Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[WildCat]

That is possible, but what group did he mean when he said "they always get away with it?"

I think it's obvious from the recordings that the "they" were burglars, the first thing he says to the police dispatcher is there had been break-ins in the neighborhood recently. It makes no sense at all that "they" were black people "getting away" with, I guess, being black.

Let's see which makes more sense...

1. "Black people always get away".
2. "Burglars always get away".

I know which makes more sense to me, YMMV.

 

[WildCat]

The statement that Trayvon was in a gang could not be found again by the poster who made the claim.

But the statement that Martin had no disciplinary problems at school were also proven false. At the time he was killed he was suspended from school for 10 days, for reasons the family has so far refused to divulge.

Back when I was in high school a 10 day suspension would have had to be for something very serious, but in today's idiotic "zero tolerance" climate who knows? Maybe he just drew a picture of a gun, or brought a GI Joe doll action figure to school complete with his tiny plastic gun.

 

[WildCat]

Actually it is legal, hence the not guilty by reason of insanity verdict. It has different repercussions but it is legal.

No, it's not legal. Hence John Hinckley forcibly confined to an institution for the last 30 years. It's not criminal, but it's not legal either.

 

[WildCat]

And he apparently tried to kidnap the kid. He had no right to detain him and it seems he tried to. So resisting kidnapping is now not cause for defense?

What evidence do you have that he tried to detain him? AFAIK no witness reported this, and it's certainly not apparent in the 911 recordings or any reports I've seen.

 

[quadraginta]

However the story the police have of this witness is different, she is the one they claim refused an interview at first.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...tin-witness-tv-report-20120315,0,559932.story

Yes. I understand that.

My point is that it might not be appropriate to dismiss her claim as "merely an allegation".

Allegation or not it is pivotal to the substance of the story.

If her allegation proves to be fact then it is a telling indictment of the SPD's handling of events.

If it does not then some of the criticisms of the Dept.'s behavior are undeserved.

 

[Mumbles]

I think it's obvious from the recordings that the "they" were burglars, the first thing he says to the police dispatcher is there had been break-ins in the neighborhood recently. It makes no sense at all that "they" were black people "getting away" with, I guess, being black.

Let's see which makes more sense...

1. "Black people always get away".
2. "Burglars always get away".

I know which makes more sense to me, YMMV.

Doesn't matter.

Zimmerman, according to the tapes, chased and shot an innocent person. That's it. The fact that he mistook a black guy walking down the street for a burglar doesn't change what he did.

 

[Checkmite]

I don't understand. Can you elaborate as to what you mean? I am slightly confused.

I was being facetious. It seems to be the opinion of some that being followed and then accosted for being someplace you have a right to be is not sufficient cause to be alarmed and feel you have to defend yourself, but losing a fight that never would have happened if you hadn't run headlong into it is a free ticket to employ deadly force.

 

[WildCat]

Doesn't matter.

Sure it does, people in this very thread are using that statement to "prove" that Zimmerman was a racist out to shoot black people.

Zimmerman, according to the tapes, chased and shot an innocent person. That's it. The fact that he mistook a black guy walking down the street for a burglar doesn't change what he did.

Isn't "follow" a more accurate word to use than "chase"? And aren't you missing something, like the fact (verified by both Zimmerman and the wiitnesses) that a fight ensued at some point?

 

[WildCat]

I was being facetious. It seems to be the opinion of some that being followed and then accosted for being someplace you have a right to be is not sufficient cause to be alarmed and feel you have to defend yourself, but losing a fight that never would have happened if you hadn't run headlong into it is a free ticket to employ deadly force.

Maybe you'll be the first person in this thread to provide evidence for this claim?

I won't hold my breath waiting.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, because it's exactly the same thing...

It's more like saying you need an EMT license to call an ambulance for a sick or injured person.

As opposed to armed organized patrols that need no licence or training unless you are paid.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think it's obvious from the recordings that the "they" were burglars, the first thing he says to the police dispatcher is there had been break-ins in the neighborhood recently. It makes no sense at all that "they" were black people "getting away" with, I guess, being black.

Let's see which makes more sense...

1. "Black people always get away".
2. "Burglars always get away".

I know which makes more sense to me, YMMV.

And why did he think this guy was a burglar?

 

[tyr_13]

Zimmerman isn't white. His father in a letter to a newspaper said, "George is a Spanish speaking minority with many black family members and friends. He would be the last to discriminate for any reason whatsoever." LINK

Again, I say the assumption that he must have been white and this must be racial motivated has unfortunate implications.

How much would it suck to be a kinda white looking Hispanic? You'd take crap from racist black people who don't like Hispanics. You'd take crap from racist white people who don't like Hispanics. Then if something happens with a black person, you're white and in the minds of apparently many therefore probably racist against black people.

The police insist that the 911 recordings support Zimmerman's version, so let's see how that pans out as well.

Seems like people are missing the part I highlighted. It's possible Zimmerman is racially biased against black people, but I wouldn't call it plausible.

 

[Checkmite]

Maybe you'll be the first person in this thread to provide evidence for this claim?

I won't hold my breath waiting.

You're astonishingly incapable of admitting that although we don't know the blow-by-blow particulars of the fight, everything we do know points to Zimmerman and not Martin. Every decision that had to be made in order for this confrontation to happen and end the way it did, was made by Zimmerman. He decided Martin was "suspicious". He decided to tuck a gun into his waistband and take off after Martin, despite him heading down a row of houses that could easily be seen from the road. He decided to ignore the dispatcher's instructions to NOT do what he was doing. He indicated an intention to stop Martin. During all this time, Martin never made a single decision that contributed to the creation of a confrontation. The responsibility of the situation existing at all is undeniably Zimmerman's, lock stock and barrel, which is why I and so many people feel the innocent kid with a hole in his chest deserves an explanation at the very least.

I think the thing that leaves such a bad taste in my mouth is that since the incident, Zimmerman has never even attempted to apologize to Martin's family for killing him. He's never even acknowledged that thinking Martin suspicious and following him with the intent to stop him turned out to be ultimately a mistake and undeserved. If I was trying to be a hero and swooped in to save my neighborhood from an evil villain, got my arse kicked, and ended up shooting the fiend to death only to find out I'd just ventilated a young boy with nothing more dangerous than Skittles in his pocket, I'd be horrified. I'd be apologizing profusely - especially once I knew that the police themselves declared that they wouldn't be hauling me to jail for it; there's no reason not to. But aside from his immediate loud protestations of "Self defense!" to his neighbors, this guy hasn't said a single word. He's probably waiting for the situation to blow over so he can get back to "protecting his neighbors". I bet if he ever does finally issue a lawyer-approved apology it will be qualified with an argument that everything he did was the right thing to do.

 

[WildCat]

And why did he think this guy was a burglar?

Because he was acting strangely and taking long looks at the houses he was passing, according to the 911 recordings.

 

[Checkmite]

Yeah, people who take long looks at houses and then keep walking past them obviously intend to burgle them. Everybody knows that.

 

[Cleon]

Isn't "follow" a more accurate word to use than "chase"?

Really?! Grasping at some serious straws, aren't you?


It's sad that every time the death of some innocent, unarmed black kid makes national news, people bend over backwards to blame the victim.

 

[WildCat]

You're astonishingly incapable of admitting that although we don't know the blow-by-blow particulars of the fight, everything we do know points to Zimmerman and not Martin.

Except you claim to "know" things not in evidence.

He indicated an intention to stop Martin.

And your evidence for this is...?

During all this time, Martin never made a single decision that contributed to the creation of a confrontation.

Again, your evidence for this is...?

The responsibility of the situation existing at all is undeniably Zimmerman's, lock stock and barrel,

Only if you make assumptions for which there is no evidence.

I think the thing that leaves such a bad taste in my mouth is that since the incident, Zimmerman has never even attempted to apologize to Martin's family for killing him. He's never even acknowledged that thinking Martin suspicious and following him with the intent to stop him turned out to be ultimately a mistake and undeserved. If I was trying to be a hero and swooped in to save my neighborhood from an evil villain, got my arse kicked, and ended up shooting the fiend to death only to find out I'd just ventilated a young boy with nothing more dangerous than Skittles in his pocket, I'd be horrified. I'd be apologizing profusely - especially once I knew that the police themselves declared that they wouldn't be hauling me to jail for it; there's no reason not to. But aside from his immediate loud protestations of "Self defense!" to his neighbors, this guy hasn't said a single word. He's probably waiting for the situation to blow over so he can get back to "protecting his neighbors". I bet if he ever does finally issue a lawyer-approved apology it will be qualified with an argument that everything he did was the right thing to do.

And as we all know every human being reacts exactly the same way to identical situations, and we can thus make all kinds of assumptions as 100% factual.

 

[Mumbles]

Isn't "follow" a more accurate word to use than "chase"?

No, it's not.

 

[WildCat]

Really?!

Really.

Do you think "chase" is more accurate than "follow"?

There's no indication Zimmerman was running after Martin, or tried to grab him, or kidnap him, or detain him (all of which has been claimed by posters here).

All we know for certain is that Zimmerman was following Martin, and had called for the police to arrive. At some point there was an altercation, we have no information as to who confronted whom.

Lots of assumptions being made in this thread unsupported by any evidence.

 

[Checkmite]

Except you claim to "know" things not in evidence.

What decision could he have made before Zimmerman approached him? Did he decide to psychicly compel Zimmerman to follow him? To bring a gun? Use some common sense.

Only if you make assumptions for which there is no evidence.

You're right; it's possible for instance that Martin contributed to creating the scenario by spraying himself with that new Axe body spray that causes the neighborhood watch to stalk and chase you. I did indeed assume without evidence that couldn't be true. My apologies.

And as we all know every human being reacts exactly the same way to identical situations, and we can thus make all kinds of assumptions as 100% factual.

It's true; some people can kill unarmed kids without even a twinge of remorse.