Nicker on 17/7/2013 at 04:43
Quote Posted by catbarf
...it was Martin that attacked him and provoked the use of force.
At least according to witnesses.
Oh right...
Protecting your life with deadly force might be justifiable but protecting your own or someone else's property with deadly force is excessive. Zimmerman seemed to feel empowered to err on the side of stupid because the law not only permitted it but encouraged it.
And since when does THC justify a shoot first policy? Reefer Madness was not a real documentary, ya know.
jay pettitt on 17/7/2013 at 05:21
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Can you have folk going around shooting each other when one of them is on top of you and slamming your head against the ground?
You don't see a problem with the fact that the law has so far failed to protect Martin? Only it's not at all clear that he wasn't defending his self.
Unless you're suggesting that getting into fights and shooting each other is okay and the law of the land shouldn't have something to say about it other than 'carry on'.
Goldmoon Dawn on 17/7/2013 at 06:09
Dia, how on Earth did you end up in a craphole like Racine?! Granted, I grew up there, but that city has seen its better days!
Renzatic on 17/7/2013 at 07:13
Quote Posted by catbarf
You know, we can discuss whether or not it was racially motivated, but considering Martin had been found with stolen jewelry in his possession in the past and had THC in his system at the time it seems like his assessment of Martin was right on the money.
I thought the autopsy didn't find any suspicious substances in his system.
And even if it did...it's THC. About the only thing that'd explain would be why he went out for Skittles and iced tea. The fight? Not so much. Weed isn't exactly known for making people violent and unpredictable.
faetal on 17/7/2013 at 10:02
Quote Posted by catbarf
You know, we can discuss whether or not it was racially motivated, but considering Martin had been found with stolen jewelry in his possession in the past and had THC in his system at the time it seems like his assessment of Martin was right on the money.
Personally I'd be suspicious of someone strolling around front yards in the rain, wearing dark clothes late at night in a neighborhood that had had recent break-ins, regardless of their race. I think people alleging that it was racially motivated are grasping at straws, especially when even if Zimmerman were the most blatant racist in the world it was Martin that attacked him and provoked the use of force.
Wow - character assassination success! So being involved in a stolen jewellery case (no conviction) and having used pot at some point in the past
must mean that he was a violent thug who deserved to be shot to death?
Should be noted:
Quote:
In 2005, at the age of 21, Zimmerman was charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest, after shoving an officer while a friend of Zimmerman's was being questioned about underage drinking. The charges were reduced, then dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program. Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiancée filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman requested a reciprocal restraining order. Both orders were granted.
So I guess that now means
Zimmerman was the one in the wrong?! Someone should tell the judge.
Renz - the THC and associated metabolites found indicated that he had used it a few days before.
Either way, should we forget the fact that Martin, who was as far a we know, doing nothing wrong other than being black in the wrong clothes in Zimmerman's neighbourhood, was approached by someone who was following him in his truck. How is it OK for Zimmerman to assume that Martin was up to no good and approach him armed after being advised not to by the police, but not ok for Martin to assume that Zimmerman was up to no good and following him with malign intent? Is it ok simply because the survivor of that confrontation and his lawyers got to tell a story which puts him in the right? Because it does kind of seem that way.
He should have stayed in his truck after calling the police. Instead, he went looking for trouble and killed a kid with his gun. At the very least, even if Martin did get aggressive (seems likely) and make Zimmerman fear for his life - it's a big advert for not being a gung-ho prick and a big case for tighter gun control. All of this "Martin probably deserved it" after-the-fact bollocks is some pretty bad speculation which misses most of the major points.
Muzman on 17/7/2013 at 10:45
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Yes yes. But in context it's slightly different.
The uni I went to was in an Asian neighbourhood that has its fair share of gang violence, stabbings mostly - Asian gangs vs other Asian gangs. Gang members are pretty noticeable by the way they dress and the way they behave in groups. If I'm alone on the street at night and see a couple of guys who look like they might be gang members is it not better for me to treat them as such in my behaviour (avoidance!) than to not?
If you know what a gang member wears or you're out late at night then it makes some sense to take all sorts of precautions. It's just a question of whether you're dumb enough to let the Boston stranger into your house because he's well dressed and white.
If you're avoiding black people because I was mugged by a black person once and..well you never know with those people, then you're not using even an intelligent impartial heuristic by any measure, pretending racism isn't a moral issue for a moment.
Muzman on 17/7/2013 at 10:53
Quote Posted by catbarf
You know, we can discuss whether or not it was racially motivated, but considering Martin had been found with stolen jewelry in his possession in the past and had THC in his system at the time it seems like his assessment of Martin was right on the money.
Personally I'd be suspicious of someone strolling around front yards in the rain, wearing dark clothes late at night in a neighborhood that had had recent break-ins, regardless of their race. I think people alleging that it was racially motivated are grasping at straws, especially when even if Zimmerman were the most blatant racist in the world it was Martin that attacked him and provoked the use of force.
Are you really advocating no probable cause, no in flagrante confrontation? By non-deputised civilians no less. Really? Think about that for a minute.
How fast would you be calling "Police State!" if the cops did it? Maybe you wouldn't, I don't know. Seems like total civics failure if you ask me though.
(I don't buy Zimmerman's story at all, incidentally. Small scratches on your head bleed like crazy. His nose fracture healed up so fast. I'd be curious if they swabbed all the nearby walls or trees or sign posts in the area as he probably crashed his panicy putz ass into one and fell over. I don't think I would have convicted him on that evidence as presented either, though, in case anyone is wondering).
Jason Moyer on 17/7/2013 at 11:40
Do you guys seriously believe that Zimmerman initiated a physical confrontation, yet somehow ended up on his back with a dude punching the shit out of his head? Seriously? And if he had been planning on shooting the guy from the get go, why would he wait until he was getting beaten up? For that matter, how would beating the shit out of Zimmerman for following him be justified but following a suspicious looking person while on watch in your neighborhood not be? Am I just being contrarian because everyone is just nodding and agreeing in unison about something they haven't actually spent 30 seconds thinking about themselves?
Chimpy Chompy on 17/7/2013 at 12:03
I don't think we really know exactly how the physical confrontation came about. Which is why Zimmerman walked free. Reasonable Doubt and all that.
catbarf on 17/7/2013 at 13:56
Quote Posted by Nicker
And since when does THC justify a shoot first policy? Reefer Madness was not a real documentary, ya know.
Quote Posted by Renzatic
And even if it did...it's THC. About the only thing that'd explain would be why he went out for Skittles and iced tea. The fight? Not so much. Weed isn't exactly known for making people violent and unpredictable.
Quote Posted by faetal
Wow - character assassination success! So being involved in a stolen jewellery case (no conviction) and having used pot at some point in the past
must mean that he was a violent thug who deserved to be shot to death?
Well, I could have worded it better, but you've all missed the point entirely. My point was that when Zimmerman said 'he looks like he's up to no good' and 'like he's on drugs or something', well, he was talking about a teenager who had been found with stolen goods before (which, excuse the less-than-impartial source, (
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/05/01/m-dspd-cover-up-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-martins-backpack-with-stolen-jewelry-and-burglary-tool/) was ignored by police) and had THC in his system, so
maybe Martin actually was behaving in a suspicious manner and mean ol' Zimmerman didn't just accost a perfectly innocent teen purely because he hates black people. Maybe, given Martin's history, he actually was up to no good and Zimmerman's assessment was wholly accurate. I don't know. You don't know. So why are we outright assuming that this suspicion was unwarranted or racially-motivated?
That the chemical analysis showed that it wasn't recent use is news to me, but there are a lot of potential factors here that could lead a neighborhood watchman to suspect someone and reducing it to 'obviously it's racism!!!' is just unfair. He didn't even mention race until the dispatcher asked him directly. Someone moving erratically across the front yards of houses, in a gated community where he does not live, in the rain late at night, in dark clothing, in a neighborhood that has had several recent break-ins, seems sufficiently suspicious to me to at least ask the guy what he's doing.
