Another Shooting

[Skitch it!]

Maybe you don't know. Seems pretty clear to me that George Zimmerman targeted a black child walking through a white neighborhood, chased him down and murdered him.

+1 This is very much as it seems to me, out of control.

 

[Gaius46]

They would not be charging him under Florida State law.

Crimes that occur completely within a state are typically the province of state law, not Federal. There are Federal homicide laws but they mostly apply to Federal lands. The Federal government doesn't get involved in state cases unless there's some overriding Federal interest.

 

[nutdog]

This thread wouldn't have passed the first page if it were White on White or Black on Black, and that's sad.

There wouldn't have been a first page.

 

[EBodious]

If Martin had a "right to be" on the sidewalk (I'm presuming here...but so far no one's suggested he wasn't permitted to be where he was) and if Zimmerman had a gun (no wait, there's no IF there, we know he did), then wouldn't Martin be justified in using any amount of force against Zimmerman if he "reasonably believed it was necessary" (whatever that means) in order to protect himself? If that's the case, even if Martin attacked Zimmerman first, if he did so under a reasonable belief (based on the fact that some stranger was following him around in his car for a while, maybe got out and chased him) wouldn't that be completely LAWFUL on Martin's part??

How on earth can any justice system proceed to untangle ANY altercation with such a law on the books?

i made this point as well several pages ago. i certainly hope it comes up in the trial. if zimmerman can claim self-defense, so can martin's family. and yes, that does make the law seem like a mess in the making.

While it may all be circumstantial, the evidence seems clear that the physical altercation was initiated by Zimmerman. The boy was not shot in Zimmerman's car. He did not drag Zimmerman 200 feet to the murder scene. If you are chasing someone, how is that "standing your ground"?

this is a very good point. one of the articles linked says that according to the police report zimmerman 'exited' his car (was not pulled from it). it also says that the shooting took place 70 yards away from the car towards martin's house. what other reason for them heading that way would there be besides martin running to 'his' home? if martin is running away and zimmerman chose to chase him, zimmerman clearly was not acting in self dense.

This thread wouldn't have passed the first page if it were White on White or Black on Black, and that's sad.

i disagree. with all us experts here, why wouldn't we go on for days about an unsettled issue?!

 

[Dr. Cheese]

There wouldn't have been a first page.

I make no apologies for being concerned about issues where I see African Americans may have suffered injustice. There are those who would say that I am some sort of racist because I don't post whenever anyone has suffered injustice, and I say BS. It's kind of like saying someone who works to cure epilepsy doesn't care about people with HIV. We all have our issues that are close to us for whatever reason.

If a white on white killing would not get posted about at all, it is sad, but it is sad for all of those who always tell me that white concerns are ignored. If that is the case, then they should not ignore those an issue when they become aware of it.

 

[aborgman]

While it may all be circumstantial, the evidence seems clear that the physical altercation was initiated by Zimmerman.

That is some rather opaque clearness IMO.

If I were putting odds on it, I'd say at this point it's likely that Zimmerman initiated the contact - but I sure as heck wouldn't bet anything of value.

The boy was not shot in Zimmerman's car. He did not drag Zimmerman 200 feet to the murder scene. If you are chasing someone, how is that "standing your ground"?

Link Removed

A man stabs another man to death with an ice pick during a road rage incident and another man shoots someone during an argument over cigarettes.

Both men walk free under the provisions of Florida's 2005 "Stand Your Ground" law

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

In a high-profile example of Florida’s controversial self-defense statute known as the “Stand your Ground” law, a judge has dismissed all charges against a man in what was initially considered by prosecutors to be a case worthy of the death penalty.

The Assistant State attorney in the case, Jacqui Charbonneau, tried to prevent the court’s dismissal by asserting neither of the men Monahan killed were armed, they were shot from 20 feet away, and Monahan admitted neither of them laid a hand on him during the dispute.

The judge countered with the fact that the statute does not call for the assailants to be armed or to commit physical violence, only to have created the perception of imminent violence.

Are you playing devil's advocate, or do you believe Mr Zimmerman's side of the story?

I don't believe EITHER side of the story.

There are three sides to this story - Zimmerman's side, Martin's side, and the truth.

 

[aborgman]

If Martin had a "right to be" on the sidewalk (I'm presuming here...but so far no one's suggested he wasn't permitted to be where he was) and if Zimmerman had a gun (no wait, there's no IF there, we know he did), then wouldn't Martin be justified in using any amount of force against Zimmerman if he "reasonably believed it was necessary" (whatever that means) in order to protect himself? If that's the case, even if Martin attacked Zimmerman first, if he did so under a reasonable belief (based on the fact that some stranger was following him around in his car for a while, maybe got out and chased him) wouldn't that be completely LAWFUL on Martin's part??

Yes.

...and this is exactly why when you take a concealed carry class, they tell you when you shoot in self defense to never stop shooting until the perpetrator is dead.

How on earth can any justice system proceed to untangle ANY altercation with such a law on the books?

Investigation.

 

[aborgman]

aborg "plays devil's advocate" whenever the potential victim is a minority

Well - in this case both the victim and the perpetrator were minorities.

Of course - I play Devil's Advocate no matter the race of the victim, especially in cases where the evidence amounts to (at this point) "he said, he said".

 

[EBodious]

Link Removed



[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

maybe this case will cause florida to reconsider this law.

 

[onosson]

The judge countered with the fact that the statute does not call for the assailants to be armed or to commit physical violence, only to have created the perception of imminent violence.

Surely someone who is in a vehicle tailing after you while you're on foot, then getting out and chasing you (if that's what happened) might reasonably lead you to perceive imminent violence; so, if those turn out to be facts, surely we must conclude that Martin was justified in any action he took at that point?

I don't believe EITHER side of the story.

There are three sides to this story - Zimmerman's side, Martin's side, and the truth.

What is Martin's side, as distinct from the truth? He can't advocate any position - he's dead. Whatever happened to him IS the truth.

 

[onosson]

Yes.

...and this is exactly why when you take a concealed carry class, they tell you when you shoot in self defense to never stop shooting until the perpetrator is dead.

Assuming they do teach this, how do you know this is *why* they teach this? Are they explicitly telling people to kill someone to prevent the other person from claiming self defence? What kind of scenarios is this setting up in the future??

 

[Pacman]

Yes.

...and this is exactly why when you take a concealed carry class, they tell you when you shoot in self defense to never stop shooting until the perpetrator is dead.

No, they teach you to shoot until the threat is over. Shooting until the perpetrator is dead could easily land you in prison for life.

 

[guy n. cognito]

Yes.

...and this is exactly why when you take a concealed carry class, they tell you when you shoot in self defense to never stop shooting until the perpetrator is dead.

Investigation.

Aaron, I have over 300 hours of formal firearms training. I've taken CC classes in three states. They do NOT, any any program that I have ever experienced, tell you to shoot until the assailant is dead. They, instead, tell you to shoot until the threat is gone, which may not result in the assailants death.

 

[onosson]

No, they teach you to shoot until the threat is over. Shooting until the perpetrator is dead could easily land you in prison for life.

Aaron, I have over 300 hours of formal firearms training. I've taken CC classes in three states. They do NOT, any any program that I have ever experienced, tell you to shoot until the assailant is dead. They, instead, tell you to shoot until the threat is gone, which may not result in the assailants death.

That sounds like a far more reasonable approach - thanks for sharing your knowledge on this.

 

[onosson]

Investigation.

The problem that I see is that it would be easy to conclude that BOTH parties in many altercations could have reason to perceive imminent violence directed against them - and so BOTH would be justified in killing the other. This particular law seems not too well thought out.

 

[nutdog]

I make no apologies for being concerned about issues where I see African Americans may have suffered injustice. There are those who would say that I am some sort of racist because I don't post whenever anyone has suffered injustice, and I say BS. It's kind of like saying someone who works to cure epilepsy doesn't care about people with HIV. We all have our issues that are close to us for whatever reason.

If a white on white killing would not get posted about at all, it is sad, but it is sad for all of those who always tell me that white concerns are ignored. If that is the case, then they should not ignore those an issue when they become aware of it.

I have no problem with your threads.

 

[Southpaw5]

The problem that I see is that it would be easy to conclude that BOTH parties in many altercations could have reason to perceive imminent violence directed against them - and so BOTH would be justified in killing the other. This particular law seems not too well thought out.

And the problem therein lies in the fact that one party is deceased and cannot provide their side of story so only one can claim self defense. This shows one of the problems with this kind of law, it could exonerate Zimmerman because Martin cannot state his side of the story.

 

[onosson]

And the problem therein lies in the fact that one party is deceased and cannot provide their side of story so only one can claim self defense. This shows one of the problems with this kind of law, it could exonerate Zimmerman because Martin cannot state his side of the story.

Precisely.

And from that we get concepts like "make sure you kill the other person so they can't claim self defence". Scary.

 

[Phil Smith]

Well - in this case both the victim and the perpetrator were minorities.

Of course - I play Devil's Advocate no matter the race of the victim, especially in cases where the evidence amounts to (at this point) "he said, he said".

Technically both are minorities however there are very large differences in the experience of "white" hispanics and "black" hispanics. The shooter coould be easily seen as a white ethinic from a number of different countries but one thing is for sure no one would ever mistake him for being black.

I think this thread would stil be long because there are a number of unanswered questions lingering and there's an apparent tragedy not matter what the color of the dead teen and the color of the person that shot him. We have a guy with a gun in a car calling 911 to report someone "suspicious" but we don't know what the "suspicion" is. We have the same guy with a gun suddenly outside of his car and fighting with someone he's been following who doesn't have a gun and is much smaller than him who he winds up shooting in the chest and is not arrested. That;s gong to raise questions no matter what the racial makeup.

 

[Deleted member 92857]

I'll be blunt. I cannot and I don't think of you can honestly imagine a scenario where a black man could have shot a white teenager who was unarmed and not be arrested by those very same cops.

I can think of situations where black men have killed whites who were burning crosses, throwing rocks through their windows, or even shooting at them, and the black men were arrested. In those situations the black men were cleared, but only after going to court and even being convicted initially. The excuses the police give are not believable and I don't think they would be making these arguments if the shooter were black.

So Zimmerman must go down for these sins of the past?
Do we apply this logic to every incident involving a black person and a white person?

This guy has the same color as every exalted cyclops the klan ever had, so of course he'd be living for the moment he could shoot a black kid in his neighborhood?

Some black folks have done some terrible things in the past (same can be said of every race/ethnic group). Should I heap the responsibility for all those things on every black person I meet? Might that be a little racist? Or forget about race... just plain wrong? Just asking.....

And finally, do we try and convict this man based on information the media serves up? And which media? The local news? Fox? Msnbc? Publications of the white ayran resistance? or of the black panthers?

So far, all the evidence comes from sources with the primary goal of selling advertising, not accurately reporting fact. Yet APPARENTLY many of you, in fact hundreds of thousands of people, (based on the same unreliable sources cited above) have Zimmerman tried and convicted, based on media reports... Again, sources which have the primary goal of selling advertising, which is not always compatible with telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I've read a few articles about this incident, and they range in tone from "vigilante white cop wanna-be shoots unarmed black teen who was only getting skittles for his little brother" to "Neighborhood watch captain shoots teen after altercation".

I think there was probably bad judgement on both parties. Zimmerman was getting his butt kicked (I completely discount the size difference, I've seen plenty of little guys kick the crap out of larger guys). Zimmerman shot the guy who was kicking his ass. I probably wouldn't have done what Zimmerman did leading up to that point, but if I'm getting my ass kicked, I'm not going to assume they guy is going to lay off. I'm going to assume he's trying to hurt me bad or kill me, and if I've got a gun, I'm shooting him and minimizing the damage he does to me.

If Martin had a gun and Zimmerman didn't, it would probably have gone down the other way and Zimmerman would be dead and we'd have people screaming that Martin was guilty of murder and he should be arrested and other people screaming that Zimmerman was a racist and Martin was an innocent kid with a gun fighting a white racist.

Bottom line, there's a lot of judgement being passed. What's your source of evidence? Would you bet your life on it? Many of you seem to be willing to bet Zimmerman's life on it.