Let's just say people are angry at Zimmerman for a reason.
I used to think that reason was a gun owner panicked and killed an unarmed teen. But then, if that were the real reason, the public would be angry about that man who shot who the unarmed mentally handicapped man who was walking his dog.
If I were certain people on this forum and in youtube comments I would have to "be objective" about that case too. Who knows maybe that guy thought the mentally handicapped guy was totally going to jump in his car and murder him and his wife at the same time. I mean you NEVER know right? Right?
He told police he had no choice but to shoot. He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way and he "thought he had no other options,"
I... That's it I'm done. This world sometimes.
???
How can a dog block a SUV? Just run over the dog. Granted, under the law he doesn't have a duty to retreat, but the shooter is the one claiming he tried to retreat. The idea that some dog can stop a SUV is preposterous. It's a dog, not a dinosaur.
This case stinks way, way more than Zimmerman-Martin. The shooter claims his would-be attacker "air swung" his arms at the shooter's car, and was carrying a weapon (a 3-foot pipe/bat), which was then never found?
WTF.
Punching a car is not grounds for lethal force in self-defense under AZ law. And that's if the punch even connects with the car, rather than being an "air swing" - whatever that is.
And where could the weapon have gone? The "attacker" supposedly brandishing it was shot and killed at the scene, so it's not like he ran off and threw it in the river. 3-foot lengths of metal/wood don't just vanish into thin air.
This happened in early April, I think. I fished the link out of the Arizona thread but I do wonder why has no one heard about this incident until now. Well, I don't wonder but you know what I mean.
Let's just say people are angry at Zimmerman for a reason.
I used to think that reason was a gun owner panicked and killed an unarmed teen. But then, if that were the real reason, the public would be angry about that man who shot who the unarmed mentally handicapped man who was walking his dog.
If I were certain people on this forum and in youtube comments I would have to "be objective" about that case too. Who knows maybe that guy thought the mentally handicapped guy was totally going to jump in his car and murder him and his wife at the same time. I mean you NEVER know right? Right?
He told police he had no choice but to shoot. He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way and he "thought he had no other options,"
I... That's it I'm done. This world sometimes.
???
How can a dog block a SUV? Just run over the dog. Granted, under the law he doesn't have a duty to retreat, but the shooter is the one claiming he tried to retreat. The idea that some dog can stop a SUV is preposterous. It's a dog, not a dinosaur.
This case stinks way, way more than Zimmerman-Martin. The shooter claims his would-be attacker "air swung" his arms at the shooter's car, and was carrying a weapon (a 3-foot pipe/bat), which was then never found?
WTF.
Punching a car is not grounds for lethal force in self-defense under AZ law. And that's if the punch even connects with the car, rather than being an "air swing" - whatever that is.
And where could the weapon have gone? The "attacker" supposedly brandishing it was shot and killed at the scene, so it's not like he ran off and threw it in the river. 3-foot lengths of metal/wood don't just vanish into thin air.
This happened in early April, I think. I fished the link out of the Arizona thread but I do wonder why has no one heard about this incident until now. Well, I don't wonder but you know what I mean.
Race is why. Whether its right or wrong, alot of people thought racism/profiling/stereotyping was the reason Zimmerman chased down Treyvon. To your average person, what else could it have been? The fact that Treyvon was wearing a hoodie? By the time it came out that Zimmerman was hispanic and had black friends, it didnt matter. The bias was already in place.
Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
You're basically proving exactly why he shouldn't be in jail because the populace says so.
Race has nothing to do with why Zimmerman shot Martin (allegedly, but pretty apparent at this point after 50 some odd pages in this thread and us tearing apart 60 some odd pages of 911 calls that were spouted as evidence of his racism... which had ~0 racism in it). Race has potentially everything to do with the way the police department handled the case after the fact. There can exist any number of situations where people act like dipsticks in this situation without racing having any bearing because Zimmerman is kind of brown and Martin is black.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
“I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ass wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book. Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into!”
OMG Quid seriously? He was following him around WITH A GUN and the intention of grabbing him. Are you that dense?
None of that means anything. I could have a paintball gun in my possession but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out and bust some paint pellets through your window.
Concealed carry people wear guns like you put on your underpants. And there is nothing illegal about following someone around, he wasn't stalking the guy, he thought the boy was suspicious and had no inkling on the dudes race until questioned by the 911 operator.
It's not like he called up 911 and went, "Yeah there's this really shady black kid in a hoodie on drugs causing trouble."
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
OMG Quid seriously? He was following him around WITH A GUN and the intention of grabbing him. Are you that dense?
None of that means anything. I could have a paintball gun in my possession but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out and bust some paint pellets through your window.
Concealed carry people wear guns like you put on your underpants. And there is nothing illegal about following someone around, he wasn't stalking the guy, he thought the boy was suspicious and had no inkling on the dudes race until questioned by the 911 operator.
It's not like he called up 911 and went, "Yeah there's this really shady black kid in a hoodie on drugs causing trouble."
Let's just say people are angry at Zimmerman for a reason.
I used to think that reason was a gun owner panicked and killed an unarmed teen. But then, if that were the real reason, the public would be angry about that man who shot who the unarmed mentally handicapped man who was walking his dog.
If I were certain people on this forum and in youtube comments I would have to "be objective" about that case too. Who knows maybe that guy thought the mentally handicapped guy was totally going to jump in his car and murder him and his wife at the same time. I mean you NEVER know right? Right?
He told police he had no choice but to shoot. He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way and he "thought he had no other options,"
I... That's it I'm done. This world sometimes.
???
How can a dog block a SUV? Just run over the dog. Granted, under the law he doesn't have a duty to retreat, but the shooter is the one claiming he tried to retreat. The idea that some dog can stop a SUV is preposterous. It's a dog, not a dinosaur.
This case stinks way, way more than Zimmerman-Martin. The shooter claims his would-be attacker "air swung" his arms at the shooter's car, and was carrying a weapon (a 3-foot pipe/bat), which was then never found?
WTF.
Punching a car is not grounds for lethal force in self-defense under AZ law. And that's if the punch even connects with the car, rather than being an "air swing" - whatever that is.
And where could the weapon have gone? The "attacker" supposedly brandishing it was shot and killed at the scene, so it's not like he ran off and threw it in the river. 3-foot lengths of metal/wood don't just vanish into thin air.
This happened in early April, I think. I fished the link out of the Arizona thread but I do wonder why has no one heard about this incident until now. Well, I don't wonder but you know what I mean.
Race is why. Whether its right or wrong, alot of people thought racism/profiling/stereotyping was the reason Zimmerman chased down Treyvon. To your average person, what else could it have been? The fact that Treyvon was wearing a hoodie? By the time it came out that Zimmerman was hispanic and had black friends, it didnt matter. The bias was already in place.
Alternatively Trayvon was killed on February 26th, and Daniel was killed over a month later. If you know anything about America, you know that it can hold only one tragedy in the national spotlight at a time.
That's why we were so enraptured by Casey Anthony, but never heard about Monica Bowie.
OMG Quid seriously? He was following him around WITH A GUN and the intention of grabbing him. Are you that dense?
None of that means anything. I could have a paintball gun in my possession but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out and bust some paint pellets through your window.
Concealed carry people wear guns like you put on your underpants. And there is nothing illegal about following someone around, he wasn't stalking the guy, he thought the boy was suspicious and had no inkling on the dudes race until questioned by the 911 operator.
It's not like he called up 911 and went, "Yeah there's this really shady black kid in a hoodie on drugs causing trouble."
None of that means anything. I could have a paintball gun in my possession but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out and bust some paint pellets through your window.
It means Zimmerman was acting as a vigilante. Try and tell me he wasn't. Because he was acting as a vigilante Treyvon died. Your trying to say that because Treyvon might have gotten really angry and attacked Zimmerman that it's Treyvons fault, when none of the evidence points to that at all.
he thought the boy was suspicious and had no inkling on the dudes race
WTH man? I didn't even mention his race.
Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
I think I see why we have different points of view on this. I can't even imagine killing someone because I might get beaten up. I'm not personally afraid of death because of a fist fight. Apparently Zimmerman is. If so, why confront someone? If you know this about yourself, why place someone else's life in danger like that? Even if Treyvon had been a thief, so what? Why confront him yourself when you know your too afraid to melee with someone, and that if you do your going to kill them to prevent your own death?
Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
He wasn't expecting to get in a fist fight with the kid, he just wanted to know what was going on and what the kid was doing. Not that Martin had any expectation to answer crazy dude following him's question, but, since we don't know who did what or when... well... can you cast out doubt that you know for certain that Zimmerman followed the guy, Zimmerman tried to detain him, and Zimmerman was winning in a fist fight? Doesn't really coincide with either side's evidence, it seems to be a mix between what Martin's g/f is telling them, and what Zimmerman is telling them just from the call logs.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
OMG Quid seriously? He was following him around WITH A GUN and the intention of grabbing him. Are you that dense?
None of that means anything. I could have a paintball gun in my possession but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out and bust some paint pellets through your window.
Concealed carry people wear guns like you put on your underpants. And there is nothing illegal about following someone around, he wasn't stalking the guy, he thought the boy was suspicious and had no inkling on the dudes race until questioned by the 911 operator.
It's not like he called up 911 and went, "Yeah there's this really shady black kid in a hoodie on drugs causing trouble."
Yes but did you know Martin had SKITTLES?
Super relevant.
He was just an innocent kid!
It's just part of the narrative to play this off as a racial issue when it wasn't. It was some gung-ho, crazy dumbfuck who shot some stupid kid, allegedly.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
“I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ass wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book. Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into!”
Being followed and questioned doesn't give you authority to, allegedly, beat someone's head into the ground after sneaking back up on them, allegedly.
ok, well take out the alleged stuff and you have
And there is nothing illegal about following and questioning someone you think is suspicious, either. Which is where this all breaks down. At what point did Martin get on top of and start beating this man, allegedly?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Being followed and questioned doesn't give you authority to, allegedly, beat someone's head into the ground after sneaking back up on them, allegedly.
ok, well take out the alleged stuff and you have
And there is nothing illegal about following and questioning someone you think is suspicious, either. Which is where this all breaks down. At what point did Martin get on top of and start beating this man, allegedly?
Is there anything wrong/illegal with feeling threatened by someone following you for no good reason?
He wasn't expecting to get in a fist fight with the kid, he just wanted to know what was going on and what the kid was doing. Not that Martin had any expectation to answer crazy dude following him's question
How do you know what Zimmerman was thinking? Not to mention, Zimmerman has a past history of assault. Please please please, put two and two together.
Bhaalen on
Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
He wasn't expecting to get in a fist fight with the kid, he just wanted to know what was going on and what the kid was doing. Not that Martin had any expectation to answer crazy dude following him's question
How do you know what Zimmerman was thinking? Not to mention, Zimmerman has a past history of assault. Please please please, put two and two together.
did you ever watch the CSI episode about the ex-con and the two sisters
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Being followed and questioned doesn't give you authority to, allegedly, beat someone's head into the ground after sneaking back up on them, allegedly.
ok, well take out the alleged stuff and you have
And there is nothing illegal about following and questioning someone you think is suspicious, either. Which is where this all breaks down. At what point did Martin get on top of and start beating this man, allegedly?
Is there anything wrong/illegal with feeling threatened by someone following you for no good reason?
No but that in no way gives you the right to assault them. But, however, if in the process of assaulting them you give the person a belief they may be under server bodily harm, they can kill you. Going by what I see here, I wouldn't trust anyone knowing the nuances of the situations at large, and how they're separate and distinct, let alone a teenager.
The problem comes down to, who attack who first. If it was Martin, which we have no proof for, Zimmerman was not guilty by reason of self defense. If it was Zimmerman, which we have no proof for, Zimmerman was guilty of murder in probably the 2nd degree. However negligent homicide or manslaughter can be applied to Zimmerman because he put himself into a really shitty situation and pretty much led to the death of Martin through those actions.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
“He had a temper and he became a liability,” the newspaper quoted the former co-worker as saying. “One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted,” he said. “It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out.”
Bowen, stop being an asshole. Seriously your better then this. There is MORE then enough evidence to prove you wrong man. it's almost like you want Treyvon to have gotten violently mad. Or maybe since you keep bringing up race, its a racial thing with you.
Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
The shooter claims his would-be attacker "air swung" his arms at the shooter's car, and was carrying a weapon (a 3-foot pipe/bat), which was then never found?
Just to point this out, I'm willing to bet the "weapon" was a cane or walking stick.
And I am merely pointing out there isn't evidence either way. The only evidence you have is Zimmerman's gun and Martin's body, and some phone calls that prove nothing at all conclusively either way. And actually, lend more towards Zimmerman's side of the story than Martin's friend's recollection of half a phone conversation.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
And ultimately you're basically saying "you're guilty because you're a really shitty fellow." Which is a terrible thing for a justice system to be doing.
I could be guilty of stealing phones but that doesn't mean because I'm in a store and a phone is stolen I should be found guilty just 'cause I stole phones before.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Being followed and questioned doesn't give you authority to, allegedly, beat someone's head into the ground after sneaking back up on them, allegedly.
ok, well take out the alleged stuff and you have
And there is nothing illegal about following and questioning someone you think is suspicious, either. Which is where this all breaks down. At what point did Martin get on top of and start beating this man, allegedly?
Is there anything wrong/illegal with feeling threatened by someone following you for no good reason?
No but that in no way gives you the right to assault them. But, however, if in the process of assaulting them you give the person a belief they may be under server bodily harm, they can kill you. Going by what I see here, I wouldn't trust anyone knowing the nuances of the situations at large, and how they're separate and distinct, let alone a teenager.
The problem comes down to, who attack who first. If it was Martin, which we have no proof for, Zimmerman was not guilty by reason of self defense. If it was Zimmerman, which we have no proof for, Zimmerman was guilty of murder in probably the 2nd degree. However negligent homicide or manslaughter can be applied to Zimmerman because he put himself into a really shitty situation and pretty much led to the death of Martin through those actions.
I'll agree with you there .... that said, I think we have more evidence that suggests Zimmerman was at fault than Martin.
I'll agree with you there .... that said, I think we have more evidence that suggests Zimmerman was at fault than Martin.
More or less guilty of manslaughter or reckless endangerment. I think it's a stretch to go for murder 2 and this guy was jones-ing to shoot a black kid like the media is portraying it.
Dude was shady as fuck, but a malicious KKK hitman probably not.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I'll agree with you there .... that said, I think we have more evidence that suggests Zimmerman was at fault than Martin.
More or less guilty of manslaughter or reckless endangerment. I think it's a stretch to go for murder 2 and this guy was jones-ing to shoot a black kid like the media is portraying it.
Dude was shady as fuck, but a malicious KKK hitman probably not.
Being followed and questioned doesn't give you authority to, allegedly, beat someone's head into the ground after sneaking back up on them, allegedly.
ok, well take out the alleged stuff and you have
And there is nothing illegal about following and questioning someone you think is suspicious, either. Which is where this all breaks down. At what point did Martin get on top of and start beating this man, allegedly?
Is there anything wrong/illegal with feeling threatened by someone following you for no good reason?
No but that in no way gives you the right to assault them. But, however, if in the process of assaulting them you give the person a belief they may be under server bodily harm, they can kill you. Going by what I see here, I wouldn't trust anyone knowing the nuances of the situations at large, and how they're separate and distinct, let alone a teenager.
The problem comes down to, who attack who first. If it was Martin, which we have no proof for, Zimmerman was not guilty by reason of self defense. If it was Zimmerman, which we have no proof for, Zimmerman was guilty of murder in probably the 2nd degree. However negligent homicide or manslaughter can be applied to Zimmerman because he put himself into a really shitty situation and pretty much led to the death of Martin through those actions.
I'll agree with you there .... that said, I think we have more evidence that suggests Zimmerman was at fault than Martin.
According to Bowen he's just a decent guy who was trying to question a suspicous person in his neighborhood. YEAH RIGHT. I think at the least he approached Treyvon, Treyvon got angry at the accusations and started arguing with Zimmerman, and he flipped out.
Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
I'll agree with you there .... that said, I think we have more evidence that suggests Zimmerman was at fault than Martin.
More or less guilty of manslaughter or reckless endangerment. I think it's a stretch to go for murder 2 and this guy was jones-ing to shoot a black kid like the media is portraying it.
Dude was shady as fuck, but a malicious KKK hitman probably not.
Finally you backed down a little bit. I was getting worried. Treyvon wasn't at fault here man. Zimmerman was and he deserves some prison time.
Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
Being followed and questioned doesn't give you authority to, allegedly, beat someone's head into the ground after sneaking back up on them, allegedly.
ok, well take out the alleged stuff and you have
And there is nothing illegal about following and questioning someone you think is suspicious, either. Which is where this all breaks down. At what point did Martin get on top of and start beating this man, allegedly?
Is there anything wrong/illegal with feeling threatened by someone following you for no good reason?
No but that in no way gives you the right to assault them. But, however, if in the process of assaulting them you give the person a belief they may be under server bodily harm, they can kill you. Going by what I see here, I wouldn't trust anyone knowing the nuances of the situations at large, and how they're separate and distinct, let alone a teenager.
The problem comes down to, who attack who first. If it was Martin, which we have no proof for, Zimmerman was not guilty by reason of self defense. If it was Zimmerman, which we have no proof for, Zimmerman was guilty of murder in probably the 2nd degree. However negligent homicide or manslaughter can be applied to Zimmerman because he put himself into a really shitty situation and pretty much led to the death of Martin through those actions.
I'll agree with you there .... that said, I think we have more evidence that suggests Zimmerman was at fault than Martin.
According to Bowen he's just a decent guy who was trying to question a suspicous person in his neighborhood. YEAH RIGHT. I think at the least he approached Treyvon, Treyvon got angry at the accusations and started arguing with Zimmerman, and he flipped out.
I didn't say that at all. And that still doesn't give Martin the right to attack Zimmerman even if he got angry... which would give Zimmerman the right to retaliate with force if the alleged attacks are true.
Which is why murder 2 is silly. It's pandering to the masses and to the media. The dude is going to walk, probably hands down.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I didn't say that at all. And that still doesn't give Martin the right to attack Zimmerman even if he got angry... which would give Zimmerman the right to retaliate with force if the alleged attacks are true.
Which is why murder 2 is silly. It's pandering to the masses and to the media. The dude is going to walk, probably hands down.
First, I want to apologize for getting so mad at you. Second, I think murder 2 is appropriate considering Zimmermans past. It really does look like Zimmerman grabbed treyvon and Treyvon freaked out and defended himself against Zimmerman, making him fear for his life and kill him. I mean you said it yourself:
Dude was shady as fuck
Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
I can see that being a proper course of the events that led up to the shooting. I am erring on the side of innocent before guilty, though, so I am leaning a bit more towards Zimmerman's story.
I agree though, that's probably what went down. Though even if Zimmerman grabbed him first, if Martin was truly about to kill the guy with his head bashing against the ground, I would be torn on where to put this. Which is probably why he will get away with acquittal like Casey Anthony did, there's a lot of reasonable doubt one could cast if you go for murder 2 in this scenario. There's just so much unknown.
Devil's advocate aside, I can't say this enough, dude is guilty as shitttttt.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
He wasn't expecting to get in a fist fight with the kid, he just wanted to know what was going on and what the kid was doing. Not that Martin had any expectation to answer crazy dude following him's question
How do you know what Zimmerman was thinking? Not to mention, Zimmerman has a past history of assault. Please please please, put two and two together.
How do you know?
Zimmerman being racist is irrelevant. Being racist does not justify Martin allegedly bashing his skull in to street. The requirement is to show, specifically, that Zimmerman actually did something justifying Martin. Not pointing at Zimmerman's history and saying "C'mooooooon".
Shady as fuck, as much as he is, is not proof of his guilt.
He wasn't expecting to get in a fist fight with the kid, he just wanted to know what was going on and what the kid was doing. Not that Martin had any expectation to answer crazy dude following him's question
How do you know what Zimmerman was thinking? Not to mention, Zimmerman has a past history of assault. Please please please, put two and two together.
How do you know?
Zimmerman being racist is irrelevant. Being racist does not justify Martin allegedly bashing his skull in to street. The requirement is to show, specifically, that Zimmerman actually did something justifying Martin. Not pointing at Zimmerman's history and saying "C'mooooooon".
Shady as fuck, as much as he is, is not proof of his guilt.
doesn't the involvement of racism legally magnify the punishment to deter hate crimes above crimes with no broad social vice (other than killing a dude)
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
He wasn't expecting to get in a fist fight with the kid, he just wanted to know what was going on and what the kid was doing. Not that Martin had any expectation to answer crazy dude following him's question
How do you know what Zimmerman was thinking? Not to mention, Zimmerman has a past history of assault. Please please please, put two and two together.
How do you know?
Zimmerman being racist is irrelevant. Being racist does not justify Martin allegedly bashing his skull in to street. The requirement is to show, specifically, that Zimmerman actually did something justifying Martin. Not pointing at Zimmerman's history and saying "C'mooooooon".
Shady as fuck, as much as he is, is not proof of his guilt.
doesn't the involvement of racism legally magnify the punishment to deter hate crimes above crimes with no broad social vice (other than killing a dude)
For a hate crime it would have to be proven that the crime was motivated by race, or other protected class. Proving that Zimmerman is racist in an of itself wouldn't elevate the crime to a hate crime.
Even if you could prove that Zimmerman initially followed Martin because Martin was black I don't think that this would elevate it to a hate crime. You would have to prove Zimmerman murdered Martin because he was black.
He wasn't expecting to get in a fist fight with the kid, he just wanted to know what was going on and what the kid was doing. Not that Martin had any expectation to answer crazy dude following him's question
How do you know what Zimmerman was thinking? Not to mention, Zimmerman has a past history of assault. Please please please, put two and two together.
How do you know?
Zimmerman being racist is irrelevant. Being racist does not justify Martin allegedly bashing his skull in to street. The requirement is to show, specifically, that Zimmerman actually did something justifying Martin. Not pointing at Zimmerman's history and saying "C'mooooooon".
Shady as fuck, as much as he is, is not proof of his guilt.
doesn't the involvement of racism legally magnify the punishment to deter hate crimes above crimes with no broad social vice (other than killing a dude)
For a hate crime it would have to be proven that the crime was motivated by race, or other protected class. Proving that Zimmerman is racist in an of itself wouldn't elevate the crime to a hate crime.
Even if you could prove that Zimmerman initially followed Martin because Martin was black I don't think that this would elevate it to a hate crime. You would have to prove Zimmerman murdered Martin because he was black.
how do you prove something like that
without a written or recorded explicit declaration
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Posts
This happened in early April, I think. I fished the link out of the Arizona thread but I do wonder why has no one heard about this incident until now. Well, I don't wonder but you know what I mean.
Race is why. Whether its right or wrong, alot of people thought racism/profiling/stereotyping was the reason Zimmerman chased down Treyvon. To your average person, what else could it have been? The fact that Treyvon was wearing a hoodie? By the time it came out that Zimmerman was hispanic and had black friends, it didnt matter. The bias was already in place.
Race has nothing to do with why Zimmerman shot Martin (allegedly, but pretty apparent at this point after 50 some odd pages in this thread and us tearing apart 60 some odd pages of 911 calls that were spouted as evidence of his racism... which had ~0 racism in it). Race has potentially everything to do with the way the police department handled the case after the fact. There can exist any number of situations where people act like dipsticks in this situation without racing having any bearing because Zimmerman is kind of brown and Martin is black.
Continued things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmm
Following someone is reckless endangerment now?
And Martin knew this so attacked him with deadly force?
None of that means anything. I could have a paintball gun in my possession but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out and bust some paint pellets through your window.
Concealed carry people wear guns like you put on your underpants. And there is nothing illegal about following someone around, he wasn't stalking the guy, he thought the boy was suspicious and had no inkling on the dudes race until questioned by the 911 operator.
It's not like he called up 911 and went, "Yeah there's this really shady black kid in a hoodie on drugs causing trouble."
Yes but did you know Martin had SKITTLES?
Super relevant.
Alternatively Trayvon was killed on February 26th, and Daniel was killed over a month later. If you know anything about America, you know that it can hold only one tragedy in the national spotlight at a time.
That's why we were so enraptured by Casey Anthony, but never heard about Monica Bowie.
It means Zimmerman was acting as a vigilante. Try and tell me he wasn't. Because he was acting as a vigilante Treyvon died. Your trying to say that because Treyvon might have gotten really angry and attacked Zimmerman that it's Treyvons fault, when none of the evidence points to that at all.
WTH man? I didn't even mention his race.
He was just an innocent kid!
It's just part of the narrative to play this off as a racial issue when it wasn't. It was some gung-ho, crazy dumbfuck who shot some stupid kid, allegedly.
wasn't he?
what was he doing?
Before being tailed? Nothing.
Being followed and questioned doesn't give you authority to, allegedly, beat someone's head into the ground after sneaking back up on them, allegedly.
ok, well take out the alleged stuff and you have
Well, that certainly brings the race angle back into play.
Also, this
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/01/2778234/myspace-page-is-latest-salvo-in.html
from the same guy who calls 911 to complain about potholes?
Seriously?
You go to jail instead of ratting on me, while I call the cops every time someone litters?
And there is nothing illegal about following and questioning someone you think is suspicious, either. Which is where this all breaks down. At what point did Martin get on top of and start beating this man, allegedly?
Is there anything wrong/illegal with feeling threatened by someone following you for no good reason?
How do you know what Zimmerman was thinking? Not to mention, Zimmerman has a past history of assault. Please please please, put two and two together.
did you ever watch the CSI episode about the ex-con and the two sisters
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
A past history doesn't mean anything.
No but that in no way gives you the right to assault them. But, however, if in the process of assaulting them you give the person a belief they may be under server bodily harm, they can kill you. Going by what I see here, I wouldn't trust anyone knowing the nuances of the situations at large, and how they're separate and distinct, let alone a teenager.
The problem comes down to, who attack who first. If it was Martin, which we have no proof for, Zimmerman was not guilty by reason of self defense. If it was Zimmerman, which we have no proof for, Zimmerman was guilty of murder in probably the 2nd degree. However negligent homicide or manslaughter can be applied to Zimmerman because he put himself into a really shitty situation and pretty much led to the death of Martin through those actions.
“He had a temper and he became a liability,” the newspaper quoted the former co-worker as saying. “One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted,” he said. “It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out.”
Bowen, stop being an asshole. Seriously your better then this. There is MORE then enough evidence to prove you wrong man. it's almost like you want Treyvon to have gotten violently mad. Or maybe since you keep bringing up race, its a racial thing with you.
Just to point this out, I'm willing to bet the "weapon" was a cane or walking stick.
And I am merely pointing out there isn't evidence either way. The only evidence you have is Zimmerman's gun and Martin's body, and some phone calls that prove nothing at all conclusively either way. And actually, lend more towards Zimmerman's side of the story than Martin's friend's recollection of half a phone conversation.
I could be guilty of stealing phones but that doesn't mean because I'm in a store and a phone is stolen I should be found guilty just 'cause I stole phones before.
I'll agree with you there .... that said, I think we have more evidence that suggests Zimmerman was at fault than Martin.
More or less guilty of manslaughter or reckless endangerment. I think it's a stretch to go for murder 2 and this guy was jones-ing to shoot a black kid like the media is portraying it.
Dude was shady as fuck, but a malicious KKK hitman probably not.
agreed again.
There is. He has 3 assaults in his past! Not to mention people in his life saying he's Jekyll and Hyde.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/trayvon-martin-case-george-zimmerman_n_1392591.html
According to Bowen he's just a decent guy who was trying to question a suspicous person in his neighborhood. YEAH RIGHT. I think at the least he approached Treyvon, Treyvon got angry at the accusations and started arguing with Zimmerman, and he flipped out.
Finally you backed down a little bit. I was getting worried. Treyvon wasn't at fault here man. Zimmerman was and he deserves some prison time.
nah, Bowen probably thinks he's shady as fuck
Which is why murder 2 is silly. It's pandering to the masses and to the media. The dude is going to walk, probably hands down.
First, I want to apologize for getting so mad at you. Second, I think murder 2 is appropriate considering Zimmermans past. It really does look like Zimmerman grabbed treyvon and Treyvon freaked out and defended himself against Zimmerman, making him fear for his life and kill him. I mean you said it yourself:
I can see that being a proper course of the events that led up to the shooting. I am erring on the side of innocent before guilty, though, so I am leaning a bit more towards Zimmerman's story.
I agree though, that's probably what went down. Though even if Zimmerman grabbed him first, if Martin was truly about to kill the guy with his head bashing against the ground, I would be torn on where to put this. Which is probably why he will get away with acquittal like Casey Anthony did, there's a lot of reasonable doubt one could cast if you go for murder 2 in this scenario. There's just so much unknown.
Devil's advocate aside, I can't say this enough, dude is guilty as shitttttt.
How do you know?
Zimmerman being racist is irrelevant. Being racist does not justify Martin allegedly bashing his skull in to street. The requirement is to show, specifically, that Zimmerman actually did something justifying Martin. Not pointing at Zimmerman's history and saying "C'mooooooon".
Shady as fuck, as much as he is, is not proof of his guilt.
doesn't the involvement of racism legally magnify the punishment to deter hate crimes above crimes with no broad social vice (other than killing a dude)
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
For a hate crime it would have to be proven that the crime was motivated by race, or other protected class. Proving that Zimmerman is racist in an of itself wouldn't elevate the crime to a hate crime.
Even if you could prove that Zimmerman initially followed Martin because Martin was black I don't think that this would elevate it to a hate crime. You would have to prove Zimmerman murdered Martin because he was black.
how do you prove something like that
without a written or recorded explicit declaration
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.