Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 488

On July 16 2013 23:33 Oleo wrote:


Operators first question: Is he white, black or hispanic?
Answer: He looks black.

He is aware of TM's race.

On July 16 2013 23:33 Oleo wrote:


Operators first question: Is he white, black or hispanic?
Answer: He looks black.

He is aware of TM's race.

On July 16 2013 23:36 Plansix wrote:

That is only proof that he was aware of his race. It doesn't mean he had any racial bais. Of course people can make their own judgment on the matter, but there is no proof that any racial bias went into the phone call or GZ's actions.

On July 16 2013 21:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:
2) Zimmerman wasn't aware of Trayvon's race when he called the police (no racial profiling)

On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states?

On July 16 2013 23:36 Plansix wrote:

That is only proof that he was aware of his race.

On July 16 2013 23:56 dotHead wrote:

Saying "he looks black" just shows that he really wasn't sure. If anyone was racially profiling it was the operator. Why didn't the operator ask if he was Indian, Asian, or Native American?

On July 16 2013 23:56 sluggaslamoo wrote:


That's not the argument.

On July 17 2013 00:24 Leporello wrote:
And yet, I was reading posts essentially blaming Trayvon for his own death, saying he "should've just walked home" like he doesn't have the right to walk down a public street when he's under suspicion by the local gun-wielding busybody.

On July 16 2013 23:33 Oleo wrote:


Operators first question: Is he white, black or hispanic?
Answer: He looks black.

He is aware of TM's race.

On July 17 2013 00:26 dotHead wrote:


He should have walked home, instead of attacking an armed man. That is what got him killed, not being black, or walking in the rain, or wearing a hoodie. Attacking someone, and then not stopping when he yells for help, or when someone (John Good) tells you to stop.

On July 17 2013 00:30 Leporello wrote:


How do you know he wasn't trying to get home? How do you know he was the initial aggressor in their physical altercation? He just decided to ambush GZ for no reason? It's possible, hence reasonable doubt, but nothing of the sort was proven.

Good's testimony is probably the best piece of evidence that GZ was right to defend himself, but it says nothing about how the fight came to be, or what the circumstances leading up to the fight were. Was Trayvon pounding some stranger because he didn't like being followed, or because that stranger threatened him in some way or physically provoked him?

But, hey, if you want to blame Trayvon for his own death, go ahead. I can't stop you.

On July 17 2013 00:30 Leporello wrote:


How do you know he wasn't trying to get home?

On July 17 2013 00:30 Leporello wrote:


How do you know he wasn't trying to get home? How do you know he was the initial aggressor in their physical altercation? He just decided to ambush GZ for no reason? It's possible, hence reasonable doubt, but nothing of the sort was proven.

Good's testimony is probably the best piece of evidence that GZ was right to defend himself, but it says nothing about how the fight came to be, or what the circumstances leading up to the fight were. Was Trayvon pounding some stranger because he didn't like being followed, or because that stranger threatened him in some way or physically provoked him?

But, hey, if you want to blame Trayvon for his own death, go ahead. I can't stop you. I just think it's gross that people want to only give reasonable doubt to the guy who got to walk away alive that night. I understand the court's reasoning for behaving that way -- it's their job to find any plausible innocence in the defendant. In a self-defense case where the victim is killed, that generally means the victim gets blamed for everything. It's important to keep that in perspective as we make our personal judgments.

On July 17 2013 00:24 Leporello wrote:
Again, I'm not arguing that GZ actually did racially profile Trayvon, only that it's one of so many possibilities surrounding this case. We give him that benefit of the doubt, not just in the courtroom, but pretty heavily in this thread...

And yet, I was reading posts essentially blaming Trayvon for his own death, saying he "should've just walked home" like he doesn't have the right to walk down a public street when he's under suspicion by the local gun-wielding busybody.

On July 17 2013 00:43 ZasZ. wrote:


"He should've walked home," can be a perfectly true statement without blaming Trayvon Martin for his own death. Those people are right, if he had gone straight home he would still be alive. It's one of many contributing factors that evening, in that if it had gone a bit differently he would still be alive. That said, I do think that Trayvon shares part of the blame in his own death, as without the altercation requiring Zimmerman to fire the gun he would still be alive. It is not against the law to follow someone, it is against the law to assault them.

He absolutely has the right to walk down a public street, just like George Zimmerman has the right to be suspicious of him. In fact, as neighborhood watch, I'd argue that it's his responsibility to be suspicious. The gun is obviously excessive for neighborhood watch duties, but if he has a license to carry it and doesn't just take it around his neighborhood I see no reason why it is unusual that he was carrying. What Trayvon Martin didn't have the right to do was assault Zimmerman, which from all the evidence presented in this case, looks like the way it happened.

It seems people are unfamiliar with the concept of a neighborhood watch. Your bias is showing when you call him a "gun-wielding busybody," but being a busybody is the entire point of the volunteer position. Up until the point where the fight broke out, Zimmerman was doing his job, so to speak, in keeping an eye on a suspicious character when there had been a problem with break-ins. If he shrugs off a suspicious character, for fear of racial profiling, that makes him a bad neighborhood watch and defeats the whole purpose of the initiative.

On July 17 2013 00:57 Leporello wrote:


It's absolutely no better than making the assumption that Trayvon was racially profiled. I get argued with for simply suggesting that it's possible Trayvon was racially profiled, but people want to tell me how obvious it is that Trayvon was the initial aggressor, despite no hard evidence. M'kay. I sense a double-standard.