[quote]zecarlo wrote:
It’s called white people problems. They worry about “Big Brother” violating their rights but don’t care about some borderline Brown Shirt doing the same thing to black kids. The satellite up in space watching them take a dump is a problem. The wannabe armed superhero (who can’t fight his way out of a paper bag)living next door who is terrorizing children of color isn’t. [/quote]
Zimmerman might be dumb, but which of Martin’s rights did he violate?
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
You all know damned well if Martin were your son, you would see it differently. [/quote]
My son would not have gone to the store during the rain to get candy and a bottle of iced tea. He would have been home. And if he was he would have run straight home and told me about it. Not take measures into his own hands. There is a time to fight and a time to run. If you know nothing about a person you run. You only fight when you are cornered and have no alternative.
[/quote]
I think GZ confronted the kid, the kid took an attitude and GZ went for his gun, so the kid had to do something. What else would you think? He sure as shit wasn’t a cop.
Rob[/quote]
Unfortunately it doesn’t matter what I or you or anyone else would think. We can speculate all we want. I agree that GZ was a fucking dumbass and he gives everyone who carries a terrible terrible stigma (even worse than they had to deal with before). For that reason alone I wish things had gone differently with the media angle, race, fight, death everything.
However, it doesn’t matter what I believe. It doesn’t matter what you or anybody else “thinks happened”. Legally he was found not guilty, morally he is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty according to our government, and the prosecution had zero case for murder. And they knew it. That’s why he wasn’t detained until later–there was no real evidence. You could have collared him for criminal negligent homicide and I think that may have been a slam dunk. You could have fought for manslaughter.
But all these people saying things like they were there that night and saw GZ cap the kid are talking out of their asses. People saying that the jury is racist for the (correct) verdict they returned are insane and clearly emotionally blinded to any rational thought. That’s not the way the legal system works nor should it be. It is outrageous enough that they are even considering a civil rights violation trial because that effectively brings double jeopardy back on the table, only loopholed. I don’t like that precedent whether it was for OJ or GZ or whoever. But that is for another thread anyway so I won’t go there.
The bottom line is everything people have said here is conjecture. That’s fine. But realize that nothing said here is in any way persuasive to the murder charge. The key words are “beyond a reasonable doubt”. There’s enough reasonable doubt to drive a truck through. I very much like that this thread has remained civil now that the topic of TM an GZ is on the table but it probly won’t last long so I’m going to say this before the train goes off the tracks.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
One way of initiating physical confrontation is by violating someone’s space, or harassing them for no reason, or insulting someone for no reason are all great ways of initiating physical confrontation. Go try it out! Nah, just kidding… Don’t try it! Just take my word for it.
[/quote]
None of those ways makes it legally permissible to start violence. The only caveat is if you are talking about violating someone’s space meaning physically holding and restraining them or something. If you are talking about violating someone’s “bubble” but without laying a hand on the precedent is EXTREMELY skinny. So if that is what you are saying GZ did, it doesn’t matter. None of those opens the door to legally permissible violent retaliation except physically restraining or verbally threatening a man with death.
Those may play in on a trial for criminally negligent homicide because the criteria for the verdict is different, but not murder.
[quote]pat wrote:
What scares me about this thing is the call for action by people to the government to get this guy on something, anything despite the law the constitution or any other basis for our rule of law. With Eric Holder talking about taking on state’s SYG laws and trying to bring Zimmerman up on Federal charges, just because people are mad. To me that is scary if they follow through. [/quote]
To me that’s disgusting and terrifying they’re even TALKING about it.
Bingo.
Double bingo. I don’t like it–I hate it in fact because as I said above (and a few others have said elsewhere) Zimmerman absolutely RUINS things for other concealed carry ppl. It’s not fair, but the double standard is real and it is big–and Zimmerman put us all back a huge chunk.
Totally agree–and it’s cool to hate it. I hated the OJ verdict. I’ve hated a lot of verdicts I’ve read about. But you’re right. Living in a country that is supposed to pay attention to “rule of law” means something.
That’s where you’re wrong. It’s very easy to make it a race thing here. Reason being you only have to convince one side that it is–hell you don’t even need to convince all of one side, just a very vocal minority.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Zimmerman, I don’t see he technically violated any laws on the books other than violating Martin’s right to travel unmolested, Martin was doing nothing wrong and was followed in the first place for being black, which is apparently good enough equivocation for suspicion in Florida for some reason.
I don’t get you guys. You cry about having to be checked out by TSA on something like a flight, but you are okay with a neighborhood watch civilian messing around with a 17 year old which lead to him getting shot… You don’t even need a badge to do it, and you have to wonder if it would have even gone as far as Martin being followed if he were a white kid. Too bad none of us are fortune tellers.
You guys are all part of the same toolbox. Yeah, I mean it. Most of you don’t deserve to listen to Stevie. He doesn’t need eyes to understand this is a bunch of bullshit, he’s lived through worse times, and is doing what he feels is right. [/quote]
You started out ok in the first paragraph. Then you went of on a tangent (and strawman, not to mention a host of other fallacies) in the second paragraph. Then in the third paragraph you get completely ridiculous. Seriously?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Zimmerman, I don’t see he technically violated any laws on the books other than violating Martin’s right to travel unmolested, Martin was doing nothing wrong and was followed in the first place for being black, which is apparently good enough equivocation for suspicion in Florida for some reason.
I don’t get you guys. You cry about having to be checked out by TSA on something like a flight, but you are okay with a neighborhood watch civilian messing around with a 17 year old which lead to him getting shot… You don’t even need a badge to do it, and you have to wonder if it would have even gone as far as Martin being followed if he were a white kid. Too bad none of us are fortune tellers.
You guys are all part of the same toolbox. Yeah, I mean it. Most of you don’t deserve to listen to Stevie. He doesn’t need eyes to understand this is a bunch of bullshit, he’s lived through worse times, and is doing what he feels is right. [/quote]
You started out ok in the first paragraph. Then you went of on a tangent (and strawman, not to mention a host of other fallacies) in the second paragraph. Then in the third paragraph you get completely ridiculous. Seriously? [/quote]
I agree that the first paragraph was probably the best, but as far as I know, he did not “molest” Martin. He followed behind Martin. I may be wrong, but I don’t think I remember hearing that Zimmerman either accosted or attempted to physically restrain Martin.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Zimmerman, I don’t see he technically violated any laws on the books other than violating Martin’s right to travel unmolested, Martin was doing nothing wrong and was followed in the first place for being black, which is apparently good enough equivocation for suspicion in Florida for some reason.
I don’t get you guys. You cry about having to be checked out by TSA on something like a flight, but you are okay with a neighborhood watch civilian messing around with a 17 year old which lead to him getting shot… You don’t even need a badge to do it, and you have to wonder if it would have even gone as far as Martin being followed if he were a white kid. Too bad none of us are fortune tellers.
You guys are all part of the same toolbox. Yeah, I mean it. Most of you don’t deserve to listen to Stevie. He doesn’t need eyes to understand this is a bunch of bullshit, he’s lived through worse times, and is doing what he feels is right. [/quote]
You started out ok in the first paragraph. Then you went of on a tangent (and strawman, not to mention a host of other fallacies) in the second paragraph. Then in the third paragraph you get completely ridiculous. Seriously? [/quote]
I agree that the first paragraph was probably the best, but as far as I know, he did not “molest” Martin. He followed behind Martin. I may be wrong, but I don’t think I remember hearing that Zimmerman either accosted or attempted to physically restrain Martin. [/quote]
Right. Exactly my point. 1st “traveling unmolested” isn’t an enumerated natural right like the “right to be secure in persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search/seizure”. Harassment is related perhaps, which is maybe what he was after. This would probably not qualify under the legal definition of harassment in any case. 2nd, physical restraint would constitute starting the altercation and would provide legal standing for Martin to get physical with GZ. And would definitively change the legal picture in terms of the trial, because it would change the questions asked, which would be potent evidence for a murder charge on GZ. There was none, or the prosecution would probably have used any excuse to try the argument.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Right. Exactly my point. 1st “traveling unmolested” isn’t an enumerated natural right like the “right to be secure in persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search/seizure”. Harassment is related perhaps, which is maybe what he was after. This would probably not qualify under the legal definition of harassment in any case. 2nd, physical restraint would constitute starting the altercation and would provide legal standing for Martin to get physical with GZ. And would definitively change the legal picture in terms of the trial, because it would change the questions asked, which would be potent evidence for a murder charge on GZ. There was none, or the prosecution would probably have used any excuse to try the argument.[/quote]
Yep. We have natural rights to life, liberty, and property. The Fourth Amendment could be said to help protect all of those. Harassment may be somewhat related, but Zimmerman did not harass Martin. At least not by any definition I can think of.
The people who believe Martin was justified in becoming the aggressor are probably the type who would climb up to the highest point on a roof, look into a neighbor’s home with binoculars, be offended when they see their neighbor walking through his third floor hallway naked, then want the neighbor charged with indecent exposure.
Attempting to physically restrain Martin certainly would have made Zimmerman the aggressor. That’s why I brought it up. However, nobody seems to be claiming he did that. They just seem to claim he was the aggressor based on some subjective standard.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
It’s called white people problems. They worry about “Big Brother” violating their rights but don’t care about some borderline Brown Shirt doing the same thing to black kids. The satellite up in space watching them take a dump is a problem. The wannabe armed superhero (who can’t fight his way out of a paper bag)living next door who is terrorizing children of color isn’t. [/quote]
Zimmerman might be dumb, but which of Martin’s rights did he violate?[/quote]
UH the right to live < eye roll , holy fucking Jesus .
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
It’s called white people problems. They worry about “Big Brother” violating their rights but don’t care about some borderline Brown Shirt doing the same thing to black kids. The satellite up in space watching them take a dump is a problem. The wannabe armed superhero (who can’t fight his way out of a paper bag)living next door who is terrorizing children of color isn’t. [/quote]
Zimmerman might be dumb, but which of Martin’s rights did he violate?[/quote]
UH the right to live < eye roll , holy fucking Jesus . [/quote]
Legally he did no such thing. Morally he may be quite culpable actually (and I believe that he is). But not legally.
I really think If George were to come to my neighborhood and shoot a 15 year old , I don’t care what his defense is , he will hang
And that is legally
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I really think If George were to come to my neighborhood and shoot a 15 year old , I don’t care what his defense is , he will hang[/quote]
What color is the sky in your world?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I really think If George were to come to my neighborhood and shoot a 15 year old , I don’t care what his defense is , he will hang[/quote]
Does Arizona still use hanging, or do you mean that you would hang him? His defense worked pretty well with Martin, so you might not want to attack him.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I really think If George were to come to my neighborhood and shoot a 15 year old , I don’t care what his defense is , he will hang[/quote]
Does Arizona still use hanging, or do you mean that you would hang him? His defense worked pretty well with Martin, so you might not want to attack him.[/quote]
I will try and be nice Nick , but yes . I promiose you you kill a child in my neighborhood , you are fucked . With your own dick up your own ass
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I really think If George were to come to my neighborhood and shoot a 15 year old , I don’t care what his defense is , he will hang[/quote]
Does Arizona still use hanging, or do you mean that you would hang him? His defense worked pretty well with Martin, so you might not want to attack him.[/quote]
I will try and be nice Nick , but yes . I promiose you you kill a child in my neighborhood , you are fucked . With your own dick up your own ass
[/quote]
How did you develop your bulletproof skin?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I really think If George were to come to my neighborhood and shoot a 15 year old , I don’t care what his defense is , he will hang[/quote]
Does Arizona still use hanging, or do you mean that you would hang him? His defense worked pretty well with Martin, so you might not want to attack him.[/quote]
I will try and be nice Nick , but yes . I promiose you you kill a child in my neighborhood , you are fucked . With your own dick up your own ass
[/quote]
How did you develop your bulletproof skin?
[/quote]
Dealing with people that ignore reality , the CJS
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Right. Exactly my point. 1st “traveling unmolested” isn’t an enumerated natural right like the “right to be secure in persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search/seizure”. Harassment is related perhaps, which is maybe what he was after. This would probably not qualify under the legal definition of harassment in any case. 2nd, physical restraint would constitute starting the altercation and would provide legal standing for Martin to get physical with GZ. And would definitively change the legal picture in terms of the trial, because it would change the questions asked, which would be potent evidence for a murder charge on GZ. There was none, or the prosecution would probably have used any excuse to try the argument.[/quote]
Yep. We have natural rights to life, liberty, and property. The Fourth Amendment could be said to help protect all of those. Harassment may be somewhat related, but Zimmerman did not harass Martin. At least not by any definition I can think of.
The people who believe Martin was justified in becoming the aggressor are probably the type who would climb up to the highest point on a roof, look into a neighbor’s home with binoculars, be offended when they see their neighbor walking through his third floor hallway naked, then want the neighbor charged with indecent exposure.
Attempting to physically restrain Martin certainly would have made Zimmerman the aggressor. That’s why I brought it up. However, nobody seems to be claiming he did that. They just seem to claim he was the aggressor based on some subjective standard.[/quote]
There is a difference in perception. I look at what Zimmerman did as harassment, as the only thing Martin was doing was heading home. That is enough to warrant suspicion, it was enough to warrant both a call, and a response from the police. IMO there is a clear difference between peering into windows and scoping houses, and walking home. There is also a difference between dealing with someone with training, has the confidence and know how to deal with people. If you greet people, let them know of your presence and what you are doing whether they are up to no good, or just walking home, that’s one thing. Did Zimmerman even let Martin know he’s neighborhood watch before following him? “Hi, I’m Andrew, I head up neighborhood watch, can I help you with anything?” Vs. seeing a back person, not saying a word to them, getting on the phone and calling the police and then following them.
Do any of you know what half of the concept/ point of security is? Well, since the majority of you have no military, or guard, or security experience, it’s your job to primarily be a deterrent in most circumstances unless you are guarding a VIP or dignitary. Generally, you want to make your presence known, and put the people you are protecting at ease. You do this by letting people know who you are, what you do, why you are doing it.
If you heard that cops were called on your child while walking home and they weren’t even spoken to, how would that make you feel compared to if the same guy walked up to your child, let your child know they were neighborhood watch, then offered to walk them home? What Zimmerman should have done was inform Martin of who he was, what he was doing, and then offered to walk him home. As someone who would be doing security/ or captain of the neighborhood watch or whatever, if you are into security, especially your own neighborhood, you want to establish good relations with the families and children you are supposed to be protecting. Not lumping all blacks in as criminals and suspicious, especially when a good portion of people in your neighborhood are black! I’d expect the same from someone who spends their time at KKK rallies.
Zimmerman was either more interested in flexing his muscles, or completely lacked the concept and training of what a neighborhood watch person should be/do. The problem with a lot of people who carry around weapons is, that weapon tends to be their first resort, and only power. These sorts of people are pussies, their balls are attached to their weapons.
If you lack training, the ability to handle someone around your size or smaller (who themselves don’t have training) then why the hell would you be in that line of work? If your first resort is the same as your last, why wouldn’t you want to just let people know your an overweight VAG, and just have your weapon unconcealed? If people know you are armed they avoid altercation?
If you lived in a neighborhood where there were murders, burglaries, etc… And you saw a stranger make a phone call, then start following you to your home without so much as a word, what are you going to think? You might think you are about to get robbed, or mugged, or jumped. Would you want to lead such a party to your home? It’s more understandable that you might imagine or find yourself in altercation in this situation now, isn’t it?
This is why I say Zimmerman, under his capacity as a neighborhood watch/ security person harassed Martin by not declaring who he was, his intentions, his duties… I’m saying simple communication/ rudimentary training and maybe Martin would be alive.
The way I see this is the same way I see the way TSA uses their authority… Grounds of suspicion are ungrounded, completely ambiguous. The problem imo arises from how we define our terms… What is: suspicious? What is it specifically in that situation?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
It’s called white people problems. They worry about “Big Brother” violating their rights but don’t care about some borderline Brown Shirt doing the same thing to black kids. The satellite up in space watching them take a dump is a problem. The wannabe armed superhero (who can’t fight his way out of a paper bag)living next door who is terrorizing children of color isn’t. [/quote]
Zimmerman might be dumb, but which of Martin’s rights did he violate?[/quote]
Well, he did call the cops so he wanted the cops to potentially do it. Besides, my point is that when the govt does what Zimmerman did it is seen as a violation of rights. Is TSA violating anyone’s rights? Is the NSA? Are the cops when they stop and question someone who is openly carrying an AR-15? We are quick to complain about those intrusions on our lives but look the other way when it’s a private, armed citizen with no training and with barely any regulation doing it?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
The people who believe Martin was justified in becoming the aggressor are probably the type who would climb up to the highest point on a roof, look into a neighbor’s home with binoculars, be offended when they see their neighbor walking through his third floor hallway naked, then want the neighbor charged with indecent exposure.
[/quote]
That probably describes Zimmerman more than anyone. He had a problem with a kid wearing a hoodie and walking. Talk about power tripping.