Trayvon Martin

[StrangeSox]

As was stated earlier, if the majority of crime in that area is perpetrated by people who look and dress exactly like Martin, profiling or not, he could have a reasonable belief that something had happened or was about to happen. And I guess he'd be right

 

But I agree with this:

But this case highlights why racist profiling is dumb and ineffective

[Steve9347]

I don't care who you are, everyone has a slight tendency towards racism unless they grew up in a completely mixed home and neighborhood. You can argue it all you want, but I truly believe it to be the case. I'm not saying that we see a minority and automatically wish death on them.

Is it racism? To me, I could see a white kid in a hoodie or a black kid in a hoodie loitering around and have the same feelings.

[Y2HH]

Is it racism? To me, I could see a white kid in a hoodie or a black kid in a hoodie loitering around and have the same feelings.

 

I agree with this 100%.

 

It's prejudice, yes...but racist? I'm not sure I agree with the racist claim when it comes to this.

[iamshack]

But this case highlights why racist profiling is dumb and ineffective

That's an interesting thing as well...don't you think it's a bit naive or foolish to dismiss what your biologically-evolved instincts tell you in an effort to be more politically correct?

[Steve9347]

I agree with this 100%.

 

It's prejudice, yes...but racist? I'm not sure I agree with the racist claim when it comes to this.

Yeah, I mean, to be honest... I live in Lombard, IL. It's like the safest suburb ever. When I see some white kids walking down the street, part of me still figures I'll get something hurled in my direciton, because I was an asshole teenager not so long ago.

 

Kids suck.

[Balta1701]

That's an interesting thing as well...don't you think it's a bit naive or foolish to dismiss what your biologically-evolved instincts tell you in an effort to be more politically correct?

Honestly though...your biologically-evolved instincts aren't always right, or even right the majority of the time. Since it's a baseball board...how many "gut instinct" managerial decisions or things that have always been done a certain way have been challenged once the real statistics people got in and looked at how effective those moves were?

[Y2HH]

Yeah, I mean, to be honest... I live in Lombard, IL. It's like the safest suburb ever. When I see some white kids walking down the street, part of me still figures I'll get something hurled in my direciton, because I was an asshole teenager not so long ago.

 

Kids suck.

 

I live in the City of Chicago, but in a pretty good area...but I agree with this nonetheless. I honestly don't care about the color of the person/people walking in my direction so much as I'm judging (or prejudging as it were) them on a number of other factors, such as how loud they're being, how they're dressed, how they're acting, etc...

 

And I do that...but it's not about being racist...to me it's about being aware.

[Steve9347]

I live in the City of Chicago, but in a pretty good area...but I agree with this nonetheless. I honestly don't care about the color of the person/people walking in my direction so much as I'm judging (or prejudging as it were) them on a number of other factors, such as how loud they're being, how they're dressed, how they're acting, etc...

 

And I do that...but it's not about being racist...to me it's about being aware.

Exactly.

 

However, I'm not running outside and tracking down people who look suspicious or different, because I'd have no causality to do so. This is where the problem lies. Did Zimmerman act lawfully? Sure, fine, whatever. He also went out looking for trouble and found it.

 

There is one thing we can all safely state as fact. If Zimmerman doesn't tail Martin for no reason, if he simply alerts the authorities and STOPS right there, well, he's not in any trouble right now and a 17 year old kid is still alive. That's a fact.

 

Now, given that FACT, I FEEL Zimmerman should be punished since he was out looking for trouble and found it. When it results in someone dying, that alone is criminal enough for me. Sadly, it won't be for the justice system.

[StrangeSox]

That's an interesting thing as well...don't you think it's a bit naive or foolish to dismiss what your biologically-evolved instincts tell you in an effort to be more politically correct?

No, because the human brain is full of imperfections and very much prone to false reasoning.

[StrangeSox]

Now, given that FACT, I FEEL Zimmerman should be punished since he was out looking for trouble and found it. When it results in someone dying, that alone is criminal enough for me. Sadly, it won't be for the justice system.

^^^^

[Y2HH]

No, because the human brain is full of imperfections and very much prone to false reasoning.

 

It's sometimes right on the money, too.

[iamshack]

No, because the human brain is full of imperfections and very much prone to false reasoning.

Yeah, absolutely. But we've evolved a certain way for a reason...because in the past, certain experiences have dictated certain probabilities.

 

I'm not saying you should always do what your instincts tell you to do. I'm saying you shouldn't immediately dismiss them because it might equate to political incorrectness.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

This thread really blew up.

 

When you read the comments its simply that some people dont believe Zimmerman should have followed him, while others are willing to give more leniency to that act.

 

I believe that he shouldnt have followed him. That is not to say there is no situation where someone should be followed, but it is to say if you do not witness any criminal activity (walking through a neighborhood is not criminal), you should not be stalking someone. Furthermore, there is a definite question of whether Zimmerman committed other crimes pursuant to Florida statute (stalking and/or assault).

 

My biggest complaint is that given all of these potential crimes, the police charged him with 0. In my experience with police, they charge as much as possible, and then let the facts play out. So I ask, why did the police charge him with nothing, not even assault, not even stalking. His own admission was that he was following Martin, that could be construed as stalking or assault.

 

Either way, I dont care about the race of these individuals. I care about destroying these laws, so sometimes the ends justify the means.

 

 

[Texsox]

Wow, this is interesting.

 

So now a neighborhood watch should hide and call the police? That's exactly what the voters in Florida were sick of when they passed this law. They gave potential crime VICTIMS the opportunity to go do something about it!

 

Yeah, it hasn't really worked out.

 

Are we really going to accept as fact the testimony of Martin's girlfriend? Would we Zimmerman's?

 

I don't see how Zimmerman gets a fair trial.

 

 

 

 

[Soxbadger]

So now a neighborhood watch should hide and call the police? That's exactly what the voters in Florida were sick of when they passed this law. They gave potential crime VICTIMS the opportunity to go do something about it!

 

I think this is a terrible law. Even police dont have the authority to shoot someone for a "potential" crime. If Martin was stealing a car, or breaking into a house, or attacking a kid, or doing anything criminal, then there is an argument that maybe a bystander should be able to intervene.

 

But as it turns out, Martin had every right to be where he was. He wasnt even trespassing.

 

If you let people walk around, thinking that they are cops and that they can handle these type of situations, these are the results (imo).

 

It would have been just as bad if Martin had gotten the gun from Zimmerman and shot Zimmerman, or if Zimmerman had missed Martin and killed an innocent bystander.

 

There are consequences for these type of laws.

 

[Y2HH]

Wow, this is interesting.

 

So now a neighborhood watch should hide and call the police? That's exactly what the voters in Florida were sick of when they passed this law. They gave potential crime VICTIMS the opportunity to go do something about it!

 

Yeah, it hasn't really worked out.

 

Are we really going to accept as fact the testimony of Martin's girlfriend? Would we Zimmerman's?

 

I don't see how Zimmerman gets a fair trial.

 

When did Tex get zapped by the conservative converter ray gun? Heh.

[iamshack]

Wow, this is interesting.

 

So now a neighborhood watch should hide and call the police? That's exactly what the voters in Florida were sick of when they passed this law. They gave potential crime VICTIMS the opportunity to go do something about it!

 

Yeah, it hasn't really worked out.

 

Are we really going to accept as fact the testimony of Martin's girlfriend? Would we Zimmerman's?

 

I don't see how Zimmerman gets a fair trial.

Notice it's called Neighborhood Watch, and not Neighborhood Vigilante Justice, or Neighborhood Cops. As I have always understood them, Neighborhood Watch programs have always encouraged awareness and to take an interest in the members of your community. One unintended consequence of the programs is you often get the guy who failed the police academy test or some overzealous person calling the police every time someone sneezes loudly or thinks it's their duty to get up in everyone's business.

 

The preliminary facts seem to suggest Zimmerman was one of these people.

 

As for the Florida law, I think the victim they had in mind was probably someone being attacked or raped or mugged, not someone that was playing police officer and stalking "suspicious" teenagers.

[Jenksismyhero]

I still think you guys are blowing this whole thing out of proportion. I'd like a Florida attorney or law student to actually look through the history of all the cases using this statute and find out how the courts have interpreted it. I don't see a broad, open ended right granted by this thing to start shooting people that look at you funny. I see it as I high hurdle of "reasonably necessary" such that people are given the authority to protect themselves in dire situations. In 40 pages not a single person has answered my question about why it's better to give criminals an extra layer of protection over innocent people. The incredibly rare instance where some vigilante gets away with murder based on the statute (if that could ever happen) is not more important than the right of people to protect themselves. How people think it's appropriate to second guess what someone feels is appropriate in a life or death situation is beyond me.

 

Moreover, the statute doesn't create some new right, it just codified existing law. Is the wording perfect? No, but I don't think any law is.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/b...0,3175723.story

 

If this kid had died I wonder what people here would say about it.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

I still think you guys are blowing this whole thing out of proportion. I'd like a Florida attorney or law student to actually look through the history of all the cases using this statute and find out how the courts have interpreted it. I don't see a broad, open ended right granted by this thing to start shooting people that look at you funny. I see it as I high hurdle of "reasonably necessary" such that people are given the authority to protect themselves in dire situations. In 40 pages not a single person has answered my question about why it's better to give criminals an extra layer of protection over innocent people. The incredibly rare instance where some vigilante gets away with murder based on the statute (if that could ever happen) is not more important than the right of people to protect themselves. How people think it's appropriate to second guess what someone feels is appropriate in a life or death situation is beyond me.

 

Moreover, the statute doesn't create some new right, it just codified existing law. Is the wording perfect? No, but I don't think any law is.

Funny, because the unarmed kid here is dead and the guy who started following him is not. Somewhere along the line, the unarmed kid definitely needed another layer of protection.

[Soxbadger]

In 40 pages not a single person has answered my question about why it's better to give criminals an extra layer of protection over innocent people.

 

In order for someone to be a criminal, they have to be doing a criminal activity. Unless its obvious that it is criminal, you shouldnt get any more rights, especially if the other person is innocent, as in this case.

 

The incredibly rare instance where some vigilante gets away with murder based on the statute (if that could ever happen) far outweighs the right of people to protect themselves.

 

If Zimmerman is not charged, the Florida law seemingly goes beyond protecting yourself, as when Martin was first witnessed he was doing nothing to threaten Zimmerman.

 

That is the problem, when does the law start. Do you look at the totality of the circumstances, or do you look just at the last instance.

 

If I follow you with a gun for a mile and threaten to kill you, and when you turn around I run away, do you get to shoot me? If you follow me with a gun and threaten to kill me, and I attack you to disarm you, can you shoot me?

 

These are the problems with such a law. Now maybe a simple fix is to add an "instigator" exception, that basically states if you instigated the situation that creates the necessity to use violence, you can not raise self-defense.

 

I think that is my biggest issue, the fact that you seemingly can start a fight, kill someone and legitimately claim self defense under the Florida law. That just does not jive with most legal precedent regarding self defense.

[Soxbadger]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/b...0,3175723.story

 

If this kid had died I wonder what people here would say about it.

 

 

What do you mean, this is the exact opposite fact pattern and the one most people expect, the police charge the person with a crime, then you let the facts sort themselves out.

 

But the facts in that case indicate that someone may have broke the law, the man may not have been allowed to own a gun due to 2 prior firearm convictions, what do you want the police to do, conveniently forget the law?

[Jenksismyhero]

Funny, because the unarmed kid here is dead and the guy who started following him is not. Somewhere along the line, the unarmed kid definitely needed another layer of protection.

 

I've argued this law doesn't apply in this situation. I'm not falling for the medias faux outrage because a "white" person killed an innocent, law-abiding, Christ-loving black kid. "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE! GET RID OF THE LAW, THERE'S A FACTUAL SCENARIO THAT DOESN'T FIT IT PERFECTLY! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!"

[Balta1701]

I think this is a terrible law. Even police dont have the authority to shoot someone for a "potential" crime. If Martin was stealing a car, or breaking into a house, or attacking a kid, or doing anything criminal, then there is an argument that maybe a bystander should be able to intervene.

 

But as it turns out, Martin had every right to be where he was. He wasnt even trespassing.

 

If you let people walk around, thinking that they are cops and that they can handle these type of situations, these are the results (imo).

 

It would have been just as bad if Martin had gotten the gun from Zimmerman and shot Zimmerman, or if Zimmerman had missed Martin and killed an innocent bystander.

 

There are consequences for these type of laws.

There's another layer here as well to why you don't want any random person being able to do what Zimmerman did.

 

If a police officer had approached this area and started following the kid, the kid wouldn't have a right to run if the officer said not to. If there had been an officer who started chasing the kid and he had still run, the officer would have had vastly many more options. Did Zimmerman even have a flashlight? Compare the situations:

 

An officer begins chasing someone. He is in some level of physical condition because it's required by his position, so he's less likely to be overpowered by a 17 year old. He also would be better able to flee if that became necessary. He also has a radio and can know exactly where his backup is if the situation escalates. He then also would have numerous non-lethal options available in the event that the person he is chasing became hostile...whether it is a baton, possibly/probably a taser, the means to restrain the suspect (handcuffs). Zimmerman might not have even had a flashlight (someoen tell me if I'm wrong).

 

Once he got out of the car, there were basically 3 options. Either he never found the kid, he found the kid and the kid chose to comply with all of the instructions of a strange person who had been chasing him down the street, and the final one. If the kid chose to escalate the situation at all, and Zimmerman wasn't physically strong enough to overpower him, the only option was the gun being shown or used.

 

That's why the vigilante part of this is one of the big problems. Every other bit of training or every other in-between option has been removed.

[Jenksismyhero]

In order for someone to be a criminal, they have to be doing a criminal activity. Unless its obvious that it is criminal, you shouldnt get any more rights, especially if the other person is innocent, as in this case.

 

 

 

If Zimmerman is not charged, the Florida law seemingly goes beyond protecting yourself, as when Martin was first witnessed he was doing nothing to threaten Zimmerman.

 

That is the problem, when does the law start. Do you look at the totality of the circumstances, or do you look just at the last instance.

 

If I follow you with a gun for a mile and threaten to kill you, and when you turn around I run away, do you get to shoot me? If you follow me with a gun and threaten to kill me, and I attack you to disarm you, can you shoot me?

 

These are the problems with such a law. Now maybe a simple fix is to add an "instigator" exception, that basically states if you instigated the situation that creates the necessity to use violence, you can not raise self-defense.

I think that is my biggest issue, the fact that you seemingly can start a fight, kill someone and legitimately claim self defense under the Florida law. That just does not jive with most legal precedent regarding self defense.

 

They have this already ("aggressor"). I cited to the applicable law a long time ago.

 

And i'm speaking more generally about the fact that people think this law is dumb because of an incredibly unique factual situation. Go back to the beginning of this thread - i'm in agreement with you. The police and county attorneys royally f***ed up here. Doesn't mean we should go crazy in response.