[ryuclan]

QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 01:59)

I don't understand why this is national news. Racial homicides occur everyday. Do we just pluck one out of a random story generator and feed it to the bored masses through their t.v.s?

Fox news has been doing it for years. Couple days ago they had "breaking news" which turned out to be a rumor about ray j having another sex tape...I sh*t you not.


Lol OT I think this one is big because it was so obvious that almost nothing was done to filter our the truth. When someone asks a policeman why a person was let go and they say "I respect his record. He studied criminal justice blah blah blah," there is obviously something wrong. I believe there are three reasons someone should be let off the hook. Proven innocent, made bail pending trial, time has been served.


Also regarding the hoody. Why on earth would you pursue someone you think is a dangerous individual or more or less someone with evil intentions? Honestly if Im walking down the street and someone is following me in a car, whir talking on a phone about me I'm Roger going to confront them or run the f*ck out of there.

This post has been edited by ryuclan on Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 02:11

[Capricornus]

QUOTE (trip @ Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 00:15)

QUOTE (Capricornus @ Friday, Mar 23 2012, 20:03) Who knew Skittles and Iced Tea were so dangerous to another being? And to think the only people that benefit from this is the company that make Skittles. Their f*cking sales must have starting going crazy. You almost can't read an article on this issue without coming across a mention of Skittles. It's like product placement at this point. After reading one of the new articles on it today I wanted a bag of Skittles.

Yes indeed Trip. I said to myself, upon hearing of this story, that Skittles would sell like I don't know what, At the time I thought it was a crazy thing to say but its true.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Friday, Mar 23 2012, 20:59)

I don't understand why this is national news. Racial homicides occur everyday. Do we just pluck one out of a random story generator and feed it to the bored masses through their t.v.s?

This one is important because the police aren't arresting the killer. The FBI is going to claim jurisdiction now as a hate crime probably because of the coon remarks on the recording. Much better than the f*cking Sanford Florida police doing it.

[Gtaman_92]

I think this guy is guilty as f*ck. If this was a white kid the guy would not have pursue and shot him. Its obvious this is a racial thing, luckly the fbi is now looking into this. This type of sh*t is why some people hate america, this reminds me of that soilder who shot up some innocent afgan people for no reason 2 weeks ago.

[Typhus]

Wasn't he just bringing some some candy for his sick brother? I don't know why you'd actively follow a man and shoot him because he might do something naughty in the foreseeable future.

I don't think it's as much a racial issue as one of paranoia and obvious boundary issues. This man believed himself to be on the level of police, thus why he felt qualified to chase him down the road. An obvious fantasist, I'm sure it felt very thrilling at the time and no doubt he thought he would be lauded as a hero, a man who kept his insignificant pissing grounds "safe".

But even a racist would know that there's nothing heroic about chasing a man down and shooting him as he cries for help. That's murder, not self-defense, murder. He sought this man out and ultimately felt qualified enough to end his life on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing.
Murder, plain and simple.

[Attorney General]

QUOTE (08LasVenturas @ Friday, Mar 23 2012, 20:50)

He has a point that the hoodie he wore made him look bad. If you saw a black male at night with a hoodie with the hood on, I GUARANTEE the first thing to come to mind is "thug", whether he is or not.

No doubt. The first thing I think when I see someone wearing a hoodie in the rain is "this guy looks like a gangbanger". Get the f*ck outta here.

QUOTE (Typhus @ Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 02:06)

But even a racist would know that there's nothing heroic about chasing a man down and shooting him as he cries for help. That's murder, not self-defense, murder. He sought this man out and ultimately felt qualified enough to end his life on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing. Murder, plain and simple.

I think you have to reserve judgement for now. Not knowing all the facts...I can see both sides of the argument. It's just too bad that Martin, who by all accounts was a good kid, ended up dying. What a f*cking shame.

Read a piece last week written by Leonard Pitts that said...

QUOTE

How can you get out of your truck against police advice, instigate a fight, get your nose bloodied in said fight, shoot the person you were fighting with, and claim self-defense? If anyone was defending himself, wasn't it Trayvon Martin?

And if that's the way it all went down (which is no certainty, mind you), he's absolutely 100% right.




However, I don' think we can say with absolute certainty that the scenario he's implying is true. At this point, facts we do know won't necessarily be enough to convict Zimmerman. At the very least, dude was reckless and impulsive...and he was probably profiling the kid because he was black. But...all that doesn't make him guilty of murder.

The 911 call made by Zimmerman apparently included something to the effect of Martin having his hand in his waist as well as him being the one who approached Zimmerman. Both those assertions complicate things legally, and mean Zimmerman's not nearly as conclusively guilty as he's being portrayed. Plus there were witnesses that claimed they saw the kid on top of Zimmerman beating the sh*t out of him, though I think they may have retracted that statement afterwards.

The law related to the case is pretty interesting. Stand Your Ground Law is an extension of Castle Doctrine. In short, it means that deadly force is acceptable when a person feels reasonably threatened. There is no duty to retreat here...and a person may "shoot first". The history behind this precedent goes back to a case the US Supreme Court presided over called Brown v. United States. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in his opinion that

QUOTE

If a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence.

QUOTE

...

QUOTE

Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.

It's an interesting talking point legally, but a f*cking moral atrocity in this instance. All we can do at this point is wait for forensic evidence and maybe ballistic reports to come to light seeing as the PD botched the f*ck outta the crime scene, didn't drug test Zimmerman and didn't take his clothing to check blood splatter. F*cking bang up job all around.

[K^2]

I'm not sure police can do anything here. Ok, so lets say they arrest the guy. DA needs to press charges. Say, DA get pressured into pressing charges. Say, even, that the jury finds the guy guilty, which is not guaranteed by any means. This will start off an entire chain of appeals. As a result, you'll either end up not being able to shoot a guy who broke into your house, because you'd be afraid of going to jail for it, or the appeal will actually go through, and it will make it even easier to shoot someone on the street and claim self defense.

What people should be talking about is how we can modify the laws to make these sort of things easier to prosecute without causing a whole lot of fallout. Just going after this particular shooting would only cause more problems down the line.

[Slamman]

At least they got the guy accused, HANG 'EM in the public square. Seems the crowd want him strung up.
Anywho, maybe they should ban hoodies, after all, I'm scared when I'm approached by some mean lookin' dude on a dark street, or a gang of peeps who look like thugs, and up to no good. The problem may seem SILLY to you, but it's why this happens in the first place. Crime in poverty stricken areas makes them naturally unsafe to be in, as I see it.

That being said, my own opinion, the President's speech getting accolades also strikes me as silly, not to make light of it, but it just make me laugh a bit, as he is notably our first 'black' President. Race relations are always called into question even in regard to politics now

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Attorney General @ Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 07:54)

The law related to the case is pretty interesting. Stand Your Ground Law is an extension of Castle Doctrine. In short, it means that deadly force is acceptable when a person feels reasonably threatened. There is no duty to retreat here...and a person may "shoot first". The history behind this precedent goes back to a case the US Supreme Court presided over called Brown v. United States. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in his opinion that QUOTE If a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence. QUOTE ... QUOTE Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. It's an interesting talking point legally, but a f*cking moral atrocity in this instance. All we can do at this point is wait for forensic evidence and maybe ballistic reports to come to light seeing as the PD botched the f*ck outta the crime scene, didn't drug test Zimmerman and didn't take his clothing to check blood splatter. F*cking bang up job all around.

Didn't the writer of the "Stand Your Ground" law come out earlier in the week and essentially say "these are categorically not the circumstances in which they law should be used, and George Zimmerman should not have been permitted to invoke the law". Also, it's the second shot on the recordings that gets me. You can estimate by the sound and ferocity of Martin's scream that the first shot was probably incapacitating, so why spend three seconds readjusting and shooting him again? It's not as if it was a swift double-tap, the second shot was clearly calculated.

[Icarus]

QUOTE (Slamman @ Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 01:08)

At least they got the guy accused, HANG 'EM in the public square. Seems the crowd want him strung up.

Even though you are a moron, you must be aware of something the United States has that's called due process.

Seriously, read your Constitution one day. You might actually learn something, god forbid.

[Robinski]

QUOTE (K^2 @ Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 06:59)

I'm not sure police can do anything here. Ok, so lets say they arrest the guy. DA needs to press charges. Say, DA get pressured into pressing charges. Say, even, that the jury finds the guy guilty, which is not guaranteed by any means. This will start off an entire chain of appeals. As a result, you'll either end up not being able to shoot a guy who broke into your house, because you'd be afraid of going to jail for it, or the appeal will actually go through, and it will make it even easier to shoot someone on the street and claim self defense.

I know very little (i.e. nothing) about how judicial precedent works in the US, but how would that even happen?This case has nothing to do with any sort of home invasion, break+entering or any of the types of theft. There was only a guy who was (unjustly) the subject of suspicion, that he might do something vaguely bad. Surely it could only affect how you are permitted to treat individuals who you suspect are going to commit a crime, something which is pretty different from confronting a dude who's broken into your living room?

QUOTE (Slamman)

Anywho, maybe they should ban hoodies, after all, I'm scared when I'm approached by some mean lookin' dude on a dark street, or a gang of peeps who look like thugs, and up to no good.

That's your problem, not anyone else's. I thought freedom of expression was a pretty big thing in the states? That extends to fashion, and if I want to shield my hair from the rain without an umbrella, or keep my head warm without wearing a hat or simply want to fly under the radar a bit, I'll be wearing a damn hood. I wear a hood up a lot when I'm walking around at night because my city can be windy as sh*t. Do I take it down when I'm going to walk past someone I think might be intimidated? Yes, I do. But I do it because I want to, you can't force people to do sh*t like that just because you don't like it.

This post has been edited by Robinski on Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 10:09

[Typhus]

QUOTE (Slamman @ Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 07:08)

At least they got the guy accused, HANG 'EM in the public square. Seems the crowd want him strung up. Anywho, maybe they should ban hoodies, after all, I'm scared when I'm approached by some mean lookin' dude on a dark street, or a gang of peeps who look like thugs, and up to no good.

Your suggestion is risible. Are you honestly suggesting that the end result of this entire pointless tragedy is to ban an item of clothing? That would imply that this gentleman had due cause to be nervous of the man he killed, that he acted out of fear, and had the victim simply dressed in a different fashion, he would not have driven Zimmerman to kill him.
It's a reactionary, absurd idea.

[Slamman]

The end result is to improve race relations, and for Black Americans to think about why there is this stigma, how to address it, there were a number of valid points made in the press I saw (on TV)

[lil weasel]

The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:
• It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.
• In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
• In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
• If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

QUOTE (April 27 @ 2005 By Sean Mussenden, Tallahassee Bureau)

Bush signed into law a broad new expansion of the "castle doctrine" -- an old legal tenet giving residents the license to kill criminals while protecting their home. Under current Florida law, a person attacked in any public place -- a supermarket, a bar, a library -- must first attempt to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. The new measure, which takes effect in October, removes the obligation to flee, allowing people to legally kill their attackers if they feel threatened. "When you're in a position where you're being threatened -- a life-threatening situation -- to have to retreat and put yourself in a very precarious position defies common sense," Bush said. Earlier this session, the bill passed the House overwhelmingly and the Senate unanimously. Critics decried the measure, saying that by encouraging people to stand up to attackers instead of running, the state has essentially legalized dueling, which will lead to more deaths. The law gets Florida closer to the "wild, wild West," said Rep. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood. Former NRA president Marion Hammer, who watched Bush sign the legislation, called those arguments "silly." "Existing law is on the side of the criminal," she said later in a statement. "The new law is on the side of the law-abiding victim."

This post has been edited by lil weasel on Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 11:16

[sivispacem]

So, in essence, it could be interpreted as enabling individuals to presume guilt or innocence on a third party, react violently to this presumption and then use it to defend themselves on the grounds of "innocent until proven guilty", a luxury their actions never entitled their victim to?

What an absurd law. I believe strongly that the onus should be on the shooter to demonstrate their innocence, not have it presumed if nothing comes to light suggesting they did not act in self defence.

Edited to remove (at least some) Android-induced spelling errors.

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 12:05

[abottig]

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Friday, Mar 23 2012, 19:32)

Guh... More Facebook activism.  I don't know if the guy murdered him or not because there isn't enough conclusive evidence either way. It's idiotic to declare his guilt or innocence without more evidence (assumptions aren't an adequate reason to throw someone into a little cage for the rest of their life).  I do find it interesting to see the number of people zealously demanding him to be thrown in prison for the rest of his life, though. Mob mentality at its finest... I'm glad I don't live in Florida because, rest assured, their politicians will have a steaming pile of knee jerk legislation to remove self defense / second amendment rights.

Why don't you try reading about what happened before dismissing this as Facebook activism?

He(Zimmerman) calls the kid a "f*cking coon" before stalking and killing him. Neighbors heard a scuffle and a child screaming for help, then BAM... Silence.

The only reason he wasn't arrested is because he invoked "self defense". In Flori-duh that means you can shoot anyone whom you feel "threatened by".



This post has been edited by abottig on Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 13:07

[lil weasel]

The Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

How a DA will actually view the law is for a Grand Jury to decide and then a Criminal Trial Jury. So far the main view by law enforcement is the 'shooter' gets to stay free until an arrrest warrent is issued.
Previously a person would be arrested and spend months or years in jail until the case was thrown out.

What do we have here a law thats Seven years old and now it suddenly goes bust because a Latino shoots another minority? It makes a difference who the target is?
You should note that in the south (like Texas) a Hispanic/Latino is considered 'white' to keep the schools segragated. You know the proper mix of white and negro, whereas in the norther states they are three different factors.

[abottig]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 09:05)

The Florida Statutes   Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27. How a DA will actually view the law is for a Grand Jury to decide and then a Criminal Trial Jury.  So far the main view by law enforcement is the 'shooter' gets to stay free until an arrrest warrent is issued. Previously a person would be arrested and spend months or years in jail until the case was thrown out. What do we have here a law thats Seven years old and now it suddenly goes bust because a Latino shoots another minority? It makes a difference who the target is? You should note that in the south (like Texas) a Hispanic/Latino is considered 'white' to keep the schools segragated. You know the proper mix of white and negro, whereas in the norther states they are three different factors.

Even the Republican who wrote the law says it shouldn't apply to this case:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Zimmerman-Trayvo...03/23/id/433671

QUOTE

“There is nothing . . . in Florida statutes that authenticates or provides for the opportunity to pursue and confront individuals, it simply protects those who would be potential victims by allowing for force to be used in self-defense.”

Nor does Zimmerman's own lawyer:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/24/justice/flor...ting/?hpt=ju_c2

QUOTE

"In my legal opinion, that's not really applicable to this case. The statute on 'stand your ground' is primarily when you're in your house," said Craig Sonner, attorney for George Zimmerman. "This is self-defense, and that's been around for forever -- that you have a right to defend yourself. So the next issue (that) is going to come up is, was he justified in using the amount of force he did?"

With that said, Zimmerman clearly stalked this kid, after calling him a "f*cking coon", initiated a struggle and blew him away. All while neighbors could hear a child screaming for help. Self-defense doesn't even apply here

[ryuclan]

QUOTE (Slamman @ Saturday, Mar 24 2012, 10:44)

The end result is to improve race relations, and for Black Americans to think about why there is this stigma, how to address it, there were a number of valid points made in the press I saw (on TV)

What exactly do you want us to do? Dress know a three piece suit whenever walking to the store? Call you sir whenever I see you? Do a lil dance fo ya?

[08LasVenturas]

QUOTE (The Killa @ Friday, Mar 23 2012, 21:55)

So shall he wear a suit and tie next time he goes to the convenience store? You can't go by some fashion trend among youth to immediately identify them as a threat to your life, and in absolutely no means is it excusable to shoot them.

By all means wearing a hoodie or looking suspicious does NOT justify him shooting. But the way Geraldo worded his statement made it sound as if he said "He deserved to be killed because he was wearing a hoodie". In reality, he was most likely addressing how kids, especially minority youth, should be careful of the way they dress so that they don't look suspicious. However, most of America didn't really think about that so they just jumped down his throat about it. Yes, maybe Geraldo should've worded it differently, but he has a good point.

I read an article today that better sums up what he was trying to say. I couldn't get the quote to work but look at the link. It's about two African-American mothers talking about how they tell their sons to act in public so that they aren't perceived as threatening (e.g., take off the hood, hands out of pockets, smile, don's follow women) even though the boys are well-rounded kids. And the kids say that they feel people tense up when they walk past them on the bus, and how store clerks look at them in a different way. Unfortunately, the behaviors of some people have ruined it for the rest. This is America for ya.