Black Teen Shot 2

Off Topic
521

[quote]nunhgrader wrote:
I must say - I may have been wrong when presented the initial set of media released “facts”. I also admit that I may be wrong again since everything presented to me is through that crooked aforementioned media outlets. DarkNinja makes some very good points. So does HG - HG has extensive legal knowledge - each and every law related fact he brings up looks to be true although I am no expert of course. Jewbacca’s legal layout has been excellent thus far.

I still think that the young man’s death is sad and could have have been avodided if Zimmerman would have stayed back. I also wander if Martin was totally innocent or was he casing properties (I doubt this because of the proximity of his father’s girlfriend’s place) - it has been brought up. Conjecture - plenty.

The media looks totally evil - more than either side of this case.[/quote]
I am in no way a legal expert.

As mentioned though, I have a Texas concealed carry license. Not Florida but similar if not identical in writing and intent.

I took a class to learn certain law and more specifically how I may operate within them, tested proficient and was awarded my license.

Compare it to driving. You are not a traffic lawyer yet you have the legal right to drive, recognize the difference between a red and green light, know what they mean et cetera.

522

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
When you carry a gun though, you can’t afford to make mistakes. Zimmerman uses proper judgment and/or doesn’t profile (or Martin isn’t black) and this whole event never happens. Zimmerman may not have broken a law, at least when it comes to the shooting, but he was wrong. [/quote]

Well, not really depending on facts/ truth. If Martin attacked Zimmerman (unprovoked - walking back to his truck), Zimmerman could be contrued as right - right to protect himself. I agree - too many ifs though. Plus, what if Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman (stalking?). Then, yes - you are correct. Maybe we never will know the truth.

523

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Why? So Zimmerman could’ve been beaten to death instead?

If someone has to die, it should be the aggressor. Until we know the facts, no real determination can be made. If self defense is determined, the Stand Your Ground law has absolutely served its purpose.[/quote]

It’s just such a murky law, open to too much interpretation IMO.

Don’t get me wrong, I have a firearm myself to protect myself in my dwelling…I generally support the citizen’s right to own a firearm. But in the public, I think a gun is only to be used in the case of a clear, lethal threat, eg: if the aggressor has a gun, knife, or if there’s 4+ aggressors seeking to harm you.

I’m just not sure it doesn’t lead to more harm than good.[/quote]

I understand the sentiment but it isn’t often a controversial self defense shooting occurs. This event may not even be all that controversial when the dust settles. It’s become a red herring for racism when it should be a case of self defense vs. murder.

I recently linked ten recent stories from my city alone. Self defense is necessary daily across the country and one controversial case every five years or so shouldn’t nullify the right to protection against life threatening violence, rape, kidnapping et cetera in my opinion. Especially when the controversy is misappropriated tension regarding race anyways.

Sticking to the case at hand, we have a scuffle. Was it a fight or an attack? This is the real issue considering self defense.

524

One would have thought the lame-stream media, Sharpton, Jackson, the NAACP, and the court of public opinion would hesitate to jump to conclusions before all the facts are released after the Duke lacrosse players rape fiasco but I guess that’s asking too much.

525

[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
what now?

teen went for the gun[/quote]

I would have too.

526

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
I wonder if this would be national news if the story was Hispanic man shoots black teen.

I wonder how the public perception of the story would be with more recent pics of the parties involved.
[/quote]

That kid is not Trayvon Martin. ‘‘Hispanic’’ is not a race. Zimmerman is white.

And how many 17 years old you see doing shitty poses in their facebook, uh? Black, whites, aliens… all of them have always have a goofy or gangsta pose somewhere.

So Trayvon was suspended for possessing a bag with residue of Mary in it, so what? Is that proof enough that he was a drug dealer? So his murder on a night he was doing nothing illegal is now justified.

Fucking Great.[/quote]
Call it racist if you must but comparing me to a Mexican as sharing the same race is so ridiculous it is laughable. Indian is a race, often the dominant blood in latinos, blood I do not have.

When I was 17, I was not flashing gang signs. I wasn’t in a gang.

I agree, what trayvon did or didn’t do regarding pot is irrelevant to this case. It’s a shame the Martin camp introduced the dirty play of character assassination. They certainly have a penchant for making their beds don’t they? Seems to run in the family.

527

[quote]Viernes wrote:

[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
what now?

teen went for the gun[/quote]

I would have too.[/quote]

I understand the sentiment - if you were being followed. If Zimmerman had turned back to his truck (his words - may or may not be truth), you would have attacked him?

528

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
If self defense is determined, the Stand Your Ground law has absolutely served its purpose.[/quote]

It’s just such a murky law, open to too much interpretation IMO.[/quote]

This has ZERO to do with the “Stand Your Ground” law, which is not remotely a “murky” law if applied in the correct circumstance.

About “stand your ground”:

Previously (and still in many states), if you had the ability to flee from a beating, you had to flee and did not have the right to use deadly force to stop the threat. Now, with “stand your ground,” you don’t have to run, but can use deadly force to stop the threat.

Applying the law to the evidence we have:

Here, by all accounts, the Hispanic guy was on the ground getting beaten, unable to flee.

Under such a circumstace (unless he illlegally provoked the attack by the Black guy), the Hispanic guy had the right to use deadly force, under new law or old, because he could not “flee”

The whole “stand your ground” injection into this situation is just another bullshit distraction by the media and agenda-driven public officials, on both sides of the isle.

Further analysis:

And again, it is going to be the prosecution’s legal oblgation to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Hispanic guy illegally provoked the Black guy into attacking him.

There is ZERO evidence in that regard. First, we have Zimmerman’s own statement to the contrary. Second, the ultimate fight occurred back towards the SUV, consistent with the statement.

That’s it for the legal part of this case.

Remember, “not guilty” does not mean “innocent.”

It’s over unless a witness comes forward saying the Hispanic guy was the attacker.

529

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Regarding the argument “Trayvon was a teen, teens make mistakes…”

You realize you are putting responsibility in Trayvon’s hands right? You don’t have to apologize for innocence. Young and old adults alike make mistakes and Trayvon, a young adult, certainly made a costly one.

If your strongest argument at this point is “Well he was a teen”, understand that it’s ok to realize your initial knee jerk could be wrong in light of fact, testimony and evidence becoming public.

You are grasping at straws for prides sake; not wanting to be wrong in an argument instead of objectively and honestly reacting to known fact. Admit it or not, you know it is true even if you keep arguing differently.[/quote]

When you carry a gun though, you can’t afford to make mistakes. Zimmerman uses proper judgment and/or doesn’t profile (or Martin isn’t black) and this whole event never happens. Zimmerman may not have broken a law, at least when it comes to the shooting, but he was wrong. [/quote]
According to this post “wrong” is purely subjective as we are ignoring the law so conveniently.

And my subjective opinion on your opinion is simply nope.[/quote]

So it’s right that Zimmerman chose (and chose is an important word here) to engage in behavior that led to, whether he intended it or not, the death of another person? I wonder if Zimmerman himself would have do it the same if he could do it all over again. If the answer is no, then he doesn’t share your opinion either.

530

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
If self defense is determined, the Stand Your Ground law has absolutely served its purpose.[/quote]

It’s just such a murky law, open to too much interpretation IMO.[/quote]

This has ZERO to do with the “Stand Your Ground” law, which is not remotely a “murky” law if applied in the correct circumstance.

About “stand your ground”:

Previously (and still in many states), if you had the ability to flee from a beating, you had to flee and did not have the right to use deadly force to stop the threat. Now, with “stand your ground,” you don’t have to run, but can use deadly force to stop the threat.

Applying the law to the evidence we have:

Here, by all accounts, the Hispanic guy was on the ground getting beaten, unable to flee.

Under such a circumstace (unless he illlegally provoked the attack by the Black guy), the Hispanic guy had the right to use deadly force, under new law or old, because he could not “flee”

The whole “stand your ground” injection into this situation is just another bullshit distraction by the media and agenda-driven public officials, on both sides of the isle.

Further analysis:

And again, it is going to be the prosecution’s legal oblgation to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Hispanic guy illegally provoked the Black guy into attacking him.

There is ZERO evidence in that regard. First, we have Zimmerman’s own statement to the contrary. Second, the ultimate fight occurred back towards the SUV, consistent with the statement.

That’s it for the legal part of this case.

Remember, “not guilty” does not mean “innocent.”

It’s over unless a witness comes forward saying the Hispanic guy was the attacker.[/quote]

I think there also needs to be answered how exactly the shooting part went down. Did Zimmerman shoot Martin while Martin was on top of him, were they both standing, how close were they, did Martin have his hands up, etc.

531

‘Back toward the SUV’ implies that Zimmerman walked a ways from his car and then walked back, which is what Zimmerman claims, but does not mean it is factual. If Zimmerman got out to confront Martin who was relatively near the SUV then no back tracking is necessary. Where Martin’s was found does not indicate the movement of Zimmerman and from what the police work has appeared to be to this point, I would guess that they did not look for foot tracks on the ground to corroborate Zimmerman’s account of the incident.

Memory is a tricky thing, and returning to his car may have meant nothing more than turning his head or even having the intention to turn around. If he got a broken nose and other head injuries then there is a good chance his memory is not real clear of what happened just before or after everything went down. I am suggesting that Zimmerman is intentionally lying, but he made very well be filling in holes in his memory to make sense of the event.

532

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Regarding the argument “Trayvon was a teen, teens make mistakes…”

You realize you are putting responsibility in Trayvon’s hands right? You don’t have to apologize for innocence. Young and old adults alike make mistakes and Trayvon, a young adult, certainly made a costly one.

If your strongest argument at this point is “Well he was a teen”, understand that it’s ok to realize your initial knee jerk could be wrong in light of fact, testimony and evidence becoming public.

You are grasping at straws for prides sake; not wanting to be wrong in an argument instead of objectively and honestly reacting to known fact. Admit it or not, you know it is true even if you keep arguing differently.[/quote]

When you carry a gun though, you can’t afford to make mistakes. Zimmerman uses proper judgment and/or doesn’t profile (or Martin isn’t black) and this whole event never happens. Zimmerman may not have broken a law, at least when it comes to the shooting, but he was wrong. [/quote]
According to this post “wrong” is purely subjective as we are ignoring the law so conveniently.

And my subjective opinion on your opinion is simply nope.[/quote]

So it’s right that Zimmerman chose (and chose is an important word here) to engage in behavior that led to, whether he intended it or not, the death of another person? I wonder if Zimmerman himself would have do it the same if he could do it all over again. If the answer is no, then he doesn’t share your opinion either. [/quote]
Intent would be key. Zimmerman did nothing to incite a violent situation, bullshit conjecture, assumptions and imaginary what ifs aside.

Trayvon, according to evidence and testimony, engaged Zimmerman in behavior that led to a death.

The real question, in light of real evidence, is would Trayvon still attack Zimmerman or A) answer the question even if it was annoying or B) ignore the guy, keep walking and choose not to attack.

Your made up stories and assumptions are bullshit, plain and simple. Created scenarios have no merit.

Legitimate conversation will center around a scene painted by factual evidence.

533

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I think there also needs to be answered how exactly the shooting part went down. Did Zimmerman shoot Martin while Martin was on top of him, were they both standing, how close were they, did Martin have his hands up, etc. [/quote]

This is not in dispute. The Hispanic guy was on the ground and it was a near point-blank shot to the chest, both grabbing for the gun once it was drawn.

The key legal issue is the provocation to the fight.

534

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
‘Back toward the SUV’ implies that Zimmerman walked a ways from his car and then walked back, which is what Zimmerman claims, but does not mean it is factual. If Zimmerman got out to confront Martin who was relatively near the SUV then no back tracking is necessary. Where Martin’s was found does not indicate the movement of Zimmerman and from what the police work has appeared to be to this point, I would guess that they did not look for foot tracks on the ground to corroborate Zimmerman’s account of the incident.

Memory is a tricky thing, and returning to his car may have meant nothing more than turning his head or even having the intention to turn around. If he got a broken nose and other head injuries then there is a good chance his memory is not real clear of what happened just before or after everything went down. I am suggesting that Zimmerman is intentionally lying, but he made very well be filling in holes in his memory to make sense of the event.[/quote]

Interestesting speculation, but the burden remains on the prosecution to provide evidence.

I don’t see any, and given how quick the cops were to release, they didn’t either.

535

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
One would have thought the lame-stream media, Sharpton, Jackson, the NAACP, and the court of public opinion would hesitate to jump to conclusions before all the facts are released after the Duke lacrosse players rape fiasco but I guess that’s asking too much.
[/quote]

You would think so huh…the good reverend “AL” stood in downtown Durham, and called for the heads of the “entitled white devils” who harmed this “innocent black girl”.

AMAZINGLY he did not show back up and issue a retraction after it was found out that the girl made it all up.

Reverend AL and Reverend Jackson…race bating is our specialty.

Oh and lovely interview with the Black Panthers on CNN last night.

“the white man has to pay”

Jesus.

536

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
I cringe everytime I read “Zimmercunt” or “Zimmmerfuck”…there’s no better pun you could come up with? [/quote]

Lol.

Meh, it’s quite understandable. The people who will mostly cringe are Zimmertwat’s supporters.

I won’t carry a torch for a remorseless kid killer.

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
…that guy was… untrained fuck [/quote]

Prove it.

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
…who would have lost in a fight to Trayvon 10 times out of 10. [/quote]

Prove it.

537

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
‘Back toward the SUV’ implies that Zimmerman walked a ways from his car and then walked back, which is what Zimmerman claims, but does not mean it is factual. If Zimmerman got out to confront Martin who was relatively near the SUV then no back tracking is necessary. Where Martin’s was found does not indicate the movement of Zimmerman and from what the police work has appeared to be to this point, I would guess that they did not look for foot tracks on the ground to corroborate Zimmerman’s account of the incident.

Memory is a tricky thing, and returning to his car may have meant nothing more than turning his head or even having the intention to turn around. If he got a broken nose and other head injuries then there is a good chance his memory is not real clear of what happened just before or after everything went down. I am suggesting that Zimmerman is intentionally lying, but he made very well be filling in holes in his memory to make sense of the event.[/quote]

Interestesting speculation, but the burden remains on the prosecution to provide evidence.

I don’t see any, and given how quick the cops were to release, they didn’t either.[/quote]

The whole thing went down in a couple of minutes. How far would a out of shape heavy guy walk before giving up and heading back? Would that distance be the same to a tall athletic guy? My point is it is all going to come down to perspective.

As I have said before, this comes down to when the threat began and who was acting in self-defense.

The tricky part is it can be reasonably argued that both were.

The pivotal point in all of this, for me, is Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle. It was.his action, and as such, the majority of the blame rests. Whether it plays out that way legally is left to be seen.

538

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
One would have thought the lame-stream media, Sharpton, Jackson, the NAACP, and the court of public opinion would hesitate to jump to conclusions before all the facts are released after the Duke lacrosse players rape fiasco but I guess that’s asking too much.
[/quote]

You would think so huh…the good reverend “AL” stood in downtown Durham, and called for the heads of the “entitled white devils” who harmed this “innocent black girl”.

AMAZINGLY he did not show back up and issue a retraction after it was found out that the girl made it all up.

Reverend AL and Reverend Jackson…race bating is our specialty.

Oh and lovely interview with the Black Panthers on CNN last night.

“the white man has to pay”

Jesus.[/quote]

Yeah, I expect Rev. Al to show up to protest the shooting of 3 little Jewish girls and a Rabbi, any time.

And a 74 year old Jewish man beat by a man wielding a hammer screaming “Allah something.”

And the cabbie in NY who shot two Jewish boys on the Brooklyn bridge because they were Jewish.

Waiting on you Rev. Al. Let’s see a march for justice.

539

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
You would think so huh…the good reverend “AL” stood in downtown Durham, and called for the heads of the “entitled white devils” who harmed this “innocent black girl”.

AMAZINGLY he did not show back up and issue a retraction after it was found out that the girl made it all up.

Reverend AL and Reverend Jackson…race bating is our specialty.[/quote]

Boy Set On Fire: Missouri Police Search For Two Suspects In Possible Hate Crime

[quote]“And they rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open,” the boy’s mother Melissa Coontold KCTV. “One of them poured the gasoline, then flicked the [lighter], and said, ‘This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy’.”

Police said that both suspects are black.[/quote]

I’m sure we can all rest easy knowing that Al will step in to make sure the people responsible are held fully accountable for their actions.

Oh, wait, this isn’t getting as much attention as Trayvon’s case?

Oh, wait, this crime was actually black on white?

nvm

540

For the record, Zimmerman’s “black friend” on tv said the picture circulating of him is about 50lbs off from the way he looks now. He was not that fat when this happened. He had lost weight since that pic was taken.