Trayvon Martin

[captain_solo]

(03-27-2012 10:38 AM)Persnickety Polecat Wrote:  It's very true that no one knows what happens. That's why the grand jury is so crucial here.

What IS known, however, is that George Zimmerman has a sad history. When he battered a police officer, the police officer "started it" and neglected to inform Mr. Z that he was a cop. When Mr. Z beat the crap out of his former fiance, it was because she lured him to her home and sicced her dog on him. It seems like everyone Zimmerman knows likes to beat on him. Must suck to be him.

Then again, my mom always used to tell me that if EVERYONE had a problem with me, maybe I was the one with a problem ...

http://despair.com/dysfunction.html

The guy could be a flaming racist, might be the biggest worthless piece of trash on the planet - this shooting could still have been justified as self defense.

The kid could have been a pot smoking, locker defacing, home invader who might have even been on his way to a robbery, but at the time been walking down the street innocently and been gunned down in cold blood.

We just don't know at this point, and may never know for sure.

I don't understand why one person's background matters and results in a guilty verdict without a trial and the other's doesn't and should never be considered in the case? Well, actually I do understand, its not about the facts its about unrelated people using a sad story for their own sick self-aggrandizement.

Its my problem with all hate crime legislation - its actually thought crime legislation...judges should judge the facts of the specific case. Who these two were doesn't matter, what happened that night? Unless its relevant to the specifics of that, it really is irrelevant on both sides.

[redbeardiam]

1. When a 17-year-old kid runs out to get a snack and gets shot on the way home, that is injustice. We can argue the details (many of which we don't know) as much as we want, but that happened. If the law permits that, the law should be changed.

2. The way this law seems to be interpreted in FL, you can make a case Martin would have been justified in killing Zimmerman. That would be equally outrageous. Of course, even with the injuries Zimmerman sustained, there is no way to demonstrate that was Martin's intent. So if Martin would have been justified in using force if he feared for great bodily harm, and Zimmerman is justified in responding to that with deadly force, what do we have now? No fault homicide?

3. The cast of characters now involved should not numb us to the fact that a tragedy occurred. It's perfectly appropriate to be outraged by injustice.

4. I know I'm going to get flak for this, but my gut tells me that if Martin were a white kid in a polo shirt instead of a black kid in a hoodie, he would still be alive... whether Zimmerman believes he's a racist or not.

[captain_solo]

(03-27-2012 10:54 AM)redbeardiam Wrote:  1. When a 17-year-old kid runs out to get a snack and gets shot on the way home, that is injustice. We can argue the details (many of which we don't know) as much as we want, but that happened. If the law permits that, the law should be changed.

2. The way this law seems to be interpreted in FL, you can make a case Martin would have been justified in killing Zimmerman. That would be equally outrageous. Of course, even with the injuries Zimmerman sustained, there is no way to demonstrate that was Martin's intent. So if Martin would have been justified in using force if he feared for great bodily harm, and Zimmerman is justified in responding to that with deadly force, what do we have now? No fault homicide?

3. The cast of characters now involved should not numb us to the fact that a tragedy occurred. It's perfectly appropriate to be outraged by injustice.

4. I know I'm going to get flak for this, but my gut tells me that if Martin were a white kid in a polo shirt instead of a black kid in a hoodie, he would still be alive... whether Zimmerman believes he's a racist or not.

1. We don't really know what was going on at the time on the scene.

2. Whoever started the fight would not be able to argue self defense - I think even in Florida law this is the case. "Stand Your Ground" laws are getting a bad rap when most of the time they are merely the removal of ridiculous restrictions on self defense that many states had on the books.

3. Absolutely - either a great injustice was done that night or a great injustice is currently being done to the survivor now. Not possible for us to know which at this point.

4. Again, no way to know this, but I could speculate just as justly that if a white kid in a hoodie had assaulted this poor hispanic guy, maybe this story wouldn't have gone viral. The details about these individuals don't tell us anything about what actually happened that night.

[Darrell]

Quote:When a 17-year-old kid runs out to get a snack and gets shot on the way home, that is injustice.

Not necessarily. You're assuming facts that are simply not in evidence right now.

Quote:If the law permits that, the law should be changed.

That assumes either that the shooting was not self-defense (see above) or that self defense should be illegal.

Quote:my gut tells me that if Martin were a white kid in a polo shirt instead of a black kid in a hoodie, he would still be alive

Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know. We don't know. We don't know.

[Darrell]

It's neither here nor there but you could produce a list of any number of seventeen year old "kids" who have committed violent assaults and murders.

I don't find his age to be particularly relevant other than that it's sad whenever someone so young dies -- whether they "deserved it" or not. I've met my share of incredibly dangerous teenagers.

[myotch]

(03-27-2012 11:16 AM)Darrell Wrote:  It's neither here nor there but you could produce a list of any number of seventeen year old "kids" who have committed violent assaults and murders.

I don't find his age to be particularly relevant other than that it's sad whenever someone so young dies -- whether they "deserved it" or not. I've met my share of incredibly dangerous teenagers.

Exactly. If someone assaulted me, I would not be asking his age. I would assume my attacker was an adult.

This would be the same if I were following him for security reasons or even just curiosity with the neighborhood safety in mind.

I can see why people see this tragedy from many different angles. I don't see why people take incredibly strong positions on it.

Yeah, the PD saw a simple case of self-defense. In all likelihood, so did the District Attorney and a prosecutorial staff - or at least wanted to get a grand jury to help them weigh the evidence.

I thought this was why grand juries were secret - so they couldn't or wouldn't be swayed by public opinion, etc. But now we have Revs Jesse and Al contributing to a maelstrom of public demonstrations.

What if, for political reasons, the grand jury advised for charges to be made - in a case where the prosecution has no chance of winning?

[lucrezaborgia]

A few comments on this case:

7pm in Florida is bright light at this time of year. It's not dark by any means.

Trayvon was from Miami, not Jacksonville, and probably had little idea about the neighborhood so it wouldn't be surprising that he looked out of place OR if he was checking the neighborhood out a lot. That's what people tend to do in new areas, right?

If I had been followed by someone in Miami and they tried to stop me and then chased me after I refused, I would have been stupid to not land the first blow if it wasn't clear that I could get away. That is the sign of someone looking to rob and/or kill you. I'm sure Jacksonville isn't heaven but I know it's not anywhere near as dangerous as Miami.

Racism is a huge problem in the Hispanic community and almost laughable when you consider that many Hispanics are descended from Africans. Blacks in Hispanic countries are the lowest of the low.

[drvenkman]

NC recently passed a similar "castle doctrine" to the FL law that you are not required to retreat when confronted with a threat within your home or vehicle. The previous law in a nutshell and without the legalese was you could shoot someone (since that's what's being debated) if they were attempting to get in, but once they were inside, the threat - perceived or real - had to be re-established before deadly force was allowed.

As far as the escalation goes: Z was well within his rights to confront T. Getting his nose bloodied also is not deadly force justification. If T continued to assault beyond what would be considered simple assault, to the point where a "reasonable person" would believe that Z was in imminent danger of death or permanent debilitating injury, then deadly force to prevent that is justified.

Details such as where Z was when he shot T (on the ground and underneath vs standing) as well as where T was when he was shot (on top of T vs backing away, turning, etc) *should* be the main factor regarding criminal charges. That being said, I would imagine civil charges will be filed after criminal is done, and that would have the initial confrontation more of the issue than the actual trigger-pull.

[myotch]

My wife is hispanic. She gets hit on by black men at least twice a month. You know how many times we could have had free groceries from a guy with a roll of twenties he was willing to burn?

Racism is more of a class issue than, say, an heritage issue. It stems from a competition for resources.

I still don't see Zimmerman/Martin as a race thing. Zimmerman had black friends and helped raise money for a black church. Yeah, he could still be racist. Or he could have based his judgment on a stereotype. Or, he might have seen someone looking and acting suspicious. Which one fits the established facts so far, and which is/are conjecture at this point?

The issue of the case is whether or not the homicide was reasonable self defense. We have Zimmerman's story, and witness corroboration, and physical evidence which goes hand in hand with the witnesses' and Zimmerman's account, as well as the wounds Zimmerman received - all this to Zimmerman's credit. To help clear Martin's name, all we have is the audio witness on the other end of the phone, and the 911 dispatcher's advice to Zimmerman not to follow Martin.

Martin was suspended from school for drugs. Zimmerman has two accounts of violence in his history - assaulting a police officer (which, I believe, the charges were dropped), and an incident with his woman. These have no bearing on the facts at hand.

[lucrezaborgia]

(03-27-2012 01:38 PM)myotch Wrote:  My wife is hispanic. She gets hit on by black men at least twice a month. You know how many times we could have had free groceries from a guy with a roll of twenties he was willing to burn?

Racism is more of a class issue than, say, an heritage issue. It stems from a competition for resources.

For all intents and purposes, is your wife white or a third generation or more citizen? Does her family ever say things about people who are darker than her from where her family is originally from? If she's of Mexican descent it's not as huge an issue there because unless you are white Mexican you are most likely Native American. That's not true in Central America, South America, or the Caribbean and guess where most Hispanics in Miami come from? It ain't Mexico! So, I could see why a black youth from Miami would be afraid of this guy.

I have black men hitting on me all the time and I'm white.

In general, I hate the term Hispanic because it implies race rather than ethnicity and that couldn't be further from the truth. Many countries in Latin America have racial inequality that follows color lines just like it does here except multiply it be a factor of 10. There aren't exactly lynchings and whatnot, but have you ever noticed that almost all the government officials you see in the media and on television are white?