or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Trayvon Martin
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trayvon Martin - Page 5

post #121 of 165
Thread Starter 

I think most of the people on this thread just want more of an investigation, which very likely would never have happened without the media (including but not limited to MSNBC). 

 

 

post #122 of 165

Fearing for your life in a domestic abuse case doesn't seem to qualify under the 'Stand your ground' law. 

post #123 of 165

This Reuters investigative report is a real eye-opener:

 

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/04/26/usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idINDEE83P02D20120426
 

post #124 of 165

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post

This Reuters investigative report is a real eye-opener:

 

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/04/26/usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idINDEE83P02D20120426
 

 

 

Indeed it is.  The homeowners interviewed made it very, very clear that Zimmerman was basing his suspicions on racial profiling.  They had had numerous contacts with the "black boys doing break-ins", and could identify them, even to the point of successfully prosecuting at least one of them.  The only thing Martin had in common with the known criminals is the color of his skin.  

post #125 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post

 

 

 

Indeed it is.  The homeowners interviewed made it very, very clear that Zimmerman was basing his suspicions on racial profiling.  They had had numerous contacts with the "black boys doing break-ins", and could identify them, even to the point of successfully prosecuting at least one of them.  The only thing Martin had in common with the known criminals is the color of his skin.  


Funny how the way you read it and the way ABC news read it is so different.

post #126 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post


Funny how the way you read it and the way ABC news read it is so different.

 

I'm not sure what you mean, as what you posted was a Reuters article, not ABC.  

 

How does this statement interpret any differently?:

 

 

 

Quote:
"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."

 

It only interprets one way...suspicion due to race.

post #127 of 165

No more than "There were guys in black hoodies breaking into houses."  A black hoodie would be an item of suspicion, but proof of nothing.

 

And ABC continues to at least admit they got it wrong at first:

 

http://gma.yahoo.com/abc-news-exclusive-zimmerman-medical-report-shows-broken-204911351--abc-news-topstories.html
 

post #128 of 165

Actually, I don't find the two comparable.  Anyone can wear a hoodie, be they White, Black, Asian, Persian, Martians, Elves, etc.  The neighbor made it very, very clear that he was stalking the boy because he was Black.  

post #129 of 165

Which neighbor?  The anonymous one quoted in the New York Times article?

 

Alan Dershowitz, who I suspect has forgotten more about law than either of us will ever learn, says that the special prosecutor was brought in specifically to overcharge Zimmerman; that's her reputation, that's her usual habit, and that's what the state wanted in order to calm down the publicity.  However, Dershowitz says there is no case, and the best she can hope for is a plea bargain; if it goes to trial, she's going to lose on the current charges and she'll have riots on her hands.

 

In fact, I heard Dershowitz say that everyone in the media, except the New York Times who finished their most recent article with a quote he totally dismissed, has finally realized that the odds are pretty good that the police chief made the correct decision at the time of the shooting.

 

(And, once again, I will say that Zimmerman should not have had his gun with him.  I wonder what the media would be saying now, had that been the case and Martin had put Zimmerman in the hospital or killed him.  After all, until Zimmerman got it out and used it, Martin didn't know Zimmerman had his gun.)
 

post #130 of 165
Apparently Trayvon called a friend and told her a creepy guy was following him. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/us/trayvon-martins-friend-tells-what-she-heard-on-phone.xml
Like I said, I'd be totally freaked out if someone was following me, and if he got close enough that I thought he'd grab me I'd probably attack first. If someone is following you closely it's kind of the only option, isn't it?
post #131 of 165

And you believed that story?

 

Does it make any difference that both Martin's family and Zimmerman's family swear it is their loved one screaming for help on the tapes?  Since Zimmerman was on the bottom in the actual fight, taking a beating, I would discount what Martin's family says.  It's not logical.

 

As I said, however, unless you get a jury that's afraid to give an honest verdict (which some believe was the problem with OJ's jury), legal experts say a trial is likely to end in acquittal.  How do YOU feel about that?
 

post #132 of 165
I imagine one story is as believable as another in a case like this tongue.gif.

Zimmerman was in his car and had no reason to approach anyone. That alone puts him in the wrong. I really don't have any particular opinions on how this case turns out except that I don't think people should be allowed to follow people around, accost them on the street, and ultimately kill them just because they think that person looks suspicious.
post #133 of 165

You have to be joking?????  I feel safer at night when we have neighborhood watchmen out. 
 

What is being done about this buffoon?

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-black-panthers-king-samir-shabazz-advocates-violence-against-whites

 

NOTHING. 

post #134 of 165
Neighborhood watchmen are supposed to watch. And call the cops if need be. Not harrass people. And definitely not physically confront people. I would totally NOT feel safe if somene was following me in his car, and I would completely freak out if he got out of his car. That's a scary situation. A neighborhood watchman is not a cop and nobody has any reason to think he's anything but a rapist/murderer/kidnapper/etc. and react accordingly.

And I'm not sure what some yahoo spewing hate has to do with this case? Hate-filled bigots spew hate every day for every reason in every direction using every excuse.
post #135 of 165

Well, this is nothing more than race related.  Things are coming out that the news didn't bother to report on. 

 

Please post a CREDIBLE link that the boy was harassed.  Recent link please.

post #136 of 165
I don't need a "link" to believe he was harrassed. These are the facts as I know them: Zimmerman was in his car. He called the police and told them he was following a suspicious-looking character. They told him to stay in his car and they would come. After that not much is known other than he obviously didn't stay in his car.

Following someone is harrassment. Stalking, I believe it's called. Following someone until they're good and intimidated and then getting out of your car to confront them is also harrassment.

I would not want to be treated that way.

I really don't think it was race related either, except that he was probably more likely to think a black kid was suspicious than a white kid. I just think he got too overzealous in his neighborhood watching.
post #137 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post

And you believed that story?

 

Does it make any difference that both Martin's family and Zimmerman's family swear it is their loved one screaming for help on the tapes?  Since Zimmerman was on the bottom in the actual fight, taking a beating, I would discount what Martin's family says.  It's not logical.

 

As I said, however, unless you get a jury that's afraid to give an honest verdict (which some believe was the problem with OJ's jury), legal experts say a trial is likely to end in acquittal.  How do YOU feel about that?
 

 

Actually, now we don't even know if Zimmerman was on bottom, or not.  It seems that nearly all the key witnesses are "re-thinking" their stories.  One interesting one reminds me of the movie "12 Angry Men".  One of the witnesses made a statement earlier to what she saw;  without wearing her contacts.  :D

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/witnesses-zimmerman-trayvon-case-change-stories.html

post #138 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post

Which neighbor?  The anonymous one quoted in the New York Times article?

 

Alan Dershowitz, who I suspect has forgotten more about law than either of us will ever learn, says that the special prosecutor was brought in specifically to overcharge Zimmerman; that's her reputation, that's her usual habit, and that's what the state wanted in order to calm down the publicity.  However, Dershowitz says there is no case, and the best she can hope for is a plea bargain; if it goes to trial, she's going to lose on the current charges and she'll have riots on her hands.

 

In fact, I heard Dershowitz say that everyone in the media, except the New York Times who finished their most recent article with a quote he totally dismissed, has finally realized that the odds are pretty good that the police chief made the correct decision at the time of the shooting.

 

(And, once again, I will say that Zimmerman should not have had his gun with him.  I wonder what the media would be saying now, had that been the case and Martin had put Zimmerman in the hospital or killed him.  After all, until Zimmerman got it out and used it, Martin didn't know Zimmerman had his gun.)
 

 

Well, one, we don't know if he knew or not.  Wannabe's with guns have a tendency to advertise.  One of the calls we hated the most was the "armed citizen" call, because when you try to get everyone to disarm so you can secure the scene, the armed citizen is usually the fool wanting to argue/explain about who did what while waving his/her arms, usually still holding the gun.  

 

And two, if Martin had defended himself against someone stalking him, then the law would have been on his side.  Unless, there was some indication as there is in this case, that the law was used at a "stalk n' shoot" instead of self-defense.  

post #139 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by zohdee View Post

You have to be joking?????  I feel safer at night when we have neighborhood watchmen out. 
 

What is being done about this buffoon?

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-black-panthers-king-samir-shabazz-advocates-violence-against-whites

 

NOTHING. 

What about this one?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/shaun-winkler-idaho-cross-burning_n_1506357.html

 

or what about Arizona's self-styled "border patrol".  If something had been done about them, maybe this wouldn't have happened.  doh3.gif

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-arizona-shooting-20120503,0,6681278.story

post #140 of 165

It's starting to appear that the only real reason for "Stand your ground" laws is to "pad the numbers".  Supporters claim that crime rates have fallen in states that have adopted these laws.  But, if you look at the numbers, that's not true.  They have simply found a way to take murder off the list of reported crimes...by making it "justified".  

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-27/stand-your-ground-law-trayvon-martin/55208980/1

post #141 of 165

Zimmerman's bond was revoked yesterday...

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-bond-revoked/story?id=16476183#.T8qJOMWwD_c

Quote:

A judge revoked bond today for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch captain charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of a Florida teenager in his gated community, and ordered him to surrender himself in 48 hours.

Prosecutors had filed a motion today to revoke his bond, accusing Zimmerman of "deceiving" the court about his finances, even going so far as to discuss it in code words with his wife, and his possession of a second passport, which he apparently acquired two weeks after the shooting.

 

 

 

Shows just how truthful he is....

post #142 of 165

His lawyer says he knew about the second passport from the beginning and had it in his possession.  And he says that the money in the defense fund was a misunderstanding.  The two incompetents who started off "defending" Zimmerman are responsible for a lot of this.

 

And I don't think Martin's family has been upfront with the facts, either, but since Trayvon isn't around to tell his own story, with his own spin, I guess that's natural enough.
 

But this probably has assured that Zimmerman won't get a sympathetic hearing on his "stand your ground" hearing, which will be in front of this same judge.

post #143 of 165

The Southern Baptists came into existence when they split from the Baptists in order to continue to defend slavery in the US.  It's looks like at least a few of them are having trouble moving beyond that.  :(  

 

Southern Baptist host loses Radio Show over Trayvon Martin remarks

post #144 of 165

Reporters looking into the "Stand Your Ground" law's past have found some really amazing things.  It's the new best friend of Florida's career criminal community.  It's been used in defense of drug dealers killing rivals and non-paying customers, in cases where the "endangering" individual is shot in the back, while walking away, later in the day after the "threatened" individual has had time to go find a gun, etc, etc, etc.  

 

It's not a good law being used badly.  It's just a bad law.  The people that wrote it won't even try to offer law enforcement any clarification on it.  They won't even define the wording.  I wonder how many innocent victims of violent crime have been denied justice because "Stand Your Ground" allowed the armed assailants that killed them in the course of their crimes to go free.  

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/02/2830091/stand-your-ground-a-get-out-of.html

post #145 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post


It's not a good law being used badly.  It's just a bad law.  The people that wrote it won't even try to offer law enforcement any clarification on it.  They won't even define the wording.  I wonder how many innocent victims of violent crime have been denied justice because "Stand Your Ground" allowed the armed assailants that killed them in the course of their crimes to go free.  

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/02/2830091/stand-your-ground-a-get-out-of.html

How did such a bad and unnecessary law get passed in the first place? What special interests held sway?
Quote:
People have had the right to defend themselves from a threat as far back as English common law. The key in Florida and many other states was that they could not use deadly force if it was reasonably possible to retreat.

These two quotes might be relevant to the outcome of the Zimmerman/Martin case. Zimmerman may not literally have "picked a fight", but he was the instigator.
Quote:
While many have argued the law does not allow someone to pick a fight and claim immunity, it has been used to do just that. It is broad enough that one judge complained that in a Wild West-type shootout, where everybody is armed, everyone might go free.
Quote:
Defendants claiming “stand your ground” are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.
post #146 of 165

Bad law???  Ok, so if I am walking outside and some thug tries to mug me...I am supposed to play red light green light with him so a policeman can show up?  I have to "protect" the criminal?????
 

post #147 of 165
No, in every state, you have the right to protect yourself if you're attacked. With deadly force if necessary. This law is not a simple self-defense law and seems to protect the people who are picking fights and then killing the people who are defending themselves. With no investigation! And there should always be an investigation in every killing to make sure it was actually justified.
post #148 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willowy View Post

No, in every state, you have the right to protect yourself if you're attacked. With deadly force if necessary. This law is not a simple self-defense law and seems to protect the people who are picking fights and then killing the people who are defending themselves. With no investigation! And there should always be an investigation in every killing to make sure it was actually justified.


The big difference from the traditional self-defense laws and SYG laws is that the most self-defense laws required someone to try every reasonable method to avoid violence before shooting.  The SYG removed that key piece.  One doesn't have to try to retreat now.  So in this case, all that matters is that Zimmerman feared for his life, not that he put himself into the situation.

post #149 of 165

Ok...well wasn't Zimmerman assaulted.  Martin was on top of  him beating him?  Is that NOT enough?
 

post #150 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by zohdee View Post

Ok...well wasn't Zimmerman assaulted.  Martin was on top of  him beating him?  Is that NOT enough?
But did he start it? Nobody knows. But if he did (and following someone IS starting something in itself), that would be like someone walking up to you and punching you for no reason, then you punch him back, he shoots you, and the cops say "okey dokey, since you were "afraid for your life", it's perfectly fine!". Pretty sure you wouldn't like that. Or, ya know, your family wouldn't like it, because you'd be dead.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Trayvon Martin