|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On March 29 2012 04:02 Hawk wrote:
How on earth is this anything like the Duke Lacrosse Case?? That featured an overzealous DA who way, wayyyy overstepped his boundaries and straight up lied about tons of shit, in addition to a ton of flimsy evidence and testimony from a crackwhore stripper.
On March 29 2012 04:14 BlackJack wrote:
I think it's closer to the opposite of the Duke Lacrosse case. In that case the prosecutor was the overzealous one and it was the media that eventually helped exonerate the accused. There was also no real "victim" in that case. Here we have clearly some poor police work, with no drug test of Zimmerman and no interrogation. We also have a dead kid, so even if Zimmerman is exonerated the law that allowed him to be will be the real culprit in the mind of public opinion. The cases really aren't that similar at all, imo.
fair point that in the Duke Lacrosse case it was the overzealous DA pushing the agenda, and in this case the Florida police department are more cautious (or more inept whatever your opinion may be) and the media/family appear to be pushing the agenda. i would call that a difference without significance though.
the similarity lies in how the media portrays it to the public, and how the public is willing to immediately rush to judgment based on imperfect facts. in Duke, everyone was convinced that the students were guilty (especially the media), and it turned out that the "victim" was not so victim-like. i would argue that a similar thing is happening here. the media has rushed to judgment (ignoring, inter alia, the statement of "John" and not even bothering to look at Trayvon's background, but quick to show Zimmerman's criminal history). only recently have we seen the media focus on facts that contradict the account that Zimmerman is guilty.
|
On March 29 2012 04:35 Freddybear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 04:10 Crushinator wrote:On March 29 2012 04:05 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 29 2012 03:59 CaptainCrush wrote:On March 29 2012 03:42 Freddybear wrote:Whatever you think of Zimmerman or Martin, the irresponsible behavior of black public figures like President Obama, Al Sharpton and Spike Lee is unconscionable. Lee posted an address which he thought was Zimmerman's on his twitter feed. But it wasn't Zimmerman's address. Now a Florida couple are being terrorized in their home by the raving mob which has been incited by these irresponsible celebrities. http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/27/believe-it-or-not-spike-lee-mightve-outsmarted-himself/ I think this is the thing that has me the most pissed off. You are exactly right, we had far too many public black figures go completely wild over the issue when all the details havent even come out yet. Above all else, our freaking president should have known better than to open his stupid mouth on an issue as clouded as this one. The only thing Obama said was expressing condolences to the family and that everything should be investigated thoroughly. I don't see how that is a wrong thing to say, it doesn't side with anyone on the issue, or say anything untoward to either side, and done intelligently so as not to say anything he shouldn't. How is that stupid? Obama indeed said nothing of substance and does not appear to have gotten involved at all. Can't see how he could have responded more correctly. He could have simply kept his mouth shut. Why doesn't he call for "serious soul-searching" about the causes of the deaths of dozens of young black men killed by other young black men every month?
Because he wasn't asked about them. He was asked about Trayvon, and he responded by being a voice of reason and caution without saying anything of significant substance leaning to one side or the other.
|
On March 29 2012 04:45 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 04:35 Freddybear wrote:On March 29 2012 04:10 Crushinator wrote:On March 29 2012 04:05 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 29 2012 03:59 CaptainCrush wrote:On March 29 2012 03:42 Freddybear wrote:Whatever you think of Zimmerman or Martin, the irresponsible behavior of black public figures like President Obama, Al Sharpton and Spike Lee is unconscionable. Lee posted an address which he thought was Zimmerman's on his twitter feed. But it wasn't Zimmerman's address. Now a Florida couple are being terrorized in their home by the raving mob which has been incited by these irresponsible celebrities. http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/27/believe-it-or-not-spike-lee-mightve-outsmarted-himself/ I think this is the thing that has me the most pissed off. You are exactly right, we had far too many public black figures go completely wild over the issue when all the details havent even come out yet. Above all else, our freaking president should have known better than to open his stupid mouth on an issue as clouded as this one. The only thing Obama said was expressing condolences to the family and that everything should be investigated thoroughly. I don't see how that is a wrong thing to say, it doesn't side with anyone on the issue, or say anything untoward to either side, and done intelligently so as not to say anything he shouldn't. How is that stupid? Obama indeed said nothing of substance and does not appear to have gotten involved at all. Can't see how he could have responded more correctly. He could have simply kept his mouth shut. Why doesn't he call for "serious soul-searching" about the causes of the deaths of dozens of young black men killed by other young black men every month? Because he wasn't asked about them. He was asked about Trayvon, and he responded by being a voice of reason and caution without saying anything of significant substance leaning to one side or the other.
So the "serious soul-searching" has nothing to do with the "serious conversation about racism" that he talks about all the time?
|
On March 29 2012 04:38 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 04:18 Defacer wrote:On March 29 2012 04:00 jdsowa wrote:
I am of the mind that this resentment only helps to further hold the black community back from embracing mainstream society and all that it represents (law abiding, school attending, respectful dress and public behavior, etc.). I am of the mind that this incident further drives a wedge and divides too cultures -- Black and White -- that were already suspicious of each other to begin with. ... which boggles my mind, considering Zimmerman is Hispanic.
Hispanic technically describes someone who is a descendant of the melting pot of white colonizers, black slaves and native peoples in former Spanish colonies in Central and South America. There have been many intermarriages over the centuries but you can be pure white or black or native and still be considered Hispanic. Zimmerman can be both white and Hispanic.
|
It's almost laughable how this has been turned into a racist media fest. It's already been shown that Zimmerman has called the cops before this point dozens of other times, on people that weren't black. And all of these big public figures calling this a case of racism are just saying that because they know that's all they have going in this case. From the eye-witness accounts given it sounds like Zimmerman got pinned down and was taking a beating, he probably pulled in fear and shot the kid. Zimmerman should have never followed the Martin, but hey, if you're spending you're time watching out for your neighborhood, then why let someone who looks suspicious get out of your sight. As for what happened after the phone calls end, it sounds like they confronted each other, Martin probably got pissed for being called suspicious and then they both probably talked it up until someone swung a fist. The worst part of this for me is how the media immediately put Martin into this angel like light. The kids been suspended 3 times from school, idk how it is in Florida, but it takes doing some dumb stuff to get suspended from where I'm at. And all these baby pictures they have floating around on the media outlets only fuels the fire.
|
for people arguing that the media is somehow defaming Trayvon Martin, please consider this: the media/family does not get to present a rosy picture of Trayvon and ignore all other facts that contradict that picture. at the beginning, everyone was saying how he was an A/B student, would never hurt a fly, was suspended just for truancy (nothing else), etc. etc. only recently have people questioned that rosy picture. so, if you are mad about the negative things coming out about Trayvon, you should blame the media/family for putting his background at issue. if you want to say that he would never attack Zimmerman because he is such a nice kid, be prepared to defend that or dont bring it up at all.
|
I think whether in this thread or society as a whole needs to have a conversation about "community watch" type programs. There is a great deal of disagreement over whether Zimmerman was justified in 1) considering Trayvon suspicious, 2) following Trayvon, 3) questioning Trayvon or whether he should have simply ignored Trayvon in the first place. If community watch programs are there as a bit of a first line of defense against crime, then we should accept that simply ignoring Trayvon wouldn't be appropriate. To ignore Trayvon (other everyone else considered suspicious) would allow such individuals to make victims of the very community that the community watchman is trying to protect. I'm not saying Trayvon was going to do this, but we have to regard that in resolving whether Zimmerman's initial reaction to Trayvon was appropriate. To say Trayvon should have been left alone, seems to me to completely invalidate a community watch program. The fact is, police often respond to crime after it happens and rarely prevent anything, unless they happen upon something in progress. Zimmerman had already called the police and was on the phone with them, reporting what he felt was suspicious. What are we willing to accept, as a society, had he not pursued the suspicious individual and by the time the police had arrived, a house down the street had been burglarized, and occupants murdered ? Is that acceptable ?
|
On March 29 2012 04:53 Kaitlin wrote:
I think whether in this thread or society as a whole needs to have a conversation about "community watch" type programs. There is a great deal of disagreement over whether Zimmerman was justified in 1) considering Trayvon suspicious, 2) following Trayvon, 3) questioning Trayvon or whether he should have simply ignored Trayvon in the first place.
I'd reccommend Jane Jacobs' The Death and Life of Great American Cities to anyone wondering why gated communities end up needing either official or unofficial armed guards like Zimmerman.
|
On March 29 2012 04:53 Kaitlin wrote:
I think whether in this thread or society as a whole needs to have a conversation about "community watch" type programs. There is a great deal of disagreement over whether Zimmerman was justified in 1) considering Trayvon suspicious, 2) following Trayvon, 3) questioning Trayvon or whether he should have simply ignored Trayvon in the first place. If community watch programs are there as a bit of a first line of defense against crime, then we should accept that simply ignoring Trayvon wouldn't be appropriate. To ignore Trayvon (other everyone else considered suspicious) would allow such individuals to make victims of the very community that the community watchman is trying to protect. I'm not saying Trayvon was going to do this, but we have to regard that in resolving whether Zimmerman's initial reaction to Trayvon was appropriate. To say Trayvon should have been left alone, seems to me to completely invalidate a community watch program. The fact is, police often respond to crime after it happens and rarely prevent anything, unless they happen upon something in progress. Zimmerman had already called the police and was on the phone with them, reporting what he felt was suspicious. What are we willing to accept, as a society, had he not pursued the suspicious individual and by the time the police had arrived, a house down the street had been burglarized, and occupants murdered ? Is that acceptable ?
Is your society fine with accepting the fact that being a black youth in a hoodie is enough to be labeled a suspicious individual though? Because that seems like a big-ass step you skipped there.
From what I can gather here, there was is no way a non-racist, sane human being would have considered Martin suspicious enough to follow.
|
On March 29 2012 04:44 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 04:02 Hawk wrote:
How on earth is this anything like the Duke Lacrosse Case?? That featured an overzealous DA who way, wayyyy overstepped his boundaries and straight up lied about tons of shit, in addition to a ton of flimsy evidence and testimony from a crackwhore stripper.
Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 04:14 BlackJack wrote:
I think it's closer to the opposite of the Duke Lacrosse case. In that case the prosecutor was the overzealous one and it was the media that eventually helped exonerate the accused. There was also no real "victim" in that case. Here we have clearly some poor police work, with no drug test of Zimmerman and no interrogation. We also have a dead kid, so even if Zimmerman is exonerated the law that allowed him to be will be the real culprit in the mind of public opinion. The cases really aren't that similar at all, imo. fair point that in the Duke Lacrosse case it was the overzealous DA pushing the agenda, and in this case the Florida police department are more cautious (or more inept whatever your opinion may be) and the media/family appear to be pushing the agenda. i would call that a difference without significance though. the similarity lies in how the media portrays it to the public, and how the public is willing to immediately rush to judgment based on imperfect facts. in Duke, everyone was convinced that the students were guilty (especially the media), and it turned out that the "victim" was not so victim-like. i would argue that a similar thing is happening here. the media has rushed to judgment (ignoring, inter alia, the statement of "John" and not even bothering to look at Trayvon's background, but quick to show Zimmerman's criminal history). only recently have we seen the media focus on facts that contradict the account that Zimmerman is guilty.
Yeah, but that similarity is true for almost every case. It's a result of having a sensationalist media and a gullible public. I'd say the resolution would be closer to the Casey Anthony case (another central Florida case). Where something doesn't seem right but their simply isn't enough evidence for a meaningful conviction. Then black people will complain about justice for Trayvon just as the suburban white women complained about justice for Caylee.
|
Interesting related story: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/28/politics/congressman-hoodie/index.html
Apparently a congressman was kicked out of the US House chamber today for wearing a hoodie and sun glasses:
A congressman was removed from the House floor Wednesday after giving a speech about Trayvon Martin while wearing a hoodie.
Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Illinois, told House members, "racial profiling has to stop."
Rush, a former Black Panther who was active in the civil rights movement in the 1960s, then took off his suit jacket, pulled a gray hoodie on over his head and put on sunglasses.
"Just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum," he said.
....
As soon as Rush removed his jacket and put the hood on his head, Rep. Greg Harper, R-Mississippi, who was presiding over the House floor, began to gavel Rush down, saying he was out of order.
Rush ignored him, and with the hoodie still pulled over his head, continued to speak, citing the Bible.
Harper continued to bang the gavel. "The gentleman will suspend. The member is no longer recognized," he said. "The chair must remind members that clause 5 of rule 17 prohibits the wearing of hats in the chamber when the House is in session."
I think the sense of perspective is really being lost here.
|
On March 29 2012 04:02 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 03:51 Felnarion wrote:On March 29 2012 03:49 Crushinator wrote:
What legal authority did this Zimmerman have to follow Martin? From what I understand he was part of some neighbourhood watch, which would mean he had none. Is that right? So he was just some guy, pretty much harrasing some kid for no other reason than that he was a black youth who liked to look around him alot? It just sounds very much like it was Martin who tried to defend himself, and was killed for it. The same legal authority I have to say "Hi" to you if I see you on the street? And the same legal authority you have to stare blankly ahead and pretend I said nothing. Which, coincidentally, is the same legal authority anyone has to converse with anyone. Anyone trying to get Zimmerman simply on the basis of whether or not he should have interacted with Trayvon is going down a dead-end road. He was completely within his rights to do so, and infringed on none of Trayvon's in doing so. In the simple act of doing so. Now, the details we're missing, like HOW he confronted him are the true question. If he placed a hand on him, revealed his gun, etc, therein lie the details and therein lie the answers. But we don't know those, at least not yet. Uhm, saying hi to someone on the street is something entirely different than following someone, evidently in an intimidating way, even after being told not to by both the police and the person you are following. I am pretty confident I would be arrested in this country under the same circumstances, if the person I was following would call the police. I quite honestly do not see how this is a dead-end, it seems a pretty crucial circumstance.
Show where Trayvon said not to follow him. He asked, why he was being followed just before this happened, but said nothing about not following him. What's more, there's no reason at all that he cannot walk up to (Which you're terming "following") someone and ask them what they're doing. Nothing at all prevents anyone from doing that any time.
And to another poster, if it were a woman and she maced him, yes, it would obviously be different, but not for the reason you're suggesting. It would be different because Zimmerman, miserable from mace or not, could not reasonably expect his life to be in danger in that moment. He wouldn't have shot the woman as she ran away, and we wouldn't be discussing this right now. Zimmerman was attacked, that's a fact, provoked or not, first blow or not, he definitively was on the ground, presumably being pummeled (by witness accounts) and that alone makes this completely different than a man following a woman and being maced.
|
On March 29 2012 04:59 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 04:53 Kaitlin wrote:
I think whether in this thread or society as a whole needs to have a conversation about "community watch" type programs. There is a great deal of disagreement over whether Zimmerman was justified in 1) considering Trayvon suspicious, 2) following Trayvon, 3) questioning Trayvon or whether he should have simply ignored Trayvon in the first place. If community watch programs are there as a bit of a first line of defense against crime, then we should accept that simply ignoring Trayvon wouldn't be appropriate. To ignore Trayvon (other everyone else considered suspicious) would allow such individuals to make victims of the very community that the community watchman is trying to protect. I'm not saying Trayvon was going to do this, but we have to regard that in resolving whether Zimmerman's initial reaction to Trayvon was appropriate. To say Trayvon should have been left alone, seems to me to completely invalidate a community watch program. The fact is, police often respond to crime after it happens and rarely prevent anything, unless they happen upon something in progress. Zimmerman had already called the police and was on the phone with them, reporting what he felt was suspicious. What are we willing to accept, as a society, had he not pursued the suspicious individual and by the time the police had arrived, a house down the street had been burglarized, and occupants murdered ? Is that acceptable ? Is your society fine with accepting the fact that being a black youth in a hoodie is enough to be labeled a suspicious individual though? Because that seems like a big-ass step you skipped there. From what I can gather here, there was is no way a non-racist, sane human being would have considered Martin suspicious enough to follow.
If he is wandering around looking at houses in a neighborhood that already suffers from crime then i think so.
and actually if you bother to look over the OP you would realize zimmerman doesnt know what race the person is when he makes the phone call
so sick of people trying to turn this around when all these facts have come about
bottom line is this kid wasnt were he was suppose to be, perhaps even scoping out the neighborhood for some fun tomorrow when people go to work
he thinks he can get one up on some guy that is following him and he gets whats coming to him
and also to all the people saying he was told not to follow, No the 911 answerer just said "you dont need to do that" in no way is that any kind of order from an official
really hope spike lee also gets sued for what he did. That is pretty uncalled for, like posting someones address online for people to see and terrorize them
User was warned for making a stupidly misinformed post. He was walking from a convenience store to the home of his father's girlfriend.
|
On March 29 2012 04:44 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 04:02 Hawk wrote:
How on earth is this anything like the Duke Lacrosse Case?? That featured an overzealous DA who way, wayyyy overstepped his boundaries and straight up lied about tons of shit, in addition to a ton of flimsy evidence and testimony from a crackwhore stripper.
Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 04:14 BlackJack wrote:
I think it's closer to the opposite of the Duke Lacrosse case. In that case the prosecutor was the overzealous one and it was the media that eventually helped exonerate the accused. There was also no real "victim" in that case. Here we have clearly some poor police work, with no drug test of Zimmerman and no interrogation. We also have a dead kid, so even if Zimmerman is exonerated the law that allowed him to be will be the real culprit in the mind of public opinion. The cases really aren't that similar at all, imo. fair point that in the Duke Lacrosse case it was the overzealous DA pushing the agenda, and in this case the Florida police department are more cautious (or more inept whatever your opinion may be) and the media/family appear to be pushing the agenda. i would call that a difference without significance though. the similarity lies in how the media portrays it to the public, and how the public is willing to immediately rush to judgment based on imperfect facts. in Duke, everyone was convinced that the students were guilty (especially the media), and it turned out that the "victim" was not so victim-like. i would argue that a similar thing is happening here. the media has rushed to judgment (ignoring, inter alia, the statement of "John" and not even bothering to look at Trayvon's background, but quick to show Zimmerman's criminal history). only recently have we seen the media focus on facts that contradict the account that Zimmerman is guilty.
The media portrayal is based on two things:
1. shit getting published by reporters and news agencies as it leaks out (the delay is both part to the terrible handling of this case by the cops, and the fact that they probably had to extract it through OPRA/Sunshine laws or whatever they call it down there). Information release requests takes days/weeks, depending on laws, and sometimes you have to sue for stuff.
2. pundits and commentary on the topic, which is what is driving that narrative that everyone is talking about (Oreilly saying something stupid I am sure, Geraldo being a dumb piece of shit, Hannity interviewing people while driving the conversation a certain way—pick your favorite talking head here)
Also, I would put a lot more faith in the accounts of the people who are willing to put a name behind their eye witness testimony in the media vs the guy who prefers to remain nameless, but most strongly supports the accused killer. If Zimmerman has his day in court to prove himself—as he should, whether or not he was right or wrong—this dude will be forced to reveal his name.
Also, the stuff about Trayvon's background is so ridiculously stupid it makes my head hurt.
How much of that shit that has been dredged up (none of which proves he is violent, other than the alleged incident on a bus that is only mentioned on a twitter account and not in school records, which have been scoured over by every damn outlet at this point) is obvious when you're driving down the street and see a black kid in the rain with his hoodie up? None of it.
Even if he was convicted of a series of violent crimes in the past, you would have no way of knowing, which makes bringing up that narrative absolutely ridiculous. It is a red herring.
It hardly proves the he said she said bs going on about who swung first. The only undisputable facts about that are that Zimmerman called the cops about a suspicious/black kid, pursued when told not to, and got out of his car to confront him. Again, I would suspect that any halfway decent lawyer or prosecutor will show that this sequence alone is enough to prove that Zimmerman provoked the use of force (going on what you put in your op, which was real nice btw).
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On March 29 2012 04:53 Kaitlin wrote:
I think whether in this thread or society as a whole needs to have a conversation about "community watch" type programs. There is a great deal of disagreement over whether Zimmerman was justified in 1) considering Trayvon suspicious, 2) following Trayvon, 3) questioning Trayvon or whether he should have simply ignored Trayvon in the first place. If community watch programs are there as a bit of a first line of defense against crime, then we should accept that simply ignoring Trayvon wouldn't be appropriate. To ignore Trayvon (other everyone else considered suspicious) would allow such individuals to make victims of the very community that the community watchman is trying to protect. I'm not saying Trayvon was going to do this, but we have to regard that in resolving whether Zimmerman's initial reaction to Trayvon was appropriate. To say Trayvon should have been left alone, seems to me to completely invalidate a community watch program. The fact is, police often respond to crime after it happens and rarely prevent anything, unless they happen upon something in progress. Zimmerman had already called the police and was on the phone with them, reporting what he felt was suspicious. What are we willing to accept, as a society, had he not pursued the suspicious individual and by the time the police had arrived, a house down the street had been burglarized, and occupants murdered ? Is that acceptable ?
1) This is hard to answer due to a lack of evidence as to why exactly Zimmerman was suspicious of Trayvon. If it was purely because he was black and wearing a hoodie that has wider implications connected to racial profiling, which is becoming a problem in the UK and as far as I can tell the US as well, and goes back to Geraldo Rivera's statements that the fact he was wearing a hoodie was just as responsible as anything else in the shooting. I feel this is a real problem if this becomes a mainstream view along with profiling of other people based on race. Again, not entirely clear on the motivations so this is speculation based on what seems to be the prevailing theory.
2) Following Trayvon seems like it would be part of the role of a neighbourhood watch so following him from a distance, report to the police etc. so this isn't a particular problem with Zimmerman's actions.
3) This is the part that I think is most problematic because the role of actually confronting and questioning a suspicious individual is the polices job, it's part of what they are trained to do. Having ordinary citizens do that is veering into the territory of vigilante justice and having someone untrained in it is likely to go badly wrong, as it did in this case. Obviously if someone else is in danger step in and help, its what any decent person would do, but in this case there was no immediate danger to anyone. If Zimmerman had followed from a distance keeping the police informed no one would have been shot.
|
I think we need all the details to come out. I think the black kid 13 year old eye witness helps Zimmerman's case. Even if the shooting is deemed justified, I think Zimmerman still needs some sort of punishment, community service/bull crap classes at the least.
|
On March 29 2012 05:13 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 04:02 Crushinator wrote:On March 29 2012 03:51 Felnarion wrote:On March 29 2012 03:49 Crushinator wrote:
What legal authority did this Zimmerman have to follow Martin? From what I understand he was part of some neighbourhood watch, which would mean he had none. Is that right? So he was just some guy, pretty much harrasing some kid for no other reason than that he was a black youth who liked to look around him alot? It just sounds very much like it was Martin who tried to defend himself, and was killed for it. The same legal authority I have to say "Hi" to you if I see you on the street? And the same legal authority you have to stare blankly ahead and pretend I said nothing. Which, coincidentally, is the same legal authority anyone has to converse with anyone. Anyone trying to get Zimmerman simply on the basis of whether or not he should have interacted with Trayvon is going down a dead-end road. He was completely within his rights to do so, and infringed on none of Trayvon's in doing so. In the simple act of doing so. Now, the details we're missing, like HOW he confronted him are the true question. If he placed a hand on him, revealed his gun, etc, therein lie the details and therein lie the answers. But we don't know those, at least not yet. Uhm, saying hi to someone on the street is something entirely different than following someone, evidently in an intimidating way, even after being told not to by both the police and the person you are following. I am pretty confident I would be arrested in this country under the same circumstances, if the person I was following would call the police. I quite honestly do not see how this is a dead-end, it seems a pretty crucial circumstance. Show where Trayvon said not to follow him. He asked, why he was being followed just before this happened, but said nothing about not following him. What's more, there's no reason at all that he cannot walk up to (Which you're terming "following") someone and ask them what they're doing. Nothing at all prevents anyone from doing that any time. And to another poster, if it were a woman and she maced him, yes, it would obviously be different, but not for the reason you're suggesting. It would be different because Zimmerman, miserable from mace or not, could not reasonably expect his life to be in danger in that moment. He wouldn't have shot the woman as she ran away, and we wouldn't be discussing this right now. Zimmerman was attacked, that's a fact, provoked or not, first blow or not, he definitively was on the ground, presumably being pummeled (by witness accounts) and that alone makes this completely different than a man following a woman and being maced.
You cant be serious. If someone yells 'Why are you following me?' to someone, it is a very clear indication that the person is distraught by being followed by a stranger. Though the actual wish not to be followed is implicit, it is not reasonable to assume that anyone would fail to infer it.
|
On March 29 2012 04:53 Kaitlin wrote:
I think whether in this thread or society as a whole needs to have a conversation about "community watch" type programs. There is a great deal of disagreement over whether Zimmerman was justified in 1) considering Trayvon suspicious, 2) following Trayvon, 3) questioning Trayvon or whether he should have simply ignored Trayvon in the first place. If community watch programs are there as a bit of a first line of defense against crime, then we should accept that simply ignoring Trayvon wouldn't be appropriate. To ignore Trayvon (other everyone else considered suspicious) would allow such individuals to make victims of the very community that the community watchman is trying to protect. I'm not saying Trayvon was going to do this, but we have to regard that in resolving whether Zimmerman's initial reaction to Trayvon was appropriate. To say Trayvon should have been left alone, seems to me to completely invalidate a community watch program. The fact is, police often respond to crime after it happens and rarely prevent anything, unless they happen upon something in progress. Zimmerman had already called the police and was on the phone with them, reporting what he felt was suspicious. What are we willing to accept, as a society, had he not pursued the suspicious individual and by the time the police had arrived, a house down the street had been burglarized, and occupants murdered ? Is that acceptable ?
Community watch are not police. They shouldn't be allowed to actively take a hand in preventing crime. First line of defense doesn't mean taking an active hand in monitoring, pursuing and confronting suspicious individuals.
Get away from the fear and the hysteria. Homicide is not even in the top 15 causes of the death in the US anymore. Vigilantes run amok would be a greater problem than a bunch of robberies.
|
On March 29 2012 05:20 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 04:53 Kaitlin wrote:
I think whether in this thread or society as a whole needs to have a conversation about "community watch" type programs. There is a great deal of disagreement over whether Zimmerman was justified in 1) considering Trayvon suspicious, 2) following Trayvon, 3) questioning Trayvon or whether he should have simply ignored Trayvon in the first place. If community watch programs are there as a bit of a first line of defense against crime, then we should accept that simply ignoring Trayvon wouldn't be appropriate. To ignore Trayvon (other everyone else considered suspicious) would allow such individuals to make victims of the very community that the community watchman is trying to protect. I'm not saying Trayvon was going to do this, but we have to regard that in resolving whether Zimmerman's initial reaction to Trayvon was appropriate. To say Trayvon should have been left alone, seems to me to completely invalidate a community watch program. The fact is, police often respond to crime after it happens and rarely prevent anything, unless they happen upon something in progress. Zimmerman had already called the police and was on the phone with them, reporting what he felt was suspicious. What are we willing to accept, as a society, had he not pursued the suspicious individual and by the time the police had arrived, a house down the street had been burglarized, and occupants murdered ? Is that acceptable ? 1) This is hard to answer due to a lack of evidence as to why exactly Zimmerman was suspicious of Trayvon. If it was purely because he was black and wearing a hoodie that has wider implications connected to racial profiling, which is becoming a problem in the UK and as far as I can tell the US as well, and goes back to Geraldo Rivera's statements that the fact he was wearing was just as responsible as anything else in the shooting. I feel this is a real problem if this becomes a mainstream view along with profiling of other people based on race. Again, not entirely clear on the motivations so this is speculation based on what seems to be the prevailing theory. 2) Following Trayvon seems like it would be part of the role of a neighbourhood watch so following him from a distance, report to the police etc. so this isn't a particular problem with Zimmerman's actions. 3) This is the part that I think is most problematic because the role of actually confronting and questioning a suspicious individual is the polices job, it's part of what they are trained to do. Having ordinary citizens do that is veering into the territory of vigilante justice and having someone untrained in it is likely to go badly wrong, as it did in this case. Obviously if someone else is in danger step in and help, its what any decent person would do, but in this case there was no immediate danger to anyone. If Zimmerman had followed from a distance keeping the police informed no one would have been shot.
I would agree with most of your points except to call it "veering into the territory of vigilante justice." That statement misuses the word vigilante, the act of confronting him does not make him a vigilante. While I can agree, in hindsight, it might have been a good idea to not do so, we don't know the past. Perhaps the police have been slow to arrive in the past, perhaps it was just a bad call, it is NOT a bad call on the level of "someone-ends-up-dead-after-this" The situation should not have spiraled out of control just over a confrontation about the reasons for Trayvon being there.
You cant be serious. If someone yells 'Why are you following me?' to someone, it is a very clear indication that the person is distraught by being followed by a stranger. Though the actual wish not to be followed is implicit, it is not reasonable to assume that anyone would fail to infer it.
The point is, once Trayvon said "Why are you following me?" is when the phone cut out and confrontation started.
|
On March 29 2012 04:35 Freddybear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 04:10 Crushinator wrote:On March 29 2012 04:05 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 29 2012 03:59 CaptainCrush wrote:On March 29 2012 03:42 Freddybear wrote:Whatever you think of Zimmerman or Martin, the irresponsible behavior of black public figures like President Obama, Al Sharpton and Spike Lee is unconscionable. Lee posted an address which he thought was Zimmerman's on his twitter feed. But it wasn't Zimmerman's address. Now a Florida couple are being terrorized in their home by the raving mob which has been incited by these irresponsible celebrities. http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/27/believe-it-or-not-spike-lee-mightve-outsmarted-himself/ I think this is the thing that has me the most pissed off. You are exactly right, we had far too many public black figures go completely wild over the issue when all the details havent even come out yet. Above all else, our freaking president should have known better than to open his stupid mouth on an issue as clouded as this one. The only thing Obama said was expressing condolences to the family and that everything should be investigated thoroughly. I don't see how that is a wrong thing to say, it doesn't side with anyone on the issue, or say anything untoward to either side, and done intelligently so as not to say anything he shouldn't. How is that stupid? Obama indeed said nothing of substance and does not appear to have gotten involved at all. Can't see how he could have responded more correctly. He could have simply kept his mouth shut. Why doesn't he call for "serious soul-searching" about the causes of the deaths of dozens of young black men killed by other young black men every month?
Activists like Jesse Jackson and Reverend Sharpton have and continue to do so.
It just doesn't make national news because a White person -- oh, excuse me -- a White-hispanic isn't involved in Black on Black crime.
Sheesh. You have some nerve accusing people of having a double-standard, when the reality is the only reason this murder interests you is because it's perceived as a "White-on-Black" crime. And you've been trying to argue that Zimmerman is hispanic, and hence the crime "matters less".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
