Trayvon Martin

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Trayvon Martin

Postby Faramond » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:18 pm

I would guess most people have heard this story by now.

Trayvon Martin Case

An unarmed teen is killed, and the police don't arrest the person who killed him.

The shooter claims self-defense:

Zimmerman's account

I think Zimmerman should be arrested. There is no doubt that he pursued Trayvon Martin and initiated a confrontation. Sometimes self-defense is obvious, but this is certainly not one of those times. That is something for a jury to decide when the victim was unarmed and minding his own business before the confrontation.
User avatar
Faramond
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1366
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 11:06 pm
Top

Postby hamlet » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:25 pm

I'm surprised it took this long to get a thread about this. Usually Manwe is right on top of things.


To the point of the original post, I don't know what happened, really, and I doubt that there is anybody who really does, objectively.

Yes, Zimmerman certainly should not have "pursued" Martin. He turned into a vigilante when he did that, and there are laws covering that circumstance.

However, according to Zimmerman, Martin assaulted him and went after his weapon, presumably to do something with that weapon that was, shall we say, not very nice. While Zimmerman might have precipitated the confrontation, I don't know, or think for that matter, that it was really his intent to precipitate an incident in which somebody would be hurt or killed. And, if he's accurate in his rendition of events, he may have followed Martin, but it was Martin who initiated the violence.

It's an ugly situation where there really isn't a "right" answer.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Postby Jnyusa » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:28 pm

I think it's pretty clear that young black men should not enter a gated community unless they are armed. You don't want a situation where only the vigilantes have guns.
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Postby Faramond » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:38 pm

However, according to Zimmerman, Martin assaulted him and went after his weapon, presumably to do something with that weapon that was, shall we say, not very nice.


I haven't encountered this version of events, even in the articles that recount Zimmerman's version of events, but maybe the articles I've read are incomplete.

If Martin did reach for the gun, maybe it is because he feared that Zimmerman was about to do something not very nice. After all -- that is what he did with it in the end.

There is a dead unarmed kid and an armed guy who was out looking for trouble. ** Kid ends up dead. This isn't a hard case, in my opinion. Arrest him. The burden of proof is on Zimmerman.



** ( How do we know he was looking for trouble? Because he followed Martin even after being told not to do so by police dispatcher. )
User avatar
Faramond
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1366
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 11:06 pm
Top

Postby Dave_LF » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:46 pm

Zimmerman claims (link) that Martin not only went for his gun, but also hit him, threw him to the ground, and repeatedly bashed his head against the concrete (the police report confirms that Z. sustained multiple injuries). Of course, this may be a perfectly rational thing to do if you're being pursued by an armed stranger for no apparent reason. Sounds to me like a comedy of errors aggravated by the presence of firearms.

Faramond wrote:There is no doubt that he pursued Trayvon Martin and initiated a confrontation.


There is doubt over who initiated the confrontation. Zimmerman claims it was Martin, and Martin unfortunately can't tell his side.
User avatar
Dave_LF
Mariner

 
Posts: 7186
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 8:39 pm
Top

Postby Griffon64 » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:03 pm

The part that puzzles me is that a man shot someone dead and wasn't detained for an investigation.

Apart from that, I can only comment based on what is said in news articles. I wouldn't extrapolate anything, not yet. I wasn't there. I wouldn't know.

I would like to see a thorough investigation to lay speculation to rest. If you are not a law enforcement officer, I don't know that you have any business pursuing someone like Zimmerman was described as doing. The odds of a safe outcome seem fairly low.

.
.
.

Something new that I read just now: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/sns-ap-us--neighborhoodwatch-death_1_residue-racial-tensions-miami-dade-schools

According to that article, Martin was suspended from school for marijuana possession, or more accurately, for possessing a baggie containing residue.

His family is saying that fact isn't relevant and dishonors his memory. His family's laywer says that the question remains: why does Zimmerman get away with disobeying a police dispatcher's instructions?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-trayvon-martin-20120326,0,4731386.story

On that topic, what is the penalty, if any, for disobeying a police dispatcher, as Zimmerman has done? And also, I wonder whether the investigation will include a toxicology report from the coroner on whether Martin had any substances in his body at the time of his death. While the gut feel is that Zimmerman had no business doing what he was doing, initial reports did include that he suspected Martin to be under the influence of drugs.

Still, he should have left him alone and let police handle it.
User avatar
Griffon64
Mariner

 
Posts: 7276
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 11:47 pm
Top

Postby Faramond » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:04 pm

Dave_LF wrote:Zimmerman claims (link) that Martin not only went for his gun, but also hit him, threw him to the ground, and repeatedly bashed his head against the concrete (the police report confirms that Z. sustained multiple injuries). Of course, this may be a perfectly rational thing to do if you're being pursued by an armed stranger for no apparent reason. Sounds to me like a comedy of errors aggravated by the presence of firearms.


Dave, this story you linked to appears to refer back to the Orlando Sentinel article I linked to in the initial post of this thread. In neither link do I see anything about Martin reaching for the gun. Perhaps this is part of Zimmerman's version of events, but I haven't yet seen it anywhere.

I can imagine wanting to defend myself if someone was on top of me bashing my head into the sidewalk. It's the rest of it that I can't imagine -- going out with a loaded gun, following someone around, shooting him ( especially if he's unarmed and I have a weight advantage ).
User avatar
Faramond
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1366
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 11:06 pm
Top

Postby Dave_LF » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:15 pm

You're right; my link doesn't include that detail. I probably read that claim somewhere else, but I don't have a link. But even if it never happened, in general, I think you're probably justified shooting at someone who's in the process of smashing your head into the ground. The question is what happens when the assault occurs in a context where you arguably deserve it. And of course, whether he did deserve it. I doubt the law requires you to obey commands from a 911 dispatcher. And it isn't illegal to confront a person you find suspicious, even if your suspicions are founded in racism. If this ever comes to trial, I don't envy the judge or jury.
Last edited by Dave_LF on Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dave_LF
Mariner

 
Posts: 7186
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 8:39 pm
Top

Postby vison » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:16 pm

Would this have happened to a white kid?
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby RoseMorninStar » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:48 pm

Zimmerman got out of his vehicle to chase Martin down. If someone is pursuing you with a gun.. well.. who would be the one defending themselves? I know I'd be pretty damn scared if someone got out of their vehicle and chased me down with a gun. And one of them is no longer able to give their side of the story. Rather convenient for Zimmerman.

There has been a 3 fold increase in this type of shooting in Florida since this law has gone into effect. Wisconsin just enacted a similar law called the 'Castle Doctrine' and we have had a fatal shooting in a very small town about 5 miles from where I live. A town which has almost no crime and I don't think has ever had a murder. The details of this case is a bit more ambiguous, but the homeowner had called the police in this instance too.. (for a noisy party next door) the police were on the scene at the time of the shooting...no more than 300 feet from where the homeowner shot a 20 year old black man. And the homeowner knew the police were on the scene too. This man will not be charged.

There are not many black people in this area. It's very, very sad. It makes me afraid to go walking at night and this has always been a very safe area.. but these vigilante killings are frightening. Every bit as frightening as crime. There are so many people around here with guns. And I wear hoodies all of the time. :(
User avatar
RoseMorninStar
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12795
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 10:34 pm
Location: North Shire
Top

Postby Dave_LF » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:03 pm

This article contains the claim that Martin tried to take the gun from Zimmerman.
User avatar
Dave_LF
Mariner

 
Posts: 7186
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 8:39 pm
Top

Postby oldtoby » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:15 pm

The part that puzzles me is that a man shot someone dead and wasn't detained for an investigation.


(my understanding is that) The FL law basically grants immunity from arrest for anyone who says they acted in self defense, the cops couldn't legally detain or arrest Zimmerman.
User avatar
oldtoby
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 15263
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2002 10:40 pm
Top

Postby Griffon64 » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:41 pm

oldtoby wrote:
The part that puzzles me is that a man shot someone dead and wasn't detained for an investigation.


(my understanding is that) The FL law basically grants immunity from arrest for anyone who says they acted in self defense, the cops couldn't legally detain or arrest Zimmerman.

Yeah, I've read articles to that effect. I'm puzzled that such a law exists. As is illustrated by this case, when it is a living person's word against a dead person's word, the living person likely is unlikely to be arrested since the dead person cannot tell their side anymore. Of course, in this case the police report states that Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his description of having his head slammed into the pavement, so if he did act in self defense, then I suppose the law clears him even though he was foolish to disobey the police dispatcher's request to cease his pursuit. That said, he claims to have been attacked walking back to his SUV after he did cease his pursuit, which I find a little odd. Why would a guy intent on pursuing a man he considers a danger turn his back on him [ presumably ] and leave himself open to attack in that way? Why didn't he back away, or heard footsteps, etc? It seems odd that a slight young man could overwhelm what appears to be an older, heavier man that easily.

Defining what self defense is, and when one may act like this in self defense, seems like a perilous endeavor. For instance, could you bait or intimidate someone into attacking you in their defense, and then shoot them and claim that you acted in self defense and is therefore untouchable? If no-one saw the actions that led to you being attacked, you'd probably get away with it.

Any law that makes it easier for a person to kill and walk away free seems dangerous to me. And yet pretending that there are no people with criminal intent out there would be naive. This law didn't just spring up out of the blue, after all. The situation truly seems unfortunate, to say the least. The presence of a gun always carries the danger that it escalates the stakes in a situation. A bad decision with a gun can more easily have a much worse outcome than a bad decision with, say, your bare hands.
User avatar
Griffon64
Mariner

 
Posts: 7276
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 11:47 pm
Top

Postby basil » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:45 pm

Dave_LF wrote:You're right; my link doesn't include that detail. I probably read that claim somewhere else,


Your problem seems to be you're not reading the right media, notwithstanding the Reuters piece.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/trayvon-marti ... /id/433912

We had some hundreds of folk demonstrating with the "million hoodies" action in Wichita. The article also discusses the "stand your ground" laws in some states, including where I am.

While the Kansas law is modeled on the Florida statute and uses much of the same language, a legal analysis by a former University of Kansas law student indicates that it could be more permissive than the Florida law.

The analysis determined that the Florida law contains a standard of reasonableness for use of force that Kansas law lacks.

Annie Wells Shank, now a lawyer in Dallas, said she researched the two laws for an article published in 2008 in the KU Law Review.

Her article cited a Florida case in which a man named Norman Borden fired five shots through the windshield at three men who were planning to attack him, then circled to the driver’s door and fired nine more shots, killing two of the men.

Prosecutors decided the first five shots were self-defense, but put him on trial alleging that the following nine were excessive force. Borden was acquitted at trial.

“Kansas’ stand-your-ground law is similar to Florida’s in several ways, but it does not include a reasonableness requirement, and it does not expressly provide for — or limit — the use of deadly force,” Shank concluded. “If the events of the Borden case had occurred in Kansas, it is possible that Borden may not even have been tried for his actions. … Rather, Borden may have been protected by the new stand-your-ground law, which allows a person to ‘meet force with force’ when ‘attacked’ in any place where he ‘has a right to be.’ ”


b
User avatar
basil
Mariner

 
Posts: 8303
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 3:34 pm
Top

Postby RoseMorninStar » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:54 pm

'Stand your Ground' laws...
Since Florida passed Stand Your Ground, the number of justifiable homicides has increased, according to the state's Department of Law Enforcement.

From 2000 to 2005, there were 13 such killings by private citizens each year, on average. Between 2006 and 2010, after the law was passed, there were 36 killings per year. In 2009, the number of justifiable homicides peaked at 45.
Not good statistics.


Another interesting blog/article:

Waxing America


March 23, 2012
The Castle Doctrine and The Coming Gunfight
The tragedy in Florida where young Trayvon Martin was murdered was inevitable, This post is from six years ago.

The twisting and manipulation of the Castle Doctrine is quickly moving the United States in a dangerous direction. The radical right now distorts a principle which dates back to the English Common Law, with roots in Roman society.

The concept is simple. Confronted with violence, once is always expected to retreat. Retreat is the rule, not the exception. Then an exception was carved out allowing the use of deadly force if reasonably used in self-defense. But always, there was first an obligation to retreat.

A thousand years ago our ancestors realized that if civilization was to move forward, the obligation was on everyone to retreat.

From this another exception was carved. Once within his home the Englishman, faced with nowhere else to flee, obligated to protect his family and property, was entitled to use deadly force, but only as necessary to stop the intrusion. During the reign of King Henry VIII:

Duty to Retreat

Historically, English common law justified deadly force only in circumstances where one was executing the law -- effecting a legal arrest or preventing violent felonies ( see Perkins, Self-Defense Re-Examined, 1 UCLA L Rev 133 [1953]). When deadly force was reasonably used in self-defense it only excused -- but did not justify -- the homicide ( see Wharton, Homicide § 3, at 211 [1855]). The difference was more than theoretical, as the excused killer was subject to property forfeiture and, at times, even a penal sentence ( see Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, [3d ed], § 17.01, p 205). However, with the enactment of 24 Henry VIII, ch 5 (1532), the justification defense was enlarged to include deadly force reasonably used in self-defense. This broader reading of the justified use of deadly force was further refined by cases involving attacks in the dwelling of the defender. Such a defender -- even if the original aggressor -- did not have a duty to retreat when inside the home, or "castell" (Lambard, Eirenarcha, or Offices of the Justice of the Peace, 250 [1599]).

Our contemporary castle doctrine grew out of a turbulent era when retreat from one's home necessarily entailed increased peril and strife ( see Thompson, Homicide in Self- Defense, 14 Am L Rev 548, 554 [1888]). The rationale that evolved -- now widely accepted -- is that one should not be driven from the inviolate place of refuge that is the home. "It is not now, and has never been the law that a man assailed in his own dwelling, is bound to retreat. If assailed there, he may stand his ground, and resist the attack. He is under no duty to take to the fields and the highways, a fugitive from his own home" ( see People v Tomlins, 213 NY 240, 243 [1914] [Cardozo, J.]).

The home exception to the duty to retreat reflects two interrelated concepts -- defense of one's home, and defense of one's person and family. "The house has a peculiar immunity in that it is sacred for the protection of a person's family," and "[m]andating a duty to retreat for defense of dwelling claims will force people to leave their homes by the back door while their family members are exposed to danger and their houses are burgled" ( State v Carothers, 594 NW2d 897, 900-901 [1999] [Minn] [internal quotations and citations ommitted]). Yet somewhat at odds with this privileged status accorded the home is the state's general interest in protecting life. "The duty to retreat reflects the idea that a killing is justified only as a last resort, an act impermissible as long as other reasonable avenues remain open" ( People v Jones, 3 NY3d 491, 494 [2004]). Indeed, requiring a defender to retreat before using deadly force may in fact be "the more civilized view" (LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 10.4 [e], at 155 [2d Ed]). Inevitably, then, a balance must be struck between protecting life by requiring retreat and protecting the sanctity of the home by not requiring retreat.

.....The Legislature also incorporated the castle doctrine -- balancing the competing interests of protecting the home and protecting life -- directing that the duty to retreat does not apply when the defender "is in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor"... If the attack occurs in the dwelling, a defender need not retreat but may use reasonable force to repel it. (emphasis added)


Now the radical new Republican right wants to take the exception and make it the rule nationally, having succeeded in Florida.

Here is what the NRA POLITICAL REPORTsays:



The right to defend yourself against violent, criminal attack is a fundamental human right. NRA-ILA is in state capitals, fighting for laws like the Castle Doctrine, which guarantees your right to defend yourself against criminals anywhere you have a right to be. We're also fighting for Workers Protection laws, to prevent employers from discriminating against employees who choose to keep firearms in their locked vehicles while working.


The intent is straightforward though not honest. First, the Castle Doctrine now becomes the rule, not the exception. At the grocery, the ball game and the tavern, there is no longer a requirement to retreat.

laws like the Castle Doctrine, which guarantees your right to defend yourself against criminals anywhere you have a right to be

Bu the bigger lie is here:

guarantees your right to defend yourself against criminals anywhere you have a right to be.

A dispute with the next guy over the parking space? Bam! Bumping into the other shopper's cart? Boom! Didn't like the way he was looking at you? Blam!

All one of the parties has to do is perceive that the other is not backing down; from there we have the physical confrontation with no obligation to retreat, and permission to use deadly force if you believe your own life is in danger.

Employers in Florida and other states want firearms out of the parking lots and workplaces. The NRA is claiming that their Property Rights allow them to take their gun (property) wherever they go. Whatever happened to the the person who owns the property, the real property?
Edit note: this was originally posted Feburary 27, 2006.
User avatar
RoseMorninStar
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12795
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 10:34 pm
Location: North Shire
Top

Postby basil » Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:39 pm

. . . . . and where do these new laws come from?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opini ... ef=opinion

.
.
Specifically, language virtually identical to Florida’s law is featured in a template supplied to legislators in other states by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed organization that has managed to keep a low profile even as it exerts vast influence (only recently, thanks to yeoman work by the Center for Media and Democracy, has a clear picture of ALEC’s activities emerged). And if there is any silver lining to Trayvon Martin’s killing, it is that it might finally place a spotlight on what ALEC is doing to our society — and our democracy.

What is ALEC? Despite claims that it’s nonpartisan, it’s very much a movement-conservative organization, funded by the usual suspects: the Kochs, Exxon Mobil, and so on. Unlike other such groups, however, it doesn’t just influence laws, it literally writes them, supplying fully drafted bills to state legislators. In Virginia, for example, more than 50 ALEC-written bills have been introduced, many almost word for word. And these bills often become law.

Many ALEC-drafted bills pursue standard conservative goals: union-busting, undermining environmental protection, tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. ALEC seems, however, to have a special interest in privatization — that is, on turning the provision of public services, from schools to prisons, over to for-profit corporations. And some of the most prominent beneficiaries of privatization, such as the online education company K12 Inc. and the prison operator Corrections Corporation of America, are, not surprisingly, very much involved with the organization.
.
.


and

.
.
But where does the encouragement of vigilante (in)justice fit into this picture? In part it’s the same old story — the long-standing exploitation of public fears, especially those associated with racial tension, to promote a pro-corporate, pro-wealthy agenda. It’s neither an accident nor a surprise that the National Rifle Association and ALEC have been close allies all along.

And ALEC, even more than other movement-conservative organizations, is clearly playing a long game. Its legislative templates aren’t just about generating immediate benefits to the organization’s corporate sponsors; they’re about creating a political climate that will favor even more corporation-friendly legislation in the future.

Did I mention that ALEC has played a key role in promoting bills that make it hard for the poor and ethnic minorities to vote?

Yet that’s not all; you have to think about the interests of the penal-industrial complex — prison operators, bail-bond companies and more. (The American Bail Coalition has publicly described ALEC as its “life preserver.”) This complex has a financial stake in anything that sends more people into the courts and the prisons, whether it’s exaggerated fear of racial minorities or Arizona’s draconian immigration law, a law that followed an ALEC template almost verbatim.

Think about that: we seem to be turning into a country where crony capitalism doesn’t just waste taxpayer money but warps criminal justice, in which growing incarceration reflects not the need to protect law-abiding citizens but the profits corporations can reap from a larger prison population.
.
.


Something else to think about.

Previously, we've reserved the power of Life & Death over us citizens for government and police.

Now anybody with a gun, and literal power of Life & Death over us all, with a little bit of money and a little bit of training can make decisions over our lives nearly anywhere they want to.

There are now thousands of these people, all hidden from us.

Best be safe from this mayhem, get a gun. /sarcasm

b
User avatar
basil
Mariner

 
Posts: 8303
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 3:34 pm
Top

Postby Silverberry_Spritely » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:25 pm

vison wrote:Would this have happened to a white kid?


Assaulting someone with a gun greatly increases your chances of being shot, regardless of your race. I'd entertain this if it was a monoracial neighborhood, but blacks and Latinos lived there. A white, Hispanic, or Asian kid who assaults someone with a gun has a pretty good chance of getting shot, just as much as any black kid.

Would this be national news if the victim wasn't a black kid? I'll bet money not.
Silverberry_Spritely
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:59 pm
Location: The OTHER Party City
Top

Postby basil » Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:18 am

Silverberry_Spritely wrote:Would this be national news if the victim wasn't a black kid? I'll bet money not.


Missing/presumed dead well-to-do white woman?

Good for months.

It depends upon the circumstances and laws, what happened and as here, the police response.

And most likely a host of other variables combining fortuitously to produce a media event, complete with a smear campaign.

And then there's the pathos of the 911 recording of Martin being shot.

A legal interpretation of "stand your ground", along the line of what I mentioned above:

http://www.constructionlitmag.com/addit ... h-sentence

.
.
As Professor Winkler notes, Baxley’s explanation that the law does not apply to people who seek out or escalate a confrontation rings hollow because according to the law’s plain language, “[s]o long as someone reasonably thinks he or someone else is in danger, he can shoot to kill, regardless of whether the shooter is the one who initiated the hostile confrontation.” The law also does away with the duty to retreat and, unlike laws in other jurisdictions, does not require that the person have actually witnessed someone committing a felony before shooting at them. Perhaps most egregious, a separate provision of the Florida law removes the question of reasonableness from the jury altogether: such an individual is (almost always) completely immune from civil or criminal liability, and cannot even be arrested unless the police find probable cause that the person used unlawful force. Rather than protecting the rights of homeowners, according to Florida law enforcement officials, the law has resulted in chaos: a nearly threefold increase in justifiable homicides and acquittals in cases of road rage and gang violence.

The death of Trayvon Martin reemphasizes that sweeping stand-your-ground laws, like the one in Florida, provide an unwarranted opportunity for individuals to claim self-defense under manifestly unreasonable circumstances. Pimped by pro-gun lobbyists,[2] these laws are by and large a part of the gun rights movement’s push to allow people to carry firearms essentially anywhere. The laws blur the line between victim and aggressor, encourage a culture of vigilantism, and are ambiguous to the point of absurdity. In Florida, even if you initiate or escalate a confrontation, you can kill anytime, anywhere, and without a thought of retreat so long as you “reasonably” believe your life is being threatened (say, by an unarmed teenager carrying Skittles and iced tea); virtually everyone is now at the mercy of the “reasonable beliefs” of anyone with a weapon and an attitude.


And there's this video

The video ends with the boy saying, “I just think that sometimes people get stereotyped, and I fit into the stereotype as the person who got shot.” ( Charles Blow, NYT )

Just a kid with tea and skittles.


b
User avatar
basil
Mariner

 
Posts: 8303
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 3:34 pm
Top

Postby Minardil » Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 am

Assaulting someone with a gun greatly increases your chances of being shot, regardless of your race. I'd entertain this if it was a monoracial neighborhood, but blacks and Latinos lived there. A white, Hispanic, or Asian kid who assaults someone with a gun has a pretty good chance of getting shot, just as much as any black kid.


Martin wasn't the one with the gun. Martin was accosted by a man with a gun, a confrontation resulted, and Martin, who was UNARMED, was shot dead.

The outrage here was largely sparked by the fact that Zimmerman was simply released by the police immediately, with no real investigation at all. He said he acted in self defense, which may be true, but shouldn't there have been SOME official investigation into that? There is NOW, because of the outcry, but shouldn't there have been one to begin with? The anger is over the LAW that seemingly allows anyone to commit murder, then walk away by claiming they felt threatened by their victim.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Postby Dave_LF » Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:34 am

It's becoming clear that this incident isn't the slam-dunk case anti-firearm groups would maybe prefer. But that perhaps makes it even more instructive. If there's a lesson here, it's that even when you know how to handle firearms (Zimmerman was properly licensed, was taking classes in law enforcement, and aspired to be a police officer), and even when you have perfectly valid reasons for wanting to carry one (there had been a recent spate of violent and non-violent crime in his neighborhood), things can still go very, very wrong.
User avatar
Dave_LF
Mariner

 
Posts: 7186
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 8:39 pm
Top

Postby hamlet » Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:47 am

Minardil wrote:
Assaulting someone with a gun greatly increases your chances of being shot, regardless of your race. I'd entertain this if it was a monoracial neighborhood, but blacks and Latinos lived there. A white, Hispanic, or Asian kid who assaults someone with a gun has a pretty good chance of getting shot, just as much as any black kid.


Martin wasn't the one with the gun. Martin was accosted by a man with a gun, a confrontation resulted, and Martin, who was UNARMED, was shot dead.

The outrage here was largely sparked by the fact that Zimmerman was simply released by the police immediately, with no real investigation at all. He said he acted in self defense, which may be true, but shouldn't there have been SOME official investigation into that? There is NOW, because of the outcry, but shouldn't there have been one to begin with? The anger is over the LAW that seemingly allows anyone to commit murder, then walk away by claiming they felt threatened by their victim.


The police didn't have the means under the law to hold him. That's why he was released.

Plus, it isn't so simple as "armed man accosts unarmed man, unarmed man dead." Zimmerman, for whatever reason, sustained injuries consistent with having his head slammed against the pavement several times and claims that Martin was going for his (Zimmerman's) weapon (either to disarm somebody he thought was going to hurt him, or to turn the weapon on Zimmerman), and that Zimmerman shot in self defense. It isn't that simple despite what Vison and Jnyusa would say. It's not just a case of white guy (and he's hispanic, not really caucasian here folks) shoots black guy horrible racist crime.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Postby JewelSong » Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:27 am

Zimmerman was apparently known to the neighbor and police as a hot-head; constantly calling in "threats" and seemed to be a vigilante wannabe.

After he called this one in (about a suspicious individual in the neighborhood) he was instructed to stay in his car.

He didn't. He got out and pursued the kid.

He wanted to shoot him. And I would bet anything that he provoked things so he could do just that.
User avatar
JewelSong
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4633
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:31 am
Top

Postby hamlet » Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:39 am

JewelSong wrote:Zimmerman was apparently known to the neighbor and police as a hot-head; constantly calling in "threats" and seemed to be a vigilante wannabe.

After he called this one in (about a suspicious individual in the neighborhood) he was instructed to stay in his car.

He didn't. He got out and pursued the kid.

He wanted to shoot him. And I would bet anything that he provoked things so he could do just that.


You can't assert that as fact.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Postby vison » Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:58 am

hamlet wrote: It isn't that simple despite what Vison and Jnyusa would say.


I don't know about Jnyusa, but vison didn't say it and furthermore, vison won't. So please do not put words in my mouth, ok?

I asked the question because I was curious about what other posters here would say. I think the odds were against that young man BECAUSE he was black, but from what I've read the shooter was trigger happy and those odds alone wouldn't explain what happened.


Few things are as dangerous as a hothead with a loaded gun. He wants to be a cop? He shouldn't be, IMHO.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Swordsman_Of_The_Tower » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:00 am

Silverberry_Spritely wrote:
vison wrote:Would this have happened to a white kid?


Assaulting someone with a gun greatly increases your chances of being shot, regardless of your race. I'd entertain this if it was a monoracial neighborhood, but blacks and Latinos lived there. A white, Hispanic, or Asian kid who assaults someone with a gun has a pretty good chance of getting shot, just as much as any black kid.

Would this be national news if the victim wasn't a black kid? I'll bet money not.


Would a white kid be suspicious walking back from 7/11

No he wouldn't be, and he never would be.


Really convenient. The kid was the aggressor :roll: Another angry black male out on the prowl preying on the white folks.

Your sure as **** if some nutjob wannabe cop is chasing me down my street I'm going to react with as much force as possible.

So now the burden of proof is on the (dead) victim to prove he was not "asking" to be executed. Nice world. You guys can have it. I don't want it anymore.




A 17 year old white upper middle class girl was walking home from the convenience store talking on her cell phone. An armed black man in the neighborhood thought she looked suspicious. He calls 911 and is told to stay away from her. He calls her a racial epithet on the line, and proceeds to pursue her. She gets the jump on him, and a struggle ensues. He shoots her and doesn't attempt to help her. The cops bag the girl as a "Jane Doe" and don't look at her cell phone to inform her parents.

Is the black man in the above

A. Lynched
B. Let go
C. Given a needle
User avatar
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4490
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 3:40 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Top

Postby hamlet » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:09 am

vison wrote:
hamlet wrote: It isn't that simple despite what Vison and Jnyusa would say.


I don't know about Jnyusa, but vison didn't say it and furthermore, vison won't. So please do not put words in my mouth, ok?

I asked the question because I was curious about what other posters here would say. I think the odds were against that young man BECAUSE he was black, but from what I've read the shooter was trigger happy and those odds alone wouldn't explain what happened.


Few things are as dangerous as a hothead with a loaded gun. He wants to be a cop? He shouldn't be, IMHO.


I misinterpreted your post, then. It read to me as a snarky bit about how the guy got shot because he was black.

I don't think that's the case. Really, I think he was confronted by Zimmerman because he was black and because Zimmerman was a guy jumping at shadows and seeing nefariousness where it did not existed. I think Martin got shot because, for whatever reason, he assaulted Zimmerman. No, that doesn't excuse Zimmerman (and I don't think it should legally either), but it explains it a bit.


Swordsman: If you think a white kid walking back from a 7/11 would not be accosted in certain neighborhoods, then you're delusional. It happens all the time. Hell, it's happened to me.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Postby vison » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:17 am

I wonder if being called n*gger by Zimmerman was enough to annoy that kid?

Swordsman, your scenario made me laff. And not in a good way. :(
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby portia » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:20 am

We need a thorough and unemotional investigation.

It is a bad thing, in itself, that the supporters of Trayvon Martin seem to be ignoring the Florida law, and insisting on an arrest, NOW! The only thing they may be accomplishing is to give Zimmerman a good civil rights lawsuit against the police department. Handing Zimmerman a big monetary windfall is hardly what they want to do, but if the prosecutors bow to public pressure, that is the most likely result.

If the Florida law does, indeed, immunize Zimmerman, then it would be wrong to try to change the law by public pressure, outside the ballot box. Maybe this case will convince Floridians that the law should be repealed. But if it stays the law, they are stuck with it, and prosecutorial decisions should not be made by public pressure.

In the current climate, I would worry a lot about witness intimidation and about people "editing their memories" in the face of all these demonstrations.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby Minardil » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:23 am

I think Martin got shot because, for whatever reason, he assaulted Zimmerman. No, that doesn't excuse Zimmerman (and I don't think it should legally either), but it explains it a bit.



Did Martin ASSAULT Zimmerman, or did he DEFEND himself against a perceived threat FROM Zimmerman?

We know from the 911 call that it was ZIMMERMAN that identified Martin as a "suspicious" figure, and that it was Zimmerman who initiated the pursuit of Martin, and that Martin ran away, at which point the 911 dispatcher ordered Zimmerman NOT to follow Martin, an order which Zimmerman ignored.

My question is, does Stand Your Ground apply to Martin too? I mean, he's just some guy walking home from the store when a big guy with a gun starts chasing him. Doesn't Martin have the right UNDER THE LAW to use deadly force to defend himself? Wouldn't that include allowing him to attempt to disarm his attacker?

Because the way I see it, this law has allowed Zimmerman to initiate a confrontation in a threatening manner (pursuing someone with a gun), and them it protects him when that confrontation becomes violent. I don't think anyone should be able to pick a fight with a stranger on the street, then kill that stranger when the fight goes poorly, and claim "self defense" and the police aren't even permitted under the law to do anything about it. Really, they didn't even give Zimmerman a breathalizer test on the scene. Seriously, any law that allows a private citizen to shoot another UNARMED person and doesn't even require them to prove they aren't drunk is fatally flawed.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Postby vison » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:27 am

Pretty much. Good post, Minardil, and good questions.

But the shooter doesn't have to be drunk or high, he can just be an eager-beaver with a loaded gun, all pumped up on adrenalin and testosterone, breathing hard and having a very good time.

I've seen these birds at the gun range, just getting into it as the bullets fly. Sometimes you think, hey, this guy is just going to turn 90 degrees and keep his finger on the trigger. :shock:

And an awful lot of them just LONG to be cops or prison guards. :( Instead, they have mall security badges. :(
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Next

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs.com and 1 guest