Trigger-happy Neighborhood Watch Kills Black Teenager

Status
Not open for further replies.

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
But it is also reasonable for us to say, with that caveat given, that it sure as hell looks like a race-based killing. Or perhaps I should clarify and say another race-based killing.

agreed.

As for "What will it take?" imho, about four generations, when whites are not a majority any longer and the races have equaled out. Then we'll see a whole different plea. "Walking while white?" or maybe just "Walking while not one of us." ??
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
agreed.

As for "What will it take?" imho, about four generations, when whites are not a majority any longer and the races have equaled out. Then we'll see a whole different plea. "Walking while white?" or maybe just "Walking while not one of us." ??

I think a lot of people make the mistake of assuming there's much solidarity among non-whites. Whites aren't going to become "the minority" just another minority.

But yeah, I lived in Baltimore city. I've definitely seen "walking while white." It would be great if people could just walk and not be bothered, but that would require everyone to be civil and that will always be too much to ask.
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
agreed.

As for "What will it take?" imho, about four generations, when whites are not a majority any longer and the races have equaled out. Then we'll see a whole different plea. "Walking while white?" or maybe just "Walking while not one of us." ??
I think we already have that. As missesdash points out, it is a mistake to fall into the assumption that the racial divide is one big line between white and non-white. The tribalistic (as I characterize it) mentality is strong among all sectors and demographics of American society. Just ask any rights activist who has tried to mobilize interest groups to rally in support of other interest groups.

The manifestation of the "us/them" mindset takes different forms in different societies. In the US, one of the strongest, most long-lived manifestations is race. In fact, it is such a strong factor that the concept of "race" gets unconsciously expanded to include features that are not racial at all, such as variations of skin tone, national origin, and religion. So when someone argues that racial motivation is not likely because Zimmerman is Latino, they are not only missing the degree to which race-attitudes affect Latinos just like other Americans, they seem to be speaking race-attitude talk themselves, as well, because that argument assumes a clear line between "white" and "Latino" and that everyone who can be identified with either group understands that the same way.

In a society which uses race as a top-tier category in which to define and sort people, and that sorting gives some groups social privileges over others, then the definition of who belongs to which race becomes fuzzy and subjective as people seek to secure privilege for themselves while denying it to others. Whatever category the society uses to assign status will see this same dynamic. In our case, it is race, and the attitudes of racism spread to inform the dynamics of all our other prejudices as well.

Let's take Mr. Zimmerman as a stand-in for Any American for a moment. It doesn't matter if we can argue about whether he is white or not, or how white he is, or what else he might be. He could still be motivated by racism just as much an anyone else.

And it wouldn't matter if tomorrow, the alien overlords decided to flip a switch and change American demographics all at once and then run this "walking in the rain" experiment again. If the same social attitude prevails, then Zimmerman could be the one tagged as "suspicious" or it could be a Black Neighborhood Watch guy shooting an Asian kid because you know what "those assholes" are like, etc.

In my opinion, we should be clear about our focus in defining this problem. Right now, in the US, when a bigot of comparatively pale complexion refers to a group as "those assholes," they are probably talking about Black people. To deny or wish to gloss over that is simply naive and, in my opinion, undermines the drive to look at ourselves honestly in order to address our problem behaviors. In itself, that kind of deflection is dangerous, again in my opinion.

But at the same time, we have to be aware that any American bigot can use "those assholes" to refer to any other ethnic or racial group, and they frequently do. It's literally not just a Black and White issue.

So if we are going to learn from the Trayvon Martin killing as a teaching moment for our society, then I suggest we should be looking at the "those assholes" attitude. We should be asking ourselves who "those assholes" are in the mind of anyone who says that. We should be asking who the local cops think "those assholes" are and why someone like Zimmerman doesn't fall into that group so that he can walk away free and clear from killing a human being, just on his own say-so. We should be admitting the degree to which we divide and weaken ourselves as a society by othering our neighbors according to race and ethnicity, and we should be challenging ourselves about that.

I don't think that being so careful not to ascribe bad motivations to people that we will not sit down and grapple directly with these issues is going to advance that kind of learning and self-improvement.
 

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
So --

As missesdash points out, it is a mistake to fall into the assumption that the racial divide is one big line between white and non-white.

I agree, and have never in my life assumed there was.

Let's take Mr. Zimmerman as a stand-in for Any American for a moment. It doesn't matter if we can argue about whether he is white or not, or how white he is, or what else he might be. He could still be motivated by racism just as much an anyone else.

Also agreed, but it does make jumping to the conclusion that this was a white on black crime reveal more available truth about the folks making the jump than it actually does about either Zimmerman or the crime in question.

However:

Right now, in the US, when a bigot of comparatively pale complexion refers to a group as "those assholes," they are probably talking about Black people.
I would suggest that this is not nearly as true as it was even ten years ago. Ask the Arizona and Texas Legislature, for example.

I'd also point out that these statements might imply a race based double standard. I'm not willing to read in and assume that was the intended meaning.

But more to the thread topic itself, has anyone unearthed or cited evidence of racism beyond the statement "these assholes" or are we to right this guy's motivations off to only racism, assume he is a "bigot" based on "probably"?
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
Williperson I don't think you're going to find any evidence that he's racist. The police chief said it could not have been racially motivated because George was unaware of Trayvon's race while pursuing him.

The tapes show this to be patently untrue. As he says "I think he's black. Yeah, he's black."

Their motivation for lying about something so easily disproved is suspect. Anyway, like I've said, there are a lot of influences at play here. I wonder if a Japanese kid reaching for his waist would strike so much fear in George.
 

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
Williperson I don't think you're going to find any evidence that he's racist. The police chief said it could not have been racially motivated because George was unaware of Trayvon's race while pursuing him.

The tapes show this to be patently untrue. As he says "I think he's black. Yeah, he's black."

Their motivation for lying about something so easily disproved is suspect. Anyway, like I've said, there are a lot of influences at play here. I wonder if a Japanese kid reaching for his waist would strike so much fear in George.

re: bolded section -- Yeah, me too. That's part of my point. That and, how much of it was fear and how much of it was "I'm gonna be somebody."?
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
I hope this turns out better that the Erik Scott case. This just showed up on Radley Balko's The Agitator today.

Scott Family Announces Erik B. Scott Lawsuit to be Dismissed

Las Vegas, NV (March 13, 2012) – Upon advice of legal counsel, the family of Erik B. Scott has dismissed its lawsuit against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Sheriff Doug Gillespie and the three officers who shot and killed Erik on July 10, 2010.
...
Despite multiple witnesses confirming Erik was complying with Officer Mosher’s commands, recent Ninth Circuit Court opinions finding “qualified immunity” for police officers, even after agreeing excessive force had been used, makes it difficult to proceed with this lawsuit.

“While we believe the Costco surveillance-video data — which captured the shooting — provides irrefutable evidence that Erik was wrongfully killed, the ‘missing’ segment of that video makes it difficult to overcome those qualified-immunity legal issues,” Scott said.
How fortunate for all those folks in the first paragraph that the video came up with a 'missing' segment.
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
So --



I agree, and have never in my life assumed there was.
But the argument from multiple parties including but not limited to Zimmerman's father that emphasizes that he's not white because he's Latino does assume it.

Also agreed, but it does make jumping to the conclusion that this was a white on black crime reveal more available truth about the folks making the jump than it actually does about either Zimmerman or the crime in question.
First off, I disagree. I've understood this to be part of your argument from the start, a page or two ago, but I think that is also an assumption, on your part, about the people bringing it up. If we're going to point out the dangers of assumption, we should check our own, yes?

I happen to think, as I stated in one on my earlier posts, that even if it does turn out that we are dealing only in a knee-jerk assumption of racism, that in itself is important enough to warrant bringing it out and exploring it, because it may be key to the problem of race attitudes in the US. And I maintain that not bringing it up, not expressing the knee-jerk reaction, not discussing or debating it out, is not going to help people address that conditioned thinking.

But for myself personally, I don't believe racism is not a factor in this killing. I base that not on a knee-jerk assumption that "a white guy shot a black kid" but on observation of facts presented to the public so far which do not add up if race attitudes are not included.

However:

I would suggest that this is not nearly as true as it was even ten years ago. Ask the Arizona and Texas Legislature, for example.

I'd also point out that these statements might imply a race based double standard. I'm not willing to read in and assume that was the intended meaning.

But more to the thread topic itself, has anyone unearthed or cited evidence of racism beyond the statement "these assholes" or are we to right this guy's motivations off to only racism, assume he is a "bigot" based on "probably"?
I think you might have find less to object to in my argument if you addressed it in its entirety rather focusing on single sentences which I already addressed and placed into a wider context in the post from which you pulled them.

I stated explicitly in that post that racism is not a "black and white" issue in the US but encompasses many perceived racial and ethnic overlaps. That point is the foundation of my argument that "but Zimmerman's not white" is an empty defense against the suggestion of racism on his part. So you picking out the one sentence that says that racism towards Black people is still very prevalent while ignoring the rest of the post that explains that it is not the totality of the problem and addresses how race-attitudes inform social prejudice in general seems disingenuous of you, at best.

Second, if you will read my posts and as well as some other people's with an eye toward comprehension, as others here are often advised to do, you should see that most of us are not writing Zimmerman off as a "bigot" on a "probably." Rather, we are discussing the likely motives that might explain the published sequence of events, and expanding that to include the general atmosphere of race attitudes that affect conflicts and police matters in the US. And we are also not talking just about Zimmerman but about the police in this case as well.

Third, in regard to your mention that things aren't as bad as they used to be in some states: As soon as you can point to anyone claiming that there has been no improvement in race attitudes in the US since, oh, Dr. King was killed, just to pick a moment out of a hat, then that observation will become relevant. In the meantime, how far we've come in no way changes how far we still have to go. I choose to discuss the problems that still exist now, not the problems that no longer exist or have been lessened somewhat.

Finally, while I appreciate your great generosity in not ascribing to me an intention to set a double standard on race, again, if would read my posts in their entirety and only for the content I put in them, you should see there is no need for you to give me the grace of assuming I didn't mean something I didn't say.
 

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
Third, in regard to your mention that things aren't as bad as they used to be in some states:

That is NOT what I wrote, nor what I meant.

I read what you wrote, and quoted what you wrote. So, I guess the question is:

By stating that someone of any degree of whiteness who referred to someone as "these assholes" was probably talking about black people, or in your words:

refers to a group as "those assholes," they are probably talking about Black people.

were you suggesting that you believe Zimmerman was calling the young man an asshole just because he was black, as opposed to say: a punk, a hood, a thief, a trespasser, a junkie, a stranger, a vandal, a burglar, a smart ass kid, a bum, a poverty kid, a 99 percenter, a pervert, a sagger, or some other form of "not one of us"?
If so, is that based on something more than the fact that Zimmerman wasn't black?

I've understood this to be part of your argument from the start, a page or two ago, but I think that is also an assumption, on your part, about the people bringing it up. If we're going to point out the dangers of assumption, we should check our own, yes?

You've misunderstood. This didn't come up for me until much later in the discussion, and it isn't a blanket impression for me.
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
That is NOT what I wrote, nor what I meant.

I read what you wrote, and quoted what you wrote. So, I guess the question is:

By stating that someone of any degree of whiteness who referred to someone as "these assholes" was probably talking about black people, or in your words:



were you suggesting that you believe Zimmerman was calling the young man an asshole just because he was black, as opposed to say: a punk, a hood, a thief, a trespasser, a junkie, a stranger, a vandal, a burglar, a smart ass kid, a bum, a poverty kid, a 99 percenter, a pervert, a sagger, or some other form of "not one of us"?
If so, is that based on something more than the fact that Zimmerman wasn't black?



You've misunderstood. This didn't come up for me until much later in the discussion, and it isn't a blanket impression for me.
Then perhaps you should clarify because that's what it seemed like you were saying from the beginning of the time you brought it up, just a couple of pages ago, as I originally indicated. So if that is not what you have been saying since the point it came up for you, then I have misunderstood you. But if it is, then I have not.

In re your request for my clarification: Once again you do not take the whole of my statement together, but pull one part out of context. The sentence you quoted was in the middle of a larger statement that was not about Zimmerman as an individual at all, but rather talking about the pervasive race attitudes in the US at large. It was preceded by remarks about how race is the most common form of us/them thinking in the US. The sentence itself was an acknowledgement of how common white/black prejudice in the US is. And it was followed by further remarks stating that black vs. white is not at all the only form of prejudice and that "those assholes" may refer to any group, but it does typically refer to a group as a form of hostile othering.

Further, those remarks were not about Zimmerman in particular at all. And I notice that you continue to skip over the comments I have made about Zimmerman and this shooting which also do not support your claims about my argument. You also continue to skip over my comments regarding the behavior of the cops in the case as well.

I am saddened that I have had to explain this again, especially to you. However, I stand by my arguments as presented, and I further stand by my declared opinion that there was racism at work in this shooting. I do not know for a fact whether that racism comes from Zimmerman or the cops or both, but I stand by my own opinion that it is there, based on the facts as we know them to date.

But that is entirely aside from the larger societal issues which I think should be open for discussion. To that end, I would appreciate it if you would address the arguments I have made and not ask me to defend arguments I did not. I have explained myself at least twice now. Please do not make me do it again, but instead read the whole of my comments taken together. Or shrug them off as not worth your time. I'm fine either way.

Now, for tonight, I have to bow out. I had a kitchen accident, and my right index finger is bandaged so much it's very hard to type. I've pretty much done all I can do for now. I'll catch up with this discussion tomorrow.

ETA: I'll struggle with the keys just to add this: According to one of the released 911 tapes, Zimmerman did not know if Martin was "a punk, a hood, a thief, a trespasser, a junkie, a stranger, a vandal, a burglar, a smart ass kid, a bum, a poverty kid, a 99 percenter, a pervert, a sagger, or some other form of "not one of us"", but he did know he was black. He said so to the 911 operator.

Now that doesn't prove he shot him because he was black, but if you're going to speculate about what it was that made Zimmerman suspect, follow, confront and shoot this young man, I'd give more weight to what he could reasonably know about him over what he could only have made up about him in his own imagination. In any event, whether he shot Martin because he was black or because of some utterly unfounded and fantastical belief that he belonged to any other group Zimmerman might have hated, that wouldn't make Zimmerman less of a bigot.
 
Last edited:

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
More on George's propensity for racial profiling:

Licensed to carry a firearm and a student of criminal justice, Zimmerman went door-to-door asking residents to be on the lookout, specifically referring to young black men who appeared to be outsiders, and warned that some were caught lurking, neighbors said. The self-appointed captain of the neighborhood watch program is credited with cracking some crimes, and thwarting others.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/...-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html#storylink=cpy

Also, here you can hear him calling in black teenagers as 'suspicious.' He says of the teens, they "typically run away quickly."

Zimmerman tells dispatchers there has been recent rash of burglaries in the neighborhood. He describes the suspicious people as black teenagers.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...20120319_1_crime-watch-neighborhood-volunteer
 

cherita

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
642
Reaction score
131
I found it interesting later on in that article, when a black guy mentions how he and Zimmerman would talk about burglaries in their neighborhood, and the black guy goes on to say this:

“I fit the stereotype he emailed around,” he said. “Listen, you even hear me say it: ‘A black guy did this. A black guy did that.’ So I thought, ‘Let me sit in the house. I don’t want anyone chasing me.’ ”

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/...-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html#storylink=cpy

I find that kind of tacit acceptance and internalized racism so very sad. This whole case is just sad all around...
 

vsrenard

Watching the Whales
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
1,288
Reaction score
118
Location
SF Bay Area
Website
www.vanithasankaran.com
Even if racism were not at play, even if we assumed Zimmerman could not see Trayvon's skin color and just picked him out as another troublemaking teenager,it's inconceivable to me how this man is out free. He killed an unarmed kid. Yeah, maybe the kid was a master martial artist and was a credible threat, even unarmed, but the evidence doesn't back it up. So no, no real threat.

I sympathize with parents afraid to let their kids out at night. What a sad sad place we live in.
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
I found it interesting later on in that article, when a black guy mentions how he and Zimmerman would talk about burglaries in their neighborhood, and the black guy goes on to say this:

I find that kind of tacit acceptance and internalized racism so very sad. This whole case is just sad all around...

Right? And then his pregnant wife cries. Ugh, this whole thing is horrible. I read a comment from a 17 year old black girl who lives in the neighborhood. She called him "kind of strict" and said George would probably ask her if she lived in the neighborhood if he ever saw her around.

Another black kid reported that "a man" told police he had stolen a bike. The police came to his house and checked the serial numbers on the bike in his garage.

People need to be more aware of their rights.
 

Belle_91

With her nose stuck in a book
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
2,677
Reaction score
682
Location
Tennessee
One of the things that struck me was Martin called out for help in the fight. To me that suggests that Martin was losing and thus needed help. So this Zimmerman had the upper hand. Why shoot the kid if you are stronger and can thus beat them physically?

Also, who started the initial confrontation? I have a wild hunch *that was sarcasm*

And finally, this Zimmerman character was paranoid to begin with. I understand he made around 46 calls to the police since Jan 1 of 2011. I agree with what Willie said is that he's one of those people who if you give a hammer to, will see nails everywhere. That doesn't excuse what he did, and also proves that he should have been the last person that had a gun.

This guy sounds crazy and thinks he can play superman. He came into someone's house for Christ's sake.

People like him scare me, and he should be locked up. If he fought the kid physically, he should have known Martin was unarmed. That would have been obvious in the fight, wouldn't it?

Maybe I don't have my facts right, but this Zimmerman sounds like a major dick, and I agree they need to throw the book at him. He should be in jail. Self defense my ass.

I hope he goes to jail and in the meantime, I sincerely hope his house, car, whatever else he owns is bombarded with flaming dog-poop from his neighbors.
 
Last edited:

Nymtoc

Benefactor Member
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
43,833
Reaction score
3,366
Location
Between the lines
Zimmerman would be in a very different position if not for Florida's so-called "stand your ground" law, which was enacted by that state's legislature in 2005 over the objections of law enforcement and with the support of the NRA (surprise, surprise!). Seventeen states now have similar laws. Before such laws went into effect, if you felt threatened in a public area--not in your home, where you had more rights to self defense--you had to try to retreat before resorting to the use of deadly force. Much of this is explained here:

The trouble with Florida's 'stand your ground' law - Tampa Bay Times

None of what I am saying will bring poor Trayvon back to life. And probably none of it will have any effect on the prosecution of Zimmerman, if any. But I consider the great--and grievous--fault to be in these new laws. It seems that anyone can kill anyone now and, especially if there are no witnesses, claim self-defense and get away with it.

I can't tell Floridians how to govern their state. I live in New York City, where gun laws are so strict that it is very difficult to get a gun permit and nearly impossible to get a gun-carry permit. That's the way I like it. However, simply allowing someone to claim self-defense and go free is reminiscent of the old saloon, the swinging doors, the hosses, the face-off in the street. Know what I'm saying?
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
Zimmerman would be in a very different position if not for Florida's so-called "stand your ground" law, which was enacted by that state's legislature in 2005 over the objections of law enforcement and with the support of the NRA (surprise, surprise!). Seventeen states now have similar laws. Before such laws went into effect, if you felt threatened in a public area--not in your home, where you had more rights to self defense--you had to try to retreat before resorting to the use of deadly force. Much of this is explained here:

The trouble with Florida's 'stand your ground' law - Tampa Bay Times

None of what I am saying will bring poor Trayvon back to life. And probably none of it will have any effect on the prosecution of Zimmerman, if any. But I consider the great--and grievous--fault to be in these new laws. It seems that anyone can kill anyone now and, especially if there are no witnesses, claim self-defense and get away with it.

I can't tell Floridians how to govern their state. I live in New York City, where gun laws are so strict that it is very difficult to get a gun permit and nearly impossible to get a gun-carry permit. That's the way I like it. However, simply allowing someone to claim self-defense and go free is reminiscent of the old saloon, the swinging doors, the hosses, the face-off in the street. Know what I'm saying?

Yup! The law is archaic. I read other instances where it was used and was just appalled. The ridiculous thing is that if Trayvon had killed George, he'd technically be able to claim it was self defense as well. The dead person is guilty by default.
 

Belle_91

With her nose stuck in a book
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
2,677
Reaction score
682
Location
Tennessee
I can't tell Floridians how to govern their state. I live in New York City, where gun laws are so strict that it is very difficult to get a gun permit and nearly impossible to get a gun-carry permit. That's the way I like it. However, simply allowing someone to claim self-defense and go free is reminiscent of the old saloon, the swinging doors, the hosses, the face-off in the street. Know what I'm saying?

I couldn't agree more. I don't really support the second ammendment because--and I feel like I'm the only person who realizes this--the world of 1787 (when the Constitution was drafted) was VASTLY different from the world we live in now. There was no 9-11 you could call if you were in an emergency, and some people were living in very isolated areas. There are other reasons why some people felt they needed to have guns, but none of them are relevant in today's American society.

In Tennessee we had the dumbest law where you were allowed to bring a gun into a bar. Really?! A bar? You get drunk in bars, make bad choices, get into fights, and someone gets shot. This isn't the Wild West! This Zimmerman was not a cowboy and should not have "taken the law into his own hands." He should have let the police deal with it, stayed in the damn car, and oh NOT SHOOT A CHILD!

Sorry, I'm not mad at anyone on this board, I just find this whole case ridiculous and the guy should be in jail for manslaughter. As I said before, self defense my ass.

Edit:

I often wonder about the people who own guns for protection. I have to wonder if they have used it to defend themselves in a real crisis--as far as I'm concerned this Zimmerman person was not threatened or attacked by Martin. He caused Martin to defend himself after following him. I have talked to people who said they have a gun in case their house is broken into. I want to ask, has your house been broken into? Has anyone really, truly dangerous ever really confronted you?

Anyways, sorry to derail, just a thought. People are pigs.
 
Last edited:

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
I come here for the reasoned debate and calm logic expressed in P&CE threads. But this thread looks more like a lynch mob. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised at the willingness to hang this guy from the nearest tree based on a few news stories. "The kid was an angel, the shooter was a murderous bully with 'something on the police chief'."

Maybe. And maybe I'll get dog-piled for saying this, but how about we see what an investigation reveals, what a jury has to say? I've been involved in these kinds of incidents, where news stories get people all riled up. They rarely contain the whole truth either because not all details are made known to reporters, or because it makes for a lesser story.
I'd really like you to weigh back in on this. There's been some discussion about Florida's stand your ground law, but how it applies in this case is unfathomable to me,

We do have some facts, even filtered through the news reports.

Zimmerman, a civilian, was on neighborhood watch, in his car. He called in a suspicious person, and according to 911 tapes, was advised not to follow him.

But he did, armed with a gun. He got out of his car and initiated a confrontation with an unarmed teenager, involved in no criminal activity. An altercation ensued, during which Zimmerman shot and killed the boy.

Police then state they cannot arrest the man, because he claimed self defense, and there's no proof that it wasn't. In what weird legally tangled world could this possibly be a valid claim?

This is like upside down bizzaro world, imo.

If I am carrying a gun, stop somebody walking down the street for no reason, grab him, and he punches me, I can then pull out my gun and shoot him? Claim self defense, and it's up to investigators to prove it isn't? And they can't arrest me until the investigation is complete? Really?
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
Some background info on Sheriff George Zimmerman.

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/rallies-continue-support-17-year-old-trayvon-marti/nLXJ7/

WFTV obtained information about Zimmerman's background:

In Sept. 2003, Zimmerman called 911 to report that another driver had spat at him from car to car.

Zimmerman followed the other driver, Daniel Osmun, into Lake Mary.

Osmun accused Zimmerman of tailgating and aggressive driving, and Zimmerman followed him and reported his tag number.

In Oct. 2003, Zimmerman called 911 and reported witnessing a theft at an Albertson's on Lake Emma Road in Lake Mary. Zimmerman followed the alleged culprits, "apparently giving chase."

Deputies caught up with the thieves, who had confessed to stealing two 13-inch televisions.

In Dec 2008, Zimmerman applied to attend the Citizens Law Enforcement Academy. He offered info that he was arrested July 2005 in an incident involving undercover UCF officers.

He was accepted and completed the program.

Zimmerman said his father was a magistrate for Virginia Supreme Court and mother was a deputy court clerk. He stated that he had the utmost respect for law enforcement and aspired to be an officer someday.

I didn't know people like this existed outside of comedies.
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
Sorry to hear about your finger. That was me yesterday. Roasted corn got me. Feel better!
Thanks very much. It's fine. First aid did the trick. But it was one of those moderately deep finger-tip cuts that bleed like mad, so the blood-stanching bandage was like having a marshmallow on my finger. I'd say a burn is worse, so you have my sympathy. Not enough sympathy to soften my remarks, though... :tongue

...

I can't tell Floridians how to govern their state. I live in New York City, where gun laws are so strict that it is very difficult to get a gun permit and nearly impossible to get a gun-carry permit. That's the way I like it. However, simply allowing someone to claim self-defense and go free is reminiscent of the old saloon, the swinging doors, the hosses, the face-off in the street. Know what I'm saying?
I so agree. How people can feel this is an okay way to live is beyond me.

I'd really like you to weigh back in on this. There's been some discussion about Florida's stand your ground law, but how it applies in this case is unfathomable to me,

We do have some facts, even filtered through the news reports.

Zimmerman, a civilian, was on neighborhood watch, in his car. He called in a suspicious person, and according to 911 tapes, was advised not to follow him.

But he did, armed with a gun. He got out of his car and initiated a confrontation with an unarmed teenager, involved in no criminal activity. An altercation ensued, during which Zimmerman shot and killed the boy.

Police then state they cannot arrest the man, because he claimed self defense, and there's no proof that it wasn't. In what weird legally tangled world could this possibly be a valid claim?

This is like upside down bizzaro world, imo.

If I am carrying a gun, stop somebody walking down the street for no reason, grab him, and he punches me, I can then pull out my gun and shoot him? Claim self defense, and it's up to investigators to prove it isn't? And they can't arrest me until the investigation is complete? Really?
And this. A thousand times this.

Let's throw Williebee a bone and say that there could be any number of reasons that scumbag Zimmerman shot that kid. The one I would bet on would be that he's a racist with a huge collection of Punisher comics, but I would accept as equally believable reasons that he is either a delusional psychotic who thinks all these suspicious people are space aliens from the CIA and he had to shoot this one to protect Earth's precious bodily essences, or else that he's a fucking moron. I admit I am unable to come up with any possible explanation of his actions that do not make it gross negligence to give him a gun, but that would be a digression.

But if there is one part of this story where I'm going to dig in my heels it's that part right there, above. The part where the cops just shrugged and let Zimmerman walk away. What the motherfukkin fuck?

There is not a single possible explanation anyone could dream up for this that would not have me looking at the dead kid, looking at Zimmerman, looking at the cops, and getting that expression on my face. You know the one. The one that says, this is the biggest crock of bull I've ever heard. And I'm sorry but there is no way I will ever be convinced that the identity of his victim did not factor into why Zimmerman was not taken into custody.

If the cops had come up with any excuse that was less jaw-droppingly, insanely stupid, I might be willing to entertain the possibility of some sort of legitimate reason for their inaction. But that shit? Nope, not buying it. And if anyone wants to hear some real prejudicial remarks, they can eavesdrop on what I have to say about those cops in the free zone of my own kitchen.
 

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
Let's throw Williebee a bone and say that there could be any number of reasons that scumbag Zimmerman shot that kid. The one I would bet on would be that he's a racist with a huge collection of Punisher comics, but I would accept as equally believable reasons that he is either a delusional psychotic who thinks all these suspicious people are space aliens from the CIA and he had to shoot this one to protect Earth's precious bodily essences, or else that he's a fucking moron. I admit I am unable to come up with any possible explanation of his actions that do not make it gross negligence to give him a gun, but that would be a digression.

But if there is one part of this story where I'm going to dig in my heels it's that part right there, above. The part where the cops just shrugged and let Zimmerman walk away. What the motherfukkin fuck?

There is not a single possible explanation anyone could dream up for this that would not have me looking at the dead kid, looking at Zimmerman, looking at the cops, and getting that expression on my face. You know the one. The one that says, this is the biggest crock of bull I've ever heard. And I'm sorry but there is no way I will ever be convinced that the identity of his victim did not factor into why Zimmerman was not taken into custody.

If the cops had come up with any excuse that was less jaw-droppingly, insanely stupid, I might be willing to entertain the possibility of some sort of legitimate reason for their inaction.

And I agree with you. (Although a little meat on the bone would'a hurt? I missed dinner tonight.)

To attempt to clarify my position for you, especially since most of what we are saying we actually seem to agree on.

I in no way suggested minimizing the possibility of a racial component, or a racist act. Not once did I say "don't look at the racism, look over here." I don't doubt that there was racism involved in this, by Zimmerman and by at least one of the responding officers.

You will find in previous posts where I suggested that if there was a history of racial incidents involving Zimmerman, they would most likely come out. A couple of posts and news stories today seem to be doing just that.

We should not minimize the facts of a crime like this, or the truth of the family's loss and grief (not saying anyone here has.) But making suppositions based on that one aspect does a disservice to that family, and the truth.

I suggested people don't stop looking at other possibilities. The law officers on the boards will tell you that you don't ignore other suspects just because you find the likely one.

Rather than shouting "That's racist bullshit." somebody needs to be saying "That's racist bullshit, how was it allowed to happen?"

If Zimmerman was really the captain of a neighborhood watch organization (or even a member), if the responding officers covered up the crime due to racism, and their boss backed it up, there are a number of problems in that community, apparently both legal and moral. Focusing just on Zimmerman's racism won't bring them to light.

My guess is that further investigation, by the state and probably the feds, is going to turn up problems in addition to the racial piece of this. The local law is going to see a change of management and at least one low ranking officer is going to get thrown under a bus. If it is the officers that responded, it sounds like it would be a good thing. But we'll see if they are alone when it happens.

One more thing? If there really is a formal neighborhood watch organization, I'd hope and expect they are going to get sued into non-existence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.