Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[crimresearch]

I was OK with Britney shaving her head, but the beard?

That's silly, that is clearly OJ.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

That's silly, that is clearly OJ.

It's not my fault, the photo has obviously been photoshopped.

 

[Chris L]

That's not illegal. Profiling/flat out racism and following someone isn't a crime, under any law. It doesn't matter what inspired him to follow Trayvon.

First, just because something is legal, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. You have every right to walk into an ethnically homogenous bar and shout epitaphs about that ethnic group. Do not be surprised though, if the patrons of said bar decide to offer you some negative reinforcement for your actions.

In the same way, Zimmerman must have known that his following Martin brought with it the possibility of a negative reaction by Martin, a possibility that might make using his gun necessary. By following him anyway (again, despite what the dispatcher told him), he took an unnecessary risk with his life and Martin's.

Second, yes it does matter what Zimmerman thought Martin was doing. If Zimmerman really thought Martin was engaging in criminal activity, he had to know the risk of a confrontation would be increased in that situation. Since a criminal has more incentive to deal with some clown following him, Zimmerman (in continuing to follow Martin) was practically asking for a confrontation.

 

[Dancing David]

... and the fact that he was in fact, quite brown, I'd say that speculation should go back home.

[derail]
I am ethnic european, hwoever I tan very easily and I am often darker than many 'light skinned' african americans or hispanics.
[/derail]

 

[crimresearch]

[derail]
I am ethnic european, hwoever I tan very easily and I am often darker than many 'light skinned' african americans or hispanics.
[/derail]

I would just like to dispel the lingering notions that Zimmerman would have been welcome at the local Klan meeting, OR that he 'looked like a banger'.

He looks like a man to me.

 

[triforcharity]

Wait, why was this evidence not put forward? This changes everything!

I'd be tempted to follow him myself if he was walking around carrying skillets.

Lol. Especially if it had fresh bacon in there.

The maple kind?

 

[Aoidoi]

You have every right to walk into an ethnically homogenous bar and shout epitaphs about that ethnic group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epitaph

I am ready to meet my Maker.
Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.

— Winston Churchill[2]

 

[Dan O.]

There are no prior difficulties or no time lapse between difficulties claimed here, right?

There are three distinct phases prior to the shooting: The initial encounter when George calls the police and states "now he's checking me out". The separation evidenced by George's statements of "he's running", "he ran" and "I don't know where this kid is". And the subsequent fatal encounter.

I think most of us can agree that the outcome of that encounter with the police on there way would have at most resulted in a couple of people getting bruised had George not brought his gun. To argue that George needed his gun because he was afraid of Trayvon only worsens George's culpability for putting himself into that situation.

 

[crimresearch]

There are three distinct phases prior to the shooting: The initial encounter when George calls the police and states "now he's checking me out". The separation evidenced by George's statements of "he's running", "he ran" and "I don't know where this kid is". And the subsequent fatal encounter.

I think most of us can agree that the outcome of that encounter with the police on there way would have at most resulted in a couple of people getting bruised had George not brought his gun. To argue that George needed his gun because he was afraid of Trayvon only worsens George's culpability for putting himself into that situation.

For the second time, there is no supporting evidence or logical reason to believe that the shooter acquired that gun because of fear of Trayvon, so the 'I think we can all agree', followed by your assumptions, is simply circular logic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Several mainstream reporters have remarked that "white hispanic" is an unusual term or a "new" term.

I never heard it before.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/opinion/navarrette-white-hispanic/index.html

It's not a new term. It's on the census and a lot of other questionnaires that ask peoples' ethnic identity. It's perhaps not a term people use in conversations.

 

[AlexW]

From Mother Jones:

George Zimmerman, Trayvon martin's shooter, was fired from a 2005 job as a security guard for excessive aggression, a former co-worker told the New York Daily News Thursday. The paper reports that Zimmerman had worked on and off for several firms that "provided security to illegal house parties."

"Usually he was just a cool guy. He liked to drink and hang with the women like the rest of us," the paper's source said. "But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude snapped, he snapped." The report continues:


"He had a temper and he became a liability," the man said. "One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted," he said. "It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out…

"He definitely loved being in charge. He loved the power. Still, I could never see him killing someone. Never," he said.

Meanwhile, an anonymous man who claims he witnessed Trayvon's shooting told Anderson Cooper last night that Zimmerman's account of the killing was wrong. Zimmerman and Trayvon were struggling on the grass, he said, not the pavement, as Zimmerman claims. Contrary to Zimmerman's claims that he suffered cuts and a broken nose, the witness said, "He didn't appear hurt or anything else":


"I saw two men on the ground, one on top of the other. I felt they were scuffling and I heard gunshots which to me were more like pops...

"I don't know if was an echo but it definitely made more than one pop.

"After the larger man got off there was a boy, obviously now dead, on the ground facing down."

In light of the new eyewitness testimony and more recent leaks relating to the case, Martin family attorney Daryl Parks renewed his calls today for the shooter to be arrested. "I think Mr. Zimmerman will be arrested very, very soon," he said.

 

[leftysergeant]

I would just like to dispel the lingering notions that Zimmerman would have been welcome at the local Klan meeting, OR that he 'looked like a banger'.

He looks like a man to me.

Smiling into the camera, he seems quite innocuous. Pissed off and running toward you, he might look like a banger about to teach you what's what.

 

[crimresearch]

From Mother Jones:

AFAIK, the actual size difference appears to be that the victim was taller by a significant amount, and that there was a much smaller weight difference than originally reported.

 

[crimresearch]

Smiling into the camera, he seems quite innocuous. Pissed off and running toward you, he might look like a banger about to teach you what's what.

Which of course is a big moving of the goal posts to distract from what you actually said... not how he 'might' look, but your 'looks like a banger' claim was in specific reference to how he looked and what he was wearing in the police video. Short hair, nice clothes, and no expression.

 

[Dan O.]

For the second time, there is no supporting evidence or logical reason to believe that the shooter acquired that gun because of fear of Trayvon, so the 'I think we can all agree', followed by your assumptions, is simply circular logic.

If you find that the defendant who because of threats or prior difficulties with (victim) had reasonable grounds to believe that [he] [she] was in danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of (victim), then the defendant had the right to arm [himself] [herself]. However, the defendant cannot justify the use of deadly force, if after arming [himself] [herself] [he] [she] renewed [his] [her] difficulty with (victim) when [he] [she] could have avoided the difficulty,​

The exclusion which I've highlighted is specifically addressing the conditions of the proceeding statement. I read this though as saying that being armed and renewing the difficulty that could have been avoided explicitly voids the protection offed by this law.

It could also be argued that in the first encounter Zimmerman's gun was in his vehicle and he removed the gun from his vehicle prior to the pursuit. Even more could be suggested if you listen carefully to that first police call as I earlier suggested.

 

[Checkmite]

From Mother Jones:

I personally am not much for lending credence to this "anonymous witness" until it's verified he was even there. I can call Mother Jones and claim to be an anonymous "witness" and I don't even live in Florida.

 

[Checkmite]

It could also be argued that in the first encounter Zimmerman's gun was in his vehicle and he removed the gun from his vehicle prior to the pursuit. Even more could be suggested if you listen carefully to that first police call as I earlier suggested.

Perhaps. As uncomfortable as I imagine an inside-the-waistband holster must be, wearing one while seated in a vehicle must be torturous.

 

[Dan O.]

Perhaps. As uncomfortable as I imagine an inside-the-waistband holster must be, wearing one while seated in a vehicle must be torturous.

Listen to the call (about 1:35) using headphones and an 8 band equalizer to reduce noise. Let me know what you hear.

 

[crimresearch]

If you find that the defendant who because of threats or prior difficulties with (victim) had reasonable grounds to believe that [he] [she] was in danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of (victim), then the defendant had the right to arm [himself] [herself]. However, the defendant cannot justify the use of deadly force, if after arming [himself] [herself] [he] [she] renewed [his] [her] difficulty with (victim) when [he] [she] could have avoided the difficulty,​

The exclusion which I've highlighted is specifically addressing the conditions of the proceeding statement. I read this though as saying that being armed and renewing the difficulty that could have been avoided explicitly voids the protection offed by this law.

It could also be argued that in the first encounter Zimmerman's gun was in his vehicle and he removed the gun from his vehicle prior to the pursuit. Even more could be suggested if you listen carefully to that first police call as I earlier suggested.

People outside of the courtroom can read it however they like.

The courts are far less likely to edit out 'arming himself' with it's accepted meaning at law, and insert 'being armed' to decide that already having the weapon you were carrying meets that element of the crime. The word 'renewed' is in there for a reason.

And based on what we know about the shooter's carry permit,his choice of *inside* the waistband holster, and the timeline, (that whole 'totality of the circumstances' thing) asserting that he went back and actually armed himself, then renewed the encounter would take some proving.

New infomation could change that, but going with what's available now, that approach seems a large stretch.

 

[crimresearch]

Listen to the call (about 1:35) using headphones and an 8 band equalizer to reduce noise. Let me know what you hear.

That call happened *before* the shooter had any encounter with the victim... this is getting into time machine territory.