Shooting death of Trayvon Martin page 3

347 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:


My questions are: Why was the shooter involved. Isn’t this form of “neighborhood watch” supposed to be along the lines of the “mall security”…..observe & report. AND, above all else…DO NOT ENGAGE,,,esp. if you are carrying a gun. DUH.

My guess would be that the shooter was one of these cop wannabes (he was a law enforcement major) who exercised his right to open carry, but let things get way out of control. I’ve seen the type; excessive force is a huge problem in law enforcement that they very carefully screen for. This guy made a mistake that will last a lifetime. It’s probably just as well he never became a police officer, it doesn’t sound like he could handle it.

Too true….all too true. Sadly true.

Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

You know, after discussing this with a few people I know, there was something about the “Stand Your Ground,” and this whole confrontation that one person mentioned the possibility of both sides feeling threatened? Which would mean that Martin was threatened by the person following him, and Zimmerman was threatened by what he though Martin might be doing. Then the self-defense law would start to conflict, since was Zimmerman murdering Martin because Martin felt threatened and did whatever he did in self-defense, or was he just shooting in self-defense because Martin was just attacking him?

It really becomes a chicken and the egg situation.

I’m glad ya brought up the “self-defense” issue. I can see some overlap w/ it and “stand-your-ground”. BUT, I see a huuuuge weakness in Zimmerman’s claim to “self defense” BECAUSE THE DUMB MUTHER FUCKER PUT HIMSELF IN HARMS WAY. Had he done as told (stand down) rather than continue following—or even worse, playing cop and accousting Martin—he wouldn’t have needed to “defend” him self. Martin wasn’t doing any thing that looked suspecious. Ooops, he dared to wear a “hoodie”. Dayyuum.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Martin wasn’t doing any thing that looked suspecious. Ooops, he dared to wear a “hoodie”. Dayyuum.

Well, I guess having a young adult (he’s like 6 feet tall or something) in a hoodie doing… Wait, what was he doing anyway?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:

Well, I guess having a young adult (he’s like 6 feet tall or something) in a hoodie doing… Wait, what was he doing anyway?

Walking down the street with his iced tea and skittles. If wearing a hoodie is bad, I guess I’m in trouble; that’s all I wear.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by tenco1:

Well, I guess having a young adult (he’s like 6 feet tall or something) in a hoodie doing… Wait, what was he doing anyway?

Walking down the street with his iced tea and skittles.

That bastard!

If wearing a hoodie is bad, I guess I’m in trouble; that’s all I wear.

Not sure if creeped out, or aroused.


Well one things for sure, Zimmerman was definitely over-zealous.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Such a shame.

But think about how many robberies this law has thwarted. It’s probably done more good than bad.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

So you are suggesting that it is ok for a black to kill a white? it doesn’t matter to me if they are foreign or American, it doesn’t make murder right or boring.

You didn’t ask if one was right or wrong or whatever, you asked why one was receiving more media attention than the other.

Isn’t it? Think about it. We bend over backwards in the name of racism. No one wants to look racist in this day and time, yet it exists. In fact, I would suggest blacks can be more racist than whites. They are always the first to use the race card. Even our president is using it to try to get reelected.

No, not at all.

If Zimmerman shot in self-defense, he is innocent, if he provoked Trayvon into a confrontation, then he created the situation and will be punished. What I am saying is we don’t have the facts, yet we have set ourselves up as judge and jury. Why? Because the boy killed was black. Racism at it’s finest.

Why? Because the boy killed was unarmed, innocent, and was pursued, cornered and shot by an armed vigilante, probably because he was black and the vigilante had some stereotyped ideas about what that means. There seems no room for a self-defence case, here, even under the ridiculously generous US laws on the subject. Yet, the man in question was never charged.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

While the Trayvon shooting was on the front page, this was on the back page. Why is that?
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/nation/fla-teen-guilty-of-murdering-2-british-tourists-2267785.html

Well, probably because one had just happened (and has some very suspicious behaviors sround it) and the other was merely reporting that that murderer was found guilty. Why are YOU unable to distinguish the difference? Twilight has already touched on this, I just wanted to “double down” in hopes YOU would actually acknowledge it…..for at least once.

Originally posted by jhco50:
Think about it. We bend over backwards in the name of racism.

What “bending” are YOU speaking of? Do YOU have to bend in order to not let racism be seen. Who is it that needs to do this “bending” I didn’t know “bending” was necessary to order to not be a racist.

No one wants to look racist in this day and time, yet it exists.
Hmmmm…unless there is an intended hyperbole in that statement,,,I would say this is wrong. There are groups that are dedicated to racism against Blacks & Jews.

In fact, I would suggest blacks can be more racist than whites. They are always the first to use the race card. Even our president is using it to try to get reelected.

Ya know, those who say these things (and others) are merely showing they yet have vestiges of racism. They also rail about Black Beauty pageants,,,Black TV channels,,and anything else the Blacks do in order to have their place in the sun after so many years of the exact opposite.

But, the two really biggies for racist are: Blacks are more racists than Whites (reverse racism) & they are constantly playing the race card. I’m confused a bit here. If YOU say about racism: ""…yet it exists."",,,,THEN, wouldn’t SOME playing of the race card seem relevant?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
(reverse racism)

There is no such thing as reverse racism.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
(reverse racism)

There is no such thing as reverse racism.

It’s mostly the reverse of the common (white hates black) type of racism.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
(reverse racism)

There is no such thing as reverse racism.

Although reverse racism is a term, he might have been referring to reverse discrimination.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
(reverse racism)

There is no such thing as reverse racism.

Although reverse racism is a term, he might have been referring to reverse discrimination.

Huh.

themoreyouknow.jpg

Originally posted by Redem:

Why? Because the boy killed was unarmed, innocent, and was pursued, cornered and shot by an armed vigilante, probably because he was black and the vigilante had some stereotyped ideas about what that means. There seems no room for a self-defence case, here, even under the ridiculously generous US laws on the subject. Yet, the man in question was never charged.

Well if it helps, he was informally arrested, but nothing else really was done.


You know, I would actually have liked to see a current picture of him, or at least one that was near the time of the shooting.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:

It’s mostly the reverse of the common (white hates black) type of racism.

But there’s nothing reverse about it. It’s racism. Adding false epithets is just ridiculous.

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Although reverse racism is a term, he might have been referring to reverse discrimination.

An equally ridiculous term if you ask me.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:

An equally ridiculous term if you ask me.

Shrug. I don’t know, I mean, it does happen, although luckily I haven’t really been privvy to too much of it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Shrug. I don’t know, I mean, it does happen, although luckily I haven’t really been privvy to too much of it.

I never said it doesn’t happen, I’m saying that it doesn’t need it’s one phrase. It certainly doesn’t need one that’s false.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Shrug. I don’t know, I mean, it does happen, although luckily I haven’t really been privvy to too much of it.

I never said it doesn’t happen, I’m saying that it doesn’t need it’s one phrase. It certainly doesn’t need one that’s false.

I guess it’s just to help some people visualize it, seems a little strange, though.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Redem:

If Zimmerman shot in self-defense, he is innocent, if he provoked Trayvon into a confrontation, then he created the situation and will be punished. What I am saying is we don’t have the facts, yet we have set ourselves up as judge and jury. Why? Because the boy killed was black. Racism at it’s finest.

Why? Because the boy killed was unarmed, innocent, and was pursued, cornered and shot by an armed vigilante, probably because he was black and the vigilante had some stereotyped ideas about what that means. There seems no room for a self-defence case, here, even under the ridiculously generous US laws on the subject. Yet, the man in question was never charged.

What evidence shows that he was shot because he was black? How was he ‘cornered’? Is walking up to someone and talking to them illegal? How do you know Zimmerman wasn’t physically assaulted by Martin?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:
Is walking up to someone and talking to them illegal?

No, following and engaging someone who you think might be doing something even after the police you called said not to do that is a little.

How do you know Zimmerman wasn’t physically assaulted by Martin?

How do you know it happened or was in self-defense?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:
Is walking up to someone and talking to them illegal?

No, following and engaging someone who you think might be doing something even after the police you called said not to do that is a little.

How do you know Zimmerman wasn’t physically assaulted by Martin?

How do you know it happened or was in self-defense?

After the 911 dispatcher said ‘you don’t need to do that’ is a little bit different than a direct order by the police in an emergency. Zimmerman had every right to follow this guy if he wanted to.

It’s hard to be certain he was assaulted by Martin, but Zimmerman’s lawyers state that the medical records will show he was treated for the reported injuries. To be fair, Zimmerman’s testimony is the only account we really have, but it has seemed to hold up so far.

I’m not claiming that I’m 100% certain he is innocent. But the arguments made against him are pretty shoddy, and Redem’s claims seemed based more on hype than truth.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:

After the 911 dispatcher said ‘you don’t need to do that’ is a little bit different than a direct order by the police in an emergency. Zimmerman had every right to follow this guy if he wanted to.

Yes, but after reporting it to the police, he didn’t have to follow him any more, much less confront him.

It’s hard to be certain he was assaulted by Martin, but Zimmerman’s lawyers state that the medical records will show he was treated for the reported injuries. To be fair, Zimmerman’s testimony is the only account we really have, but it has seemed to hold up so far.

However, what if Martin assaulted Zimmerman because he felt threatened, I mean, I would if some guy was following me around for awhile?

 
Flag Post

Stupidity should be punishable with jail time ;)

 
Flag Post

Zimmerman murdered a kid. Simple as that. Based on his skin colour or not, it was murder, and Zimmerman should be punished accordingly.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:
Is walking up to someone and talking to them illegal? How do you know Zimmerman wasn’t physically assaulted by Martin?

No, not at all; walking up and talking to someone (i.e. “detaining” them) isn’t illegal. The problem here is, we will never know whether Zimmerman was physically assaulted by Martin or not, because one guy is trying to save his own ass, and the other is dead. Regardless, Zimmerman hasn’t been arrested or prosecuted. This could be a great injustice to the dead person, because they can’t give their side of the story or speak for themselves. I’m sure you’ve heard that the dead boy was unarmed. The cry of “Help” that was heard on the 911 call was determined by two different voice specialists to be belonging to Trayvon.

So, this appears to be stacking up pretty badly for Mr. Zimmerman.

Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:
After the 911 dispatcher said ‘you don’t need to do that’ is a little bit different than a direct order by the police in an emergency. Zimmerman had every right to follow this guy if he wanted to.

Are you sure? I mean, I was a dispatcher for a law enforcement agency for a couple years, and my posts/patrols always did as I directed. When Mr. Zimmerman went against the dispatcher’s advice, he made a very bad decision in my opinion.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
(reverse racism)

There is no such thing as reverse racism.

?. What planet do you live on?