Exploitation Of The Trayvon Martin Killing

[vbnautilus 48]

There isn't any proof of who initiated and escalated the Conflict at this point. If Zimmerman was carrying a weapon and identified himself properly and wasn't acting aggressively, then just having a weapon isn't an aggressive act - even though many people, especially Non Americans, have an irrational fear of guns.

I'd say Martin's fear of Zimmerman's gun was demonstrably rational.

[ShakeZuma 585]

so we have evidence that zimmerman approached martin with his gun drawn? I hadn't heard that.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

Caine why do you think there hasn't been an arrest yet?

I work in Sanford and drive by that apartment complex every day. I work about 4 minutes from it. There ismampretty big black community in Sanford, mostly low income, etc, you know the story. There is also a pretty good sized good ole boy network around here. For instance, in Sanford, there are at least 3 different truck only dealerships, one of which was giving away an AK-47 with the purchase of a truck. 2O minutes away in Geneva, there is a sizable KKK community and a place to get airboat rides and "dock" your airboat. What I'm saying is, it's kinda rednecky. I really believe that played some small role in the cops doing all of nothing. Not to mention, nearly every cop I've seen in Sanford is a fat fck. Seriously, some real tubbos. I digress. They screwed up not taking the shooters blood/breath and they were a little too quick to give the shooter the benefit of the doubt. Tomorrow, I will make a point to see if the entire complex is fenced in or just the car entrance. You guys have read way more about it, I'm just going with my opinion and feel for this community. It's a little more racially charged up here than my old home down in South Florida. South Florida was just New York south where here its actually part of the deep south.

[ShakeZuma 585]

so I keep rolling over the various possibilities of how this might have happened in my head, and I keep coming back to the fact that it could have escalated in any number of ways, some having the blame on zimmerman, some on martin. but given that there are so many variables of how things could have actually happened, and since it seems if zimmerman was the only living witness to the whole event, it seems ridiculous that he wasn't arrested to be tried in court, have the evidence presented and decided upon there. but then even if he wasn't arrested initially, and the sheriff (or whatever) steps down to avoid doing anything, isn't there a quicker way to arrest him if he truly should be than having the grand jury do it in a month?I mean let's say for instance that the sheriff came out the next day and publicly said "yeah we let him go. he killed a negro and that's all right by me, even if he did it on purpose." is there really no quicker way for the state to intervene and arrest the guy? (take the racial part out of the example if need be to keep out the federal hate crimes possibility).I guess it just seems to me that if there were enough evidence to arrest him then, then there should still be enough evidence to at least arrest him now.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

Well. I'm no lawyer here, in case you weren't aware, but I have to believe that what they know is a lot more than what they can prove. With no eye witnesses and just the shooters word and that stupid law on the books, how do you get a conviction?You can't convict the guy because he said "fcking coons" on a call to the cops.

[ShakeZuma 585]

yeah but that doesn't make any sense. they don't arrest him only if they KNOW they can get a conviction. I mean if that's the case, then stand your ground law or not, you could shoot anybody then punch yourself in the face and never even get arrested as long as you claim self defense, and that's definitely not going to happen. I mean it just seems to me like there's more evidence out there that we're for some reason not hearing. that's my line of thinking here.edit: also, did they actually prove he said f*cking coons or not? I remember when that was first reported but that no analysts could agree that he actually said it. I would think that would make it into more headlines if that's provable that's what he said.

[brvheart 1,752]

His lawyer said today that he said "****ing goons", and apparently he uses that term a lot to describe lawbreakers.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

His lawyer said today that he said "****ing goons", and apparently he uses that term a lot to describe lawbreakers.

Man, that's a stretch, but ok. I won't dispute it

[ShakeZuma 585]

goons? is this 1924? "yeah see, we gotta goon on the street see... lookin' all zipped up on boppers and jazz see..."

[Zealous Donkey 0]

I mean it just seems to me like there's more evidence out there that we're for some reason not hearing. that's my line of thinking here.

Bingo, today I saw a guy being interviewed by George Snufleuffugus who was a friend of Zimmerman. He said he isn't even sure Zimmerman was the one who pulled the trigger. (The friend was a black guy)

goons? is this 1924? "yeah see, we gotta goon on the street see... lookin' all zipped up on boppers and jazz see..."

It should also be pointed out that Zimmerman may have thought he was someone who ascribed himself to the larger (D) philosophy

[hblask 1]

for the record, that's not what I believe happened. I think the incredible amount of 911 calls Zimmerman made coupled with his comments about how they always get away shows a guy who was paranoid and pissed off about the crime in his neighborhood and decided to do something about it and acted very recklessly and a kid doing nothing wrong ended up dead. But, that's just a guess, it's very hard to say what happened and trayvon Martin is dead so he can't. That justifies at least an investigation and trial and let a jury decide.

This sounds about right. He decided he was going to make sure this kid got arrested this time. An eyewitness said Martin was on top of Zimmerman hitting him just before the shot was fired. But a scared kid gets cornered by a guy with a gun, is he allowed to fight back? I think Zimmerman caused this, got himself into trouble and was forced to defend himself. But if you chase someone down and confront them, are you innocent when that stupidity goes wrong?And it is appalling the way Obama and the Dems are using this as another excuse to play the race card. Last I heard, Hispanics were one of the oppressed minorities, too, so this is an odd case for that.

[Balloon guy 158]

This sounds about right. He decided he was going to make sure this kid got arrested this time. An eyewitness said Martin was on top of Zimmerman hitting him just before the shot was fired. But a scared kid gets cornered by a guy with a gun, is he allowed to fight back? I think Zimmerman caused this, got himself into trouble and was forced to defend himself. But if you chase someone down and confront them, are you innocent when that stupidity goes wrong?And it is appalling the way Obama and the Dems are using this as another excuse to play the race card. Last I heard, Hispanics were one of the oppressed minorities, too, so this is an odd case for that.

I agree with Henry here.What Ron said about the neighborhood definitely changes things to me. Being a large minority neighborhood makes it a lot less suspicious to be walking around the neighborhood.How big is the gated community? If its kind of small then its reasonable for a guy to recognize the residence.If its big then not so much.I see no way that this guy should get off free and clear for shooting this kid. The laws about escalating violence are pretty clear that you can only rasie the levels of violence in degrees. If he has a bat, you can use a tazer etc. But to go from fists to gun is too escalating. EspeciallyDoes it rise to the level of murder..I don't know, but one thing I'm sure of, he will get charged with something, and the prosecutor will have tons of pressure to get the maximum charge, which is fine with me. A kid dying means you no longer get any leniency.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

To clarify, the City of Sanford has a substantial black community, not necessarily this particular neighborhood This townhouse complex is relatively new, clean and I'd guess predominately white. 70/30 white to black, best guess. But it is by no means considered the bad side of town. The gated community itself isn't huge. Couple hundred units at best. Large enough not to know everyone but by no means big. Think good sized apartment complex. I'm fonna have to check it out more closely. I actually have a friend that just moved in there about four months ago.

[The Ocho 970]

goons? is this 1924? "yeah see, we gotta goon on the street see... lookin' all zipped up on boppers and jazz see..."

I read this in the Dave Chappelle's old timey voice.

[timwakefield 68]

What Ron said about the neighborhood definitely changes things to me. Being a large minority neighborhood makes it a lot less suspicious to be walking around the neighborhood.

You seem to be saying that if it were a mostly white community then it would be suspicious for a black kid to be walking around. Is this what you are saying?

[mrdannyg 274]

I of course am completely okay with what I wrote, because I recognize that you can judge a person for his actions, regardless of his race, without guilt over slavery that happened 100 years before I was born.

This was the way it was for most of this countries history.

This was my favourite part. Usually it takes three or four posts before you are unable to backtrack on racist statements without contradicting yourself, so nice to see you save us all some time here.Your trolling has really been less funny or more "Rick Santorum actually thinks he can be elected President" lately.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Well, you've got some opinions on what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed. And I do respect that. But you're mixing your opinion of what should be and what is legally allowed and tolerated by the rest of society.

Oh, absolutely, all of what I said was opinion.

The legal question here is who actually escalated the conflict and was Zimmerman in reasonable fear from Trayvon? I haven't seen any facts that state that Zimmerman was not acting legally. He had a right to be where he was. He had a right to carry his weapon. Just because 911 says to stay away doesn't mean he doesn't have a legal right to investigate. There is evidence he was physically attacked. Investigating the situation does not mean he instigated the attack.

That is the legal question here, but I think it's a bad question, which is the fault of a bad law. Imagine a more sinister scenario where a person is actually intending to murder a stranger. All the person would have to do is start a fight with the stranger, take a punch or two, and then draw a concealed gun and kill him. Since the stranger is dead, he can't possibly testify as to who actually began the fight, so it's the suspect's word against nothing. I think that makes for a pretty sticky legal situation and a bad public policy. Anyway, this case is so popular because it can be examined from so many angles. There are issues of racism, gun ownership, assault, citizen law enforcement. It sounds like a case straight out of a law school case study or an episode of Law And Order or something (not to sound completely disrespectful).

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Oh, absolutely, all of what I said was opinion.That is the legal question here, but I think it's a bad question, which is the fault of a bad law. Imagine a more sinister scenario where a person is actually intending to murder a stranger. All the person would have to do is start a fight with the stranger, take a punch or two, and then draw a concealed gun and kill him. Since the stranger is dead, he can't possibly testify as to who actually began the fight, so it's the suspect's word against nothing. I think that makes for a pretty sticky legal situation and a bad public policy. Anyway, this case is so popular because it can be examined from so many angles. There are issues of racism, gun ownership, assault, citizen law enforcement. It sounds like a case straight out of a law school case study or an episode of Law And Order or something (not to sound completely disrespectful).

Like most conspiracy theories, this is needlessly convoluted. Why not just shoot them? Why would they have to go through the machinations of goading the other person into starting the fight? Better yet, why not just run them down in n intersection or hit them with a baseball bat? Why is this law so sinister to you? I think because it dares to include the evil handgun and actually protects a person who uses one in self defense. If someone intends to murder someone they are already abusing the law. How can you argue that can defend yourself from an attacker? That someone can lie and say that the other guy was attacking him isn't a fault of the law.

[CaneBrain 95]

Like most conspiracy theories, this is needlessly convoluted. Why not just shoot them? Why would they have to go through the machinations of goading the other person into starting the fight? Better yet, why not just run them down in n intersection or hit them with a baseball bat? Why is this law so sinister to you? I think because it dares to include the evil handgun and actually protects a person who uses one in self defense. If someone intends to murder someone they are already abusing the law. How can you argue that can defend yourself from an attacker? That someone can lie and say that the other guy was attacking him isn't a fault of the law.

Wow, are you ****ing serious? You go through the machinations so you can claim self-defense and get away with murder. I thought that was BEYOND obvious. The scenarios you set up (running them over with a car, just shooting them) won't help you get away with the crime. The only way you couldn't understand what he was saying was if you were deliberately trying not to.The law is sinister not because it includes handguns but because it allows someone to manufacture a self-defense situation so they can kill somebody. His point was very clear. The fact that the law is so easily manipulated is absolutely a fault of the law. It's a bad and dangerous loophole. Why is everyone who doesn't agree with every NRA initiative a conspiracy theorist to you? Another paranoid gun owner!

[iZuma 764]

ok here's another question on the law: I had been wondering the same thing as yorke, that with the law it would be pretty easy for somebody to create an opporunity to legally murder another person, so as such, I wouldn't think that the law itself would prevent an arrest, but instead provide a defense in court after the arrest? I thought that's how laws like that worked.

[irishguy 14]

Your damn right its relevant. If this guy is violent then he may have confronted and attacked zimmerman just for following him or questioning him. From what I have read I agree with what you stated in your earlier post about him being scared, confused, ect. That Zimmerman probably was at fault. But you saying that other stuff isn't relevant when self-defense is being claimed is wrong. Now ideally it wouldn't be reported in the media, but, thats the problem with the way these things always get handled. It is the nature of the beast. When you trial someone through the media, the victim is going to eventually be scrutinized.

I think if it was a case of two guys bumping into each other in the street, it turning into a fight where someone is shot then a history of violence is relevant. But, thats not what happened here at all. The use of Zimmerman being provoked or acting in self defense in this thread, media or wherever is laughable to me. He sure as hell wasn't provoked as he was the one who followed Martin and if he was acting in self defense the self defense was only necessary as a result of a situation he provoked/escalated.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Wow, are you ****ing serious? You go through the machinations so you can claim self-defense and get away with murder. I thought that was BEYOND obvious. The scenarios you set up (running them over with a car, just shooting them) won't help you get away with the crime. The only way you couldn't understand what he was saying was if you were deliberately trying not to.

To me, the law is a lot like that hunting law from South Park: "He's coming right for us!"

[CaneBrain 95]

ok here's another question on the law: I had been wondering the same thing as yorke, that with the law it would be pretty easy for somebody to create an opporunity to legally murder another person, so as such, I wouldn't think that the law itself would prevent an arrest, but instead provide a defense in court after the arrest? I thought that's how laws like that worked.

This was my understanding as well....that self-defense is a question for a jury to decide unless it's exceedingly obvious what happened. That's why I feel the Sanford police so clearly dropped the ball by just letting him go home on the spot and dropping the case until the victim's family sued the police to get the 911 tapes released.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Wow, are you ****ing serious? You go through the machinations so you can claim self-defense and get away with murder. I thought that was BEYOND obvious. The scenarios you set up (running them over with a car, just shooting them) won't help you get away with the crime. The only way you couldn't understand what he was saying was if you were deliberately trying not to.The law is sinister not because it includes handguns but because it allows someone to manufacture a self-defense situation so they can kill somebody. His point was very clear. The fact that the law is so easily manipulated is absolutely a fault of the law. It's a bad and dangerous loophole. Why is everyone who doesn't agree with every NRA initiative a conspiracy theorist to you? Another paranoid gun owner!

Not sure (and frankly, don't give a shit about) what's going on in your life, but you've been acting like a complete ass hole lately. Why is everyone who owns a gun a potential murderer to you? Self Defense isn't a loophole, sometimes it is just defending your life. LLY's "Sinister Scenario" is a conspiracy. Pretty much by definition it is a conspiracy to circumvent or misuse a law to murder someone. It isn't my paranoia and fear, it is his and apparently yours. You guys are the ones with irrational fears of guns and people who own them.I'm not afraid of debate from those opposed to "every NRA initiative" and haven't treated anyone like they are a threat to my liberties and gun ownership - at least not in this thread. I don't think I've ever voiced support for the NRA on this board.In this specific case it doesn't seem clear to me that Trayvon wasn't a threat to this guy. If someone is beating a guys head against the sidewalk, then I'd call that a pretty clear imminent threat. What transpired before that is debatable.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I think if it was a case of two guys bumping into each other in the street, it turning into a fight where someone is shot then a history of violence is relevant. But, thats not what happened here at all. The use of Zimmerman being provoked or acting in self defense in this thread, media or wherever is laughable to me. He sure as hell wasn't provoked as he was the one who followed Martin and if he was acting in self defense the self defense was only necessary as a result of a situation he provoked/escalated.

A neighborhood watch following someone is not the same thing as provoking/escalating. That is sort of what neighborhood watch does. I do not condone some ******* with a gun acting like a Big Man. And that might be the case here.Let me be clear - if Zimmerman engaged with Trayvon in an aggressive manner and provoked Trayvon to strike him, then he needs to be tried for manslaughter.