OT: Zimmerman Not Guilty

[imac_21]

Your logic is flawed. He didn't intend in provoking an altercation while following TradeMark. His intent was to assure another burglary was not committed. He had no idea that Martin would eventually assault him and have him getting his head smashed against the ground. He did what he felt necessary to preserve his life. That's not murder it's self defense.

I wonder what Trayvon Martin was thinking leading up to the confrontation?

He's walking through a neighbourhood with, from we understand, no ill intent. A man follows him for awhile in a vehicle, then gets out and starts following while on the phone. At no point (as I understand it) does this man following him say anything or identify himself (why didn't he? If his goal was to prevent a burglary, wouldn't it have made sense to say "Hey, I'm from the neighbourhood watch. What are you doing here?" I'm coming back to this later).

From Martin's perspective, he's walking through a neighbourhood and and a stranger starts following him. That clearly scared him, that's why he confronted Zimmerman.

But he's dead, because Zimmerman killed him, so we will never get to hear Martin's side of the story.

And I want to address this communication issue more. Was Zimmerman's goal to catch the kid in the act of breaking into a house? Doesn't it make a lot more sense to announce yourself as outlined above? The whole "fear for your life" thing may play a role in not wanting to anger this potential criminal, but the question then is what Zimmerman intended if Martin broke into a house. Or was he hoping to simply dissuade any criminal thoughts through his presence? In which case, if he thought this kid was a criminal, why would he not expect confrontation?

 

[Rvnight18]

Oh, please, no one is taking away your "freedom speech" that has nothing to do with saying that what you are saying was ill advised.

When you tell me I should think about saying a black person is making race relations worse because of past history, you are saying I shouldnt say that. It's called political correctness and that is what's responsable for making people pussies not guns.

 

[NinerSickness]

I'm sorry, he wasn't arrested and charged? I thought someone had to be arrested and charged to go on trial.

No one has said there was an abundance of evidence, just there was enough. It could be the bare minimum of enough, but if there truly wasn't enough evidence, then it wouldn't have happened.

The person in charge of deciding whether there's enough evidence for an arrest decided there wasn't. It was politics that put him on trial not evidence.

Zimmerman is a killer. It's something he's going to have to deal with for the rest of his life (and beyond, if you subscribe to any of those religions).

True, but he's not a murderer.

 

[yossarian]

When you tell me I should think about saying a black person is making race relations worse because of past history, you are saying I shouldnt say that. It's called political correctness and that is what's responsable for making people pussies not guns.

Yeah, I think you should think carefully before you speak about those things, because context does matter, it's not political correctness, it's common sense. And I disagree that being thoughtful about being a white middle class man talking about a black man making race relations worse is making people "pussies", I would say that not thinking about those things makes people really thoughtless and makes race relations worse. And you can make any silly comment you want about race relations and the President, and I can call you on it and no government agency will stop you, that's what freedom of speech is all about.

 

[imac_21]

Because it was unconstitutional. It only applied to certain states, and they couldn't change voting regulations without the fed approving it. And race relations are not just white on black.

So the VRA went unchallenged for 50ish years? The SC never decided it was unconstitutional until 2013? Was there a significant amendment to the constitution in the last 12 months? The Supreme Court never ruled in favour of the plaintiff in any case brought to them with regard to the VRA? Everytime someone brought forth a case under the VRA, the SC ruled against them due to its unconstitutionality?

You're right, race relations are not just white-black. So maybe you're right, maybe race-relations are worse. But so far your evidence for it is simply a statement. I'd be interested in your evidence that race relations are worse than they were under Bush.

 

[imac_21]

Why didnt TM let the police do their job? Instead of talking to that girl and saying "a creepy ass cracker" he should have called the cops.

Why didn't Zimmerman let the police do their job?

 

[Dodub]

Why didnt TM let the police do their job? Instead of talking to that girl and saying "a creepy ass cracker" he should have called the cops.

Don't try to divert the conversation with ridiculous hypotheticals that have nothing to do with what actually happened. Martin probably should have contacted the police, but do you think that they would have came since they already knew what Zimmerman was doing?

I posted that because Zimmerman had already talked to the police and was told that they didn't need him to continue following, at this point the neighborhood watch had done their jobs and it was the job of the police. He should have listened to them and let them do their jobs.

 

[imac_21]

Why? I never owned slaves. I am not racist. I don't care what your skin color is. If someone is doing something wrong IMO, I don't care what color they are. I will not have my freedom of speech taken away because I have to tip toe around what happened in the past. I wasn't there. I didnt cause the problem.

Well, if never owning slaves is the standard for not being racist, I'm assuming racism in the US has been abolished, much like slavery.

And how the hell has anything in this thread infringed, or hinted and infringing, on anyone's freedom of speech?

And I'm sorry, but "I didn't cause the problem" is one of the most bullshit things I've ever read. Particularly given the treatment so many Muslims receive in your wonderful country.

 

[NinerSickness]

Oh, please, no one is taking away your "freedom speech" that has nothing to do with saying that what you are saying was ill advised.

Why is it "ill advised" to say a black politician is making things worse?

 

[Dodub]

Following someone isn't a crime, nor is it an invitation to be assaulted. Trayvon was at his dads residence and made the decision to go back and confront the creepy ass cracka. Had he stayed put, he'd still be alive. You can shift blame to Zimmerman all you want but Martin made poor decisions as well and ultimately it cost him his life.

So I can go out and stalk someone tonight and it won't be a crime?

Zimmerman was in his car safe and sound pursing the little drugged out burglar, but he decided to get out and confront Martin.

No need to shift blame to Zimmerman, the blame is all his. Zimmerman tried to take the law into his own hands and ended up killing an innocent young boy because of it. Zimmerman's decisions to try and deny this kid his basic liberties was an extremely poor decision, this ultimately cost TM his life. Zimmerman is completely at fault, 100%.

 

[RoboticDreams]

I wonder what Trayvon Martin was thinking leading up to the confrontation?

He's walking through a neighbourhood with, from we understand, no ill intent. A man follows him for awhile in a vehicle, then gets out and starts following while on the phone. At no point (as I understand it) does this man following him say anything or identify himself (why didn't he? If his goal was to prevent a burglary, wouldn't it have made sense to say "Hey, I'm from the neighbourhood watch. What are you doing here?" I'm coming back to this later).

From Martin's perspective, he's walking through a neighbourhood and and a stranger starts following him. That clearly scared him, that's why he confronted Zimmerman.

But he's dead, because Zimmerman killed him, so we will never get to hear Martin's side of the story.

And I want to address this communication issue more. Was Zimmerman's goal to catch the kid in the act of breaking into a house? Doesn't it make a lot more sense to announce yourself as outlined above? The whole "fear for your life" thing may play a role in not wanting to anger this potential criminal, but the question then is what Zimmerman intended if Martin broke into a house. Or was he hoping to simply dissuade any criminal thoughts through his presence? In which case, if he thought this kid was a criminal, why would he not expect confrontation?

I don't think he thought Martin was a criminal. I think he was suspicious because he didn't recognize him and he was peering into other people's windows as he walked aimlessly around. That's what he believed at any rate. Martin may have been upset that he was being followed, and I can understand that. That doesn't make it okay to assault the would be follower, simply because you feel profiled.

 

[yossarian]

You're right, race relations are not just white-black. So maybe you're right, maybe race-relations are worse. But so far your evidence for it is simply a statement. I'd be interested in your evidence that race relations are worse than they were under Bush.

The evidence for it is that every time a black man talks about race he makes race relations worse. Every time someone like Reagan talks about "welfare queens", or makes his first speech after being nominated near Philadelphia Mississippi, where civil rights workers were murdered in 1964, and says "states rights", somehow that gets ignored.

 

[NinerSickness]

And I'm sorry, but "I didn't cause the problem" is one of the most bullshit things I've ever read.

And that's one of the most bullshit things I'VE ever read.

...Well, maybe not "ever read." That's hyperbole. We've had some doozies here on SportsHoopla.

 

[RoboticDreams]

So I can go out and stalk someone tonight and it won't be a crime?

Zimmerman was in his car safe and sound pursing the little drugged out burglar, but he decided to get out and confront Martin.

No need to shift blame to Zimmerman, the blame is all his. Zimmerman tried to take the law into his own hands and ended up killing an innocent young boy because of it. Zimmerman's decisions to try and deny this kid his basic liberties was an extremely poor decision, this ultimately cost TM his life. Zimmerman is completely at fault, 100%.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. If Trayvon doesn't attack him, he is still among the living. I don't see why you don't understand that. Both parties made questionable decisions. It wasn't just Zimmerman.

 

[yossarian]

Why is it "ill advised" to say a black politician is making things worse?

Not "making things worse" -- "making race relations worse", by mentioning that race in certain contexts. He is talking about issues where race can be a factor, calling attention to something is not making things worse.

 

[NinerSickness]

Not "making things worse" -- "making race relations worse", by mentioning that race in certain contexts. He is talking about issues where race can be a factor, calling attention to something is not making things worse.

Ok, then why is saying a black politician is making race relations worse "ill advised?" It's true.

 

[Dodub]

I'm sorry but you're wrong. If Trayvon doesn't attack him, he is still among the living. I don't see why you don't understand that. Both parties made questionable decisions. It wasn't just Zimmerman.

I'm sorry but YOU'RE wrong. If Zimmerman doesn't follow TM, ignoring the police orders then TM would still be living. If Zimmerman wasn't a dumb punk whose only means to protect himself (since he can't fight) is to shoot someone, didn't attempt to take the law into his own hands then Martin would be alive.

I don't see why YOU don't understand this.

As Americans we have the right to walk around a neighborhood without being stalked by a stranger. Zimmerman STARTED a sequence of events that led to the death of a young kid. It isn't that hard to understand, had Zimmerman not tried to be Batman and fight crime then TM would be alive.

 

[imac_21]

In a bank, I'd probably prefer no shooting. But if a guy can easily get a clean shot off, I'd rather they had the opportunity to do so than not be armed. It's better to have a concealed gun & not use it than not have a gun at all in that situation.

Why is it better to have the gun and not use it? If you create a situation where the robber is aware that someone may be carrying a gun, they're more likely to start shooting I would think, more on edge.

But, as you said, your preference is no shooting. How does more guns=less shooting? I assume you say it's better to have a gun and not use it, so I'm assuming you're referring to drawing it (if it's concealed and you don't draw, you might as well not have it). You're putting a lot of trust into someone who has made the decision to rob a bank at gun point to not use the gun on you if you point a gun at him.

It might not be in every situation, but in the long run more concealed guns in an area makes it more risky to commit gun crimes. Especially when breaking into someone's home.

I'm sorry, is the goal to make gun crimes more risky, or less common. Because based on personal experience and limited research, having strict gun laws seems to be a pretty good deterrent to gun crimes.

You never answered whether you thought a dead robber in a liquor store would deter future robberies.

Sorry, I missed that because of the depth of discussion between you and I right now. I don't think it would. I am quite confident that robbers have been shot and left dead in liquor stores in the past. I believe liquor stores still get robbed with a remarkable regularity.

To be more honest, and less snarky, I don't think it would dissuade others because, as I said earlier, those that commit robberies are generally desperate, or meticulously planned. Without any evidence, I'm going to assume that most liquor store (and convenience store and those "types" of places) are rarely hit by the meticulous planning sort. Those guys, I assume, tend to go more for places that are going to have lots and lots of money, not a few hundred bucks at most. So we're looking at guys that are in desperate situations (or strung out, although that's probably a desperate situation in its own right). I don't think anyone that is in a position where attempting to rob a liquor store is going to be dissuaded by someone else failing to rob a liquor store. I think it raises the chances of the clerk and legitimate customers getting shot for a short period of time after the death because they will be even more on edge than your typical liquor store robber. Any slight move by anyone in the store could result in shots fired.

If, for whatever reason, it is the meticulous type planning to rob a liquor store, they look at the guy who was killed and decide "I'm planning this out, so that won't happen to me. If the guy reaches below the counter, I'll shoot him. I'll make sure all the customers are at the till where I can see them. . . and so on."

 

[NinerSickness]

As Americans we have the right to walk around a neighborhood without being stalked by a stranger.

Stalked? True. Stalking is a legal term. Zimmerman didn't even come close to "stalking" Martin.

On the flip side of the coin, Zimmerman, as an American, has the right to go up to someone and question him.

 

[imac_21]

When you tell me I should think about saying a black person is making race relations worse because of past history, you are saying I shouldnt say that. It's called political correctness and that is what's responsable for making people pussies not guns.

If you think that has anything to do with freedom of speech, you probably need to reconsider your participation in this thread.