RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events 17 year old Trayvon Martin shot by Neighborhood watch guy Zimmerman

No one else has posted about this here, and I hesitate to do it myself, because it is such a racially charged case.

• http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/22/san...ing-death-teen/

I think there's no question that Zimmerman, this self-appointed neighborhood watch guy, provoked the situation. He called 911, and the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin. But he did, and whatever happened after, I think it can be argued he provoked the situation.

After the police got involved, it's a mystery to me why Zimmerman was not arrested. Clearly, even if Martin attacked Zimmerman as alleged, Zimmerman still initiated the situation by following Martin, which ended up getting Martin killed. (Although in fairness to the police, maybe they wanted to arrest him, but just did not have the evidence to justify an arrest. Although at the very least, I think they should have held Zimmerman several hours or overnight, and grilled him intensely about precisely what happened, that resulted in him shooting Martin dead.)

Martin had no criminal record, and was not known to ever provoke a fight.

I hear that dispatch call, and I see Zimmerman as the aggressor. That his actions resulted, with no logical expanation, in Martin ending up dead, I don't think he should be free.
And the fact that the police let him go should warrant plenty of investigation.



The other part that bothers me is how the (liberal) media is whipping up a frenzy about the racial angle of this, before any investigation makes a case for that.
Pending any further evidence to the contrary, it's a random absurdity, set in motion by one lone 28-year-old self-appointed vigilante nut. It isn't representative of some alleged rampant white racism nationwide. It's one random incident, the first in many years.

But already you have Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson out there tossing kerosene on the fire. And now Obama too.

And as I've pointed out in previous topics, if it was a black guy who shot a white kid, the crime would be just as serious, but the nationwide media would be nowhere to be found.
This single random incident fits the ongoing media-favored liberal narrative of a black kid being lynched by a white racist (half-white half-hispanic, but I doubt a majority of coverage will detail that), and that's why it's getting coverage.

And as I've pointed out in prior topics, U.S. Justice Department statistics show black-on-white crime occurs at a rate of 50-to-1 of the reverse. Even though the media consistently buries this reality, and portrays victimization to be the exact reverse.

It reminds me of the Rodney King case in 1992. Where a jury acquitted four white officers of Rodney King's beating, and many of the same loud and exploitative pundits (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters) whipped up a riot in L.A. with their rhetoric, that without heated rhetoric should not have occurred.
How many people have even heard of Robert Jewett of West Palm Beach, who was white, and was pulled over, with no criminal record and despite no clear motivation, was beaten to death by the two cops? And the cops were similarly exonerated of all charges. But that's not news. Because Jewett was white. It doesn't fit the media's racism narrative.

This isn't about race, it's a random absurdity. But I fear the same media and pundits are rushing to make it as racial as possible, to fit the narrative of their own ideology, and for their own personal and political gain.

An article that profiles Trayvon Martin as seen through the memories of classmates, friends, teachers and family.

An article profiling George Zimmerman.

Yes. This is one of those bad cases that often results in bad laws. I haven't seen any evidence that Zimmerman was justified or that the kid was a legitimate threat.

But I can anticipate-just as they tried to do with the Giffords shooting-certain elements of the government and media trying to use this to curtail people's rights.

Every state in the country has homicide laws on the books.

Zimmerman can, and most likely should be, prosecuted and convicted under existing laws.

How did this bad law come to be and who supported it?

I am speaking of the tendency for politicians to overreact and start passing unnecessary and overreaching laws in response to a highly publicized case such at this.

I fear we could have that happen again as a result of this shooting.

The NRA will keep that from happening. I suspect this law and others like it won't even be changed. It's a powerful lobby and it will protect this bad law despite the public outcry.

Obama's statement yesterday




And candidate Gingrich's response

I likewise found it strange that Obama focused on Trayvon Martin's minority status, and Obama saying "that he would look like me." That was a clear attempt to galvanize black support for the upcoming election (a demographic who already voted for him at a ratio of 95% in the last election)

And based on the selective prosecution of attorney General Eric Holder's justice department over the last 3-plus years, whistle-blowing U.S attorneys, some of whom have resigned in protest, have made it clear that Holder's Justice Department is only interested in prosecuting cases where whites are guilty of racial discrimination, and an absolute refusal to prosecute cases where whites are the victims of minorities. A very one-way justice, that Obama endorses by keeping Holder in his position, and that Obama's statement is consistent with.

Thomas Sowell just two weeks ago said that Obama in 2008 was elected as president in an optimistic view of us having reached a "post-racial" society of full equality and breaking away from the past. But Obama surrounding himself, past and present, with the likes of Rev Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, Derrick Bell, Mark Lloyd, Van Jones, and attorney General Eric Holder, seems in both ideology and action to be more interested in a "payback/revenge society", rather than a truly equal society.

Obama's statement about Trayvon Martin, focusing only on the safety of minorities, follows consistently with that ideological mindset.

Why is Gingrich trying to make this all about race? Does he even address the bad law that is causing the ruckus?

Come on, now. Right or wrong, Gingrich is far from the only, or first, person to make this about race.


Now, personally, I don't agree with Newt on this one. I thought Obama's statement was a very compassionate, and human, one. It was one of the better things I've heard from the president on matters of race and he deserved credit for saying something that, to this Obama detractor, seemed heartfelt and appropriate.



According to the author of the self-defense law at issue, it isn't even applicable in this case:

• if you carefully read the statute, which most of the critics have not, and read the legislative analysis, there's nothing in this statute that authorizes you to pursue or confront other people. If anything, this law would have protected the victim in this case; it could have...So - and in fact, the gentleman - Mr. Zimmerman's attorney, who when he first appeared on CNN the other night, he actually said he was not going to use this statute. The governor, Jeb Bush, has said it does not apply.

This [everyone trying to repeal a self-defense law before there's even been a verdict] is exactly the kind of politicizing and rush to judgement I worried about. Let's see how the case plays out before anyone decides whether a law is "bad" or "good."

WP

Maybe Jeb Bush should explain his interpretation of the law to the police down there?

Jeb Bush didn't author the bill.

He signed it into law. As for a rush to judgement, the gun lobby will keep this law safe and it won't matter that it's a bad law.

Well, it seems that maybe the media, once again, jumped the gun on laying blame before getting the whole story.

http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-shooter-told-cops-teenager-went-gun-030349812--abc-news.html


This, by no means, exonerates Zimmerman. His following Martin led to the confrontation. This does, though, throw into question the 'cold blooded murder' that the media and black special interest groups have portrayed it. We don't know who started the fight, we only know how it ended. Zimmerman should be punished by the criminal justice system. How severely? I'm not sure yet.

Wouldn't the big guy who followed the smaller kid around with the gun be the one who started the fight?

Yes, if you are bigger than someone else and carry a legal weapon you are always wrong.

Again, you're making assumptions. And the guy was 5'9", over 200lbs., while the kid was 6'3" at around 150. So big is pretty much relative there. I don't doubt the possibilty of Zimmerman starting the fight. I also don't doubt that Martin could have either. Better than that, I'll admit that I flat out don't know.

Presactly. We don't know what happened. We should see what really transpired and let a court decide what law does and doesn't apply before we make a decision about how to react.

Otherwise, this is a just another attempt to politicize something before the facts are in, no different than the Giffords shooting or the Duke Lacrosse case.

I'm not making an assumption but feel that Zimmerman was being the aggresor by following the kid around from what we already know. Because of those actions he started the fight. We probably don't agree on that but that's my opinion. If Zimmerman had just listened to the cops Martin would be still alive eating his skittles.

I've already said that Zimmerman's following Martin led up to the fight. Whoever threw the first punch started the fight. I've also said that, for that reason, Zimmerman should face punishment. Now, if Martin attacked first, then Zimmerman should receive a milder sentence than if he attacked Martin.

Sounds like besides about how a fight can be started we mostly agree Doctor.

So your feelings have the force of established fact now?



Following someone is starting a fight?

If that's what you really feel, you are abscribing to Martin the same right you think is a "bad law" when applied to Zimmerman: The right to attack someone in self-defense.

Further evidence you're politicizing this and not trying to look at it objectively.

You left out parts G-man. Zimmerman wasn't just following Martin but he was following him after police told him not too and he was following him armed with a gun. As usual you find yourself trying to hold court against the liberal. If you have a problem politicizing this than try changing tactics than your usual fare.

Your precise quote to which I responded was "Zimmerman was being the aggresor by following the kid around," not "Zimmerman was being the aggresor by following the kid around after police told him not to and armed with a gun." Nothing was left out. If you don't want people to misunderstand your point, you need to phrase it more clearly... or not change your argument when someone points out the logical flaws in it.

Furthermore, even you had included the phrase "following the kid around after police told him not to and armed with a gun," that still means you were abscribing to Martin a right you claim to oppose.

In either scenario, there is a person who perceives a threat and, rather than retreat or call for help, attacks the perceived threat with physical force.

If you truly believe that Martin was justified because of Zimmerman following him (armed or not) then you have basically just stated your support of the "stand your ground law," at least as how you've described it.



So you admit you're trying to politicize this.



The record will reflect my comments have largely consisted of saying Obama (D)'s comments were appropriate and that Gingrich (R) was off base in his criticism of Obama, along with pointing out we should not rush to judgment. The record will also reflect that you keep trying to blame this on Bush (R) and the NRA.

I'm going to be presumptive and say Trayvon probably threw the first punch. But only because he felt threatened. In which case, that's also the reason why Zimmerman pulled the trigger--dude was getting fucked up. As such, the precipitating factor boils down to the fact that Zimmerman followed him. Has there been any clarification on whether or not Neighborhood Watch is actually allowed to do this?

I don't know of any neighborhood watch that uses direct intervention. They're supposed to immediately notify police of suspicious behavior and that's it. They aren't some sort of security force. They're a bunch of civilians patrolling their own homes. At most they'd be able to use the power of citizen's arrest like any other person.

Again, simply following someone on a public street isn't illegal. Foolish and irresponsible, depending upon the situation.

all I know is that if I were gunned down in an alleged act of allegedly senseless alleged violence, I'd sure be comforted in the hereafter knowing my legacy would continue on as a political football in an election year.

Don't be presumptive or G-man is going to politicize you!

American or International football?

RAW

As noted previously, the record shows that my comments have largely consisted of saying Obama (D)'s comments were appropriate and that Gingrich (R) was off base in his criticism of Obama, along with pointing out we should not rush to judgment. The record also shows that you keep trying to blame this on Bush (R) and the NRA.

Care to try discussing the issue again?

I think the parts you left out are still there for everyone to see so I'm fine.

God help me, but...THIS!

But, we'll probably never really know. I don't see this going to criminal court save for--maybe--unintentional homicide or man 2 tops. Any "justice" for Trayvon would probably come more from civil suits than criminal prosecutions.

Lack of evidence would seem to be a different legal impediment than the "stand your ground law." If so, this tends to contradict, rather than bolster, your theory that "stand your ground" is somehow responsible.

In order to charge someone with a crime, there needs to be sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. The fact that a police officer does or does not believe a suspect may not, by itself, be probable cause.

Unless and until there is probable cause to charge someone, the question of justification would not be reached.

The laws of every state vary but typically, following someone around in a public place is only illegal if there was no legitimate purpose for doing so and an intent to harass, annoy or alarm the other person.

If Zimmerman was following him because he believed the Martin was up to no good and was trying to track him to stop him or help the police locate him, that would tend to be a legitimate purpose and, therefore, legal.

Yeah, all we have to go on are the call to 911 and the second-hand testimony of the girl with whom he was on the phone. Circumstantial, at best IMO, "evidence" that he followed the kid with any intent to do harass, annoy, or alarm him.

Biggest indictment I could think of here is against the media. This case is the cause celebre that the media circus loves most. And, for the most part, it shows. Frankly, I'm astonished I haven't seen articles or postings about something stupid Nancy Grace had to say about this yet.

Like I said, even if I assume Zimmerman was in the wrong here, I don't think there will ever be enough clear facts to bring this to anything but a show trial.

The evidence in part would be the dead kid with a bag of skittles. Maybe there's more to the story but that alone seems to be enough to justify a manslaughter charge. As noted previously police in this case cited the stand your ground law (signed by Jeb Bush) as the reason for Zimmerman not being arrested.

Uh...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-dogged-disciplinary-problems-school/story?id=16011674

Trayvon Martin: 6 foot 3
George Zimmerman: 5 foot 9

Which would you more wisely describe as the "big guy" and the "smaller kid"?

According to both Zimmerman and 911-phone-in police caller "John", Martin initiated the attack, and the bloody nose, head-lacerations and grass stains on Zimmerman's clothes and face back that up.