Trayvon Martin

[Y2HH]

without national attention, there would have been zero additional investigation into this case.

 

You don't know that. You can't know that...unless you get a time machine, go back and keep the situation quiet...and see what was to happen. Did the national attention speed things up? Sure...but that doesn't mean the additional investigations wouldn't have happened anyway...and there is no possible way for you or anyone else to know that...since it happened.

[StrangeSox]

It's an archetype...at least, in my opinion. I think the type of personality that organizes such a thing, and takes charge of such a thing, is the exact type of person that would follow a suspicious person around...where as you or I would simply call the cops and go inside.

 

But we're seeing his neighborhood watch viceroy status being used as a reason that he'd act in some logical, non-confrontational way. But his past history of pestering 911 with a bunch of petty bulls*** seems to point to a wanna-be cop with authoritarian dreams.

[StrangeSox]

You don't know that. You can't know that...unless you get a time machine, go back and keep the situation quiet...and see what was to happen. Did the national attention speed things up? Sure...but that doesn't mean the additional investigations wouldn't have happened anyway...and there is no possible way for you or anyone else to know that...since it happened.

 

Actually we do know that since nothing happened for several weeks after his shooting and the police considered the thing closed until it got national attention.

[Y2HH]

But we're seeing his neighborhood watch viceroy status being used as a reason that he'd act in some logical, non-confrontational way. But his past history of pestering 911 with a bunch of petty bulls*** seems to point to a wanna-be cop with authoritarian dreams.

 

He had aspirations to becoming a cop, I believe. So yes, he was a wanna-be.

 

Still has nothing to do with the fact that following the kid wasn't illegal, and it was his right to do so.

 

The actions Zimmerman took leading up to the confrontation were NOT illegal, in any regard.

[StrangeSox]

Yes, legally I believe it would be unreasonable. I could keep walking without answering, explain that I'm going to my dad's friend's house, explain and walk, etc.

 

If someone walks up and is literally inches from your face (a hypothetical, not an assumption of what happened here), I believe or at least hope you'd have the right to defend your immediate personal space.

 

Trayvon had no duty or reason to explain himself to some creepy dude stalking him around the neighborhood.

[Balta1701]

Not denying that, which is why he followed him. This Zimmerman seems to be the exact type of personality that would follow him...legally I might add. Did that escalate the situation? Seems like it. But was it illegal for him to follow? Nope, sure isn't.

Which is why my answer here is that the laws are wrong. First of all he shouldn't have been able to legally carry a gun, because then he'd never have gotten out of the car to confront the kid in the first place, and second, even after the confrontation started, his legally mandated response should have been to flee.

 

In my view, this is exactly the kind of situation you expect when you give everyone who wants one a gun with little to no training and then start making it more and more legal to use them. If people are willing to tolerate kids getting gunned down in conflicts that shouldn't have ever started as a consequence of the other great things gun liberalization is supposed to do, then that's a case they can make.

[Y2HH]

Actually we do know that since nothing happened for several weeks after his shooting and the police considered the thing closed until it got national attention.

 

No, you don't know. You assume. Investigations are re-opened all the time.

 

Now, being realistic, is what you're saying a safe assumption? Sure. I'm not going to deny that. But you still don't know for sure.

[Y2HH]

Which is why my answer here is that the laws are wrong. First of all he shouldn't have been able to legally carry a gun, because then he'd never have gotten out of the car to confront the kid in the first place, and second, even after the confrontation started, his legally mandated response should have been to flee.

 

In my view, this is exactly the kind of situation you expect when you give everyone who wants one a gun with little to no training and then start making it more and more legal to use them. If people are willing to tolerate kids getting gunned down in conflicts that shouldn't have ever started as a consequence of the other great things gun liberalization is supposed to do, then that's a case they can make.

 

We disagree 1000% on the bolded.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

This law is JUST AS BAD as laws that say you are legally mandate to flee.

[StrangeSox]

And if the cops take forever to show up, or don't come at all? Perhaps by following him, he can get a more accurate description. From the sounds of it ("they always get away with this"), it wouldn't be the first time that he called the cops only to have nothing happen because "they" are always gone by the time they show up.

 

There's logs of what he called in floating around out there that can be google'd up. He called in a bunch of dumb bulls*** like kids playing basketball in the street, noisy parties and suspicious vehicles playing loud music (because criminals love to announce themselves?).

 

But most importantly, "they" would have been back at their father's house, eating skittles and drinking ice tea and playing Xbox. Regardless of legality, Zimmerman created this situation.

[Balta1701]

He sure does, but he doesn't have the authority to tell him to go f*** himself, push/punch him down, and then proceed to beat him further.

Actually, it's certainly plausible that he does have that authority depending on what Zimmerman's actions leading up to that moment were. If Zimmerman approached him and made physical contact with him or tried to grab him, responding with that level of force is justified. Hell, at that point, anything he did other than shooting him would have been justified.

[Y2HH]

There's logs of what he called in floating around out there that can be google'd up. He called in a bunch of dumb bulls*** like kids playing basketball in the street, noisy parties and suspicious vehicles playing loud music (because criminals love to announce themselves?).

 

But most importantly, "they" would have been back at their father's house, eating skittles and drinking ice tea and playing Xbox. Regardless of legality, Zimmerman created this situation.

 

You can't say regardless of legality...because that's the meat of the matter here. It matters very much.

 

[Y2HH]

Actually, it's certainly plausible that he does have that authority depending on what Zimmerman's actions leading up to that moment were. If Zimmerman approached him and made physical contact with him or tried to grab him, responding with that level of force is justified. Hell, at that point, anything he did other than shooting him would have been justified.

 

The opposite also holds true.

 

This is all assumptions.

[Balta1701]

We disagree 1000% on the bolded.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

This law is JUST AS BAD as laws that say you are legally mandate to flee.

Now that's my point. If his life were genuinely in danger, then it can be left to the discretion of prosecutors to determine that the shooter had no other choice, and then could drop the charges based on the entire circumstance.

 

I know we went through how "Fleeing" can raise the jeopardy for the party that does the fleeing earlier in this thread and I understand that...but think about the natural end result of any conflict if neither party has a duty to flee. Both parties have a legitimate right to escalate any situation if neither side has a legally required duty to flee. That is a simply untenable scenario, and we've got a case study right here. Neither side had a duty to flee.

[StrangeSox]

He sure does, but he doesn't have the authority to tell him to go f*** himself, push/punch him down, and then proceed to beat him further.

 

If someone is literally toe-to-toe with you, I'd hope you have the right to get them out of your face.

[Balta1701]

The opposite also holds true.

 

This is all assumptions.

Yes, and my post there was in response to a similar assumption.

[Balta1701]

And as I said, he could ignore him and keep walking.

But legally, he doesn't have to. Martin also has no legal duty to step back from a confrontation and try to get away.

 

And frankly, as for example he thought someone was going to try to mug him/steal his phone, you can come up with lots of scenarios where "keeping walking" would be a mistake that would put him at greater risk.

[Y2HH]

If you have a family or job, those are things that should be called in to the police. I won't deny that Zimmerman created the situation, but it wasn't illegal or even that unreasonable to think and do what he initially did.

 

This is exactly what we agree on, and it's why we're bothering to argue this.

[StrangeSox]

And as I said, he could ignore him and keep walking.

 

If he walks in front of your path?

[StrangeSox]

But legally, he doesn't have to. Martin also has no legal duty to step back from a confrontation and try to get away.

 

And frankly, as for example he thought someone was going to try to mug him/steal his phone, you can come up with lots of scenarios where "keeping walking" would be a mistake that would put him at greater risk.

 

See, that's a key point. From a third-party perspective, Zimmerman's actions (stalking someone, confronting them) are far more suspicious than Martin's (walking on a public sidewalk). Martin had every right to reasonably fear this guy who was following him while he was walking home.

[Y2HH]

Ok, can we all stop the endless stream of assumptions now? I think we've pretty much covered this case, from the lack of evidence we have, quite thoroughly.

[StrangeSox]

And Zimmerman could be under the impression that he's following a criminal, who then turns around and pushes him to the ground and gets on top of him. In this situation (which is probably exactly what happened), both are at fault and there is no legal recourse.

 

Zimmerman had no reason to reasonably believe that Martin had done anything wrong.

[StrangeSox]

Like I said, brush aside. And if the guy physically puts his hands to you, it's fine to attack.

 

You've still initiated physical contact. If someone really wants to be in your way, you'll have to physically move them by pushing or shoving your way past.

[iamshack]

There's logs of what he called in floating around out there that can be google'd up. He called in a bunch of dumb bulls*** like kids playing basketball in the street, noisy parties and suspicious vehicles playing loud music (because criminals love to announce themselves?).

 

But most importantly, "they" would have been back at their father's house, eating skittles and drinking ice tea and playing Xbox. Regardless of legality, Zimmerman created this situation.

I think we all had a guy in our neighborhood like this growing up, and most people resent him, rather than respect and appreciate him. Even the police laugh at him, because he wants to be them.

 

Again, to Y2H and Milk, even if it is not illegal to carry weapons and follow suspicious people around, would you admit that doing so exponentially increases the odds of something ugly happening?

 

And even if that doesn't mean Zimmerman should be charged or convicted of anything, can you at least understand why many of us would resent his actions in this whole situation?

[NorthSideSox72]

I think what's happening here is Milkman and I are the only two defending Zimmerman's right to be innocent here...

 

It just seems, on the surface, that most of you not only want to exonerate this kid, but you really hope that Zimmerman ends up being guilty.

 

I don't know who is innocent or guilty, I just want the truth to come out, regardless of who it ends up being. Just seems tainted to me...seems like you all really really want it to be Zimmerman at fault.

 

 

I think we all had a guy in our neighborhood like this growing up, and most people resent him, rather than respect and appreciate him. Even the police laugh at him, because he wants to be them.

 

Again, to Y2H and Milk, even if it is not illegal to carry weapons and follow suspicious people around, would you admit that doing so exponentially increases the odds of something ugly happening?

 

And even if that doesn't mean Zimmerman should be charged or convicted of anything, can you at least understand why many of us would resent his actions in this whole situation?

 

That's pretty much where I am coming from. I have said all along, no one really knows how the physical confrontations occurred. But it seems pretty obvious that the situation occurred because Zimmerman was, at the very least, overzealous and created a situation that did not need to occur.

 

[Y2HH]

That's pretty much where I am coming from. I have said all along, no one really knows how the physical confrontations occurred. But it seems pretty obvious that the situation occurred because Zimmerman was, at the very least, overzealous and created a situation that did not need to occur.

 

I think we all agree on this.

 

I think this discussion was more about the perception the media projected. The media and celebrities alike, including Obama, drew lines in the sand before any actual facts of evidence was taken into account based solely on an overzealous Zimmerman. I think this was wrong.

 

I'm glad it's drawing attention to a bad law, but that withstanding, I don't like the fact that the world painted Zimmerman as a murderer of an innocent kid, and a lot of people just accepted it despite the total lack of facts.