On the other hand, Zimmerman made a LOT of wrong decisions that night. Whether he was truly in fear of his life or not, we have no way of knowing. Either way, the decisions he made led directly to the confrontation - which means he is culpable regardless.

In the end - Martin made one bad decision - no to keep on walking. Zimmerman made a lot of bad ones. Martin is dead. Zimmerman has to be held accountable.

Well I apologize for misunderstanding your meaning I just hear(in person and in certain media outlets)the line he paid for his mistakes to mean he got what he deserved you seem not to be meaning this.Sorry if I misread your meaning but I have many things to keep up with in life nobody is perfect.The tone of your recent posts seem to have the same meaning as the "he(Martin) got what he deserved" types I have heard else where.Now you say that you do not feel this way.Also there is conflicting witness statements as to whom was on top of whom if two people are in a fight one being on top of the other does not alone imply right or wrong either way.What a person got attacked and then reacted in self defense and wound up on top of the person attacking them if the attacker does not cease there actions then the defender would be well within their rights to on top which in a scuffle on the ground is the best way to gain control.The information on the scuffle between Martin and Zimmerman is too sketchy.This is why it seems clear that we agree that Zimmerman is accountable for something or at least needs to prove his claims before a court of law.

@ August We all know that an attacker can suffer injuries and get their clothing dirty just as much as a victim/defender can so the fact that both have injuries alone shine no light on who was right or wrong.This entire story has become a circus with different media outlets and internet sites spreading their own version of the story which makes me trust nothing that comes out on this story unless it comes from the mouth of those involved in investigation word for word beyond that it is a wild goose chase.(that might be what you are thinking as well as you have posted links to updates from various sources with differing views)

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Martin paid with his life - that seems pretty clear to all involved, no?
Or would you dispute that?

The question is - paid for "what" exactly.

What is known is that Martin was a 6'3" football player. Zimmerman is 5'7" and no reliable listing for his weight. So what is known is that Zimmerman ran after Martin for about 2 minutes, was all huffy and puffy out of breath, and somehow ended up - per witness statements - underneath the 6'3 guy. In the process, his nose got whacked and he hit the back of his head on the sidewalk. This from the report witnesses at the scene - oh and of the cops who WANTED to charge him with negligent homicide....

Martin was roughly 70 feet from the building where he was staying. He chose to turn and - if not start - take part in a confrontation. That decision cost him his life. Had he just kept on walking and gotten shot, it would have been in the back and there would be no question on Zimmerman's total culpability. Instead he decided he was gonna pound on this short little dude who was messin with him. So yes - one bad decision cost him his life. I don't see why that is unclear.

On the other hand, Zimmerman made a LOT of wrong decisions that night. Whether he was truly in fear of his life or not, we have no way of knowing. Either way, the decisions he made led directly to the confrontation - which means he is culpable regardless.

In the end - Martin made one bad decision - no to keep on walking. Zimmerman made a lot of bad ones. Martin is dead. Zimmerman has to be held accountable.

No, he is not culpable as he did nothing illegal and nothing the constitutes provocation.Martin attacked Zimmerman trying to be a bad ass, the thug he seemed to aspire to be based on some recent photos, and he lost his life.I will concede Zimmerman should have been more subtle but it did not given Martin the right to attack Zimmerman.Zimmerman defended himself and is protected under stand your ground.The Police did not arrest him(may have wanted to but did not) because they did not have probable cause and the SAO declined for the same reason.The "special prosecutor" is looking into this and a Grand Jury will, if they follow the law they will also find the same, no cause for arrest.

Decisions have consequences, even unforeseen ones.Martin chose to attack and lost his life.Sad all around, but it boils down to individual responsibility.Zimmerman may have some moral culpability in the sense that had he been more subtle and not left his vehicle ever, the chain of events would most likely not have transpired.However, Zimmerman has no legal culpability here as I stated previously and anyone who looks at this objectively, removing emotion, race etc from the equation and just applies the law to this case,understands that as the Police and SAO did.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

@ August We all know that an attacker can suffer injuries and get their clothing dirty just as much as a victim/defender can so the fact that both have injuries alone shine no light on who was right or wrong.This entire story has become a circus with different media outlets and internet sites spreading their own version of the story which makes me trust nothing that comes out on this story unless it comes from the mouth of those involved in investigation word for word beyond that it is a wild goose chase.(that might be what you are thinking as well as you have posted links to updates from various sources with differing views)

Yeah I haven't made up my mind yet on Zimmermans guilt. I figure to leave that decision to the jury if the case ever gets to that point.

What really worries me is that the media is whipping people up to a frenzy with deliberately false reporting. There may be riots and bloodshed on our streets this summer because of it. You got to admit that NBC's modification of the 911 tapes is pretty egregious.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

What really worries me is that the media is whipping people up to a frenzy with deliberately false reporting. There may be riots and bloodshed on our streets this summer because of it. You got to admit that NBC's modification of the 911 tapes is pretty egregious.

It is highly irresponsible for NBC to alter the tapes. The outfit should be on trial right after the Zimmerman case is closed. The news is absolutely disgusting and self-serving.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

No, he is not culpable as he did nothing illegal and nothing the constitutes provocation.Martin attacked Zimmerman trying to be a bad ass, the thug he seemed to aspire to be based on some recent photos, and he lost his life.I will concede Zimmerman should have been more subtle but it did not given Martin the right to attack Zimmerman.Zimmerman defended himself and is protected under stand your ground.The Police did not arrest him(may have wanted to but did not) because they did not have probable cause and the SAO declined for the same reason.The "special prosecutor" is looking into this and a Grand Jury will, if they follow the law they will also find the same, no cause for arrest.

Decisions have consequences, even unforeseen ones.Martin chose to attack and lost his life.Sad all around, but it boils down to individual responsibility.Zimmerman may have some moral culpability in the sense that had he been more subtle and not left his vehicle ever, the chain of events would most likely not have transpired.However, Zimmerman has no legal culpability here as I stated previously and anyone who looks at this objectively, removing emotion, race etc from the equation and just applies the law to this case,understands that as the Police and SAO did.

Bubblehead - we don't know who started the altercation. IF Zimmerman did, then he is culpable since that removes his "stand your ground" defense. Even if Martin DID start the fight, Zimmerman should not have been in that spot to start with. The moment he exited his vehicle to PURSUE a "suspect" - he was no longer "standing ground" - he was ADVANCING. While the shooting may have been justified in the context of the MOMENT - meaning Z in fear for his life during the altercation, his actions and decisions contributed substantially to the situation, were negligent, and resulted in the death of another person. Thus, negligent homocide / negligent manslaughter is an appropriate outcome - and I will get a quarter that is what happens.