Am I missing something? Shooting of 17 yr. old in Florida

[Jesda]

Looks like we can only agree that no one has any facts.

[audtatious]

Facts don't matter to some.

[Jesda]

[TTkickedin]

^ and this above means what specifically?


Remind me next time i have to fight somebody that if they punch me in the face I'm allowed to shoot and kill them and we'll see what it's like once the tables turn.

[Jesda]

^ and this above means what specifically?


Remind me next time i have to fight somebody that if they punch me in the face I'm allowed to shoot and kill them and we'll see what it's like once the tables turn.

It means people like to jump to conclusions without information. The media makes its living this way.

[TTkickedin]

What type of conclusions should be drawn just based off of what a person wears?

Are you suggesting people should continue to stereotype?


I have pictures of me wearing hoodies, showing my tattoos, i still own multiple fitted boston hats, I have mostly red clothing in this style, but I also have pictures of me wearing suits and i currently work next to a bunch of older rich people in a cubicle in a business that deals with State Street Bank, DST RS/ DST OUTPUT and handles billions of dollars. And I'm an administrator helping to run it's knowledge-base and content management system. Does that make me a gang banger? When I wore hoodies and baggy clothes, I was on the honor roll..

[Jesda]

What type of conclusions should be drawn just based off of what a person wears?

The media has already determined who is guilty or innocent and chose to create a narrative that may or may not be accurate. It's irresponsible.

[TTkickedin]

It's also irresponsible to call that opinion just based off a picture of the kid wearing a style of clothing you associate to be of a gang banger. That's stereotyping, and may or may not be accurate either.

the kid was unarmed, the guy gets punched in the face and he shoots the kid.

If that's the law, that you can kill somebody if they punch you, that's a great way to start killing people without going to jail. :rolleyes

[Jesda]

It's also irresponsible to call that opinion just based off a picture of the kid wearing a style of clothing you associate to be of a gang banger. That's stereotyping, and may or may not be accurate either.

the kid was unarmed, the guy gets punched in the face and he shoots the kid.

If that's the law, that you can kill somebody if they punch you, that's a great way to start killing people without going to jail. :rolleyes

Are you a god damned retard?

I'm criticizing the media for creating its own depiction of unconfirmed events. You're going off on a s*** tangent.

[TTkickedin]

^ and you're mad about it.

It's not really a tangent, it's based on that picture that you felt is relevant in some stereotypical way to talk about the media.

What would you have preferred? just based off the picture you posted, i get the feeling that you would've liked the media to have posted the picture of the kid wearing the hoodie so the "correct" judgements would be made (and i'm assuming if the pictures were reversed you wouldn't post that one up)? That's what I'm interpreting.

[Jesda]

What would you have preferred? just based off the picture you posted, i get the feeling that you would've liked the media to have posted the picture of the kid wearing the hoodie so the "correct" judgements would be made (and i'm assuming if the pictures were reversed you wouldn't post that one up)? That's what I'm interpreting.

That's your entire problem. You've jumped to conclusions and put words in my mouth because you have a silly "feeling."

Reading comprehension is clearly not your friend.

[TTkickedin]

So i think that actually posting words with the picture instead of just the picture itself would've been a better idea on your half, because a picture can say many different things. That picture was made on the pretenses of stereotyping. Figure it out if you haven't already.


^ With that said, where would reading comprehension come into play when you wrote nothing describing how that picture has ANY relevance to this topic.

[dre1507]

You call to report a "suspicious" person, and the dispatcher, a sort of middleman for the police, tells you not to pursue. You decide not to heed sound advice, and in doing so, you shoot and kill someone. At least, from the progression of this case, it seems those are the only certainties at this point. Going from that, there is definitely no justification for the shooting.

[TTkickedin]

exactly.

[audtatious]

You call to report a "suspicious" person, and the dispatcher, a sort of middleman for the police, tells you not to pursue. You decide not to heed sound advice, and in doing so, you shoot and kill someone. At least, from the progression of this case, it seems those are the only certainties at this point. Going from that, there is definitely no justification for the shooting.

And that may be the case. Zimmerman could have gone over and picked a fight. What proof do you have that it happened _that_ way?

Additionally......If Zimmerman had been black would this be an issue at all or just some footnote on page B13 of the newspaper?

[dre1507]

You call to report a "suspicious" person, and the dispatcher, a sort of middleman for the police, tells you not to pursue. You decide not to heed sound advice, and in doing so, you shoot and kill someone. At least, from the progression of this case, it seems those are the only certainties at this point. Going from that, there is definitely no justification for the shooting.

And that may be the case. Zimmerman could have gone over and picked a fight. What proof do you have that it happened _that_ way?

Additionally......If Zimmerman had been black would this be an issue at all or just some footnote on page B13 of the newspaper?

If Zimmerman was black, he may have been arrested, he may have been set free. I don't know. Are you saying that it wouldn't have been an issue if a black man had killed another black man, or if a black man had killed a white man or someone of another racial classification (by the way, I hate racial classifications)? The media obviously sees it differently, but I as a human sure would hate to see the day I don't think much of the loss of any life. The media may have made it a race issue, but Sanford PD sure isn't giving any evidence as to why it shouldn't be.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

I always thought standard protocall when 'details are sketchy' in a shooting is to generally detain everyone involved, at least for the maximum amount of time allowed by law until they decide if they want to charge them with something.

[TTkickedin]

thats what i thought as well, what ever happened to that in this case??

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Dunno. Sounds to me like someone messed up, and because of the color of some skins, the media took it and ran with it for maximum traffic. Now its blowing up.

And now the guy is in hiding and can't be found? Is there a warrant out for his arrest now? Genuine details from every party are so difficult to come by.

[nissangirl74]

I also heard the local police chief resigned, the New Black Panther Party is in an uproar of the racial indignation, and the boy's parents are pissed about the way the media (and the Black Panther Party) has twisted things. They want justice, not vengeance. Also, supposedly, the shooter claimed to have several injuries and yet there is no official documentation of said injuries. I've been listening to 5 different sources on this case and there are ten times that many opinions on what happened. The only one left that knows the truth FOR SURE can't be counted on to tell the truth and if he is guilty of a crime, he won't ever admit it.

[jbracy7]

[img]http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/

Code: Select all

2012/03/zimmermanshirtlarge-474x700.jpg[/img

wtf man burn that shyte my peaple we have fallen so far
Look peaple if y'all Didn't know that being young and black in america is very dangerous. If drugs or jail or gangs,then aids, and heart deises[spelling] hell just making it to 20yrs is a fight, oh and one more thing THE BLACK PATHERS CAN EAT CROW BECAUSE IF THEY REALLY WANT A DO SOME GOOD STOP WITH THIS BULL PEOPLE DIE EVERY DAY RIGHT NOW THERS A MOTHER CRYING AND ANOTHER BEING BEAT TO DEATH, GIVE IT TO GOD AND LET GO.I'LL SAY IT AGAIN, GIVE AND LET GOD TAKE CONTROL .end....

[Jesda]

So i think that actually posting words with the picture instead of just the picture itself would've been a better idea on your half, because a picture can say many different things. That picture was made on the pretenses of stereotyping. Figure it out if you haven't already.


^ With that said, where would reading comprehension come into play when you wrote nothing describing how that picture has ANY relevance to this topic.

I EXPLAINED TWICE UPON BEING ASKED. WHY DO YOU INSIST ON ARGUING WITH PEOPLE WITH WHOM YOU HAVE NO DISAGREEMENT OTHERWISE?

Caps lock for clarity.

[hannibal]

I'll take one more stab at it...

In all states, you have the right to defend yourself. Most say you must attempt to escape the danger before deciding to use lethal force. Florida (and two others?) have a stand your ground law, meaning you don't have to try to evade the situation before responding with deadly force.

There is no law that allows you to pursue someone, then commit an act in self defense. In my view (this is MY OPINION), once Zimmerman began to follow Treyvon against direction, he became the aggressor and lost the right to "defend himself". I have no idea what the law says about that. But it is possible that Treyvon exercised his right to self defense by confronting the "suspicious person" following him.

The truth is out there, hidden behind the hype and media frenzy...

[Bubba1]

thats what i thought as well, what ever happened to that in this case??

That seems logical, but evidently the press did not report some eyewitnesses had already corroborated Zimmerman's self defense assertion with the police. That is why he was not charged immediately. Combine that with death threats that started coming in against both Zimmerman and the assigned investigaters, and a small town police department ill-equipped to handle such a suddenly high profile case plus protective custody for all involved, it sounds like the police told Zimmerman to hide out but keep in contact, as they did not see him as a flight risk.

I'm cringing when I read people say "based on the facts", when it's REAL obvious that we DON'T have the all facts yet. C'mon folks, wait for the facts to come out, stop going off half-cocked.

Both families have my sympathies, but I think the racial protests are premature, as this may not end up to be a case of racial bias at all.
I'm most disappointed in the press coverage as their reporting seems geared toward inflaming racial emotions.

[audtatious]

And that may be the case. Zimmerman could have gone over and picked a fight. What proof do you have that it happened _that_ way?

Additionally......If Zimmerman had been black would this be an issue at all or just some footnote on page B13 of the newspaper?

If Zimmerman was black, he may have been arrested, he may have been set free. I don't know. Are you saying that it wouldn't have been an issue if a black man had killed another black man, or if a black man had killed a white man or someone of another racial classification (by the way, I hate racial classifications)? The media obviously sees it differently, but I as a human sure would hate to see the day I don't think much of the loss of any life. The media may have made it a race issue, but Sanford PD sure isn't giving any evidence as to why it shouldn't be.

You tell me, where's the community uproar over the 10 killed and 40+ injured in Chicago via shootings the last weekend? I don't see the community nor leaders coming out to go after the gang bangers. There's no huge uproar with people protesting with signs nor taking bounties out on the killers. Why is that? There is an obvious problem that's not being solved and anyone who brings it up is a racist or an Uncle Tom (Bill Cosby and others who bring it up). Compare the public outcry between these two events and tell me why is there a huge outcry on one and not the other?

Again, I'm all for Zimmerman being gang banged in prison if he broke the law. I'm NOT for arresting him due to pressure of the public. He may very well get away with being guilty due to lack of proof it was not self defense, won't be the first time nor the last. Then again, he may indeed be innocent based upon FL law. i was not there nor do I have all the evidence to ponder so I'll leave it up to the court system to decide.

[audtatious]

I'll take one more stab at it...

In all states, you have the right to defend yourself. Most say you must attempt to escape the danger before deciding to use lethal force. Florida (and two others?) have a stand your ground law, meaning you don't have to try to evade the situation before responding with deadly force.

There is no law that allows you to pursue someone, then commit an act in self defense. In my view (this is MY OPINION), once Zimmerman began to follow Treyvon against direction, he became the aggressor and lost the right to "defend himself". I have no idea what the law says about that. But it is possible that Treyvon exercised his right to self defense by confronting the "suspicious person" following him.

The truth is out there, hidden behind the hype and media frenzy...

The "stand your ground" laws came from persecution of those who defended themselves being arrested and thrown in prison. Someone breaks into your house and threatens you and your family, you end up shooting them. Law says you are guilty due to the act and not the reason.

Now, based on the above you are setting a precedence that anyone following another (perceived or actual) is an aggressor. Is that what you really want? I can see a whole lotta problems with that.

Let's look at this another way. You and your SO are in a bar. Guy walks by and grabs your SO's boob or makes some nasty comment or whatever. You get up and follow him to the other side of the bar and angrily tell him not to do it again (you have not done anything physical). Guy punches you in the face and then starts smashing the back of your head into the concrete. At that point who is the aggressor and how much force can you use to ensure you don't die? If you do use something or some form of force that causes injury or death to the guy trying to cave your skull in should you be charged with assault/murder? You are the one who followed the guy....

The difference between the two is that in my story there was some form of instigation by the other guy. In the Zimmerman case, AFAIK, the only instigation to contact or following is that Zimmerman thought the guy was suspicious. Should he have followed him? Probably not. Do we know exactly how it turned into a confrontation? Nope. Do we really know whether Zimmerman, during the altercation, was afraid he was going to die? Maybe, we have a witnesses who says Zimmerman was on the ground with the kid on top beating him and background 911 recordings where Zimmerman is screaming for help so it's possible. Do we really know whether the kid really went for the guys gun? Nope.

This could certainly be race based. White v. Black it's not as Zimmerman is a Hispanic mix...unless Hispanic is a white now (as the signs about him being a cracker try to depict). I really don't know and it really does not matter. If Zimmerman is charged and convicted of murder he should certainly pay for his actions if he broke the law. At this point, we don't know if he did or not. All we have is opinions not based on fact.

[stebo0728]

Look peaple if y'all Didn't know that being young and black in america is very dangerous. If drugs or jail or gangs,then aids, and heart deises[spelling] hell just making it to 20yrs is a fight, oh and one more thing THE BLACK PATHERS CAN EAT CROW BECAUSE IF THEY REALLY WANT A DO SOME GOOD STOP WITH THIS BULL PEOPLE DIE EVERY DAY RIGHT NOW THERS A MOTHER CRYING AND ANOTHER BEING BEAT TO DEATH, GIVE IT TO GOD AND LET GO.I'LL SAY IT AGAIN, GIVE AND LET GOD TAKE CONTROL .end....

I hear ya man. Look Im the white guy that has no business having an opinion, yet I do. I have black friends that I feel for. Some buy into this culture of death, some dont. Its really the culture, I mean all races are involved in it. It may have started with blacks, but its got a foothold now in all races. When Im uncomfortable on the subway because the slack trousered hoodie wearing thugs are two seats over, its not because they're black, its because they're members of this culture of death. No respect for anything, its like a dip back to the stone ages.

But then as far as blacks in America go, I dont understand many of their mind sets. They elevate and diefy people like Tupac, Biggie smalls or the like, who talk about pimping and hoes, and shooting dat nigga, but then let Bill Cosby dare try and show them the light, and he's ridiculed and nearly excommunicated from the race. Id argue its a backlash from the class wide shortage of involved fathers. And Id also argue that this condition has been incubated by the Democratic party over the last 5 or 6 decades, in an effort to create a dependant class that can keep them in power by holding welfare over their head.

[TTkickedin]

^ Mind you though, that's just what you see on the media. Not a lot of black people buy into that culture.

Rednecks have country music talking about inappropriate encounters with girls and drugs. Rock has some talk about inappropriate encounters with girls and drugs. Techno has some talk about inappropriate encounters with girls and drugs. Classical music is what most serial killers listen to on the movies.... Are we to shelter ourselves from society just because of the music in their society? No. Live and let live and put awareness of a single society down, talking about it keeps it alive. It really won't help none.

(The violent 'gangster' blacks make up a small portion of blacks today, yet that's all people are concerned about when they think 'black'. I.e. ask anyone in boston. You ask them where is there a 'hood' type of place, they'll say Roxbury, or Dorchester - predominantly black areas. They won't say Somerville, or Charlestown, or Lowell, Weymouth, Quincy..Home to some of the most notorious criminals in boston, and predominantly white 'hoods'. )

In the meantime, while that specific society dies off, don't be scared of the black person wearing a hoodie and baggy clothes just because it associates with that culture, (which stems from rap videos you've seen, right? Probably with 50 cent or some other overpaid entertainer.) My advice, try watching a Common video, or Mos Def. That's the real face of rap. Hip hop is what you see on the media. I call it Hip-pop.

It's really the government you should be afraid of, (and you do sort of mention that.) I nearly s*** my pants when I was driving behind a state representative yesterday.

Those people can harm you more than a robbery ever could.

---------
This is now a tangent.

So i think that actually posting words with the picture instead of just the picture itself would've been a better idea on your half, because a picture can say many different things. That picture was made on the pretenses of stereotyping. Figure it out if you haven't already.


^ With that said, where would reading comprehension come into play when you wrote nothing describing how that picture has ANY relevance to this topic.

I EXPLAINED TWICE UPON BEING ASKED. WHY DO YOU INSIST ON ARGUING WITH PEOPLE WITH WHOM YOU HAVE NO DISAGREEMENT OTHERWISE?

Caps lock for clarity.

I'll answer the last part first. This isn't an argument. You turned it to be that way once you decided to call me a retard and say that I have no reading comprehension. Getting pissed was your mistake...It's the internet, chill out.

Your official explanation of the picture was very vague. Ok, what I was trying to get at was this: If you didn't post it with the stereotypical intent that the picture was actually made FOR, then cool, I won't discuss this any further. If you did post it with stereotypical intent then yes, then I will definitely ARGUE with you. In PM because this was at one time, a good thread.

I didn't miss anything, I read everything your wrote. If you want to continue the discussion, PM me either way.

^ Capitalized for clarity.

[hannibal]

The "stand your ground" laws came from persecution of those who defended themselves being arrested and thrown in prison. Someone breaks into your house and threatens you and your family, you end up shooting them. Law says you are guilty due to the act and not the reason.

Now, based on the above you are setting a precedence that anyone following another (perceived or actual) is an aggressor. Is that what you really want? I can see a whole lotta problems with that.

Let's look at this another way. You and your SO are in a bar. Guy walks by and grabs your SO's boob or makes some nasty comment or whatever. You get up and follow him to the other side of the bar and angrily tell him not to do it again (you have not done anything physical). Guy punches you in the face and then starts smashing the back of your head into the concrete. At that point who is the aggressor and how much force can you use to ensure you don't die? If you do use something or some form of force that causes injury or death to the guy trying to cave your skull in should you be charged with assault/murder? You are the one who followed the guy....

The difference between the two is that in my story there was some form of instigation by the other guy. In the Zimmerman case, AFAIK, the only instigation to contact or following is that Zimmerman thought the guy was suspicious. Should he have followed him? Probably not. Do we know exactly how it turned into a confrontation? Nope. Do we really know whether Zimmerman, during the altercation, was afraid he was going to die? Maybe, we have a witnesses who says Zimmerman was on the ground with the kid on top beating him and background 911 recordings where Zimmerman is screaming for help so it's possible. Do we really know whether the kid really went for the guys gun? Nope.

This could certainly be race based. White v. Black it's not as Zimmerman is a Hispanic mix...unless Hispanic is a white now (as the signs about him being a cracker try to depict). I really don't know and it really does not matter. If Zimmerman is charged and convicted of murder he should certainly pay for his actions if he broke the law. At this point, we don't know if he did or not. All we have is opinions not based on fact.

I agree with 99% of this.

If thats the intent of the stand your ground law, it shouldn't be relevant here. They were in a public place, with no home, vehicle, or property to protect.

Walking down the street is NOT a suspicious activity, no matter what the person looks like. On the other hand, following someone could easily be perceived as suspicious or even threatening. I totally understand the implications of this, but consider the opposite side of the coin. If Zimmerman believed Treyvon was suspicious, why would it be difficult to imagine Treyvon thought Zimmerman was suspicious or a threat to him? The issue here is that it's based on individual perception. But I'm sure most people can distinguish between suspicious and threatening.

I think the main difference between the bar scenario and this case is that there was no reason for Zimmerman to follow Treyvon. In the bar story, the act of self defense began the moment your girl's butt or boobs were touched (that's assault). Now you could argue that there must be a continued threat of harm (he's gonna cop a feel next time he walks by or something). And self defense must occur in short order. I can't finish my drink, go outside and wait for the guy, then punch him and claim self defense.

Treyvon never "grabbed a boob". AFAIK, he didn't create any contact with Zimmerman. Being judged "suspicious" cannot be considered an offensive act. The first offensive or suspicious activity to take place in this case was Zimmerman's decision to follow Treyvon against instruction from the people he called for assistance. But pursuit doesn't translate into contact. And I don't know how the two came face to face.

I'm left with the following premise and only a handful of likely conclusions: Zimmerman calls police and decides to follow the "suspicious" person.I don't know what the law says in this case. But I am morally torn over the right thing to do in this situation. I can say with near certainty, if Zimmerman had waited for the cops to intervene, there would have been no altercation and the kid would still be alive.

Last thing: I don't care what Zimmerman's ethnicity is. But nowadays, hispanic is an ethnicity not race. A person can be white with hispanic ethnicity. A child of a white person and a hispanic person may certainly be a white hispanic, however ridiculous this attempt at classifying people may be.

[audtatious]

I acknowledge there are differences in the references I made. My whole point is even with a confrontation there is no threat of death until someone acted first with extreme violence. I'm sure most people in fist fights are not fearful that they may die due to it. We don't know who initiated contact or who started the violence nor escalated it. We know parts of the story only. IMO, there is simply not enough information out to the public to say whether Zimmerman was criminally negligent. Surely it does show he was stupid. I was also not inferring that Tryvon did anything to Zimmerman as there is no evidence out one way or the other.

Hispanic is not white. I agree a mix is a mix but as a society you are usually one or the other (see Obama) as everyone likes some form of definition. Regardless, Zimmerman is not a white, thus not a cracker, thus not a white on black crime. Was he racist? From what I've seen, probably. Maybe the Hispanic community should be attacked instead of whitey?

Edit: you are correct in a way, the 2010 census included Hispanic as part of "white". In general white and Hispanic are perceived as different IMO, maybe because they are considered a minority.

BTW, it's nice that Spike Lee and Katt Williams have tweeted out Zimmerman's home address. Katt added "You know what to do" after the address. Way to go!!!