Trayvon Martin Case

[saden1]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Ive reported suspicious persons once before in my life. A old girlfriend had about 5 or so homeless people set up camp in an alley directly behind her house. She lived in a kind of bad section of Richmond, but this was pretty unusually even for this neighborhood. Several girls lived in the house and they were all pretty terrified by the idea of homeless people creeping around their house and where the park their cars so I called the non-emergency police number to report the issue for the girls.

When I spoke to the dispatcher I told them that there was about 5 homeless people setting up camp in the alley behind 311 S. Laurel St. The person asked me what they looked like, I said “like your typical indigent persons”. No other fitting description crossed my mind at the time, as its pretty easy to identify a 5 band homeless camp in an alley. But they said something like no we need a description of their race, sex and build. I told the dispatcher that there was 1 female, and about 4 males, everyone was white except for one black guy, and that they were all average build.

My point is the police want to know the race of people you call to report for whatever reason. Zimmerman likely knew this considering the 40+ calls he made to police over the last year. It just so happens race is one of the most physically descriptive unchangeable characteristics a person posses, and police find it particularly helpful in identifying people.

And honestly you’ve never seen a 7-9 year old acting “suspicious”. If I see a young kid that’s not playing, not riding a bike, that’s just wondering around by himself/herself, or out at night im going to be concerned. And its pretty easy to tell when little kids are up to no good, as most have no skills hiding it.

If I see a little kid ive never seen before doing something “suspicious” around a neighbor’s property, with no other little kids or parents in sight, im probably gonna make my presence known or call the police. And although saying a little kid acting suspicious or a group of 5 homeless people in an alley is the only identifier guys like me and you need to pinpoint the person(s) in questions, guess what the police are going to ask no matter what the circumstance….. race, sex and build.

Ill let you guys know im not Black. Maybe its impossible for me to understand why there are people saying this is a clear case of racial profiling. Is it just a gut feeling some of us have about this guy? Or is there something im just completely missing? If someone thinks someone of a different race is acting suspicious, is it always racial profiling in this country?

Rush to judgment in Trayvon Martin case - CNN.com

It's a fcking kid...they are curious, playful and into mischief. They do stupid shit kids do...that's what being a kid is! Unless he is destroying property you calling the police to report a 7 to 9 year old for "acting suspicious" makes you a complete jackass who is wasting dispatcher time.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

So if this kid is trying car door handles, or checking houses for unlocked windows that's NOT suspicious?

That's called reporting a crime? Did he report a crime?

You guys just keep the ****ing poll moving to justify this shit. From switching to black on black crime, to Trayvon was no saint, to some other stupid shit that doesn't matter.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by saden1

That's called reporting a crime? Did he report a crime?

You guys just keep the ****ing poll moving to justify this shit. From switching to black on black crime, to Trayvon was no saint, to some other stupid shit that doesn't matter.

Would you rather someone report a suspicious person or a murder?

'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Ive reported suspicious persons once before in my life. A old girlfriend had about 5 or so homeless people set up camp in an alley directly behind her house. She lived in a kind of bad section of Richmond, but this was pretty unusually even for this neighborhood. Several girls lived in the house and they were all pretty terrified by the idea of homeless people creeping around their house and where the park their cars so I called the non-emergency police number to report the issue for the girls.

When I spoke to the dispatcher I told them that there was about 5 homeless people setting up camp in the alley behind 311 S. Laurel St. The person asked me what they looked like, I said “like your typical indigent persons”. No other fitting description crossed my mind at the time, as its pretty easy to identify a 5 band homeless camp in an alley. But they said something like no we need a description of their race, sex and build. I told the dispatcher that there was 1 female, and about 4 males, everyone was white except for one black guy, and that they were all average build.

My point is the police want to know the race of people you call to report for whatever reason. Zimmerman likely knew this considering the 40+ calls he made to police over the last year. It just so happens race is one of the most physically descriptive unchangeable characteristics a person posses, and police find it particularly helpful in identifying people.

And honestly you’ve never seen a 7-9 year old acting “suspicious”. If I see a young kid that’s not playing, not riding a bike, that’s just wondering around by himself/herself, or out at night im going to be concerned. And its pretty easy to tell when little kids are up to no good, as most have no skills hiding it.

If I see a little kid ive never seen before doing something “suspicious” around a neighbor’s property, with no other little kids or parents in sight, im probably gonna make my presence known or call the police. And although saying a little kid acting suspicious or a group of 5 homeless people in an alley is the only identifier guys like me and you need to pinpoint the person(s) in questions, guess what the police are going to ask no matter what the circumstance….. race, sex and build.

Ill let you guys know im not Black. Maybe its impossible for me to understand why there are people saying this is a clear case of racial profiling. Is it just a gut feeling some of us have about this guy? Or is there something im just completely missing? If someone thinks someone of a different race is acting suspicious, is it always racial profiling in this country?

Rush to judgment in Trayvon Martin case - CNN.com

I'm on my phone so I can't bold your question but in regards to "If someone thinks someone of a different race is acting suspicious is it always racial profiling" yes, but that's due to the stereotypes that are prevalent in this country. Baggy pants = thug, skinny jeans = queer, weed smoker = loser. Stuff like that.

I remembered a few years ago I got profiled. I was walking from the gym to my car on Connecticut Ave and Porter st, aka the Cleveland Park metro stop. It was cold so I had my sweatshirt on and my cap on and my hood up. Just walking. About 8pm or so. There was this white guy walking in front of me, he looked behind his shoulder at me... started walking faster then broke out into a full blown sprint. By time I got to my car and drove down to where he ran to, he had stopped running and was walking again. This was in 2006.

Lucky I didn't get shot, eh?

p.s. for people that don't know Cleveland Park... really nice area in DC. Not too many black people that live there, its a more expensive area.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Assuming Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation, it certainly would.

I am glad there are some many people gifted with retroactive telepathy and can clear up, beyond any reasonable doubt, what Zimmerman's thought processes were as this confrontation unfolded. ... I was just guessing about it.

Prove Zimmerman wouldn't have done the same thing to a tattoed, white (hispanic, asian blah blah blah) kid dressed and acting in the same manner as Martin and I'll buy the profiling argument as a factual conclusion that can be stated with certainty. Otherwise everyone is just speculating about Zimmerman's state of mind.

Again, so my position is clear, although legally allowed to do so, Zimmerman was wrong to be toting a gun around while on a Neighbor Watch patrol. He exercised bad judgment in following when the dispatcher said it was unneeded. The law as written is letting a potential illegal and unjust action go unpunished. ... and most importantly, even if he started the physical altercation, Martin's death is a tragic event and the law's failure to provide for a satisfactory and just result compounds the tragedy.

Acting like Martin? What does that mean? How was Martin acting, Joe? He was walking down the street with tea and Skittles. And he was wearing a hoodie, so I'm pretty sure his tats weren't visible. Besides it was dark, so I don't think that was the issue.

Zimmerman said, “This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something.”

The dispatcher immediately asks, “Is he white, black or Hispanic?”
George Zimmerman responds, “He looks black.”


Zimmerman went to say, "they always get away". Who the **** is they is what I want to know. "****ing coons" or "goons".

The truth is, absent of some disgusting racial slur it's hard to prove racial profiling, isn't it? It's like saying prove racism. You really can't because we often, wrongly, associate racism with the obvious, like the word nigger. In our modern day politically correct culture, even the racists, have long moved beyond using the word nigger. If it looks and feels like profiling there's a good chance, though not a 100%, it is.

We do agree that this is a tragedy and, at a minimum, an arrest should be in order to assuage the Martin family and the citizens of the Sanford community.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

He called police to report "a suspicious black male, 7-9 years old, skinny build." I think we have passed the realm of speculating about his state of mind.

Maybe you think so, but then, you don't live in my neighborhood. We have had elementary age kids commit crimes - vandalism, breaking an entry, and, yes, assaults (happened three or four years ago three elementary age kids mugged an elderly lady (80'ish) while she was walking to the bus stop in the afternoon). It doesn't happen often (including the assault, I'd say around 10 times in my 18 years in the neighborhood), but it does happen. Yes, little kids are curious. Sometimes they are just being kids, but sometimes they are up to things beyond just childish curiousity or "hijinks". What's the difference? Hard to say ... Since I always try to be reasonable and go with my gut, I am probably impermissibly profiling.

Originally Posted by saden1

What you are basically saying Stand Your Ground Law allows me to stalk you and your family and if you were to ever approach me I would be at liberty to shoot you dead and vice versa. Am I to understand that so long as I feel threatened the Stand Your Ground Law trumps all other laws regarding what constitutes murder? What constitutes self-defense and retreat? Can anyone ever be liable for murder in the state of Florida in any confrontational situation? Would it matter who approached who first? If you and I were to get into a bar fight because I uttered fighting words and I ended up gunning you down should I be held liable for murder? How would this situation be different than what happened here?

No, what I am saying is that no one has the right to initiate a physical attack. If I just "approach you" after you "stalked" me, you would not have the right to shoot me. If you shoot me after I "approached you" in response to your "stalking" me AND I am the first to either physically attack you in a manner where you reasonably believe your life to be threatened or credibly threaten you with imminent physical harm likely to cause serious injury or death --- then, yes, you can use deadly force to protect yourself. Neither one of us, however, is allowed to begin the physical altercation regardless if I do or say something short of initiating the physical contact or using legally recognized "fighting words".

If Zimmerman approached and physically assaulted (pushed, bumped, shoved, hit etc.) Martin first (or brandished the gun, or used "fighting words" first), it's outright murder period. You don't get to pull a gun when you start losing a fight you started. If, however, all Zimmerman did was "stalk and approach" Martin, Martin can't can't can't throw the first punch and this is exactly what Zimmerman has alleged that Martin did. Zimmerman has said that Martin physically attacked Zimmerman first. As I set out several posts ago - in Florida, that creates a presumption he was attacked.

All I have ever said in this matter is, we don't know who initiated the physical altercation. At this point, that fact is simply surmise based on fragments of evidence. My opinion at this point, is that Zimmerman escalated the conversation and crossed the line first. However, I just don't know to the point where I am willing to ruin another person's life - it's close but I am just not there yet. Given the lack of evidence about the start of the fight, I may never be.

Originally Posted by saden1

Your logic matrix is twisted because the implication of what you are saying are very serious and quite frankly antithesis of the letter as well as the spirit of the law. At worst Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder and if you were on the jury I would hope you would have the sensibility to realize this.

My logic matrix is fine thank you. Go back and read my post No. 212. Personally, I think Zimmerman should have to get on the stand assert and prove the affirmative defense of "self-defense and reasonable belief of serious injury or death" under oath and subject to cross examination. If a jury says "okay, we believe you", I am good with that - if they say "we don't believe you", I am also good with that. Unfortunately, under Florida's self-defense immunity law, it doesn't look like that will happen.

[12thMan]

Joe, it doesn't matter who initiated the physical altercation. Trayvon Martin was being pursued by an unidentified adult male armed with a 9mm. He was on the phone with his girlfriend who told him to "run". By your logic, if Martin threw the first punch that negates self-defense. Bogus.

What was he supposed to do, drop his Skittles and put his hands in the air?

[12thMan]

By the way, JoeRedskin.

Florida teen's body showed no sign of fight, funeral director says | Reuters

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Acting like Martin? What does that mean? How was Martin acting, Joe? He was walking down the street with tea and Skittles. And he was wearing a hoodie, so I'm pretty sure his tats weren't visible. Besides it was dark, so I don't think that was the issue.

Zimmerman said, “This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something.”

The dispatcher immediately asks, “Is he white, black or Hispanic?”
George Zimmerman responds, “He looks black.”


Zimmerman went to say, "they always get away". Who the **** is they is what I want to know. "****ing coons" or "goons".

The truth is, absent of some disgusting racial slur it's hard to prove racial profiling, isn't it? It's like saying prove racism. You really can't because we often, wrongly, associate racism with the obvious, like the word nigger. In our modern day politically correct culture, even the racists, have long moved beyond using the word nigger. If it looks and feels like profiling there's a good chance, though not a 100%, it is.

It is hard to prove profiling, I grant you that. At the same time, I meant exactly what I said. "Acting like". Zimmerman didnt describe the suspicious behavior by saying "Well, his left hand is twitching and he's looking into cars/people's houses". Fair enough. Are you confident, to the point of certainty, however, that, regardless of race, Zimmerman wouldn't have reported any unfamiliar kid in a hoodie, carrying skittles and walking the neighborhood in the same manner as Martin (whatever that manner might be)? I guess I don't see it.

What makes you think this minority individual who has mentored African American youths, was racially profiling? The fact he said "suspicious" but didn't sua sponte articulate the specifics of the behavior that was suspicious?

Originally Posted by 12thMan

We do agree that this is a tragedy and, at a minimum, an arrest should be in order to assuage the Martin family and the citizens of the Sanford community.

Well, I agree it was a tragedy and I agree the law should require an arrest. However, no arrest should be made unless it is legally allowed and, certainly, no arrest should be made simply to "assuage" the victims or citizenry - when we start arresting people to make some group feel better, it is really a step away from torches and pitchforks.

I do believe the Florida law should be changed and I hope this tragedy convinces someone to initiate that change.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Maybe you think so, but then, you don't live in my neighborhood. We have had elementary age kids commit crimes - vandalism, breaking an entry, and, yes, assaults (happened three or four years ago three elementary age kids mugged an elderly lady (80'ish) while she was walking to the bus stop in the afternoon). It doesn't happen often (including the assault, I'd say around 10 times in my 18 years in the neighborhood), but it does happen. Yes, little kids are curious. Sometimes they are just being kids, but sometimes they are up to things beyond just childish curiousity or "hijinks". What's the difference? Hard to say ... Since I always try to be reasonable and go with my gut, I am probably impermissibly profiling.



No, what I am saying is that no one has the right to initiate a physical attack. If I just "approach you" after you "stalked" me, you would not have the right to shoot me. If you shoot me after I "approached you" in response to your "stalking" me AND I am the first to either physically attack you in a manner where you reasonably believe your life to be threatened or credibly threaten you with imminent physical harm likely to cause serious injury or death --- then, yes, you can use deadly force to protect yourself. Neither one of us, however, is allowed to begin the physical altercation regardless if I do or say something short of initiating the physical contact or using legally recognized "fighting words".

If Zimmerman approached and physically assaulted (pushed, bumped, shoved, hit etc.) Martin first (or brandished the gun, or used "fighting words" first), it's outright murder period. You don't get to pull a gun when you start losing a fight you started. If, however, all Zimmerman did was "stalk and approach" Martin, Martin can't can't can't throw the first punch and this is exactly what Zimmerman has alleged that Martin did. Zimmerman has said that Martin physically attacked Zimmerman first. As I set out several posts ago - in Florida, that creates a presumption he was attacked.

All I have ever said in this matter is, we don't know who initiated the physical altercation. At this point, that fact is simply surmise based on fragments of evidence. My opinion at this point, is that Zimmerman escalated the conversation and crossed the line first. However, I just don't know to the point where I am willing to ruin another person's life - it's close but I am just not there yet. Given the lack of evidence about the start of the fight, I may never be.



My logic matrix is fine thank you. Go back and read my post No. 212. Personally, I think Zimmerman should have to get on the stand assert and prove the affirmative defense of "self-defense and reasonable belief of serious injury or death" under oath and subject to cross examination. If a jury says "okay, we believe you", I am good with that - if they say "we don't believe you", I am also good with that. Unfortunately, under Florida's self-defense immunity law, it doesn't look like that will happen.

No it's not fine at all Joe. If you are the stalker or the instigator, the root cause of the confrontation, you lose grounds for a self-defense claim. I would think and hope this is self-evident.

We agree on one thing though, he should certainly be arrested and stand trial.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Joe, it doesn't matter who initiated the physical altercation. Trayvon Martin was being pursued by an unidentified adult male armed with a 9mm. He was on the phone with his girlfriend who told him to "run". By your logic, if Martin threw the first punch that negates self-defense. Bogus.

What was he supposed to do, drop his Skittles and put his hands in the air?

If I see you on the street and start to run after you, are you allowed to punch me when I get close enough to you?

Did he tell his girl friend the guy had a gun? Honestly, I was not aware of that. I would agree that changes things if the gun came into play before the fight. About to leave work, but I'll think about that. If Zimmerman was chasing Martin brandishing or obviously showing the gun, that is a different story altogether.

Let me ask you, if the events transpired as Zimmerman said. He was walking away, an unprovoked Martin assaulted him, broke his nose and bashed Zimmerman's head into the cement, did Zimmerman have the right to use deadly force?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

No it's not fine at all Joe. If you are the stalker or the instigator, the root cause of the confrontation, you lose grounds for a self-defense claim. I would think and hope this is self-evident.

We agree on one thing though, he should certainly be arrested and stand trial.

the instigator? I can follow you all I want on a public street saden. I can run after you if you run away. I can stare at you. I can call you names. I can say your stupid as I run in the same direction as you. What I cannot do, is touch or threaten you.

I think the crux of it is we are disagreeing on what "threaten" means. You think the act of "chasing" is the threat. Okay. I get that. If an unfamiliar kid I think is acting "suspiciously" in my neighborhood sees me watching him and starts to run away, am I "threatening" him if I chase him while I call 911? Can he turn and assault me?

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

If I see you on the street and start to run after you, are you allowed to punch me when I get close enough to you?

Did he tell his girl friend the guy had a gun? Honestly, I was not aware of that. I would agree that changes things if the gun came into play before the fight. About to leave work, but I'll think about that. If Zimmerman was chasing Martin brandishing or obviously showing the gun, that is a different story altogether.

Let me ask you, if the events transpired as Zimmerman said. He was walking away, an unprovoked Martin assaulted him, broke his nose and bashed Zimmerman's head into the cement, did Zimmerman have the right to use deadly force?

Your example isn't a good one. Zimmerman followed Martin in a vehicle, got out against the orders of the 911 operator, and approached Trayvon Martin. His actions precipitated the ensuing the events. Had Zimmerman been an officer of the law, properly identified himself, then that's a different story. But he made up his made that Trayvon Martin was up to something and decided to take matters into his own hands. That much is very clear from the 911 audio.

Where we disagree is this, you're assuming because George Zimmerman suffered in a physical altercation, he's justified in pulling out his weapon. That is not stand your ground, sir. Even if George Zimmerman got his ass beat, which he didn't, that doesn't give him the legal grounds to pull his firearm and shoot an innocent teen in cold blood.

[12thMan]

Jeb Bush: 'Stand Your Ground' Doesn't Apply in Trayvon Case

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

the instigator? I can follow you all I want on a public street saden. I can run after you if you run away. I can stare at you. I can call you names. I can say your stupid as I run in the same direction as you. What I cannot do, is touch or threaten you.

I think the crux of it is we are disagreeing on what "threaten" means. You think the act of "chasing" is the threat. Okay. I get that. If an unfamiliar kid I think is acting "suspiciously" in my neighborhood sees me watching him and starts to run away, am I "threatening" him if I chase him while I call 911? Can he turn and assault me?

No, this is not a "OK, I get that" type of situation. It's "if an adult was following your little girl that adult is a threat." Following someone can only result in two things:

a) confrontation which is a hostile or argumentative meeting or situation between opposing parties.

b) one individual takes flight out of fear for their safety.


The act of following someone you don't know is a threatening act.