Red Mosquito

4/5 wrote:So white people are pretty happy about this, eh?

like african americans were when OJ was found not guilty

Peeps wrote:

4/5 wrote:So white people are pretty happy about this, eh?

like african americans were when OJ was found not guilty

"White Hispanics". Zimmerman's mother was Hispanic and the mother contributes slightly more in terms genetic info / nature, so if Zimmerman "self identifies as Hispanic" (Assoc. Press term) then Obama must "self identify as Black" since his mother was White. OR, it doesn't fucking matter because a young person died a violent and unnecessary death and all the talk about race distracts from that fact.

If people want to honor Treyvon, work to change laws in your communities to try and reduce violence and improve anti-gang and anti-violence resources for kids. Don't set up a lynch mob for Zimmerman.

Peeps wrote:

4/5 wrote:So white people are pretty happy about this, eh?

like african americans were when OJ was found not guilty

Yes.

broken iris wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Rob wrote:What it seems to say, is that you can follow the black kid and shoot once he's kicking your ass.

or a person of any race in any state that allows you to kill to defend your own life.

as Orpheus has repeated, he should have just stayed in his car.

Well, it could be interpreted to mean you can kill at will and then just make it look like you were defending yourself. Slam your head into the ground once or twice on purpose and bingo!

I'm not too well-versed in the legal subtleties case, so let me ask this...

To the best of my knowledge, Zimmerman exited the car and followed Martin with a concealed weapon. Does anyone dispute that? His intent was to follow Martin and engage him, correct?

Is Martin's desire to defend himself and any fear he had for his well-being irrelevant? Any fear he had for himself is null because he ended up being a better fighter than Zimmerman?

Orpheus wrote: Like I said, if Zimmerman just stays in his car (which he was told to do), none of this ever happens.

This is an interesting point, I'm unsure of the legality on it, but I imagine that Zimmerman is not required by law to listen to the commands of a dispatcher as is the case with a PO. Either way, it was stupid of him to get out, but I don't necessarily begrudge him for it. His neighborhood has been ravaged by hooligans breaking and stealing shit and he wanted to stop it.

Did he plan on getting out of his car and hoping he had a chance to shoot this black kid? I don't know, but even if he didn't, it seems to me he's not thrilled about the whole aftermath.

Lastly, I think at any point of being on your back and getting punched in the face or having your head slammed into the ground is good enough to pop somebody...all you have to do is watch a boxing match, UFC bout or hockey fight and you know it can take just one perfect blow to knock you out and then who knows what can happen.

Ideal outcome for both parties? Certainly not. Fair considering the circumstances? Certainly.

And we can't say whether all the circumstances Zimmerman's defense laid out are true for sure, but unless we can prove something else, it's all we have. I'll be scared for the day when somebody's "maybe racist" motives are good enough for a murder conviction in an American courtroom.

digster wrote:

broken iris wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Rob wrote:What it seems to say, is that you can follow the black kid and shoot once he's kicking your ass.

or a person of any race in any state that allows you to kill to defend your own life.

as Orpheus has repeated, he should have just stayed in his car.

Well, it could be interpreted to mean you can kill at will and then just make it look like you were defending yourself. Slam your head into the ground once or twice on purpose and bingo!

I'm not too well-versed in the legal subtleties case, so let me ask this...

To the best of my knowledge, Zimmerman exited the car and followed Martin with a concealed weapon. Does anyone dispute that? His intent was to follow Martin and engage him, correct?

Is Martin's desire to defend himself and any fear he had for his well-being irrelevant? Any fear he had for himself is null because he ended up being a better fighter than Zimmerman?

Yes, his desire was to engage him...how? we can't be sure.

But your second point is not relevant at all. Martin can't defend himself from a non-threat.

Zimmerman was not initially threatened by him on a personal, self level, but on a "he might break something or steal something" level. That was Martin's threat to Zimmerman. At that time though, Martin is unaware of Zimmerman's thought process.

But for Martin, the law doesn't allow him to perceive Zimmerman as a threat to his personal safety just for walking by or walking in the same direction as him. And therefore doesn't allow him to become an aggressor in a violent confrontation. From that point on, Zimmerman was in defense mode and utilized self-defense.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

So brave.

theplatypus wrote:So brave.

Oh big surprise, Jorge takes the side of the hispanic.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

theplatypus wrote:So brave.

Oh big surprise, Jorge takes the side of the hispanic.

thats such a white male thing to say.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

theplatypus wrote:So brave.

Oh big surprise, Jorge takes the side of the hispanic.

sportsfreakpete6 wrote:

digster wrote:

broken iris wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Rob wrote:What it seems to say, is that you can follow the black kid and shoot once he's kicking your ass.

or a person of any race in any state that allows you to kill to defend your own life.

as Orpheus has repeated, he should have just stayed in his car.

Well, it could be interpreted to mean you can kill at will and then just make it look like you were defending yourself. Slam your head into the ground once or twice on purpose and bingo!

I'm not too well-versed in the legal subtleties case, so let me ask this...

To the best of my knowledge, Zimmerman exited the car and followed Martin with a concealed weapon. Does anyone dispute that? His intent was to follow Martin and engage him, correct?

Is Martin's desire to defend himself and any fear he had for his well-being irrelevant? Any fear he had for himself is null because he ended up being a better fighter than Zimmerman?

Yes, his desire was to engage him...how? we can't be sure.

But your second point is not relevant at all. Martin can't defend himself from a non-threat.

Zimmerman was not initially threatened by him on a personal, self level, but on a "he might break something or steal something" level.That was Martin's threat to Zimmerman. At that time though, Martin is unaware of Zimmerman's thought process.

But for Martin, the law doesn't allow him to perceive Zimmerman as a threat to his personal safety just for walking by or walking in the same direction as him. And therefore doesn't allow him to become an aggressor in a violent confrontation. From that point on, Zimmerman was in defense mode and utilized self-defense.

How is that a threat to Zimmerman? Surely he wasn't thinking, when he first saw and suspected Martin, that he was coming to rob him. Or are you just saying this is Zimmerman's thought process, not anything that actually would give him justification to act out.

digster wrote:

sportsfreakpete6 wrote:

digster wrote:

broken iris wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Rob wrote:What it seems to say, is that you can follow the black kid and shoot once he's kicking your ass.

or a person of any race in any state that allows you to kill to defend your own life.

as Orpheus has repeated, he should have just stayed in his car.

Well, it could be interpreted to mean you can kill at will and then just make it look like you were defending yourself. Slam your head into the ground once or twice on purpose and bingo!

I'm not too well-versed in the legal subtleties case, so let me ask this...

To the best of my knowledge, Zimmerman exited the car and followed Martin with a concealed weapon. Does anyone dispute that? His intent was to follow Martin and engage him, correct?

Is Martin's desire to defend himself and any fear he had for his well-being irrelevant? Any fear he had for himself is null because he ended up being a better fighter than Zimmerman?

Yes, his desire was to engage him...how? we can't be sure.

But your second point is not relevant at all. Martin can't defend himself from a non-threat.

Zimmerman was not initially threatened by him on a personal, self level, but on a "he might break something or steal something" level.That was Martin's threat to Zimmerman. At that time though, Martin is unaware of Zimmerman's thought process.

But for Martin, the law doesn't allow him to perceive Zimmerman as a threat to his personal safety just for walking by or walking in the same direction as him. And therefore doesn't allow him to become an aggressor in a violent confrontation. From that point on, Zimmerman was in defense mode and utilized self-defense.

How is that a threat to Zimmerman? Surely he wasn't thinking, when he first saw and suspected Martin, that he was coming to rob him.

Poor use of words...not threatened, Zimmerman felt suspicious of Martin and thought he might steal something (Zimmerman saying he saw him looking into houses and what not)

I also don't really see how somebody following you is inherently non-threatening. Yes, the context matters, which may be why they had difficulty proving his guilt, but there's plenty of instances of following that extends far beyond somebody "just walking by you."

Is there any understanding of how the first contact between them was made? Did Martin approach Zimmerman, vice versa, what?

I guess my hypothetical question is this; if Zimmerman approaches Martin in a threatening manner, in the heat of it Martin responds and has the upper hand, and Zimmerman kills him, that is self-defense?

sportsfreakpete6 wrote:

digster wrote:

sportsfreakpete6 wrote:

digster wrote:

broken iris wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Rob wrote:What it seems to say, is that you can follow the black kid and shoot once he's kicking your ass.

or a person of any race in any state that allows you to kill to defend your own life.

as Orpheus has repeated, he should have just stayed in his car.

Well, it could be interpreted to mean you can kill at will and then just make it look like you were defending yourself. Slam your head into the ground once or twice on purpose and bingo!

I'm not too well-versed in the legal subtleties case, so let me ask this...

To the best of my knowledge, Zimmerman exited the car and followed Martin with a concealed weapon. Does anyone dispute that? His intent was to follow Martin and engage him, correct?

Is Martin's desire to defend himself and any fear he had for his well-being irrelevant? Any fear he had for himself is null because he ended up being a better fighter than Zimmerman?

Yes, his desire was to engage him...how? we can't be sure.

But your second point is not relevant at all. Martin can't defend himself from a non-threat.

Zimmerman was not initially threatened by him on a personal, self level, but on a "he might break something or steal something" level.That was Martin's threat to Zimmerman. At that time though, Martin is unaware of Zimmerman's thought process.

But for Martin, the law doesn't allow him to perceive Zimmerman as a threat to his personal safety just for walking by or walking in the same direction as him. And therefore doesn't allow him to become an aggressor in a violent confrontation. From that point on, Zimmerman was in defense mode and utilized self-defense.

How is that a threat to Zimmerman? Surely he wasn't thinking, when he first saw and suspected Martin, that he was coming to rob him.

Poor use of words...not threatened, Zimmerman felt suspicious of Martin and thought he might steal something (Zimmerman saying he saw him looking into houses and what not)

so ur argument is the guy w/ the gun had a legit reason to feel threatened, but the kid w/o a guy didnt have a reason to feel threatened?

sportsfreakpete6 wrote:But your second point is not relevant at all. Martin can't defend himself from a non-threat.

Maybe you wouldn't think twice about some guy following you home, but I'd bet most people would feel threatened.

warehouse wrote:

sportsfreakpete6 wrote:

digster wrote:

sportsfreakpete6 wrote:

digster wrote:

broken iris wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Rob wrote:What it seems to say, is that you can follow the black kid and shoot once he's kicking your ass.

or a person of any race in any state that allows you to kill to defend your own life.

as Orpheus has repeated, he should have just stayed in his car.

Well, it could be interpreted to mean you can kill at will and then just make it look like you were defending yourself. Slam your head into the ground once or twice on purpose and bingo!

I'm not too well-versed in the legal subtleties case, so let me ask this...

To the best of my knowledge, Zimmerman exited the car and followed Martin with a concealed weapon. Does anyone dispute that? His intent was to follow Martin and engage him, correct?

Is Martin's desire to defend himself and any fear he had for his well-being irrelevant? Any fear he had for himself is null because he ended up being a better fighter than Zimmerman?

Yes, his desire was to engage him...how? we can't be sure.

But your second point is not relevant at all. Martin can't defend himself from a non-threat.

Zimmerman was not initially threatened by him on a personal, self level, but on a "he might break something or steal something" level.That was Martin's threat to Zimmerman. At that time though, Martin is unaware of Zimmerman's thought process.

But for Martin, the law doesn't allow him to perceive Zimmerman as a threat to his personal safety just for walking by or walking in the same direction as him. And therefore doesn't allow him to become an aggressor in a violent confrontation. From that point on, Zimmerman was in defense mode and utilized self-defense.

How is that a threat to Zimmerman? Surely he wasn't thinking, when he first saw and suspected Martin, that he was coming to rob him.

Poor use of words...not threatened, Zimmerman felt suspicious of Martin and thought he might steal something (Zimmerman saying he saw him looking into houses and what not)

so ur argument is the guy w/ the gun had a legit reason to feel threatened, but the kid w/o a guy didnt have a reason to feel threatened?

this is getting kind of out of hand...lots of irrelevant facts being put into the questions.

I clarified he didn't feel threatened, yet was suspicious.

and you can't use facts unknown to the parties in the situation to make an argument about anything i.e. it doesn't matter Zimmerman didn't know if Trayvon had a gun and vice versa

It does matter if they DO know if another person has a gun, but otherwise you're just making assumptions

digster wrote:I also don't really see how somebody following you is inherently non-threatening. Yes, the context matters, which may be why they had difficulty proving his guilt, but there's plenty of instances of following that extends far beyond somebody "just walking by you."

Is there any understanding of how the first contact between them was made? Did Martin approach Zimmerman, vice versa, what?

I guess my hypothetical question is this; if Zimmerman approaches Martin in a threatening manner, in the heat of it Martin responds and has the upper hand, and Zimmerman kills him, that is self-defense?

Well obviously I'm talking about the context and what they can prove in court. I don't really care about whether Zimmerman was right or wrong in this conversation, I care about what the law says.

(If we wanted to have a different conversation about if they law is a good and just law, that's fine, but in this conversation, that doesn't apply.)

And in response to your final question: I'm not sure exactly, but I imagine it all has to do with being the aggressor. By law, I don't believe Martin has a right now claim "self-defense" because Zimmerman was approaching on him. There's one aggressor in a situation, and one defender. Martin was ruled as the aggressor in the court.

Side note: I've lived in and spent plenty of nights in an urban environment where I could feel "scared", but just because I'm scared doesn't mean I turn around and clock a dude.

That's probably a better word usage for Martin...Martin was scared and hit Zimmerman and thus became the aggressor whereas Zimmerman felt his life was threatened when he was getting beaten.

sportsfreakpete6 wrote:Martin was scared and hit Zimmerman and thus became the aggressor whereas Zimmerman felt his life was threatened when he was getting beaten.

So I guess if you really want to kill someone, you should just follow them, hide a gun in your pocket, and hope the first couple blows don't knock you out or seriously disorient you.

Rob wrote:

sportsfreakpete6 wrote:Martin was scared and hit Zimmerman and thus became the aggressor whereas Zimmerman felt his life was threatened when he was getting beaten.

So I guess if you really want to kill someone, you should just follow them, hide a gun in your pocket, and hope the first couple blows don't knock you out or seriously disorient you.

Only assuming the person you intend to incite to violence doesn't just knock you off your feet and remove themselves from the situation.