Trayvon Martin

[Balta1701]

BTW, for those still interested in this case, Reuters has a very good look at how Zimmerman's life shaped up prior to this event, to the point where you can follow his psyche pretty well about why he'd have done what he did.

 

My only comment is that since you can make it seem like every little escalation makes sense...that's why you can't have people carrying guns everywhere.

[Jenksismyhero]

"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."

 

DAS RAYCES!

[Jenksismyhero]

I just finished that article. It's a tragedy that an innocent kid got shot, but I can't fault Zimmerman at all for carrying a gun and being proactive about the problems he and his neighbors were having. I'd be fed up. You've watched your neighborhood go to s***. You've watched criminals REPEATEDLY commit crimes with nothing done about it. You know that even if a kid gets picked up he's sent to juvi or given probation or something and is back on the streets days or weeks later. The cops have clearly failed (though really without having a 24/7 presence there's not much they can do). So Zimmerman did what he felt he was obligated to do.

 

 

[Iwritecode]

I just finished that article. It's a tragedy that an innocent kid got shot, but I can't fault Zimmerman at all for carrying a gun and being proactive about the problems he and his neighbors were having. I'd be fed up. You've watched your neighborhood go to s***. You've watched criminals REPEATEDLY commit crimes with nothing done about it. You know that even if a kid gets picked up he's sent to juvi or given probation or something and is back on the streets days or weeks later. The cops have clearly failed (though really without having a 24/7 presence there's not much they can do). So Zimmerman did what he felt he was obligated to do.

 

He felt he was obligated to follow and kill an innocent teenager because some break-ins had happened in his neighborhood recently? That seems like a bit of a stretch.

 

[iamshack]

BTW, for those still interested in this case, Reuters has a very good look at how Zimmerman's life shaped up prior to this event, to the point where you can follow his psyche pretty well about why he'd have done what he did.

 

My only comment is that since you can make it seem like every little escalation makes sense...that's why you can't have people carrying guns everywhere.

Thanks for posting that Balta...good read.

[Jenksismyhero]

He felt he was obligated to follow and kill an innocent teenager because some break-ins had happened in his neighborhood recently? That seems like a bit of a stretch.

 

No, that's the tragic result. Everything leading up to it was 100% reasonable and expected given the circumstances.

[iamshack]

I just finished that article. It's a tragedy that an innocent kid got shot, but I can't fault Zimmerman at all for carrying a gun and being proactive about the problems he and his neighbors were having. I'd be fed up. You've watched your neighborhood go to s***. You've watched criminals REPEATEDLY commit crimes with nothing done about it. You know that even if a kid gets picked up he's sent to juvi or given probation or something and is back on the streets days or weeks later. The cops have clearly failed (though really without having a 24/7 presence there's not much they can do). So Zimmerman did what he felt he was obligated to do.

Yeah, what is his obligation?

 

He was going to do what, exactly, to change this trend?

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah, what is his obligation?

 

He was going to do what, exactly, to change this trend?

 

Show a presence of security that the police clearly were not offering?

 

What's the alternative? Stay at home and hope the criminals get bored? Call the cops so they can catch and release the criminals without stopping anything?

[Jenksismyhero]

And it bears repeating - there's no evidence he was acting as a vigilante. He was walking around his neighborhood when he spotted Martin. He then trailed Martin and from that point on there are conflicting accounts. For all we know (and what Zimmerman will claim), he was trailing Martin to witness an actual criminal act so he could report him. He wasn't necessarily going to stop it from happening or start a fight. And he (smartly) had a gun for his own protection, not just in that situation, but anytime he was out in his s***ty neighborhood.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Iwritecode]

No, that's the tragic result. Everything leading up to it was 100% reasonable and expected given the circumstances.

 

Yea, it's just too bad he didn't stop after his obligations were fulfilled which was simply calling the police and letting them handle it.

 

Much like many of his neighbors had already done and had actually led to at least one arrest.

[iamshack]

Show a presence of security that the police clearly were not offering?

 

What's the alternative? Stay at home and hope the criminals get bored? Call the cops so they can catch and release the criminals without stopping anything?

Secure and protect his own home? Report them and hope that police recognize the trend and continue to increase their patrols? Allow the trained professionals to address the situation?

 

Of all the possible outcomes of a George Zimmerman/suspicious black man confrontation, how many do you think end well?

 

As frustrating as that must have been, there is not anything he could have done that would have significantly improved the situation.

Edited April 26, 2012 by iamshack

[Jenksismyhero]

You're right, because for the year prior all of his (and his neighbors) calls to the police really changed things. That neighborhood was getting safer thanks to all that police assistance. That's why people were getting dogs, the neighbors were forming a watch group and people were moving out. Totally reasonable to sit back, watch your house/neighor's house get robbed and expect the police to protect you.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Secure and protect his own home? Report them and hope that police recognize the trend and continue to increase their patrols? Allow the trained professionals to address the situation?

 

Of all the possible outcomes of a George Zimmerman/suspicious black man confrontation, how many do you think end well?

 

As frustrating as that must have been, there is not anything he could have done that would have significantly improved the situation.

 

This is why the south and west sides are completely lost. The communities have thrown up their hands and relied on the police to deal with the problem. Unfortunately the police are reactionary. They don't prevent crime, they clean up the mess as best they can.

[iamshack]

This is why the south and west sides are completely lost. The communities have thrown up their hands and relied on the police to deal with the problem. Unfortunately the police are reactionary. They don't prevent crime, they clean up the mess as best they can.

I understand that, but which outcome do you think Zimmerman would have preferred? Another house get robbed, or him to have killed an innocent person?

 

Just because one potential outcome isn't satisfactory doesn't mean you choose one that is most likely to be worse, just for the sake of variance.

[Soxbadger]

This deserves the oft overused, but suddenly very applicable "Billy Madison", edited for Internet purposes, of course:

 

"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened read to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

 

Seriously, as a lawyer, I'd expect a greater show of rational thought than this. That's simply NOT a choice, so let's not pretend it is, whether you preface it by saying, "May not be a smart or the best choice"...no, it's neither because such a choice is no longer part of the equation. In a situation that has already escalated into inescapable violence, there is no longer a choice for one party to choose non-violence. This is nonsensical in every regard.

 

You are wrong.

 

Zimmerman had a choice to use a gun or not. He could have tried to fight back with just his fists and lost, or been killed.

 

He could have chose not to try and fight back at all.

 

When you say "NOT A CHOICE" that is just patently false. What you are saying is "In my opinion that is not a valid choice", but it is a choice none the less. There are certain people in the world who are non-violent under any circumstances. They would just let Martin beat them and hope for the best.

 

Now I am not advocating that, or saying you have to do that, but to discount it as a choice, is just wrong.

 

And what is the deal with people saying "as a lawyer"?

 

The bottom line is that not every person in the world would have done what Zimmerman did. Not everyone would have chose to shoot Martin even after Martin started to bash their head in. So that means that Zimmerman definitely had a choice.

 

/shrugs

Edited April 26, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Y2HH]

You are wrong.

 

Zimmerman had a choice to use a gun or not. He could have tried to fight back with just his fists and lost, or been killed.

 

He could have chose not to try and fight back at all.

 

When you say "NOT A CHOICE" that is just patently false. What you are saying is "In my opinion that is not a valid choice", but it is a choice none the less. There are certain people in the world who are non-violent under any circumstances. They would just let Martin beat them and hope for the best.

 

Now I am not advocating that, or saying you have to do that, but to discount it as a choice, is just wrong.

 

And what is the deal with people saying "as a lawyer"?

 

The bottom line is that not every person in the world would have done what Zimmerman did. Not everyone would have chose to shoot Martin even after Martin started to bash their head in. So that means that Zimmerman definitely had a choice.

 

/shrugs

 

No, you are wrong, and I say this purely in the context of my direct reply to your original words.

 

Originally, you didn't say anything about him choosing to use a gun or not...of course he had THAT choice. He had a number of *valid* choices to make during the melee confrontation that wouldn't lead to the shooting death of Travon Martin, but choosing to get beaten to death was and is NOT one of those choices, and it's the choice you originally said he could have made. This is not a sane, rational or even logical 'choice'.

 

You can go on pretending that "getting beaten to death" is a choice, as you once said, but it's not. It's an outcome based on a series of unfortunate events, but it's not something people "choose to have done to them". The only thing patently wrong about this is that it's patently stupid to say.

 

And people mention that you're a lawyer, because we expect lawyers to be intelligent...and this isn't it.

 

Edit: Now, to respond to what you wrote in THIS post, I'd agree with you...he DOES have alternative choices to make on how to handle the confrontation after it begins, many of which do not lead to the use of a firearm. But I maintain that choosing to get beaten to death is not a choice. It's insanity.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Some people take non-violence as an absolute, even going so far as to disavow violent retaliation or defense. I believe there were Quakers on the frontier who held these views.

[StrangeSox]

This is why the south and west sides are completely lost. The communities have thrown up their hands and relied on the police to deal with the problem. Unfortunately the police are reactionary. They don't prevent crime, they clean up the mess as best they can.

 

Generally speaking, poor minority communities do not rely on the police. They strongly distrust the police.

 

edit: and I really doubt armed civilian response is going to stop violence from organized gangs. In fact I'd place a good deal of money on homicides increasing!

Edited April 26, 2012 by StrangeSox

[The Sir]

Generally speaking, poor minority communities do not rely on the police. They strongly distrust the police.

 

No one should rely on the police. The police are reactive, not proactive. If someone is going to break into my home and kill me and my girlfriend, the police won't stop them. The police will possibly start the process of putting the bastards away after the fact. But we'll be dead. What will keep us alive is the HK in my nightstand, the rifle in the closet and the shotty in the other closet. Maybe the 1911 or the Glock in the safe. That's what I rely on to keep my family safe. The cops? Ha. Let 'em show up afterwards and scrape the poor f***er's brains off the wall.

[Balta1701]

No one should rely on the police. The police are reactive, not proactive. If someone is going to break into my home and kill me and my girlfriend, the police won't stop them. The police will possibly start the process of putting the bastards away after the fact. But we'll be dead. What will keep us alive is the HK in my nightstand, the rifle in the closet and the shotty in the other closet. Maybe the 1911 or the Glock in the safe. That's what I rely on to keep my family safe. The cops? Ha. Let 'em show up afterwards and scrape the poor f***er's brains off the wall.

Unless the innocent kid walking down the street is lucky enough also to be armed.

[StrangeSox]

No one should rely on the police. The police are reactive, not proactive. If someone is going to break into my home and kill me and my girlfriend, the police won't stop them. The police will possibly start the process of putting the bastards away after the fact. But we'll be dead. What will keep us alive is the HK in my nightstand, the rifle in the closet and the shotty in the other closet. Maybe the 1911 or the Glock in the safe. That's what I rely on to keep my family safe. The cops? Ha. Let 'em show up afterwards and scrape the poor f***er's brains off the wall.

 

Arguably, those weapons won't stop them either if they know what they're doing.

 

I have zero problem with home defense. I used to be ambivalent on CC but now lean against.

[Jenksismyhero]

Generally speaking, poor minority communities do not rely on the police. They strongly distrust the police.

 

edit: and I really doubt armed civilian response is going to stop violence from organized gangs. In fact I'd place a good deal of money on homicides increasing!

 

Right, but this is precisely why those communities try to start neighborhood watches, to start reigning in their communities with their churches, etc. They're TRYING to do SOMETHING, not just protect their home and hope nothing bad happens. Unfortunately for the communities here it's far too late and it's just a perpetual cycle that won't be broken until those communities are broken up. But that's a different topic.

[StrangeSox]

Right, but this is precisely why those communities try to start neighborhood watches, to start reigning in their communities with their churches, etc. They're TRYING to do SOMETHING, not just protect their home and hope nothing bad happens. Unfortunately for the communities here it's far too late and it's just a perpetual cycle that won't be broken until those communities are broken up. But that's a different topic.

 

I know I linked to the Frontline episode called The Interrupters in this thread. These communities in Chicago are not just sitting back and hoping the police handle it (they don't trust the police); they're being proactive and trying to stop the violence.

[Balta1701]

Right, but this is precisely why those communities try to start neighborhood watches, to start reigning in their communities with their churches, etc. They're TRYING to do SOMETHING, not just protect their home and hope nothing bad happens. Unfortunately for the communities here it's far too late and it's just a perpetual cycle that won't be broken until those communities are broken up. But that's a different topic.

I don't think anyone's going to dispute the right of a community to organize a neighborhood watch.

 

The question is...we have a circumstance that ended up in a barely trained neighborhood watchman stalking a 17 year old kid and killing him. Is that an acceptable result, or what scenario should lead to intervention here?

 

If it had turned out that he was actually chasing a robber and wound up shooting him down, that's not a good scenario either.

 

Some might say this is an argument for improving the funding and response times of the local PD also.

[Jenksismyhero]

I understand that, but which outcome do you think Zimmerman would have preferred? Another house get robbed, or him to have killed an innocent person?

 

Just because one potential outcome isn't satisfactory doesn't mean you choose one that is most likely to be worse, just for the sake of variance.

 

We deal with tragic losses daily and continue moving forward because the bigger picture is more important. I don't see how this case differs. If Zimmerman and his fellow neighbors could turn the tide of his neighborhood by being active, by showing an attitude that they're not going to accept the crime, that they will be armed and might act in protection of their life/property, then perhaps the criminals will think twice about what they're doing.

 

As is, criminals are in fear of nothing. They don't fear their victims and they don't fear getting caught because they know, especially with theft/robbery, they'll be back on the streets in no time. Police can't keep up (and again, they're role isn't to prevent crime in the first place) so I'm 100% ok with people like Zimmerman taking an active role in trying to take back their street.