Trayvon Martin Case

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Classic case of racial profiling. It seems "Stand Your Ground" should apply to Trayvon Martin, not George Zimmerman.

D.C. had a strong showing at the Trayvon rally last weekend.

Assuming Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation, it certainly would.

I am glad there are some many people gifted with retroactive telepathy and can clear up, beyond any reasonable doubt, what Zimmerman's thought processes were as this confrontation unfolded. ... I was just guessing about it.

Prove Zimmerman wouldn't have done the same thing to a tattoed, white (hispanic, asian blah blah blah) kid dressed and acting in the same manner as Martin and I'll buy the profiling argument as a factual conclusion that can be stated with certainty. Otherwise everyone is just speculating about Zimmerman's state of mind.

Again, so my position is clear, although legally allowed to do so, Zimmerman was wrong to be toting a gun around while on a Neighbor Watch patrol. He exercised bad judgment in following when the dispatcher said it was unneeded. The law as written is letting a potential illegal and unjust action go unpunished. ... and most importantly, even if he started the physical altercation, Martin's death is a tragic event and the law's failure to provide for a satisfactory and just result compounds the tragedy.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Assuming Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation, it certainly would.

I am glad there are some many people gifted with retroactive telepathy and can clear up, beyond any reasonable doubt, what Zimmerman's thought processes were as this confrontation unfolded. ... I was just guessing about it.

Prove Zimmerman wouldn't have done the same thing to a tattoed, white (hispanic, asian blah blah blah) kid dressed and acting in the same manner as Martin and I'll buy the profiling argument as a factual conclusion that can be stated with certainty. Otherwise everyone is just speculating about Zimmerman's state of mind.

Again, so my position is clear, although legally allowed to do so, Zimmerman was wrong to be toting a gun around while on a Neighbor Watch patrol. He exercised bad judgment in following when the dispatcher said it was unneeded. The law as written is letting a potential illegal and unjust action go unpunished. ... and most importantly, even if he started the physical altercation, Martin's death is a tragic event and the law's failure to provide for a satisfactory and just result compounds the tragedy.

He called police to report "a suspicious black male, 7-9 years old, skinny build." I think we have passed the realm of speculating about his state of mind.

What you are basically saying Stand Your Ground Law allows me to stalk you and your family and if you were to ever approach me I would be at liberty to shoot you dead and vice versa. Am I to understand that so long as I feel threatened the Stand Your Ground Law trumps all other laws regarding what constitutes murder? What constitutes self-defense and retreat? Can anyone ever be liable for murder in the state of Florida in any confrontational situation? Would it matter who approached who first? If you and I were to get into a bar fight because I uttered fighting words and I ended up gunning you down should I be held liable for murder? How would this situation be different than what happened here?

Your logic matrix is twisted because the implication of what you are saying are very serious and quite frankly antithesis of the letter as well as the spirit of the law. At worst Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder and if you were on the jury I would hope you would have the sensibility to realize this.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by saden1

He called police to report "a suspicious black male, 7-9 years old, skinny build." I think we have passed the realm of speculating about his state of mind.

So if this kid is trying car door handles, or checking houses for unlocked windows that's NOT suspicious?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

So if this kid is trying car door handles, or checking houses for unlocked windows that's NOT suspicious?

That's called reporting a crime? Did he report a crime?

You guys just keep the ****ing poll moving to justify this shit. From switching to black on black crime, to Trayvon was no saint, to some other stupid shit that doesn't matter.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by saden1

That's called reporting a crime? Did he report a crime?

You guys just keep the ****ing poll moving to justify this shit. From switching to black on black crime, to Trayvon was no saint, to some other stupid shit that doesn't matter.

Would you rather someone report a suspicious person or a murder?

'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

He called police to report "a suspicious black male, 7-9 years old, skinny build." I think we have passed the realm of speculating about his state of mind.

Maybe you think so, but then, you don't live in my neighborhood. We have had elementary age kids commit crimes - vandalism, breaking an entry, and, yes, assaults (happened three or four years ago three elementary age kids mugged an elderly lady (80'ish) while she was walking to the bus stop in the afternoon). It doesn't happen often (including the assault, I'd say around 10 times in my 18 years in the neighborhood), but it does happen. Yes, little kids are curious. Sometimes they are just being kids, but sometimes they are up to things beyond just childish curiousity or "hijinks". What's the difference? Hard to say ... Since I always try to be reasonable and go with my gut, I am probably impermissibly profiling.

Originally Posted by saden1

What you are basically saying Stand Your Ground Law allows me to stalk you and your family and if you were to ever approach me I would be at liberty to shoot you dead and vice versa. Am I to understand that so long as I feel threatened the Stand Your Ground Law trumps all other laws regarding what constitutes murder? What constitutes self-defense and retreat? Can anyone ever be liable for murder in the state of Florida in any confrontational situation? Would it matter who approached who first? If you and I were to get into a bar fight because I uttered fighting words and I ended up gunning you down should I be held liable for murder? How would this situation be different than what happened here?

No, what I am saying is that no one has the right to initiate a physical attack. If I just "approach you" after you "stalked" me, you would not have the right to shoot me. If you shoot me after I "approached you" in response to your "stalking" me AND I am the first to either physically attack you in a manner where you reasonably believe your life to be threatened or credibly threaten you with imminent physical harm likely to cause serious injury or death --- then, yes, you can use deadly force to protect yourself. Neither one of us, however, is allowed to begin the physical altercation regardless if I do or say something short of initiating the physical contact or using legally recognized "fighting words".

If Zimmerman approached and physically assaulted (pushed, bumped, shoved, hit etc.) Martin first (or brandished the gun, or used "fighting words" first), it's outright murder period. You don't get to pull a gun when you start losing a fight you started. If, however, all Zimmerman did was "stalk and approach" Martin, Martin can't can't can't throw the first punch and this is exactly what Zimmerman has alleged that Martin did. Zimmerman has said that Martin physically attacked Zimmerman first. As I set out several posts ago - in Florida, that creates a presumption he was attacked.

All I have ever said in this matter is, we don't know who initiated the physical altercation. At this point, that fact is simply surmise based on fragments of evidence. My opinion at this point, is that Zimmerman escalated the conversation and crossed the line first. However, I just don't know to the point where I am willing to ruin another person's life - it's close but I am just not there yet. Given the lack of evidence about the start of the fight, I may never be.

Originally Posted by saden1

Your logic matrix is twisted because the implication of what you are saying are very serious and quite frankly antithesis of the letter as well as the spirit of the law. At worst Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder and if you were on the jury I would hope you would have the sensibility to realize this.

My logic matrix is fine thank you. Go back and read my post No. 212. Personally, I think Zimmerman should have to get on the stand assert and prove the affirmative defense of "self-defense and reasonable belief of serious injury or death" under oath and subject to cross examination. If a jury says "okay, we believe you", I am good with that - if they say "we don't believe you", I am also good with that. Unfortunately, under Florida's self-defense immunity law, it doesn't look like that will happen.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Maybe you think so, but then, you don't live in my neighborhood. We have had elementary age kids commit crimes - vandalism, breaking an entry, and, yes, assaults (happened three or four years ago three elementary age kids mugged an elderly lady (80'ish) while she was walking to the bus stop in the afternoon). It doesn't happen often (including the assault, I'd say around 10 times in my 18 years in the neighborhood), but it does happen. Yes, little kids are curious. Sometimes they are just being kids, but sometimes they are up to things beyond just childish curiousity or "hijinks". What's the difference? Hard to say ... Since I always try to be reasonable and go with my gut, I am probably impermissibly profiling.



No, what I am saying is that no one has the right to initiate a physical attack. If I just "approach you" after you "stalked" me, you would not have the right to shoot me. If you shoot me after I "approached you" in response to your "stalking" me AND I am the first to either physically attack you in a manner where you reasonably believe your life to be threatened or credibly threaten you with imminent physical harm likely to cause serious injury or death --- then, yes, you can use deadly force to protect yourself. Neither one of us, however, is allowed to begin the physical altercation regardless if I do or say something short of initiating the physical contact or using legally recognized "fighting words".

If Zimmerman approached and physically assaulted (pushed, bumped, shoved, hit etc.) Martin first (or brandished the gun, or used "fighting words" first), it's outright murder period. You don't get to pull a gun when you start losing a fight you started. If, however, all Zimmerman did was "stalk and approach" Martin, Martin can't can't can't throw the first punch and this is exactly what Zimmerman has alleged that Martin did. Zimmerman has said that Martin physically attacked Zimmerman first. As I set out several posts ago - in Florida, that creates a presumption he was attacked.

All I have ever said in this matter is, we don't know who initiated the physical altercation. At this point, that fact is simply surmise based on fragments of evidence. My opinion at this point, is that Zimmerman escalated the conversation and crossed the line first. However, I just don't know to the point where I am willing to ruin another person's life - it's close but I am just not there yet. Given the lack of evidence about the start of the fight, I may never be.



My logic matrix is fine thank you. Go back and read my post No. 212. Personally, I think Zimmerman should have to get on the stand assert and prove the affirmative defense of "self-defense and reasonable belief of serious injury or death" under oath and subject to cross examination. If a jury says "okay, we believe you", I am good with that - if they say "we don't believe you", I am also good with that. Unfortunately, under Florida's self-defense immunity law, it doesn't look like that will happen.

No it's not fine at all Joe. If you are the stalker or the instigator, the root cause of the confrontation, you lose grounds for a self-defense claim. I would think and hope this is self-evident.

We agree on one thing though, he should certainly be arrested and stand trial.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

No it's not fine at all Joe. If you are the stalker or the instigator, the root cause of the confrontation, you lose grounds for a self-defense claim. I would think and hope this is self-evident.

We agree on one thing though, he should certainly be arrested and stand trial.

the instigator? I can follow you all I want on a public street saden. I can run after you if you run away. I can stare at you. I can call you names. I can say your stupid as I run in the same direction as you. What I cannot do, is touch or threaten you.

I think the crux of it is we are disagreeing on what "threaten" means. You think the act of "chasing" is the threat. Okay. I get that. If an unfamiliar kid I think is acting "suspiciously" in my neighborhood sees me watching him and starts to run away, am I "threatening" him if I chase him while I call 911? Can he turn and assault me?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

the instigator? I can follow you all I want on a public street saden. I can run after you if you run away. I can stare at you. I can call you names. I can say your stupid as I run in the same direction as you. What I cannot do, is touch or threaten you.

I think the crux of it is we are disagreeing on what "threaten" means. You think the act of "chasing" is the threat. Okay. I get that. If an unfamiliar kid I think is acting "suspiciously" in my neighborhood sees me watching him and starts to run away, am I "threatening" him if I chase him while I call 911? Can he turn and assault me?

No, this is not a "OK, I get that" type of situation. It's "if an adult was following your little girl that adult is a threat." Following someone can only result in two things:

a) confrontation which is a hostile or argumentative meeting or situation between opposing parties.

b) one individual takes flight out of fear for their safety.


The act of following someone you don't know is a threatening act.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

No, this is not a "OK, I get that" type of situation. It's "if an adult was following your little girl that adult is a threat." Following someone can only result in two things:

a) confrontation which is a hostile or argumentative meeting or situation between opposing parties.

b) one individual takes flight out of fear for their safety.


The act of following someone you don't know is a threatening act.

The "OK, I get that" was more of the epiphany - "ohhhhh, I see" kind of "getting that".

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Assuming Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation, it certainly would.

I am glad there are some many people gifted with retroactive telepathy and can clear up, beyond any reasonable doubt, what Zimmerman's thought processes were as this confrontation unfolded. ... I was just guessing about it.

Prove Zimmerman wouldn't have done the same thing to a tattoed, white (hispanic, asian blah blah blah) kid dressed and acting in the same manner as Martin and I'll buy the profiling argument as a factual conclusion that can be stated with certainty. Otherwise everyone is just speculating about Zimmerman's state of mind.

Again, so my position is clear, although legally allowed to do so, Zimmerman was wrong to be toting a gun around while on a Neighbor Watch patrol. He exercised bad judgment in following when the dispatcher said it was unneeded. The law as written is letting a potential illegal and unjust action go unpunished. ... and most importantly, even if he started the physical altercation, Martin's death is a tragic event and the law's failure to provide for a satisfactory and just result compounds the tragedy.

Acting like Martin? What does that mean? How was Martin acting, Joe? He was walking down the street with tea and Skittles. And he was wearing a hoodie, so I'm pretty sure his tats weren't visible. Besides it was dark, so I don't think that was the issue.

Zimmerman said, “This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something.”

The dispatcher immediately asks, “Is he white, black or Hispanic?”
George Zimmerman responds, “He looks black.”


Zimmerman went to say, "they always get away". Who the **** is they is what I want to know. "****ing coons" or "goons".

The truth is, absent of some disgusting racial slur it's hard to prove racial profiling, isn't it? It's like saying prove racism. You really can't because we often, wrongly, associate racism with the obvious, like the word nigger. In our modern day politically correct culture, even the racists, have long moved beyond using the word nigger. If it looks and feels like profiling there's a good chance, though not a 100%, it is.

We do agree that this is a tragedy and, at a minimum, an arrest should be in order to assuage the Martin family and the citizens of the Sanford community.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Acting like Martin? What does that mean? How was Martin acting, Joe? He was walking down the street with tea and Skittles. And he was wearing a hoodie, so I'm pretty sure his tats weren't visible. Besides it was dark, so I don't think that was the issue.

Zimmerman said, “This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something.”

The dispatcher immediately asks, “Is he white, black or Hispanic?”
George Zimmerman responds, “He looks black.”


Zimmerman went to say, "they always get away". Who the **** is they is what I want to know. "****ing coons" or "goons".

The truth is, absent of some disgusting racial slur it's hard to prove racial profiling, isn't it? It's like saying prove racism. You really can't because we often, wrongly, associate racism with the obvious, like the word nigger. In our modern day politically correct culture, even the racists, have long moved beyond using the word nigger. If it looks and feels like profiling there's a good chance, though not a 100%, it is.

It is hard to prove profiling, I grant you that. At the same time, I meant exactly what I said. "Acting like". Zimmerman didnt describe the suspicious behavior by saying "Well, his left hand is twitching and he's looking into cars/people's houses". Fair enough. Are you confident, to the point of certainty, however, that, regardless of race, Zimmerman wouldn't have reported any unfamiliar kid in a hoodie, carrying skittles and walking the neighborhood in the same manner as Martin (whatever that manner might be)? I guess I don't see it.

What makes you think this minority individual who has mentored African American youths, was racially profiling? The fact he said "suspicious" but didn't sua sponte articulate the specifics of the behavior that was suspicious?

Originally Posted by 12thMan

We do agree that this is a tragedy and, at a minimum, an arrest should be in order to assuage the Martin family and the citizens of the Sanford community.

Well, I agree it was a tragedy and I agree the law should require an arrest. However, no arrest should be made unless it is legally allowed and, certainly, no arrest should be made simply to "assuage" the victims or citizenry - when we start arresting people to make some group feel better, it is really a step away from torches and pitchforks.

I do believe the Florida law should be changed and I hope this tragedy convinces someone to initiate that change.