Unarmed Florida Teen Shot

[Wo Fat]

On the other hand it seems like the other party was no angel either.

Flip a coin.

And he didn't need to be an angel. Ironically, it seems that he never had one bit of trouble in the neighborhood until he encountered George Zimmerman.

No I won't flip a coin. Because I don't believe in some kind of twisted theory of "inevitability". Trayvon Martin's killing wasn't inevitable (though some need to believe in that). It was unnecessary.

 

[jks9199]

Except that the only way that one can conclude that "Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman", is to believe Zimmerman's accounts. And he's already proven to be a liar.

No one can dispute that Zimmerman got his azz kicked. But one has to have a whole lotta faith to continue taking Zimmerman at his word as to how it happened.

I tried to phrase that rather neutrally. It certainly seems, from all the accounts I've read, that Martin did confront Zimmerman. Whether he did this because he believed Zimmerman was following him, harassing him, or just because Martin was a kid -- the accounts I've read representing both sides suggest that Martin initiated the contact, though not necessarily the entire sequence of events. I said it will turn on "HOW Martin confronted Zimmerman." (emphasis added) In other words, in the manner of that confrontation. Did that confrontation and the subsequent fight reflect self defense on the part of Zimmerman, or of Martin? Was either justified in attacking the other? After all, at this point, it seems both were in someplace that they had a right to be, doing something they had a right to do.

 

[jks9199]

And he didn't need to be an angel. Ironically, it seems that he never had one bit of trouble in the neighborhood until he encountered George Zimmerman.

No I won't flip a coin. Because I don't believe in some kind of twisted theory of "inevitability". Trayvon Martin's killing wasn't inevitable (though some need to believe in that). It was unnecessary.

I, for one, have never suggested that Martin's death was either inevitable, or anything but a tragedy. It was certainly "unnecessary" in the fact that had everything gone ideally, he wouldn't have been shot. But that doesn't make Zimmerman's acts criminal. It is not a crime to follow a person you believe to be suspicious in a public place. It's not a crime to call the police about that person, or to continue to follow them even if you've been told not to by a dispatcher. (I'm not aware of any laws obligating people to obey the dispatcher.) It's also not a crime to go out in the rain in a place you're visiting for Skittles, or even to confront someone who seems to be following you. Assault is a crime; there's no firm evidence who assaulted whom. Nor is it a crime to defend yourself when you've been attacked. Lethal force is justified if you are reasonably in fear of death. But we can't get there 'til the other pieces are resolved.

 

[granfire]

And he didn't need to be an angel. Ironically, it seems that he never had one bit of trouble in the neighborhood until he encountered George Zimmerman.

No I won't flip a coin. Because I don't believe in some kind of twisted theory of "inevitability". Trayvon Martin's killing wasn't inevitable (though some need to believe in that). It was unnecessary.

He was visiting....that does not really count. And really, one time is all it takes to be in trouble.


However. You still believe that shtick about the good boy who can do no wrong as per the parents. Since then the tox screen came back positive for pot. Now mind you, I didn't read it, since I really don't care, and I am no medical expert, but it suggests that he at least inhaled....now, while I know of a handful of 'good people' who smoke, you have to go through considerable illegal trouble to get weed.

And until the evidence is presented, we really won't know anything.

But I do understand that anything but the death penalty for GZ is a miscarriage of justice in your ice.

 

[Wo Fat]

I tried to phrase that rather neutrally. It certainly seems, from all the accounts I've read, that Martin did confront Zimmerman. Whether he did this because he believed Zimmerman was following him, harassing him, or just because Martin was a kid -- the accounts I've read representing both sides suggest that Martin initiated the contact, though not necessarily the entire sequence of events. I said it will turn on "HOW Martin confronted Zimmerman." (emphasis added) In other words, in the manner of that confrontation. Did that confrontation and the subsequent fight reflect self defense on the part of Zimmerman, or of Martin? Was either justified in attacking the other? After all, at this point, it seems both were in someplace that they had a right to be, doing something they had a right to do.

I do understand what you're trying to say. The problem with "all the accounts" that some have read/heard, is that they are all hearsay. The only (living) first-hand source is George Zimmerman. And he has already proven himself to be a liar--under oath, and in court of all places. Believe his accounts accordingly.

 

[Wo Fat]

He was visiting....that does not really count. And really, one time is all it takes to be in trouble.


However. You still believe that shtick about the good boy who can do no wrong as per the parents. Since then the tox screen came back positive for pot. Now mind you, I didn't read it, since I really don't care, and I am no medical expert, but it suggests that he at least inhaled....now, while I know of a handful of 'good people' who smoke, you have to go through considerable illegal trouble to get weed.

And until the evidence is presented, we really won't know anything.

But I do understand that anything but the death penalty for GZ is a miscarriage of justice in your ice.

I don't care if Trayvon was "visiting". He had every right to be there. And his rights to be where he was, as well as his moral standing were equal to that of George Zimmerman or any other resident for that matter.

Some people are offended by that notion--of "Trayvon-like" males having equal moral standing--but that's just something they'll have to get over.

No, I don't want the death penalty for Zimmerman (I'm not a proponent of it). But I do want justice for Trayvon Martin.

 

[jks9199]

But are prepared for the possibility that Martin got justice as he attempted to kill Zimmerman?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Wo Fat]

But are prepared for the possibility that Martin got justice as he attempted to kill Zimmerman?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

This is America. Trayvon had no rights that George Zimmerman was bound to respect. So yes, I'm prepared.

 

[ballen0351]

This is America. Trayvon had no rights that George Zimmerman was bound to respect. So yes, I'm prepared.

That's correct Travon had no right to bash someones head into the ground because the guy was following him.

 

[MJS]

Honestly -- what's it matter if Zimmerman continued to follow Martin or not? Let's be real -- the murder charge is unlikely to hold water; I don't think they'll successfully show anything resembling intent. I think it will finally turn on how Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman.

Hmm...and how many times, when we're discussing a self defense sitaution, do we hear people say the best course of action is to just walk away if possible? Road rage incident, one guy calls the other a bunch of names. Instead of walking away or trying to defuse the situation, the guy hauls off and punches the other guy for calling him names. GZ didn't have to follow TM. He did that on his own.

 

[MJS]

None of that matters when we talk about self defense. I could following you around call you names throw candy at you head run up and punch you in the back of the head. If you then beat me to the ground and well after I'm no longer fighting back you continue to kick me guess what I started it followed you and hit you first but your still going to jail.

As you most likely will too no? After all, you initiated that assault. And no, of course once the person is no longer a threat, you shouldn't continue to beat them, tempting as it may be.

 

[MJS]

TM most likely was no angel. But, IMO, thats moot. As its been made perfectly clear, BOTH parties had every right to be where they were. IMHO, unless someone is actually seen, doing something illegal, then IMO, GZ had shouldn've have followed the kid.

 

[Tgace]

TM most likely was no angel. But, IMO, thats moot. As its been made perfectly clear, BOTH parties had every right to be where they were. IMHO, unless someone is actually seen, doing something illegal, then IMO, GZ had shouldn've have followed the kid.

Y'all are getting too wrapped up in this "following" thing. So now a person has to actually observe a crime in progress before they can call 911 or keep a suspicious person in sight as they call police? If you see two teens walking down the street at night pulling the door handles of each car they pass....is that illegal? Should you call 911?

Some of the best civilian involved arrests I have been involved in were because people just kept an eye on someone and directed us in.

I have heard no evidence that GZ was telling 911 that he was attempting to physically detain TM.

Just because GZ was spotted by the person he was watching is no PROOF that he was right on TM's *** or chasing the kid around the neighborhood.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[MJS]

Y'all are getting too wrapped up in this "following" thing. So now a person has to actually observe a crime in progress before they can call 911 or keep a suspicious person in sight as they call police. I have heard no evidence that GZ was telling 911 that he was attempting to physically detain TM.

Some of the best civilian involved arrests I have been involved in were because people just kept an eye on someone and directed us in. Just because GZ was spotted by the person he was watching is no PROOF that he was right on TM's *** or chasing the kid around the neighborhood.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

LOL, I apologize if I'm giving you that impression. IIRC, I've said before that I take suspicious car/person calls every single day. I certainly don't encourage the caller to put themselves in a sticky situation, ie: I dont tell them to follow the car, the person or anything that will put them at risk of harm. I've also taken calls for active burgs, and I believe I told you about one a week or so ago. No, I'm not against the public helping LEOs. Numerous people, crimes in progress, have been thwarted by those good samaritans.

Tom, my point is simple: By all means, call the police. But don't play hero, dont play LEO. If you wanna do what the cops do that bad, perhaps those folks should apply for the job. I may be wrong, but it seemed to me, by the earlier reports, that GZ was actively following TM, and then lost sight of him, and then made his way back to his vehicle. It was then, I believe, that TM approached GZ.

 

[billc]

I am not saying it happened this way, but if it happened the way you just described MJS, then the point of initiation of contact would fall back on Martin. Still, it would need to be determined who made physical contact first in the physical confrontation, wouldn't it? Perhaps the LEO's can talk about that.

 

[MJS]

I am not saying it happened this way, but if it happened the way you just described MJS, then the point of initiation of contact would fall back on Martin. Still, it would need to be determined who made physical contact first in the physical confrontation, wouldn't it? Perhaps the LEO's can talk about that.

I do see your point, however, I'd say that the point of contact would fall on GZ, at least initially. He saw martin and started off after him. Once he lost sight, I belive it was then Martin that came after Zimmerman. At least thats the way I understood it initially.

 

[Tgace]

LOL, I apologize if I'm giving you that impression. IIRC, I've said before that I take suspicious car/person calls every single day. I certainly don't encourage the caller to put themselves in a sticky situation, ie: I dont tell them to follow the car, the person or anything that will put them at risk of harm. I've also taken calls for active burgs, and I believe I told you about one a week or so ago. No, I'm not against the public helping LEOs. Numerous people, crimes in progress, have been thwarted by those good samaritans.

Tom, my point is simple: By all means, call the police. But don't play hero, dont play LEO. If you wanna do what the cops do that bad, perhaps those folks should apply for the job. I may be wrong, but it seemed to me, by the earlier reports, that GZ was actively following TM, and then lost sight of him, and then made his way back to his vehicle. It was then, I believe, that TM approached GZ.

Of course you wouldn't TELL them to follow, but if the person can...for a last week example....move his car to the other end of a parking lot to keep an eye on two kids rummaging through cars, we don't tell him explicitly to stop. Following a drunk driver in a safe manner while calling 911 is not a car chase and far from "playing cop".

My only point is that it seems like people are portraying GZ as some sort of cop wannabe based on facts not in evidence. Which is not to imply that he wasn't. Perhaps he was chasing TM and trying to tackle him...but we have no evidence beyond our preconceived opinions.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[MJS]

Of course you wouldn't TELL them to follow, but if the person can...for a last week example....move his car to the other end of a parking lot to keep an eye on two kids rummaging through cars, we don't tell him explicitly to stop. Following a drunk driver in a safe manner while calling 911 is not a car chase and far from "playing cop".

My only point is that it seems like people are portraying GZ as some sort of cop wannabe based on facts not in evidence. Which is not to imply that he wasn't. Perhaps he was chasing TM and trying to tackle him...but we have no evidence beyond our preconceived opinions.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Like I've said, I've told them to do the same, if its safe to do so. I certainly don't want to be responsible for telling someone to do something thats going to bite me in the *** down the road. As for following safely...again, thats the key word. Many times, I've asked for a plate. Their reply, "Well, he's driving too fast, and I can't see it. Hang on, lemme try to catch up to him." I'm sure you can imagine whats going thru my mind at that moment. The majority of the time, when I take those calls, I ask them if they want to file a complaint. If they say yes, I tell them to pull over and I'll send them an officer. If no, then I simply BOLO the info to the guys on the street.

As for playing cop....I certainly dont want to encourage someone to do something they a) dont have to do and more importantly b) shouldn't be doing. I wouldnt expect or encourage a customer in a bank to stop an armed robbery. Even if I had a CCW, I'd definately think more than twice, before I did something. Why? I'm not obligated to. Second, what if something goes wrong? I can hear it now, God forbid, someone gets shot. "Well, if this guy didn't act like John Wayne, pull out his gun and try to stop the bad guy, my mother would still be alive."

In the end, whats done is done. We can 'what if' this until we're blue in the face, but fact is, we can't turn back time. GZ did what he did, right or wrong, and there's no going back now. All we can hope for, and yes I know this is a HUGE stretch, is that they find a non-biased jury. Time will tell.

 

[WC_lun]

I can think of another very good reason to not encourage non LEO people to try an perform LEO type actions, They aren't trained for it. Most LEOs go through tons and tons of training so that lethal force is not needed. Get a guy who is not trainined, carrying a gun, confronted by someone he already views as a criminal, and it isn't a stretch to think bad things could happen. I do not know whether Zimmerman is guilty of murder. I do know he is guilty of making a bad decision that in the end got him arrested and a boy dead. We don't put people in prison for simply making a bad decision. It must be proved he broke the law as well. As said, hopefully there will be an unbiased jury.

 

[Wo Fat]

That's correct Travon had no right to bash someones head into the ground because the guy was following him.

Rather, Zimmerman had no right to profile, pursue, harass and engage someone who was minding his own business in place where had business to be. You can believe Zimmerman; he's been adjudicated as a liar. I'll believe the dead kid.