Unarmed Florida Teen Shot
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
Steve
Mostly Harmless
This is pretty much what they're saying about the guy who pulled the trigger. What I think is interesting is that your immediate reaction is to question the character of the person who is dead and not ask the same questions of the person who killed him.
granfire
Sr. Grandmaster
Oh, the stereotypes that are abundant in this case...
A good write can keep a soap floating on that one story for well over a year....
The cop wanna be, the non white teenager...oh sweetness.
And billi trying to sew doubt...
I am sure heads rolled at the morgue, after all, a high profile case.
But only on TV to they haul the body in and cut them open (including complex tox screens) within 15 minutes.
two days is probably nothing - also assuming he was not the only customer there at the time.
A good write can keep a soap floating on that one story for well over a year....
The cop wanna be, the non white teenager...oh sweetness.
And billi trying to sew doubt...
I am sure heads rolled at the morgue, after all, a high profile case.
But only on TV to they haul the body in and cut them open (including complex tox screens) within 15 minutes.
two days is probably nothing - also assuming he was not the only customer there at the time.
Actually Steve, I also pointed out...
I get tired of law enforcement automatically being assumed to have, according to our president, "...acted stupidly..." The initial reports were that the guy was on the neighborhood watch, and that he got into an altercation with another individual. As soon as it was determined that the person who was shot was african american, the neighborhood watch guy was automatically assumed to be a racist. The same goes with police involved shootings. I watch too many news shows where the person shot by the police, or the actual victim, is said to have been " a good boy, who never hurt anyone," to later find out they had extensive criminal records, and violent ones at that. Before they call racism, hispanic on african american, racism at that, let's see all the facts, including the background of the guy who was shot. How about we do that first...
I get tired of law enforcement automatically being assumed to have, according to our president, "...acted stupidly..." The initial reports were that the guy was on the neighborhood watch, and that he got into an altercation with another individual. As soon as it was determined that the person who was shot was african american, the neighborhood watch guy was automatically assumed to be a racist. The same goes with police involved shootings. I watch too many news shows where the person shot by the police, or the actual victim, is said to have been " a good boy, who never hurt anyone," to later find out they had extensive criminal records, and violent ones at that. Before they call racism, hispanic on african american, racism at that, let's see all the facts, including the background of the guy who was shot. How about we do that first...
Heard about this shooting today on our news at lunch...
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/10/21/police-fire-shots-at-armed-suspect-in-wicker-park/
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/10/21/police-fire-shots-at-armed-suspect-in-wicker-park/
The news station questioned witnesses who all said they did not see a gun. Hmmm...the police or the witnesses, which ones are the racists here...Steve...Elder...I guess it must be the cops because, well, they are cops after all...
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Right. You appear to be reflexively siding with the guy who killed the kid. I'm not saying that the questions you ask are unfounded. I'm saying that it's notable that you're asking these questions only about the black kid and not the dude who shot him.
Once again, for clarity. I don't have any problem with a genuine desire to learn more about the situation. I do, however, think that asking for only specific information about the kid is a good indication that you really aren't looking for the whole story, as it were.
As you say, you're tired of LEO being taken to task and it looks to me like you're actively trying to spin allegations and insinuations in order to paint the kid in a bad light. While you admit knowing nothing about him, the questions you're asking imply that he's a thug or worse. At the same time, you avoid asking anything about the guy who actually killed the kid.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
You're going to have to spell it out for me. I'm not seeing any relevance.
1. Hispanics are Caucasion, Black, and various Native American/Indio. Hispanic is really more an ethnicity than a race. That's why you'll sometimes see the question asked along the lines of "Race? White/Black/Asian/Other Hispanic? Y/N"
2. There are too many conficting, contradictory accounts to judge at this remove. I see a lot of problems and questions. I suspect that, in the end, we'll see the guy arrested. Like I said, there are too many problems.
3. As to conflicts in the image in the press -- of course. Always. The press presents its view of each person involved in something. They decide who will be portrayed sympathetically, and who'll be painted as a monster. The truth, like always, is often somewhere well within the extremes.
2. There are too many conficting, contradictory accounts to judge at this remove. I see a lot of problems and questions. I suspect that, in the end, we'll see the guy arrested. Like I said, there are too many problems.
3. As to conflicts in the image in the press -- of course. Always. The press presents its view of each person involved in something. They decide who will be portrayed sympathetically, and who'll be painted as a monster. The truth, like always, is often somewhere well within the extremes.
The nature of the first article posted was that it was a racist shooting, that the teenager wasn't doing anything wrong at the time, as per his mother, and that the no retreat laws hold a large part of the blame. The article was slanted against the shooter and didn't look at the guy who was shot in any way other than what his mother said about him. That is a biased article that completely ignored the alleged victim. Who jumped to intitial conclusions about the attack? The reporter?
The second article mirrors the first accusations of racism based on the families statements. Of course, the family wasn't at the scene of the crime and didn't witness the shooting, but the coverage is all about it being a racist shooting, without knowing all the facts on the ground.
the last article is the only article in the original post that even hints that the shooting may have been accidental because of the struggle between the two, and still not one bit of background on the teenager who was shot other than from his family. The father of the shooter says his son isn't a racist. Who is lying? These articles are slanted, so from practical experience of crime watching on the news I want to know the real history of the other guy. The initial report was that he was the one that had 911 called on him. Yet, still, no background from any of those articles. Who really wants all the facts before judgement is made, and racism is laid at the feet of the other guy?
The second article mirrors the first accusations of racism based on the families statements. Of course, the family wasn't at the scene of the crime and didn't witness the shooting, but the coverage is all about it being a racist shooting, without knowing all the facts on the ground.
the last article is the only article in the original post that even hints that the shooting may have been accidental because of the struggle between the two, and still not one bit of background on the teenager who was shot other than from his family. The father of the shooter says his son isn't a racist. Who is lying? These articles are slanted, so from practical experience of crime watching on the news I want to know the real history of the other guy. The initial report was that he was the one that had 911 called on him. Yet, still, no background from any of those articles. Who really wants all the facts before judgement is made, and racism is laid at the feet of the other guy?
Driving around tonight I realized the problem with this thread. Some here saw that a black teenager was shot and immediately put on their, "everything about this is racism," glasses, so tightly, they can't see anything else. I heard neighborhood watch, shooting, and victim and put on my "crime" glasses, I want to know wether this neighborhood watch guy was actually dealing with a criminal and if the shooting was right. The racism angle was completely covered in the three original posts, the "was this an actual criminal," part was covered by asking the family about the guy who was shot. Some people can't get past race, and they never will. Not all crime that involves minorities is a racism issue. Get over it. If this case involves an innocent person being shot, through negligence or intent, then the shooter should and hopefully will be punished. If it was an accident and/or the teenager who was shot was perpetrating a crime, then he made the decisions that put him in that place.
The race machine being activated is not going to help solve this issue. Unfortunately, there is a lot of money now on the line with this case and that won't help either.
The race machine being activated is not going to help solve this issue. Unfortunately, there is a lot of money now on the line with this case and that won't help either.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Yet. Investigations take time esp when they are national news you want to get it right. This is a small department Im sure they dont deal with the media that often so they are making sure to cross every T and dot every i.
Not sure why that matters but we normally dont drug test or alcohol test people unless its a DUI case. Even when I shot someone on duty I was not drug or alcohol tested.
He was on foot dont need his car.
You know this how?
They dispatched officer when Zimmerman called well before the shooting and told him to back away and stop following the kid. We get suspicious black kid in neighborhood calls all the time we dont even send officers because last time I checked being black was not a crime. So when they did dispach the call at first Im sure it was not set as a priority.
When I listened to the playback of the 911 call it sounds like a man yelling to me but I wasnt there so I dont know.
Its a small department Im pretty sure they dont even have a homicide division most small departments dont. They send whatever Detective is working that night to the call. As a Narcotics Detective for many years I would be quite capable of investigating this call. Not rocket science when you already know who did it thats the hardest part.
local PD and state medical examiners office are two different things most if not all police departments dont have or operate a morgue.
How do you know they ignored it?
Naa I doubt it
Here is some more detail on the actual event...
http://www.wesh.com/r/30692415/detail.html
For emphasis...
http://www.wesh.com/r/30692415/detail.html
For emphasis...
Read more: http://www.wesh.com/news/30692415/detail.html#ixzz1poc9tyyr
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Also from the above story:
the detectives claim it was actually prosecutors who advised them they did not have enough evidence to win a manslaughter conviction.
About the criminal in france...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/nazis_or_muslim_terrorists_does_it_matter.html
Hmmm...just a nice guy who would never hurt anyone...anyone...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/nazis_or_muslim_terrorists_does_it_matter.html
Hmmm...just a nice guy who would never hurt anyone...anyone...
I dont know the criminal history for either party involved, however, IMHO, yes, it seems to be par for the course, that any person that is arrested, shot, etc, the family of the person usually claims that they're the finest of all citizens.
Personally, I'm not really sure what this thread has to do with LEOs. Whether or not they made an arrest or not, IMO, is moot to this thread. Aren't you in LE? If so, I'm sure that you know that things dont happen overnight, despite what this kids family thinks. Obviosuly the dead kid can't talk, the guy that shot the kid isn't going to make himself sound like the badguy, and unless there were witnesses, then its pretty much all on the laps of the cops, to try to piece this mess together.
Well, then you and I are wearing the same glasses, because when I saw this article, I was thinking the same thing you were. If any of my posts suggested otherwise, I apologize in advance for that. Frankly, I don't care if they were both green men from mars....I want to discuss, all race issues aside, whether or not this neighborhood watch yahoo, was justified in shooting or whether he acted like John Wayne and just blasted away, because in his untrained eye, this kid was bad.
Sadly, race probably will come into this. Maybe the guy hated blacks..I dont know. And like I said, this kid could be the biggest criminal in the area, but its very possible that whether his family know/do not know his background, they're going to do what alot of parents do...automatically take their kids side, because in their eyes, their kid can do no wrong.
Sorry, but thats the biggest bunch of BS! No, what should happen, is the parents should listen to both sides of the story. When I did something wrong, thats what my parents did. If I was being wrongfully blamed for something, they'd fight for me. But if I was indeed wrong, yes, I'd get my *** whacked.
zDom
Senior Master
From what I've read, it sounds to be like the shooter has placed himself in a bad situation.
It will be very hard to argue, should he be brought up on charges, that it was self defense if he pursued the person who got shot.
That isn't "standing ground" as I see it, although the courts may not see it that way.
Worse, he has provided ample opportunity for the media to make CCW and the "stand your ground" law look bad. Really bad. Not saying he is one, but it only takes one idiot to screw things up and get legislation or referendums rolling. Nevermind all the legitimate cases of self defense. All they need is one instance gone wrong to raise the ol' hue and cry.
I am kind of surprised that he was not arrested in that there is at least some doubt as to what happened. No harm in booking and releasing on his own recognisance: I doubt the LEOs would have been liable for a false arrest and it tosses the hot potato off to the courts ... where it belongs.
If he is bound over during the prelim, time to lawyer up. If he is not bound over, I would feel as if the court looked at all the evidence and determined there was not enough reason to believe a crime was committed.
IMO, the right thing to do had he been on Neighborhood Watch, would be to continue to watch from a distance and call police (hah.. for the 10,000 time) if he observed any criminal type behavior such as creeping up to a home not his own or tampering with a vehicle.
As a person who takes an active interest in self defense: if I am scared of someone I am not following him down the street to see what he is doing. I'll leave that to the brave Boys in Blue who carry a shield and wear a vest in addition to being armed.
Just my thoughts based on what I have read.
It will be very hard to argue, should he be brought up on charges, that it was self defense if he pursued the person who got shot.
That isn't "standing ground" as I see it, although the courts may not see it that way.
Worse, he has provided ample opportunity for the media to make CCW and the "stand your ground" law look bad. Really bad. Not saying he is one, but it only takes one idiot to screw things up and get legislation or referendums rolling. Nevermind all the legitimate cases of self defense. All they need is one instance gone wrong to raise the ol' hue and cry.
I am kind of surprised that he was not arrested in that there is at least some doubt as to what happened. No harm in booking and releasing on his own recognisance: I doubt the LEOs would have been liable for a false arrest and it tosses the hot potato off to the courts ... where it belongs.
If he is bound over during the prelim, time to lawyer up. If he is not bound over, I would feel as if the court looked at all the evidence and determined there was not enough reason to believe a crime was committed.
IMO, the right thing to do had he been on Neighborhood Watch, would be to continue to watch from a distance and call police (hah.. for the 10,000 time) if he observed any criminal type behavior such as creeping up to a home not his own or tampering with a vehicle.
As a person who takes an active interest in self defense: if I am scared of someone I am not following him down the street to see what he is doing. I'll leave that to the brave Boys in Blue who carry a shield and wear a vest in addition to being armed.
Just my thoughts based on what I have read.
cdunn
2nd Black Belt
Colors don't really matter; "neighborhood watch" or not, Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, continued pursuit AFTER being ordered by police to break contact, and pulled the trigger. He did not need to exit his automobile, and Martin, by any available account, did not attempt to draw him out of the car, nor did he threaten Zimmerman while he was in the car. He may have (probably did) started swinging at Zimmerman once the gut caught up to him.
So, question for you: If you were being chased down by an unknown person of approximately double your size, possibly brandishing a weapon, had already failed to evade him, in a non-threatening fashion, in a neighborhood that you have every right to be in, what are you going to do?
Regardless of what happened once he got out of the car and started chasing the kid, there is every appearance of Zimmerman being liable for assault. Whether it ends at assault or runs all the way through 2nd degree murder is debateable - and to what degree evidence is available for these charges is another thing entirely.
I agree, and I said the same thing in another post.
Well, in his case, I'd have taken the advice his girlfriend was giving him...run! However, perhaps calling the police would've also been another option.
Agreed. This, IMO, is the #1 problem with the rent-a-cop, square badge jokers...they think they're cops, when they're really not.
