It appears that Trayvon Martin, being stalked by an armed vigilante acting in opposition to direct instructions from a 9-1-1 operator, fought for his life against his attacker and managed to do some damage before his assailant gunned him down. We know this because there’s photographic evidence that his assailant was banged up.
By all means, that’s proof enough for me. Obviously his murderer should be released, because if Martin had really wanted to live, he wouldn’t have put up a fight against an armed stalker who came at him from the darkness. In our current society where common sense has become an oxymoron, who wouldn’t understand that?
PAD
• 
Martin also apparently had pot in his system, which means he’s automatically guilty of everything under the sun and deserved to die.
I’ve been amazed by the number of people I know that smoke pot and have used that argument. Not one has yet been willing to commit suicide rather than be a hypocrite.
If that was true, you’d have to massacre thousands of people over here in the Netherlands. So…is the US Army coming down here to conduct a massacre soon ? (Short version: What a bunch of bull.)
It is bull, Ruben. But unfortunately it is a prevailing thought for many here.
Whether it’s because they still believe that the War on Drugs (especially pot) is a war worth continuing to lose in spectacular fashion, or because they’re looking for any reason to allow Zimmerman to get away with murder.
I hear ye.
It is a bunch of bull. What is an even bigger bunch of bull is the fact that Martin had pot in his system is a major element of the case.
.
It is not totally irrelevant, for example witnesses may be called to show that he smoked just to “relax” or chill out.
.
If it was found he had something in his system that made him more likely to be easily agitated or violent – like alcohol or especially harder drugs like cocaine, that would be relevant for both sides.
.
So again, despite the media narrative, this is a minor element of the case. The most it will likely be used as will be a tool to refute attempts during the trial to portray Martin as an angel.
.
It’s hardly going to be used as a club to show that “Martin deserved to die”. Really, some of you need to take a deep breath and look at the actual facts in the case. I think we can all agree it was a tragedy no matter what happens.
Cause we all know pot makes people violent instead of making people sit on the couch all night, laugh at anything and have a bad case of the munchies. (When I first heard them using the “he was on pot” defense I instantly thought of rape cases in the old day where “she slept around” or “she was wearing a really short skirt” were actually considered legitimate defenses for an unspeakable crime).
Honestly, this entire trial has just further reminded me of why I dislike the 24 hour news cycle.
Everybody picked a side LONG before anything was known.
Racists against black folk: Trayvon is guilty ’cause everyone knows them black folk is always thugs
Racists FOR black folk: Zimmerman is guilty ’cause everyone knows its the white man killing our black folk. Wait, he’s black? Aw, never mind, he’s only a halfy. Err, everyone knows them mexicans is always killing our black folk.
Bleeding hearts: Oh god, the horror, the horror! Another youth is unfairly murdered. BAN GUNS! BAN NEIGHBORHOOD WATCHES! BAN FUR!! How could someone kill that cute little 9 year old boy. Err, that is an old photo that has only been propagated to manipulate public opinion? Doesn’t matter, he is still a cute little kid at heart!
Here are the facts, as they are known:
This is a tragedy. Plain and simple.
Trayvon Martin is not an innocent little boy, that is just the image the media is putting forward. He has a history of drug use, was suspended from school, and was caught in possession of a tool that looked suspiciously like the kind of tool used to jimmy open lockers and the like. He was on his way home from having purchased snacks.
Zimmerman has a history of violence. He may or may not have a history of racism, depending on if the anonymous witnesses are to be believed. He is half-black and half-hispanic, and he allegedly mentored at-risk (black) youths in the past. Zimmerman has an “in-your-face” attitude.
Trayvon Martin’s corpse has a bullet hole and some bloody knuckles.
Zimmerman’s body has considerably more wounds and signs of defensive wounds.
Zimmerman was told to NOT approach Martin. He did anyway.
If the transcript of Martin on the phone with his girlfriend is to be believed (I saw it early on, but I haven’t seen much of it since), Martin chose to confront the person following him, rather than running.
The only eye-witness states that the person in the hooded sweatshirt was raining down blows on the other guy.
Zimmerman did NOT refer to african americans as a “coon”. That was shoddy reporting…
The neighborhood had been burglarized recently.
Zimmerman may or may not have backed off at some point.
So, what does this tell us? Two less than perfect people had a confrontation at night. Zimmerman should not have approached Martin. Somehow, the confrontation became physical. Martin had the upperhand. Zimmerman shot Martin from “intermediate range”. Martin tragically died.
And that is ALL that we know. Everything else is just conjecture and attempts to try this case in the court of public opinion.
Let’s trim it down further to the only facts that matter:
Zimmerman was told not to approach him.
Zimmerman did anyway.
Then he killed him.
Nothing else matters.
PAD
Everything else is “Bonfire of the Vanities.”
Let’s expand that back out:
Zimmerman was told, by a 911 operator who has no legal authority to issue orders, that “we don’t need you” to follow Martin on foot.
Zimmerman, who was doing just that, apparently stopped doing so and “lost” Martin, and headed back towards his vehicle.
About 90 seconds later — after Zimmerman lost Martin and stopped trying to find/follow him, the two began a physical confrontation that involved Martin repeatedly bashing Zimmerman’s head against the pavement.
It’s all there on the 911 tape. The operator asked Zimmerman if he was following because she heard him breathing heavily. After she said “we don’t need you to do that,” his breathing returned to normal and he started talking about where he would meet the police — strongly indicating he’d given up the pursuit.
Oh, and there’s a witness who says Martin was on top of Zimmerman, hitting him “MMA-style.” And there’s absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman started the fight — or ever got a single hit in.
Zimmerman’s injuries include a broken nose, two black eyes, a minor back injury, and at least two lacerations on the back of his head. That’s entirely consistent with his story — Martin approached him, threw the first punch and knocked him to the ground, then sat on top of him and started bashing his head against the pavement.
Yeah, I gotta say, Peter, that I find your “nothing else matters” comment a bit worrying. It sounds like you’re all ready to hang Zimmerman, without bothering with a trial. I admit I haven’t been following this case (there are thousands of murders and wrongful deaths every year, but I’m supposed to be interested in this one because the media tells me so?), but it sounds like there’s a lot more to the story than that. Just like with every other murder case. Very little of the world is that (if you’ll pardon the pun) black and white.
If only all the world were so black and white.
(Not really.)
Robert, your facts are disorganized.
Zimmerman is indeed of mixed ethnic ancestry; however, those ethnicities are Hispanic and white, not Hispanic and black, and Mr. Zimmerman reportedly self-identified as white.
Perhaps you are confusing Mr. Zimmerman with Mr. Obama, who is of black and white ancestry? Or Tiger Woods, whose ancestors include most of the major ethnic groups of this planet?
@ Robert Fuller:
Thanks for that. I agree completely. The court of public opinion, as usual, is full of yahoos making their decisions before all the facts are known. They are basing their opinions on media coverage by a bunch of yahoos telling us that out of the thousands of murders this year, this is the one we should care about (and of course, sensationalizing every detail with minimal emphasis on credibility and fact checking).
I believe it was Lord Helmet that said “I’m surrounded by…” never mind.
Why don’t they just charge Martin’s corpse with a crime?
Walking While Black.
And wearing a hoodie. This is very relevant for no reason other than apparently it makes him even more guilty than simply walking while black.
Luigi and Miriam,
How comforting it must be to feel witty and spout talking points when a tragedy has occurred and a real trial is about to take place.
.
Unless you are privy to information everyone else isn’t, portraying Martin as the “victim” of “profiling” is premature and simplistic – not to mention feeding into those who are stoking emotions rather than looking at the facts.
Yes, Jerome, it’s so unfair to label the dead kid, armed only with Skittles, as a “victim”.
Don’t give me that crap, “storymark”, I have said this was a tragedy.
.
I was specifically referring to the assumption that Martin was a victim of racial profiling, not the case in general.
As rare as it is, I gotta agree with Jerome a little on this one.
Zimmerman is a moron, but that’s based on everything the media has revealed about him and from the 911 call he made.
Trayvon was no angel, but Zimmerman is also an idiot, a racist idiot.
The media is playing along and trying to portray Martin as a saint.
The truth lies somewhere in between, altho from the facts that have come out, Zimmerman is pramiarily in the wrong.
There’s too much no one really knows unless someone’s home video security caught this on tape.
“nothing else matters” just plays into the racist idiots hands by showing a total unwillingness to consider facts and possiblities and to be a partisan tool.
As it is, there’s little to no chance of a fair trial with all the racial šhìŧ that has been stirred up. If Zimmerman is convicted, it’s “because he was railroaded by the politically correct trying to placate the black community so they won’t riot!”
If he’s found not guilty, race riots.
“The media is playing along and trying to portray Martin as a saint.
The truth lies somewhere in between, altho from the facts that have come out, Zimmerman is pramiarily in the wrong.
There’s too much no one really knows unless someone’s home video security caught this on tape.
“nothing else matters” just plays into the racist idiots hands by showing a total unwillingness to consider facts and possibilities and to be a partisan tool.”
.
Wow. Thank you, Bladestar. It’s refreshing that someone who doesn’t usually agree with me is actually listening to what I have to say.
An unfortunately large segment of the media is playing up the Martin/marijuana angle when it is the least relevant and least interesting of the information that has been recently released.
.
For teens today, pot is easier to get than alcohol.
.
Unfortunately, as the title of this thread demonstrates, a lot of the media have failed to accentuate other important information, of which a ton was released in the past week.
.
Not that Zimmerman’s injuries aren’t relevant. many of the same people saying that now are the those who jumped on the video of him weeks ago, where it looked like he didn’t have a scratch, as proof that he cold-bloodedly shot a teen who posed no threat to him. You know, because he’s a “White Hispanic” who loves killing black teens for fun.
.
You really can’t have it both ways.
.
But there is a ton of evidence people either aren’t getting or are choosing to ignore because they’ve already convicted Zimmerman.
.
Such as:
1.) A direct witness, on audio, saying that martin was “throwing down” MMA style blows on Zimmerman
.
2.) Statements of Zimmerman
.
3.) The reports of the police that responded
.
4.) That there was reportedly an unidentified woman who said Zimmerman had “racist ideologies”, but who refused to provide any contact info and whose account of Zimmerman has not been corroborated by anyone else. Investigator Perkins was able to record a portion of this conversation and has put it on a CD.
.
5.) Perhaps the most interesting bit was that Christopher Serino, the lead investigator at the scene concluded there was “probable cause” to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.
.
Which begs two questions then: Why were charges not brought then? And did the prosecution overreach by going for Murder 2? It’s starting to really look like they did and that it will be extremely difficult to convict Zimmerman of Murder 2. At best, we may be looking at a hung jury…and then all hëll is going to break loose.
.
Here’s the released info:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/93951121/State-v-Zimmerman-Evidence-released-by-prosecutor
Here’s what bothers me about #1, According to all reports Zimmerman was pretty much stalking the kid, and continued to stalk him even after a 911 operator told him not to, if I was being followed by a creepy guy for no apparent reason I may throw down some MMA style blows on him too.
We don’t know everything that happened, Darren. We simply don’t.
We do know that Zimmerman called 911, advised the operator that he was armed, and was instructed by the operator to remain in his vehicle and wait for police. We know that Zimmerman never mentioned anything about Martin approaching his vehicle; he did ask if he should leave his car and pursue on foot, which is why the 911 operator even mentioned the need to stay. We know that Zimmerman was armed, Martin was unarmed, and that by even the most generous assessment, Zimmerman was able to aim and fire a sidearm while reportedly having “MMA-style” blows delivered, which would indicate his weapon was already drawn.
I’m sorry, but there doesn’t appear to be a way to parse this evidence to come to any conclusion other than some variety of homicide. A case could be made for negligent homicide, if one managed to exclude the 911 call from the trial; with it, however, there is evidence of forethought on Zimmerman’s part, which brings us back to murder (since the events did not transpire in Zimmerman’s house, or even on his property).
Thanks for boiling it down, Peter. Regardless of how much obfuscation the defense is going to try and put out there, this never would have happened if Zimmerman hadn’t disregarded the instructions of the emergency operator and got out of his car.
How’s this for boiling it down? You have no idea what actually happened.
.
The “fact” that Zimmerman was given “direct instructions” not to follow Martin is bûllšhìŧ. The operator said “You don’t need to do that”. He wasn’t ordered not to and that’s a significant difference.
.
Also, the idea that Martin “fought for his life” is not a “fact” either. According to the available evidence, he was the one that initiated physical violence. There is NO evidence that Zimmerman was running at him, coming at him, swinging at him, etc. As much as people want to say that Zimmerman could have waited for the cops, there is no evidence he did anything to instigate a fight, AND running away or calling the cops were options Martin didn’t take advantage of either. Why is it automatically assumed one should have followed lawful procedures and another shouldn’t have?
.
Again, the evidence to date shows that Martin didn’t “put up a fight”; it shows he was the one who got physical.
.
This is not “obfuscation”. It is evidence collected during an investigation and that will be presented at trial. Although it seems some here would be perfectly fine having a Cardassian trial.
.
Is this case a tragedy? Of course. But the idea that because someone asks you an uncomfortable question, irritates you or even makes you uncomfortable gives you the right to start pounding on them, well…this is why in so many cities and neighborhoods people walk with their head down looking at the ground. Don’t want to make eye contact! Someone might take it the wrong way! And heaven forbid, you take pride in your community and pipe up if you see clowns knocking over garbage cans or littering..I guess we all should just depend on the police for everything, when they may not be willing or able and/or have more important things to do.
.
People should take pride an active role in their community, maybe not to thye extent this guy did…but I see people demonizing neighborhood watch groups over this and I think it’s wrong.
The operator said “You don’t need to do that”.
And then he did anyways.
That’s all anybody really needs to know about Zimmerman: he was looking for a confrontation, and he got it. He was guilty the moment he stepped out of his vehicle.
Under what law gives him the right to walk up to a person he did not see a crime and then try to detain him? He doesn’t need orders to stand down, he did not see this kid commit a crime and walking around does not constitute trying to detain him.
We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. It’s Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle.
This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [00:25]
That is the 911 transcript. Where is the crime that is being committed that gives Zimmerman the right to detain him. He is not a police officer or a security guard. He does not possess the defense of reasonable doubt because he is not a trained law enforcement officer. There is no reason under the law for him to detain this kid.
911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]
911 dispatcher:
OK.
We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]
I’m sorry, Jerome. But I’d rather have cops, that are (ideally) trained and accountable, than Mr. Anger Issues, trigger happy, Neightbourhood Watch dude.
The thought that men like Zimmerman could be out there patrolling MY street doesn’t fill me with a sense of peace and confidence. I’d fear for my loved ones.
If that makes me a dirty State-loving, anti-Libertarian dupe, then so be it.
It’s not so much that I’m automatically opposed to neighbourhood watch. It just that the people who’d be eager to sign up for the job of “armed vigilante” are precisely the people I do not want as armed vigilante.
OK, where the hëll did the “Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin” come from? Whose butt was this pulled out of?
And Craig…
That’s all anybody really needs to know about Zimmerman: he was looking for a confrontation, and he got it. He was guilty the moment he stepped out of his vehicle.
And here’s all anybody really needs to know about Craig: in his world, if someone seems to be following me, I am legally entitled to attempt to kill them.
if someone seems to be following me, I am legally entitled to attempt to kill them.
Similarly, you do NOT know that.
In fact, given that reports have minimal damage to Martin’s hand (one injury, quarter inch), that’s probably an unlikely conclusion.
Ahh, I see somebody’s back for Messed Up World View, Starring Jay Tea.
Zimmerman was “neighborhood watch”, a position he should’ve never had in the first place. As soon as he got out of his car, he deserved whatever he had coming to him.
Martin, who committed no crime, who did nothing wrong, didn’t deserve what happened to him.
So, yeah, Zimmerman can hang by his balls for all I care. The world has no place for wannabe Punishers like him.
Craig said:
Which, apparently, consisted of getting his nose broken and having his head repeatedly smashed into the pavement without ever having thrown a single blow of his own.
Because he got out of his car to follow someone.
News flash, Craig: what Zimmerman did does NOT constitute “stalking” under Florida law. Nor does it constitute assault, threatening, or any other law. If I decide to follow someone who I think is acting suspiciously while on the phone with the cops, that’s what most reasonable people would consider “being a good citizen.”
But apparently to Craig, it’s justification to get yourself killed.
Because he got out of his car to follow someone.
His first mistake.
His second was murdering a kid in cold blood.
If there’s any justice in the world, he won’t be allowed to make a third.
But apparently to Craig, it’s justification to get yourself killed.
Again, Messed Up World View time, because that’s not what I’m saying at all. And no, I don’t want any more of your world view, Jay, because it’s evident that it’s so fûçkëd up that reality wants nothing to do with you either.
Jay, I think the point is that your analysis is just from Zimmerman’s viewpoint, knowing what Zimmerman knows.
I’m not sure I’ve seen anything from Zimmerman’s defenders that takes an analysis from Martin’s viewpoint and knowledge.
Craig,
You have basically said that Zimmerman deserved whatever he got for following Trayvon.
.
Never mind that someone could be interpreted as “following” you could simply be taking the same route as you.
.
Or that it now appears that Zimmerman was heading back to his car and an angry Trayvon was possibly the one who followed him AT THAT POINT and decided to use violence.
.
At most, even if Zimmerman had asked him what he was doing in the neighborhood, wouldn’t a simple “Fûçk off” if he was angry been sufficient?
.
As for “cold-blooded”, that would be more appropriate to describe a mob hit or a gang initiation where they have to shoot a random person and not think twice about it or other sociopaths who use premeditation and have no remorse.
.
Someone engaged in a physical altercation/being subjected to violence, that would be the definition of “hot-blooded”.
.
You make it sound like he just walked up to him and blew him away which is not even close to being reality.
You have basically said that Zimmerman deserved whatever he got for following Trayvon.
Yes, and if anything, he should be the one dead right now, not Martin.
You make it sound like he just walked up to him and blew him away which is not even close to being reality.
You’re probably right. But in the end, as I’ve said, Zimmerman was looking for a confrontation. He was armed, and went out of his way for an opportunity to show it.
So, yeah, maybe cold-blooded isn’t the right term considering the circumstances. But Zimmerman’s actions make it borderline premeditated, imo.
I love this rationelle. All you need to do to *legally* murder someone in Florida is provoke someone into kicking your ášš. Then they’re fair game. Lovely.
That’s pretty much what it comes down to, yeah.
PAD
Any paranoid person can decide someone looks suspicious. J. Edgar Hoover wasted a lot of taxpayer money with his paranoia (investigating Martin Luther King, Jr., Albert Einstein, etc.) Zimmerman did not actually see Martin commit a crime. You can buy disposable cell phones with cameras. So, if Zimmerman had a cell phone with a camera, he could have just took Martin’s picture, and left it at that. Only turning it over to the police if there was actually a crime committed in that area that night.
Also, many people will tend to get ticked off when some know-nothing know-it-all accuses them of something that they didn’t do.
Years ago, some bullies living in my apartment complex would put things behind the tires of people’s cars (soda cans with soda in it, glass beer bottles, etc). One time there was a plastic juice bottle with juice in it behind my right rear tire. I didn’t realize it until after I had driven over it. When I got to my destination, a Best Buy, I made the mistake of deciding to look at my right rear tire area. I was wondering if the juice could create something of a rust issue, or, if I should take the car to the car wash. I was also wondering if it was actually juice, or if it was something more malevolent. Regardless, I looked “suspicious” to someone and they called the police on me. You would think that with all the potholes and litter in the roadway that they wouldn’t have found it strange for someone to look at their rear tire, but they did, and I got treated like a criminal, humiliated and degraded, all because of the actions of a bully.
I tried explaining the truth to the police officer, but, he clearly didn’t believe me. Instead he asked me a bunch of idiotic questions. Like why was I buying season DVD boxsets of Equalizer and Newhart (which was apparently a real head-scratcher to him). Why was I shopping at that particular Best Buy (Gee, I don’t know, maybe because their website shows what is or isn’t in stock at specific stores).
So completely innocent people can get treated like a criminal just because they looked “suspicious” to someone.
Sorry Jerome, I’m just a little bit fuzzy on one tiny detail: did Martin approach Zimmerman while he was in his vehicle, or did Zimmerman approach him? Forgive my sarcasm, but that I think we do know at this point. And I stand by my use of the word obfuscation, because that’s just what a good defense lawyer generally does. And quite often, a good prosecutor too.
*DO* we know that Zimmerman approached Martin? If Martin was taking a route that lead him away from where Zimmerman could follow in his vehicle, then it would make sense for Zimmerman to follow on foot, and observe from a distance. Or even approach to a reasonable distance and ask for identification and/or a reason to be there – it *was* a gated community, after all.
Not enough is known – and probably will never be known, as we don’t have 100% audio/video surveillance coverage of all public and semi-public areas.
If you’re right, and not enough is known, it means that Zimmerman is guilty of murder. “Guilty until proven innocent” isn’t really at play here, as there is no question as to who pulled the trigger. What is at play is an “affirmative defense,” which means that the burden of proof falls on Zimmerman. If Zimmerman is going to claim self-defense, it is his duty to prove it.
The most important part is that there is a trial. Affirmative defenses are questions of fact that, if there is really any question at all, should be in the hands of a jury, instead of the police or DA.
Sorry Jerome, I’m just a little bit fuzzy on one tiny detail: did Martin approach Zimmerman while he was in his vehicle, or did Zimmerman approach him?
What is known is that the altercation happened away from Zimmerman’s car, in between two rows of houses on a parkway. From Google maps, it appears that’s anywhere from 20 to 40 yards away.
Just a general response: the “pot in his system” variable is misleading, since THC can remain in the blood stream in detectable levels for over a month. It’s why it’s so difficult to create DUI-marijuana laws that use such tests. The only thing this information “proves” is that Trayvon used weed at some point upwards of forty DAYS before the incident. It’s a red herring.
Seems to me that Zimmerman picked a fight with Trayvon, who fought back in self-defense. He got his ášš kicked, and shot the kid in retaliation. Two things. 1. I don’t think Zimmerman would have been so bold if he didn’t have a gun as his “security blanket”. 2. It appears that Trayvon is exempt from “stand your ground” laws because he wasn’t armed.
Wildcat
“1. I don’t think Zimmerman would have been so bold if he didn’t have a gun as his “security blanket”
.
That may be projection. Many people who get their concealed carry licenses find themselves less confrontational than before precisely because they carry. In my case, I know I was less likely to get myself into an already unlikely situation where I’d need to use lethal force to defend my life. I assumed a far less aggressive attitude while driving and went to pains to avoid bad neighborhoods precisely because I was armed. From what we’ve read about Zimmerman and his past, I don’t think the presence of a gun changed anything where following Martin is concerned.
.
.
“2. It appears that Trayvon is exempt from “stand your ground” laws because he wasn’t armed.”
.
Was Trayvon charged with anything? I realize I’m splitting hairs here, but the question isn’t whether or not Trayvon acted inappropriately, it’s whether Zimmerman did. In fact there’s a case to be made that, had he lived, Martin would have been charged with a minimum of assault, and perhaps much worse if the reports of Martin’s yelling something to the effect of “You’re going to die, tonight.” prove credible.
.
In the earlier thread, I stated we needed to stop our rush to judgment one way or another. I still feel that way. When the this story broke in March, it looked like a slam dunk case of a racist profiling and shooting shooting 14 year old kids. Since then news outlets admitted to doctoring evidence, and eyewitness accounts have come to light. We’ve learned the photo of Martin we saw was three years old, and that he wasn’t a helpless little boy. We’ve learned that Zimmerman is of many different ethnic backgrounds, and was beaten before firing the fatal shot. What we know of this case has changed dramatically, and will probably continue to change.
I realize I’m splitting hairs here, but the question isn’t whether or not Trayvon acted inappropriately, it’s whether Zimmerman did.
That depends on what Martin did, of course, and what Martin did depends on his assessment. If he felt in fear of his life, then SYG allows him to use deadly force.
The whole point is that SYG is terrible law. It allows two individuals, working with the best intentions, but hampered by imperfect information, to escalate a situation into something with deadly results, with no legal repercussion.
That’s not something a law should do.
Malcolm, the rush to judgment happened on both sides. I’ve seen people on the Right immediately assuming Trayvon was a psychopathic thug, and Zimmerman some kind of Libertarian superhero*.
Me? I’m just happy Zimmerman has been charged and I hope the trial is a fair one.
*I think both the Left and the Right have gun fetishes, although very different ones. To some on the Left, a gun is like Sauron’s One Ring, an artifact of doom constantly tempting the owner to commit attrocities. To some on the Right, it seems like owning a gun is enough to bestow some sort of rugged, individualist heroism.
I think owning a gun shouldn’t carry any stigma – positive or negative. I’m sure we have some very nice people and some very rotten people who own guns.
In my state, the OWI laws allow a conviction if the marijuana metabolite is in your system. This of course means you could smoke a joint a month ago and get pulled over for no turn signal and end up in jail and lose your license for a 3 months.
I like this law because it’s illegal to smoke marijuana at any time here, so if it’s in your system it means you were breaking the law at some point, and it could have been recent enough to impair your driving. Not surprisingly, people continue to smoke pot and break the law and bìŧçh about it when it adversely affects them.
That’s inane. While I’m not an advocate for marijuana legalization, I don’t think that smoking it means one deserves to be convicted of a more serious crime. If I have an illegally purchased gun at home and shoplift while I’m out, I’m guilty of both crimes, but I’m not guilty of armed robbery.
It’s not the same levelas Possession of Marijuna; Possession is an A/M, Driving with the Metabolite is a C/M (lower maximum fine and sentence). The only way it’s more serious is there is a mandatory license suspension of 90 days for OWI. However, if you’re caught with marijuana in your vehicle (whether you are the driver, passenger, whatever) there is a 180 day license AND vehicle registration suspension. So, possession is the more serious crime.
The analogy would be more like if you have an illegally purchased gun at your house, and you shoplift, and something made them get a search warrant and find your gun, and then you’re charged with illegal possession of a firearm. They’re all criminal offenses. Anything you get charged with you’ve gotten deservedly.
PAD, thanks for not parsing words and using the term murderer. People have been executed in Texas with less “facts” known than this case.
Yeah, Ed, because inflammatory rhetoric and prejudging a case as volatile as this is awesome. Well, maybe for the race hustlers who thrive on these incidents and use them to justify their existence, not so much for the rest of our culture or society.
.
And if you want to use Texas as an example, well, they give huge credence to self-defense and “Castle” laws – more than most states. Zimmerman would likely have the odds more in his favor there.
Indeed. Because here in Texas is where, in a case that shares some similarities with this one, and some significant differences as well, we had a man witness his neighbors’ house being burglarized, called 911 and repeatedly requested permission to deal with the burglars, making it clear he had a shotgun. As the Florida dispatcher did with Zimmerman, the dispatcher told him not to. He said he was going to anyway, put the phone down where he could still be heard, went outside and shouted, “Boom! You’re dead!” and shot one (if not both) burglars in the back.
He was lauded as a “hero.” It made me sick.
Should the burglars have been robbing the neighbors? Of course not. Should they have died for it? Of course not. Did this man, who was clearly itching to pull the trigger face any immediate threat from the burglars? Of course not.
So why was the so-called “castle doctrine” used to exonerate him?
–Daryl
I presume one of the great ironies of the Stand Your Ground Law is that somebody from the Martin family could confront Martin on the street and shoot HIM, citing the very law that Zimmerman is trying to hide behind. After all, they could quite rightly point out Zimmerman’s previous behavior (i.e shooting a young African-American man as well as their son) as justification for shooting Zimmerman. After all, following on from SYG, they already have demonstrable proof that their own lives would be in danger from Zimmerman, thus giving them every reason in the world for killing hime first. Mind you, I’m not advocating any of that; just pointing out the ridiculousness of the law.
Sorry, Joe, but if people were interested in dealing with the facts instead of demonizing guns and a law they don’t fully understand, they would realize the STAND YOUR GROUND LAW HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE. IT DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL!
.
Sadly, as evidenced here and elsewhere, many are exploiting the Trayvon Martin shooting to target self-defense laws, like Stand Your Ground, that PROTECT innocent lives. These laws are designed to protect law-abiding and peaceful citizens. Most importantly, and what everyone from most of the media to you fail to understand, is that STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS ARE NOT TO BLAME IN THIS INCIDENT. Stand your ground laws did not apply in the Trayvon situation, and statements to the contrary are irresponsible and misinformed.
.
Stand Your Ground Laws grew due to the fact that in some states the law imposes a duty to retreat from physical confrontations. Whether in your home or on the street, if you fought back, you might be prosecuted as a criminal.
.
You may disagree, but I find such duties and responsibilities placed on citizens truly at risk has made for terrible laws. To require someone to turn their back on someone invading their home or attacking them on the street is insane. Even if he (or she) doesn’t have a gun to shoot you in the back, if he’s faster he (or she) could attack you from behind, where it is extremely difficult to effectively respond.
.
Some states chose to not impose this absurd rule. To the contrary, other states took a common-sense approach to self-defense. This victory for logic and safety of U.S. citizens was given the imprimatur of the Supreme Court which the in Beard v. U.S., which was decided in 1895. The Court unanimously declared that an innocent person under attack was, “not obliged to retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force as … [he] honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, was necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury.”
.
In states that rejected this common-sense approach, one legislative response to the wrongheaded duty to retreat was the Castle Doctrine. The duty to retreat in some states required you to abandon your own home if confronted with an invader, leaving all your possessions to the invader and possibly endangering others.
.
I do not feel that is fair or just or suits the individual citizen or the “needs of the many”.
.
Castle Doctrine comes from the maxim that “a man’s home is his castle.” The idea is that if someone breaks into your home, rather than worry about how much evidence there is that he intends you harm and whether you could prove it in a court of law, that the law presumes you have a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm and can respond accordingly.
.
Castle Doctrine doesn’t apply if you’re in a public place, however, and there is no legal presumption in public that you can reasonably assume someone is trying to kill you. Instead, some states have created a lesser form of protection in public places, called “Stand Your Ground” laws. This is the law that has been mentioned in connection with the Trayvon shooting.
.
BUT THE LAW IS NOT WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD REPORTED BY THE MEDIA. Florida’s SYG law provides that a person under attack can use force — including deadly force — against his attacker if he, “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm … or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.”
.
Several keys points. First, THE THREAT MUST BE DEADLY. IT’S NOT JUST THAT YOU’RE UNDER ATTACK. You must be attacked with sufficient force to kill you or cause massive bodily harm, including rape.
.
Second, IT’S NOT ENOUGH THAT THE VICTIM FELLS HE IS UNDER A DEADLY THREAT. His belief must also be reasonable, meaning that under the circumstances an objective observer would also conclude the victim could be killed or severely injured.
.
Third, STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS ONLY EXIST TO PROTECT VICTIMS, NOT ATTACKERS. If you’re attacking someone, you cannot claim Stand Your Ground as a defense for what follows.
.
And fourth, IT DOESN’T APPLY IF YOU CANNOT RETREAT. If retreat is not an option, then the situation is governed by ordinary self-defense laws, not Stand Your Ground laws.
Under any version of the facts, FLORIDA’S “STAND YOUR GROUND” LAW DID NOT APPLY IN THE ZIMMERMAN/TRAYVON INCIDENT. If Zimmerman pursued a confrontation with Martin, then Zimmerman was an attacker and cannot claim Stand Your Ground. If Zimmerman’s account is true that he was on the ground and Martin was on top of him, then retreat was impossible, so there would be no duty to retreat anyway. A victim in such a situation can use deadly force, but only if he reasonably believes he is being attacked with deadly force.
.
To my knowledge, that is the law in all fifty states. It was the law before Stand Your Ground statutes were ever passed, and Stand Your Ground did nothing to change it.
.
So why is this not common knowledge after all the reporting on the Trayvon incident?? Tragically, some anti-gun activists are misinforming the public. They are aided by media commentators who failed the public trust by not researching and understanding the Stand Your Ground issue before presuming to editorialize on it.
.
In the end, it is a classic battle of those who believe in the individual’s right to protect his/her own life and those who want people to depend on the state to protect them.
.
The police are usually not at hand when you are attacked by a criminal. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves. And laws like Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground have restored that right in states where it had been eroded, not to take innocent life, but instead to preserve it.
“In the end, it is a classic battle of those who believe in the individual’s right to protect his/her own life and those who want people to depend on the state to protect them.”
You forgot a third party in your classic battle. Those who believe in the individual’s right to self-protection, but still want every violent death fully investigated.
In the end, it is a classic battle of those who believe in the individual’s right to protect his/her own life and those who want people to depend on the state to protect them.
Bull and, may I add, šhìŧ.
The one whose life was threatened was Martin’s. The one who is dead is Martin. The one who stalked him was Zimmerman. If Zimmerman hadn’t stalked him, Martin is alive and Zimmerman is unbruised. It has nothing to do with any of the crap that you’re tossing around, Jerome, and the right wing compulsion that refuses to acknowledge the concept that armed vigilantes going around picking fights is a BAD THING is well and truly pathetic. I know you’re a right wing extremist but this is extreme even for you.
PAD
First of all, the “classic battle” line was in reference to the Stan Your Ground Law, not the Trayvon case in particular. I gave a detailed explanation why it doesn’t apply to this case, which everyone from major news anchors to the ladies on “The View” don’t seem to understand.
.
As far as being a “right wing extremist”, let’s see…in this thread I’ve stated that Martin’s marijuana use is one of the least relevant aspects of the case. Yeah, I’m sure Rush will be sending me props for that one.
.
I’ve provided a link to the aCTUAL EVIDENCE RELEASED BY THE PROSECUTOR SO PEOPLE HERE CAN LOOK AT IT AND MAKE THEIR OWN DETERMINATIONS…what a supporter of biased, lockstep thinking that makes me!
.
I’ve said that the lead investigator had said there was “probable cause” for manslaughter – and that this raises questions – but as a result, the prosecution may have overreached.Just because you want to throw around words like murder cavalierly, it is irresponsible for the prosecutor to do that IF (and again, in my close-mindedness I’m allowing for the fact that there may indeed be sufficient evidence to convict him of murder that we don’t know about) all we’ve seen is all there is and if the lead investigator thought the only “probable cause” was for manslaughter. In which case, it is now more likely he will get off
.
I am not stating the Earth is flat or is only 5,000 years old. I am actually examining the legal applications of the Stand Your Ground law and looking at the actual evidence in this case. I’m trying to have discussions with those who would like to do that as well.
.
You are being extremely close-minded here.
Peter David said:
The one whose life was threatened was Martin’s. The one who is dead is Martin. The one who stalked him was Zimmerman. If Zimmerman hadn’t stalked him, Martin is alive and Zimmerman is unbruised. It has nothing to do with any of the crap that you’re tossing around, Jerome, and the right wing compulsion that refuses to acknowledge the concept that armed vigilantes going around picking fights is a BAD THING is well and truly pathetic. I know you’re a right wing extremist but this is extreme even for you.
Wow PAD does the procecusion know that you were there and witnessed all this very valuble evidence? That you obviously have firsthand knowledge of this case is astounding, what were you sitting there on the steps watching? or looking out a window? oh, I know… you were sitting in the back seat of Zimmermans’ car weren’t you? How else could you have that much factually correct information.
How else could you have that much factually correct information.
Because PAD actually recognizes facts when he sees them, and isn’t simply going by the persecution complex that the right-wing lives on because a gun was involved in Martin’s death.
“Because PAD actually recognizes facts when he sees them, and isn’t simply going by the persecution complex that the right-wing lives on because a gun was involved in Martin’s death.”
.
In the early days of this case nearly everyone, right and left, condemned Zimmerman. Those on the right didn’t give a dámņ if Martin was killed with a a gun or a can of Aquanet. We all (myself included) bought into the doctored news stories of Zimmerman being a racist piece of filth who profiled and stalked an innocent kid. It was only after other facts came to light that some people changed their minds.
.
When I bring up evidence that seems to exonerate Zimmerman, it is only because I’m trying to say don’t rush to judgment.
.
Now, from the evidence I’ve seen so far, I think Zimmerman will be acquitted. That isn’t to say he’s innocent, it’s saying that I don’t think there is enough evidence to convict him, especially on a murder 2 rap. The fact that Alan Dershowitz (not exactly a right-wing extremist)says this in stronger terms should give all leftists pause.
.
I honestly think that the only thing that can sink Zimmerman right now is an incompetent defense lawyer.* It’s not because he played the law in a particularly smart fashion. It’s because I don’t see enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If SYG hadn’t been passed, the prosecution still comes up short. Ditto if Zimmerman had been carrying illegally, though they would have him on a much lesser crime. I don’t know if they’ve even got enough to get a judgment on Zimmerman in the inevitable civil trial that might follow.
.
The nature of evidence tells me Zimmerman will walk. The patterns of the past leads me to think this will lead to a riot. Those same patterns along with what I read here make me think that riot will be tolerated if not condoned by leftists without life or property in the area.
.
.
.
*I think there’s a good chance that this is the case, btw.
That’s a really poor reading of Stand Your Ground (albeit well-stated). First Stand Your Ground (as constructed in recently passed laws like Florida’s) is not really supported by Beard. That explicitly regards the long-established Castle Doctrine; it just makes clear that the Castle Doctrine doesn’t only apply to one’s dwelling, but to the property immediately outside the dwelling as well. The Court states, “In our opinion, the court below erred in holding that the accused, while on his premises, outside of his dwelling house, was under a legal duty to get out of the way.”
Second, the statement: “In states that rejected this common-sense approach, one legislative response to the wrongheaded duty to retreat was the Castle Doctrine.” couldn’t be more wrong. The Castle Doctrine exists at Common Law, and is discussed in Blackstone. As far as I know, no states ever “required you to abandon your own home if confronted with an invader” (although there may be an exception of which I am unaware). The “legislative response,” at least here in NY, was to follow the Court’s instruction and extend the Castle Doctrine to the area immediately outside the home.
Third, your scenario about getting run down or shot in the back is covered by the Inability to Retreat exception, so there is no need for a new law.
Finally, you must know that it’s ridiculous to try to paint these laws as “conservative,” right? That’s not to say they’re not pushed by conservatives; I mean that if one is trying to preserve law and rights that have been tried and true for 400 years (and longer), this is not the type of thing that one should pass. Rights in this regard had not been “eroded.” This isn’t a battle of individualism vs. communitarianism, nor is it a battle over the Second Amendment. This is a battle to destroy tested rules that have governed the behavior between civilized men for centuries.
Craig J. Ries said:
Because PAD actually recognizes facts when he sees them, and isn’t simply going by the persecution complex that the right-wing lives on because a gun was involved in Martin’s death.
What facts? other than what the media is blowing up Americas ášš. Exactly what facts did you see? See? theres that word again. So you were there?
Sadly, this has become so politicized on both sides (Fox News bringing in pundits to attack Martin, Al Sharpton going to anti-Zimmerman protests, then attacking Zimmerman on his own show) that every word, piece of evidence, and witness will be taken apart, examined, and over-examined to suit the ultimate goal of either side. And unless an actual video of the event ever surfaces, we’ll never truly know what happened — and both sides will use that to argue that their version is correct.
(However, it’s not really debatable that someone is cashing in on this tragedy in the most tasteless way possible: selling shooting targets of a person in a hoodie with a bag of Skittles and a bottle of iced tea http://www.ámšŧërdámņëwš.com/news/national/hiller-armament-uses-trayvon-martin-image-as-gun-target/article_697026a6-9fa4-11e1-b3ef-001a4bcf887a.html Oy.)
Oh my God! That is beyond repulsive! Truly sick.
Peter, you say Martin was fighting for his life? When did Zimmerman throw any blows at him? In all likelihood, Martin was slamming Zimmerman’s head against the concrete, Zimmerman panicked and shot him. Just because one follows someone against the advice of 911 doesn’t automatically mean the other party is ‘fighting for their life.’ Reality is it was probably male testarone involving both parties, one came up on the losing end and fired his weapon. But you know what, I don’t know. I wasn’t there. I haven’t seen all of the evidence. But go ahead and do trial by media. And when football season starts, please get back to us from your armchair and let us know what the quarterback should’ve done.
If Martin saw the gun, than blows really don’t matter. He could have reasonably feared that his life was in danger. Ironically, if Florida didn’t have a Stand Your Ground rule, then Martin might have had had a Duty to Retreat. That’s why these laws are so ridiculous; they almost encourage confrontation.
No they don’t Matt and they don’t even apply in this case.
.
They simply don’t.
.
That’s the LAW, despite some people’s agenda.
.
And according to the EVIDENCE presented, he wasn’t scared (he still could have ran) he was pìššëd øff.
.
You may feel he was justifiably pìššëd øff. You also are assuming he saw the gun.
.
So he SAW THE GUN, was a few feet away at least and chose to engage Zimmerman with his fists? Good luck selling that one to a reasonable jury.
Here’s a startlingly simple answer: Zimmerman didn’t throw any blows because he was busy reaching for his gun.
This isn’t “trial by media.” This is common freaking sense. There is no common sense version of it–none–that doesn’t boil down to a guy coming up out of the darkness and challenging the right of a young guy to be walking the streets. Here’s what some people cannot or will not wrap themselves around: It’s called Neighborhood WATCH. Not Neighborhood CHALLENGE.
Zimmerman pursued him, stalked him, killed him. If he had not pursued him and not stalked him he would not have killed him. And people can make all the snide comments they want, but that’s simple indisputable.
Martin was being stalked by this guy. IF Martin attacked him, it’s probably because he felt his life was in danger. Go ahead: say he was wrong and his life wasn’t in danger. Say it. It’ll be funny and I can get a good laugh out of it.
PAD
That’s the problem, PAD. We don’t know that Zimmerman reached for his gun or even showed it before Martin started throwing punches. You seem to assume that because a man is carrying, he must have gone for his gun. It’s far from common sense to assume it. I can name more than one case where a CCW holder didn’t go for a weapon in a confrontation until after he was subjected to a beat-down. If it proves true that Zimmerman was the one calling for help, then it bolsters the theory that he didn’t go for his weapon until after being on the ground. You might call it common sense, but I think there’s more than enough room for a rational person to have reasonable doubt.
.
If the prosecution advances the theory that Martin attacked because he felt his life was in danger, then it needs to be careful in how it does so. The defense could counter with the theory that Martin wanted to impress the girl he was talking with on the phone and testosterone got the better of him. Any male who remembers what being seventeen was like might see that as a possibility. If the prosecution asserts that Trayvon was a typical innocent teen who never did any harm to anyone, they open the door to the defense advancing every infraction of Martin’s recent past into evidence.* My point is that reasonable doubt is not hard come to by here, especially in a courtroom.
.
Once again, I’d encourage everyone to read Dershowitz on this issue. He’s not a man anyone can accuse of being a conservative, and he’s denounced the prosecution as criminal.
.
.
.
*This happened in the trial resulting from the shooting of Nevell “Snake” Johnson by Officer Luis Alvarez almost thirty years ago. The prosecution made the mistake of describing Johnson as an innocent guy minding his own business, and thus injected the character of the deceased into the trial. The defense jumped on it and showed that Johnson had been, IIRC, a drug courier. It was a major mistake on the prosecution’s part that may have tipped the jury for Alvarez.
I’ve been following this case on and off so allow me to ask… In the early stages of it’s coverage I recall reading that the police allowed Zimmerman to leave the scene after explaining his version of what happened and that he was allowed to keep the gun. Is this still true?
.
Because like many said here, we might never know for sure what happened. All the correlation of facts might make me suspicious of Zimmerman but I am no judge and, luckily, no jury. But the police is expected to be suspicious of everything and check every angle, not for them to judge but to give society a vision as clear as possible of what happened. And that sees not to have hapened, at least from what I know. They took the word of the guy with the gun and assumed Martin was a tresspaser, not even bothering to ask in the vincinity to see if he actually lived there.
.
Frankly, if I was from Florida I would’nt be so troubled about Zimmerman walking free than about those policemen keeping their jobs.
Sort of.
Basically, the police requested Zimmerman to be charged with manslaughter. But the state attorney’s office thought “there was insufficient evidence”. They’re the ones that let him walk.
Despite Jerome’s predictable and passionate defense of Stand Your Ground Laws, I think the law is very harmful if it’s used as a excuse for the authorities to save money and energy whenever they have a murder when there is the slightly possibility of it being applied.
Rene,
You missed the whole point. The point wasn’t a defense of Stand Your Ground laws, it was that they didn’t even apply in this case and why.
.
Unless you can show that the reason “there was insufficient evidence” is BECAUSE of Stand Your Ground, how are you making your point.
.
Any law can be harmful if applied incorrectly, in the hands of overzealous prosecutors, judges, etc.
.
And the question was: Was Zimmerman allowed to just leave the scene. This is a yes or no question. This is important, because the story for well over a week when the story broke was just this, that Zimmerman “hadn’t even been arrested”.
.
Which is what is called a lie.
.
Zimmerman WAS arrested. He was cuffed, brought to the police station and questioned. It was then determined there was insufficient evidence to hold him. This happens all the time. It doesn’t mean if new evidence was brought to light that made the case more substantial (an eyewitness, etc.) that he couldn’t have been cuffed again and arraigned..
The alternative would be keeping someone at the police station for days or weeks whether the authorities felt there was sufficient evidence or not.
Let’s go through this entire thread and just list the things that are either unsupported by the facts known so far, or utter bûllšhìŧ.
–“Trayvon Martin, being stalked by an armed vigilante acting in opposition to direct instructions from a 9-1-1 operator…”
–“According to all reports Zimmerman was pretty much stalking the kid, and continued to stalk him even after a 911 operator told him not to…”
–“Under what law gives him the right to walk up to a person he did not see a crime and then try to detain him?”
–“As soon as he got out of his car, he deserved whatever he had coming to him.
Martin, who committed no crime, who did nothing wrong, didn’t deserve what happened to him.”
–“His first mistake.
His second was murdering a kid in cold blood.”
–“Seems to me that Zimmerman picked a fight with Trayvon, who fought back in self-defense.”
–“The one whose life was threatened was Martin’s. The one who is dead is Martin. The one who stalked him was Zimmerman. If Zimmerman hadn’t stalked him, Martin is alive and Zimmerman is unbruised.”
–“Zimmerman pursued him, stalked him, killed him. If he had not pursued him and not stalked him he would not have killed him.”
The evidence so far supports none of this, and in most cases just the opposite.
But do we really need to let facts get in the way of a good old-fashioned lynching?
This has been another episode of “Jay Tea Slowly Losing His Mind.” Come back next week for another brand new episode, where he says that Crystal Pepsi helped him see Jesus at the bottom of a fishbowl.
We know only the following:
He followed the kid, suspecting him of being a criminal. He was told not to (for his own safety, probably), but did so anyway. He was carrying a gun.
He wound up beaten up and the kid wound up dead.
Far as I can see it, his responsibilities to neighborhood watch ended when he called the cops about a potentially suspicious person. Anything after that was just bloody STUPID. The police constantly tell civilians to not get directly involved with suspects because they could get hurt or killed.
Martin ignored common sense and the instructions of the 911 operator. If nothing else, he should have remained in his car and observed from a safe distance. If he had done so, at no time would he have had any reason to actually hold his gun, much less pull the trigger. If Martin had moved to confront him, he could have driven away.
So yes, totally unnecessary confrontation that ended with him beaten and the kid dead. If nothing else, he’s guilty of being a class-1 moron.
…Did you just use the term “good old-fashioned lynching” in relation to a case involving minorities? (shakes head)
We know only the following:
He followed the kid, suspecting him of being a criminal. He was told not to (for his own safety, probably), but did so anyway. He was carrying a gun.
He wound up beaten up and the kid wound up dead.
Amazingly enough, that’s almost entirely accurate. The only thing I’d disagree with is the “but did so anyway” — my take on the 911 call has Zimmerman stopping his pursuit to talk with the operator about where he will meet the police. A guy breathing hard while following a younger guy who then has his breath return to normal and plans a meeting is not still in pursuit mode.
And if he did stop pursuing Martin, then that raises the question — how did the two end up in a confrontation? If Zimmerman stopped following, then Martin must have turned back to confront him.
I’ll eschew an opinion in this one since I don’t know what happened and therefore have none. It may be worth noting that the Constitution both protects copyrights and the right to reasonable bail in criminal proceedings. Zimmerman apparently is no flight risk, and in any event, where would he go? He turned himself in. The court followed the law. I don’t hear David whining when enforcing the Constitution sends him money. Why is he complaining now?
I know I shouldn’t bother to ask this since you’re pretty much a waste of bandwidth, but: what the hëll are you talking about insofar as enforcing the constitution sends me money?
PAD
Robert,
Are you on medication or something? That has to be one of the least coherent arguments I have ever seen made on either side of the political spectrum – or just in general. WHAT THE HÊLL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!
Because Peter David is a card carrying liberal, and most of his views come from that perspective. Most of his followers are the same way. He makes very few comments about black on white hate crimes, or if he does he doesn’t get his panties in a bunch like this case.
He thinks George Bush killed Trayvon.
PAD and Phil Hendrie and countless other concerned funny men like to simplify the case to: boy was walking, boy was shot, white man standing, send whitey to prison.
It’s all about white guilt, being anti-gun, and always viewing blacks in America as underdogs and victims.
Is the Stand Your Ground Law an injustice and does it have room for abuse? Yes. BUT the law is the law, and jurors must consider the letter of the law. SYG allows for killing in self-defense even if you started the fight. Does that sound fair? Not really, but that’s the law.
Zimmerman was in his legal rights to follow Martin. Was it stupid? Yeah. So? It’s not illegal. It wasn’t stalking. PAD assumes too much.
I realize I won’t get through to most of you, but for those of you who don’t know much about the case, understand that PAD is OVERSIMPLIFYING. Just because Zimmerman accosted the kid doesn’t mean it’s legal for the kid to assault him. I realize that is an assumption (that Martin got angry at being followed; PAD doesn’t realize he makes an assumption by stating Martin being threatened with a gun.) We need DETAILS and facts based on sworn testimony from witnesses and physical evidence presented in court.
Amazing how liberals like PAD only are Constitutional libertarians when it suits themselves and their bleeding heart agenda.
Rule of law: If Zimmerman felt his life was in danger and tried to get away, it’s self-defense. Eat it.
Facts that don’t matter:
If Martin had drugs in his system, if Martin or Zimmerman were racists, who started what, and how the media covered it. Wiki Stand Your Ground Florida. It’s a dumb law, but it was created because we live in a politically correct society (thanks to people like PAD) where people who shoot muggers get tried as criminals.
Murder Two is a miscarriage of justice. Manslaughter would be the better case to try. The fact that the DA said she was not politically motivated to charge Murder Two, or that she didn’t do it as a negotiation ploy to cop a please from Zimmerman, is also an injustice.
Amazing how PAD always falls on the left side of things- especially since he writes about vigilantes for a living! He breaks my heart, as I love all of his comics!!!
A few facts as opposed to your suppositions:
1) My liberal beliefs did not force Zimmerman out of a car to pursue an unarmed kid against the advice of the 911 operator. They did not force him to accost Martin. They did not force Zimmerman into a position where (according to him) he suddenly had to defend himself with lethal force. The entire affair did, however, force gun-loving people to defend Zimmerman’s actions.
2) I haven’t dragged Bush into it.
3) Uh…no. The only aspect of race that I’ve brought into this is that if Martin were white and Zimmerman black, Zimmerman would likely have been arrested on the spot and charged shortly thereafter, and guys like you wouldn’t be defending him. That’s the difference between you and me: were that the case, I wouldn’t be defending him either.
4) No, it’s all about that if Zimmerman hadn’t decided that Neighborhood Watch was synonymous with Neighborhood Follow A Guy, this wouldn’t have happened.
5) The law is the law. And when it’s a bad law, it should be changed. Which I’m sure you’d be saying if it had been your son who had been killed.
6) Yes, following someone is not illegal. Unless you’re stalking them. Which he did.
7) “Just because Zimmerman accosted the kid doesn’t mean it’s legal for the kid to assault him.” If Zimmerman provoked him? If Zimmerman threatened him? If he thought Zimmerman was going to attack him? Yes. It’s legal. It’s called self-defense. Considering that Zimmerman shot and killed him, it would seem to any reasoning person that Martin’s concerns were well-founded.
8) Rule of law: If I walk up to you and tell you you’re a blithering right wing, gun-loving jerk and you knock me on my ášš and I gun you down, I’m pretty sure I’d go to jail. Fortunately, being a bleeding heart liberal, I would never do that.
9) The fact that I write about vigilantes and make them sympathetic simply proves that I’m perfectly capable of seeing all sides of an issue. Unlike some.
PAD
There are a few assumptions in your own statements here.
1) There is no proof that Zimmerman “accosted” Martin. Zimmerman’s story is that he lost Martin, who then turned back and confronted him — and the evidence (such as the 911 tape) support that.
2) “Neighborhood Watch” means “stay in your vehicle and never get out?” Is that like the old story of the guy who is looking for his keys under the street light — he dropped them halfway down the block, but the light’s better there?
3) “Stalking” has a very specific legal definition. It doesn’t apply here. I can choose to follow anyone around any time I like, for whatever reason or no reason. It is NOT provocative enough to constitute a threat in and of itself.
3) “Stalking” has a very specific legal definition. It doesn’t apply here. I can choose to follow anyone around any time I like, for whatever reason or no reason. It is NOT provocative enough to constitute a threat in and of itself.
Nor, for that matter, does walking on the street at night.
–Daryl
I must take exception with one point above, Peter. As a gun-loving nut, I want to see Zimmerman tried, and if the situation is as it appears, I want to see him go to jail for a prolonged period.
You see, I’ve always believed that with great power comes great responsibility (to coin a phrase); and the power implicit in the right to keep and bear arms brings with it the responsibility to use that power judiciously. Shooting someone who punched you in the face is hardly “judicious”, particularly when you’re the one who approached the puncher.
He thinks George Bush killed Trayvon.
And we have a winner for… Well, there are no words.
“Amazing how PAD always falls on the left side of things”
Not quite true. PAD’s position on Israel is closer to the right.
But let me ask you something, Bill. What about you? Do you always fall on the right side of things?
You’d be quite the hypocrite if you criticized PAD for following some party line, when you probably do the same.
1) There is no proof that Zimmerman “accosted” Martin. Zimmerman’s story is that he lost Martin, who then turned back and confronted him — and the evidence (such as the 911 tape) support that.
No, it doesn’t. Ambiguous at best. What IS true is that this confrontation occurred far from the street.
2) “Neighborhood Watch” means “stay in your vehicle and never get out?”
Well, by training in official Neighborhood Watches, apparently so.
Jay, I do not think you are as well informed as you think you are.
roger, that’s why I said “supported” and not “proved.” Zimmerman was breathing hard; that’s why the operator asked if he was following Martin. His breath returned to normal, so that indicates he stopped hurrying.
No, there’s nothing conclusive here. But the trend has been remarkably consistent — pretty much each detail as it’s come out has been supportive of Zimmerman’s account. And the “Zimmerman was some gun-crazed racist who hunted down and murdered an innocent black child for no reason whatsoever” story has been crumbling, bit by bit.
If I had to bet on what happened, though, I’d put my money on Zimmerman’s story being pretty much accurate. And in that story, Zimmerman didn’t break any laws.
I think it’s wrong to chase people down and shoot them. Even if Trayvon initiated the attack, it’s stop being self-defense when the person chases the other guy down and shoot them. It’s more like a hunt than self-defense. It’s just wrong on so many levels. My heart goes to Trayvon.
Trayvon should not have been killed. It’s a tragic. I feel like Zimmerman is guilty and should be in jail for it. That being said, I feel like the media often blows things out of proportion and manipulate the viewers’ emotions to get ratings.
As further proof that many in the media are seeking to pursue not justice but an agenda with this case, how about this? In March and April, MSNBC was virtually all-Trayvon, all the time. But the past week, not only did not report or even analyze/rebut news favorable to Zimmerman, they failed to mention it AT ALL.
.
http://www.mediaite.com/?s=msnbc+zimmerman
.
Oh, that wacky objective media..
Oh, and now that evidence has surfaced showing that Zimmerman was indeed injured and engaged in a struggle as he says he was, I wonder how likely it is that Bill Maher will apologize for saying, “Aren’t we all convinced from that tape that this guy is a big fat fûçkìņg liar?” and repeating that in some form when Zimmerman first made those claims?
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzdXcjM1F6c
.
Probably about as good as him ever saying anything positive about a conservative woman or of Dan Rather ever admitting he made a grievous error during the 2004 campaign.
One of the too-funny-if-it weren’t-so-tragic moments of the case was Ed Schultz blasting Fox’s Sean Hannity for being symptomatic of the Right’s arguments taking an “ugly turn” and “desperately throwing out hypothetical excuses for the killer” by dating to suggest the tragedy might be “just a horrible accident”.
.
According to Schultz, “yes we do know (and pathetically uses the 911 calls as proof)” and added “To even suggest that the killing was an accident shows a total disregard for the facts and a complete lack of respect for the family”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UirvkS3OrjA&feature=related
.
According to ed’s logic, then, someone else who is “desperately throwing out excuses for the killer” and showing a “total disregard for the facts and a complete lack of respect for the family” is TRAYVON’S MOTHER..who also thinks the shooting was an accident.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trayvon-martins-mother-on-shooting-i-believe-it-was-an-accident/
Admit it, Jerome. To a politically neutral person, the Trayvon shooting actually seemed very suspicious and Zimmerman story seemed very self-serving -man released after shooting an unarmed black 17-year old teenager.
That several points of Zimmerman’s story are actually supported by the released evidence proves nothing beyond the fact that sometimes what appears to be unlikely self-serving bûllšhìŧ is actually the truth.
In any case, I was never in the camp that thinks Zimmerman should be hanged no matter what. What I wished from day 1 was that he received a fair trial.
The partisans in both sides will always be affected by their particular biases. Sometimes one side will emerge as the one that had been right, but not because they have an unbiased view, it’s just that, this time, reality happened to conform to their bias.
Don’t forget that many Conservatives immediately thought MUSLIM TERRORISTS when the shooting in Norway happened. They have been proved wrong, but not because they’re dumb or anything. Muslims actually were the most likely suspect.
Wrong, PAD. If Martin wanted to live, Martin himself should have been carrying a gun in order to justifiably shoot dead Zimmerman under “Stand Your Ground”.
Glad Barney Frank thinks this is funny:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/rep-barney-franks-provocative-trayvon-martin-joke-shocks-commencement-audience/
I’ve always heard that Frank was considered one of the funniest guys in congress and I’ve never really seen why. It’s not just his politics; Anthony Weiner will always be a punchline in my book but he could be genuinely funny. hëll, even Al Franken has made me laugh out loud. But Frank’s wit has eluded me, though maybe I haven’t seen him at his best.
(I still think Bob Dole told the best impromptu political joke ever– he saw Carter, Ford and Nixon sitting next to each other at some event and quipped “There they are, see no evil, hear no evil, and . . . evil.”
My problem with it is that this was not a rally, it was not a political fundraiser, it wasn’t an appearance on “O’Reilly”. It was a commencement in which optimism is supposed to rule the day and the graduates should be the center of attention.
.
Yes, that is a classic quip by Dole.
Oh, people have absolutely no sense anymore when it comes to knowing when to be political and when not to. Seems pretty dumb to me to turn off all those potential fans by taking advantage of an opportunity to say something that is neither original or terribly clever. Then they whine about any criticism they get. In fairness though, anyone who asks Barney Frank to talk has to know they will get opinionated partisan political discourse–it’s what he does and I think he can reasonably expect that this is what is expected of him. It would be cool if he defied those expectations and gave a speech from the heart that had wisdom of more lasting import than the issue du jour but whatever.
I would have liked someone to take a picture of the graduates when he said it though, I wonder if they all had that Springtime For Hitler look on their faces.
*sigh*
Some people just can’t turn it off. I’m a total junkie for news and politics, but even I can turn it off for a bit. More people in his position need to learn how to do it too.
Well no matter what happens next, I am now utterly convinced Me. Zimmerman is a total idiot. He got bail revoked for lying to the judge about a) his finances and b) his passport. dude, you don’t lie to the judge!