Unarmed Florida Teen Shot

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm satisfied the investigation was more thourough than it seemed on the night of the incident. The prosecutor said in her press conference that she would not bring charges unless convinced byond a shadow of a doubt. I wonder what filled in the missing pieces for them, evidenciary wise.

If innocent, in the long run this could be good for Zimmerman. It would be better for him to be found innocent and have the cloud of suspicion removed. If he's guilty then he should pay for unlawfully taking a boy's life.

I do hope that the knucklhead extremist from both sides will let the law work. No more nonsense about threatening Zimmerman's life or rioting if a trial does not turn out to thier particular liking.

It is obvious that race is still an issue with far too many people, including both whites and minorities. The thrust of this story should have been from the start that an unarmed teen was shot and killed. The truth should have been found from there. That race became an issue is reflective of how deep the wounds of racism still run in this country.

I agree, but remember he won't be 'found innocent'. Being found 'not guilty' is not a finding of factual innocence, it merely means there was not enough evidence to convict. If you think back to the OJ trial, whether he was in fact guilty or innocent was irrelevant in most people's opinions. He was found not guilty, but many people still believe him to be guilty - and he may have been.

So sadly, I doubt that a finding of 'not guilty' or a preliminary finding of 'self-defense' (another option, I am led to believe) will not change people's minds about his actual guilt or innocence. If he is found not guilty, he will still have to go into hiding for the rest of his life. Unlike OJ, he will not have the money to hire bodyguards and live in a secured mansion; he'll be hunted down and killed by those seeking 'justice' at any cost.

 

[ballen0351]

Hes already innocent he must be found guilty. In this country your innocent unless proven other wise.

 

[MJS]

It will be interesting to see how the rest of this plays out. Hopefully we won't have all the clowns running around, rioting, acting like a bunch of *******s.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Hes already innocent he must be found guilty. In this country your innocent unless proven other wise.

He is 'presumed innocent' in the eyes of the law. That does not mean he is 'actually innocent'. And a criminal case does not render a verdict of 'innocent'. It renders a verdict of 'guilty' (he did it) or 'not guilty' (the state did not prove he did it). Not guilty as a legal verdict does not equal 'innocent'. They're not the same thing at all.

A person who robs a bank is presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law. But they actually did rob the bank, let's say. The state is unable to mount a convincing case, and the jury finds the accused bank robber 'not guilty'. Does that mean he is innocent? No, he still robbed the bank in real life. In fact, he can stand up and say "I robbed that bank, you idiots" and there is nothing the criminal courts can do to him; double jeopardy prevents him from being tried twice for the same offense. Not guilty is a verdict in court; it does not mean innocent.

On the other hand, once a person is found 'guilty' of a crime, the burden of proof shifts to them; they are now presumed guilty. They can attempt to have their case reviewed, overturned, or be given a new trial by arguing 'actual innocence' if they can convince a court to grant their petition, writ, or motion.

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

A person can be found 'actually innocent' in a criminal case, but it is very rare. Not guilty just means the state did not make its case, not that the person didn't do it.

 

[shesulsa]

By my lights, the one person who has "zero clue how our judicial system works", is in police custody. Where he belongs.

To add to this newfound encouragement, the justice department is standing by to indict GZ should a judge or jury forget that it's now 2012 America, and not the 1950's South.

While I'm sensitive to what I think you're trying to say in the first sentence, my point has always been that he DID indeed know how the legal system is supposed to work, he just went way over the top and took it upon himself to do what he was - in unofficial language - "told" not to do. (I'll expound on this farther down)

As to your second sentence, let's hope that with the diverse population of Florida there will be a fair trial. I am sensitive to the potential race issue here. I've listened to the recording of Zimmerman's call with various levels of volume and while I don't have advanced voice analysis software, it sure does sound like he is saying "effing coons" and with the other considerations that are important (at least to me as a former security officer) and even with his outspokenness in other matters race-related, I think this guy has some issues that go far deeper than prejudice. I also think these issues, even with race aside, are certainly concerning enough for *something* to be done with this fella.

I don't disagree that smacking someone's head on the ground repeatedly could be considered a life-threatening situation ... but I do disagree with his pursuit of Martin and this is where I want to point out something - I'm curious why others haven't done so already.

When I was training for security - and even in my martial arts training with people employed in law enforcement - it was made pretty clear that while we could not be given commands by law enforcement or LE agencies other than what they would a citizen, that we could be given *suggestions* of the *wink* *wink* variety. An example would be exactly what happened here - the dispatcher (who cannot give a command to a citizen) would say, "We don't need for you to do that," and what we were supposed to *hear in our heads* was Do Not Follow This Person.

Does this make sense to any other Law Enforcement or security people here in this conversation? I mean to say it's a *wink* *wink* kind of general understanding while still being a very official point that if law enforcement or dispatch says they need for you to do something, if you're comfortable, you really should comply and if they say they don't need for you to do something you really should not do it.

Thoughts on this?

 

[MJS]

While I'm sensitive to what I think you're trying to say in the first sentence, my point has always been that he DID indeed know how the legal system is supposed to work, he just went way over the top and took it upon himself to do what he was - in unofficial language - "told" not to do. (I'll expound on this farther down)

As to your second sentence, let's hope that with the diverse population of Florida there will be a fair trial. I am sensitive to the potential race issue here. I've listened to the recording of Zimmerman's call with various levels of volume and while I don't have advanced voice analysis software, it sure does sound like he is saying "effing coons" and with the other considerations that are important (at least to me as a former security officer) and even with his outspokenness in other matters race-related, I think this guy has some issues that go far deeper than prejudice. I also think these issues, even with race aside, are certainly concerning enough for *something* to be done with this fella.

I don't disagree that smacking someone's head on the ground repeatedly could be considered a life-threatening situation ... but I do disagree with his pursuit of Martin and this is where I want to point out something - I'm curious why others haven't done so already.

When I was training for security - and even in my martial arts training with people employed in law enforcement - it was made pretty clear that while we could not be given commands by law enforcement or LE agencies other than what they would a citizen, that we could be given *suggestions* of the *wink* *wink* variety. An example would be exactly what happened here - the dispatcher (who cannot give a command to a citizen) would say, "We don't need for you to do that," and what we were supposed to *hear in our heads* was Do Not Follow This Person.

Does this make sense to any other Law Enforcement or security people here in this conversation? I mean to say it's a *wink* *wink* kind of general understanding while still being a very official point that if law enforcement or dispatch says they need for you to do something, if you're comfortable, you really should comply and if they say they don't need for you to do something you really should not do it.

Thoughts on this?

Yup, makes sense to me. I offer suggestions to people all the time...whether or not they take them, is out of my control. At least its on tape that I said something. Just like the woman who called yesterday, to say that her furnace wasn't acting right, and smoke was coming out of it. I told her if it was safe for her to do so, why don't you wait outside and I'll send you help. Once I hang up, I have no idea whether or not she in fact did go outside to wait for the FD, or is she stayed inside. The problem lies in the fact that what we *hear in our head* probably won't be the same as whats *heard* by others. Either they will not get the hint or interpret it to something else.

 

[Wo Fat]

While I'm sensitive to what I think you're trying to say in the first sentence, my point has always been that he DID indeed know how the legal system is supposed to work, he just went way over the top and took it upon himself to do what he was - in unofficial language - "told" not to do. (I'll expound on this farther down)

As to your second sentence, let's hope that with the diverse population of Florida there will be a fair trial. I am sensitive to the potential race issue here. I've listened to the recording of Zimmerman's call with various levels of volume and while I don't have advanced voice analysis software, it sure does sound like he is saying "effing coons" and with the other considerations that are important (at least to me as a former security officer) and even with his outspokenness in other matters race-related, I think this guy has some issues that go far deeper than prejudice. I also think these issues, even with race aside, are certainly concerning enough for *something* to be done with this fella.

While it's true that Florida has a diverse population, one can't forget the 1992 verdict in the Rodney King beating case nor the 1995(?) verdict in the OJ case. Both verdicts went against the overwhelming obviousness of guilt, and both occurred in a very diverse California. Personally, I hope that GZ gets a very diverse jury that's reflective of all of Florida. And I will say it here again; I don't know if GZ is a racist per se. I just know that I heard him say "fcking coons". Now, I don't know about you, but in my lifetime, I have uttered bigoted slurs in anger or condemnation on occasion. Most of us have, and most of us are not proud of it. We're human. We're fallible. We do and say horrible things from time to time. That said, is it possible for someone to say something racist and not *be* a racist? Absolutely. But if I utter a racial slur about some particular race, and then a couple minutes later, someone of that race is dead at my hand, I've lost my presumption of goodwill.

I don't disagree that smacking someone's head on the ground repeatedly could be considered a life-threatening situation ... but I do disagree with his pursuit of Martin and this is where I want to point out something - I'm curious why others haven't done so already.

But couldn't this be a moot point, now? A respected prosecutor has considered all the stuff that we in the public *thought* we knew, and has charged him with the highest level of homicide possible. We in the public are still stuck with the image of the life-or-death head-banging, but the person who offered that account is in jail and charged with murder. That speaks volumes about his credibility and about his story.

When I was training for security - and even in my martial arts training with people employed in law enforcement - it was made pretty clear that while we could not be given commands by law enforcement or LE agencies other than what they would a citizen, that we could be given *suggestions* of the *wink* *wink* variety. An example would be exactly what happened here - the dispatcher (who cannot give a command to a citizen) would say, "We don't need for you to do that," and what we were supposed to *hear in our heads* was Do Not Follow This Person.

You're exactly right. A reasonable person is going to hear the "indirect" orders to stay away. And reasonable person is going to heed that suggestion. Not because they "have to follow orders" but because they know that they are armed, and that they could be putting themselves or someone else into harm's way.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yup, makes sense to me. I offer suggestions to people all the time...whether or not they take them, is out of my control. At least its on tape that I said something. Just like the woman who called yesterday, to say that her furnace wasn't acting right, and smoke was coming out of it. I told her if it was safe for her to do so, why don't you wait outside and I'll send you help. Once I hang up, I have no idea whether or not she in fact did go outside to wait for the FD, or is she stayed inside. The problem lies in the fact that what we *hear in our head* probably won't be the same as whats *heard* by others. Either they will not get the hint or interpret it to something else.

I used to say "Why don't you pop that trunk lid for me?" and "You don't mine if I search your vehicle, do you?" Most people had no idea that a) I was not giving them an order and b) they had the right to refuse my request.

Presumed authority covers a lot of ground. As a member of the LE community, I was glad of it. As a citizen, I wish people were more aware of what the police (or a dispatcher) can and cannot order them to do. Not only do we act like sheep, we demand to be treated like sheep and get angry when others stop acting like sheep. Oh noez! He disobeyed the dispatcher! I'm telling! Puhleeze.

 

[shesulsa]

While it's true that Florida has a diverse population, one can't forget the 1992 verdict in the Rodney King beating case nor the 1995(?) verdict in the OJ case. Both verdicts went against the overwhelming obviousness of guilt, and both occurred in a very diverse California. Personally, I hope that GZ gets a very diverse jury that's reflective of all of Florida. And I will say it here again; I don't know if GZ is a racist per se.

Just as there is a white woman who clearly hid her daughter's death and possibly even killed her is walking free because the child's body was SO decomposed a cause of death could not be determined. Evidence is everything and even if the law finds someone legally not guilty, it does not mean s/he is innocent. Would you say the outrage from the verdict for this woman could compare to the the incidents above? I echo Bill Mattock's and MJS's concerns about rioting. I was there for the LA riots ... one of the reasons I left Kalifornia.

I just know that I heard him say "fcking coons". Now, I don't know about you, but in my lifetime, I have uttered bigoted slurs in anger or condemnation on occasion. Most of us have, and most of us are not proud of it. We're human. We're fallible. We do and say horrible things from time to time. That said, is it possible for someone to say something racist and not *be* a racist? Absolutely. But if I utter a racial slur about some particular race, and then a couple minutes later, someone of that race is dead at my hand, I've lost my presumption of goodwill.

I have been thinking about this ever since the incident happened and have done so before ... you know, I cannot say I have never uttered a racial slur - largely when young and dumb and also in discussion with my children for educational purposes ("have you ever heard someone use the word n****r?" etc.) - but I really can't think of a time where I used such a term in a stressed or angered situation. I've never gotten so mad at someone not white that I called them a racist word.

Anyone else?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I have been thinking about this ever since the incident happened and have done so before ... you know, I cannot say I have never uttered a racial slur - largely when young and dumb and also in discussion with my children for educational purposes ("have you ever heard someone use the word n****r?" etc.) - but I really can't think of a time where I used such a term in a stressed or angered situation. I've never gotten so mad at someone not white that I called them a racist word.

Anyone else?

[video=youtube_share;YOt1wEDy0SI]http://youtu.be/YOt1wEDy0SI[/video]

CNN originally make the claim that Zimmerman said "****ing coons." Now CNN says that it says, "****ing cold." That's what I hear also.

I would also like to say that in my experience, 'coons' is not a common epithet anymore. I haven't heard it in many years, but there are others which I commonly hear. Likewise, I read a FB post recently from someone who claimed he had been approached by a black youth who referred to him as a 'honkie'. I just have trouble believing that. It's like 'jive cracker'. Nobody talks like that anymore.

People who want to believe this is race-related are going to do so. The word that Zimmerman used won't change their minds one way or another.

Is Zimmerman a racist? I do not know. Neither do the people who believe he is. Rather than assume he is a racist until proven otherwise, I'll go the other way. Show me a pattern of behavior. Show me an incident, even one, in which Zimmerman has appeared to behave in a racist way. One word? No. That's a non-starter and reveals (in my opinion) an underlying racial agenda.

 

[granfire]

I suppose you'd be surprised...a popular MMORPG changed the name of an item in game due to 'Coon' being non PC: Who would want to walk around with a Main @$&* in tow.....yes, it's a cat.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I suppose you'd be surprised...a popular MMORPG changed the name of an item in game due to 'Coon' being non PC: Who would want to walk around with a Main @$&* in tow.....yes, it's a cat.

Lots of things get changed because some PC crybaby complains. Here in Michigan, a popular coffee brand had to change their name from 'Beaners' (for coffee beans, duh) to 'Bigby' because someone complained. Still, I haven't heard anyone call someone a 'beaner' as a derogatory term since Cheech and Chong. So, do you hear people call black people 'coons' a lot? Because I don't. And yes, I hear a lot of racial epithets in Detroit. Racism is alive and well here.

 

[ballen0351]

Interestingly i listened to some drunk a hole call his black arresting officer a coon for about 45 min the other night along with several other more common names and a few ive never hears before. Ive been called a cracker but never a honkie. I think racial slurs are different by geographic area.

However i dont here coon or cold when i hear the tape from zimmerman i dont hear anything but mumbles but when they say see he said.coon then i.hear coon. When they say see he said cold i hear cold. Its like the ghost hunter shows qhen they claim they recorded ghosts talking. I never hear anything until they tell me what im supposed to hear.

 

[WC_lun]

I think the racist thing is/was a ploy to stir up more interest in the case. None of us really know if Zimmerman is racist from what little "evidence" we get from the media. What we know is he killed a kid a claims self dedense. The claim of self defense is where the focus should be. I am interested to know why the state believes it was not self defense.

I do have to give props to Martin's parents. While mourning the loss of their son they called for a deeper investigation into the killing, while at the same time calling for calm activism. I hope people can take a que from them and resist the urge to riot, no matter what the verdict. It does no ones cause any good to damage the property of your friends and neighbors. Now if some of the more famous people in the media can show as much common sense and restraint. Publicly wondering aloud why Zimmerman hasn't been shot already just proves Mike Tyson has brain damage

 

[granfire]

I think the racist thing is/was a ploy to stir up more interest in the case. None of us really know if Zimmerman is racist from what little "evidence" we get from the media. What we know is he killed a kid a claims self dedense. The claim of self defense is where the focus should be. I am interested to know why the state believes it was not self defense.

I do have to give props to Martin's parents. While mourning the loss of their son they called for a deeper investigation into the killing, while at the same time calling for calm activism. I hope people can take a que from them and resist the urge to riot, no matter what the verdict. It does no ones cause any good to damage the property of your friends and neighbors. Now if some of the more famous people in the media can show as much common sense and restraint. Publicly wondering aloud why Zimmerman hasn't been shot already just proves Mike Tyson has brain damage

No, not really. I am sure you can call for an indepth investigation without going on TV and demanding arrests be made.

 

[ballen0351]

or trademarking your kids name

 

[WC_lun]

No, not really. I am sure you can call for an indepth investigation without going on TV and demanding arrests be made.

It is very difficult to get anything done such as an in depth police investigation without going to the media and getting others to help with your cause. Squeeky wheel and all that.

or trademarking your kids name

You have a point there. Kind a douchebaggery thing to do.

 

[Wo Fat]

I would also like to say that in my experience, 'coons' is not a common epithet anymore. I haven't heard it in many years, but there are others which I commonly hear. Likewise, I read a FB post recently from someone who claimed he had been approached by a black youth who referred to him as a 'honkie'. I just have trouble believing that. It's like 'jive cracker'. Nobody talks like that anymore.

You may not care, but I agree. I've not been called a coon--at least to my face--since I was a kid in the '70s. And, LOL, you're right; honkie, etc., went out with George Jefferson. Personally, I don't hear honkey or whitey anymore, but I won't presume that nobody ever says it. Now, when I hear racial slurs about others--Latino, White, Asian, Native--I don't wilt. I stand up and oppose it when safe to do so. My wife is White and our kids are biracial. We have zero tolerance for racism or bigotry ... from any source.

I would also agree--again--that I do not know that Zimmerman is a racist. I only know that I heard him say "coons". But even if some heard "goons" or "cold" or "clothes", there's no mistaking him saying "these a$$holes ... they always get away". "These"--plural. IMO, this is such an overwhelming piece of evidence that the Prosecution has alleged that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin (that's not my word, it's in the Prosecution's averment).

Yes, the Prosecution must prove their allegation. But it'll take some serious verbal gymnastics to convince a jury that Trayvon was not profiled.

 

[ballen0351]

So now These is a racist term. Wow all that time when the bad guys on scobby do said i would have gotten away with it if it werent for these kids i had no idea that were racists. Thanks for teaching me.

And everytime i tell my wife these kids are driving me nuts today i was being racist. Because these could never had referred to something simple like these teenagers or these traspassers or these punks it MUST have ment these black people right.

 

[ballen0351]

It is very difficult to get anything done such as an in depth police investigation without going to the media and getting others to help with your cause.
.

Really? Cause i know we do investigations everyday without the media making up lies to force us to charge people