EPTI wore a hoodie today to get rain from landing on my head.
Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
scaban84
United States1080 Posts
I wore a hoodie today to get rain from landing on my head. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 29 2012 05:19 Hawk wrote: 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). for the most part i agree with what you have said. zimmerman's past, and trayvon's past are for the most part irrelevant. (there are some legal exceptions, but i dont think they apply here.) people turn everything into TMZ. i especially dislike the source of some people's information on trayvon. seriously, fucking twitter and facebook!? the court of public opinion is not restrained by admissibility and reliability, which is the foundation of the judicial system (i hope!). however, with respect to "John," i am going to have to disagree with you. zimmerman has received death threats and a $10,000 bounty is on his head by the "New Black Panthers." if i were a witness that supported zimmerman's innocence, i would move the fuck out of that neighborhood post haste. i also want to point out that, you and i may not know who "John" is, but, assuming thats his real first name, we can pretty much assume that the neighborhood knows who he is. (i recall seeing an interview with him at his front door, which means people likely know his address as well.) so, if he was a buddy of zimmerman's, zimmerman's best friend, on medication, or whatever else you can conjure to show that he is a biased or improper witness, i would think that some of the neighbors would come out to contradict him. so far, proponents of prosecuting zimmerman have not been shy. indeed, they are making the media circuits telling their story to anyone who will listen. in the end though, words are wind. until they take the oath (penalty of perjury), nothing anyone says matters in a court of law. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On March 29 2012 05:07 TheToast wrote: 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: I think the sense of perspective is really being lost here. Also from the same article: + Show Spoiler + He said the public debate over Martin's death was a continuation of the movement in which he participated during the 1960's. "This is just another part of the struggle. I've never left those days. Those days are deep down in my soul." Noting that he was standing in the Capitol, Rush added, "Many people have given their lives so I can be here and once I got here I can't forget whose shoulders I'm standing on." Very powerful words, I think. Comparing, and indeed equating (in a "they are the same thing spread over time" kinda way), this issue with the civil rights movement in the 60's. I'm not sure this is necessarily correct, the issue in the past was not that people are racist -- which by all rights, they are allowed to be, even if you and I disagree with it -- but rather that the governments involved had been explicitly stating that the behavior was legal, and encouraged it. The stand your ground law, though as lenient and, for lack of a better term, out-right stupid, as Texas gun laws, isn't a "stand your ground against black teens" law. While it is my belief that Zimmerman is blatantly racist, I also want to believe that between the physical evidence (injuries on Zimmerman), the witness testimony of Zimmerman being attacked, and any true lack of evidence to the contrary, the police involved truly did believe he was within his stupidly legal right to take such extreme action. Whether racially inspired or not, the biggest problem is a vague and widely-encompassing law that allows people to take the lives of others without care or consideration. i don't think this is comparable to the past situation in which racism was the direct and obvious problem. That said, I have no idea why a gated community doesn't have security cameras. My completely open from all sides apartment complex has security cameras watching every part of the parking lot. Couldn't feel safer when I'm out there. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32051 Posts
However, I think we can both agree that at the very least, he needs to be in court answering for what he did rather than walking away without so much as a trial. That should be the case for any time a weapon discharged that isn't involving a burglary or something of that sort. That and Florida's version of the Stand Your Ground law blows ass. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On March 29 2012 05:13 Felnarion wrote: 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. That's what makes what Zimmerman did so reckless. He followed a 17-yr old kid with a gun. For all Trayvon knew, Zimmerman could be a robber scouting him, or a fellow robber scouting him (depending on what you think of Trayvon). If Trayvon thought Zimmerman was going to kill him, and he had an opportunity to get the jump on Zimmerman, the logical thing for him to do is to try to incapacitate or kill Zimmerman before he gets a shot off. Zimmerman should have never placed himself in that position. | ||
|
Felnarion
442 Posts
On March 29 2012 05:38 andrewlt wrote: That's what makes what Zimmerman did so reckless. He followed a 17-yr old kid with a gun. If Trayvon thought Zimmerman was going to kill him, and he had an opportunity to get the jump on Zimmerman, the logical thing for him to do is to try to incapacitate or kill Zimmerman before he gets a shot off. Zimmerman should have never placed himself in that position. Which is why more details would be awesome. Was the gun out at the time? Did he walk up to the kid with it pulled to intimidate him? Was it in his waistband out of sight? Honestly, I have difficulty believing a kid would attack someone they knew to have a gun, but I've never been in the situation, I don't know. We honestly can't say that Trayvon even knew he had a gun until the scuffled occured, can we? | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On March 29 2012 05:25 Felnarion wrote: The point is, once Trayvon said "Why are you following me?" is when the phone cut out and confrontation started. Fair enough, that would make it slightly less dubious. Is it well established that this is when their final confrontation started though? Assuming that Martin attacked Zimmerman first, it seems odd that he would suddenly decide to do this without even finishing his phone conversation. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On March 29 2012 05:33 Chargelot wrote: Also from the same article: + Show Spoiler + He said the public debate over Martin's death was a continuation of the movement in which he participated during the 1960's. "This is just another part of the struggle. I've never left those days. Those days are deep down in my soul." Noting that he was standing in the Capitol, Rush added, "Many people have given their lives so I can be here and once I got here I can't forget whose shoulders I'm standing on." Very powerful words, I think. Comparing, and indeed equating (in a "they are the same thing spread over time" kinda way), this issue with the civil rights movement in the 60's. I'm not sure this is necessarily correct, the issue in the past was not that people are racist -- which by all rights, they are allowed to be, even if you and I disagree with it -- but rather that the governments involved had been explicitly stating that the behavior was legal, and encouraged it. Yeah, there's a big difference between fighting institutionalized segregation and fighting (percieved) racial profiling. I'm at a loss as to how the hoodie has gotten all wrapped up in this, what does that have to do with racial profiling? Are we going to argue that wearing certain clothing doesn't make you look more suspicious? | ||
|
Felnarion
442 Posts
On March 29 2012 05:45 Crushinator wrote: Fair enough, that would make it slightly less dubious. Is it well established that this is when their final confrontation started though? Assuming that Martin attacked Zimmerman first, it seems odd that he would suddenly decide to do this without even finishing his phone conversation. I mean, I guess it's assumption that that is when their final confrontation started, but it seems equally odd that he would abruptly end the call to his girlfriend, then continue walking. I think he ended it because he meant to deal with the guy following him. Not saying that in like a mean "deal with" kind of way, but just you know, say whatever he wanted to say to get him to stop following or whatever. What happens after the phone hangs up is just conjecture. It makes sense to me though that they would not disengage again after Trayvon says something, as Zimmerman would respond, and then a conversation that escalates into violence. | ||
|
pirsq
Australia145 Posts
1. Why did Zimmerman consider Martin suspicious? We don't know. Many people speculate it was racial profiling, and that may well be true, but racial profiling by itself is not a crime. You may argue that Zimmerman was morally unjustified in calling the police and following Martin, but those actions are certainly not criminal. Racial profiling is a societal problem; we are talking about an individual action here. 2. Was Zimmerman justified in shooting Martin? If we believe the account that "Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk", then the answer is an unequivocal yes - this is exactly what the Florida self-defence legislation protects. It is irrelevant whether Zimmerman "started it" or whether you disagree with the legislation; this is what the law says. | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
| ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On March 29 2012 05:40 Felnarion wrote: Which is why more details would be awesome. Was the gun out at the time? Did he walk up to the kid with it pulled to intimidate him? Was it in his waistband out of sight? Honestly, I have difficulty believing a kid would attack someone they knew to have a gun, but I've never been in the situation, I don't know. We honestly can't say that Trayvon even knew he had a gun until the scuffled occured, can we? That's what makes this so stupid. If Trayvon succeeded in killing Zimmerman before he got a shot off, Trayvon would be the one claiming self-defense. A confrontation where the victor, no matter what side, can claim self-defense needs repercussions. From Zimmerman's own account that was reported in the Orlando Sentinel, he lost track of Trayvon while following him. He was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind. They talked, Zimmerman reached for his cell phone, Trayvon said something then decked him. This was from a police leak, though, so we don't know how accurate it is. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 29 2012 05:35 Hawk wrote: True, but there is certainly a lot less credibility given to an anonymous person in the court of public opinion, even with the circumstances. However, I think we can both agree that at the very least, he needs to be in court answering for what he did rather than walking away without so much as a trial. That should be the case for any time a weapon discharged that isn't involving a burglary or something of that sort. That and Florida's version of the Stand Your Ground law blows ass. we are in agreement that he should be arrested. i think there is more than enough evidence to charge him for the crime and send it to a trial. however, i would need to view the actual evidence (including the transcripts of his interviews) before i, as an attorney, would recommend that the state proceed with the cost of a trial. i think the best choice would probably be to charge the crime, and then allow the defendant to move to dismiss on insufficient evidence. let an impartial judge decide whether the evidence is enough. that should (i hope) satisfy all parties. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On March 29 2012 05:50 pirsq wrote: 2. Was Zimmerman justified in shooting Martin? If we believe the account that "Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk", then the answer is an unequivocal yes - this is exactly what the Florida self-defence legislation protects. Whether or not you agree with the legislation is irrelevant; it is the law. This is the conversation I'm most interested in. Does anyone disagree with the self-defence legislation in Florida? How would they change it? | ||
|
odihsab0
Canada2 Posts
But this is only IF it was actually self defense. We can't know for sure what happened. | ||
|
drop271
New Zealand286 Posts
On March 29 2012 05:58 Defacer wrote: This is the conversation I'm most interested in. Does anyone disagree with the self-defence legislation in Florida? How would they change it? I both disagree with the law and the poster's summation of events. Zimmerman was not justified in using deadly force if he provoked the encounter (which the facts suggest he did). In terms of the law, personally I think its farcical. Why would you want a law that supports the escalation of events to deadly force because 'walking away and letting the police handle it' is not an expected action. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On March 29 2012 05:55 dAPhREAk wrote: we are in agreement that he should be arrested. i think there is more than enough evidence to charge him for the crime and send it to a trial. however, i would need to view the actual evidence (including the transcripts of his interviews) before i, as an attorney, would recommend that the state proceed with the cost of a trial. i think the best choice would probably be to charge the crime, and then allow the defendant to move to dismiss on insufficient evidence. let an impartial judge decide whether the evidence is enough. that should (i hope) satisfy all parties. Considering you're a lawyer, what crime do you think he should be charged with? Based on what I know, it seems any kind of murder is a stretch. Manslaughter or any homicide that involves negligence or recklessness seems to be what they will go with if they pursue a case. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On March 29 2012 05:54 PrinceXizor wrote: the fact that the autopsy report won't be made public makes this thread wholly unnecessary. there will be no evidence of how martin was shot, so there should be no more discussion about it. since no new evidence that can prove what happened with come forth, unless zimmerman admits he was lying or something like that. I do hope nobody is actually trying to prove what happened here, a court of law seems a much more appropriate place for that than a video-game internet forum. We are just discussing the limited information we have now, while this discussion admittedly entirely unnecessary, many people do find it interesting, I hope that is ok with you. Edit: Also I think the autopsy report will show that Martin was shot, by a gun. In fact, I'm willing to bet! | ||
|
rhs408
United States904 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 29 2012 06:02 andrewlt wrote: Considering you're a lawyer, what crime do you think he should be charged with? Based on what I know, it seems any kind of murder is a stretch. Manslaughter or any homicide that involves negligence or recklessness seems to be what they will go with if they pursue a case. i dont think they could ever hope to prove anything beyond manslaughter (if they can prove that at all). at best, zimmerman was reckless ("culpable conduct"), but i don't believe that he intended to shoot the kid (i really hope not). the jury instructions are in the OP, including a link to the instructions for manslaughter. negligence is not enough; you have to show "culpable negligence," which is apparently the same as recklessness. in a civil case i tried in 2007, some examples based on actual cases of recklessness we used to defend the case were driving drunk, shooting a gun into an occupied building and not putting up barriers or warning signs on a drop-off despite actually knowing that people drive in that area. edit: i dont think he intended to shoot the kid when he started the pursuit. i do think he intended to shoot the kid when he was allegedly acting in self defense. | ||
| ||
