Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Trayvon Martin]'s Violent Attack on George Zimmerman

The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
edited March 2012 in Debate and/or Discourse
On the 26th of February, Trayvon Martin - a 17 year old teenager visiting his father in Florida - was shot dead in the street by George Zimmerman after purchasing some candy from a nearby convenience store and attempting to make his way back to his father's fiancée's home.

'Now, hang on a minute,' you might be asking upon reading that sentence, 'This thread title seems inaccurate. If it was Zimmerman who shot & murdered Martin, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that it was Zimmerman who violently attacked Martin?'

Pfft. You're so ridiculous. So naive. This case is very complicated, with all kinds of facts that simpletons like you and I can only hope to grasp at the meaning of.

For example, Martin had Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea on his person. That's right. What, you don't think that's terribly relevant? Well fine, then how about this bombshell: Zimmerman claims he was acting in self-defense! BAM! That's the sound of a slam-dunk, sir. Or maybe a firecracker. I'm not very good with placing appropriate sound effects.

Now, some eggheads and crybabies are going to try to point-out that Zimmerman was following Martin in his car while Martin was on foot, that Zimmerman had 100 lbs or so on Martin even if Martin had somehow punched his way into Zimmerman's vehicle, that Zimmerman had made a 9-1-1 call to report a suspicious black man in his neighbourhood and was advised just to back off and wait for the police (because the police are well trained when it comes to beating-up and/or shooting black kids) and that Zimmerman has a history of stalking people and catalysing physical confrontations. But if you can just tune-out all of the amateur hour hocus pocus and zoom-in on the fact that Zimmerman has claimed self-defense, and maybe also spend about five hours bashing your forehead against your toilet bowl, I'm you'll eventually come to agreement with Police Chief Bill Lee:
"In this case, Mr. Zimmerman has made the statement of self-defense. Until we can establish probable cause to dispute that, we don't have the grounds to arrest him."

Case closed, as far as the Sanford Police Department is concerned. Since we can't prove that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self-defense, obviously he can't be charged with a crime or arrested. That would just be insane.

Unfortunately, the federal and state justice departments, trampling all over the rights & jurisdiction of the local police (Fuck you OBAMA!), have decided that this perfectly reasonable chapter in Florida law enforcement can't just be left where it is. Will George Zimmerman fall victim to the liberal agenda just for living up to the standards set for us all by John Wayne?


This cartoonishly horrendous case is a few weeks old, but I'm posting it here because the most recent development is that Zimmerman has been allowed to walk by the police. Now I'm no expert, but it seems to me like blowing a hole through a teenager's chest with a 9mm pistol might be probable cause for charging someone with murder.


Link to story if you've been living under an Internet rock:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/crime/os-fatal-shooting-sanford-townhomes-20120226,0,1610847.story

The Ender on
TOG Solid wrote:
If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
«134567147

Posts

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    Real spoilers:
    Spoiler:

    Hey look, I explained the case!

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Real spoilers:
    Spoiler:

    Hey look, I explained the case!

    YOU ARE SUCH A SILLY GOOSE LIBERAL

    RACE HAS OBVIOUSLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Can we get links to relevant articles so we can dissect it?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Right, this case is a good argument against the castle law.

    For those who may not know, the Castle Law has been on the books for ~ten years in Florida saying that citizens have a right to defend themselves with firearms. One would think that the cops would be even half interested in gather details.

    Sanford is a right shit hole a little ways north of Orlando for out of staters, but hopefully the PD gets their balls to the fire on this.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    Alternately, you should be reading Ta-Nehisi Coates anyway.

  • OptyOpty Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    You can hear the kid screaming for help on the 911 calls from the neighbors. Of course CNN acts like the higher pitched screaming could somehow be Zimmerman's when we've already heard his deeper voice, but that's the media for you.

    Opty on
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    Real spoilers:
    Spoiler:

    Hey look, I explained the case!

    I thought he was Latino?

    In any case, I'm not sure which is worse, the initial hate-crime or the police... "response."

  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Oh yes, I saw this in Orlando Sentinel that morning. Ugh.

    Cantido on
    steam_sig.png
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Right, this case is a good argument against the castle law.

    For those who may not know, the Castle Law has been on the books for ~ten years in Florida saying that citizens have a right to defend themselves with firearms. One would think that the cops would be even half interested in gather details.

    Sanford is a right shit hole a little ways north of Orlando for out of staters, but hopefully the PD gets their balls to the fire on this.

    It is some crazy shit. First I heard of it was a case where some guy calmly called the police about a robbery at a neighbour, calmly explained that he had a gun and then when the dispatcher told him to stay put he ignored her and went outside to shoot two unarmed men in the back.

    Total self-defense.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Right, this case is a good argument against the castle law.

    For those who may not know, the Castle Law has been on the books for ~ten years in Florida saying that citizens have a right to defend themselves with firearms. One would think that the cops would be even half interested in gather details.

    Sanford is a right shit hole a little ways north of Orlando for out of staters, but hopefully the PD gets their balls to the fire on this.

    It is some crazy shit. First I heard of it was a case where some guy calmly called the police about a robbery at a neighbour, calmly explained that he had a gun and then when the dispatcher told him to stay put he ignored her and went outside to shoot two unarmed men in the back.

    Total self-defense.

    Right? I don't understand how the Sanford PD can justify this crap.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    Right, this case is a good argument against the castle law.

    For those who may not know, the Castle Law has been on the books for ~ten years in Florida saying that citizens have a right to defend themselves with firearms. One would think that the cops would be even half interested in gather details.

    Sanford is a right shit hole a little ways north of Orlando for out of staters, but hopefully the PD gets their balls to the fire on this.

    For a castle law to take effect, I believe you need to be in some sort of legal residence of yours, which can sometimes include a car - but didn't the shooting happen outside his car?

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Right, this case is a good argument against the castle law.

    For those who may not know, the Castle Law has been on the books for ~ten years in Florida saying that citizens have a right to defend themselves with firearms. One would think that the cops would be even half interested in gather details.

    Sanford is a right shit hole a little ways north of Orlando for out of staters, but hopefully the PD gets their balls to the fire on this.

    How is the Castle Law involved here? I'm assuming he's not making the claim that Trayvon tried to enter his "occupied vehicle." From what I can tell, removing the duty to retreat doesn't allow you to pursue and still claim self-defense. I could be wrong there. That, or I could be misreading the report.

    Sounds to me more like a case of a chickenshit and/or racist prosecutor failing to press the issue. Affirmative defense, and all.

    Spoiler:
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    For a castle law to take effect, I believe you need to be in some sort of legal residence of yours, which can sometimes include a car - but didn't the shooting happen outside his car?

    Some states have "castle laws," some states have "stand your ground laws." The latter allow the use of force (including deadly force, where authorized) in self defense as long as you are anywhere you have a right to be.

    It actually goes further than that. There are basically three elements, IIRC, to these laws (and which states adopt which varies):

    - You have no duty to retreat if within your home before using force in self defense (including deadly force if threatened with great bodily harm or death, or to stop the commission of a felony)
    - You have no duty to retreat anywhere you are legally allowed to be before using force in self defense
    - You may legally assume intent to do great bodily harm if you confront an intruder in your home (or vehicle)

    The last is pretty controversial, since it basically means you get to assume anybody who breaks into your home is there to kill you, and essentially shoot them on sight. However, given the likelihood that a break-in on an occupied home will lead to an assault on the occupants, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea.

    Spoiler:
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Florida's castle law was recently changed to just be "feeling threatened" from what I understand it happened on this fellow's street. My main point is that the castle law SHOULDN'T apply. But the differences between parts of Florida and the 1950s are very thin sometimes.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Right, this case is a good argument against the castle law.

    For those who may not know, the Castle Law has been on the books for ~ten years in Florida saying that citizens have a right to defend themselves with firearms. One would think that the cops would be even half interested in gather details.

    Sanford is a right shit hole a little ways north of Orlando for out of staters, but hopefully the PD gets their balls to the fire on this.

    How is the Castle Law involved here? I'm assuming he's not making the claim that Trayvon tried to enter his "occupied vehicle." From what I can tell, removing the duty to retreat doesn't allow you to pursue and still claim self-defense. I could be wrong there. That, or I could be misreading the report.

    Sounds to me more like a case of a chickenshit and/or racist prosecutor failing to press the issue. Affirmative defense, and all.

    Oh it doesn't allow you to pursue. People just do it and then the system pretends it's okay.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    "On his street" shouldn't have any meaning in this case, other than that it means he wasn't in his car or in his home. His street is no different, legally, from downtown Miami or Disneyworld.

    What's the recent change you're talking about? Does the law no longer read:
    Spoiler:

    mcdermott on
    Spoiler:
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Right, this case is a good argument against the castle law.

    For those who may not know, the Castle Law has been on the books for ~ten years in Florida saying that citizens have a right to defend themselves with firearms. One would think that the cops would be even half interested in gather details.

    Sanford is a right shit hole a little ways north of Orlando for out of staters, but hopefully the PD gets their balls to the fire on this.

    How is the Castle Law involved here? I'm assuming he's not making the claim that Trayvon tried to enter his "occupied vehicle." From what I can tell, removing the duty to retreat doesn't allow you to pursue and still claim self-defense. I could be wrong there. That, or I could be misreading the report.

    Sounds to me more like a case of a chickenshit and/or racist prosecutor failing to press the issue. Affirmative defense, and all.

    Oh it doesn't allow you to pursue. People just do it and then the system pretends it's okay.

    Exactly. Chickenshit/racist prosecutor. I'm looking at what I presume is still the current law, and it allows you to stand your ground, and meet force with force, but no more. You need a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary to prevent GBH to yourself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    The law, as written, is pretty reasonable. As long as prosecutors (and cops) are willing to look the other way, though, it doesn't matter what the law says. I'd wager lynching was against the law back in the day, too...at least technically.

    Spoiler:
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited March 2012
    I'm not sure, there was a thing on the St Pete Times' website about it a while ago, let me see if I can dig it up.

    EDIT: Seems I was misremembering and it was just Wisconsin talking about adopting the law, my bad.

    The way I see it is that the Castle Law in and of itself isn't a bad idea, but when coupled with the larger culture or, let's be honest, racism, it becomes dangerous.

    But it definitely shouldn't apply in this instance what so ever. This kid was gunned down for no good reasons with plenty of witnesses. There was no threat from a kid with some milk walking home.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • Atlas in ChainsAtlas in Chains Registered User regular
    There was no threat from a kid with some milk walking home.

    It was Arizona Iced Tea, which, to be fair, sometimes is carbonated, depending on the flavor. Maybe he was shaking the can. We'll never know.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    My favorite, and I use that term angrily, part of the story is the cops saying there's no way to disprove Zimmerman's story. Because I guess Martin's gun or knife wandered off afterward or something.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    My favorite, and I use that term angrily, part of the story is the cops saying there's no way to disprove Zimmerman's story. Because I guess Martin's gun or knife wandered off afterward or something.

    He wouldn't necessarily have had to have a weapon to justify Zimmerman's actions. GBH can pretty easily be inflicted by an unarmed attacker, and not all forcible felonies require a weapon.

    Spoiler:
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    My favorite, and I use that term angrily, part of the story is the cops saying there's no way to disprove Zimmerman's story. Because I guess Martin's gun or knife wandered off afterward or something.

    He wouldn't necessarily have had to have a weapon to justify Zimmerman's actions. GBH can pretty easily be inflicted by an unarmed attacker, and not all forcible felonies require a weapon.

    But to justify shooting him? Still, it was a kid with some tea.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • tyrannustyrannus Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    So far, what I understand is he left his home, despite being told not to, brought a gun (which is legal), confronting Trey, shooting him. Then, Trey starts to beg for help, and then a second shot is fired.

    tyrannus on
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    There was no threat from a kid with some milk walking home.

    It was Arizona Iced Tea, which, to be fair, sometimes is carbonated, depending on the flavor. Maybe he was shaking the can. We'll never know.

    Aluminum can be quickly bent and sharped into a cutting tool. But that's if you happen to be Jason Bourne.

    My Publix sells their new energy drink for a buck, sugary or lo-carb <3

    Cantido on
    steam_sig.png
  • HenroidHenroid Gibberish Cold white sand!Registered User regular
    I think when the cops tell you not to confront the suspicious person, YOU DON'T FUCKING CONFRONT THEM.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit." - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    My favorite, and I use that term angrily, part of the story is the cops saying there's no way to disprove Zimmerman's story. Because I guess Martin's gun or knife wandered off afterward or something.

    He wouldn't necessarily have had to have a weapon to justify Zimmerman's actions. GBH can pretty easily be inflicted by an unarmed attacker, and not all forcible felonies require a weapon.

    But to justify shooting him? Still, it was a kid with some tea.

    Yes, to justify shooting him. I agree that it was just a kid with some tea, and that he almost certainly wasn't justified. But the point remains: you can shoot people that are not armed, if they pose a significant threat to you (or another).

    People make the absolutely retarded assumption that somebody needs to be armed to be a deadly threat. Here's just the most recent story I've seen of a single punch being enough to cause somebody's death. When grown-ups fight, there is always a pretty significant risk of great bodily harm. A 17-year-old athlete may or may not fall into that same category.

    Spoiler:
  • Gigazombie CybermageGigazombie Cybermage Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    I'm getting increasingly more and more enraged at this story. They better pray justice gets served. I'm inscribing "Cast in the name of God, ye not guilty" on my revolver just in case it doesn't.

    steam_sig.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    I think when the cops tell you not to confront the suspicious person, YOU DON'T FUCKING CONFRONT THEM.

    It wasn't the cops, it was a 911 operator. The story makes it pretty clear that this isn't a legally binding order. Still, yeah, that definitely goes towards the whole "reasonable person" standard in my book.

    Spoiler:
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    My favorite, and I use that term angrily, part of the story is the cops saying there's no way to disprove Zimmerman's story. Because I guess Martin's gun or knife wandered off afterward or something.

    He wouldn't necessarily have had to have a weapon to justify Zimmerman's actions. GBH can pretty easily be inflicted by an unarmed attacker, and not all forcible felonies require a weapon.

    But to justify shooting him? Still, it was a kid with some tea.

    Yes, to justify shooting him. I agree that it was just a kid with some tea, and that he almost certainly wasn't justified. But the point remains: you can shoot people that are not armed, if they pose a significant threat to you (or another).

    People make the absolutely retarded assumption that somebody needs to be armed to be a deadly threat. Here's just the most recent story I've seen of a single punch being enough to cause somebody's death. When grown-ups fight, there is always a pretty significant risk of great bodily harm. A 17-year-old athlete may or may not fall into that same category.

    No, fair enough. I agree on the self defense issue. It's just a shame that this idiot decided to become a murderer for no good reason.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    No, fair enough. I agree on the self defense issue. It's just a shame that this idiot decided to become a murderer for no good reason.

    I know. It's ridiculously fucked up. I'll also say that it does seem like these castle/stand/whatever laws do seem to embolden fucktards like him. Reducing or removing the risk of liability or prosecution doesn't seem to help trigger-happy assholes make good decisions.

    Spoiler:
  • tyrannustyrannus Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    There's no real self defense issue here for the second shot, though. Witnesses are testifying that he shot the kid, the kid was on the ground begging, and then he fired a second shot.

    tyrannus on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    No, fair enough. I agree on the self defense issue. It's just a shame that this idiot decided to become a murderer for no good reason.

    I know. It's ridiculously fucked up. I'll also say that it does seem like these castle/stand/whatever laws do seem to embolden fucktards like him. Reducing or removing the risk of liability or prosecution doesn't seem to help trigger-happy assholes make good decisions.

    Indeed. It's the reason we make southern states run their voter laws by the feds. Certain groups have proven they can't handle extended liberty.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    tyrannus wrote: »
    There's no real self defense issue here for the second shot, though. Witnesses are testifying that he shot the kid, the kid was on the ground begging, and then he fired a second shot.

    The kid was attacking him! He was attacking him so much he almost got away!

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    tyrannus wrote: »
    There's no real self defense issue here for the second shot, though. Witnesses are testifying that he shot the kid, the kid was on the ground begging, and then he fired a second shot.

    They always get away, man.

    They always get away.


    I like how the police assert there is no evidence.

    "Hey, uh, doesn't the body with a gaping hole where it's chest cavity used to be count as evidence?"

    "PFFFT NO OF COURSE NOT YOU RETARD. WE NEED REAL EVIDENCE!"

    If the burden of proof has been met that you shot and killed someone, and then you want to claim self-defense, does the burden of proof not then suddenly on you? Positive claim and all that?

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    I like the cops correcting the witnesses. "So we heard the kid crying for help" "No maam, that was the big dude" "no.. I'm pretty sure it was the kid" "WAS NOT THE KID MAAM"

    And here I thought their job was to record witnesses, not coach them. Also, the fact that if this had gone the other way and Martin had pulled a gun and shot Zimmerman, I'm going to go with 95% chance he'd at least have spent the night in jail while the cops investigated the self defense claims.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    tyrannus wrote: »
    There's no real self defense issue here for the second shot, though. Witnesses are testifying that he shot the kid, the kid was on the ground begging, and then he fired a second shot.

    The kid was attacking him! He was attacking him so much he almost got away!

    And apparently it was Zimmerman calling for help. Which he then gave himself.

    I'm even trying to give old zim the benefit of the doubt here, but the fact that there's no investigation just boggles my fucking mind.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Right, this case is a good argument against the castle law.

    For those who may not know, the Castle Law has been on the books for ~ten years in Florida saying that citizens have a right to defend themselves with firearms. One would think that the cops would be even half interested in gather details.

    Sanford is a right shit hole a little ways north of Orlando for out of staters, but hopefully the PD gets their balls to the fire on this.

    How is the Castle Law involved here? I'm assuming he's not making the claim that Trayvon tried to enter his "occupied vehicle." From what I can tell, removing the duty to retreat doesn't allow you to pursue and still claim self-defense. I could be wrong there. That, or I could be misreading the report.

    Sounds to me more like a case of a chickenshit and/or racist prosecutor failing to press the issue. Affirmative defense, and all.

    Oh it doesn't allow you to pursue. People just do it and then the system pretends it's okay.

    Exactly. Chickenshit/racist prosecutor. I'm looking at what I presume is still the current law, and it allows you to stand your ground, and meet force with force, but no more. You need a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary to prevent GBH to yourself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    The law, as written, is pretty reasonable. As long as prosecutors (and cops) are willing to look the other way, though, it doesn't matter what the law says. I'd wager lynching was against the law back in the day, too...at least technically.

    True but castle law has been used as justification for some fucked up shit. It's more that the laws grant leeway when you don't really want them to have it. Idiots like this now think that they can shoot anybody, and with the failure of the system to get him it just gives even more idiots such an idea.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    So what is the state doing with this? I'd heard that the case was being moved to the state level.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
«134567147
This discussion has been closed.