Trayvon Martin - Page 5

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

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.  

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?:

 

 

 

 

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

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
 

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.  

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.)
 

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?

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?
 

I imagine one story is as believable as another in a case like this .

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

 

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

 

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.  

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.  

 

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

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

Zimmerman's bond was revoked yesterday...

 

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

Shows just how truthful he is....

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.

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

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

How did such a bad and unnecessary law get passed in the first place? What special interests held sway?

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.

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?????
 

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.

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.