The "Hoodie" Incident: Controversial? Racist? - Part 2

[Schlosser85]

That's disgusting and moronic.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by Schlosser85

That's disgusting and moronic.

I agree, moreso because of this....

"Only a few months have passed since Trayvon Martin was mercilessly gunned down by George Zimmerman in a gated neighborhood in Florida. Conservatives have defended the shooting......."

etc....

Firstly, Martin wasn't 'mercilessly gunned down' as they're still trying to sensationalize. Secondly, it should just be a case of murder, manslaughter or self-defense...and/or civility/respect while dealing with the issue...not a political platform.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I'm not agreeing with the emotional political sentiment in that article, but you really think an internet article writer making a generalization about conservatives is worse than someone celebrating the death of Trayvon Martin, and trying to profit off of it by fueling racist sentiment to go out and shoot black kids for "being thugs"?

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay

I'm not agreeing with the emotional political sentiment in that article, but you really think an internet article writer making a generalization about conservatives is worse than someone celebrating the death of Trayvon Martin, and trying to profit off of it by fueling racist sentiment to go out and shoot black kids for "being thugs"?

In a way, yes because the tastelessness on display with the whole target thing is so easily abhorrent, ridiculous and moronic. It's a bad joke (not as in making light of the actual real situation) on itself, unto itself. But to exploit the opportunity as a political platform is like chasing ambulances...or hearses, in this case. It's like if there was a flasher in public...and someone asked him whether he's a republican or democrat, then using video of him flashing in an election ad. The flasher's act is obscene enough...feeding off of it is even worse.

[Schlosser85]

The people behind both of those statements should be ashamed of themselves. But of course they're not.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Zimmerman could be charged with a federal hate crime:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05...an-hate-crime/

According to the article, there's new evidence, including witnesses and footage, that the public has not yet been made aware of.

Consider the source - I get a lot of these Addicting Info articles on my Facebook because I "like" a couple liberal pages like Americans Against The Tea Party and Being Liberal, and Addicting Info has a huge, blatant liberal bias to it, although this article doesn't seem to have any bias, rather just a reporting of what happened.

I'll be curious to see how this pans out, because while I am personally convinced that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, I haven't exactly felt that this was a hate crime.

[KalMart]

Is that the same source that was exploiting the Martin targets?

Alrighty.....


It won't pan out.

[Mike_D202]

That looks very doubtful. It will be interesting how this case pans out since the "Stand Your Ground" defense failed for this case:

http://news.yahoo.com/stand-ground-d...030038820.html

The judge rejected the defense claiming she had plenty of time to flee, but she CHOSE to go back to the husband.

Zimmerman CHOSE to follow Martin.

[bullets]

This is just getting more ridiculous by the moment.

[KalMart]

I think it was clear from the beginning that Zimmerman chose to keep following/observing Martin...which again isn't against the law, even though he was advised by the dispatch not to. Following to kill him because he was black? No.

But from the looks of it from quite a while back, it looks like the state is trying to set particular precedents against gun violence by elevating charges/judgements against those who specifically use a gun. I.e...if Zimmerman had killed Martin in self-defense with a knife, or a nearby 2x4, he may have stood a better chance of being judged not guilty. But since a gun was used...even though it was legally owned and carried concealed, they're probably still looking to penalize for the fact that it was used in ANY way....hence an automatic elevation from manslaughter to 2nd degree murder. Not the situation, or evidence...but because a gun was used...even with the chance that it was lawful self defense.

Now for some...it's 'Whatever, as long as he's convicted of murder somehow...' Which is also not quite fair unless it's proven beyond reasonable doubt that he did commit murder as defined by state law. It does not look that way despite the tragedy that a young man is dead. But because a gun was used, and not something else in the same situation, he's being tried for murder.

As we've discussed before, though...this could also work in Zimerman's benefit because it has to be proven to be murder beyond reasonable doubt. And with the more time and evidence/witnesses that emerge, it's looking less and less like that. So he could stand an even better chance of going free since murder will be harder to prove than negligent manslaughter or the like which would still carry a heavy prison sentence. If it's "2nd-degree-murder-in-name-because-of-the-use-of-a-gun-even-thought-it's-actually-manslaughter", then it may be a manslaughter trial that they'll book with a more juicy title for the sake of deterrent...and it'll be tougher for Zimmerman because they don'y have to specifically prove murder even though that's what they're calling it.

[VictorCreed]

Originally Posted by bullets

This is just getting more ridiculous by the moment.

it's been pretty ridiculous from the get go. Zimmerman, a guy who is known to profile(call the police on black people constantly and on record, like 40 times) and has assaulted police and has been arrested more than once for violence, how he is being painted as a saint and the actual murder victim is somehow at fault is insane to me.

[VictorCreed]

Originally Posted by KalMart

I think it was clear from the beginning that Zimmerman chose to keep following/observing Martin...which again isn't against the law, even though he was advised by the dispatch not to. Following to kill him because he was black? No.

How about following him to kill him because Zimmerman was on a power trip. It's not Zimmerman's first publicly violent outburst.

And not his first bout with profiling, and racial intolerance.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by VictorCreed

How about following him to kill him because Zimmerman was on a power trip.

Again...technically it's not against the law to follow someone who you suspect of unlawfulness to find out if they are up to no good. To actually physically detain them, different story but still not proven who made the first violent move. It's very unlikely that Zimerman had any thought of killing Martin...after letting the police know who he was, where he was, and what he was doing...until the moment he thought his life was in danger.

Originally Posted by VictorCreed

It's not Zimmerman's first publicly violent outburst.

It also has no relation to it.

Originally Posted by VictorCreed

And not his first bout with profiling, and racial intolerance.

And the black neighbors and friends of his, and the black kids he's actually helped out? Those aren't his first, either.

Zimmerman has been actively outspoken and alert to community crime...and many of those criminals happened to be black. Don't exaggerate...he's not a profiler, and neither is he being painted as a saint. None of this has any more relevance than, say, Martin being kicked out of school more than once on disciplinary issues. It's only about what happened that night and what led up to only it.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

It was either self defense, or 2nd degree murder, not manslaughter. It was not unfortunate negligence that led to Martin's death, it was either self defense, or Zimmerman shot with intent to kill.

Using a gun on someone is not negligence. It is intent.

The question is whether or not that intent was to kill, or whether the intent was to protect himself. I don't believe it is the latter.

I'm curious to see how much legitimacy there is to this new information in regards to witnesses, 911 calls, and footage.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay

It was either self defense, or 2nd degree murder, not manslaughter. It was not unfortunate negligence that led to Martin's death, it was either self defense, or Zimmerman shot with intent to kill.

Using a gun on someone is not negligence. It is intent.

Again, if you use it in self-defense, it's also with intent, but justified. It's being called a possible 2nd degree because a gun was used and Florida is looking to deter gun crime by stiffening it across the board. The negligence was in Zimmerman's choice to follow. Even thought it wasn't illegal...it ultimately might not have been the wisest thing to do.

And I doubt anyone has suggested that he shot simply to 'scare'. He shot in order to defend himself and fully knew that the shot could end up killing him. The question is whether he was fully legally justified to do so, or was he mistaken in thinking that he was because he failed to take measures within his control to avoid a recognizable possibility of death.

Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay

The question is whether or not that intent was to kill, or whether the intent was to protect himself. I don't believe it is the latter.

Why, because he was actually willing to let his head keep being bashed against the pavement because he knew it was going to stop and be okay? Right-o....

There is nothing to even indicate that Zimmerman used or even made his gun's presence known for anything prior to that decision.

Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay

I'm curious to see how much legitimacy there is to this new information in regards to witnesses, 911 calls, and footage.

Read up on it. Any way you look at it, it overweighs the extreme lack of contrary evidence.

[Mike_D202]

It would have been different if Zimmerman was attacked without him following Martin and then he defended himself, the "stand your ground" defense might have worked. But after reading that trial that I posted above, the mandatory state law for firing a gun at/in the direction of someone and you plead "not guilty" is 20 years in prison. It's gonna roll out like this:

Zimmerman followed Martin, believing he was up to no good, tried to detain him, a scuffle occured in which Zimmerman was injured, then he shot Martin.

He's gonna do some time no matter how this turns out.

[KalMart]

Here's another angle which I feel is very important...and something that needs to be stressed more as long as firearm ownership is legal in this country.

If you happen to be carrying...even legally concealed...you could definitely still have no intention of killing someone while entering a possible confrontation. It doesn't make someone automatically looking to use it. BUT...the bigger question is if it somehow emboldens someone to put themselves at more risk because they know they have that gun if it really gets bad...whereas without it, they'd be more apt to avoid a possible confrontation more. If the answer is yes, then it's a real big problem, and people need to be made more aware of this as the wrong reasoning.

It's quite possible that Zimmerman chose unwisely in this sense. No, not looking to kill someone of any color...even if he did turn out to be a criminal....and certainly not, knowing that he called the police and identified himself as being there. But that extra little 'sense of security', where otherwise he might not have followed that extra little bit if he wasn't armed...that's bad, and that needs addressing as part of gun ownership programs or what have you. If anything, once you legally own a gun, you need to be even more legally responsible and take even more measures to avoid confrontations and situations...not feel better equipped to deal with them. This is where I suspect Zimmerman acted unwisely...even though in the moment, he very much was defending his life, and whose only other choice was to let his head be more injured. He should NOT have followed and made that known because he had a gun....it was more responsible to hold off, not to stick his neck out more, BECAUSE he was armed.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by Mike_D202

It would have been different if Zimmerman was attacked without him following Martin and then he defended himself, the "stand your ground" defense might have worked. But after reading that trial that I posted above, the mandatory state law for firing a gun at/in the direction of someone and you plead "not guilty" is 20 years in prison. It's gonna roll out like this:

Zimmerman followed Martin, believing he was up to no good, tried to detain him, a scuffle occured in which Zimmerman was injured, then he shot Martin.

He's gonna do some time no matter how this turns out.

We still don't know clearly. According to Zimmerman, it was Martin who turned violently on him out of anger for being followed, not Zimmerman who decided to press it more physically. Hence a fight ensued, Martin got the upper hand and was bashing his head, and Zimmerman shot because he thought he was going to be seriously hurt.

If Zimmerman tried to detain Martin in any way, it most likely wasn't at gunpoint, as some had surmised. Again, I think Zimmerman should be at least somehow punished for a lack in judgement leading up to the confrontation. In terms of him doing time...as was asked earlier...it kinda' depends on whether it has to be proven to be murder and only murder beyond reasonable doubt, or whether a lesser charge can be settled on if it's not completely murder. If the former, then Zimmerman could actually walk.

But as was basically reiterated in the article you posted, the state is specifically trying to add on the charges when a gun is used in any way...so manslaughter may be enough to get him booked for murder. A kind of 'dealer markup', so to speak.

[VictorCreed]

An old Myspace page of his isnt doing him any favors as far as intent goes

http://news.yahoo.com/old-george-zim...171820649.html

[terry78]

Originally Posted by KalMart

We still don't know clearly. According to Zimmerman, it was Martin who turned violently on him out of anger for being followed, not Zimmerman who decided to press it more physically. Hence a fight ensued, Martin got the upper hand and was bashing his head, and Zimmerman shot because he thought he was going to be seriously hurt.

If Zimmerman tried to detain Martin in any way, it most likely wasn't at gunpoint, as some had surmised. Again, I think Zimmerman should be at least somehow punished for a lack in judgement leading up to the confrontation. In terms of him doing time...as was asked earlier...it kinda' depends on whether it has to be proven to be murder and only murder beyond reasonable doubt, or whether a lesser charge can be settled on if it's not completely murder. If the former, then Zimmerman could actually walk.

But as was basically reiterated in the article you posted, the state is specifically trying to add on the charges when a gun is used in any way...so manslaughter may be enough to get him booked for murder. A kind of 'dealer markup', so to speak.

The fact that he was following makes him the instigator though.

[Scrandy Randy]

Originally Posted by terry78

The fact that he was following makes him the instigator though.

No it doesn't. Whoever started the physical altercation is the instigator.

[Scrandy Randy]

Originally Posted by VictorCreed

it's been pretty ridiculous from the get go. Zimmerman, a guy who is known to profile(call the police on black people constantly and on record, like 40 times)

Wrong. He called for numerous things but it was never specifically or repeatedly about black people.

Originally Posted by VictorCreed

and has assaulted police and has been arrested more than once for violence

Twice. One was a domestic case and the other was nothing and a judge at the bond hearing said as much saying he won't be holding it against Zimmerman.

So no Zimmerman isn't a violent person. How about all of the neighbors that have come out in his defense?

Originally Posted by VictorCreed

how he is being painted as a saint and the actual murder victim is somehow at fault is insane to me.

Not a murder victim. People think the victim is at fault because everything points to him being the one that started the physical altercation and him being the one that actually does have a thing for violence and has an unsavory track record.

Originally Posted by VictorCreed

How about following him to kill him because Zimmerman was on a power trip. It's not Zimmerman's first publicly violent outburst.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by VictorCreed

And not his first bout with profiling, and racial intolerance.

Wrong.

[bullets]

If I was a 17 year old kid being stalked in the middle of the night I'd feel threatened.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by terry78

The fact that he was following makes him the instigator though.

That could very well be true, or end up against him. Even though he could legally follow, he could still be held responsible for the way that the events unfolded afterwards by not choosing not to follow. As I said, I think it was bad judgement.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by bullets

If I was a 17 year old kid being stalked in the middle of the night I'd feel threatened.

He wasn't being stalked....but the 17-yr-old kid could still have felt that or reacted that way.