This Person is a Member of the US House of Representatives

[Graphic]

Yeah yeah, I'm clearly racist. From what I read the kid was a thug, multiple school suspensions and a bad track record. The shooter claims the kid punched and assaulted him, but this is all yet to be seen. I didn't say the kid deserved to be shot, going to wait and find out what comes out in court and see if I believe it first and it was true self defense. Either way, I'm definitely leaning towards his character was less than stellar and that he was a little thug.

I gotta agree with PJ's post for the most part, I'm utterly sick and tired of the race card being pulled all the damn time. It's got to the point where I develop this almost instinctive immediate counter-reaction and whenever a situation arises and the race card comes out, I start to believe the opposite party in the conflict.

As said, there's no evidence wannabe Rorschach was assaulted, but even if he was, put yourself in Trayvon's shoes: what would you do if some creepy a-hole was stalking you at night while you were just out getting snacks and you feared for your life. Would punching him really be out of the question? Nevermind the fact that Trayvon looked like he weighed 120 pounds.

People downplaying this or dismissing it out of hand are playing the rape card, like a twisted version of "oh well she was wearing slutty clothes, she was asking for it!" The fact that you even mentioned that he was suspended from school is ridiculous because it's completely irrelevant.

Even allowing for the dreadful "stand your ground" law, the chap who shot him should have been arrested on suspicion of murder. His defence on those charges would have been he was assaulted and responded appropriately. For him not even to be arrested is where the trouble arises. That he was even advised by the police not to follow the individual which he ignored hardly helped his case. He intentionally placed himself in harm's way and shot his way out of it.

I hardly keep up to date with all times unarmed suspects are shot. Perhaps there are dozens of white suspects getting executed as well. Does anyone have the numbers broken down by race?

Suspended from school is not sufficient reason to gun someone down.

And yet... he made the point he was trying to.

He put on a hoodie, and was immidiately told to step down because of the hood.

As far as this guy not being arrested - I have seen no evidence he was assaulted yet, and the man he shot was unarmed.

As such, he should have been arrested, questioned, and then charged and bailed. When a man dies by your hand you should be tried in a court of law, not just let off.

This

[rvg]

Uh-oh. Watch out, here come the crazies...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/26/justic...?iref=obinsite

[Lemur]

From what I read the kid was a thug, multiple school suspensions and a bad track record. The shooter claims the kid punched and assaulted him [...] his character was less than stellar and that he was a little thug.

This is a kind of strange perspective to take, especially given that video of the shooter taken a short time after this supposed assault shows the shooter completely unmarked. Nothing on his face, not limping, no marks, no grass stains, nothing. Surely if he were assaulted so fiercely that lethal force was appropriate, he would show some indication of having been in a fight, yes?

Besides which, the creepy thing is not the racial angle, but the legal one. The notion that I can shoot an unarmed person dead on a public street and not even get taken into custody? Please tell me how that is not insane. At the absolute minimum the police should have taken the shooter, relieved him of his weapon, and interviewed everyone within a hundred yards to get the clearest picture of what happened. None of that occurred. To fall back behind, "Well, the kid was a thug," is thoughtless, mindless.

I'm utterly sick and tired of the race card being pulled all the damn time. It's got to the point where I develop this almost instinctive immediate counter-reaction and whenever a situation arises and the race card comes out, I start to believe the opposite party in the conflict.

As you are clearly demonstrating. Think about the implications of this over-broad, over-reaching "Stand Your Ground" law. It's not good. Try to stop reflexively reacting to the racial angle.

People downplaying this or dismissing it out of hand are playing the rape card, like a twisted version of "oh well she was wearing slutty clothes, she was asking for it!"

There's more to it. The "Stand Your Ground" law originated with ALEC, a group which pushes a variety of far-right legal agendas. ALEC has been pushing various versions of "Stand Your Ground" in all 50 states, and this case marks a real setback. What to do? Ah yes, declare that the dead person was a thug who had it coming. That will work!

[gaelic cowboy]

All I can think of as I read not just this the op and watch telly or read a newspaper is exactly what the hell is America so bloody afraid of.

Seriously laws like Stand Your Ground can only develop in a society that is litterally terrified to go outside. It's telling this was a gated community and involved a man described as "mild mannered but fixated on crime".


Regardless if the lad was a commie space nazi junkie terrorist he had every right to be inside that gated community.

Stand Your Ground laws are about protection there defintely not about stalking people like Batman in some Mad Max world.

[Lemur]

Well, there is a legitimate question about whether the Stand Your Ground law even applies to this situation, although that is the pony the local PD and prosecutor hitched themselves to in justifying why they did not take the shooter into custody or confiscate his weapon. The primary sponsor of the Florida law writes:

[T]he transcripts of the 911 tapes from the evening of the incident clearly show that Mr. Zimmerman was instructed by authorities to remain in his vehicle and to cease pursuit of Mr. Martin. George Zimmerman seems to have ignored the direction of the authorities and continued his pursuit of Mr. Martin.

Mr. Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit and confrontation of Trayvon Martin elevated the prospect of a violent episode and does not seem to be an act of self-defense as defined by the castle doctrine. There is no protection in the "Stand Your Ground" law for anyone who pursues and confronts people.

-edit-

Also note that grandstanding idiot Bobby Rush appears to be reacting to grandstanding idiot Geraldo Rivera, who was claiming on national TV that hoodies were "as responsible for Martin's death" as the shooter. So we appear to have a case of idiots yelling at idiots over an idiotic point.

[Strike For The South]

Wether or not the man is a racist is irrelvant, you can't really prove that.

What you can prove is he left his car and began following a man and asking him questions.

This does not justify force.

When its all said and done he will probably plea out.

[gaelic cowboy]

US police had 'sought to arrest Trayvon Martin killer' - report

Updated: 07:43, Thursday, 29 March 2012 RTE News

Police in Florida initially sought an arrest warrant for the neighbourhood watch guard who shot and killed unarmed black teen Trayvon Martin, but were overruled by prosecutors, according to media reports.

The Miami Herald said police in Sanford, Florida applied for the arrest warrant in the early stages of the investigation, contrary to suggestions that there had been inadequate probable cause for a prosecution.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The daily cited a police incident report that described the shooting of the 17-year-old by neighbourhood watch captain George Zimmerman as "homicide/negligent manslaughter."

Prosecutors however, held off approving the warrant, pending further review, according to the Herald and other media reports.

Mr Martin, a high school student, was fatally shot on February 26 by Mr Zimmerman, a white Hispanic who said he acted in self-defense.

A surveillance video meanwhile released late Wednesday by ABC News showed Zimmerman handcuffed at a police station after the shooting, but showing no apparent signs of serious injury.

Mr Zimmerman had said Mr Martin punched him in the nose, knocked him down and slammed his head into the ground before he had pulled the trigger of his gun.

The case has unleashed a national uproar and reopened old wounds over race relations in the United States.

A controversial Florida law allows the use of deadly force when a person has a reasonable fear of death or serious injury - which Mr Zimmerman, through surrogates interviewed in the media, has said was the case when he shot Trayvon.

Since the teen's death, there have been numerous large public protests calling for Mr Zimmerman's arrest, but the 28-year-old has not been detained, prompting outrage from rights groups which describe the shooting as a case of racial profiling and decry what they allege are racial inequalities in the US criminal justice system.

Special prosecutor Angela Corey told the Miami Herald that police filed a "capias request" to the state attorney, a recommendation that criminal charges be made.

"But obviously something gave investigators pause," an anonymous source in the state attorney's office told the newspaper.

"We get capias warrants all the time. That doesn't mean we file charges right away. We investigate to see if it's appropriate," the source added.

Chris Serino, the lead detective on the case, meanwhile told ABC News on Tuesday that he filed an affidavit on the night of the shooting stating that he was unconvinced about Zimmerman's version of events.

Serino separately told MSNBC that he was not at liberty to discuss the case, but felt encouraged by the new investigation into the shooting, and he was "looking forward to the truth coming out."

Mr Martin's mother, however, told CNN that she thought authorities were properly probing the circumstances of the shooting.

"I feel confident that they are going to do a thorough investigation," Sybrina Fulton told the US broadcaster.

"We're trying to be patient, even though it's been over a month. We're still trying to be patient and still trying to press on for justice."

Looks like it the fault of the ruddy lawyers when reading this take on it.

[Lemur]

Furthermore, I'm kinda bemused by PJ's and Whacker's surprise and outrage that race baiters are picking such a low-hanging fruit. (Not to mention PJ's spurious comparison to the fabricated Tawana Brawley case.) Of course the peddlers of black victimhood will come out of the woodwork. Of course they will overstate their case and make ridiculous claims. It's as silly and divisive as the never-ending rightwing fixation on the Black Panthers at the voting site, a minor incident that still gets played for applause three years later. (Note that black Americans do not have a monopoly on playing the racial outrage card.)

But does any of this invalidate the creepiness and weirdness of this case? Nope. You two seem to believe that if idiots take up a cause, the cause is automatically spurious and invalid.

Anyway. The race stuff is a distraction. The issue that needs to be addressed is the appropriate use of force. Note the complete lack of national outrage over a similar case in Wisconsin. The difference? Our shooter was in his own home, and had no idea why someone was crouched in his enclosed porch. Did he instigate it? Nope. Did he seek a confrontation? Nope. Did he have grounds to be afraid for his personal safety and property? Yep. So no outrage. Sure, there's talk about re-examining the Castle Doctrine, but there has not been the same racially-tinged shouting and madness over our incident that there is with the Florida case.

Seriously, armed man seeks out confrontation with unarmed man and kills him in public. And nobody gets arrested. It doesn't pass the smell test.

-edit-

An American conservative makes a good case for why this is yet another issue which the GOP, Limbaugh, the NRO and the rest of the conservative media complex would be wise to avoid politicizing:

Republicans have no reason to intervene in this fight. Seventy-five percent of the public thinks Zimmerman should be charged with something. Second-degree manslaughter certainly sounds pretty good to me. This wouldn't be "scapegoating," as conservative talk show hosts are already nattering, it's just common sense. Zimmerman wouldn't be guilty of anything until tried by a jury, but it's better than being tried in the newspapers. In any case, the idea you can gun somebody down in the middle of the street and just walk away doesn't appeal to me and probably not to the vast majority, either. [...]

[W]hy do Republicans have to get involved in this mess? Wouldn't it be better to utter a few words of regret and move on to something more political? But no, good old Newt can't miss the chance to alienate three-quarters of the American population. What sets him off is President Obama's comment, "If I had a son, he would look just like Trayvon Martin." What's wrong with that? When President Obama went to Israel he said, "If somebody shot rockets at my house where my two daughters were sleeping at night, I'd do everything in my power to stop them." Was that introducing sex and religion into international relations? No, he was just empathizing. That's what Presidents are supposed to do.

But old Newt can't let that pass. Like a big, lazy trout he jumps for the bait. Obama's comment is "disgraceful" and "appalling," "trying to turn this into a racial issue." Good old Rick Santorum isn't far behind, accusing Obama of "introducing divisive rhetoric." So all of a sudden, it's Obama versus the Republicans with three-quarters of the population on Obama's side.

[Ironside]

There's more to it. The "Stand Your Ground" law originated with ALEC, a group which pushes a variety of far-right legal agendas. ALEC has been pushing various versions of "Stand Your Ground" in all 50 states, and this case marks a real setback. What to do? Ah yes, declare that the dead person was a thug who had it coming. That will work!

It certainly will...

You can totally hear "Chasing down the thug and delivering swift, hard justice" in the name of this law.

[Lemur]

Ironside, at least in that case the killer was arrested and went before a judge. Many factors better than the other case (even if killing a man over a car stereo seems excessive and unwarranted).

[rvg]

Ironside, at least in that case the killer was arrested and went before a judge. Many factors better than the other case, even if killing a man over a car stereo is a bit of a stretch.

And they're both Hispanic. No racial controversy. No hoodie-wearing congressmen.

[Lemur]

rvg, in the recent Wisconsin case, the shooter was white and the unarmed person doing the dying was black. No media firestorm, no controversy. This confirms my suspicion that the vast majority of people who are disturbed by this case (myself included) are not particularly interested in the racial angle.

[Strike For The South]

race isnt the biggest reason to be up in arms over the police bungeling of this case

Of course I'm sure they have some sympathy. Overweight white guy with a gun, seeing demons everywhere, itching to pull the trigger.

Describes the majority of cops

[rvg]

rvg, in the recent Wisconsin case, the shooter was white and the unarmed person doing the dying was black. No media firestorm, no controversy. This confirms my suspicion that the vast majority of people who are disturbed by this case (myself included) are not particularly interested in the racial angle.

True, but in Wisconsin case the guy who got shot was on the other guy's property, no? I don't know if being under someone's porch qualifies as home invasion, but it certainly feels like it should. And people tend to be very understanding when it comes to shooting a potential home invader. As the Petit case showed, it's better not to take chances and shoot first and shoot to kill.

[Ironside]

Ironside, at least in that case the killer was arrested and went before a judge. Many factors better than the other case (even if killing a man over a car stereo seems excessive and unwarranted).

True, but it's the same state. And if I got correct info from another forum, that Stand Your Ground law gives arrest immunity until proven wrong. Ergo, if it's used and the prosecutor goes "don't bother, since we can't get a conviction", then it's quite possible that it's not abysmal police work (only poor) and only an abysmal law.

[Whacker]

Now I remember why I don't come back here that often. Serious reading comprehension issues.

Did I say the kid deserved to be shot? Bonus points for correct answer.

Did I say race was the only or main issue at hand? More bonus points for correct answer.

Did I say anything about the shooter being arrested or not? Wow! Amazing!

What I said was from what I read the kid was a thug, nothing more and nothing less. I said I'm sick and tired of the damn race card getting pulled constantly, this is a perfect example. Those of you who think race isn't the major issue here aren't paying much attention to the news, because that's what's plastered all over the major news sites and on the TV. Race race race. Do I agree that race is the core of the problem or even an issue? No, not at all, hence my disgust.

I'm completely undecided on whether or not lethal force was appropriate in this situation, hence why I will wait and see what comes out of the eventual trial.

To the "stand your ground" discussion. I am 100% in favor of being able to defend oneself with lethal force if the situation warrants. Specific to what happened, I have a few thoughts. First, I don't think the shooter was very smart to go out and confront the kid in person. Second, on the other hand, it's a well established fact that police response time can be way too late if at all, so I can at least sympathize in a way with a person's desire to keep their home, family, and neighborhood safe. This is the whole point of neighborhood watches. Third, I can't find any fault with a stranger simply asking questions of another stranger to the effect of "who are you and what are you doing here?" There is nothing inherently aggressive or dangerous with simply asking questions. If one aggressively confronts another person, that's a different story. I have no idea how the confrontation in question played out, hence why I said I will reserve judgment until the trail produces some results. But simply going out and asking someone questions on it's own is not inherently aggressive nor indicating a desire for physical conflict, ie. "asking for it". Lastly, I'm undecided on what constitutes an appropriate situation for use of deadly force for self defense, and don't think there's an easy answer.

[Lemur]

What I said was from what I read the kid was a thug, nothing more and nothing less.

Your actual quote was "the little thug that got shot." And now you're shocked and disgusted that anyone might give you any pushback on that. Sir, step away from the internets.

I have no idea how the confrontation in question played out, hence why I said I will reserve judgment until the trail produces some results.

Initially it did not look like there was even going to be a trial, hence the widespread shock.

[Devastatin Dave]

This is a kind of strange perspective to take, especially given that video of the shooter taken a short time after this supposed assault shows the shooter completely unmarked. Nothing on his face, not limping, no marks, no grass stains, nothing. Surely if he were assaulted so fiercely that lethal force was appropriate, he would show some indication of having been in a fight, yes?

Besides which, the creepy thing is not the racial angle, but the legal one. The notion that I can shoot an unarmed person dead on a public street and not even get taken into custody? Please tell me how that is not insane. At the absolute minimum the police should have taken the shooter, relieved him of his weapon, and interviewed everyone within a hundred yards to get the clearest picture of what happened. None of that occurred. To fall back behind, "Well, the kid was a thug," is thoughtless, mindless.


As you are clearly demonstrating. Think about the implications of this over-broad, over-reaching "Stand Your Ground" law. It's not good. Try to stop reflexively reacting to the racial angle.


There's more to it. The "Stand Your Ground" law originated with ALEC, a group which pushes a variety of far-right legal agendas. ALEC has been pushing various versions of "Stand Your Ground" in all 50 states, and this case marks a real setback. What to do? Ah yes, declare that the dead person was a thug who had it coming. That will work!

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...teer-zimmerman
http://www.nymag.com/daily/intel/201...all.html?imw=Y

[Lemur]

Have you ever considered the grand old tradition of "innocent until proven guilty"?

If I may repeat something I've said multiple times in this thread, Zimmerman should have his day in court. What creeped me out was the apparent attempt to prevent that from happening.

[rvg]

If I may repeat something I've said multiple times in this thread, Zimmerman should have his day in court. What creeped me out was the apparent attempt to prevent that from happening.

It did go before the grand jury... Nothing since then. Maybe the jury decided there was nothing that would warrant a trial.

[Lemur]

It did go before the grand jury...

I'd like to see a source for that. Last I heard it had not, and is now slated for a Federal grand jury. Did it actually go in front of a Florida grand jury? This is news.

[Goofball]

I'd like to see a source for that. Last I heard it had not, and is now slated for a Federal grand jury. Did it actually go in front of a Florida grand jury? This is news.

It never went before a grand jury. I just read that the detective in charge initially put forward an affidavit recommending charges for Zimmerman, but the local state's attorney declined:

ABC News has reported that the lead homicide investigator, Chris Serino, filed an affidavit pushing for charges the night of the killing, but was overruled by the state attorney's office.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justic...html?hpt=hp_t2

[Devastatin Dave]

If I may repeat something I've said multiple times in this thread, Zimmerman should have his day in court. What creeped me out was the apparent attempt to prevent that from happening.

Exactly why I edited my post. Sorry my friend...