# Zimmerman to face Wrongful Death Civil Trial



## Master Dan (Jul 14, 2013)

George is not out of the woods by a long shot. I am sure the family and their attorney's will fill a Civil Wrongful death filing and his attorney fees and stress will not end. I believe there is better than a 75% chance he will receive a judgment that will continue to make his life bad. Right or wrong every person runs the risk in our court system of the same journey of costs and stress when you decide to take the law into your own hands no matter how justified you may think you are. Hands or weapon's if they are not in your house or attempting to enter your house you have risk period. If it comes to defending your life or family given no choice there is no choice but beyond that walk away, report let someone else take the risk. 


If George truly felt he had no guilt in the thing he would not have eaten himself into obesity. If the police department had handled this properly to begin with in seriously taking George aside and counseling him and the neighborhood watch in general what they should and should not do this could have been avoided. Statistics nationally have shown that in general cop wantabee's have mental and emotional issues that have kept them from becoming law enforcement officer's. In some cases becoming stalkers and murderers over time.


----------



## granfire (Jul 14, 2013)

Oh, why not. I am sure he still has some dirt under his fingernails....

Sharpten is calling for Zimmermann to be charged for violating Martin's civil rights...


----------



## arnisador (Jul 14, 2013)

I saw a hint that the fed. govt. might try to try him on separate federal charges.

I'm sure a civil trial is coming, O.J.-style.


----------



## Scott T (Jul 14, 2013)

granfire said:


> Oh, why not. I am sure he still has some dirt under his fingernails....
> 
> Sharpten is calling for Zimmermann to be charged for violating Martin's civil rights...



Yes, Trayvopn was denied his right to beat to a 'creepy *** cracker' who was much smaller than he was.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 14, 2013)

If anyone else was in Zimmerman's position, flat on your back, getting your face bashed in and bounced on the concrete, your assailant promising to kill you, you'd shoot too.  If this isn't self defense, the term has no meaning.  This case is really about guns.  The government hates guns and will punish anyone who uses one who isn't wearing one of their costumes.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 14, 2013)

The "stand your ground" law in Fla. has an immunity clause: there can be no civil suit for 'wrongful death."


----------



## crushing (Jul 14, 2013)

elder999 said:


> The "stand your ground" law in Fla. has an immunity clause: there can be no civil suit for 'wrongful death."



I thought SYG was dropped from this case a while ago as it isn't applicable.  Based on the evidence and testimony, this appears to be a case of classic self defense.  Even if one accepts the prosecution's theories, it still isn't SYG.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 14, 2013)

What's the point of a lawsuit.  Zimmerman has nothing even if you win what do you get?


----------



## elder999 (Jul 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> What's the point of a lawsuit.  Zimmerman has nothing even if you win what do you get?



The rest of his life.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 14, 2013)

crushing said:


> I thought SYG was dropped from this case a while ago as it isn't applicable.  Based on the evidence and testimony, this appears to be a case of classic self defense.  Even if one accepts the prosecution's theories, it still isn't SYG.



That same immunity applies to self-defensr in Florida-at least thatsyunderstanding.i


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 14, 2013)

elder999 said:


> The rest of his life.



If you have nothing and done own anything what are thy going to own?  I keep everything in my wife or my parents names just in case I get sued.  You can sue me you won't get anything.  If I were Zimmerman and they went after me id go on welfare and say come get it.


----------



## billc (Jul 14, 2013)

> If George truly felt he had no guilt in the thing he would not have eaten himself into obesity. If the police department had handled this properly to begin with in seriously taking George aside and counseling him and the neighborhood watch in general what they should and should not do this could have been avoided.



Yes, bounties on your head and the prospect of 45 years to life in prison tend to cause a little stress, sometimes shown in over eating.  

What we have here is some people doing exactly what they wanted Zimmerman to do...and Martin died following their advice.  Notice, everyone said that Zimmerman should have stayed in the car and just called 911...Well, that is exactly what everyone else in the community did...and Martin was shot.  If John Good, or Mrs. Sydeka, or the Minaloos had left their homes and pulled Martin off of Zimmerman...he would still be alive today.  In fact, John Good was right there and did as a lot of people suggested, he stayed in his house and called 911...and the shot rang out...Sooo....


----------



## arnisador (Jul 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> If you have nothing and done own anything what are thy going to own?  I keep everything in my wife or my parents names just in case I get sued.  You can sue me you won't get anything.



Wow, you could be really taken in a divorce case though!

If someone wins a multi-million dollar suit against him his credit will be ruined, he'll have to turn over any pay above a certain level, he'll never have any savings, his employment prospects (or anything else involving a credit check) will be poorer even if they don't recognize him, etc.--or if he can get out of it with bankruptcy then that's just 7-10 lost years. It ain't good. In FL his house is probably safe.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 14, 2013)

billc said:


> What we have here is some people doing exactly what they wanted Zimmerman to do...and Martin died following their advice.  Notice, everyone said that Zimmerman should have stayed in the car and just called 911...Well, that is exactly what everyone else in the community did...and Martin was shot.  If John Good, or Mrs. Sydeka, or the Minaloos had left their homes and pulled Martin off of Zimmerman...he would still be alive today.  In fact, John Good was right there and did as a lot of people suggested, he stayed in his house and called 911...and the shot rang out...



I could easily see someone trying to pull Trayvon Martin off and getting shot himself, on the otehr hand.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 14, 2013)

Some thoughts on it here:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/14/legal-future-zimmerman/2516201/


----------



## granfire (Jul 14, 2013)

yep....the usual suspects at work.

A statute developed to catch guilty parties set free by a jury of their peers being turned into a tool of revenge and political agenda...

Nice prospect.


Why are these folks not jumping o the case of the woman getting 20 years for attempted murder....

oh, I suppose the 'gentleman' she had the order of protection against was not white...


----------



## arnisador (Jul 14, 2013)

granfire said:


> Why are these folks not jumping o the case of the woman getting 20 years for attempted murder....



Didn't follow that one, but I was told she had left, got a gun, then came back when she didn't need to do so--not a stand-your-ground or even self-defense case if you go looking for trouble.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Wow, you could be really taken in a divorce case though!


loosing it all to the mother of my kids will suck but its better then loosing it all in a stupid lawsuit at least my kids will benefit from the divorce.  Plus I have a bunch of stuff in my parents names as well so Im ok.


> If someone wins a multi-million dollar suit against him his credit will be ruined, he'll have to turn over any pay above a certain level, he'll never have any savings, his employment prospects (or anything else involving a credit check) will be poorer even if they don't recognize him, etc.--or if he can get out of it with bankruptcy then that's just 7-10 lost years. It ain't good. In FL his house is probably safe.


Again pointless.  Martins family wont get a dime.  Zimmermans already broke after all his legal fees.  Its a waist of the courts time but I guess so was the criminal trial so whats the difference.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 14, 2013)

He may well get a book or movie deal--and this would snare the profits from it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 14, 2013)

I wonder if Zimmerman could sue the media for defamation?


----------



## Big Don (Jul 14, 2013)

When two people were involved, one is dead, his story never changed, the police didn't want to arrest him, the state only tried him because of political pressure, the judge allowed the state to add a charge of manslaughter in the eleventh hour and he was still acquitted... You would hope there would be no civil rights or wrongful death suit. But, with the number of people making this about race...


----------



## Master Dan (Jul 15, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I saw a hint that the fed. govt. might try to try him on separate federal charges.
> 
> I'm sure a civil trial is coming, O.J.-style.


Don't know why I bother on this site the majority who speak either want it to be about the evil Government (Obama) wants our guns or it has to be about Race. The issue is not about well if it was you on the ground getting beat up/ you took that risk to satisfy a racial profile and cop wanabe need to dominate someone. The Feds are doing an investigation but what will come of it who knows. On the Gun issue the Brady Foundation has issued strait F's in all categories to Obama he is the bet friend the NRA and Gun manufacturer's have ever had. Our country is just full of people in a bubble who could care less about the facts or worse just cannot admit they are bigots and racists. The best show ever done was West Wing and the same people made Newsroom that premiers tonight. I was not going to stay up late to watch it but since Bill C. is already trying to tear it apart I will watch. He killed a child he took deadly force with him to make up for what he could not do because as his MMA trainer guy said he was pathetic.

I hope a civil case can be made against the Florida Sheriffs department for damages on several levels because they miss handled this from the dispatch on. On that subject Dispatch and 911 statistically nationally is at a core problem base on how situations are handled wrongly or not at all based on profiling, bias or outright refusal to work correctly due to fatigue and other issues. I have had one department investigated 4 times in one year alone due to outright misconduct related to child endangerment and refusing to respond when life and property were at stake.


----------



## Master Dan (Jul 15, 2013)

billc said:


> Yes, bounties on your head and the prospect of 45 years to life in prison tend to cause a little stress, sometimes shown in over eating.
> 
> What we have here is some people doing exactly what they wanted Zimmerman to do...and Martin died following their advice.  Notice, everyone said that Zimmerman should have stayed in the car and just called 911...Well, that is exactly what everyone else in the community did...and Martin was shot.  If John Good, or Mrs. Sydeka, or the Minaloos had left their homes and pulled Martin off of Zimmerman...he would still be alive today.  In fact, John Good was right there and did as a lot of people suggested, he stayed in his house and called 911...and the shot rang out...Sooo....


So bill that means you think OJ didn't do it and he is just a sweet guy and should never have been sued in a civil case???????  Also People stayed in their houses because they should have/ no unprofessional should venture out in the middle of a fight and risk their life and future of their family you now want to place blame on the community? hum maybe blame like the few racist neighbors who wanted the black kid to be the bad guy because of course any black person wearing a hoody must be a dangerous felon??


----------



## Big Don (Jul 15, 2013)

*FBI records: agents found no evidence that Zimmerman was racist*
*Frances Robles and Scott Hiaason  | Miami Herald/McClatchyDC EXCERPT:*

                                                After interviewing nearly three dozen people in  the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial  bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records  released Thursday show.            

                              Even the lead detective in the case, Sanford Det. Chris  Serino, told agents that he thought Zimmerman profiled Trayvon because  of his attire and the circumstances  but not his race.
Serino saw Zimmerman as having little hero complex, but not as a racist.             
                                           The Duval County State Attorney released another collection of  evidence in the Zimmerman murder case Thursday, including reports from  FBI agents who investigated whether any racial bias was involved in  Trayvons Feb. 26 killing. 
The evidence includes bank surveillance videos from the day of the killing, crime scene photos and memos from prosecutors. 
Among  the documents is a note from the prosecutor who said one of the  witnesses said her son, a minor, had felt pressured by investigators to  say the injured man he saw was wearing a red top. The boys testimony  had been considered key, because it backed up Zimmermans allegation  that he  wearing red  was being pummeled.
END EXCERPT
That ought to help in any wrongful death or civil rights (show)trial


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 15, 2013)

Master Dan said:


> Don't know why I bother on this site


So dont


> the majority who speak either want it to be about the evil Government (Obama) wants our guns or it has to be about Race. The issue is not about well if it was you on the ground getting beat up/ you took that risk to satisfy a racial profile and cop wanabe need to dominate someone.


Who did he racially profile?  He said on the real 911 tape not the edited one he couldn't tell what race Martin was.  



> The Feds are doing an investigation but what will come of it who knows.


Why?  Its a state lvl crime the feds shouldn't be involved at all.  We have hundreds of murders a day in the country are the feds looking into them too?  Nope.  


> On the Gun issue the Brady Foundation has issued strait F's in all categories to Obama he is the bet friend the NRA and Gun manufacturer's have ever had.



Seems the only one on this site brining up Obama and guns is you.  So your complaint above is unfounded 



> Our country is just full of people in a bubble who could care less about the facts or worse just cannot admit they are bigots and racists.


4 young black men were killed in Baltimore this weekend where is your outrage and concern for them?  Or is it because it wasn't a white guy that shot then nobobody cares?  Who's really the bigiot and racist.


> The best show ever done was West Wing and the same people made Newsroom that premiers tonight. I was not going to stay up late to watch it but since Bill C. is already trying to tear it apart I will watch.


Have fun



> He killed a child he took deadly force with him to make up for what he could not do because as his MMA trainer guy said he was pathetic.


He killed a person that was attacking him as Zimmerman walked away from the situation towards his vehicle.  He was carring a gun because ita his Constitutionally protected right to do so. You don't like the 2nd Amendment take it up with our founding fathers.


> I hope a civil case can be made against the Florida Sheriffs department for damages on several levels because they miss handled this from the dispatch on.



Oh so your an expert of police tactics and 911 procedures. Care to enlighten us on what they did wrong?


> On that subject Dispatch and 911 statistically nationally is at a core problem base on how situations are handled wrongly or not at all based on profiling, bias or outright refusal to work correctly due to fatigue and other issues. I have had one department investigated 4 times in one year alone due to outright misconduct related to child endangerment and refusing to respond when life and property were at stake.


How did your 4 investigations turn out?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 15, 2013)

the shameful truth is that 93% of African-American murders are committed by other African-Americans. That is breathtakingly awful when you consider how incensed the African-American community is about the Trayvon tragedy, no matter what you believe about Zimmerman&#8217;s guilt.

Let&#8217;s do the gruesome math, not out of morbidity, but because it manifests the incredible self-centered insanity of people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

8,000-9,000 African-Americans are*murdered each year.

93% of them by other African-Americans.

That&#8217;s 7,905 (from average)

That&#8217;s 21.65 murdered*each day*by other African-Americans.

And these*racebaiting culture-hustling microphone-pimps*only get riled up when a &#8220;White Hispanic&#8221; kills an African-American?*It&#8217;s absolutely shameful.

http://www.soopermexican.com/2013/0...06-blacks-have-been-murdered-by-other-blacks/


Where's the outrage the protests the demand for justice?  Where's the president saying if I had a son it would look like..........( Insert one of the 21 peoples names murdered a day).


----------



## MJS (Jul 15, 2013)

Master Dan said:


> George is not out of the woods by a long shot. I am sure the family and their attorney's will fill a Civil Wrongful death filing and his attorney fees and stress will not end. I believe there is better than a 75% chance he will receive a judgment that will continue to make his life bad. Right or wrong every person runs the risk in our court system of the same journey of costs and stress when you decide to take the law into your own hands no matter how justified you may think you are. Hands or weapon's if they are not in your house or attempting to enter your house you have risk period. If it comes to defending your life or family given no choice there is no choice but beyond that walk away, report let someone else take the risk.
> 
> 
> If George truly felt he had no guilt in the thing he would not have eaten himself into obesity. If the police department had handled this properly to begin with in seriously taking George aside and counseling him and the neighborhood watch in general what they should and should not do this could have been avoided. Statistics nationally have shown that in general cop wantabee's have mental and emotional issues that have kept them from becoming law enforcement officer's. In some cases becoming stalkers and murderers over time.



I have to laugh when people talk about just walking away.  Sure, this is a very valid option, and something that *if possible*, everyone should do.  What people fail to realize, is that it may not be an option that we can take.  Sorry, if someone is physically assaulting me, and I can't get away, I'm going to fight back and defend myself.  My well being is more important than the BS suits.  Its a VERY sad day, when the courts, and those that make the decisions, expect you to curl up and turn into a chicken.  

As for Zimmerman....as I've said, the one thing, IMO, that he shouldn't have done, was follow Martin.  I'd like to think that he didn't use the SYG law in his favor, and bait Martin into attacking him, but what's done is done.  Martin didn't have to confront Zimmerman either.  

This is certainly a slippery slope because the definition of what a neighborhood watch person, store security, etc, can/can't do, is a fine line.

I cant help but wonder though...were the situation reversed, would Al and Jesse be ranting and raving? Would Al and Jesse be calling for protests if it were 2 black guys?  Sad the race card is played so much.


----------



## granfire (Jul 15, 2013)

arnisador said:


> He may well get a book or movie deal--and this would snare the profits from it.



I am sure the Trayvon story is already in the making....


----------



## MJS (Jul 15, 2013)

Master Dan said:


> I hope a civil case can be made against the Florida Sheriffs department for damages on several levels because they miss handled this from the dispatch on. On that subject Dispatch and 911 statistically nationally is at a core problem base on how situations are handled wrongly or not at all based on profiling, bias or outright refusal to work correctly due to fatigue and other issues. I have had one department investigated 4 times in one year alone due to outright misconduct related to child endangerment and refusing to respond when life and property were at stake.



Tell me...how did they mishandle this?  Because there wasn't an immediate arrest?  As for dispatchers...well, speaking as one, I will admit, many have made mistakes.  Training in some areas can certainly be better.  And what was the outcome of your incident with the PD that you had investigated 4 times?  I can't comment fully on that, because I don't know the entire story, however, what some fail to realize is that some issues are not police issues.  In other words, where I work, we don't get involved in civil issues.  However, going on what I'm reading at the moment, I'd find it hard to believe that if the situation was as bad as you claim, that nobody came.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 15, 2013)

elder999 said:


> The "stand your ground" law in Fla. has an immunity clause: there can be no civil suit for 'wrongful death."





elder999 said:


> That same immunity applies to self-defensr in Florida-at least thatsyunderstanding.i



Another interesting facet of FL law I just heard this morning is that when you use an affirmative defense, the state still has to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as if you had not admitted to the killing.  Apparently it is different in the majority of states which shift the burden of proof to the defendant as he is admitting causing the death.

Another thing to remember is that although Zimmerman is not a rich person, he does have a lawsuit against the parent of the NBC TV stations.  Every time they mention Zimmerman's name, they qualify whatever the story is by saying he has a lawsuit against the parent company which strongly denies the allegation (defamation of character).  Not that they are trying to poison anyone's minds before a possible day in court.  I assume all NBC affiliates do the same.


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 15, 2013)

Master Dan said:


> On the Gun issue the Brady Foundation has issued strait F's in all categories to Obama he is the bet friend the NRA and Gun manufacturer's have ever had.



Yet, they completely endorsed Obama in the 2012 election.  They gave him F's early on because he wasn't able to do anything.  If you look at their ratings now, especially since he's tried to shove every facet of gun-grabbing down people's throats, I wonder what you'll find?  

Obama's main issue was to try to ramrod Obamacare down everyone's throats.  He would never have been able to do that without the help of the more conservative Democrats (Casey, Webb, Tester, Baucus) and alienating them by bringing up gun-grabbing bills would have doomed him from the start.  

The Brady Campaign isn't known for being patient.  



> Our country is just full of people in a bubble who could care less about the facts or worse just cannot admit they are bigots and racists.



You are correct, especially when it came to the prosecution's side.  The only racial profiling that had occurred during the incident came from Trayvon Martin, assuming that you put any kind of merit in the prosecution's star witness, Rachel Jeantel.  She was the one who insisted that Trayvon Martin did the racial profiling of George Zimmerman.  Too many people on the Pro-Trayvon Martin side of the argument are ignoring this, and need to wake up.  

Of course, if you were the prosecutor, or anyone on the side of Trayvon Martin, you could choose not to believe her, and essentially throw her testimony (which was full of holes and lies) down the garbage chute, but this would have torpedoed the entire case from the start.


----------



## Steve (Jul 15, 2013)

Grenadier said:


> Y
> Of course, if you were the prosecutor, or anyone on the side of Trayvon Martin, you could choose not to believe her, and essentially throw her testimony (which was full of holes and lies) down the garbage chute, but this would have torpedoed the entire case from the start.


Just for what it's worth, I think Zimmerman is at fault, and should have been tried for manslaughter from the beginning.  I acknowledge that I don't have all of the information (like everyone else), and that I could be wrong.  But based on what I've seen, heard and read, I just think that Zimmerman made avoidable errors of judgement that led to the death of a minor.  As I read the definition of both voluntary and involuntary manslaughter for the State of Florida, it seems very apropos to me.

But I don't think it had anything to do with any overt racism.  If there was any relevant bias on the part of Zimmerman, it was a bias against teenagers in general who dress in a particular way.  I've seen that bias many times in people my age, where any kid wearing anything remotely resembling "gang banger" attire is presumed to be a drug addled punk who is up to no good.  Sometimes, it might even be true.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 15, 2013)

elder999 said:


> The "stand your ground" law in Fla. has an immunity clause: there can be no civil suit for 'wrongful death."



Absolutely 100% correct.  Here is a link where the statue is clear on a law firms sight: http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-stand-your-ground-statute.html


----------



## Master Dan (Jul 15, 2013)

Grenadier said:


> Yet, they completely endorsed Obama in the 2012 election.  They gave him F's early on because he wasn't able to do anything.  If you look at their ratings now, especially since he's tried to shove every facet of gun-grabbing down people's throats, I wonder what you'll find?
> 
> Obama's main issue was to try to ramrod Obamacare down everyone's throats.  He would never have been able to do that without the help of the more conservative Democrats (Casey, Webb, Tester, Baucus) and alienating them by bringing up gun-grabbing bills would have doomed him from the start.
> 
> ...



Have you no feeling for the parents of a child who just wanted to go to the store for skittles or for every black person in America who is and has been suspicious until proven ok just for being black and wearing a Hoody? Denial is not a river in Egypt! 

 The Brady Campaign isn't known for being patient.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 15, 2013)

Master Dan said:


> Have you no feeling for the parents of a child who just wanted to go to the store for skittles or for every black person in America who is and has been suspicious until proven ok just for being black and wearing a Hoody? Denial is not a river in Egypt!
> 
> The Brady Campaign isn't known for being patient.



I lost feeling for the kid when he attacked an adult.  His fault.  Zimmerman defended himself.  Where's your outrage for the 11000 black men woman and children killed since Martin was killed?  Where's your outrage on that?


----------



## Master Dan (Jul 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I lost feeling for the kid when he attacked an adult.  His fault.  Zimmerman defended himself.  Where's your outrage for the 11000 black men woman and children killed since Martin was killed?  Where's your outrage on that?



You need to explain your info?? and numbers have nothing to do with the value of any life al are precious and have value the point is we are all human and all Americans. Are people dying every day yes but does that justify apathy? Zimmerman profiled the kid and had an emotional need to dominate someone and it has cost him and will continue to cost him. If that was my child and he killed them He would need to look over his shoulder the rest of his life and it would not end well period. The best he can hope for is that the justice system puts him away which is the only way he is going to live much longer because he walks down the wrong street the wrong time I look forward to the news. 

He committed a hate crime. I find it amusing when clearly racist officials from the south or other areas who have had long established track records of racism when interview and clearly put on the spot refuse to admit what they have done or that their attitude refusing to take any responsibility for their actions as if they believe their own lies. Smacks of Star Wars ( Pay no attention to the man in the white sheet and burning cross) He is just expressing his exceptional love of clean sheets!!!!!!!!


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 15, 2013)

Master Dan said:


> You need to explain your info??


http://www.soopermexican.com/2013/07...-other-blacks/



> and numbers have nothing to do with the value of any life al are precious and have value the point is we are all human and all Americans. Are people dying every day yes but does that justify apathy?


So had Zimmerman not been armed and was beat to death would you have the same sympathy? 


> Zimmerman profiled the kid and had an emotional need to dominate someone and it has cost him and will continue to cost him.


No Zimmerman was providing a service to his neighborhood.  He Saw someone out of the ordinary and called the police.  He was then attacked by the suspicious person he saw.  


> If that was my child and he killed them He would need to look over his shoulder the rest of his life and it would not end well period.


Teach your kid not to attack people for no reason and you wont need to worry



> The best he can hope for is that the justice system puts him away which is the only way he is going to live much longer because he walks down the wrong street the wrong time I look forward to the news.


Yeah that makes it all better.  So when the legal system does not agree with your idea of what should happen your answer is kill him.


> He committed a hate crime.


BS #1 he didnt even know what race Martin was #2 it wasnt a crime he was found not guilty #3 he was attacked if anyone was commiting a hate crime it was Martin attacking Zimmerman 


> I find it amusing when clearly racist officials from the south or other areas who have had long established track records of racism when interview and clearly put on the spot refuse to admit what they have done or that their attitude refusing to take any responsibility for their actions as if they believe their own lies. Smacks of Star Wars ( Pay no attention to the man in the white sheet and burning cross) He is just expressing his exceptional love of clean sheets!!!!!!!!


I find it amusing when 11,000 black men woman and children are murdered since Martin by other Black men woman  and children and thats ok but a Hispanic guy defends himself and you fake this BS outrage threaten peoples lives, and people like you start breaking stuff and burning things, and blocking roads and highways.  
Ive been to Murders Ive seen how much "compassion" is shown with the Stop Snitching videos and "I didnt seen nothing"  when you know damn well there were 50 standing around when the murder happened.  So go play you BS Race card some where else.  Ive held the hand of a mother and told her that her son was murdered (Again).  Ive talked to murderers and they laugh about the crime and say stuff like "he shouldn't have disrespected me".  So if you want to be Outraged go do something about it but where is the fun in that.  There is no money in everyone getting along.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 15, 2013)

Why concealed carry is good: Because when someone brings fists to a gunfight, they get a surprise.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> http://www.soopermexican.com/2013/07...-other-blacks/
> 
> 
> So had Zimmerman not been armed and was beat to death would you have the same sympathy?
> ...



A Hispanic guy kills a Black guy, is acquitted by  6 white women and it is all the fault of white guys. But, ****, what isn't? As far as Sharpton is concerned, only one name need be uttered: Tawana Brawley.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Zimmerman defended himself.



Zimmerman provoked the situation. There's blame to go around here.



> Where's your outrage for the 11000 black men woman and children killed since Martin was killed?  Where's your outrage on that?



Hey, I favor gun control for just thus sort of reason. In the GZ/TV case--no gun, no death.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 15, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Why concealed carry is good: Because when someone brings fists to a gunfight, they get a surprise.



The gunfight was brought to Martin.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 15, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Zimmerman provoked the situation. There's blame to go around here.


He was doing neighborhood watch For his community just like 1000's of others do every day.  Sometimes things go bad.  The only person to blame is the person that threw the first punch


> Hey, I favor gun control for just thus sort of reason. In the GZ/TV case--no gun, no death.


You dont know that no gun it could have been Martin on trial for killing Zimmerman but then we wouldn't even know about that because nobody would care.


----------



## MJS (Jul 15, 2013)

Master Dan said:


> You need to explain your info?? and numbers have nothing to do with the value of any life al are precious and have value the point is we are all human and all Americans. Are people dying every day yes but does that justify apathy? Zimmerman profiled the kid and had an emotional need to dominate someone and it has cost him and will continue to cost him. If that was my child and he killed them He would need to look over his shoulder the rest of his life and it would not end well period. The best he can hope for is that the justice system puts him away which is the only way he is going to live much longer because he walks down the wrong street the wrong time I look forward to the news.
> 
> He committed a hate crime. I find it amusing when clearly racist officials from the south or other areas who have had long established track records of racism when interview and clearly put on the spot refuse to admit what they have done or that their attitude refusing to take any responsibility for their actions as if they believe their own lies. Smacks of Star Wars ( Pay no attention to the man in the white sheet and burning cross) He is just expressing his exceptional love of clean sheets!!!!!!!!



Dude, are you listening to yourself?  Let me ask you this:  where was the outcry from Jesse, Al and the rest of the clowns, when the 3 black punk thugs, killed the waitress for her tip money?  How about the ones that poured gas on a kid and lit him on fire?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...g-home-school-set-fire-cops-article-1.1033062

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/18616119/police-indiana

What about the DAILY gun violence that takes place EVERYWHERE, that's done by blacks on other blacks???

Maybe you should get your facts straight before you post the craziness that you're posting.


----------



## billc (Jul 15, 2013)

Crimes withing each racial group happen in greater percentages than black on white or white on black crime.  Also, black on white crime happens more often, as a percentage, than white on black crime...so where is the problem with this trial.  The shooting gallery in Chicago takes more black  lives in one week than Zimmerman when he killed Martin...and yet Zimmerman is the problem the African American community is marching about...

Perhaps they should march on the democrat controlled city and state capitals...that might get more results in reducing the number of African Americans killed in this country...


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 15, 2013)

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...cles-help-rescue-missing-5-year-old-girl?lite
HMMM heres a kid Obama should be out there saying If I had a son he would look like..........................................


----------



## MJS (Jul 15, 2013)

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/15/Witness-Baltimore-blacks-beating

Oh Jesse, Oh Al.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> He was doing neighborhood watch For his community just like 1000's of others do every day.



The National Sheriff's Association has disavowed him as not being part of a legitimate neighborhood watch:
http://www.lawofficer.com/article/news/national-sheriff-s-association-0



> You dont know that no gun it could have been Martin on trial for killing Zimmerman but then we wouldn't even know about that because nobody would care.



In the unlikely event Zimmerman would still have gotten as close, it's much, much less likely to get a fatal outcome with hands than with a gun. No gun, no death.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 15, 2013)

Master Dan said:


> George is not out of the woods by a long shot. I am sure the family and their attorney's will fill a Civil Wrongful death filing and his attorney fees and stress will not end. I believe there is better than a 75% chance he will receive a judgment that will continue to make his life bad. Right or wrong every person runs the risk in our court system of the same journey of costs and stress when you decide to take the law into your own hands no matter how justified you may think you are. Hands or weapon's if they are not in your house or attempting to enter your house you have risk period. If it comes to defending your life or family given no choice there is no choice *but beyond that walk away, report let someone else take the risk.
> *



Ummm, that is what he did.  He tried to report it and give detailed information to the police.  Martin actually gave him the slip and Zimmerman was returning to his car.  After making racial comments on the phone about being a "cracker" (note: the only racial language used in the entire situation).  Martin snuck back around and then confronted Zimmerman.  

I like also how in this case, since race HAD to be a factor that after identifying Zimmerman as white, and then finding out he was Hispanic, the news took to calling him a "white hispanic".


----------



## granfire (Jul 15, 2013)

MJS said:


> Dude, are you listening to yourself?  Let me ask you this:  where was the outcry from Jesse, Al and the rest of the clowns, when the 3 black punk thugs, killed the waitress for her tip money?  How about the ones that poured gas on a kid and lit him on fire?
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...g-home-school-set-fire-cops-article-1.1033062
> 
> http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/18616119/police-indiana
> ...




There was no big outcry when the scrawny guy shot into a party at a dorm in Auburn, killing 3 black guys....oh no, excuses for the shooter were being made....


----------



## crushing (Jul 16, 2013)

arnisador said:


> In the unlikely event Zimmerman would still have gotten as close, it's much, much less likely to get a fatal outcome with hands than with a gun. No gun, no death.



1.  much less likely to get a fatal outcome with hands than with a gun
2.  No gun, no death.

I agree with the first of these contradictory statements.  It's more likely a person would suffer a concussion or more serious traumatic brain injury or other great bodily harm short of getting killed.


----------



## MJS (Jul 16, 2013)

punisher73 said:


> Ummm, that is what he did.  He tried to report it and give detailed information to the police.  Martin actually gave him the slip and Zimmerman was returning to his car.  After making racial comments on the phone about being a "cracker" (note: the only racial language used in the entire situation).  Martin snuck back around and then confronted Zimmerman.
> 
> I like also how in this case, since race HAD to be a factor that after identifying Zimmerman as white, and then finding out he was Hispanic, the news took to calling him a "white hispanic".



Yes!  And isn't it funny how the people that're running around like animals in the streets, seem to overlook this little bit of info.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 16, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The National Sheriff's Association has disavowed him as not being part of a legitimate neighborhood watch:
> http://www.lawofficer.com/article/news/national-sheriff-s-association-0


I don't need the national sheriff association to approve of me taking pride and caring about my neighborhood.



> In the unlikely event Zimmerman would still have gotten as close, it's much, much less likely to get a fatal outcome with hands than with a gun. No gun, no death.



Again your just guessing.  Only takes one blow of the head vs sidewalk to kill someone.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Again your just guessing.  Only takes one blow of the head vs sidewalk to kill someone.



It's not a guess. What you say is true but there's a reason you're issued a firearm and not just given boxing lessons. No gun, no death. GZ wouldn't have gotten close; even if he had, it would've been a fistfight. Those are rarely fatal, while gunfights are often fatal.


----------



## billc (Jul 16, 2013)

In Chicago Mayor Daley's nephew was involved in an empty hand fight.  He punched a guy, the guy hit his head on the sidewalk (sound familiar) and never woke up from his coma.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...nci-koschman-david-koschman-richard-j-vanecko


----------



## arnisador (Jul 16, 2013)

Yes, that can happen. In fact I warn my students that any strike to the head has this possibility and that it's hitting the ground that's apt to do more damage than the strike itself.

But it's a whole lot less likely than what happens when you shoot someone. Are you seriously contesting this?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 16, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Yes, that can happen. In fact I warn my students that any strike to the head has this possibility and that it's hitting the ground that's apt to do more damage than the strike itself.
> 
> But it's a whole lot less likely than what happens when you shoot someone. Are you seriously contesting this?


Your making it sound like Had Zimmerman not been armed nobody would have been killed.  You dont know that.  Nobody knows that.


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 16, 2013)

Master Dan said:


> Have you no feeling for the parents of a child who just wanted to go to the store for skittles or for every black person in America who is and has been suspicious until proven ok just for being black and wearing a Hoody? Denial is not a river in Egypt!



The actual event had absolutely nothing to do with race.  George Zimmerman has also been known to help blacks in his neighborhood.  

Again, the only racial profiling that occurred was done by Trayvon Martin, if you choose to believe Rachel Jeantel.  He was the one who referred to Zimmerman using racist language.  

I do not feel badly for a drug using thug who committed assault and battery on a man who was doing absolutely nothing unlawful.  Trayvon Martin had every opportunity to stay disengaged, but instead chose to bushwhack George Zimmerman.  This is certainly illegal.  

Regarding the Skittles and fruity beverages, I wouldn't be surprised if he were trying to get the ingredients needed to make a variant of "purple drank," where you combine fruity candy, fruit flavored beverages, and large doses of dextromethorphan-containing cough syrup (over the counter), to make a hallucinogenic cocktail.  It was already known that he was seeking to make such a thing.


----------



## Steve (Jul 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Your making it sound like Had Zimmerman not been armed nobody would have been killed.  You dont know that.  Nobody knows that.


There is a lot that we don't know, but it hasn't stopped anyone, including you (and me), from throwing out a lot of conjecture.  Don't act like now that it's arnisador doing it, it's suddenly absurd.  He said that a death would have been unlikely, and statistically speaking, he has some support for his personal opinion.

Edit:  As another example, see Grenadier's post just above mine.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Your making it sound like Had Zimmerman not been armed nobody would have been killed.  You dont know that.  Nobody knows that.



We can be pretty confident about it though. Fistfights are rarely fatal--and without the gun it's unlikely the smaller Zimmerman would've gotten that close in the first place. So, really good odds that no gun means no death.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 16, 2013)

Steve said:


> .  He said that a death would have been unlikely, and statistically speaking, he has some support for his personal opinion.
> .



No he didnt he said no gun = no death.  Thats different then unlikely.  Had Martin kept walking= no death thats about the only true statement that can be made


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 16, 2013)

arnisador said:


> We can be pretty confident about it though. Fistfights are rarely fatal--and without the gun it's unlikely the smaller Zimmerman would've gotten that close in the first place. So, really good odds that no gun means no death.



So we should have the right to carry guns?  That way when we are attacked its only a fist fight and we hope you dont die?  How about Martin just keep walking and not attack Zimmerman that would = no death


----------



## arnisador (Jul 16, 2013)

...or GZ not provoking. That would've worked too.

People who carry guns probably shouldn't try  to provoke conflicts.


----------



## Steve (Jul 16, 2013)

Jesus christ, guys.  There were mistakes made on both sides.  Zimmerman handled it poorly, and so did Martin.  If anything, I would tend to give Martin a bit more leeway because of his youth and general lack of life experience.  While we don't know who threw the first punch, so to speak, it's pretty clear that the situation escalated as a result of a series of poor choices by them both.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 16, 2013)

arnisador said:


> ...or GZ not provoking. That would've worked too.
> 
> People who carry guns probably shouldn't try  to provoke conflicts.


Since when is following someone suspicious in your neighborhood and calling the police provoking?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 16, 2013)

Steve said:


> Jesus christ, guys.  There were mistakes made on both sides.  Zimmerman handled it poorly, and so did Martin.  If anything, I would tend to give Martin a bit more leeway because of his youth and general lack of life experience.  While we don't know who threw the first punch, so to speak, it's pretty clear that the situation escalated as a result of a series of poor choices by them both.



Not legally Zimmerman was well within the law on what he did.  I wish more people would stand up and take some pride in their own neighborhood.


----------



## Steve (Jul 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Not legally Zimmerman was well within the law on what he did.  I wish more people would stand up and take some pride in their own neighborhood.


I seriously do not understand why you dig your heels on some things, ballen.  I didn't say "legally."  That's a condition you're adding, for what reason I can't understand.  

Legally, Zimmerman was found not guilty of 2nd degree murder.  Period.  That's fact.  But, does that mean he made no mistakes?  You think you'd have handled the situation in exactly the same way Zimmerman did?  That he was in no way culpable for the result?  

Look at it this way.  What would the win/win have been?  I mean, ultimately, the goal was to ensure that Martin wasn't committing crimes, get the police involved and if Martin was a criminal, to bring him to justice.  Right?  But, months later, TM is dead and GZ has been through a legal ringer, with potentially more legal issues to deal with, and no matter what happens in court, his life has changed for the worse.  He may never escape the polarizing infamy this court case has garnered him.

Wouldn't you agree that he made some mistakes?


----------



## granfire (Jul 16, 2013)

Steve said:


> I seriously do not understand why you dig your heels on some things, ballen.  I didn't say "legally."  That's a condition you're adding, for what reason I can't understand.
> 
> Legally, Zimmerman was found not guilty of 2nd degree murder.  Period.  That's fact.  But, does that mean he made no mistakes?  You think you'd have handled the situation in exactly the same way Zimmerman did?  That he was in no way culpable for the result?
> 
> ...



Well, had GZ not shot an unarmed teen, but somebody slightly older with the tools of the trade in his pocket, would we still say the same things?

Yes, he could have stayed in his truck, gone home and wait to hear the news the next morning....
apartment x got broke into, 
resident Y assaulted....a crack kitchen was set up in the next building over.

Did he make a mistake?
From what I can tell, his biggest mistake of that night was not being born black. 

Evil thrives when good people stand by and do nothing.

The only way you can't make mistakes is by doing nothing.


----------



## Steve (Jul 16, 2013)

granfire said:


> Well, had GZ not shot an unarmed teen, but somebody slightly older with the tools of the trade in his pocket, would we still say the same things?
> 
> Yes, he could have stayed in his truck, gone home and wait to hear the news the next morning....
> apartment x got broke into,
> ...


What the heck is going on here?  Do you guys think Zimmerman is a hapless victim?  I'm genuinely shocked if that's the case.  If you guys believe that Zimmerman is a poor, blameless victim, I think I can begin to understand some of the miscommunication going on in this thread.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 16, 2013)

Steve said:


> Wouldn't you agree that he made some mistakes?



No I wouldn't agree.  When Martin physically attacked Zimmerman all bets are off.  Zimmerman can follow anyone he wants for any reason he wants.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 16, 2013)

Steve said:


> What the heck is going on here?  Do you guys think Zimmerman is a hapless victim?  I'm genuinely shocked if that's the case.  If you guys believe that Zimmerman is a poor, blameless victim, I think I can begin to understand some of the miscommunication going on in this thread.


So what did Zimmerman do wrong besides giving a crap about his neighbors and worrying about his community?


----------



## Steve (Jul 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> No I wouldn't agree.  When Martin physically attacked Zimmerman all bets are off.  Zimmerman can follow anyone he wants for any reason he wants.


You don't know that Martin attacked Zimmerman.  We have one side of the story, and you're choosing to believe it.


ballen0351 said:


> So what did Zimmerman do wrong besides giving a crap about his neighbors and worrying about his community?


He followed a guy in the dark, in the rain, and ended up in a fist fight that eventually led to one person's death, and his own life being screwed up for years, and possibly forever.  Are you saying that there's no way there could have been a better outcome?  Once again, what were the goals here?  What was the endgame for Z?  I don't believe for a second that he wanted to kill anyone, and I don't believe M wanted to be killed.  So, somewhere along the way wouldn't you agree that some mistakes were made?  Or do you think this was unavoidable, or that M brought the entire situation on himself?  

Look, I want to be clear.  I'm really, really struggling to understand your perspectives here.  Your position, if I get it at all, is completely foreign to me.  This idea that Z is completely blameless, a hapless victim of circumstances out of his control.  I just don't get it.  

I keep thinking of the SNL skit where the kids are trapped in a bear cave.  They keep provoking the bears and then acting surprised when the bear eats one of them.  The point is that behaviors have consequences.  I believe that both Zimmerman AND Martin had influence over what happened.   They both made mistakes and their errors in judgement ended really bad for them both.  It didn't work out for either of them.


----------



## granfire (Jul 16, 2013)

Steve said:


> What the heck is going on here?  Do you guys think Zimmerman is a hapless victim?  I'm genuinely shocked if that's the case.  If you guys believe that Zimmerman is a poor, blameless victim, I think I can begin to understand some of the miscommunication going on in this thread.



hapless victim?

no.
just one of two guys who made mistakes. 

And he did what each and every one of us would do in a similar situation: Do what it takes to go home to the family.

People who do make mistakes. It is easy to pass judgment after the fact.

The point is, that the other party was also no hapless victim, but another player in the game. 

and in the end - and please, note the examples from homicides that happened at the same time - the only thing that was CZ grave mistake was being not black. 
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...ol-wounded-two-ex-players-killed-in-shooting/
It was rather astonishing to hear and read the excuses that were made for the shooter, leaving to return with a loaded gun and ill intentions, taking three lives, with no claim of self defense.


I find the Zimmermann case fascinating though.

As long as we discuss the merits of fighting (and 'street' is such a popular selling point in MA) in a vacuum, we are all tough talk.
We are all about the 2nd amendment, but heaven forbid, a fellow legally carries a gun and is forced to use it.

Not that I gave three figs about the trial past what I could not avoid come across....but it seems that GZ had disengaged. 
If that was indeed the case, then yes, he would qualify as victim. Not hapless tho.

would have could have should have....
he follows a long line of people madder than hell, unwilling to take it anymore. 
Instead of standing in front of a TV camera, demanding police to fix his neighborhood, he became proactive. 

Win, lose or draw. 

Did he make mistakes? Sure. Because the guy in the hoody could have also very well packed a gun. 
how would that have played out?
family man gunned down in his own neighborhood, nobody saw nothing....


----------



## Tgace (Jul 16, 2013)

"Mistakes" aside Steve..who did something ILLEGAL?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 16, 2013)

One night..in the early morning hours...I heard a car door slam and people yelling/screaming. I was still up (working midnight's at the time) and as I frequently am, I was dressed in civvies and armed. I went outside and walked down the sidewalk to see what was up. A girl jumped back in the car and it tore off. I was already on the phone and I got the plate so I let the patrol doggies take it and I went home. Turns out it was just a BF/GF argument.

How quickly could that have turned into a "what the **** do you want!?!?"...."whats going on here??"..."mind your own business!!!"...boyfriend assaults me situation?

Was I a "creepy *** cracker" for going out to see what was happening? Do I get a pass because Im an LEO? Was it OK that I went out because I was an LEO?

This whole case is really ALL about who laid hands on who first, who used deadly physical force first and if Zimmerman reasonably believed his life was in danger when he shot. ALL the rest of these issues (who followed who, what 911 told him, etc.) are sideline topics that peoples political/social beliefs are being expressed through.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 16, 2013)

Tgace said:


> "Mistakes" aside Steve..who did something ILLEGAL?


Is the DOJ now thinking of putting people on trial for mistakes?


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 16, 2013)

One of the things that is hard for "lay people" is that we hear ALL the dirt on both sides of the fence.  Stuff that is NOT admissible in court and the jurors never hear.

Here are SOME of the things that we know and about Zimmerman and Martin that was known AT THE TIME this happened

1) Zimmerman was involved in a neighborhood watch and knew that there had been some break-ins in the neighborhood/surrounding area.
2) Zimmerman saw someone in the neighborhood that he didn't know/recognize looking like he was casing things
3) Zimmerman was told by dispatch that he "didn't need to follow" the suspect.  (Note: he was NEVER told NOT to)
4) Zimmerman lost contact with the person and was returning to his truck
5) Martin was staying with people in the neighborhood
6) Martin after knowing he was being followed got away and hid
7) Martin after watching Zimmerman go back to his truck to leave, followed him and confronted him

Things that we know from the incident that prejudice us into believing one way or another.
1) Martin was suspended from school for assaulting an adult school person (bus driver) which is why he was not staying at home
2) Child pornography, drugs and weapons on Martin's phone
3) Martin was suspended from school also for drug possession
4) Martin was found in possession of buglary tools and possible stolen property while at school
5) Pictures of piles of jewelry on the phone 
6) Allegations that Zimmerman used racial language while on the phone (later found to be not true, and actually it was Martain who did)
7) Saying that Zimmerman was "white" and later changed it to "white hispanic" to play up the race angle
8) Originally saying that Zimmerman tracked down Martin and had cornered him, when in fact the dispatch tape shows he never caught up to him and had actually lost Martin

Zimmerman had good intentions (we assume), and hindsight is always 20/20.  Zimmerman could have listened to the Dispatch advise and not gotten out of the truck to try and locate Martin.  But, again this is hindsight based on the outcome of the situation.  Martin was returning from the store (that is all we know and thoughts of "casing" etc. are based on pure speculation) so we will also assume good intentions. Martin got away and was only 1-2 houses away from where he was staying.  He could have easily have gone to where he was staying and been safe or stayed hidden until the person following him left.  Instead, Martin CHOSE to have bad intentions and try and come up behind Zimmerman to confront him.  Armchair quarterbacking we can say that mistakes were made on both sides, but only one side chose with bad intent, and unfortunately that choice seems to be a pattern of behavior with other later known facts.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 16, 2013)

Steve said:


> You don't know that Martin attacked Zimmerman.



Martin's knuckles were bruised.  Zimmermans were not.  Martin had no other injuries except the gunshot wound.  Zimmerman had a broken nose, two black eyes, lacerations on the back of his head, and bruises/stains on his back.  The physical evidence supports the theory that Martin attacked, overwhelmed Zimmerman, and escalated to deadly force.  There is no reason why anyone should doubt Zimmerman's story.  He is not racist, nor has he a past history of racism.  People who think Zimmerman did something wrong have been completely suckered in by the race baiting lame stream media and all of their manipulative, emotive, language.  It happens to everyone.  IMO, the sooner we admit we got fooled, the sooner we can stop being victims to this kind of thing.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 16, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Martin's knuckles were bruised.  Zimmermans were not.  Martin had no other injuries except the gunshot wound.  Zimmerman had a broken nose, two black eyes, lacerations on the back of his head, and bruises/stains on his back.  The physical evidence supports the theory that Martin attacked, overwhelmed Zimmerman, and escalated to deadly force.  There is no reason why anyone should doubt Zimmerman's story.  He is not racist, nor has he a past history of racism.  People who think Zimmerman did something wrong have been completely suckered in by the race baiting lame stream media and all of their manipulative, emotive, language.  It happens to everyone.  IMO, the sooner we admit we got fooled, the sooner we can stop being victims to this kind of thing.



Oh and BTW, I totally got fooled.  Before I went and looked up the actual events of this case, I just assumed that Zimmerman must have been at fault somehow.  Admittedly, I didn't really understand what happened though.  I only knew that it was a huge controversy and that race was somehow involved.  Now, I think I know better.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 17, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Oh and BTW, I totally got fooled.  Before I went and looked up the actual events of this case, I just assumed that Zimmerman must have been at fault somehow.  Admittedly, I didn't really understand what happened though.  I only knew that it was a huge controversy and that race was somehow involved.  Now, I think I know better.



And now Eric Holder wants to blame this on Fla stand your ground law and race....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 17, 2013)

Tgace said:


> And now Eric Holder wants to blame this on Fla stand your ground law and race....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



This will probably sound tin foil hatty, but I think this fits the pattern of attacking gun rights and attacking any laws that somewhat give the individual some autonomy when it comes to using violence. The attitude among lefties seems to be that self defense is bad and that the only people who should be allowed to use violence are people in uniform...aka people in government.

This case, with all of it's media hype and outright manipulation, seems like another transparent attempt to demonize private individuals . The race card is especially phony when you consider the Florida black woman who was given 20 years for firing warning shots at a threat. Partisan lefties won't touch this case though because it involves a gun and an individual who dared protect herself without an official costume.


----------



## Master Dan (Jul 17, 2013)

Steve said:


> What the heck is going on here?  Do you guys think Zimmerman is a hapless victim?  I'm genuinely shocked if that's the case.  If you guys believe that Zimmerman is a poor, blameless victim, I think I can begin to understand some of the miscommunication going on in this thread.



You have hit the nail on the head it is all about race and hate and if we put it down by % on this site I find the majority involved or at least who take the time to comment related to anything race related not just unsympathetic to the plight of minorities but out right hostile and self righteous unwilling to look in the mirror and see them selves for what they are. Where are the black people on this site? If Zimmerman was truly guiltless or had done the right thing for the community he would have nothing to fear. Our country is polarized now just as bad as Germany in 1935 with a combination of those threatened by the possibility of loosing financial and political control and those so desperate to improve their financial plight they are willing to vote against their own self interest because they are being told by media and politically corrupt politicians all their problems or the imagined threat is *THOSE PEOPLE OR THAT GROUP!!
*
People fought and died to change that but it looks like we are going to have to do it all over again. There is a whole group of people that think the wrong side won the Civil War.

I have respect for outright haters, bigots and racist who are at lest honest enough to admit what they are but I hate the hypocrites and cowards that want to hide behind protecting my gun rights or imaginary threats that do not exist.

Bottom line to the verdict is that all black teens wearing a hoody are considered suspicious and dangerous until proven otherwise. Except for a few Token Blacks paid for by the right the majority of black people in America agree.


----------



## Master Dan (Jul 17, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Not legally Zimmerman was well within the law on what he did.  I wish more people would stand up and take some pride in their own neighborhood.



Oh there you go take pride in your neighborhood kill a kid just going to buy snacks. and also its not provoking to observe someone and call the police its provoking to follow them and confront them especially after being told stay in your vehicle. If Martin was a thug he would have been pack in and dropped George where he stood.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 17, 2013)

Master Dan said:


> Oh there you go take pride in your neighborhood kill a kid just going to buy snacks. and also its not provoking to observe someone and call the police its provoking to follow them and confront them especially after being told stay in your vehicle. If Martin was a thug he would have been pack in and dropped George where he stood.


Did you even watch the trial or are you just trolling?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 17, 2013)

Master Dan said:


> You have hit the nail on the head it is all about race and hate and if we put it down by % on this site I find the majority involved or at least who take the time to comment related to anything race related not just unsympathetic to the plight of minorities but out right hostile and self righteous unwilling to look in the mirror and see them selves for what they are. Where are the black people on this site? If Zimmerman was truly guiltless or had done the right thing for the community he would have nothing to fear. Our country is polarized now just as bad as Germany in 1935 with a combination of those threatened by the possibility of loosing financial and political control and those so desperate to improve their financial plight they are willing to vote against their own self interest because they are being told by media and politically corrupt politicians all their problems or the imagined threat is *THOSE PEOPLE OR THAT GROUP!!
> *
> People fought and died to change that but it looks like we are going to have to do it all over again. There is a whole group of people that think the wrong side won the Civil War.
> 
> ...


Where is your outrage over the black on black murders?  A black teen that is murdered has a 93% chance they were killed by another young black male.  Wheres your outrage?  Where is your marches and protest?  Where are the leaders calling for an end to the violence?  So the only Bigot I see here is YOU


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 17, 2013)

Master Dan said:


> Oh there you go take pride in your neighborhood kill a kid just going to buy snacks. and also its not provoking to observe someone and call the police its provoking to follow them and confront them especially after being told stay in your vehicle. If Martin was a thug he would have been pack in and dropped George where he stood.



Fact:  Zimmerman told dispatchers initially there was a "strange guy" and there had been recent break-ins in the neighborhood.  Dispatch actually asked the race and it wasn't until Martin turned towards him that he knew he was black and identified him as such
Fact:  Martin called Zimmerman a "creepy *** cracker" on his phone call
Fact:  Zimmerman was NEVER told to stay in his vehicle, when Martin ran he was asked if he was following and dispatch did say that they didn't need him to do that. After he was told that, Zimmerman does NOT run/follow after Martin and tells them "ok" and then continues to talk with dispatchers and tells them he will wait for the police.
Fact:  Zimmerman NEVER confronted Martin.  Martin got away and then came back around as Zimmerman attempted to leave

One of the other things that people have NOT seemed to notice is that Zimmerman in his call makes reference to Martin putting his hand into his waistband and doing something and later Zimmerman tells dispatchers that Martin has something in his hand, but he can't tell what it is.  A person could reasonably assume that the other person may have a weapon of some kind on their person due to these actions and circumstances.  Remember it is what is believed at the time of the incident and not facts known after the incident.

As to Martin being a "thug" and he would have been packing.  That's crap.  I know plenty of gangbangers through my work in LE and they don't ALL carry guns all the time.  In fact, some of the younger independant gangs might only have 1 or 2 handguns that they pass around amongst themselves.  

Also, Alveda King (Dr. Martin L. King Jr.'s neice) recently admonished the NAACP and other black leaders for "race baiting" in the Zimmerman case and said that it had nothing to do with race.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/alveda-king-naacp-zimmerman/2013/07/15/id/515158 .  Looking at just the FACTS of the case, it was a case of whether or not Zimmerman had the right to use lethal force to protect himself with a particular set of circumstances.  FACTS that we know from the 911 call.  1) Suspect acting strange like he was on drugs  2) Reaching into his waistband and having something in his hand.  FACTS that we know from other testimony and physical evidence 1) Martin had Zimmerman on the ground and was slamming his head on the concrete 2) Zimmerman shot Martin at an upward angle at close range consistant with Martin being over the top of Zimmerman.  

There was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL presented in the trial (or other investigations) that race had ANYTHING to do with this at all.  In fact, the only racial comment came from Martin.  So how about stopping with the personal attacks calling everyone closet racists because they feel that Zimmerman had the right to protect himself and use lethal force when he was in fear of his life.  If you can post FACTUAL EVIDENCE or testimony from the trial that support racism instead of media opinions then lets hear it.


----------



## MJS (Jul 17, 2013)

Steve said:


> I seriously do not understand why you dig your heels on some things, ballen.  I didn't say "legally."  That's a condition you're adding, for what reason I can't understand.
> 
> Legally, Zimmerman was found not guilty of 2nd degree murder.  Period.  That's fact.  But, does that mean he made no mistakes?  You think you'd have handled the situation in exactly the same way Zimmerman did?  That he was in no way culpable for the result?
> 
> ...



To be honest, were I in GZ's shoes, well, it's hard to say, because each situation is different.  I'm still curious as to what the full scope of what he could/could not do, as a neighborhood watchman, is.  Are they allowed to pursue, either on foot or in vehicle, a susp. person, once they leave the area the NW person is patrolling?  Are they allowed to physically interact with them?  If so, yeah, I'd most likely have did what GZ did.  One thing I would do though, is request the PD to send a marked car to the area I was in.  Why?  Because in the end, the bottom line is, a NW person is not a LEO.  Of course, if someone was attacking me, sure, I'd do what I had to do to go home.

I do agree with ballen though.  I mean, if more people actually got involved, and talked to the cops, rather than kept quiet, and did nothing, the world would probably be a better place.


----------



## MJS (Jul 17, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Is the DOJ now thinking of putting people on trial for mistakes?



And why are they getting involved in the first place?  Is there really an honest, legit reason for them to be....or is it more because of pressure?  Hmm....I'll take Under Pressure for $2000 Alex.


----------



## MJS (Jul 17, 2013)

Tgace said:


> And now Eric Holder wants to blame this on Fla stand your ground law and race....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Of course....so he looks good in the eyes of the public.  He's grasping at straws, IMO, and unless he plans on getting involved in every case out there, then he needs to stay the hell out of this one.


----------



## MJS (Jul 17, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Where is your outrage over the black on black murders?  A black teen that is murdered has a 93% chance they were killed by another young black male.  Wheres your outrage?  Where is your marches and protest?  Where are the leaders calling for an end to the violence?  So the only Bigot I see here is YOU



Agreed!  I posted some links a while back on the very things you mention.  The silence from "Master Dan" was deafening. LOL!


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 17, 2013)

Master Dan said:


> Oh there you go take pride in your neighborhood kill a kid just going to buy snacks.



That's not why he was killed.  

Trayvon Martin was shot in a justified self-defense situation, because Trayvon Martin tried to kill George Zimmerman.  It is NOT OK to start a fight by sucker punching someone in the nose, breaking his nose, knocking him down, raining blows down on him MMA-style, and then bashing his head against the concrete.  

This has been pointed out to you numerous times, yet you continue to ignore the facts.  



> and also its not provoking to observe someone and call the police its provoking to follow them and confront them especially after being told stay in your vehicle. If Martin was a thug he would have been pack in and dropped George where he stood.



It's not against the law to observe people.  Furthermore, George Zimmerman cooperated with the dispatcher (a 9-1-1 dispatcher is NOT the police) when he acknowledged the dispatcher who specifically stated "You don't have to do that."  Zimmerman replied "OK."  

Again, this was well-documented, and the facts are making your assertions look silly.  

Finally, it would have been against the law for Trayvon Martin to own a firearm, since he was a disqualified individual, according to ATF 4473.  Surely, you're not encouraging those individuals to break the laws further now?  

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2013)

Tgace said:


> "Mistakes" aside Steve..who did something ILLEGAL?



In my opinion? I think z committed manslaughter but that wasn't the charge.  However, that's beside the point, I think.  He was found innocent if 2nd degree murder, and that's a fact.  

Ask if that is beside the idea that Zimmerman was in no way culpable.  As an adult.  As a gun owner.  He screwed up and will be paying for that the rest of his life.  

So the questions I have now are about how it could have gone better.  I pity z.  I think he is a tragic character who made mistakes that have ruined his life.  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Jul 17, 2013)

This is Fla's Manslaughter statute:



> (1)&#8195;The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.



Section 776 is the Fla Self defence statute.

So. What would facts/evidence would you use to convict Zimmerman of this charge?


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2013)

Tgace said:


> This is Fla's Manslaughter statute:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tgace.  I'm happy to have the conversation you're looking for, if you're also willing to have mine.  You're pushing for an entirely different discussion, which is about whether Zimmerman is guilty.  I'm really much more interested in what lessons could be learned.  


Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Jul 17, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Since when is following someone suspicious in your neighborhood and calling the police provoking?



Since always. Stalking people has always been problematic. When he called the police, the advice was to not follow him around.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 17, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Not legally Zimmerman was well within the law on what he did.  I wish more people would stand up and take some pride in their own neighborhood.



...no matter how many kids die as a result? Because that's what happened. He may well have been within Florida's overbroad laws on this but you can be within the law and still be a provocateur.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 17, 2013)

granfire said:


> Well, had GZ not shot an unarmed teen, but somebody slightly older with the tools of the trade in his pocket, would we still say the same things?



You get a bonus for being right and (should) get a penalty for being wrong. Which is one reason we don't shoot people when we're not sure if they're part of the problem or not.

A neighborhood _watch _is intended to do just that--watch and report to the police. It's not meant as a vigilante group.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 17, 2013)

punisher73 said:


> Martin got away and was only 1-2 houses away from where he was staying.  He could have easily have gone to where he was staying and been safe or stayed hidden until the person following him left.



This makes more sense if it's the first time you've been followed by someone who looks like they want to get you in trouble. If it's happened to him before or he believed it would continue to happen to him, he may have thought that a confrontation to discuss the matter may have been his best bet. How it came to blows we'll never know for sure.


----------



## granfire (Jul 17, 2013)

arnisador said:


> You get a bonus for being right and (should) get a penalty for being wrong. Which is one reason we don't shoot people when we're not sure if they're part of the problem or not.
> 
> A neighborhood _watch _is intended to do just that--watch and report to the police. It's not meant as a vigilante group.



well, I was going for all things being the same, being GZ being pinned by an older guys with burglary tools in the pocket.

We also do not go around jumping on people and pounding them into the pavement.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 17, 2013)

granfire said:


> We also do not go around jumping on people and pounding them into the pavement.



True. But we can't pretend that a white (Hispanic) adult following an African-American teenager has no greater context in this country. It's telling that so many African-Americans do think there's a racial angle--that they know what it's like to always be suspect. There was provocation. That doesn't mean that TM was in the right--if he swung first, he wasn't--or that GZ shouldn't have defended himself. It means GZ doesn't come in with "clean hands" in this matter.


----------



## crushing (Jul 17, 2013)

arnisador said:


> A neighborhood _watch _is intended to do just that--watch and report to the police. It's not meant as a vigilante group.



My house had been egged a couple times.  I heard the cracking noise of another egg hitting my siding.  I ran outside looking for whomever was vandalizing my place.  Fortunately, I didn't get jumped.  I never considered what I did to be an act of vigilantism.


----------



## crushing (Jul 17, 2013)




----------



## arnisador (Jul 17, 2013)

crushing said:


> My house had been egged a couple times.  I heard the cracking noise of another egg hitting my siding.  I ran outside looking for whomever was vandalizing my place.  Fortunately, I didn't get jumped.  I never considered what I did to be an act of vigilantism.



I concur with your assessment.

If you got a gun and started following around people you thought were potential egg-throwers, it might be different.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 17, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Since always. Stalking people has always been problematic. When he called the police, the advice was to not follow him around.


Thats nots stalking. Not even close to stalking.
 If you have a legal right to be where you are Then you have a legal right to be where you are.  Zimmerman and Martin both had a legal right to be where they were.  When Martin got physical and started following Zimmerman and attacked him he crossed the line.
  2nd when he was attacked he had turned around.  3rd 1000's of neighborhhod watch people follow strange people around everyday.  Sometimes very rarely but sometimes bad things will happen.  Zimmerman did nothing wrong.  He was legally doing what you or are or anyone else is legally allowed to do.  He was protecting his neighborhood and was attacked so he defended himself.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 17, 2013)

arnisador said:


> ...no matter how many kids die as a result? Because that's what happened. He may well have been within Florida's overbroad laws on this but you can be within the law and still be a provocateur.



1 kid died  thats it not "kidSSSSS" and he played a hand in his own death.  The "overbroad" law had nothing to do with it.  Stand your ground or no stand your ground when someone takes you to the ground and bashes your head on the ground you have a right to defend yourself.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 17, 2013)

arnisador said:


> You get a bonus for being right and (should) get a penalty for being wrong. Which is one reason we don't shoot people when we're not sure if they're part of the problem or not.
> 
> A neighborhood _watch _is intended to do just that--watch and report to the police. It's not meant as a vigilante group.


What did Zimmerman do was vigilante?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 17, 2013)

arnisador said:


> This makes more sense if it's the first time you've been followed by someone who looks like they want to get you in trouble. If it's happened to him before or he believed it would continue to happen to him, he may have thought that a confrontation to discuss the matter may have been his best bet. How it came to blows we'll never know for sure.



So now your making excuses for a kid turning and following then attacking someone.  Zimmerman waswrong for following and reporting but Martins ok for following and attacking........got it Im sure your bias against guns in general has nothing to do with your position:wink2:


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 17, 2013)

arnisador said:


> True. But we can't pretend that a white (Hispanic) adult following an African-American teenager has no greater context in this country. It's telling that so many African-Americans do think there's a racial angle--that they know what it's like to always be suspect. There was provocation. That doesn't mean that TM was in the right--if he swung first, he wasn't--or that GZ shouldn't have defended himself. It means GZ doesn't come in with "clean hands" in this matter.



Except Zimmerman didnt even kno Martin was black.  When asked for a description he didnt know.  Its dark and raining and Martin was ahead of Zimmerman with a hoodie up.  Theres no way he knew he was black.  But I guess that dont matter never let facts get in the way of good outrage.  Kinda like last night when I was told I killed Martin "All you white Mother F^^^ing Pigs killed Treyvon your all the same"  Justice for Teryvon.  Yeah I heard that several times last night.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 17, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I concur with your assessment.
> 
> If you got a gun and started following around people you thought were potential egg-throwers, it might be different.



What if he didnt grab a gun and just followed?


----------



## arnisador (Jul 17, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Zimmerman did nothing wrong.  He was legally doing what you or are or anyone else is legally allowed to do.



Are those the same thing? Legal = nothing wrong?


----------



## arnisador (Jul 17, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> What did Zimmerman do was vigilante?



Patrolling your neighborhood with your firearm and following around "undesirables" is a pretty good defn. of playing cop. That's vigilantism. It resulted in a death for the person he was following, too. That's not a good outcome.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 17, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So now your making excuses for a kid turning and following then attacking someone.  Zimmerman waswrong for following and reporting but Martins ok for following and attacking........



No, neither should've gotten physical. If the story as GZ stated it was accurate then he was, at that point, in a self-defense situation. If I spit in a biker's beer he has no right to attack me...but I wouldn't say I'm wholly without blame.



> got it Im sure your bias against guns in general has nothing to do with your position:wink2:



I'm as unbiased about guns as you are.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 17, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Except Zimmerman didnt even kno Martin was black.  When asked for a description he didnt know.  Its dark and raining and Martin was ahead of Zimmerman with a hoodie up.  Theres no way he knew he was black.



He identified him as "looking" black, but you're missing my point--this is about how it must've felt to be Tm, who _did _know he was black.



> Kinda like last night when I was told I killed Martin "All you white Mother F^^^ing Pigs killed Treyvon your all the same"  Justice for Teryvon.  Yeah I heard that several times last night.



That sucks. Sorry to hear that.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 17, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> What if he didnt grab a gun and just followed?



I'd be less suspicious of GM's behavior if he hadn't felt the need to arm himself for whatever he planned on doing--or if he armed himself but stayed in the car. People who grab a weapon and then go looking around the neighborhood for troublemakers worry me--unless it's their job to do so.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 17, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I'd be less suspicious of GM's behavior if he hadn't felt the need to arm himself for whatever he planned on doing--or if he armed himself but stayed in the car. People who grab a weapon and then go looking around the neighborhood for troublemakers worry me--unless it's their job to do so.


How about people that just carry a gun because it's his legal right to do so.  I carry a gun everyday and am never out looking for anything.  I just have it just in case and quite frankly because I can.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 17, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Are those the same thing? Legal = nothing wrong?



In this particular case yes they are


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 17, 2013)

arnisador said:


> No, neither should've gotten physical. If the story as GZ stated it was accurate then he was, at that point, in a self-defense situation. If I spit in a biker's beer he has no right to attack me...but I wouldn't say I'm wholly without blame.


Spitting Ina beer is an aggressive act.  Following someone from a distance and calling 911 is not.  


> I'm as unbiased about guns as you are.



I have no bias I know a gun is just a tool nothing more or less.


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Except Zimmerman didnt even kno Martin was black.  When asked for a description he didnt know.  Its dark and raining and Martin was ahead of Zimmerman with a hoodie up.  Theres no way he knew he was black.  But I guess that dont matter never let facts get in the way of good outrage.  Kinda like last night when I was told I killed Martin "All you white Mother F^^^ing Pigs killed Treyvon your all the same"  Justice for Teryvon.  Yeah I heard that several times last night.



Wait a minute.  Are you seriously equating the conversation you're having with arnisidor to that???   That's disrespectful to arnisidor specifically, and everyone who disagrees with you, in general.  I don't agree with your opinions on this subject, but I also don't believe I (or anyone on this forum) has acted at all like the person you mention.  I've had to step away from threads here at times to cool off.  Maybe you should consider doing the same.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 17, 2013)

Steve said:


> Wait a minute.  Are you seriously equating the conversation you're having with arnisidor to that???   That's disrespectful to arnisidor specifically, and everyone who disagrees with you, in general.  I don't agree with your opinions on this subject, but I also don't believe I (or anyone on this forum) has acted at all like the person you mention.  I've had to step away from threads here at times to cool off.  Maybe you should consider doing the same.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I wasn't comparing anyone to that statement.  I was comparing that statement to all the rest of the fake BS race card crap that has NOTHING to do with this case or what happened but it sure gets a lot of play huh?

To make the excuse that Martin gets a pass from just going home because he's black and has been followed before is about as dumb as what was said to me.  Esp when the facts of Martins past show a good reason to follow him.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 17, 2013)

arnisador said:


> People who grab a weapon and then go looking around the neighborhood for troublemakers worry me--unless it's their job to do so.



If you own property and have a family in a neighborhood where criminals are prowling, it IS your job to help protect you and your neighbors. Most likely, the police won't show up in time and they won't solve the crime if it is committed.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 17, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Patrolling your neighborhood with your firearm and following around "undesirables" is a pretty good defn. of playing cop. That's vigilantism.


Yes, it is, if you ignore the actual definition, or are suffering from chronic rectal cranial inversion.


> [h=2]Definition of _VIGILANTE_[/h] *:* a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily


----------



## Big Don (Jul 17, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I'd be less suspicious of GM's behavior if he hadn't felt the need to arm himself for whatever he planned on doing--or if he armed himself but stayed in the car. People who grab a weapon and then go looking around the neighborhood for troublemakers worry me--unless it's their job to do so.



He had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Why do you hate civil rights? Why can't an American of Peruvian descent carry a weapon? Why are you biased against his ethnicity?


----------



## Big Don (Jul 17, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> If you own property and have a family in a neighborhood where criminals are prowling, it IS your job to help protect you and your neighbors. Most likely, the police won't show up in time and they won't solve the crime if it is committed.


Wouldn't it have been faster to say:
When you need help in seconds the police are minutes away?


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I wasn't comparing anyone to that statement.  I was comparing that statement to all the rest of the fake BS race card crap that has NOTHING to do with this case or what happened but it sure gets a lot of play huh?
> 
> To make the excuse that Martin gets a pass from just going home because he's black and has been followed before is about as dumb as what was said to me.  Esp when the facts of Martins past show a good reason to follow him.


Ballen, step back for a minute.  Arnisador hasn't once suggested that TM "get a pass" for any reason.  And that's beside the absurdly inappropriate suggestion that a person who was killed could get a pass.   While it is a fact that Zimmerman was acquitted of 2nd degree murder, it is also a fact that Trayvon Martin was not charged with any crimes, despite the best efforts of some here (not just you) to paint him as a criminal and entirely at fault for his own death.  That is also a fact, not my opinion.


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> If you own property and have a family in a neighborhood where criminals are prowling, it IS your job to help protect you and your neighbors. Most likely, the police won't show up in time and they won't solve the crime if it is committed.


This is a great point, and while I think Zimmerman made mistakes, taking an interest in protecting his property and that of his neighbor's was commendable.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 17, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> How about people that just carry a gun because it's his legal right to do so.  I carry a gun everyday and am never out looking for anything.



I wish he'd followed your example.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 17, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I have no bias



Well, I think this is part of the problem here--some of us believe there may be more than one way to view a complex event like this, and others  don't.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 17, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> To make the excuse that Martin gets a pass from just going home because he's black and has been followed before is about as dumb



I don't think you really understand what it's like from the mindet of a person of color, with vastly different experiences. This is what diversity training is for (not that it works very well).


----------



## Tgace (Jul 17, 2013)

Steve said:


> it is also a fact that Trayvon Martin was not charged with any crimes, despite the best efforts of some here (not just you) to paint him as a criminal and entirely at fault for his own death.  That is also a fact, not my opinion.



If..and I posit that it's an IF, TM did indeed take a 4 minute flanking maneuver on Zimmerman and then assault Zimmerman and beat Zimmerman to the point where he feared for his life than I would say that TM was ENTIRELY at fault. If those were the facts and if TM had survived I posit he should have been charged with a crime.

The "he stalked him" and "TM was defending himself" memes are a load of **** if those are indeed the facts in this case.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 17, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Yes, it is, if you ignore the actual definition, or are suffering from chronic rectal cranial inversion.



Ah, polite as always.



> *Definition of VIGILANTE*
> 
> *:* a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily



Well, he was part of a watch apparently, meant to suppress, and ended up punishing. Where do we disagree?


----------



## arnisador (Jul 17, 2013)

Big Don said:


> He had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Why do you hate civil rights? Why can't an American of Peruvian descent carry a weapon? Why are you biased against his ethnicity?



Well, let me just bite this bait. Oh wait! Let me think on it...


----------



## arnisador (Jul 17, 2013)

Tgace said:


> If..and I posit that it's an IF, TM did indeed take a 4 minute flanking maneuver on Zimmerman and then assault Zimmerman and beat Zimmerman to the point where he feared for his life than I would say that TM was ENTIRELY at fault. If those were the facts and if TM had survived I posit he should have been charged with a crime.
> 
> The "he stalked him" and "TM was defending himself" memes are a load of **** if those are indeed the facts in this case.



I mostly agree with you, but if he feared for his life--we never heard his story but we know from the phone conversations he was worried--then he may have felt the best defense was a good offense. I'd still mostly agree with you but it is a mitigating factor.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 17, 2013)

With the same kind of speculative thinking I've seen in this thread, it could easily be said that TM would still be alive if GZ was allowed to Open Carry. The initial asault probably would never have happened.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 17, 2013)

The statement that Zimmerman was "armed and on patrol" is a load of....opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Background_of_the_shooting



> Zimmerman said he was driving to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon Martin walking through the neighborhood. Zimmerman's father said that, while his son was not on duty that night as Neighborhood Watch captain, there had been many break-ins and he thought it suspicious that someone he didn't recognize was walking behind the town homes instead of on the street or the sidewalk. Zimmerman therefore called a non-emergency police line to report Martin's behavior and summon police.[167][168] During the call, Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was "coming to check me out."[73] A source to the Orlando Sentinel said in May that Zimmerman told investigators that at one point Martin circled his vehicle,[Note 7] and he rolled up his window to avoid a confrontation.[164][169]


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2013)

Tgace said:


> If..and I posit that it's an IF, TM did indeed take a 4 minute flanking maneuver on Zimmerman and then assault Zimmerman and beat Zimmerman to the point where he feared for his life than I would say that TM was ENTIRELY at fault. If those were the facts and if TM had survived I posit he should have been charged with a crime.
> 
> The "he stalked him" and "TM was defending himself" memes are a load of **** if those are indeed the facts in this case.


That's true, Tgace.  Personally, based on what I've seen, I don't think that happened.  As I said, we've heard one side of the story, and obviously, it's the side of the story that is most advantageous to Zimmerman's defense.  

But that's conjecture and opinion.  The fact is that we're not talking at all about criminals.  Neither of them.  That is fact.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 17, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I wish he'd followed your example.


He did.  I dont understand your attitude towrd a guy that cares about his home and wans to make sure its safe.  He didnt go out looking for a fight.  Bad things happen sometime its just a fact of life


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> He did.  I dont understand your attitude towrd a guy that cares about his home and wans to make sure its safe.  He didnt go out looking for a fight.  Bad things happen sometime its just a fact of life



So, there's nothing z could have done to bring about a better solution?  I don't for a second believe that z wanted to hurt or kill anyone.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 17, 2013)

Steve said:


> So, there's nothing z could have done to bring about a better solution?  I don't for a second believe that z wanted to hurt or kill anyone.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Other then fight better or take a butt kicking Im dont believe so.  I believe it when like this:

Zimmerman goes out for a check of his neighborhood.  Its dark and raining and he sees someone suspicious walking thru an area thats had some thefts.  He calls the police and starts following the person to get a better location for the police.  At some point he looses sight of the suspect and starts walking back to his truck.  Martin walking to his house sees someone following him and is talking to his girlfriend.  Being a young boy full of hormones and not to bright like mose young men he starts talking tough to his Girlfriend to show her how much of a bad *** he is.  He looses Zimmerman and doubles back to confront him with his girlfriend on the phone.  He pushes Zimmerman to the ground and starts hitting him.  Zimmerman freaks out and shoots Martin.  I dont believe at any time did Zimmerman plan to kill anyone, I also dont think Martin planned to kill anyone.  He just wanted to show off for his girl and smack Zimmerman around a little bit.  Neither planned for anything bad to happen it just did.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 18, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I dont understand your attitude towrd a guy that cares about his home and wans to make sure its safe.  He didnt go out looking for a fight.



Well, here's where we really disagree, I suppose--I think he did go looking for a confrontation, and managed to find it. Much more than he wanted, yes, but still--I believe he wanted a confrontation.


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Other then fight better or take a butt kicking Im dont believe so.  I believe it when like this:
> 
> Zimmerman goes out for a check of his neighborhood.  Its dark and raining and he sees someone suspicious walking thru an area thats had some thefts.  He calls the police and starts following the person to get a better location for the police.  At some point he looses sight of the suspect and starts walking back to his truck.  Martin walking to his house sees someone following him and is talking to his girlfriend.  Being a young boy full of hormones and not to bright like mose young men he starts talking tough to his Girlfriend to show her how much of a bad *** he is.  He looses Zimmerman and doubles back to confront him with his girlfriend on the phone.  He pushes Zimmerman to the ground and starts hitting him.  Zimmerman freaks out and shoots Martin.  I dont believe at any time did Zimmerman plan to kill anyone, I also dont think Martin planned to kill anyone.  He just wanted to show off for his girl and smack Zimmerman around a little bit.  Neither planned for anything bad to happen it just did.


You're making it sound like they're both just victims of circumstance.  I'm not sure I agree.  I think both of them could have done things differently.  

One subtle thing here.  Though I largely agree with your summary of the events, Martin wasn't necessarily suspicious.  Zimmerman thought he was suspicious.  It's a subtle, but I believe, important distinction.  I've seen kids who are just kids, but my brother (who can be a putz), thinks any kid wearing baggy pants is a drug addict.  He would characterize pretty much any teenager not dressed in a polo shirt and chinos as "suspicious."   Only slightly exaggerating.

There's nothing to suggest that he was doing anything suspicious... until he was being followed.  It's a value judgement, and while Zimmerman didn't appear to do anything illegal, his actions lead me to question his judgement.  Point being that "suspicious" has more to do with zimmerman's perspective and judgment than with any actual "suspiciousness" on the part of Martin.  It's very, very subjective.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 18, 2013)

Steve said:


> You're making it sound like they're both just victims of circumstance.  I'm not sure I agree.  I think both of them could have done things differently.
> 
> One subtle thing here.  Though I largely agree with your summary of the events, Martin wasn't necessarily suspicious.  Zimmerman thought he was suspicious.  It's a subtle, but I believe, important distinction.  I've seen kids who are just kids, but my brother (who can be a putz), thinks any kid wearing baggy pants is a drug addict.  He would characterize pretty much any teenager not dressed in a polo shirt and chinos as "suspicious."   Only slightly exaggerating.
> 
> There's nothing to suggest that he was doing anything suspicious... until he was being followed.  It's a value judgement, and while Zimmerman didn't appear to do anything illegal, his actions lead me to question his judgement.  Point being that "suspicious" has more to do with zimmerman's perspective and judgment than with any actual "suspiciousness" on the part of Martin.  It's very, very subjective.



What do you base that assumption on? I heard Martin was cutting through backyards to "avoid the rain". A stranger in my backyard would trigger some suspicion in me....

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 18, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Well, here's where we really disagree, I suppose--I think he did go looking for a confrontation, and managed to find it. Much more than he wanted, yes, but still--I believe he wanted a confrontation.



Strangers in your neighborhood should be confronted.  This is how responsible people ascertain whether or not someone belongs in that neighborhood.  All Martin had to do was turn on Zimmerman and say, "**** off man.  I live with my dad two houses down."  That would have been the end of it.

Instead, he assaulted Zimmerman.  This decision cost him his life, sadly.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 18, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Well, here's where we really disagree, I suppose--I think he did go looking for a confrontation, and managed to find it. Much more than he wanted, yes, but still--I believe he wanted a confrontation.


Why?  What makes you think he was looking for fight?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 18, 2013)

Steve said:


> You're making it sound like they're both just victims of circumstance.  I'm not sure I agree.  I think both of them could have done things differently.
> 
> One subtle thing here.  Though I largely agree with your summary of the events, Martin wasn't necessarily suspicious.  Zimmerman thought he was suspicious.  It's a subtle, but I believe, important distinction.  I've seen kids who are just kids, but my brother (who can be a putz), thinks any kid wearing baggy pants is a drug addict.  He would characterize pretty much any teenager not dressed in a polo shirt and chinos as "suspicious."   Only slightly exaggerating.
> 
> There's nothing to suggest that he was doing anything suspicious... until he was being followed.  It's a value judgement, and while Zimmerman didn't appear to do anything illegal, his actions lead me to question his judgement.  Point being that "suspicious" has more to do with zimmerman's perspective and judgment than with any actual "suspiciousness" on the part of Martin.  It's very, very subjective.



Walking around at night in the cold and rain is not "normal" behavior.  Most people don't go for a walk in the rain on a cold night.  While there is nothing wrong with it that is "suspicious" behavior.  Since a lot of vehicle break ins happen at night in the rain since most people stay inside during weather like that.  And the noise of the rain can mask sounds of car doors being opened.  Rain is also a counter measure for things like finger prints.  I personally would be suspicious if I saw a young teen walking around at night in the rain.  We have a joke in winter at 4 am in the snow you see 2 or 3 guys standing on the corner that should be PC enough to search them since no normal person is standing out in the snow at 4am.  Its kinda the same thing here.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 18, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Why?  What makes you think he was looking for fight?



It's as much the facts of the case--getting out of the car despite advice not to do so--as just my read of him and the whole situation.


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Walking around at night in the cold and rain is not "normal" behavior.  Most people don't go for a walk in the rain on a cold night.  While there is nothing wrong with it that is "suspicious" behavior.  Since a lot of vehicle break ins happen at night in the rain since most people stay inside during weather like that.  And the noise of the rain can mask sounds of car doors being opened.  Rain is also a counter measure for things like finger prints.  I personally would be suspicious if I saw a young teen walking around at night in the rain.  We have a joke in winter at 4 am in the snow you see 2 or 3 guys standing on the corner that should be PC enough to search them since no normal person is standing out in the snow at 4am.  Its kinda the same thing here.



That's fair, but it wasn't 4am.  I personally would be more suspicious of an adult than a teenager.  Plenty of kids don't drive and we always have kids walking around because they have few other options. Adults normally drive.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 18, 2013)

Steve said:


> That's fair, but it wasn't 4am.  I personally would be more suspicious of an adult than a teenager.  Plenty of kids don't drive and we always have kids walking around because they have few other options. Adults normally drive.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


I'm not sure Zimmerman knew the age of Martin.  He's not a small kid so he may very well in the dark from a distance have looked like an adult.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 18, 2013)

Steve said:


> That's fair, but it wasn't 4am.  I personally would be more suspicious of an adult than a teenager.  Plenty of kids don't drive and we always have kids walking around because they have few other options. Adults normally drive.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2



Most property crimes like car break-ins, vandalism and graffiti are done by teens at night in my town.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 18, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Most property crimes like car break-ins, vandalism and graffiti are done by teens at night in my town.



Older meth users here.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 18, 2013)

I guess the difference between us (Steve, Arni and I) here is from our own world views.  I deal with punk *** kids all day long.  Teen boys cause 50% of the calls I deal with.  Ive been punched, kicked, spit on, by 15 year old kids because they know there is nothing that can happen to them.  So I tend to see kids with Matrins past , drugs, assaults on a bus driver, fights, as a little punk.  I dont think he deserved to die and quite frankly at 15 years old I too was a Punk.  I dont for one second believe Martin was afraid of Zimmerman, he didnt attack him out of built up anger about being followed because hes a black kid, it was because he is a dumb kid trying to show off for his Girl and an attitude that nothing can happen to me.  I see it EVERYDAY.  You talk to these kids and they laugh in your face, cuss you out, and when you let them go they flip you off as they walk away.  Steve said I was cynical I guess I am.  
I mention before one of the big problems now we have is these packs of teens going to our down town waterfront dining areas and just walking up to tables and grabbing peolples foods and eating it or throwing drinks on people or stealing cell phones off tables.  We had a case two nights ago of a woman sitting at a red light talkig on her phone with her windows down pack of teen boys walked up several stand in front of her car and two of them walk up and just punch her in the face and then they run off. No reason just because.  These kids are bold and have no fear of authority.   
I then look at Zimmerman as a guy trying to do the right thing for his community.  Is he a squirrel or wanna be cop?  Maybe but so what whats wrong with that.  Did he go out looking for a fight?  No I dont believe he did.  I believe he has done this same thing hundreds of times before and nothing bad ever happened.  I think he was complacent let his guard down and it was the perfect combination of a kid trying to man up for his girl and a guy pissed off the cops didn't get there in time and he lost the kid so he was walking back to his truck not paying attention to his surroundings and Boom bad stuff happened.
I dont believe for one second Zimmerman is happy about this or was looking for this,  At the end of the day he took the life of a teen age boy.  Having killed someone myself I know what he must be going thru that in and of itself is tough but for the media and the President and the world to then condemn him with no facts I cant imagine.  Here is a guy trying to do a good deed and then to see the news edit his own 911 call to make him look like a racist, to then have it come out the DOJ was setting up protests, to not be able to defend yourself in the public eye and even if you try to be called a racist.  
This whole cases just pisses me off from start to finish.  We had a legal system that was railroaded by politicians to force a murder charge, you had Race thrown around on a case that had nothing to do with race,  you had "creative editing" of 911 tapes to stir up issues that didnt need to be stirred.  We have the President of the United states one of the most powerful men in the world getting involved in a local state lvl criminal matter yet he ignores the war zone that starts 1000 yards from the front door of the  Whitehouse.  Why hasnt he once addressed the problem of black on black crime.  If he is so concerned out our young black youth hes is the one man that could do some good and reach some of these guys.  I go into houses that literally have shrines built to Obama, I go thru neighborhoods and can see on any given day 2 to 4 people wearing Obama t-shirts.  I dont like Obama one bit but damn man what a waist of an opportunity to make a positive change in our country and hes blowing it.  
That kid in PA that saved the kidnapped girl why isnt he being honored at the Whitehouse?  But we are supposed to Honor Martins memory a kid that no matter what you believe you must admit played at least a small part in what happened that night.


----------



## Carol (Jul 18, 2013)

If delineating between teens and adults was easy, no one would ever be carded for liquor.


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Most property crimes like car break-ins, vandalism and graffiti are done by teens at night in my town.


I don't doubt it.  But not in my neighborhood.  Where you live does not necessarily equal where Zimmerman lived or where I live.  Once again, in my neighborhood, we have kids walking around all the time and in Seattle, if kids don't walk in the dark, in the rain, they can't go out after 5pm from November to May.

I would find it more odd to see an adult walking.  As I said, most adults don't walk out of necessity, but the kids often do.


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2013)

Carol said:


> If delineating between teens and adults was easy, no one would ever be carded for liquor.


Carol, you're absolutely right.  A hoody is a pretty good clue to me, though that may be regional.  I don't know.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 18, 2013)

Steve said:


> I don't doubt it.  But not in my neighborhood.  Where you live does not necessarily equal where Zimmerman lived or where I live.  Once again, in my neighborhood, we have kids walking around all the time and in Seattle, if kids don't walk in the dark, in the rain, they can't go out after 5pm from November to May.
> 
> I would find it more odd to see an adult walking.  As I said, most adults don't walk out of necessity, but the kids often do.



Id like to hear from a cop in your area...to be blunt you probably have no clue about who is doing what in your jurisdiction.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 18, 2013)

Most people in my neighborhood may think the same as you Steve...but they don't have access to police reports.....


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I guess the difference between us (Steve, Arni and I) here is from our own world views.  I deal with punk *** kids all day long.


Thanks, ballen, and I agree that we have different perspectives.  Arnisador and I disagree on many issues, but on this one, I understand where he's coming from.  

There was a thread a while back talking about how dangerous a kick to the head is, and how it can crush a person's skull instantly.  The person posting was an ER nurse (IIRC) and he used his anecdotal experience as evidence of how overwhelmingly deadly a kick to the head could be.  But, when I found statistics, and pointed out that many, many people are struck in the head every day, all the time.  They get bumps.  They often rub some dirt in it (or whatever) and then take a few aspirin and forget about it.  While a kick to the head CAN kill someone, it's actually quite unlikely.  It's possible, but certainly not the rule.   But as an ER nurse, this person came to have a skewed perspective.  All he saw were the worst case scenario, and he saw them in a concentrated manner.

In the same way, I think cops run the risk of seeing mostly the worst, and frankly, I think you run a real risk of having a skewed outlook on some things.  Kids, for example.  Chances are, if you are dealing with kids, you're dealing with the worst of them.  But I can guarantee you that there are plenty of kids who are just doing what they can to get through high school, and while they are surely being short sighted and making plenty of mistakes, most will turn out just fine.  

Regarding the Obama stuff, I don't have any real comment to that other than that he's a black president in a polarized political climate.  Anything he does is bound to piss some people off and let other people down.  The two things you mention are completely unrelated to 99.9% of the country, but to you there's some kind of relationship.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 18, 2013)

Steve said:


> Thanks, ballen, and I agree that we have different perspectives.  Arnisador and I disagree on many issues, but on this one, I understand where he's coming from.
> 
> There was a thread a while back talking about how dangerous a kick to the head is, and how it can crush a person's skull instantly.  The person posting was an ER nurse (IIRC) and he used his anecdotal experience as evidence of how overwhelmingly deadly a kick to the head could be.  But, when I found statistics, and pointed out that many, many people are struck in the head every day, all the time.  They get bumps.  They often rub some dirt in it (or whatever) and then take a few aspirin and forget about it.  While a kick to the head CAN kill someone, it's actually quite unlikely.  It's possible, but certainly not the rule.   But as an ER nurse, this person came to have a skewed perspective.  All he saw were the worst case scenario, and he saw them in a concentrated manner.
> 
> ...



I don't buy that overused cliche Steve....the "you only see the bad" bit. It's based on not knowing what we do day in and day out.

The counter argument is that many people who DONT see what we see walk around with rose colored glasses on. I became a cop in my 30's with some life experience already under my belt....until you start answering police calls in your neighborhood and start interacting with FAR more people in your community than the average person does you really have no idea what is going on 2 streets over from your home.

Neither of us are saying that the majority of teens are punks...but we can identify "types" much quicker because we deal with them. I have sat with people and asked them "is this a close guess at your life?" then described their childhood, their falling into trouble, their drug use, their LE experiences etc. and been damn near spot on.

The idea that we "only deal with the bad" is a platitude Steve. We deal with ALL sorts of people all day..every day...all week...24/7/365. "Dealing" with people when you are a cop isn't all about arrests, fights and car chases. I have meet and dealt with far more "good" folks than bad in my career.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 18, 2013)

Steve said:


> Thanks, ballen, and I agree that we have different perspectives.  Arnisador and I disagree on many issues, but on this one, I understand where he's coming from.
> 
> There was a thread a while back talking about how dangerous a kick to the head is, and how it can crush a person's skull instantly.  The person posting was an ER nurse (IIRC) and he used his anecdotal experience as evidence of how overwhelmingly deadly a kick to the head could be.  But, when I found statistics, and pointed out that many, many people are struck in the head every day, all the time.  They get bumps.  They often rub some dirt in it (or whatever) and then take a few aspirin and forget about it.  While a kick to the head CAN kill someone, it's actually quite unlikely.  It's possible, but certainly not the rule.   But as an ER nurse, this person came to have a skewed perspective.  All he saw were the worst case scenario, and he saw them in a concentrated manner.
> 
> In the same way, I think cops run the risk of seeing mostly the worst, and frankly, I think you run a real risk of having a skewed outlook on some things.  Kids, for example.  Chances are, if you are dealing with kids, you're dealing with the worst of them.  But I can guarantee you that there are plenty of kids who are just doing what they can to get through high school, and while they are surely being short sighted and making plenty of mistakes, most will turn out just fine.


I know there are lots of good kids out there dont get me wrong I dont think every kid is bad.  I think most kids are just kids some better then others. Had I not known all the evidence presented in this case and met Martin on the streets I wouldn't think one way or another about him.  I just also can see the story unfolding just as I presented it where others tend to give the kid the benefit of the doubt.  I tend to now do a better job of NOT judging at first because ive been wrong too many times


> Regarding the Obama stuff, I don't have any real comment to that other than that he's a black president in a polarized political climate.  Anything he does is bound to piss some people off and let other people down.  The two things you mention are completely unrelated to 99.9% of the country, but to you there's some kind of relationship.


I dont disagree with you and normally I wouldnt want the president involved in loacl issues but the problem I have is he already is involving himself in these matters but in my opinion hes doing a poor job and keeps coming out on the wrong side if the issues.  Going back to the Cambridge professor and he condemning the police to now.  I think he really could reach people esp young black men and I just dont think he is doing a good job here


----------



## arnisador (Jul 18, 2013)

I work with teenagers and young adults for a living--typically 17-22 years old. The ones I see are outstanding young people. I do think it colors one's viewpoint to see disproportionately many good or bad examples.

We're about to host a high school student from Tunisia in our home for the year--a U.S. Dept. of State sponsored scholarship winner (meaning an exceptional student). Fully vetted by the U.S. govt. You can imagine we have some concerns about how a Muslim might be perceived in our little town.

As to identifying types, I do believe that LEOs become very good at that and have a lot of respect for their "spider-sense". But how about GZ? If you're in a neighborhood watch then by defn. you're looking for trouble-makers. Is it a surprise he sees one?


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Id like to hear from a cop in your area...to be blunt you probably have no clue about who is doing what in your jurisdiction.


Maybe so, Tgace, but the conversation isn't about actual crime in my neighborhood.  It's about what is "suspicious."  You're LEO and you look at everything through that lens.  Most people are not LEO and view things differently, whether that's naive or not.


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2013)

Tgace said:


> I don't buy that overused cliche Steve....the "you only see the bad" bit. It's based on not knowing what we do day in and day out.
> 
> The counter argument is that many people who DONT see what we see walk around with rose colored glasses on. I became a cop in my 30's with some life experience already under my belt....until you start answering police calls in your neighborhood and start interacting with FAR more people in your community than the average person does you really have no idea what is going on 2 streets over from your home.
> 
> ...


Sorry if I offended you, Tgace.  I have nothing but respect for what you and ballen do. 
Edit:  Here's the thing.  I think this is one of those situations where we're just going to have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Carol (Jul 18, 2013)

Steve said:


> Carol, you're absolutely right.  A hoody is a pretty good clue to me, though that may be regional.  I don't know.



I suspect its more regional


----------



## Tgace (Jul 18, 2013)

Steve said:


> Sorry if I offended you, Tgace.  I have nothing but respect for what you and ballen do.  You don't know everything, and even intelligent cops have blind spots.



It's not about being offended Steve. It's about the "well you only see the bad" argument tactic that always seems to pop up in these types of discussions. The fact of the matter is that we deal with people from everything from ducks down the storm drain calls (done that) to homicide scenes (been there). We are also people with families, homes, and "people" experiences beyond our job just like anyone else. 

If anything most cops I know have a WIDER experience with people than a narrower one...but that can depend on where that cop works. I'm not a metro cop working the same 100 blocks in a high crime area. Im a municipal cop in a Town with poor/high crime areas on one side of town and suburban bedroom communities on the other.


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2013)

Tgace said:


> It's not about being offended Steve. It's about the "well you only see the bad" argument tactic that always seems to pop up in these types of discussions. The fact of the matter is that we deal with people from everything from ducks down the storm drain calls (done that) to homicide scenes (been there). We are also people with families, homes, and "people" experiences beyond our job just like anyone else.
> 
> If anything most cops I know have a WIDER experience with people than a narrower one...but that can depend on where that cop works. I'm not a metro cop working the same 100 blocks in a high crime area. Im a municipal cop in a Town with poor/high crime areas on one side of town and suburban bedroom communities on the other.


Tgace, I think that the conversation has seriously gone off the rails.  We were discussing "suspicious" and now we're discussing the roles and experiences of being a cop.  I can comment on the former (at least, offer my opinions), but I really don't think I know enough about the latter to have an intelligent discussion.  I see the discussion moving down a path where pretty much whatever I say will be viewed in some way as negative toward LEO, and that is absolutely not how I would want things to go.    If you ask me what I would view as being suspicious in my neighborhood, I can tell you.  If you ask me how many cars were stolen within a 2 mile radius of my house, I wouldn't know.  Does that make my opinion invalid?  Maybe.  I guess.  But, Zimmerman was more like me than you.  I mean, he wasn't a cop, like you, and whether he wanted to be one or not, he didn't have the training, the experience or the perspective that you have (good or bad.)

Frankly, I've said many times I pity Zimmerman and don't believe for a minute that he ever wanted to kill or hurt anyone.  And yet, because the conversation is otherwise so one-sided, I think I'm coming off as pro-one side over the other.  My thoughts on Zimmerman get lost because there are so many assumptions being made about Martin which I think are a little out there.

I think that there are many lessons that could be learned and the discussion could be very interesting, but I'm going to go ahead and bow out of this one now.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 18, 2013)

Carol said:


> I suspect its more regional
> 
> View attachment 18176



I wear hoodies all the time.  (But my heads to damn big to use the hood part. Booooooo)


----------



## Big Don (Jul 18, 2013)

Steve said:


> Carol, you're absolutely right.  A hoody is a pretty good clue to me, though that may be regional.  I don't know.



EVERYONE wears those here. Me, my kid (17) my sister's kids, (4 and 3) my preacher, my sifu, everyone. 
NOT everyone attacks people.


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2013)

So what's the point guys?  Don?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Big Don (Jul 18, 2013)

Steve said:


> So what's the point guys?  Don?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Zimmerman was tried, not because the prosecution had any reasonable chance of conviction based on the facts at hand, but, because Martin was black and Zimmerman has a muddled racial make up with a light skin tone.
You can deny this, but, that won't make it less true.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 18, 2013)

Steve said:


> So what's the point guys?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



That I like hoodies but I got a big head


----------



## Carol (Jul 18, 2013)

Well...personally I don't think delineating between teens and adults is necessary in an awareness/self defense situation.  

What matters is assessing whether someone is a threat or not.  Someone under 18 can hurt me badly, just as someone 18 or over can.  Someone mentally ill can hurt me, just as someone mentally well can.   Someone high or drunk can hurt me just as someone sober can.

Plus I like hoodies, too.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 18, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> That I like hoodies but I got a big head






I googled for Cobra hooded sweatshirts, you know like the Army's goretex parka that has a hood big enough to cover a helmet, but, my google fu is weak...


----------



## Carol (Jul 18, 2013)

Big Don said:


> I googled for Cobra hooded sweatshirts, you know like the Army's goretex parka that has a hood big enough to cover a helmet, but, my google fu is weak...



Oooh...great idea.  An outdoor outfitter may have hoodies for folks that wear helmets as well.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 18, 2013)

Carol said:


> Oooh...great idea.  An outdoor outfitter may have hoodies for folks that wear helmets as well.



What you trying to say about my head............


----------



## Carol (Jul 18, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> What you trying to say about my head............



Its not the size that matters, its what you do with it? :uhyeah:


:redcaptur


----------



## crushing (Jul 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Why?  What makes you think he was looking for fight?





arnisador said:


> It's as much the facts of the case--getting out of the car despite advice not to do so--as just my read of him and the whole situation.



The dispatcher actually said, "*We don't need you to do that.*"  This suggestion can mean different things to different people.  Someone involved in the community and feeling and that freely gives personal time looking out for neighbors and tutoring children may see such a suggestion differently.  I know it's happened to me, I'm sure it's happened to a lot of people, where I have offered to help someone out and they insisted I don't need to do that, but yet we still provide a ride, hold the door open, or something else to help that person out.   I've also been on the receiving side where someone has helped me out even after I initially insisted they don't need to do that, yet I very much appreciated the offer and assistance.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 19, 2013)

crushing said:


> The dispatcher actually said, "*We don't need you to do that.*"  This suggestion can mean different things to different people.



I understand. It seems likely to me it as meant as a polite way to say it's better you not do that. But it sounds to me like he was a bit overzealous overall:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...an-s-history-of-911-calls-a-complete-log.html



> Along with the audio recordings of six calls  to Sanford police that George Zimmerman made in the weeks before the  Feb. 26 shooting of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department has  posted reports of 46 911 and nonemergency calls it says Zimmerman made between August 2004 and Martin&#8217;s shooting.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 19, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I understand. It seems likely to me it as meant as a polite way to say it's better you not do that. But it sounds to me like he was a bit overzealous overall:
> 
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...an-s-history-of-911-calls-a-complete-log.html



An average of 6 times a year.  I'm not sure that's overzealous for a neighborhood watch


----------



## billc (Jul 19, 2013)

I imagine a lot of communities, especially ones where criminals are invading occupied homes in the middle of the day, would like someone to call 911 if they saw something suspicious, even if it turned out to be a false alarm.  The one time it wasn't a false alarm would be more than enough justification.  I happened to catch part of Katie Couric's show.  She had on the crime where the two men in Connecticut followed a Mother and Daughter home from the store and invaded their home.  They beat the husband with a baseball bat and raped and eventually murdered the mother and her two daughters, burning them to death.  It may not have saved them, but cases like this make me happy when people report "suspiciuos," behavior in my neighborhood.  You never know when someone is in trouble for real.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> An average of 6 times a year.  I'm not sure that's overzealous for a neighborhood watch



I suppose--but some of them sounded pretty trivial. One was a 7-9 y.o during daylight hours?



billc said:


> cases like this make me happy when people report "suspiciuos," behavior in my neighborhood.  You never know when someone is in trouble for real.



In retrospect, of course, In prospect, you risk being the little neighborhood watcher who cried wolf or of repeatedly taking police from elsewhere to your location, which isn't sustainable if too many people do it. Judgment is required.


----------



## billc (Jul 19, 2013)

Keep in mind that in testimony we know about multiple burglaries in that community, one of which as I mentioned happened with a woman and her infant at home, locked in a bedroom while the two teenagers ransacked the home.  They were caught, released and it was learned that they lived right there in that area of homes.  His 911 calls were less and less about false alarms.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 19, 2013)

Big Don said:


> EVERYONE wears those here. Me, my kid (17) my sister's kids, (4 and 3) my preacher, my sifu, everyone.
> NOT everyone attacks people.



My whole family where's hoodies.  Particularly the ones that zip down the middle.  I was the last hold out until I tried one a year ago and was won over!


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 19, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I suppose--but some of them sounded pretty trivial. One was a 7-9 y.o during daylight hours?


Man if you only knew some of the crap people call for.  If I had a buck for every parent that called to report their kid won't go to bed or brush their teeth or do home work or clean his room................


----------



## arnisador (Jul 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Man if you only knew some of the crap people call for.  If I had a buck for every parent that called to report their kid won't go to bed or brush their teeth or do home work or clean his room................



You know, as a parent, I have been tempted at times...


----------



## Big Don (Jul 19, 2013)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> My whole family where's hoodies.  Particularly the ones that zip down the middle.  I was the last hold out until I tried one a year ago and was won over!


Oh, the ones with the zippers are evil, You are clearly some kind of criminal


----------



## Big Don (Jul 19, 2013)

arnisador said:


> You know, as a parent, I have been tempted at times...



That you have even been tempted to call the police for something as trivial as a disobedient child says a lot about your mentality.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 19, 2013)

Big Don said:


> That you have even been tempted to call the police for something as trivial as a disobedient child says a lot about your mentality.



It was a joke. I was being facetious.


----------



## Master Dan (Jul 23, 2013)

Well I started this to show that with all the  bla bla about the Zimmerman trial was not about race the post on this thread is everything about race and my final point is that on MA talk the overwhelming majority seems to be White Right GOP leaning?

The majority on here seem to miss the point that a kid should be able to go to a store to buy snacks and return home with out being profiled or killed!!!! The fact the Zimmerman was held not guilty is only a confirmation that in the South minorities will not receive fair treatment. The trial had bad prosecution that was only forced into pursuing this trial after people demonstrated bad jury bad prosecutors all the way. 

I blame myself for thinking this site related to the MA traditional value system of protect the weak and stand up for those who could not defend themselves was still alive and well? For the most part in America the honor of traditional MA is dead there is only a tribal self serving shallow ego of Warrior mentality left and what I see the demographics reflect a white extreme right mentality in all things.

I look forward to the progression in this country of continued non white voter participation and the elimination of Rush Limbo, Fix Network and the like from dictating policy, promoting miss information and  mobilizing any and all efforts to eliminate middle and lower income peoples from have a fair say in elections in the process. I support peoples right to live in the bubble and refuse to admit reality but I would just like to change their air with Nitrous Oxide


----------



## granfire (Jul 23, 2013)

Master Dan said:


> Well I started this to show that with all the  bla bla about the Zimmerman trial was not about race the post on this thread is everything about race and my final point is that on MA talk the overwhelming majority seems to be White Right GOP leaning?
> 
> The majority on here seem to miss the point that a kid should be able to go to a store to buy snacks and return home with out being profiled or killed!!!! The fact the Zimmerman was held not guilty is only a confirmation that in the South minorities will not receive fair treatment. The trial had bad prosecution that was only forced into pursuing this trial after people demonstrated bad jury bad prosecutors all the way.
> 
> ...



oh well, I am white.
I tried to change that, but dammit, I won't tan...

but to the rest of it?

:bs:


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2013)

We are so sorry to disappoint you Dan.


----------



## Balrog (Jul 25, 2013)

granfire said:


> Oh, why not. I am sure he still has some dirt under his fingernails....
> 
> Sharpten is calling for Zimmermann to be charged for violating Martin's civil rights...


Al Sharpton is a poverty pimp and should be ignored by anyone with more than three functioning brain cells.

Zimmerman should sue Trayvon's parents for raising Trayvon in such a way that Trayvon violated Zimmerman's civil rights. And he
should include Sharpton in the suit for race-baiting.  And NBC for the same reason.


----------



## granfire (Jul 25, 2013)

Balrog said:


> And he
> should include Sharpton in the suit for race-baiting.  And NBC for the same reason.



In a nutshell


----------



## Steve (Jul 25, 2013)

Balrog said:


> Zimmerman should sue Trayvon's parents for raising Trayvon in such a way that Trayvon violated Zimmerman's civil rights.


I'm speechless.  The moral compass in our country is dead.  That you said it astounds me.  That people here agree is blowing my mind.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 25, 2013)

Steve said:


> I'm speechless.  The moral compass in our country is dead.  That you said it astounds me.  That people here agree is blowing my mind.



Sure, this sounds crazy, but imagine a world where TM had a stable family and was taught to treat others with common courtesy? He'd probably still be alive. This issue is something we never talk about in this country. What responsibility do parents have for raising broken children? Imagine a world where parents actually could be held responsible for failing at parenthood.


----------



## MJS (Jul 25, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Sure, this sounds crazy, but imagine a world where TM had a stable family and was taught to treat others with common courtesy? He'd probably still be alive. This issue is something we never talk about in this country. What responsibility do parents have for raising broken children? Imagine a world where parents actually could be held responsible for failing at parenthood.



Yeah, that location is called Fantasy Land! LOL!

Seriously though, you're right.  I don't know about anyone else, but I see it a lot.  The grocery store, shopping mall, etc.  I was at the doctors a few nights ago.  Woman comes in with 3 kids, 1 of them older than the other 2.  We were the only ones in the office at that time, and these kids were out of control.  Then again, kids learn what they live, so if the parents are clueless, well.......


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 25, 2013)

Steve said:


> I'm speechless.  The moral compass in our country is dead.  That you said it astounds me.  That people here agree is blowing my mind.



You're right about the moral compass - that's what happens when you allow amoral capitalism to inform all decisions on social and economic policy.

As to that Balrog said, it rather depends on whether the reader thinks he meant it literally or to make a point by hyperbole.


----------



## granfire (Jul 25, 2013)

MJS said:


> Yeah, that location is called Fantasy Land! LOL!
> 
> Seriously though, you're right.  I don't know about anyone else, but I see it a lot.  The grocery store, shopping mall, etc.  I was at the doctors a few nights ago.  Woman comes in with 3 kids, 1 of them older than the other 2.  We were the only ones in the office at that time, and these kids were out of control.  Then again, kids learn what they live, so if the parents are clueless, well.......



and you are the bass-turd/(b)witch when you give them the hairy eyeball....precious! :barf:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 25, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> You're right about the moral compass - that's what happens when you allow amoral capitalism to inform all decisions on social and economic policy.
> 
> As to that Balrog said, it rather depends on whether the reader thinks he meant it literally or to make a point by hyperbole.



Actually, a little capitalism would provide incentives for good parenting. Right now the costs of bad parenting are socialized!


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 25, 2013)

:sigh:

Remind me again why I bother posting anything in any of threads here that are about politics (one way or another)?  I am sick to the back teeth of people not getting the point, or picking an argument on a tangent or accidently/deliberately mangling the intent of what I said.  I know it's supposed to be a discussion forum but there are limits to how much stupidity or wilful 'blindness' I can swallow (not saying that what you said is necessarily stupid Maka, I've just had enough for now of senseless 'debate' that is destructive rather than constructive).

So ... I'm out on 'Study' sabbatical.


----------



## MJS (Jul 26, 2013)

granfire said:


> and you are the bass-turd/(b)witch when you give them the hairy eyeball....precious! :barf:



Of course.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 28, 2013)

Balrog said:


> Zimmerman should sue Trayvon's parents for raising Trayvon in such a way that Trayvon violated Zimmerman's civil rights.



This is a very insensitive and ignorant comment.



Steve said:


> I'm speechless.  The moral compass in our country is dead.  That you said it astounds me.  That people here agree is blowing my mind.



Agreed.


----------



## MJS (Jul 29, 2013)

arnisador said:


> This is a very insensitive and ignorant comment.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.



The thing is, is that in many cases, it's true!  Either parents just toss up their hands because they're at wits end with their wild child or they just don't just a **** what their kid does in the first place.  Amazing how you can take a look at a kid acting out, then look at the parent, and know right away, that THAT is why the kid is like they are.

In the good old days, all it took was 'the look' from mom or dad or a whack on the ***, and the bad behavior stopped!  Today, well, it's pretty pathetic when the kids call the cops on the parents, or when I take a call from a parent, who states that their 8yo child is misbehaving and wont go to school.  So......you call the cops?  *shakes my head*


----------



## Steve (Jul 29, 2013)

MJS said:


> The thing is, is that in many cases, it's true!  Either parents just toss up their hands because they're at wits end with their wild child or they just don't just a **** what their kid does in the first place.  Amazing how you can take a look at a kid acting out, then look at the parent, and know right away, that THAT is why the kid is like they are.
> 
> In the good old days, all it took was 'the look' from mom or dad or a whack on the ***, and the bad behavior stopped!  Today, well, it's pretty pathetic when the kids call the cops on the parents, or when I take a call from a parent, who states that their 8yo child is misbehaving and wont go to school.  So......you call the cops?  *shakes my head*


Jesus, guys.  Well, let me just confess.  According to the prevailing standards of the folks on this forum, I should be dead or in jail and my parents were unfit.  That's basically what you guys are saying.  My parents, like Trayvon's, were firmly in the middle class.  I went to public schools.  I got into fights. I "experimented" with weed and was a terrible student, spent my Junior and Senior years at Summer school, night school and "day" school so that I could graduate on time.  My GPA was a 1.7 out of high school.  

Personally, looking back, I am very much who I am today because of what I went through as a teenager.  The gangs, the fights and all of it.  All of that has informed my behavior as an adult.  I served in the USAF, and ended up graduating from the University of Washington with a 3.96 GPA.  

My point isn't to declare that Trayvon Martin was a model human being.  My point is that he was clearly a work in progress, as ALL teenagers are.  And I just flat out don't believe that you are all as perfect as you are implying.  

I believe, frankly, that some of you are just flat out lying or in denial about the quality of your character as teenagers and the general fitness of your parents, and also are in denial about YOUR OWN abilities as parents.  Because it's been my experience that the families that appear to the outside to be perfect are often the ones that are rotten underneath.


----------



## granfire (Jul 29, 2013)

Steve said:


> Jesus, guys.  Well, let me just confess.  According to the prevailing standards of the folks on this forum, I should be dead or in jail and my parents were unfit.  That's basically what you guys are saying.  My parents, like Trayvon's, were firmly in the middle class.  I went to public schools.  I got into fights. I "experimented" with weed and was a terrible student, spent my Junior and Senior years at Summer school, night school and "day" school so that I could graduate on time.  My GPA was a 1.7 out of high school.
> 
> Personally, looking back, I am very much who I am today because of what I went through as a teenager.  The gangs, the fights and all of it.  All of that has informed my behavior as an adult.  I served in the USAF, and ended up graduating from the University of Washington with a 3.96 GPA.
> 
> ...



did you jump people and bash their head into the sidewalk?

Yes, kids/guys will be kids/guys....
But there is that certain element of either denial or idiocy that surfaces when something bad happens and all over sudden the kid is a sweet angel...I suppose the world was out to get him, too...

Did your parents tan your hide when they caught you doing stupid stuff?


----------



## MJS (Jul 29, 2013)

Steve said:


> Jesus, guys.  Well, let me just confess.  According to the prevailing standards of the folks on this forum, I should be dead or in jail and my parents were unfit.  That's basically what you guys are saying.  My parents, like Trayvon's, were firmly in the middle class.  I went to public schools.  I got into fights. I "experimented" with weed and was a terrible student, spent my Junior and Senior years at Summer school, night school and "day" school so that I could graduate on time.  My GPA was a 1.7 out of high school.
> 
> Personally, looking back, I am very much who I am today because of what I went through as a teenager.  The gangs, the fights and all of it.  All of that has informed my behavior as an adult.  I served in the USAF, and ended up graduating from the University of Washington with a 3.96 GPA.
> 
> ...



Steve,

I can't tell you how to think, so whatever you wish to think of me, is beyond my control.  However, compared to the parents of some of the kids that I've gone to school with, I feel mine did a very good job of raising my sister and I.  They were always fair, and always listened to both sides, so when I was in trouble, if I was wrongly accused, they stuck up for me.  If I was in fact in the wrong, I was punished.  

I certainly wasn't the greatest student, but I passed my classes.  I have never done any drugs, never smoked, and never drank.  I've never been arrested in my life.  If all of this makes me a goody-goody or sounds like I'm putting my parents in a class above the rest, then I guess it is what it is.  

I'm sorry Steve, but it doesn't take much looking, to see how out of control some of the kids of today are.  I mean really, is it necessary to run thru a store, acting like an animal?  Of course, we all know that should the little bastard get hurt, somehow it'll be the stores fault, NOT the parents, right?   Sorry, clothing racks aren't designed to have people hang from them.  It's so nice to be out, see a parent with their child, watch the child ask....no, demand their parent buys them something, the parent says no, and watch the kid haul off and hit their parent and throw a tantrum.  Oh yes, last week, I was in the doctors office.  It was 5:30pm.  A woman came in with 3 kids, 1 of them older than the other 2.  For the time she was there, which thankfully wasn't long, 1 kid sat quietly, while the other 2 were bouncing off the walls.  Was this necessary, in a doctors office?  

I guess because my parents taught me right from wrong, and I never bounced off the friggin walls, that we're the odd ones.  LOL!  

My wife used to have her cousins over.  They'd come with their kids.  Now, if they allow their kids to stand on the couch with shoes on in THEIR home, then fine, but when you're in MY home, I don't allow that.  If I'm deemed a 'badguy' because I'd wait for them to say something, which would never happen, so then I was forced to say something, then I guess I'll be the odd badguy...lol.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 29, 2013)

A number of people in this thread seem to be very convinced that not beating children is bad. I think that's quite out-of-touch with modern thinking on the subject.

As to the old days being crime-free, well, of course; that's obvious.


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 29, 2013)

Steve, there's a difference here, though.  

You had the initiative to pick yourself up, and make the best of the situation.  That choice had to come from you, and nobody else could have made that decision for you.  Furthermore, I'm also pretty sure that you didn't cross that line where you tried to kill someone.  

You had the desire to better yourself, and you did. 

Trayvon Martin had no such desire, and was only interested in continuing his lifestyle of drug abuse, getting into fights, trying to illegally acquire firearms, etc.  The sad thing is, though, that too many people were making excuses for him, and allowed him to believe that he could constantly cross that line with very little, if any, consequence.  Nobody held him accountable for his actions.  

For that matter, here's an excellent summary on the reality of the situation:






Maybe one day, someone would have scared him straight, but the fact remains, that as long as someone keeps living the bad life, he's making the choice to put his own self at a much higher risk.  

In the end, Trayvon Martin is the one who must carry the blame for what happened.  

It was he who decided to put himself in this bad situation.    

It was Trayvon Martin who ambushed George Zimmerman by sucker punching him and breaking his nose (up until that point, nobody was in any danger doing anything illegal, much less getting killed), and Trayvon Martin who mounted him, rained down multiple blows, and bashing Zimmerman's head against the concrete.  He chose to commit attempted murder, and as a result, was killed in a justified self-defense shooting.  

Nobody is to blame for his choice to commit attempted murder, except for Trayvon Martin himself.


----------



## MJS (Jul 29, 2013)

arnisador said:


> A number of people in this thread seem to be very convinced that not beating children is bad. I think that's quite out-of-touch with modern thinking on the subject.
> 
> As to the old days being crime-free, well, of course; that's obvious.



Beating a child....yes, of course that's bad.  Smacking them on the *** when they misbehave?  Nothing wrong with that.  There's a huge difference, and its a damn shame that people can't understand that.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 29, 2013)

Grenadier said:


> Steve, there's a difference here, though.
> 
> You had the initiative to pick yourself up, and make the best of the situation.  That choice had to come from you, and nobody else could have made that decision for you.



Wait--are we backing off the parents, then?


----------



## MJS (Jul 29, 2013)

Grenadier said:


> Steve, there's a difference here, though.
> 
> You had the initiative to pick yourself up, and make the best of the situation.  That choice had to come from you, and nobody else could have made that decision for you.  Furthermore, I'm also pretty sure that you didn't cross that line where you tried to kill someone.
> 
> ...



And this folks, is one of the main differences.  Couldn't have said it better! We, as humans, have the ability to lead ourselves down whatever path we choose.  I get so tired of hearing about someone that gets arrested, or killed, and the first thing out of their supporters mouth is, "Oh, I can't believe it. He was such a good kid.  It's not his fault he robbed the old man as he was getting into his car.  I mean afterall, his mom is a druggie and his daddy is in prison."  

I call BS on that one!  Just because someone grew up with a troubled life, doesn't mean that they're bound for the same life.


----------



## Steve (Jul 29, 2013)

granfire said:


> did you jump people and bash their head into the sidewalk?


You'll have to be more specific.  If you're asking whether I might have reacted similarly to Martin under the same circumstances, the answer is maybe.  Definite maybe. 





> Yes, kids/guys will be kids/guys....
> But there is that certain element of either denial or idiocy that surfaces when something bad happens and all over sudden the kid is a sweet angel...I suppose the world was out to get him, too...


Have I said he's a sweet angel?  No.  I would agree that it's ridiculous to believe that of him.  Have you suggested he's the devil incarnate?  Yeah.  You kind of are doing that exactly.  But you fail to realize that your extreme position is ALSO ridiculous, for the same reasons.   


> Did your parents tan your hide when they caught you doing stupid stuff?


Nope.  And I don't tan my kids' hides when they do stupid stuff, either.  And the truth is, I guarantee you that you aren't the expert on parenting you believe yourself to be.  My kids are awesome.  They are sweet kids with big hearts.  They're doing well in school and they understand and respect authority.  Man, how did I manage that without beating my kids with a switch or my belt?  If that's the only tool in your parenting toolbox, you are out of your depth.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 29, 2013)

MJS said:


> Beating a child....yes, of course that's bad.  Smacking them on the *** when they misbehave?  Nothing wrong with that.  There's a huge difference, and its a damn shame that people can't understand that.



Research shows that spanking generally has a net negative effect.


----------



## Steve (Jul 29, 2013)

Grenadier said:


> Steve, there's a difference here, though.
> 
> You had the initiative to pick yourself up, and make the best of the situation.  That choice had to come from you, and nobody else could have made that decision for you.  Furthermore, I'm also pretty sure that you didn't cross that line where you tried to kill someone.
> 
> ...


Grenadier, here's the thing.  I did.  And my parents were laying the foundation for me so that WHEN I stopped being a child and started to mature those life lessons would take root.  The foundation was there.  But more importantly, I had the OPPORTUNITY to grow up and make the change.  I survived long enough to do those things for myself.

You can't possibly know that Martin was a lost cause.  You just don't.  The biggest difference between his situation and my own, frankly, is that I wasn't shot by someone.  Pretty much.   I've seen no evidence that he was an initiated gang member, or that he was addicted to a hardcore drug like heroin or crack.  I didn't see any evidence that he was committing violent crimes like B&E or that he was a chronic vandal.


----------



## Steve (Jul 29, 2013)

MJS said:


> Beating a child....yes, of course that's bad.  Smacking them on the *** when they misbehave?  Nothing wrong with that.  There's a huge difference, and its a damn shame that people can't understand that.


MJS, as I said to granfire, if that's A tool in your parenting toolbox, fine.  If that's THE tool in your toolbox, you are in over your head.  And when people chalk any parenting ills as failing to tan the kid's hide, I'm leaning toward the latter.


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 29, 2013)

Steve said:


> Grenadier, here's the thing.  I did.  And my parents were laying the foundation for me so that WHEN I stopped being a child and started to mature those life lessons would take root.  The foundation was there.  But more importantly, I had the OPPORTUNITY to grow up and make the change.  I survived long enough to do those things for myself.



Martin was given plenty of opportunities to change, but he didn't.  Instead of being thrown in JDC for his theft of jewelry, the stolen jewelry was re-classified as "found property," so that it wouldn't be reported as a crime (Baker Act, IIRC).  Instead of being sent to JDC for assaulting the bus driver, he was given a light slap on the wrist.  



> I've seen no evidence that he was an initiated gang member, or that he was addicted to a hardcore drug like heroin or crack.



The autopsy report showed liver damage that was consistent with what you see when someone abuses dextromethorphan.  While it's relatively harmless in the proper doses (a couple tablespoons of cough syrup at the most), it's also well-known that DM acts as a euphoric drug when given in higher doses, and even hallucination / psychosis.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_use_of_dextromethorphan

It was also known that Martin was actively seeking to make purple drank, and that he had been a user of the concoction.   

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...-drug-use-culminates-in-predictable-violence/

Edit: Sorry about the poor attached image.  The link shows the image in its proper size, and easy to read.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 29, 2013)

Poses "aggressively"?


----------



## Steve (Jul 29, 2013)

Certainly a lot to be concerned with as a parent.  Definitely a kid making bad choices.  But I've seen real hard cases, and this isn't that. On that road, maybe. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 29, 2013)

Steve said:


> Certainly a lot to be concerned with as a parent.  Definitely a kid making bad choices.  But I've seen real hard cases, and this isn't that. On that road, maybe.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


I agree i dont think he was a hard core gangster.  He was at most a wanna be thug.  He obviously had parents that made some effort by moving him away from his problem area.  I've seen and delt with way worse.  I think he got caught up in his own myth of how much of a bad *** he was and he lost.  It happens.


----------



## Steve (Jul 29, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I agree i dont think he was a hard core gangster.  He was at most a wanna be thug.  He obviously had parents that made some effort by moving him away from his problem area.  I've seen and delt with way worse.  I think he got caught up in his own myth of how much of a bad *** he was and he lost.  It happens.


Exactly.  Thanks, ballen.  I'm not saying he was an angel.  

Regarding the myth thing, I think that applies both to Zimmerman and Martin.  Both were caught up in some myth and both lost.  Martin lost his life literally and Zimmerman lost his life figuratively.  Lose/lose situation if I've ever seen one.


----------



## MJS (Jul 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> MJS, as I said to granfire, if that's A tool in your parenting toolbox, fine.  If that's THE tool in your toolbox, you are in over your head.  And when people chalk any parenting ills as failing to tan the kid's hide, I'm leaning toward the latter.



Nope, it's certainly not "The" tool, but simply one of many.   No, I wasn't always smacked on the *** when I was bad.  Sometimes all it took was that look that was a silent message that I had better stop.  Sometimes I had something taken away from me.  Sometimes I was grounded for a week.  

IMO, the problem today, is that parents are so limited as to what they can do, out of fear of their own kid.  I mean really, its pretty damn sad and pathetic when I take a call from a parent saying their kid is out of control or doesnt want to go to school....and these kids are 8, 9yrs old.  God help the parents, and the rest of the public, when they get older.  Unless they snap out of that phase, yes, they just might end up like TM.


----------



## MJS (Jul 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Wait--are we backing off the parents, then?



I wouldn't say so.  As I've said, kids learn what they live, but....unless everyone in the kids life is a poor role model, it's very possible that the kid can or will see their actions, and make a change.


----------



## MJS (Jul 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Research shows that spanking generally has a net negative effect.



Yes of course in todays world, where everyone must be handled like they were made out of glass.  When I was growing up, it was unheard of, to call the cops on your parents.  Now, people take 'abuse' to the extreme, and now simply smacking the kid on the *** once, is deemed abuse.  It isn't.


----------



## MJS (Jul 30, 2013)

Grenadier said:


> Martin was given plenty of opportunities to change, but he didn't.  Instead of being thrown in JDC for his theft of jewelry, the stolen jewelry was re-classified as "found property," so that it wouldn't be reported as a crime (Baker Act, IIRC).  Instead of being sent to JDC for assaulting the bus driver, he was given a light slap on the wrist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Somehow I can't help but to think that all of this was 'overlooked' by Al and Jesse.  

*Listens closely to the sound of a broom sweeping something under the rug*


----------



## granfire (Jul 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Poses "aggressively"?



Yes, that is an aggressive pose.
Body Language and all that jazz, not to mention holding his hand out, emulating holding a gun, gangster style....


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2013)

MJS, let's distinguish between what you know and what you are presuming.  You know that some parents are ill equipped for the job.  You think that it's because they are afraid of their kids.  And you think that it's because they don't spank their kids.  

You know that SOME kids are out of control.  You think that MOST kids are out of control.  You think that you know why these kids are out of control.  

You know that some kids have no respect for authority.  You think that things are worse now than they were 20, 40, or 60 years ago.  

Ultimately, though, I don't disagree with much of what you're saying, MJS.  I would agree with you that quite a few parents don't have the tools to do a good job of raising their kids.  I would agree that some kids have no respect for authority.  So, what do we do about that?  "We" both as individuals and as society at large.  What do you suggest?  I have some ideas, and they don't involve mandatory corporal punishment.


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2013)

granfire said:


> Yes, that is an aggressive pose.
> Body Language and all that jazz, not to mention holding his hand out, emulating holding a gun, gangster style....


Yeah.  Aggressive.  Like this:

View attachment $lol.jpg


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2013)

People calling 911 to make their kids behave/go to school or kids calling 911 because dad gave him/her a smack for telling them to "**** off" are almost a weekly event around here......


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 30, 2013)

granfire said:


> Yes, that is an aggressive pose.
> Body Language and all that jazz, not to mention holding his hand out, emulating holding a gun, gangster style....



Not to mention, he was actively seeking to acquire firearms:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/23/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> People calling 911 to make their kids behave/go to school or kids calling 911 because dad gave him/her a smack for telling them to "**** off" are almost a weekly event around here......


There are about 114 milllion households in the USA.  About 25% of the population is under 18 years old.  So, again, let's distinguish between what you know and what you think you know.  You know that you respond to parenting nightmare "almost weekly."  So... are we talking 45 to 50 households per year?  That's out of 114 million households.  

This may be a pervasive problem, but we don't know that based solely on your anecdotal experience.  As one guy out of a relative few who gets to deal with all of these issues, your anecdotal perspective is skewed.  

I also want to make it clear that I'm not saying this doesn't happen.  I'm saying that, while we can know that it does happen, we don't know really how pervasive the issue is.  

Also, I want to say that I have no issues with spanking a kid.  I don't do it, and I personally don't see a need for it.  It's the last resort for parents who have failed to address the issue in a better way, IMO. But I also understand that there are people who disagree with me, and that parenting is a pass/fail activity, in that a parent can (and will) make all sorts of mistakes, but if the end result is a happy, healthy, productive adult, you pass.  

Let's take the scenario you're bringing up.  We've got a kid who was "smacked" by the parent.  And now the kid is calling 911.  Do you really believe that the issue is the "smack?"  Do you even think that the real parenting issue happened that day?  I don't.  I think that you've got a parent or parents who have failed to set clear expectations and hold that child accountable from day one.  If I had to guess, the parents are conflict avoidant and the child is spoiled.  I'd also guess that the parents don't back each other up and are actively (although perhaps unintentionally) undermining each other's authority with the child.  

So, where do we see this scenario play out?  I don't know for sure.  But if I can guess, I'd suggest that it happens most often in families where the parents are some combination of divorced (which often leads to each undermining each other to "win" the affection of the child), under educated, living in poverty, or parenting in absentia (whether physically or emotionally).

The question is, what do we do about it?  Individually or as a society, what do you propose?  I'm interested.  How do we solve the problem?   I will say that "smacking the kid" isn't what I'd call a solution.


----------



## MJS (Jul 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> MJS, let's distinguish between what you know and what you are presuming.  You know that some parents are ill equipped for the job.  You think that it's because they are afraid of their kids.  And you think that it's because they don't spank their kids.



Please don't take me saying that some kids deserve a smack on the ***, as the end all, be all, nor am I saying that that is the only method of discipline.  That's not the case at all.  My point it simply, that some parents do nothing.  



> You know that SOME kids are out of control.  You think that MOST kids are out of control.  You think that you know why these kids are out of control.



Well, to be honest Steve, the above is my opinion.  I'm entitled to one, just like you, right?  I'm not a child psychiatrist.  Are you?  Again, I'm simply forming an opinion of things that I've seen, which until I know otherwise, leads me to believe that the parents have no control or discipline their kids.  




> You know that some kids have no respect for authority.  You think that things are worse now than they were 20, 40, or 60 years ago.



True.  IMO, there was more respect for authority, ie: parents, the police, years ago, compared to today.  



> Ultimately, though, I don't disagree with much of what you're saying, MJS.  I would agree with you that quite a few parents don't have the tools to do a good job of raising their kids.  I would agree that some kids have no respect for authority.  So, what do we do about that?  "We" both as individuals and as society at large.  What do you suggest?  I have some ideas, and they don't involve mandatory corporal punishment.



Funny how this discussion about GZ/TM goes to a debate on how various forum members feel about raising their kids.  Oh well...anyways...to answer your questions:

I'll respect your decision to disagree with me.  We'll have to agree to disagree.   What should we do?  As I said, giving your kid a smack on the ***, is not the only method.  Of course, as I said earlier, if you don't nip things in the bud early, just like with a pet, ie: teaching them right from wrong, then trying to do so, when the kid is 9, 10, 17, etc, is going to be difficult, if not impossible.  The downside, as I said before, is that kids learn what they live, so if their parents weren't raised right...well, you can see how the trend will spiral downward.  

I"m open to hear your suggestions.


----------



## MJS (Jul 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> People calling 911 to make their kids behave/go to school or kids calling 911 because dad gave him/her a smack for telling them to "**** off" are almost a weekly event around here......



Sad isn't it..lol.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> There are about 114 milllion households in the USA.  About 25% of the population is under 18 years old.  So, again, let's distinguish between what you know and what you think you know.  You know that you respond to parenting nightmare "almost weekly."  So... are we talking 45 to 50 households per year?  That's out of 114 million households.



I don't police the entire USA.....


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2013)

MJS said:


> Please don't take me saying that some kids deserve a smack on the ***, as the end all, be all, nor am I saying that that is the only method of discipline.  That's not the case at all.  My point it simply, that some parents do nothing.


I'm not.  Don't worry, MJS.  But frankly, for failing parents, corporal punishment is way more likely to make things worse than better.





> Well, to be honest Steve, the above is my opinion.  I'm entitled to one, just like you, right?  I'm not a child psychiatrist.  Are you?  Again, I'm simply forming an opinion of things that I've seen, which until I know otherwise, leads me to believe that the parents have no control or discipline their kids.


Of course.  My point wasn't that your opinion isn't valuable or valid.  It's simply to distinguish fact from presumption, and to highlight that things you presume to be fundamentally true are not necessarily so.





> True.  IMO, there was more respect for authority, ie: parents, the police, years ago, compared to today.
> 
> Funny how this discussion about GZ/TM goes to a debate on how various forum members feel about raising their kids.


Agreed, but it stems from some people presuming some things about Martin and Martin's parents that are debatable.  





> Oh well...anyways...to answer your questions:
> 
> I'll respect your decision to disagree with me.  We'll have to agree to disagree.   What should we do?  As I said, giving your kid a smack on the ***, is not the only method.  Of course, as I said earlier, if you don't nip things in the bud early, just like with a pet, ie: teaching them right from wrong, then trying to do so, when the kid is 9, 10, 17, etc, is going to be difficult, if not impossible.  The downside, as I said before, is that kids learn what they live, so if their parents weren't raised right...well, you can see how the trend will spiral downward.
> 
> I"m open to hear your suggestions.


I personally think most parenting issues stem from a few very basic mistakes, but I'm interested in hearing some of the suggestions from those of you who believe that the sky is falling, first.  I think that the situation is serious.  Parenting is complicated.  It's an art, and it requires skill, practice and diligence to do well.  I'd LOVE to have a serious conversation on parenting.  I don't, however, think that it's dire.  But you do.  Tgace, does, too.  So, what do you guys propose?  You guys are quick to point out the seriousness of the situation, but it seems to me to be a lot of judging from the sideline.  Tsk, tsking and clucking of the tongue.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2013)

MJS said:


> Funny how this discussion about GZ/TM goes to a debate on how various forum members feel about raising their kids.  Oh well...anyways...to answer your questions:



I think this is one of the great things about the internet...seeing how issues intersect. Some folks like to say "stick to the topic", but IMO theres more to learn in the tangents many times.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> It's simply to distinguish fact from presumption, and to highlight that things you presume to be fundamentally true are not necessarily so.




Of course.

Right back at you.....

And who said anything about "dire"? All either of us said is that we see too many (IMO) examples of parents letting their little "angels" run loose and undisciplined. Hell I could go out to the local Walmart right now and video a "mother" walking into the store with her toddler walking in on his own 20 paces behind through a parking lot. Or send you the time and location of the next parent today who decides to lock their child in a car while he/she goes shopping in the mall. And they are not all the same people who call us to send Jr to school when he refuses to go.

What do I "propose"? The idea of "proposing" anything in this country means more laws and there's no way that is going to change anything. What needs to change is our culture and the mentality of "who are you to judge"....a meme that's been overplayed to our detriment IMO. Bad behavior should be recognized as such and not excused.


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> I don't police the entire USA.....


And that's exactly my point.   If you would qualify your sweeping generalizations, and distinguish between what you know to be true and what you believe to be true, there would be much less misunderstanding.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> And that's exactly my point.   If you would qualify your sweeping generalizations, and distinguish between what you know to be true and what you believe to be true, there would be much less misunderstanding.



Did I make a statement that I knew anything as statistical fact? "Sweeping generalizations"?? Is this a discussion or an action panel? 

But back to your point...your math is wrong. Are you implying my 40-50 households are all of the examples throughout the USA? You can't compare my 40-50 households to the whole nation. You would have to poll ALL departments within the US.


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Of course.
> 
> Right back at you.....


I try to be very careful to distinguish my opinions from fact.  If I fail to do that, I welcome that feedback.





> And who said anything about "dire"? All either of us said is that we see too many (IMO) examples of parents letting their little "angels" run loose and undisciplined. Hell I could go out to the local Walmart right now and video a "mother" walking into the store with her toddler walking in on his own 20 paces behind through a parking lot. Or send you the time and location of the next parent today who decides to lock their child in a car while he/she goes shopping in the mall. And they are not all the same people who call us to send Jr to school when he refuses to go.
> 
> What do I "propose"? The idea of "proposing" anything in this country means more laws and there's no way that is going to change anything. What needs to change is our culture and the mentality of "who are you to judge"....a meme that's been overplayed to our detriment IMO. Bad behavior should be recognized as such and not excused.


You're touching on the crux of the issue, IMO.  There's no shortage of judging others, but there's a decided shortage of doing anything about it.


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Did I make a statement that I knew anything as statistical fact? "Sweeping generalizations"?? Is this a discussion or an action panel?
> 
> But back to your point...your math is wrong. Are you implying my 40-50 households are all of the examples throughout the USA? You can't compare my 40-50 households to the whole nation. You would have to poll ALL departments within the US.


In order to get a sense of how big the problem is, that's one of the things we'd need to do.  I agree.  

As for what I was implying, it was what you acknowledged, which is that your experience is specific to you and may not represent the country at large.  In other words, as you said, you don't police the entire USA.


----------



## MJS (Jul 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> I think this is one of the great things about the internet...seeing how issues intersect. Some folks like to say "stick to the topic", but IMO theres more to learn in the tangents many times.



True, and I suppose that perhaps by discussing this, it may lead us to be able to see a bit deeper, into the life of TM.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 30, 2013)

Steve I think the problem is more common than you think.  I've worked in 3 different departments three different counties and add my 150 houses each to Tgrace.  My wife worked in 2 other jurisdictions and same thing so add her 100 houses. Its impossible to poll every PD in the country but we can look at a few and take a pretty good guess Tgrace and I are in totally different states. Add that to MJS who see the same issues in his jurisdiction which is in another state.  There is a real serious issue out here and its only getting worse.  When I first started we would get maybe one or two calls like this a month.  Now its nightly. 
As to the solution maybe it is time to hold parents accontable for their kids action.  Your kid sells drugs you go to jail,  your kid punches a bus driver you go to jail,  your kids out at 3 am breaking into cars or tagging buildings you go to jail.  I don't really know a good answer to the issue but its a problem that I believe will lead to Much bigger problems when this generation has kids.


----------



## MJS (Jul 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> I'm not.  Don't worry, MJS.  But frankly, for failing parents, corporal punishment is way more likely to make things worse than better.



Ok, so we'll forget about that.  So, barring any physical contact, as I said, teach them right from wrong, in the beginning.  As soon as there's a screw up, correct it!  Don't let it slide, do something.  Tell them in a firm tone.  If it leads to taking away the car, the phone, a toy, whatever, then do it.  

Would you agree/disagree with that?  Feel free to list any other options that you have.




> Of course.  My point wasn't that your opinion isn't valuable or valid.  It's simply to distinguish fact from presumption, and to highlight that things you presume to be fundamentally true are not necessarily so.



That's correct....my opinion is just that...an opinion.  My apologies if thats what it implied.  It would seem though, that if someone is allowing their kids to run around like animals, they a) think that behavior is perfectly normal or b) have no control over their kids.  And I strongly disagree with that 'kids will be kids' BS.  No, sorry, not all kids run around raising hell in a store.  Shame that people with kids like that are so blind, and as I said before, should their little wild child get hurt, somehow its the stores fault.  Again, I call BS on that.  Its the parents fault!  




> Agreed, but it stems from some people presuming some things about Martin and Martin's parents that are debatable.



I'm sure someone is bound to say that it's impossible to know what your kid is doing all the time.  I'll agree that that's partially true, but you should know something.  Seems to me...and quite a few others, that TM wasn't the angel he was portrayed to be.  Either his parents are clueless, didn't care, thought that what he was doing was normal.  The list goes on and on.  




> I personally think most parenting issues stem from a few very basic mistakes, but I'm interested in hearing some of the suggestions from those of you who believe that the sky is falling, first.  I think that the situation is serious.  Parenting is complicated.  It's an art, and it requires skill, practice and diligence to do well.  I'd LOVE to have a serious conversation on parenting.  I don't, however, think that it's dire.  But you do.  Tgace, does, too.  So, what do you guys propose?  You guys are quick to point out the seriousness of the situation, but it seems to me to be a lot of judging from the sideline.  Tsk, tsking and clucking of the tongue.



I gave some suggestions earlier as well as in this thread.  Not sure what else I can offer.  Sounds like a lot of it is common sense and good judgement....things that sadly, seem to be lacking.  Make no mistake about it...I've seen my share of kids out with their parents, in restaurants, in stores, etc, and you'd never know the kid was with them.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 30, 2013)

As to the spanking thing its self I spank my kids I spank my dog I even spank my wife but that's a whole different reason 
I think its kind of arragont for you to say a parent didn't do a good job in the beginning so now must resort to spankings.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2013)

When done "right" I see no problem with spanking. I only had to spank each of my kids all of 1-2 times in their lives and that was when they were at that "cant reason with them" toddler age and when they did something like pull away and try to run across a parking lot...not out of personal anger at them spilling something or wetting the bed......


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 30, 2013)

FYI research shows spanking reduces IQ and increases aggressive behavior in children. Spanking has also been shown to provide only one benefit to parents. It stops the behavior NOW. It does not provide any long term behavioral correction.

I think all of this is demonstrating that spanking is an out dated tool for parenting.


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2013)

Okay.  I'll try to address things point by point.  





MJS said:


> Ok, so we'll forget about that.  So, barring any physical contact, as I said, teach them right from wrong, in the beginning.  As soon as there's a screw up, correct it!  Don't let it slide, do something.  Tell them in a firm tone.  If it leads to taking away the car, the phone, a toy, whatever, then do it.
> 
> Would you agree/disagree with that? Feel free to list any other options that you have.


I think you're on to something, but there are limits to this.  First, I would say that it's less about being strict as it is about being consistent.  

Being a tyrant is as likely to backfire as not.  I dated a judge's daughter in high school.  He was as strict and stern as you can imagine.  I've already told you what kind of a teenager I was.  Why do you think she was dating me (other than my charm and sense of humor?)  She was rebelling because her father was so strict it was oppressive.  

I believe that most standards are a little fluid.  Some are not.  Treating every standard and expectation the same, holding the child absolutely accountable, will likely not have the intended results.  It will muddy the waters to the point that they cannot distinguish between what is important and what is not important.  

Being consistent means having standards that are reasonable while also picking your battles.  The specific standards are less important, in my opinion, than the consistent application of those standards by both parents.  It's not as much about what you say yes and no to as it is that both parents are a united front.  


> That's correct....my opinion is just that...an opinion.  My apologies if thats what it implied.  It would seem though, that if someone is allowing their kids to run around like animals, they a) think that behavior is perfectly normal or b) have no control over their kids.  And I strongly disagree with that 'kids will be kids' BS.  No, sorry, not all kids run around raising hell in a store.  Shame that people with kids like that are so blind, and as I said before, should their little wild child get hurt, somehow its the stores fault.  Again, I call BS on that.  Its the parents fault!


I have a question.  Can you think of some reasons why a parent doesn't have control over his or her kids?  Just, if you had to guess, would you say that most of these parents with out of control kids *don't know* how to parent or *don't care* how to parent?  I get the impression you think that it's more in the "don't care" column.  Am I wrong?





> I'm sure someone is bound to say that it's impossible to know what your kid is doing all the time.  I'll agree that that's partially true, but you should know something.  Seems to me...and quite a few others, that TM wasn't the angel he was portrayed to be.  Either his parents are clueless, didn't care, thought that what he was doing was normal.  The list goes on and on.


Okay, so let's say you've got a kid who's having trouble.  You've removed him from the environment.  You're doing some things to try and keep him out of trouble.  What are you advocating?  Should he have been on lock down?  I mean, I'm not sure what you're suggesting.  Your son is rebelling.  He's doing things you know are not good.  You've grounded him and it hasn't worked.  What do you do?  Ground him until he graduates?  Give him a room with a cot and feed him gruel until he's ready to be released into the wild?  Send him to military school and wash your hands of him?  Seriously.  What are you suggesting, because I know real people, good people, with kids who got in with some bad kids, who've been in this very same situation.  What would you do? 





> I gave some suggestions earlier as well as in this thread.  Not sure what else I can offer.  Sounds like a lot of it is common sense and good judgement....things that sadly, seem to be lacking.  Make no mistake about it...I've seen my share of kids out with their parents, in restaurants, in stores, etc, and you'd never know the kid was with them.


Maybe we're doomed and the kids coming up now will truly be the end of America as we know it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 30, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> FYI research shows spanking reduces IQ and increases aggressive behavior in children. Spanking has also been shown to provide only one benefit to parents. It stops the behavior NOW. It does not provide any long term behavioral correction.
> 
> I think all of this is demonstrating that spanking is an out dated tool for parenting.



OK I'll raise my kids how I want and you raise yours how you want.


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> As to the spanking thing its self I spank my kids I spank my dog I even spank my wife but that's a whole different reason
> I think its kind of arragont for you to say a parent didn't do a good job in the beginning so now must resort to spankings.


Ballen are you talking to me?  If so, I didn't say that at all.  What I meant, if it didn't come through, is that a parent who is failing will likely resort to spanking and it will tend to make things worse.

I said earlier, "Also, I want to say that I have no issues with spanking a kid. I don't do it, and I personally don't see a need for it. It's the last resort for parents who have failed to address the issue in a better way, IMO. But I also understand that there are people who disagree with me, and that parenting is a pass/fail activity, in that a parent can (and will) make all sorts of mistakes, but if the end result is a happy, healthy, productive adult, you pass."  

All of that is true.  If I'm in a situation where I need to spank my kid, I've failed to handle the situation well from the beginning.  But, as I said above, I understand that there are other opinions on the matter.  I get that.

If you weren't responding to me, then disregard.


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> OK I'll raise my kids how I want and you raise yours how you want.


Ironically, that feeling you have now of being judged is an interesting role reversal.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> Ironically, that feeling you have now of being judged is an interesting role reversal.



Not a matter of being judged it a matter of the "studies" always cited on this are junk.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> Ballen are you talking to me?  If so, I didn't say that at all.  What I meant, if it didn't come through, is that a parent who is failing will likely resort to spanking and it will tend to make things worse.
> 
> I said earlier, "Also, I want to say that I have no issues with spanking a kid. I don't do it, and I personally don't see a need for it. It's the last resort for parents who have failed to address the issue in a better way, IMO. But I also understand that there are people who disagree with me, and that parenting is a pass/fail activity, in that a parent can (and will) make all sorts of mistakes, but if the end result is a happy, healthy, productive adult, you pass."
> 
> ...



Again the use of a spanking does not = fail to handle the situation properly


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Again the use of a spanking does not = fail to handle the situation properly



Does in my opinion.  Absolutely.  I understand that you have a different opinion.   It means that somewhere along the way, you've lost control of the situation.  

Except the wife.  If she's into that, more power to ya.

Edit to add:  I want to reiterate that parenting is pass/fail thing, IMO.  In the scheme of things, if you're otherwise a solid parent, spanking the kid isn't going to cause any lasting trauma.  However, if you are already failing as a parent, spanking the kid will likely do more harm than good.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> Does in my opinion.  Absolutely.  I understand that you have a different opinion.


You know what they say about opinions.


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You know what they say about opinions.


whats the problem?  I understand that people don't like being judged, and I'm sure you are a fine parent, otherwise.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> whats the problem?  I understand that people don't like being judged, and I'm sure you are a fine parent, otherwise.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


No problem.  We differ on our opinion.  Like I said opinions are like ...............
That statements applicable to your opinion as well as mine.


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> No problem.  We differ on our opinion.  Like I said opinions are like ...............
> That statements applicable to your opinion as well as mine.



So, now apply this to the snapshot judgments you make toward other parents.  If I saw you "smacking" your child in public, I would wonder why you can't control your child.  Do you see the point here?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> So, now apply this to the snapshot judgments you make toward other parents.  If I saw you "smacking" your child in public, I would wonder why you can't control your child.  Do you see the point here?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I don't.

A smack when a child is actually misbehaving is an effort to discipline. And allowed in most states use of force statutes. When your kid is using dope..getting arrested...assaulting adults and being a general punk....THEN I start making judgments about parenting skills. 

If there's anyone being a bit sensitive in this discussion I'm tending to see a very small crowd....


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> I don't.
> 
> A smack when a child is actually misbehaving is an effort to discipline. And allowed in most states use of force statutes. When your kid is using dope..getting arrested...assaulting adults and being a general punk....THEN I start making judgments about parenting skills.
> 
> If there's anyone being a bit sensitive in this discussion I'm tending to see a very small crowd....


We weren't talking about kids using dope, getting arrested or being punks.  most of the comments in recent posts were about kids misbehaving in public.  

The point, tgace, is that we all have snapshots that would make us look bad, taken out of context.  You smack a kid, and people will judge you.  You guys are quick to judge and aren't reluctant at all to presume the worst, but really get testy as hell when it happens to you.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> So, now apply this to the snapshot judgments you make toward other parents.  If I saw you "smacking" your child in public, I would wonder why you can't control your child.  Do you see the point here?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


What snapshot judgment did I make?   1st I've never had to spank my kid in public.  If it was needed we would go into a bathroom or out to the car.  2nd I'd be glad to see a parent busting a kids butt for being bad its better then the parents that do nothing and allow kids to go nuts in stores or restaurants and disrupt everyone else


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2013)

LOL..I don't get the part where I'm being testy. Disagreeing with you is not testiness...


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2013)

When it comes to kids misbehaving. If you haven't seen parents let kids act like unsupervised animals you haven't been in a Walmart recently LOL!


----------



## arnisador (Jul 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> OK I'll raise my kids how I want and you raise yours how you want.



Then let's back off TM's parents.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Not a matter of being judged it a matter of the "studies" always cited on this are junk.



People love science when it cures a disease or discovers a planet but otherwise their prejudices override their logic. To simply declare all studies "junk" is an anti-scientific viewpoint.


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> What snapshot judgment did I make?   1st I've never had to spank my kid in public.  If it was needed we would go into a bathroom or out to the car.  2nd I'd be glad to see a parent busting a kids butt for being bad its better then the parents that do nothing and allow kids to go nuts in stores or restaurants and disrupt everyone else


Personally, I appreciate that you didn't smack your kid in public, but had the courtesy to take him in the bathroom and smack him in there, or in your car.  That's... awesome.  Very considerate of you.

Second, if your kid was out of control enough that you had to smack him while you were out...  that's a failure, Ballen.  I agree that kids should behave in public.  That part I agree with.  So, when you had to take your kid to the bathroom and smack him, we're just talking about how you  reacted to your failure to control your kid.


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Then let's back off TM's parents.


Yes.  Thanks, Arnisador.  That's the point.  It's fun to judge others, but you guys really don't like being judged.  You get very defensive, just like most people do.


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> LOL..I don't get the part where I'm being testy. Disagreeing with you is not testiness...


I'm saying guys, but I'm not thinking you, tgace.  Sorry if I'm not being clear.  Typing quick.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> People love science when it cures a disease or discovers a planet but otherwise their prejudices override their logic. To simply declare all studies "junk" is an anti-scientific viewpoint.



Calling Sociology or Psychology "science" is an illustration of the limits of our language.....


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Then let's back off TM's parents.



I was never on his parents.  I commented that by moving him away to Sanford at least they were trying something.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Calling Sociology or Psychology "science" is an illustration of the limits of our language.....



Psych. has some very scientific subdisciplines--exp. psych. folks make the best applied statisticians. Sociology, like poli. sci. and esp. econ., has had a cyclic nature, from data-driven to philosophy-driven and back again. But the longitudinal studies of spanking are behavioral studies and that is sound science.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> People love science when it cures a disease or discovers a planet but otherwise their prejudices override their logic. To simply declare all studies "junk" is an anti-scientific viewpoint.



Well when the total difference between smacked kids and non smacked kids was under a 3 point difference.  When the sample size was world wide and included less developed nations where spanking is more common and so is malnourishment and poor education system.  When they counted kids from spanking homes to be 3 or more spankings a week and I might spank my kids 3 times a year and have not spanked my older kids in years. Yeah its junk


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2013)

"Parents wonder why the streams are bitter, when they themselves have poisoned the fountain." -John Locke


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> Personally, I appreciate that you didn't smack your kid in public, but had the courtesy to take him in the bathroom and smack him in there, or in your car.  That's... awesome.  Very considerate of you.
> 
> Second, if your kid was out of control enough that you had to smack him while you were out...  that's a failure, Ballen.  I agree that kids should behave in public.  That part I agree with.  So, when you had to take your kid to the bathroom and smack him, we're just talking about how you  reacted to your failure to control your kid.


Kids are not robots you can't order and they obey.  If they misbehave in public its because they choose to break the established rules.

Funny when my kids misbehave its a failure on my part but is not a failure on TMs parents when he was wrong?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> So, where do we see this scenario play out?  I don't know for sure.  But if I can guess, I'd suggest that it happens most often in families where the parents are some combination of divorced (which often leads to each undermining each other to "win" the affection of the child), under educated, living in poverty, or parenting in absentia (whether physically or emotionally).



I overlooked this part previously....

This.....


----------



## MJS (Jul 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> When done "right" I see no problem with spanking. I only had to spank each of my kids all of 1-2 times in their lives and that was when they were at that "cant reason with them" toddler age and when they did something like pull away and try to run across a parking lot...not out of personal anger at them spilling something or wetting the bed......



Exactly!  And this was the point I was trying to make.


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Kids are not robots you can't order and they obey.  If they misbehave in public its because they choose to break the established rules.


 Huh.  Even with the spanking, you're saying that kids might do things they know they shouldn't?  But, an exemplary parent like you.  Surely that never happened in your family.  


> Funny when my kids misbehave its a failure on my part but is not a failure on TMs parents when he was wrong?


So, we know you would spank him.  We don't know if the Martin's did or didn't.  You've acknowledged that they tried to get him out of the environment and change his situation. What do you believe you would have done that TM's parents didn't do?  What are you asserting that they failed to do to try and raise a good kid?


----------



## MJS (Jul 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> Okay.  I'll try to address things point by point.  I think you're on to something, but there are limits to this.  First, I would say that it's less about being strict as it is about being consistent.
> 
> Being a tyrant is as likely to backfire as not.  I dated a judge's daughter in high school.  He was as strict and stern as you can imagine.  I've already told you what kind of a teenager I was.  Why do you think she was dating me (other than my charm and sense of humor?)  She was rebelling because her father was so strict it was oppressive.
> 
> ...



You're right...being overly strict is just as bad as not being strict enough.  No, I don't think that the child should have to walk on egg shells around their parents, fearing that if they breath wrong, they're going to get hit.  And I also agree with being consistent.  



> I have a question.  Can you think of some reasons why a parent doesn't have control over his or her kids?  Just, if you had to guess, would you say that most of these parents with out of control kids *don't know* how to parent or *don't care* how to parent?  I get the impression you think that it's more in the "don't care" column.  Am I wrong?



I'd say it's a combo of both.  Like I said earlier, how do you deal with the issue of parents who don't care, raising kids, who will probably grow up the same way?  Maybe some actually do care, but they're literally at wits end, thus these are probably the ones that call the cops.  They've probably exhausted all their options, with no success, so they call the cops, in an effort to 'scare' their kid into behaving good.  Personally, I don't think that's the answer either, as now you're risking the kid equating the cops as being the 'badguys' just like their parents.  I mentioned in another post, my wifes cousin, who would allow their kids to stand on my couch with their shoes on.  I'd always give them a chance to make the correction before I said something.  Of course, I had the attitude that it was my home, and I don't allow that.  Apparently they allow it in their home and saw nothing wrong with it.  I guess it all comes down to what the reasonable person would think....just like in the arts relating to self defense.  What I think is reasonable probably will be viewed differently by someone else.  I'm starting to think there's no solution...lol.




> Okay, so let's say you've got a kid who's having trouble.  You've removed him from the environment.  You're doing some things to try and keep him out of trouble.  What are you advocating?  Should he have been on lock down?  I mean, I'm not sure what you're suggesting.  Your son is rebelling.  He's doing things you know are not good.  You've grounded him and it hasn't worked.  What do you do?  Ground him until he graduates?  Give him a room with a cot and feed him gruel until he's ready to be released into the wild?  Send him to military school and wash your hands of him?  Seriously.  What are you suggesting, because I know real people, good people, with kids who got in with some bad kids, who've been in this very same situation.  What would you do?



IMO, I'd say we're advocating a better lifestyle and better behavior.  But like you said, there should be consistency with things, and don't wait until things are too far gone.  In todays world, there seem to be sources to go to for help, for just about anything.  Perhaps a counselor at school would be a good start.  I don't think that tossing up your hands and giving up, is a wise thing either.  I don't know...maybe trying to explain to the kid that if he/she continues down the path they're on, jail is probably where they'll end up.  Of course, if the kid has any serious hope of making anything of themselves, if/when they break out of the 'phase' they're going thru, having a prison record is probably something a potential employer will not want to see.  

Out of curiosity, what did the people that you know, do with their kids that were having issues?  



> Maybe we're doomed and the kids coming up now will truly be the end of America as we know it.



Hopefully that won't be the case.


----------



## MJS (Jul 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> So, now apply this to the snapshot judgments you make toward other parents.  If I saw you "smacking" your child in public, I would wonder why you can't control your child.  Do you see the point here?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



You have kids, right?  Not sure how old they are, but if they were behaving badly in public, at home, while at someone else's home, etc., how did you handle the situation?


----------



## MJS (Jul 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> We weren't talking about kids using dope, getting arrested or being punks.  most of the comments in recent posts were about kids misbehaving in public.



But we were, I believe, comparing TM and his past, which in a way, does relate to anyone else with problem kids, but not yet to the level of TM.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 31, 2013)

Steve said:


> Huh.  Even with the spanking, you're saying that kids might do things they know they shouldn't?  But, an exemplary parent like you.  Surely that never happened in your family.


 You claim we are being testy?  Yes even with spanking kids will be kids.  You act like you speak and your kids obey and never act up but if mine do Ive done something wrong as a parent.  Kids are kids and they do bad stuff sometimes.  My kids are better then most, we get compliments all the time on their behavior but even they can act up at times.  All kids do.  You have your methods and I have mine.  that's all there is too it.  


> So, we know you would spank him.  We don't know if the Martin's did or didn't.  You've acknowledged that they tried to get him out of the environment and change his situation. What do you believe you would have done that TM's parents didn't do?  What are you asserting that they failed to do to try and raise a good kid?


I never asserted anything about Martins parents.  No matter what a parent does sometimes kids are just bad.  Take my sister and I. We are 3 years apart IM older.  Raised in same household by the same parents.  I grew up joined the military and then became a police officer, I own my own house, am married, have a pretty good life, own cars, boat, other toys, take my kids on vacations several times a year and take my wife on vacations at least once a year, all in all Im not a burden on society and don't get into trouble.  My sister is a drug addict, has several kids by different fathers, lives off the Govt, refuses to work and wen she does its unskilled positions, has no car, only has a house because the Govt gave her grants to buy it and my parents now pay the mortgage on it, she has been arrested, her current boyfriend has several warrants, she is an all around leach on society and my parents.  Same home, same rules growing up, 2 out comes.


----------



## billc (Jul 31, 2013)

Sorry about your sister ballen.  That situation is tough on a family.


----------



## Steve (Jul 31, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You claim we are being testy?  Yes even with spanking kids will be kids.  You act like you speak and your kids obey and never act up but if mine do Ive done something wrong as a parent.  Kids are kids and they do bad stuff sometimes.  My kids are better then most, we get compliments all the time on their behavior but even they can act up at times.  All kids do.  You have your methods and I have mine.  that's all there is too it.


Sorry ballen, if I seem like I'm coming on a little strong.  I'm trying to highlight a double standard that seems to be cropping up.  I completely understand that kids act out sometimes.  Particularly toddlers, who go through predictable stages.

While you might not have been critical of TM's parents, some people here have been.  If you go back through the thread, the conversation went from Martin to questions about why Martin's parents didn't do a better job, or why couldn't they control him, which then led to judgments about parents who can't control their kids in general.  We seem to now all agree that sometimes, kids get into some bad stuff, and it is not necessarily an indication that the parents are unfit.  

The other, I think more important point, is that the reason TM was into some bad stuff had nothing to do with whether he was spanked or not.  You happen to spank your kids.  I don't.  I also receive frequent compliments on my kids.  I've said before, I have three, a 17 year old, a 16 year old and a 4 year old.  They seldom act out, but as you say, all kids do from time to time.  So, it really raises some red flags for me when people say things like, "They obviously didn't spank him enough."   Like that's the answer.  It's not.  

Also, while you might choose to spank your kids, I would guess that you are a pretty consistent parent.  An incompetent parent who is spanking a child is likely doing more harm than good.  





> I never asserted anything about Martins parents.  No matter what a parent does sometimes kids are just bad.  Take my sister and I. We are 3 years apart IM older.  Raised in same household by the same parents.  I grew up joined the military and then became a police officer, I own my own house, am married, have a pretty good life, own cars, boat, other toys, take my kids on vacations several times a year and take my wife on vacations at least once a year, all in all Im not a burden on society and don't get into trouble.  My sister is a drug addict, has several kids by different fathers, lives off the Govt, refuses to work and wen she does its unskilled positions, has no car, only has a house because the Govt gave her grants to buy it and my parents now pay the mortgage on it, she has been arrested, her current boyfriend has several warrants, she is an all around leach on society and my parents.  Same home, same rules growing up, 2 out comes.


Sometimes, kids get into things they shouldn't even when parents do the 'right' things.  I'm sorry about your sister.  As a tangent, and to make a long story short, my older brother (14 months older) was drinking a case of beer a day, on average, for about 20 years.  After having a heart attack at 38 years old, he's been sober now for 5 years, has a good job and is doing really well.  So, don't give up.  There's always a chance that they can turn things around.


----------



## Steve (Jul 31, 2013)

MJS said:


> You have kids, right?  Not sure how old they are, but if they were behaving badly in public, at home, while at someone else's home, etc., how did you handle the situation?


I have three.  A 17 year old son, a 16 year old daughter and a 4 year old daughter.  How I handled it depended upon what they were doing and how old they were.  About the only time my options were limited would be if we were in public, and that's pretty much the easiest to handle.  If my toddler doesn't listen, we just leave.  Had to do that once.

Some tactics I use extensively with my older kids is positive reinforcement and coaching.  I try not to give them answers they don't ask for.  Instead, I ask a lot of questions.  "Hey, that project is coming up.  How's that going?  What's your plan?  Do you need anything from me?"  Or, "Hey, how'd that project go?  You were trying X, how'd that work?  Did your teacher notice X?"   Basically, I just try to ask them the questions that they will eventually need to ask themselves.  Frankly, they're pretty awesome, and I don't have too many issues with them.  They are not issues when we're out.  

With toddlers, they aren't ever issues when we're at someone else's home, because my wife and I are consistent at home.  She knows how to behave and I can't recall a time she misbehaved at someone else's house.  She's well aware of what we expect.  

I'm a big fan of positive reinforcement, deflection and the false dilemmas (basically, giving her two choices, both of which I'm okay with.)   If she were to act out, we'd just leave, but honestly, the only time I could conceive of her getting so punchy and bored is if I didn't plan ahead enough.  When we're in the store, I give her little jobs to do to keep her busy, and if we're going someplace where she might get bored, I make sure to bring a coloring book, a game or the iPad.


----------



## MJS (Aug 4, 2013)

Steve said:


> I have three.  A 17 year old son, a 16 year old daughter and a 4 year old daughter.  How I handled it depended upon what they were doing and how old they were.  About the only time my options were limited would be if we were in public, and that's pretty much the easiest to handle.  If my toddler doesn't listen, we just leave.  Had to do that once.
> 
> Some tactics I use extensively with my older kids is positive reinforcement and coaching.  I try not to give them answers they don't ask for.  Instead, I ask a lot of questions.  "Hey, that project is coming up.  How's that going?  What's your plan?  Do you need anything from me?"  Or, "Hey, how'd that project go?  You were trying X, how'd that work?  Did your teacher notice X?"   Basically, I just try to ask them the questions that they will eventually need to ask themselves.  Frankly, they're pretty awesome, and I don't have too many issues with them.  They are not issues when we're out.
> 
> ...



Well, IMO, that sounds like a great plan Steve. 

On another note, this is something that happened recently:
http://www.courant.com/community/ha...ator-assaulted-0803-2-20130802,0,634098.story



> HARTFORD &#8212; Four days after he was robbed and beaten while walking home from work, Carl Hardrick, a city activist and violence mediator, is looking for the silver lining.
> 
> Hardrick was less than a mile from his home on Monday at around 10:30 p.m. when about five or six young people tried to rob him, and assaulted him, near the intersection of Canterbury Street and Westbourne Parkway.
> "All of a sudden I get hit, side of the back of the head, you know. Bang," he said. "I asked the kid, 'What are you doing?'"
> ...



Shame that people can't walk, without some punk pieces of ****, mugging them.  I have to wonder....where are the parents?  Are they just as trashy as their kids?  What would be nice to see, is some success with the victims.  Imagine the outcry, and all the people saying how 'good' their kid was, if the victim had a ccw and shot one of these punks.  Personally, no tears would be shed from me!


----------



## MJS (Aug 6, 2013)

Another example of a less than fine parent starting her kid off on the wrong foot.
http://www.wfsb.com/story/23053739/west-hartford-mom-arrested-for-letting-child-shoplift

FARMINGTON, CT (WFSB) -			 Farmington police arrested a mother who was allowing her child to shoplift at a store inside the Westfarms Mall.
[h=3]MOREAdditional Links
[/h]





Police said 30-year-old Sereisopheak Preap of West Hartford was allowing her 10-year-old daughter to shoplift merchandise from Lord & Taylor on Saturday. Police said Preap was making no attempt to stop her child, too.
Preap is charged with fifth-degree larceny and risk of injury to a minor.
She was released on a $5,000 bond and is due in court on Aug. 13.


----------



## Steve (Aug 6, 2013)

Hey, MJS.  I'm not sure I understand.  There are plenty of poor parents, whether through lack of interest or lack of skill.  My point earlier was that we don't (IMO) have enough information to declare that TM's parents are unfit.  Rather, I believe we can point to many of the same things any one of us might have done faced with a child having problems.  

Also, I and others have given examples of situations where good parents have had troubled teens.  I was frequently in trouble.  Ballen's sister is another from this thread.  "Good" parents sometimes have troubled teens.  Being a "good" parent doesn't guarantee perfect children.


----------



## granfire (Aug 6, 2013)

Steve said:


> Hey, MJS.  I'm not sure I understand.  There are plenty of poor parents, whether through lack of interest or lack of skill.  My point earlier was that we don't (IMO) have enough information to declare that TM's parents are unfit.  Rather, I believe we can point to many of the same things any one of us might have done faced with a child having problems.
> 
> Also, I and others have given examples of situations where good parents have had troubled teens.  I was frequently in trouble.  Ballen's sister is another from this thread.  "Good" parents sometimes have troubled teens.  Being a "good" parent doesn't guarantee perfect children.



Considering that you feel parents who use spanking as a tool have failed....

No, there is not enough evidence to judge them on their parenting skills....
But there is enough to show that they are either ignorant or delusional....the boy was by no means the angel they said he was.
But then again...
That means they were oblivious (as in failure to check up on his activities) or worse.


----------



## Steve (Aug 6, 2013)

granfire said:


> Considering that you feel parents who use spanking as a tool have failed....


You didn't finish your sentence, granfire.  Considering that I feel parents who use spanking as a tool have failed... what?  





> No, there is not enough evidence to judge them on their parenting skills....


Right.  Exactly.  





> But there is enough to show that they are either ignorant or delusional....the boy was by no means the angel they said he was.


They loved their child and he is dead.  I'll give them a pass.  No, not even a pass.  I would expect nothing less from caring parents.  





> But then again...
> That means they were oblivious (as in failure to check up on his activities) or worse.


Wow.  You're harsh, granfire.  You are quick to judge other parents, whether it's the Martins or the other parents you deal with in your band boosters.  Must be tough being the only good parent around.  You should write a book on it.


----------



## MJS (Aug 6, 2013)

Steve said:


> Hey, MJS.  I'm not sure I understand.  There are plenty of poor parents, whether through lack of interest or lack of skill.  My point earlier was that we don't (IMO) have enough information to declare that TM's parents are unfit.  Rather, I believe we can point to many of the same things any one of us might have done faced with a child having problems.
> 
> Also, I and others have given examples of situations where good parents have had troubled teens.  I was frequently in trouble.  Ballen's sister is another from this thread.  "Good" parents sometimes have troubled teens.  Being a "good" parent doesn't guarantee perfect children.



I guess my point was this...did TM's parents know what their child was doing?  Seems like a lot of stuff has surfaced in this thread, basically painting TM the opposite of the little angel that many have/are painting him as.  If they knew nothing about their child, I suppose we can ask why?  If that was the case, then it would sound like they weren't involved in their kids life.  If they did know, and chose to do nothing, well, how can his parents turn around and make him so innocent?


----------



## Steve (Aug 6, 2013)

MJS said:


> I guess my point was this...did TM's parents know what their child was doing?  Seems like a lot of stuff has surfaced in this thread, basically painting TM the opposite of the little angel that many have/are painting him as.  If they knew nothing about their child, I suppose we can ask why?  If that was the case, then it would sound like they weren't involved in their kids life.  If they did know, and chose to do nothing, well, how can his parents turn around and make him so innocent?



But we know that they did something.  At the very least, they changed his environment.  That's why he was in the neighborhood in the first place.  Look, let's be clear.  We don't know how they parented tm.  The point is exactly that.  Were they unfit parents?  We don't know.  As I've said, there is evidence to suggest otherwise.  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------

