OT: Zimmerman Not Guilty

[tallglassofwater007]

I wanted to address this point too. There's a rational reason for all the calls to police over the past few years because he is an appointed neighborhood watch guy who actively surveys the neighborhood. Someone doing that would have more calls into police than a typical person.

You have a point. But he didn't become a member of the watch until September 2011. He made plenty of calls prior to that, mostly about cars or people he didn't recognize passing through the neighborhood. We will just have to agree to disagree. We will always view him and the situation differently.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Again, fair point. The problem is, we have no way of knowing what Martin would've done had Zimmerman questioned him. We do know that if Trayvon had stayed at his dads he wouldn't be dead.

Two things: first, I don't recall hearing that he got back to his dad's. Unless you're suggesting he shouldn't have gone to the store. Second, if George Zimmerman had stayed in his truck, Martin wouldn't be dead.

 

[NinerSickness]

You've got to be kidding ME. If you don't like the definition of stalking then speak to websters but it is what it is, he stalked him.

Dodub, that is a load of shit. You can't get arrested for stalking (which is a legal term) if you go up to some guy on the street and talk to him. You have to show a pattern of doing things like showing up to one's work / home after being asked not to, etc. What Zimmerman did isn't even in the same universe as "stalking" by the legal definition.

 

[threelittleturds]

Do some of you feel like Neighborhood Watch is an organization that allows someone special privileges? Some of you act like it gave him the right to give chase like a cop would when a suspect runs away. Everything I know about those organizations is that they are just supposed to report suspicious behavior to the cops, and encouraged not to intervene.

 

[TobyTyler]

Do some of you feel like Neighborhood Watch is an organization that allows someone special privileges? Some of you act like it gave him the right to give chase like a cop would when a suspect runs away. Everything I know about those organizations is that they are just supposed to report suspicious behavior to the cops, and encouraged not to intervene.

It always seems though that the police are encouraging the formation of these groups.

 

[NinerSickness]

There are a lot of assumptions being made here. You're assuming that the shot will kill/incapacitate. What if it doesn't? What if grazes the guy? Now he's shooting too. That sounds like a real safe situation.

Safer than a guy getting away and robbing some other store at gun point. Or 10 other stores. If you have a gun and a guy is facing away from you with his gun down, it's extremely easy to kill the guy. That's why I said "if he has a clean shot." You can pull the trigger at least 3 or 4 times before a guy can turn around much less aim and fire back. And how likely is it that a guy who just got shot in the back 4 times is going to be able to turn around and shoot his shooter? The answer is not likely at all. If someone has a gun and the element of surprise, it's very easy to kill someone from behind. You don't have to be Billy the kid to kill a guy from behind with the element of surprise.

What do you disagree with? That liquor store robberies are common, or that robbers have been killed in the act of committing the crime?

I'm disagreeing with the assertion that a place where the owner carries a gun and / or an attempted robbery was foiled by that gun is equally likely to be robbed as some place where the owner is unarmed. You say the "evidence" doesn't support that. That's not true. There's a reason jewelry / coin stores & pawn shops (the small ones) are likely to have an armed owner.

I brought up the Pulp Fiction example because they were talking about how you're liable to get your head blown off robbing some small liquor store, but a coffee shop is kind of like Canada: defenseless & ripe for the taking.

 

[threelittleturds]

It always seems though that the police are encouraging the formation of these groups.

Of course they do, they want citizens to be vigilant and report suspicious behavior because the cops can't be everywhere at once and they'd love to stop crimes before they happen. None of the police departments encourage the Neighborhood Watch groups to get involved and chase after suspects. Even the Sanford Police told Zimmerman to stop chasing Martin.

 

[NinerSickness]

Maybe I missed something in this conversation, but I haven't seen anything that said Zimmerman spoke to Martin at all before Martin attacked him.

Maybe he did; maybe he didn't. Either way, Zimmerman is about as guilty of the legal definition of "stalking" as he's guilty of the legal definition of mail fraud.

Saying he "stalked" Martin is a red herring.

 

[Ilovemesomeme]

Do some of you feel like Neighborhood Watch is an organization that allows someone special privileges? Some of you act like it gave him the right to give chase like a cop would when a suspect runs away. Everything I know about those organizations is that they are just supposed to report suspicious behavior to the cops, and encouraged not to intervene.

LOL, I was thinking the same thing. Since when did being on the Neighborhood Watch make you a cop? Somebody should have let that dude know it wasn't that serious. I can just picture him now hiding in the bushes in army fatigues with a pair of binoculars and a cup of coffee.

 

[Kinzu]

Do some of you feel like Neighborhood Watch is an organization that allows someone special privileges? Some of you act like it gave him the right to give chase like a cop would when a suspect runs away. Everything I know about those organizations is that they are just supposed to report suspicious behavior to the cops, and encouraged not to intervene.

It doesn't give him any special rights, but there is no law saying you can't chase down or stop a potential crime in progress. It's just that doing such is by far usually the worst idea you could act on and no law enforcement agency is ever going to suggest a civilian put themselves in harms way.

The thing is if Martin had turned out to be a robber then Zimmerman would be touted as a hero for having the balls to go after him. Instead Martin turned out to just be a 17 year old guy walking out at night which changes everyone's perception of the situation.

Take something like Flight 93. Do you think if anyone on that flight had been able to call the cops they would have been told to stay seated and do as told or get up and fight back? They acted out against reasoning and stopped what could have been the 3rd massive tragedy of the day. The people on that flight that stood up and fought back are heroes.

If you look at the story from a what if stand point though. What if it was just a middle eastern man getting up to use the bathroom. What if he got jumped and beat up as a terrorist just based on someone's paranoia. Now suddenly these people are not heroes but racist villains who profiled an innocent person.

Flight 93 was a clear act of terrorism and the people thought bravely fought back deserve to be heroes, but no authority figure would ever have suggested to them to do what they did. Our media though paints a very thin line between being a courageous hero and being a racist targeting villain. It's pretty much if you're right you're right and if you're wrong... well then you end up like Zimmerman.

 

[erckm510]

Maybe he did; maybe he didn't. Either way, Zimmerman is about as guilty of the legal definition of "stalking" as he's guilty of the legal definition of mail fraud.

Saying he "stalked" Martin is a red herring.

The only person who saying he stalked Martin in the legal sense is you. Everyone else is using the general definition of the word.

 

[Rvnight18]

Of course they do, they want citizens to be vigilant and report suspicious behavior because the cops can't be everywhere at once and they'd love to stop crimes before they happen. None of the police departments encourage the Neighborhood Watch groups to get involved and chase after suspects. Even the Sanford Police told Zimmerman to stop chasing Martin.

No they didn't. He was on the phone with a 911 operater, not the Sanford Police.

 

[Ilovemesomeme]

It doesn't give him any special rights, but there is no law saying you can't chase down or stop a potential crime in progress. It's just that doing such is by far usually the worst idea you could act on and no law enforcement agency is ever going to suggest a civilian put themselves in harms way.

The thing is if Martin had turned out to be a robber then Zimmerman would be touted as a hero for having the balls to go after him. Instead Martin turned out to just be a 17 year old guy walking out at night which changes everyone's perception of the situation.

Take something like Flight 93. Do you think if anyone on that flight had been able to call the cops they would have been told to stay seated and do as told or get up and fight back? They acted out against reasoning and stopped what could have been the 3rd massive tragedy of the day. The people on that flight that stood up and fought back are heroes.

If you look at the story from a what if stand point though. What if it was just a middle eastern man getting up to use the bathroom. What if he got jumped and beat up as a terrorist just based on someone's paranoia. Now suddenly these people are not heroes but racist villains who profiled an innocent person.

Flight 93 was a clear act of terrorism and the people thought bravely fought back deserve to be heroes, but no authority figure would ever have suggested to them to do what they did. Our media though paints a very thin line between being a courageous hero and being a racist targeting villain. It's pretty much if you're right you're right and if you're wrong... well then you end up like Zimmerman.

The problem with your analogy is that Martin was committing no crime. It's not as if he was raping some young woman when Zimmerman came across him. The dude was walking down the street.

 

[Ilovemesomeme]

[/B]

No they didn't. He was on the phone with a 911 operater, not the Sanford Police.

I think it's safe to assume they would have.

 

[Rvnight18]

Tallglass, Zimmerman did not say he was a suspicious black person to the operater. NBC purposely edit that call to paint GZ as a racist. The operater as him if the person was white, Hispanic, or Black. Zimmerman said "I think he's black". He wasn't for sure because it was dark and raining. NBC is going to be sued because of that, and rightly so.

 

[NinerSickness]

Again, maybe I missed something as the thread is moving really fast, but I didn't see anyone accuse rvnight of being racist.

I assume that you will acknowledge that racism exists in the USA. To dismiss it because one didn't cause the problem is absolute bullshit.

rvnight didn't dismiss that racism exists. That would be like dismissing that stealing or murder exists. I don't want to speak for him, but I was getting the impression that people with really liberal political perspectives (the Al Sharptons & Jeremiah Wrights of the world) are hypocrites and blame people like him for racism when he isn't the problem; they are the problem (at least a huge part of it). They salivate at the possibility of any conservative saying something racist or any black person being the victim of a white crime because they want to capitalize on it politically. They don't give a $hit about Martin or his family; they care about this case being in the news and pissing off black people who don't know the facts of the case (like Jonathan Good's testimony).

Just look at the NAACP and the Duke Lacross case. The NAACP put up al kinds of false information about the case on their website and basically convicted these guys in their opinions (and the national media) before any evidence was shown (kind of like the Martin case), and then they wouldn't even issue an apology when it was discovered that the woman was lying.

I can't speak unequivocally about rvnight because I don't know him; but nobody has any justification to say that I should suffer negative consequences because of other people's racism. Let the blame lie where it belongs. The NAACP used to stand for a great cause. Now they (and people like them) stand for intentionally stirring up racial tension between white people and non-white people for political gain. This case is a perfect example. It was a hit job from the beginning.

 

[Rvnight18]

I think it's safe to assume they would have.

And it is safe to say that even if they asked him to stop following, by law, he doesn't have to. But if people are going to talk about this, we don't need any more misinformation going around because that is how GZ was painted as a racist when he isn't.

 

[Rvnight18]

rvnight didn't dismiss that racism exists. That would be like dismissing that stealing or murder exists. I don't want to speak for him, but I was getting the impression that people with really liberal political perspectives (the Al Sharptons & Jeremiah Wrights of the world) are hypocrites and blame people like him for racism when he isn't the problem; they are the problem (at least a huge part of it). They salivate at the possibility of any conservative saying something racist or any black person being the victim of a white crime because they want to capitalize on it politically. They don't give a $hit about Martin or his family; they care about this case being in the news and pissing off black people who don't know the facts of the case (like Jonathan Good's testimony).

Just look at the NAACP and the Duke Lacross case. The NAACP put up al kinds of false information about the case on their website and basically convicted these guys in their opinions (and the national media) before any evidence was shown (kind of like the Martin case), and then they wouldn't even issue an apology when it was discovered that the woman was lying.

I can't speak unequivocally about rvnight because I don't know him; but nobody has any justification to say that I should suffer negative consequences because of other people's racism. Let the blame lie where it belongs. The NAACP used to stand for a great cause. Now they (and people like them) stand for intentionally stirring up racial tension between white people and non-white people for political gain.

Hit the nail on the head. Well said and better than I could have put it.

 

[NinerSickness]

The only person who saying he stalked Martin in the legal sense is you. Everyone else is using the general definition of the word.

Then it freeking doesn't apply! People aren't going around simply saying Zimmerman is a hero-complex asshole; they're saying he's guilty of 2nd degree murder!

If a guy wants to go up to another guy on the street and say something or not say something, that isn't against the law.

 

[threelittleturds]

It doesn't give him any special rights, but there is no law saying you can't chase down or stop a potential crime in progress. It's just that doing such is by far usually the worst idea you could act on and no law enforcement agency is ever going to suggest a civilian put themselves in harms way.

The thing is if Martin had turned out to be a robber then Zimmerman would be touted as a hero for having the balls to go after him. Instead Martin turned out to just be a 17 year old guy walking out at night which changes everyone's perception of the situation.

Take something like Flight 93. Do you think if anyone on that flight had been able to call the cops they would have been told to stay seated and do as told or get up and fight back? They acted out against reasoning and stopped what could have been the 3rd massive tragedy of the day. The people on that flight that stood up and fought back are heroes.

If you look at the story from a what if stand point though. What if it was just a middle eastern man getting up to use the bathroom. What if he got jumped and beat up as a terrorist just based on someone's paranoia. Now suddenly these people are not heroes but racist villains who profiled an innocent person.

Flight 93 was a clear act of terrorism and the people thought bravely fought back deserve to be heroes, but no authority figure would ever have suggested to them to do what they did. Our media though paints a very thin line between being a courageous hero and being a racist targeting villain. It's pretty much if you're right you're right and if you're wrong... well then you end up like Zimmerman.

I believe that some of the passengers on Flight 93 called 911, and some of them who called their family members on the ground were told about at least one plane that hit the WTC. It became obvious to a group of those passengers that they had to fight back to live, because the outside world was telling them that if they did nothing they too would fly into some building and certainly die. They did what they had to do to try and survive, like almost anyone would do.

You're right that if Martin turned out to be a career criminal and Zimmerman detained him, people would have called him a hero. I'm not sure he'd get praised for killing an unarmed career criminal, some people would still question why he had to die. I think in most cases when someone ends up dead, and hindsight shows that it could have been prevented.. most rational people will ask why it happened.

I believe that in the struggle and when Zimmerman was losing the fight, at that point he feared for his life and chose to shoot Martin. The thing that I cannot accept is that with no authority and nothing but suspicion of behavior he decided Martin was guilty and wasn't going to let him get away. He then ended up being judge, jury, and executioner. That should never be acceptable in the US when no crime has been committed.