When it stems from a call or outcry from what are considered "leaders" of that set of minority there are some that feel they should also take a hand in condemning this sort of action and not just figureheading the actions against that set of minority only. This coming from a minority.
You mean like the near-universal condemnation of the "New Black Panther" hate group for offering a 'bounty' for Zimmerman?
What you don't get is that it will never be good enough for the gotcha crowd. Unless every black person who has ever had their name in a news story gets up and says "Shame on that crazy asshole for beating up a white guy!", then clearly we can pretend The Black Community didn't sufficiently condemn their actions so nyeah nyeah AL SHARPTON WHARRGARBL.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
In criminal proceedings, the defense is entitled to access to the information and evidence that the prosecution has gathered right? My Cousin Vinny didn't lie to me, did it?
They are during a certain part of the procedings... we are not there yet.
anything to be used during trial as evidence must be given to the defense beforehand
anything exculpatory must be given to the defense immediately after it is discovered
(sorry if this was answered, I'm catching up)
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
When it stems from a call or outcry from what are considered "leaders" of that set of minority there are some that feel they should also take a hand in condemning this sort of action and not just figureheading the actions against that set of minority only. This coming from a minority.
You mean like the near-universal condemnation of the "New Black Panther" hate group for offering a 'bounty' for Zimmerman?
What you don't get is that it will never be good enough for the gotcha crowd. Unless every black person who has ever had their name in a news story gets up and says "Shame on that crazy asshole for beating up a white guy!", then clearly we can pretend The Black Community didn't sufficiently condemn their actions so nyeah nyeah AL SHARPTON WHARRGARBL.
This. "If all Middle Easterners are not terrorists, why haven't they all personally condemned terrorism yet?"
Shit, these attacks all happened in April. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should hold a televised rally and ask Americans to keep cool heads while the Martin/Zimmerman case is underway. Al Sharpton? Hello? Jesse Jackson? Where did they go?
The difference is that in these cases, the police investigated the act as a criminal act and have made or attempting to make arrests in the cases.
The Martin case did not become a national media circus because a white guy shot a black guy. It became a national media circus because the body wasn't identified for three days, because there was no investigation.
I wish people would exercise their cognitive abilities and realize when they are spouting bullshit that they heard on fox news or something and never actually looked up.
Tracy Martin had been looking for his son Trayvon since the night before. He went to bed figuring the teen must have gone to the movies and turned off his phone. When Trayvon still wasn't home in the morning, Martin called the police.
After a flurry of phone calls back and forth, an officer told him a police unit was on the way. "So I went outside waiting for Trayvon to show up," Martin said.
Instead of one squad car with his son in the backseat, three vehicles pulled up: a police cruiser, an unmarked sedan and another official-looking car. Martin would discover the third car belonged to a chaplain.
It was not yet 8 in the morning, barely 12 hours since the shooting that took place about 100 yards away, and Martin was still unaware of the fate of his son.
The February 26 shooting death of Trayvon Martin, 17, at the hands of George Zimmerman, 28, a neighborhood watch captain who said he acted in self-defense, has riveted the nation, largely because of race. Trayvon Martin was black. George Zimmerman is white and Hispanic.
For about 10 days, the story remained obscure. Television news from nearby Orlando aired a few segments. The Orlando Sentinel published two brief articles, and the twice-weekly Sanford Herald ran 213 words. Otherwise, there was media silence. This is an account of what happened before everyone knew Trayvon Martin's name.
BREAKING THE NEWS
When Tracy Martin greeted the police that morning, a plainclothes detective asked him to describe his son. "He asked me what he last had on. He asked me if I had any recent pictures," Martin said.
"I showed him a recent picture in the camera and he shook his head and said, 'OK, let me go to my car and get something.'" The detective returned with a folder.
It was drizzling, and he asked Martin if they could go inside. When they were seated he pulled out a photo. It was Trayvon, dead at the scene - his eyes rolled back, a tear on his cheek, saliva coming from his mouth. "From that point, our nightmare," Martin said.
Sanford police released Zimmerman without charge, but Martin says Serino told him he would challenge Zimmerman's account. "The detective's words were, 'I want to interview him again to catch him in a lie,'" Martin said.
A law-enforcement source, who had been informed of the case by investigators, told Reuters that Serino was eager to bring a charge but encountered resistance from the office of the prosecutor, State Attorney Norman Wolfinger.
"Chris (Serino) would have made a recommendation for manslaughter, but Norm Wolfinger's office wanted it to be a slam dunk," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They don't want to hear that this is wrong or that is wrong with the case. That's the way this county does business." Wolfinger on Monday broke a long silence about the case, denying reports he quashed police intentions to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.
Wow, you mean 12 hours later, when the cops finally identified him since he was carrying no ID, by going to the house of someone in the neighborhood who was reporting a missing person? GOD DAMN THOSE POLICE FOR BEING SO SLOPPY. THEY DIDNT EVEN TRY TO ARREST HIM OR ANYTHING.
A lot of people really suck at this 'checking facts' thing.
When it stems from a call or outcry from what are considered "leaders" of that set of minority there are some that feel they should also take a hand in condemning this sort of action and not just figureheading the actions against that set of minority only. This coming from a minority.
You mean like the near-universal condemnation of the "New Black Panther" hate group for offering a 'bounty' for Zimmerman?
What you don't get is that it will never be good enough for the gotcha crowd. Unless every black person who has ever had their name in a news story gets up and says "Shame on that crazy asshole for beating up a white guy!", then clearly we can pretend The Black Community didn't sufficiently condemn their actions so nyeah nyeah AL SHARPTON WHARRGARBL.
I understand the situation just fine. When the president of the USA chimes in it becomes more than just a "all terrorists are not middle eastern affair". There will always be outliers that chime in with extreme responses it would just be nice to see the main moral scavengers react to actions taken in the name of the cause. It will never happen as I imagine they are just hoping that these occurances just get swept under the rug.
It has to do with whether Zimmerman reasonably* thought he was in imminent danger of death and/or grievous bodily harm.
Here's my issue. If he had, he wouldn't of gotten out of the car.
Also it is illegal to follow someone(It's stalking), the police threatened the media if they tried to follow police/witnesses who were involved with the case in off hours with arrest. for stalking. Why the first question wasn't "so if we shoot and kill them and say they attacked us it wont be stalking then?" I dont know.
edit: The last case with the two kids blaming their violence on trayvon sounds a bit convenient. like "television told me to do it" levels of excuse. In other words, they would of done it anyways, and gave the most convenient excuse of the moment.
I hate to break this to you but what Zimmerman did isnt stalking.
I understand the situation just fine. When the president of the USA chimes in it becomes more than just a "all terrorists are not middle eastern affair". There will always be outliers that chime in with extreme responses it would just be nice to see the main moral scavengers react to actions taken in the name of the cause. It will never happen as I imagine they are just hoping that these occurances just get swept under the rug.
How interesting that you switch from "leaders" to "main moral scavengers". And yeah, sorry, you don't understand the situation; you ARE the situation. Who cares if prominent black leaders condemned the New Black Panthers for openly threatening George Zimmerman? Every single time a black guy commits a potential hate crime they need to be fighting for the microphone at CNN to say "this guy's an asshole"!
The President chimed in to offer sympathy to the family, and to carefully say that he wanted the "tragedy" carefully looked into and considered. He didn't say Zimmerman should hang or that Zimmerman murdered Martin or that it's another incident of Whitey keeping a brother down.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Of course, if a white woman had shot some guy beating her head into the sidewalk there would have been much less of a witch hunt.
I mean if she didn't want to shoot anyone she shouldn't have been dressed like that and carrying a gun.
No, I don't think an armed white woman exiting a vehicle, and stalking a legal resident of the neighborhood because she doesn't like the way he looks would get more sympathy and outrage than Zimmerman.
Except as we have already explained Zimmerman was neither stalking, nor engaging in any illegal activity. Of course it is really easy to ignore the facts of the matter, toss logic and reason out the window, and be emotionally outraged.
However if I was going to get outraged it would probably be at the trial by media potentially ruining a mans life, forcing an arrest and trial when so far the prosecutions case is piss poor at best, and leaving him with a ton of legal fees even if he does manage to walk and does not end up with a shitty jury who decides to ignore the facts and "emotionally" decide he must be guilty of something.
He likely needed counseling before, and he really likely needs it now after all that has happened. How about dropping out of the angry mob, putting down your pitchfork and torch, and wandering off until we have a verdict instead of looking for reasons to justify your emotional need to crucify a potentially innocent man.
It was really the police that ruined his life by letting him walk. You can't expect outraged parents to act like anything other than outraged parents or the mass public to act like anything other than an angry mob. The police could have at least done their investigative job
Paladin on
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.
Oh but we aren't talking about enraged parents being enraged, or the idiot populous acting like idiots. We have plenty of threads were we complain about the latest stupid thing humanity at large has engaged it. This is Debate and Discourse, if ya want to be an emotionally driven torch wielding intellectual troglodyte then head on over the Social Entropy. Ya stumble in here with a head full of whatever flavor of shitty local news meets your personal bias, a head full of bunch of emotionally driven rhetoric with little to no basis in facts, don't read the thread, spout stuff massively out of date, or refuse to listen to logic and reason people are going to point stuff out. I mean we have been over the stalker angle how many times?
This is not the miss American pageant where you can say the most incomprehensibly wrong shit,get a pat on the head, and still make up the points in the swimsuit competition. Although.... nah the mods would never allow it.
However if I was going to get outraged it would probably be at the trial by media potentially ruining a mans life, forcing an arrest and trial when so far the prosecutions case is piss poor at best, and leaving him with a ton of legal fees even if he does manage to walk and does not end up with a shitty jury who decides to ignore the facts and "emotionally" decide he must be guilty of something
That's kind of what happens when you single someone out for their appearance and eventually shoot them and the local PD does it's best to cover it up. As a society, we probably should be aggressive and show outrage towards murderers and the government officials that try to protect them and cover of their crimes.
Zimmerman's already confessed to shooting Martin. You act like this is still in question.
How about dropping out of the angry mob, putting down your pitchfork and torch, and wandering off until we have a verdict instead of looking for reasons to justify your emotional need to crucify a potentially innocent man.
Funny.
If Zimmerman had done the exact same thing he wouldn't be in this situation at all.
This threads ability to victimize a man who killed some one in an altercation that began simply because Zimmerman didn't like the way the kid looked amazes me.
Wait. No it doesn't.
The idea that African Americans should shut up and be subordinate to "polite society" while it figures out how to protect a man from the consequences of his actions and from receiving the same outcome that he dished out to a kid walking through is own neighborhood is, at it's core, disgustingly racist and elitist. And if Zimmerman gets off, I won't blame the parts of society that get angry at yet another situation that outlines an acceptable use of violence against minorities and the hoi polloi.
That's kind of what happens when you single someone out for their appearance and eventually shoot them and the local PD does it's best to cover it up. As a society, we probably should be aggressive and show outrage towards murderers and the government officials that try to protect them and cover of their crimes.
Zimmerman's already confessed to shooting Martin. You act like this is still in question.
Not at all. I question whether that shooting was justified or not. See you can totally shoot people, and be completely in the right. Zimmerman may be completely in the right here. He may have done nothing illegal. At all.
Funny.
If Zimmerman had done the exact same thing he wouldn't be in this situation at all.
This threads ability to victimize a man who killed some one in an altercation that began simply because Zimmerman didn't like the way the kid looked amazes me.
Your ability to spout of an emotional position dearth of the facts amazes me.
Wait. No it doesn't. You have already decided Zimmerman is guilty, when in fact he may have been completely justified in shooting Martin. Perhaps you could explain to me why we should lock Zimmerman up if in fact Martin swung first and initiated the physical altercation. That fact is in dispute, and since you seem to have know problem lynching Zimmerman feel free to explain why he should be lynched if his version of events turn out to be true?
The idea that African Americans should shut up and be subordinate to "polite society" while it figures out how to protect a man from the consequences of his actions and from receiving the same outcome that he dished out to a kid walking through is own neighborhood is, at it's core, disgustingly racist and elitist.
Do you need your race card stamped to validate parking? Protect a man from the consequences of his actions? What if his actions were both completely legal and justified? Should the "White Hispanic" community sit around while one of its members is strung up by the police after committing no crime because they can either cow under public pressure brought on by a ratings driven media and conduct a sham trial to delay the inevitable rioting when he is found innocent, or try and explain why they cannot arrest him to people more interested in being emotionally pissed off than learning the facts of the case ?
Not at all. I question whether that shooting was justified or not.
The shooting can only be justified if you think Zimmerman had the moral right to be armed and following Martin simply on the basis that Zimmerman thought Martin was a criminal based on appearance.
Your ability to spout of an emotional position dearth of the facts amazes me.
And your ability to appeal to one's emotions by pointing out how burdened Zimmerman is for simply facing the consequences for his actions, sadly, do not amaze me.
You have already decided Zimmerman is guilty
when in fact he may have been completely justified in shooting Martin. Perhaps you could explain to me why we should lock Zimmerman up if in fact Martin swung first and initiated the physical altercation. That fact is in dispute, and since you seem to have know problem lynching Zimmerman feel free to explain why he should be lynched if his version of events turn out to be true?
He already confessed to the shooting and the entire ordeal is a result of Zimmerman's paranoia, bias, and aggression.
We'll never know anything close to objective truth because the police have done their best to obfuscate and cover up the crime.
Should the "White Hispanic" community sit around while one of its members is strung up by the police after committing no crime because they can either cow under public pressure brought on by a ratings driven media and conduct a sham trial to delay the inevitable rioting when he is found innocent, or try and explain why they cannot arrest him to people more interested in being emotionally pissed off than learning the facts of the case ?
For some one who wants to look like he cares about facts and neutrality, you sure do throw out absolutes like "sham trial" and "no crime" and "he is found innocent". I like your statement that Zimmerman, who has benefited multiple times from police protection, is being "strung up by the police".
George Zimmerman already has plenty of support from the white community, which is the base that instigated the altercation to begin with. That's not really "sitting around".
But anyway, to be more specific:
“The Latino community joins the African-American community and other communities in condemning George Zimmerman as what he is – a murderer and a racist,” Roberto Lovato, co-founder of the online Latino advocacy organization Presente.org, told The Daily Caller.
The group is acting on Trayvon’s behalf. Presente.org has joined with Color of Change to petition for the arrest of Martin’s murderer.
“Todos somos Trayvon! (We are all Trayvon!),” Presente.org wrote, urging supporters to sign the petition. The group also has a petition to condemn Geraldo Rivera for blaming Martin’s hoodie for his death. According to Lovato, the petition currently has 18,000 signatures.
La Raza has rallied for Martin with the civil rights community as well.
In an interview with The Daily Caller, La Raza spokeswoman Lisa Navarrete reiterated the importance of an investigation.
“I think at the end of the day the indisputable fact is that the police did not do a thorough job, certainly given the 911 calls and everything else there was clearly much more to this than the police initially thought and should have been investigated and hopefully now it will be,” she said.
Hispanics and the Latino community is also victimized by the same set of standards and bias that resulted in Martin's death. Glad to see them not rallying around it's current figurehead.
Shit, these attacks all happened in April. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should hold a televised rally and ask Americans to keep cool heads while the Martin/Zimmerman case is underway. Al Sharpton? Hello? Jesse Jackson? Where did they go?
The difference is that in these cases, the police investigated the act as a criminal act and have made or attempting to make arrests in the cases.
The Martin case did not become a national media circus because a white guy shot a black guy. It became a national media circus because the body wasn't identified for three days, because there was no investigation.
The problem isn't about police response. It's that it's happening at all. It's a bunch of "eye for an eye" bullcrap that's usually reserved for 3rd world countries and feuds between hillbilly clans or street gangs.
I am really not sure what you're getting at. Of course its bad that violence is happening but what does that have to do with anything other than "violence is bad"?
It's beyond a generic "violence is bad" story for the same reason that Matthew Shepard or James Byrd were beyond a generic "violence is bad" story - because of the collective guilt angle.
Shepard wasn't killed as a random act of violence or as a result of a dispute between he and his killers. He was killed because his attackers ascribed a collective guilt onto all homosexuals. Same with Byrd, substituting "black" for "gay".
And if these stories of post-Zimmerman attacks are true, they fall under the same umbrella - substituting "white" or "white Hispanic" for "black/gay".
I still get irked by the statements like, "arm" or any of the negative facing arguments meant to incite or point to a cause.
I carry a knife in my pocket (opening boxes and it has a screwdriver which is super useful when I'm in a crawlspace trying to fix wires), if I end up stabbing someone with it, did I actively engage in "leaving my (x) armed with a knife" ?
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
How does a bloody nose and head change things? Zimmerman was clearly told not to pursue Martin and he did anyway.
Say Martin did attack Zimmerman. Ambushed him like a fucking ninja, even. If you were walking home, saw some guy scoping you out while on the phone, who then proceeded to follow you with a firearm, are you telling me there is no possibility you'd be proactive in that situation? Keep in mind this kid was 17, as well. 17 year olds don't always make good decisions.
Was the proper measured response to this to shoot and kill Martin, even if Martin attacked Zimmerman? Zimmerman, who, against police advice, followed Martin.
It has to do with whether Zimmerman reasonably* thought he was in imminent danger of death and/or grievous bodily harm. Zimmerman's story is that the back of his head was being slammed against a concrete sidewalk. Thus, the presence of injuries on the back of Zimmerman's head would tend to corroborate his account, while the absence of such injuries would tend to contradict it. It goes to Zimmerman's credibility as a witness.
(*as in, "Would a reasonable person, when placed in the same situation, believe they were in imminent danger of death/GBH?")
Zimmerman's initial pursuit of Martin is mostly irrelevant to the above question. It's not illegal to follow someone, nor is someone following you usually a justifiable reason for assaulting them (IF that's what actually happened).
It's not illegal to follow someone, but it is absolutely a huge part of why any of this happened in the first place. You can't discount it because it isn't strictly illegal. If Zimmerman stayed put, he wouldn't have a bloody head/nose and Martin would be alive.
Well, first let's be clear about what context we're viewing Zimmerman's following of Martin in.
Legally speaking - I can absolutely discount it. It has nothing to do with who started the fight, or whether Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of imminent death/GBH.
Morally speaking - Zimmerman being a nosy busybody and/or wannabe vigilante was the first step in a sequence that ultimately resulted in Martin's death.
It has to do with whether Zimmerman reasonably* thought he was in imminent danger of death and/or grievous bodily harm.
Here's my issue. If he had, he wouldn't of gotten out of the car.
Zimmerman isn't required to be in reasonable fear of imminent death/GBH throughout the entire episode, only at the moment that he uses deadly force. His mental state at the moment he exits the car doesn't have to be the same as his mental state at the moment he pulls the trigger - only with the latter does he need to be in reasonable fear of imminent death/GBH at that exact moment.
Also it is illegal to follow someone(It's stalking), the police threatened the media if they tried to follow police/witnesses who were involved with the case in off hours with arrest. for stalking. Why the first question wasn't "so if we shoot and kill them and say they attacked us it wont be stalking then?" I dont know.
Under Florida law, "stalking" requires the perpetrator to commit multiple instances over a period of time.
784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
...
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree
In order for Zimmerman to have "stalked" Martin, Zimmerman would have had to follow Martin on multiple occasions.
If Florida cops told the media that following a cop/witness one time was "stalking", then the cops were wrong on the legal definition of the term. If Florida cops told the media that following a cop/witness multiple times was "stalking", then the cops' argument holds more water.
Shit, these attacks all happened in April. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should hold a televised rally and ask Americans to keep cool heads while the Martin/Zimmerman case is underway. Al Sharpton? Hello? Jesse Jackson? Where did they go?
The difference is that in these cases, the police investigated the act as a criminal act and have made or attempting to make arrests in the cases.
The Martin case did not become a national media circus because a white guy shot a black guy. It became a national media circus because the body wasn't identified for three days, because there was no investigation.
The problem isn't about police response. It's that it's happening at all. It's a bunch of "eye for an eye" bullcrap that's usually reserved for 3rd world countries and feuds between hillbilly clans or street gangs.
I am really not sure what you're getting at. Of course its bad that violence is happening but what does that have to do with anything other than "violence is bad"?
It's beyond a generic "violence is bad" story for the same reason that Matthew Shepard or James Byrd were beyond a generic "violence is bad" story - because of the collective guilt angle.
Shepard wasn't killed as a random act of violence or as a result of a dispute between he and his killers. He was killed because his attackers ascribed a collective guilt onto all homosexuals. Same with Byrd, substituting "black" for "gay".
And if these stories of post-Zimmerman attacks are true, they fall under the same umbrella - substituting "white" or "white Hispanic" for "black/gay".
Muttering 'Justice for Trayvon' after an assault doesn't make the assault a hate crime. The assaults were racially motivated? Maybe. But bringing Shepard and Byrd up as comparisons muddies up the conversation too much.
I still get irked by the statements like, "arm" or any of the negative facing arguments meant to incite or point to a cause.
I carry a knife in my pocket (opening boxes and it has a screwdriver which is super useful when I'm in a crawlspace trying to fix wires), if I end up stabbing someone with it, did I actively engage in "leaving my (x) armed with a knife" ?
if you approached that person initially with negative intent? Yes. You are armed.
Regardless, let's not ignore the inherent differences between keeping a pocket knife as a tool on your person for your job versus keeping a gun on you for protection because you want to pretend to be a cop.
I still get irked by the statements like, "arm" or any of the negative facing arguments meant to incite or point to a cause.
I carry a knife in my pocket (opening boxes and it has a screwdriver which is super useful when I'm in a crawlspace trying to fix wires), if I end up stabbing someone with it, did I actively engage in "leaving my (x) armed with a knife" ?
if you approached that person initially with negative intent? Yes. You are armed.
Regardless, let's not ignore the inherent differences between keeping a pocket knife as a tool on your person for your job versus keeping a gun on you for protection because you want to pretend to be a cop.
Going to have to agree with this. I knife can be used for a variety of every day tasks, especially one with a screwdriver on it (I'm assuming a swiss army knife of some sort, or a multi-tool) A gun has one purpose. You won't be opening a sealed box with a gun, or unscrewing a computer case with one. A gun is used to fire a projectile at a target, there is a huge leap from "I followed someone and happened to have my pocket knife on me" and "I followed someone and happened to have my loaded gun on me."
Delphinidaes on
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
You won't be opening a sealed box with a gun, or unscrewing a computer case with one.
You don't know me.
Regardless, the context of the sentence is the difference unless he actively drew his gun.
If he was a concealed carry, then it is no different than me putting my knife in my pocket every morning. Sure it has one purpose, but it's not like he was intended (allegedly) to use the gun when he was tailing Martin. If it wasn't drawn and at the ready, then it wasn't "armed with" but essentially just on his person.
If it didn't have a screwdriver would it make a difference?
I feel like we're backtracking on innocent until proven guilty to go back to loaded statements to cause an emotional appeal against the man, innocent or not, no one deserves that. I'm unaware of anyone's race in here but it almost appears as if this is the case.
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
The shooting can only be justified if you think Zimmerman had the moral right to be armed and following Martin simply on the basis that Zimmerman thought Martin was a criminal based on appearance.
This is not true. At least not legally. You may personally feel that Zimmerman's actions before the altercation put all of the blame for any consequence solely at his feet. However in determining if Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force him being reasonably fearful of death or serious bodily injury is the deciding factor.
There is of course a lot of debate on if Zimmerman was in a situation where he was justified using deadly force. The police account, and the picture show that Zimmerman was wounded in the head. Any injuries Martin may have (other than the obvious) are still unknown to the public at this point, so we don't really have the full picture.
Assuming Martin's autopsy report indicates that he suffered no other injuries then the evidence would support Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked first, and maintained the upper hand during the fight. This would also mean that Zimmerman is most likely to be the one calling out for help on the 911 call (for about 30 seconds). Having your head slammed against the ground by someone on top of you for 30 seconds while you call out for help seems to be a situation of reasonably fearful of death or serious bodily injury to me. This is not the only possible scenario, but it seems reasonable given what we know.
Just because Zimmerman was following Martin does not give Martin justification to attack him. You may personally feel that Martin had a "right" to stand up for himself, or that Zimmerman "had it coming," but legally Martin can't attack someone for following him. Even if you gave Martin a pass on initiating the fight once he had the upper hand, and Zimmerman was calling out for help, why didn't he stop?
Whether Zimmerman's suspicions of Martin were reasonable or not doesn't really matter, because the action of following someone is a perfectly legal action. Even walking up to someone and asking, "What are you doing here?" is a legal action. I'm not sure what you need for a 'moral right', but up until the fight Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal. At least not anything that we know of. There is speculation he may have attempted to detain Martin. This would have been illegal, and Martin would have been justified in using force to escape.
Shit, these attacks all happened in April. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should hold a televised rally and ask Americans to keep cool heads while the Martin/Zimmerman case is underway. Al Sharpton? Hello? Jesse Jackson? Where did they go?
The difference is that in these cases, the police investigated the act as a criminal act and have made or attempting to make arrests in the cases.
The Martin case did not become a national media circus because a white guy shot a black guy. It became a national media circus because the body wasn't identified for three days, because there was no investigation.
The problem isn't about police response. It's that it's happening at all. It's a bunch of "eye for an eye" bullcrap that's usually reserved for 3rd world countries and feuds between hillbilly clans or street gangs.
I am really not sure what you're getting at. Of course its bad that violence is happening but what does that have to do with anything other than "violence is bad"?
It's beyond a generic "violence is bad" story for the same reason that Matthew Shepard or James Byrd were beyond a generic "violence is bad" story - because of the collective guilt angle.
Shepard wasn't killed as a random act of violence or as a result of a dispute between he and his killers. He was killed because his attackers ascribed a collective guilt onto all homosexuals. Same with Byrd, substituting "black" for "gay".
And if these stories of post-Zimmerman attacks are true, they fall under the same umbrella - substituting "white" or "white Hispanic" for "black/gay".
Muttering 'Justice for Trayvon' after an assault doesn't make the assault a hate crime. The assaults were racially motivated? Maybe. But bringing Shepard and Byrd up as comparisons muddies up the conversation too much.
These sure seem like hate crimes to me, in that they were crimes motivated at least partially by the victim's race (or religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, etc.).
According to a police report, cited by the Blade, as the boys beat Mr Watts they shouted: '[Get] that white [man]. This is for Trayvon ... Trayvon lives, white [man]. Kill that white [man].'
Alton L. Hayes III, a west suburban man charged with a hate crime, told police he was so upset about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida that he beat up a white man early Tuesday.
Tell me how beating up a guy because of his race could be construed as not a hate crime?
Heck, whether or not Zimmerman was following Martin because of Martin's race is the whole reason there's been such a big deal over whether Zimmerman said "coons" or "goons" or "punks".
0
Options
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
Shit, these attacks all happened in April. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should hold a televised rally and ask Americans to keep cool heads while the Martin/Zimmerman case is underway. Al Sharpton? Hello? Jesse Jackson? Where did they go?
The difference is that in these cases, the police investigated the act as a criminal act and have made or attempting to make arrests in the cases.
The Martin case did not become a national media circus because a white guy shot a black guy. It became a national media circus because the body wasn't identified for three days, because there was no investigation.
The problem isn't about police response. It's that it's happening at all. It's a bunch of "eye for an eye" bullcrap that's usually reserved for 3rd world countries and feuds between hillbilly clans or street gangs.
I am really not sure what you're getting at. Of course its bad that violence is happening but what does that have to do with anything other than "violence is bad"?
It's beyond a generic "violence is bad" story for the same reason that Matthew Shepard or James Byrd were beyond a generic "violence is bad" story - because of the collective guilt angle.
Shepard wasn't killed as a random act of violence or as a result of a dispute between he and his killers. He was killed because his attackers ascribed a collective guilt onto all homosexuals. Same with Byrd, substituting "black" for "gay".
And if these stories of post-Zimmerman attacks are true, they fall under the same umbrella - substituting "white" or "white Hispanic" for "black/gay".
Muttering 'Justice for Trayvon' after an assault doesn't make the assault a hate crime. The assaults were racially motivated? Maybe. But bringing Shepard and Byrd up as comparisons muddies up the conversation too much.
These sure seem like hate crimes to me, in that they were crimes motivated at least partially by the victim's race (or religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, etc.).
According to a police report, cited by the Blade, as the boys beat Mr Watts they shouted: '[Get] that white [man]. This is for Trayvon ... Trayvon lives, white [man]. Kill that white [man].'
Alton L. Hayes III, a west suburban man charged with a hate crime, told police he was so upset about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida that he beat up a white man early Tuesday.
Tell me how beating up a guy because of his race could be construed as not a hate crime?
Heck, whether or not Zimmerman was following Martin because of Martin's race is the whole reason there's been such a big deal over whether Zimmerman said "coons" or "goons" or "punks".
It's not a hate crime because in our society it's impossible to be racist towards white people, duh.
And honestly, the potential "hate crime" committed when Zimmerman shot Martin is why it's a freakin' media circus. Cops screw up investigations all the time, just in the case they're accused of screwing one up where a white/Hispanic/white-Hispanic man killed a young black boy. Racial tension is ratings gold for major media outlets, just look at Joe Horn and the Duke lacrosse team cases, or even back into the 80s with Bernhard Goetz.
Had Zimmerman been black, this case would've made few if any headlines. Heck, probably the same if Martin were white or Hispanic. It may have made the nightly local news, "Boy shot and killed in local suburb, more at 11," but it probably wouldn't have developed into a media firestorm.
Last thought: it's unfortunate in any case where people of a certain race/religion/sexual-orientation are victimized, including for the actions of others within their group. It was a hate crime when Matthew Shepard was beat to death, it was a hate crime when Byrd was dragged to death just about an hour and half drive from where I'm sitting right now, it was a hate crime after 9/11 where various innocent Muslims were brutally attacked, and it was a hate crime when people decided to attack white people as "revenge" for Trayvon's death. Of course, I have a rule for hating/making fun of people: it's only cool if it's something they can control. People are born the ethnicity they are, the gender they are, the sexual-orientation they are (other mammals in the animal kingdom have essentially the same rate of homosexuality of us humans), and even religion is no-no: yeah, you can renounce your faith or convert to another, but it's just not wise in some cultures, not to mention that things you were raised from birth to base all your life and values on it can be hard to cut out.
Okay, it's a minor lie, I make fun of Christians all the time... but I don't hate them, unless they're actively using their faith to break the rule above (lookin' at you, Phelps). Those are the ones I troll with "If God can't lie, then why did he lie to Abraham?"
Just because Zimmerman was following Martin does not give Martin justification to attack him.
Through alleyways? At night? In a neighborhood that Martin was residing in?
Again, I bring it up. If Martin were a white woman and in the exact same situation, I doubt we'd have as many questions about it or that Zimmerman would come off as a creep.
"I saw this woman who I didn't recognize and started following her through darkened alleyways at night. Then she attacked me, so I shot her."
@Bowen Is correct. That he left the car with a gun is irrelevant. It's not a requirement that a person investigate something unarmed. The question is whether or not he rightfully used the weapon when he did.
Just because Zimmerman was following Martin does not give Martin justification to attack him.
Through alleyways? At night? In a neighborhood that Martin was residing in?
Again, I bring it up. If Martin were a white woman and in the exact same situation, I doubt we'd have as many questions about it or that Zimmerman would come off as a creep.
"I saw this woman who I didn't recognize and started following her through darkened alleyways at night. Then she attacked me, so I shot her."
What would you say to the man in that situation?
I'd think he was creepy as fuck but it'd have no bearing on the actual crime. The part where he'd have to claim a woman was beating him up would though.
News on the Zimmerman front, he's entered a plea of Not Guilty. Or rather, he entered it on April 12, but it was just made public yesterday.
The plea, which was filed on April 12, was part of a batch of court records made public this week after the case was unsealed by Circuit Judge Kenneth R. Lester Jr. A number of media organizations had petitioned the court to make the case filings public.
"The Defendant, by and through his undersigned attorney, enters a written plea of NOT GUILTY to the charges now pending against him in the above-styled cause or causes," stated the two-page document, which was filed by Zimmerman's attorney,Mark O'Mara.
In the filing, Zimmerman, 28, also waives his right to answer to the murder charge in person. It is not clear what that means for Zimmerman's arraignment date, scheduled for May.
I understand the situation just fine. When the president of the USA chimes in it becomes more than just a "all terrorists are not middle eastern affair". There will always be outliers that chime in with extreme responses it would just be nice to see the main moral scavengers react to actions taken in the name of the cause. It will never happen as I imagine they are just hoping that these occurances just get swept under the rug.
How interesting that you switch from "leaders" to "main moral scavengers". And yeah, sorry, you don't understand the situation; you ARE the situation. Who cares if prominent black leaders condemned the New Black Panthers for openly threatening George Zimmerman? Every single time a black guy commits a potential hate crime they need to be fighting for the microphone at CNN to say "this guy's an asshole"!
The President chimed in to offer sympathy to the family, and to carefully say that he wanted the "tragedy" carefully looked into and considered. He didn't say Zimmerman should hang or that Zimmerman murdered Martin or that it's another incident of Whitey keeping a brother down.
Lol I am just an individual giving an opinion on a subset of the american population that likes to jump on situations to jump in your so called spotlight. Even if the situation is not cut n dry like this one isnt. This situation is a cause and effect. Plain and simple. The "moral scavengers" statement would relate to anyone who tried to profit for this situation that lacks any real evidence to show guilt. According to what is released. These individuals, news sites included, are so quick to condemn one facet of this situation but not any effect caused from it. Especially when the "black guy"s commiting these crimes are witnessed stating that it is "justice for trayvon". I think Zimmerman is a stupid asshole but I also think that Trayvon got all uppity and tracked this white man who dared follow him and tried to ambush him. This is conjecture. At this point both parties are at fault and the result means Zimmerman is not guilty of Murder or Manslaughter. There is no evidence that refutes this. At least any released yet.
Shit, these attacks all happened in April. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should hold a televised rally and ask Americans to keep cool heads while the Martin/Zimmerman case is underway. Al Sharpton? Hello? Jesse Jackson? Where did they go?
The difference is that in these cases, the police investigated the act as a criminal act and have made or attempting to make arrests in the cases.
The Martin case did not become a national media circus because a white guy shot a black guy. It became a national media circus because the body wasn't identified for three days, because there was no investigation.
Shit, these attacks all happened in April. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should hold a televised rally and ask Americans to keep cool heads while the Martin/Zimmerman case is underway. Al Sharpton? Hello? Jesse Jackson? Where did they go?
The difference is that in these cases, the police investigated the act as a criminal act and have made or attempting to make arrests in the cases.
The Martin case did not become a national media circus because a white guy shot a black guy. It became a national media circus because the body wasn't identified for three days, because there was no investigation.
Exactly fucking this.
Ive seen the released police reports. If accurate the initial investigation was done just fine. It was a choice then whether or not to move the case into a homicide investigation or not. That choice was not made because of the lack of witness and state law. At least IMO. The state law is very explicit in this regard.
Edit: It is at this point people like to cling to the detective statement. Well what if he couldnt catch Zimmerman in a lie? They would have been right back where they started and have wasted resources trying.
Shit, these attacks all happened in April. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should hold a televised rally and ask Americans to keep cool heads while the Martin/Zimmerman case is underway. Al Sharpton? Hello? Jesse Jackson? Where did they go?
The difference is that in these cases, the police investigated the act as a criminal act and have made or attempting to make arrests in the cases.
The Martin case did not become a national media circus because a white guy shot a black guy. It became a national media circus because the body wasn't identified for three days, because there was no investigation.
Exactly fucking this.
..I LINKED AN ARTICLE DIRECTLY ON THIS PAGE WHEREIN EVEN THE PARENTS OF THE DEAD PERSON SAID IT WAS ONLY 12 HOURS LATER WHEN THEY IDENTIFIED THE BODY.
How the shit do you people keep repeating this same, goosey ass statement like its fact? I mean, do you just willfully run ahead, full steam ignorant, hoping upon hope that your pure willpower will alter reality to fit your delusions?
Just because Zimmerman was following Martin does not give Martin justification to attack him.
Through alleyways? At night? In a neighborhood that Martin was residing in?
Again, I bring it up. If Martin were a white woman and in the exact same situation, I doubt we'd have as many questions about it or that Zimmerman would come off as a creep.
"I saw this woman who I didn't recognize and started following her through darkened alleyways at night. Then she attacked me, so I shot her."
What would you say to the man in that situation?
I'm not saying that Zimmerman isn't a creep for following Martin, only that legally he can, and that the person being followed isn't justified in assault because of it.
When determining "reasonable fear of serious bodily harm" the physical stature of both people make a difference. If Martin was a woman and considerably weaker than Zimmerman then it would be a lot harder for Zimmerman to justify that he was put in a situation where he reasonably feared for his life.
Lets go with your alternate scenario:
Zimmerman sees a suspicious white female.
He calls police to report, and begins following her.
She runs and Zimmerman catches up to her.
Zimmerman asks, "What are you doing here."
She sucker punches Zimmerman and he falls to the ground.
She slams his head against the ground for about 30 seconds while Zimmerman is yelling for help.
Close to getting knocked unconscious Zimmerman remembers, and uses his gun to defend himself.
Zimmerman could still be justified in using deadly force, but other questions arise:
Did Zimmerman attempt to physically defend himself before going for his gun?
Why was Zimmerman unable to get the upper hand in the fight?
Was Zimmerman letting her get the upper hand so that he could justify shooting her?
I grant that it would be a tough sell to a jury, and the public in general. It is easier to associate the victim with a female during a physical confrontation. Anything short of Zimmerman having pictures of a seriously damaged face would make most people go for the not reasonable fear side.
The opposite is also true. If Zimmerman was a woman and considerably weaker that Martin it would be easier for "her" to justify using deadly force. If she got punched in the nose, and was taken to the ground, and Martin was on top of her she could probably justify using deadly force before getting her head hit against the ground.
Posts
You mean like the near-universal condemnation of the "New Black Panther" hate group for offering a 'bounty' for Zimmerman?
What you don't get is that it will never be good enough for the gotcha crowd. Unless every black person who has ever had their name in a news story gets up and says "Shame on that crazy asshole for beating up a white guy!", then clearly we can pretend The Black Community didn't sufficiently condemn their actions so nyeah nyeah AL SHARPTON WHARRGARBL.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
anything to be used during trial as evidence must be given to the defense beforehand
anything exculpatory must be given to the defense immediately after it is discovered
(sorry if this was answered, I'm catching up)
This. "If all Middle Easterners are not terrorists, why haven't they all personally condemned terrorism yet?"
I wish people would exercise their cognitive abilities and realize when they are spouting bullshit that they heard on fox news or something and never actually looked up.
PROTIP: Read REAL NEWS SITES:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403
Wow, you mean 12 hours later, when the cops finally identified him since he was carrying no ID, by going to the house of someone in the neighborhood who was reporting a missing person? GOD DAMN THOSE POLICE FOR BEING SO SLOPPY. THEY DIDNT EVEN TRY TO ARREST HIM OR ANYTHING.
A lot of people really suck at this 'checking facts' thing.
I understand the situation just fine. When the president of the USA chimes in it becomes more than just a "all terrorists are not middle eastern affair". There will always be outliers that chime in with extreme responses it would just be nice to see the main moral scavengers react to actions taken in the name of the cause. It will never happen as I imagine they are just hoping that these occurances just get swept under the rug.
I hate to break this to you but what Zimmerman did isnt stalking.
He was already in jail until he bailed out.
How interesting that you switch from "leaders" to "main moral scavengers". And yeah, sorry, you don't understand the situation; you ARE the situation. Who cares if prominent black leaders condemned the New Black Panthers for openly threatening George Zimmerman? Every single time a black guy commits a potential hate crime they need to be fighting for the microphone at CNN to say "this guy's an asshole"!
The President chimed in to offer sympathy to the family, and to carefully say that he wanted the "tragedy" carefully looked into and considered. He didn't say Zimmerman should hang or that Zimmerman murdered Martin or that it's another incident of Whitey keeping a brother down.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Exited his truck with a weapon, actively sought out Martin who was a legal resident of the neighborhood...
Again, if this were a white woman, we wouldn't be asking any of these questions, bringing up these stipulations, etc.
I mean if she didn't want to shoot anyone she shouldn't have been dressed like that and carrying a gun.
No, I don't think an armed white woman exiting a vehicle, and stalking a legal resident of the neighborhood because she doesn't like the way he looks would get more sympathy and outrage than Zimmerman.
However if I was going to get outraged it would probably be at the trial by media potentially ruining a mans life, forcing an arrest and trial when so far the prosecutions case is piss poor at best, and leaving him with a ton of legal fees even if he does manage to walk and does not end up with a shitty jury who decides to ignore the facts and "emotionally" decide he must be guilty of something.
He likely needed counseling before, and he really likely needs it now after all that has happened. How about dropping out of the angry mob, putting down your pitchfork and torch, and wandering off until we have a verdict instead of looking for reasons to justify your emotional need to crucify a potentially innocent man.
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.
This is not the miss American pageant where you can say the most incomprehensibly wrong shit,get a pat on the head, and still make up the points in the swimsuit competition. Although.... nah the mods would never allow it.
That's kind of what happens when you single someone out for their appearance and eventually shoot them and the local PD does it's best to cover it up. As a society, we probably should be aggressive and show outrage towards murderers and the government officials that try to protect them and cover of their crimes.
Zimmerman's already confessed to shooting Martin. You act like this is still in question.
Funny.
If Zimmerman had done the exact same thing he wouldn't be in this situation at all.
This threads ability to victimize a man who killed some one in an altercation that began simply because Zimmerman didn't like the way the kid looked amazes me.
Wait. No it doesn't.
The idea that African Americans should shut up and be subordinate to "polite society" while it figures out how to protect a man from the consequences of his actions and from receiving the same outcome that he dished out to a kid walking through is own neighborhood is, at it's core, disgustingly racist and elitist. And if Zimmerman gets off, I won't blame the parts of society that get angry at yet another situation that outlines an acceptable use of violence against minorities and the hoi polloi.
Not at all. I question whether that shooting was justified or not. See you can totally shoot people, and be completely in the right. Zimmerman may be completely in the right here. He may have done nothing illegal. At all.
Your ability to spout of an emotional position dearth of the facts amazes me.
Wait. No it doesn't. You have already decided Zimmerman is guilty, when in fact he may have been completely justified in shooting Martin. Perhaps you could explain to me why we should lock Zimmerman up if in fact Martin swung first and initiated the physical altercation. That fact is in dispute, and since you seem to have know problem lynching Zimmerman feel free to explain why he should be lynched if his version of events turn out to be true?
Do you need your race card stamped to validate parking? Protect a man from the consequences of his actions? What if his actions were both completely legal and justified? Should the "White Hispanic" community sit around while one of its members is strung up by the police after committing no crime because they can either cow under public pressure brought on by a ratings driven media and conduct a sham trial to delay the inevitable rioting when he is found innocent, or try and explain why they cannot arrest him to people more interested in being emotionally pissed off than learning the facts of the case ?
The shooting can only be justified if you think Zimmerman had the moral right to be armed and following Martin simply on the basis that Zimmerman thought Martin was a criminal based on appearance.
And your ability to appeal to one's emotions by pointing out how burdened Zimmerman is for simply facing the consequences for his actions, sadly, do not amaze me.
He already confessed to the shooting and the entire ordeal is a result of Zimmerman's paranoia, bias, and aggression.
We'll never know anything close to objective truth because the police have done their best to obfuscate and cover up the crime.
For some one who wants to look like he cares about facts and neutrality, you sure do throw out absolutes like "sham trial" and "no crime" and "he is found innocent". I like your statement that Zimmerman, who has benefited multiple times from police protection, is being "strung up by the police".
George Zimmerman already has plenty of support from the white community, which is the base that instigated the altercation to begin with. That's not really "sitting around".
But anyway, to be more specific:
Hispanics and the Latino community is also victimized by the same set of standards and bias that resulted in Martin's death. Glad to see them not rallying around it's current figurehead.
It's beyond a generic "violence is bad" story for the same reason that Matthew Shepard or James Byrd were beyond a generic "violence is bad" story - because of the collective guilt angle.
Shepard wasn't killed as a random act of violence or as a result of a dispute between he and his killers. He was killed because his attackers ascribed a collective guilt onto all homosexuals. Same with Byrd, substituting "black" for "gay".
And if these stories of post-Zimmerman attacks are true, they fall under the same umbrella - substituting "white" or "white Hispanic" for "black/gay".
I carry a knife in my pocket (opening boxes and it has a screwdriver which is super useful when I'm in a crawlspace trying to fix wires), if I end up stabbing someone with it, did I actively engage in "leaving my (x) armed with a knife" ?
Well, first let's be clear about what context we're viewing Zimmerman's following of Martin in.
Legally speaking - I can absolutely discount it. It has nothing to do with who started the fight, or whether Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of imminent death/GBH.
Morally speaking - Zimmerman being a nosy busybody and/or wannabe vigilante was the first step in a sequence that ultimately resulted in Martin's death.
Zimmerman isn't required to be in reasonable fear of imminent death/GBH throughout the entire episode, only at the moment that he uses deadly force. His mental state at the moment he exits the car doesn't have to be the same as his mental state at the moment he pulls the trigger - only with the latter does he need to be in reasonable fear of imminent death/GBH at that exact moment.
Under Florida law, "stalking" requires the perpetrator to commit multiple instances over a period of time.
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/filestores/web/statutes/fs07/ch0784/Section_0784.048.HTM
In order for Zimmerman to have "stalked" Martin, Zimmerman would have had to follow Martin on multiple occasions.
If Florida cops told the media that following a cop/witness one time was "stalking", then the cops were wrong on the legal definition of the term. If Florida cops told the media that following a cop/witness multiple times was "stalking", then the cops' argument holds more water.
Muttering 'Justice for Trayvon' after an assault doesn't make the assault a hate crime. The assaults were racially motivated? Maybe. But bringing Shepard and Byrd up as comparisons muddies up the conversation too much.
if you approached that person initially with negative intent? Yes. You are armed.
Regardless, let's not ignore the inherent differences between keeping a pocket knife as a tool on your person for your job versus keeping a gun on you for protection because you want to pretend to be a cop.
Going to have to agree with this. I knife can be used for a variety of every day tasks, especially one with a screwdriver on it (I'm assuming a swiss army knife of some sort, or a multi-tool) A gun has one purpose. You won't be opening a sealed box with a gun, or unscrewing a computer case with one. A gun is used to fire a projectile at a target, there is a huge leap from "I followed someone and happened to have my pocket knife on me" and "I followed someone and happened to have my loaded gun on me."
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
You don't know me.
Regardless, the context of the sentence is the difference unless he actively drew his gun.
If he was a concealed carry, then it is no different than me putting my knife in my pocket every morning. Sure it has one purpose, but it's not like he was intended (allegedly) to use the gun when he was tailing Martin. If it wasn't drawn and at the ready, then it wasn't "armed with" but essentially just on his person.
If it didn't have a screwdriver would it make a difference?
I feel like we're backtracking on innocent until proven guilty to go back to loaded statements to cause an emotional appeal against the man, innocent or not, no one deserves that. I'm unaware of anyone's race in here but it almost appears as if this is the case.
This is not true. At least not legally. You may personally feel that Zimmerman's actions before the altercation put all of the blame for any consequence solely at his feet. However in determining if Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force him being reasonably fearful of death or serious bodily injury is the deciding factor.
There is of course a lot of debate on if Zimmerman was in a situation where he was justified using deadly force. The police account, and the picture show that Zimmerman was wounded in the head. Any injuries Martin may have (other than the obvious) are still unknown to the public at this point, so we don't really have the full picture.
Assuming Martin's autopsy report indicates that he suffered no other injuries then the evidence would support Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked first, and maintained the upper hand during the fight. This would also mean that Zimmerman is most likely to be the one calling out for help on the 911 call (for about 30 seconds). Having your head slammed against the ground by someone on top of you for 30 seconds while you call out for help seems to be a situation of reasonably fearful of death or serious bodily injury to me. This is not the only possible scenario, but it seems reasonable given what we know.
Just because Zimmerman was following Martin does not give Martin justification to attack him. You may personally feel that Martin had a "right" to stand up for himself, or that Zimmerman "had it coming," but legally Martin can't attack someone for following him. Even if you gave Martin a pass on initiating the fight once he had the upper hand, and Zimmerman was calling out for help, why didn't he stop?
Whether Zimmerman's suspicions of Martin were reasonable or not doesn't really matter, because the action of following someone is a perfectly legal action. Even walking up to someone and asking, "What are you doing here?" is a legal action. I'm not sure what you need for a 'moral right', but up until the fight Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal. At least not anything that we know of. There is speculation he may have attempted to detain Martin. This would have been illegal, and Martin would have been justified in using force to escape.
These sure seem like hate crimes to me, in that they were crimes motivated at least partially by the victim's race (or religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, etc.).
Tell me how beating up a guy because of his race could be construed as not a hate crime?
Heck, whether or not Zimmerman was following Martin because of Martin's race is the whole reason there's been such a big deal over whether Zimmerman said "coons" or "goons" or "punks".
It's not a hate crime because in our society it's impossible to be racist towards white people, duh.
And honestly, the potential "hate crime" committed when Zimmerman shot Martin is why it's a freakin' media circus. Cops screw up investigations all the time, just in the case they're accused of screwing one up where a white/Hispanic/white-Hispanic man killed a young black boy. Racial tension is ratings gold for major media outlets, just look at Joe Horn and the Duke lacrosse team cases, or even back into the 80s with Bernhard Goetz.
Had Zimmerman been black, this case would've made few if any headlines. Heck, probably the same if Martin were white or Hispanic. It may have made the nightly local news, "Boy shot and killed in local suburb, more at 11," but it probably wouldn't have developed into a media firestorm.
Last thought: it's unfortunate in any case where people of a certain race/religion/sexual-orientation are victimized, including for the actions of others within their group. It was a hate crime when Matthew Shepard was beat to death, it was a hate crime when Byrd was dragged to death just about an hour and half drive from where I'm sitting right now, it was a hate crime after 9/11 where various innocent Muslims were brutally attacked, and it was a hate crime when people decided to attack white people as "revenge" for Trayvon's death. Of course, I have a rule for hating/making fun of people: it's only cool if it's something they can control. People are born the ethnicity they are, the gender they are, the sexual-orientation they are (other mammals in the animal kingdom have essentially the same rate of homosexuality of us humans), and even religion is no-no: yeah, you can renounce your faith or convert to another, but it's just not wise in some cultures, not to mention that things you were raised from birth to base all your life and values on it can be hard to cut out.
Okay, it's a minor lie, I make fun of Christians all the time... but I don't hate them, unless they're actively using their faith to break the rule above (lookin' at you, Phelps). Those are the ones I troll with "If God can't lie, then why did he lie to Abraham?"
Through alleyways? At night? In a neighborhood that Martin was residing in?
Again, I bring it up. If Martin were a white woman and in the exact same situation, I doubt we'd have as many questions about it or that Zimmerman would come off as a creep.
"I saw this woman who I didn't recognize and started following her through darkened alleyways at night. Then she attacked me, so I shot her."
What would you say to the man in that situation?
I'd think he was creepy as fuck but it'd have no bearing on the actual crime. The part where he'd have to claim a woman was beating him up would though.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-la-na-nn-zimmerman-not-guilty-plea-20120424,0,769109.story
Lol I am just an individual giving an opinion on a subset of the american population that likes to jump on situations to jump in your so called spotlight. Even if the situation is not cut n dry like this one isnt. This situation is a cause and effect. Plain and simple. The "moral scavengers" statement would relate to anyone who tried to profit for this situation that lacks any real evidence to show guilt. According to what is released. These individuals, news sites included, are so quick to condemn one facet of this situation but not any effect caused from it. Especially when the "black guy"s commiting these crimes are witnessed stating that it is "justice for trayvon". I think Zimmerman is a stupid asshole but I also think that Trayvon got all uppity and tracked this white man who dared follow him and tried to ambush him. This is conjecture. At this point both parties are at fault and the result means Zimmerman is not guilty of Murder or Manslaughter. There is no evidence that refutes this. At least any released yet.
Ive seen the released police reports. If accurate the initial investigation was done just fine. It was a choice then whether or not to move the case into a homicide investigation or not. That choice was not made because of the lack of witness and state law. At least IMO. The state law is very explicit in this regard.
Edit: It is at this point people like to cling to the detective statement. Well what if he couldnt catch Zimmerman in a lie? They would have been right back where they started and have wasted resources trying.
..I LINKED AN ARTICLE DIRECTLY ON THIS PAGE WHEREIN EVEN THE PARENTS OF THE DEAD PERSON SAID IT WAS ONLY 12 HOURS LATER WHEN THEY IDENTIFIED THE BODY.
How the shit do you people keep repeating this same, goosey ass statement like its fact? I mean, do you just willfully run ahead, full steam ignorant, hoping upon hope that your pure willpower will alter reality to fit your delusions?
I can't even comprehend this.
DO I POST IT AGAIN?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403
Read. The. Damn. Article.
Seriously, I am fucking shocked that I feel I have to use caps to make people somehow read and comprehend such a simple concept.
I'm not saying that Zimmerman isn't a creep for following Martin, only that legally he can, and that the person being followed isn't justified in assault because of it.
When determining "reasonable fear of serious bodily harm" the physical stature of both people make a difference. If Martin was a woman and considerably weaker than Zimmerman then it would be a lot harder for Zimmerman to justify that he was put in a situation where he reasonably feared for his life.
Lets go with your alternate scenario:
Zimmerman sees a suspicious white female.
He calls police to report, and begins following her.
She runs and Zimmerman catches up to her.
Zimmerman asks, "What are you doing here."
She sucker punches Zimmerman and he falls to the ground.
She slams his head against the ground for about 30 seconds while Zimmerman is yelling for help.
Close to getting knocked unconscious Zimmerman remembers, and uses his gun to defend himself.
Zimmerman could still be justified in using deadly force, but other questions arise:
Did Zimmerman attempt to physically defend himself before going for his gun?
Why was Zimmerman unable to get the upper hand in the fight?
Was Zimmerman letting her get the upper hand so that he could justify shooting her?
I grant that it would be a tough sell to a jury, and the public in general. It is easier to associate the victim with a female during a physical confrontation. Anything short of Zimmerman having pictures of a seriously damaged face would make most people go for the not reasonable fear side.
The opposite is also true. If Zimmerman was a woman and considerably weaker that Martin it would be easier for "her" to justify using deadly force. If she got punched in the nose, and was taken to the ground, and Martin was on top of her she could probably justify using deadly force before getting her head hit against the ground.
Um, scroll up. BubbaT posted Florida's harassment law on this page. ;-)