Trayvon Martin 17yo Kid Shot to Death - Page 90

On March 26 2012 12:31 dAPhREAk wrote:

if you feel you can do better, why dont you write an updated op?

On March 26 2012 12:34 screamingpalm wrote:


Because I'm not the one condemning the original post as sensationalist... meh nvm, not important I guess.

On March 26 2012 14:11 krowe wrote:
The phone calls are there as evidence, he was being followed and so it was the shooter's fault for chasing him when he had no right to suspect anything... i think he should be arrested!

On March 26 2012 14:20 Freddybear wrote:
The real story about race and crime is one which race hustlers like Al Sharpton don't want you to think about:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/03/no-justice-no-agitation.php

Murder is the crime which has the greatest “clearance rate,” i.e., it is the crime most frequently resolved and prosecuted. We know a lot about the victims and perpetrators of the crime of murder.

Murder is largely an intraracial crime. Almost all murders of blacks are committed by other blacks.

Blacks as a group commit murder at a rate astronomically higher than other groups. The rate of murder committed by blacks exceeds that committed by whites by approximately seven times. See, e.g., Heather Mac Donald’s essay “Is the criminal justice system racist?”

If race hustlers like Al Sharpton really had the interests of the black community at heart, they would devote themselves to doing everything in their power to have violent black criminals separated from the community of law-abiding black citizens. The criminals are serial tormentors of law-abiding members of the black community.

Take the case of Lineten Belizaire. He is the chief suspect in the killings of Natasha Plummer, 25, her 6-month-old son, Carlton Stringer Jr., and Octavia Barnett, 21. Belizaire is black, as were all three of the victims.

Belizaire was being held without bond while the Broward State Attorney’s Office went to a grand jury in the hope that it would come back with an indictment. The grand jury had 40 days to do so. The circumstantial evidence incriminating Belizaire for the murders is powerful. Deputies were led to Belizaire by a Facebook status update Barnett had posted just before the shootings are believed to have taken place. The grand jury nevertheless ruled there was a lack of evidence in the case and Belizaire was released on his own recognizance, with no conditions or monitoring devices, from Broward County Jail on March 2. For more on the case, see this excellent local Fort Lauderdale news report.

At last word, Belizaire was charged after a 9mm Ruger semi-automatic was found in his car (and he lied to the police about it). You can see from the linked Miami Herald story that the guy is a walking crime wave.

On March 26 2012 14:21 Zaqwe wrote:

You don't have to suspect someone of anything to follow them. It's perfectly legal unless you have a restraining order.

For example paparazzi and private investigators follow people all the time. No, you can't tackle paparazzi to the ground and beat them in the face legally.

On March 26 2012 15:21 Wrongspeedy wrote:


What your saying isn't 100% True (its not always "legal" for you to follow someone without a restraining order). It doesn't have to get to a court order before it becomes illegal.

And if you look at my argument that it was negligent homicide, because Zimmerman knew when he left his truck he was entering into a potentially dangerous situation (He called the police, he admitted he thought Trayvon was a suspicious character (with no evidence), he was even warned that he did not need to put himself in a potentially dangerous situation), he even made sure he had a gun on him (or certainly didn't make sure he did not have his weapon, I wonder why). So he put himself into a situation where deadly force would probably be needed if what he thought was true. Thats pretty irresponsible when your not a Police Officer. And thats why I think it was negligent homicide (which pretty much means he broke the law when he decided to follow him with a gun on him, then it escalated for whatever reasons).

In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.

I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.

The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

i think its going to be a hard sell to say that his action of leaving the truck and following him went past mere negligence.

On March 26 2012 16:07 Defacer wrote:
Open question: if someone was following you for seemingly no reason, would you feel threatened?

Let's imagine what would happen if a young black man was following a women in his car. The woman walks faster, but the man gets out of his car and chases her. Would it not be understandable if the woman panicked and maced him in the face?

This whole case just has me wondering: what constitutes an 'imminent' threat, and how we perceive a threat differently based on gender and sex.

I will wholly admit that as a minority, if a strange White(ish) man was following me, it would make me nervous (it's happened to me, actually). I don't know if I would feel my life was in imminent danger, but I would do everything to evade the person, and if that didn't work, confront them head on.

Maybe that's the disconnect, and why some people on this board are more empathetic to Zimmerman than others. If your White, does the idea of a White male following you make you less nervous than, say, a young black male?

On March 26 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:


Sounds fairly subjective. What you quoted very much describes vigilante justice in my opinion. What is "gross and flagrant"? Does disregarding the advice of a 911 operator fall under this? Seems hard to quantify.

On March 26 2012 16:21 Zaqwe wrote:

The woman has a cellphone on her. She phones police. She also avoids going around through a dark pathway behind two buildings instead of staying in the street lights.

Wow, that was easy. Trayvon did neither of those.

On March 26 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:


Sounds fairly subjective. What you quoted very much describes vigilante justice in my opinion. What is "gross and flagrant"? Does disregarding the advice of a 911 operator fall under this? Seems hard to quantify.

On March 26 2012 16:27 Zaqwe wrote:

How could he be a vigilante when he phones police?

On March 26 2012 16:27 Defacer wrote:


So because Trayvon reacted to a threat poorly, it justifies his death? That by choosing to fight the person following him (of course we can't be sure who instigated the fight, but I'll play along) that somehow, he should be faulted for being shot.

You routinely come up with these hypothetical ways of how one should behave in a life and death situation -- as if that automatically exonerates the man that shot him. It's getting silly.

On March 26 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:

glad i posted the jury instructions. makes it easier to find shit. =D

negligence is not enough.

I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.

The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.