Travon Martin - Liberals versus Conservatives

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Well, apparently this 'Zimmerman defender' must be a neo-con, at least according to some of the ranting posters here.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/10/opinio...html?hpt=hp_c1

What cunning subterfuge! And here I was all prepared to condemn (in "rant" form, natch) those radical assertions (as they did not call for the immediate hunting down and lynching of Zimmerman) as being made by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or possibly Voldemort only to find out it was actually Alan Dershowitz!

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by curi0us

If Zimmerman is "entirely innocent" then it really isn't fair to say Martin was gunned down. The circumstances of the shooting would be that the fight was started by Martin throwing a sucker punch and Zimmerman screaming for help for over a minute while losing the fight badly. Much of the fight takes place with Zimmerman on his back and Martin on top beating him. Zimmerman takes multiple blows to the head and by the time the gun is in play he is probably concussed and operating not just out of fear but also with diminished mental capacity.

Zimmerman had a gun and chose to follow TM. "entirely innocent" doesn't figure into it. That doesn't mean that TM is entirely innocent either (though he may well be, I don't know). At the very least we are talking negligence (assuming GZ wasn't innocently looking for street signs).

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Travis

So what did Martin do that made him deserving of being gunned down?

Well, apparently Martin beat Zimmerman so badly that he turned into a white man.

[JeanFromBNA]

I've got to agree with RandFan on his summary of GZ's responsibility. GZ ignored every safety precaution, and put himself, bystanders, and the police needlessly in danger. He didn't know who TM was when he called the police, he didn't know if he was armed, sober, or sane. This could have been even more tragic than it already is, and GZ has the responsibility for his poor judgment.

Two years ago, when I woke to the sound of someone trying to break in our basement and called 911, they told me to "stay in the house." We listened to the police. As my husband told the police later, "If they come in the house, they're my problem. As long as they stay outside, they're your problem."

[KatieG]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

This pretty much describes me to a tee too. Although technically we aren't really "taking GZ's side". Heck once all the evidence comes out I may think the caricature of him above is accurate after all.

He certainly isn't doing himself any good by putting up that website! That site is a disaster. That insane TV appearance by the 2 legal clowns almost made me feel sorry for GZ. That's the best legal advice team he can get?

Right now I wish someone would step up, make a damn decision and get on with things. There is evidence or there isn't. Dilly dallying around is only making things worse, regardless of the decision. If the delay is caused by carefully going over all the evidence and the law with the Martin's, I can understand that. They have a dead son.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by JeanFromBNA

I've got to agree with RandFan on his summary of GZ's responsibility. GZ ignored every safety precaution, and put himself, bystanders, and the police needlessly in danger. He didn't know who TM was when he called the police, he didn't know if he was armed, sober, or sane. This could have been even more tragic than it already is, and GZ has the responsibility for his poor judgment.

Two years ago, when I woke to the sound of someone trying to break in our basement and called 911, they told me to "stay in the house." We listened to the police. As my husband told the police later, "If they come in the house, they're my problem. As long as they stay outside, they're your problem."

Makes the dispatcher's advice all the more prescient.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by KatieG

Right now I wish someone would step up, make a damn decision and get on with things. There is evidence or there isn't.

Yep, as a layman I'd love to understand how it can take so long to analyze the evidence and come to a conclusion. Or what else they are doing? More interviews with witnesses?

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

I worded my statement very poorly, my apologies.

Apology accepted.

Quote:

As to which of those facts are in dispute, you included a lot of interpretation that many people disagree with in the other thread. But again, not the purpose of this thread, and I'm not trying to prove you wrong or even saying I disagree, all I'm saying is that many people see those as interpretations not facts.

I was careful to include only facts, but people will still interpret them. And of course all facts are provisional so anything can be disputed, right? However, disputing well known facts and/or interpreting them in a peculiar manner, may lead to accusations of blind partisanship or intellectual dishonesty.

You said 'the more I read the more concerned I started to become about the narrative that was being spun based on little evidence'. Fair enough, so why can't you just ignore the 'narrative' and stick with the evidence? But instead you dismiss all the evidence as 'interpretation'.

Quote:

I really believe that I don't know if sufficient facts have been presented to warrant an arrest because I don't have all the facts, whereas the prosecutor does.

The prosecutor certainly does not have all the the facts. Nobody has all the facts.

The police thought they had enough evidence...
(Reuters) Trayvon Martin: Before the world heard

Quote:

Serino was eager to bring a charge but encountered resistance from the office of the prosecutor, State Attorney Norman Wolfinger.

"Chris (Serino) would have made a recommendation for manslaughter, but Norm Wolfinger's office wanted it to be a slam dunk,"..."They don't want to hear that this is wrong or that is wrong with the case."

...but the prosecutor disagreed.

Perhaps it was just a matter of efficiency, or maybe he thought that losing the case would be too embarrassing. The way things are going now though, not prosecuting it may be causing more embarrassment than losing a weak case.

My opinion is that the case should be prosecuted even if it is not a 'slam dunk'. Then if Zimmerman is found not guilty due to lack of evidence, nobody can rightfully accuse the justice system of being biased. The 'overwhelmingly liberal' types would have to admit that it wasn't obvious that 'GZ is a murderer and racist', while the 'overwhelmingly conservative' types should be satisfied that the facts have been looked at. Finally, Zimmerman would be vindicated and free to get on with his life.

If the case goes to trial and Zimmerman is found guilty, it will be because the facts were proved beyond reasonable doubt. Once again both sides should be happy. Admittedly not so good for Zimmerman, but maybe next time he will think twice...

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

I was careful to include only facts, but people will still interpret them. And of course all facts are provisional so anything can be disputed, right? However, disputing well known facts and/or interpreting them in a peculiar manner, may lead to accusations of blind partisanship or intellectual dishonesty.

You said 'the more I read the more concerned I started to become about the narrative that was being spun based on little evidence'. Fair enough, so why can't you just ignore the 'narrative' and stick with the evidence? But instead you dismiss all the evidence as 'interpretation'.

Oh come on:

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

The facts as we know them are that an unarmed person, who was just minding his own business, was hunted down and killed by a vigilante who mistook him for a criminal. Perhaps the shooting itself was in self-defense, but the shooter should not have put himself in that position in the first place. We know that the police were on the way, and he was advised to wait for them and not take the law into his own hands. Unfortunately he ignored that advice.

"Hunted down"? "Advised to wait for them and not take the law into their own hands"? These are colored interpretations of what happened and my stating so does not mean I am "dismissing all evidence as interpretation". The facts are that the 911 operator said "you don't have to do that". The facts are that GZ followed TM, not "hunted him down".

Quote:

The prosecutor certainly does not have all the the facts. Nobody has all the facts.

Oh come on again. This type of nitpicking over semantics adds nothing to the conversation. Next time I'll make sure to add something like "the prosecutor probably has more facts than anyone else except for omnipresent God if there is an omnipresent God".

[curi0us]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Zimmerman had a gun and chose to follow TM. "entirely innocent" doesn't figure into it. That doesn't mean that TM is entirely innocent either (though he may well be, I don't know). At the very least we are talking negligence (assuming GZ wasn't innocently looking for street signs).[/b]

"Entirely innocent" was from me quoting you.

There have been a few times where I heard hard to identify screams from a park next to my house where I just went for a short walk to make sure everything was ok myself. I could have called the police but wasn't even sure if it there was even a problem, plus if someone really did need help I was very close and the police would take a while. Nothing ever came of those incidents but what if something had? At least Zimmerman thought to call 911 first, I didn't even do that. Two times I was pretty sure it was just boisterous teen agers (and it was) but one time heard a weird yell that sounded like it was cut short, or muffled. Then I heard nothing. I was out the door so quick I forgot my cellphone. Was that a mistake?

What if one of those nights I ran into someone with malevolent intent who sucker punched me. I didn't bring a gun, but I'm a legit 6'3" benching 350lb with a little training for emphasis. If it came down to it I wouldn't be pulling punches out of concern for an attackers safety. I honestly believe that I could kill person with my bare hands in less then 44 seconds. It's unlikely but very possible, particularly if there was a hard object like stone or concrete to smash someone's head into. It seems like Martin was doing something similar to Zimmerman. There was an incident from my youth in San Francisco where a man was killed by a single punch. It can happen.

Humans don't need weapons to be deadly, young men especially. The gun is a red herring. Before people worry about the gun worry about why the violence was happening in the first place. What if Zimmerman didn't have a gun? For the people who think one should just let the police handle crimes how can you defend not trusting the police to do a proper investigation?

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by curi0us

"Entirely innocent" was from me quoting you.

There have been a few times where I heard hard to identify screams from a park next to my house where I just went for a short walk to make sure everything was ok myself. I could have called the police but wasn't even sure if it there was even a problem, plus if someone really did need help I was very close and the police would take a while. Nothing ever came of those incidents but what if something had? At least Zimmerman thought to call 911 first, I didn't even do that. Two times I was pretty sure it was just boisterous teen agers (and it was) but one time heard a weird yell that sounded like it was cut short, or muffled. Then I heard nothing. I was out the door so quick I forgot my cellphone. Was that a mistake?

What if one of those nights I ran into someone with malevolent intent who sucker punched me. I didn't bring a gun, but I'm a legit 6'3" benching 350lb with a little training for emphasis. If it came down to it I wouldn't be pulling punches out of concern for an attackers safety. I honestly believe that I could kill person with my bare hands in less then 44 seconds. It's unlikely but very possible, particularly if there was a hard object like stone or concrete to smash someone's head into. It seems like Martin was doing something similar to Zimmerman. There was an incident from my youth in San Francisco where a man was killed by a single punch. It can happen.

Humans don't need weapons to be deadly, young men especially. The gun is a red herring. Before people worry about the gun worry about why the violence was happening in the first place. What if Zimmerman didn't have a gun? For the people who think one should just let the police handle crimes how can you defend not trusting the police to do a proper investigation?

Your one of the ones that sees how prevalent 20/20 hindsight is in this case and how it can make everything appear "obvious" once you know what the outcome was. As I've said in the other thread, if it ended up that whoever GZ followed was a rapist and he stopped a break-in, he'd be being hailed as a hero for following and not taking the safe route. People would be saying stuff like "here's someone who put his neck out and didn't just call the police and do nothing". I do question the wisdom of his actions, but I also know that we're jumping to conclusions about those actions without knowing what transpired in between the moment he followed and the moment that the confrontation took place.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by curi0us

"Entirely innocent" was from me quoting you.

My point is that even granting that Martin had no malicious intent he was at best negligent.

Quote:

There have been a few times where I heard hard to identify screams from a park next to my house where I just went for a short walk to make sure everything was ok myself. I could have called the police but wasn't even sure if it there was even a problem, plus if someone really did need help I was very close and the police would take a while. Nothing ever came of those incidents but what if something had? At least Zimmerman thought to call 911 first, I didn't even do that. Two times I was pretty sure it was just boisterous teen agers (and it was) but one time heard a weird yell that sounded like it was cut short, or muffled. Then I heard nothing. I was out the door so quick I forgot my cellphone. Was that a mistake?

When you have a gun you bear the responsibility for your decisions. Yeah, I think it was a mistake but it's not illegal. If you kill someone who wasn't committing a crime when you confront them then I will say you were also negligent.

Quote:

The gun is a red herring.

Quote:

Responsible adults can still be a threat to public safety if they are armed. Between 1996 and 2000, the Violence Policy Center found that concealed handgun permit holders in Texas were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 81% higher than the general Texas population (149 KB) . [34] Between May 2007 and Mar. 24, 2010, at least nine law enforcement officers and 142 private citizens were killed nationally by concealed handgun permit holders (approximately 0.003% of all murders in that time period). [14] [15]

Look, I'm not arguing for increased gun control. But the idea that being armed is no more likely to result in death than not being armed is just nonsense. At the very least society can ask for and expect responsibility for being armed. Even the NRA and most if not all gun rights groups admit to that much.

Originally Posted by Iowa Permit To Carry

HFI believes owning, using and carrying a firearm is a heavy burden and possibly one of the single greatest responsibilities never to be taken lightl

y.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by curi0us

Humans don't need weapons to be deadly, young men especially. The gun is a red herring. Before people worry about the gun worry about why the violence was happening in the first place. What if Zimmerman didn't have a gun? For the people who think one should just let the police handle crimes how can you defend not trusting the police to do a proper investigation?

Yes, clearly the gun is a red herring. Obviously, Zimmerman - who had already exhibited level-headed decision-making in the events leading up to the altercation - had the gun safely holstered the entire time until he was forced to use it. We can take it as an incontrovertible fact that he didn't, say, draw the gun at some point earlier or display it in a threatening manner that would cause Martin to fear for his safety.

With everything we've learned about Zimmerman, it would be ludicrous to suggest he might have at any time during or leading up to the altercation been overzealous or irresponsible in the handling of his weapon.

Quite frankly, I think we should impose a moratorium on mentioning the gun. It really is that unimportant of a detail in how events unfolded. The only true threat in this entire situation was and always has been Trayvon Martin and his vicious death punch.

That should be our focus.

[Unabogie]

George Zimmerman is a shining example of good judgement. Just ask his lawyers...er...Hannity.

[curi0us]

Originally Posted by RandFan

My point is that even granting that Martin had no malicious intent he was at best negligent.

There are too may unknowns to say that with certainty. It is possible that Zimmerman was far worse then negligent but it is also possible he wasn't negligent at all.

Quote:

When you have a gun you bear the responsibility for your decisions.

^That is why I said the gun is red herring.

EVERYBODY should bear the responsibility for their decisions.

Quote:

Yeah, I think it was a mistake but it's not illegal.

Why was it a mistake?

What would you have done?

Do you know how long it takes for the police to get on the scene where you live?

Quote:

If you kill someone who wasn't committing a crime when you confront them then I will say you were also negligent.

That answer doesn't make any sense if you look at my example. I described a person with "malevolent intent" throwing a sucker punch. That's a crime. In my example nobody is killed, or even injured at all if the malevolent person didn't start the fight by committing the crime of assault. So if the other person clearly started the fight but I kill them while defending myself am I negligent?

Quote:

Look, I'm not arguing for increased gun control. But the idea that being armed is no more likely to result in death than not being armed is just nonsense. At the very least society can ask for and expect responsibility for being armed. Even the NRA and most if not all gun rights groups admit to that much.

Strawman land. I never said being "armed is no more likely to result in death not being armed" and that very clearly wasn't my argument. My point is that even unarmed people can cause death and there is no reason why society shouldn't expect everyone to act responsible. I was confronted two weeks ago by someone armed with a gun (who probably had profiled me) and I didn't freak out on them. I just talked to them and they realized their error and it wasn't a big deal.

You've misread my posts and positions completely. I don't own a gun, never have, and I don't care very much about gun rights either way. Unprovoked violence is the issue I care about.

Have you ever been in a fight like Zimmerman and Martin were in? Listen to the 911 screams and imagine if there was no gunshot at 44 seconds. Then consider that police were only on the scene so quick because Zimmerman had called them 8 minutes earlier. Imagine another 7 minutes of screams like those first 44 seconds.

[Temecula]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

Anyhow, I'd be interested in know where others fall in terms of their summary position and political affiliation, for those willing to share.

Straight Democratic Ticket Voter.
"Liberal" or "left" on most issues.
Totally stoked about socialism.
Atheist.
Gun Owner. (where I depart from "traditional" dems/liberals)
US citizen.

There is not enough information for the general public to make any decision about the events of that night. I don't have any judgment of the events, but I reject quite a few claims made by other people. For example I see people making accusations of racism based on public information, but I don't see any grounds for that accusation in the information. I also noticed that the discussions on this topic often include many voices that say that the events are irrelevant, and the outcome of a dead unarmed teen being slain by an armed man alone is enough for charges against the armed man. I disagree.If Zimmerman's story is indeed true, he should be free and clear. I think people should think twice before attacking another person physically, because they might get shot if they go too far. There should be no civil or criminal liability for self defense. Finally, the way this story is being handled by the media, is IMO clearly intended in most instances to support and promote a certain narrative of racial injustice and wrongful death, and this has resulted in this being the prevailing opinion in social media. Modern technology is allowing us to see in real time how the media can influence and manipulate public opinion on a hot button issue in one or two news cycles.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by curi0us

There are too may unknowns to say that with certainty. It is possible that Zimmerman was far worse then negligent but it is also possible he wasn't negligent at all.

No. There was nothing that made his actions necessary.

Quote:

^That is why I said the gun is red herring.

And that is why you are wrong.

Quote:

EVERYBODY should bear the responsibility for their decisions.

Not everyone carries a gun. That's the part you are bending over backwards to avoid.

Quote:

Why was it a mistake?

A gun significantly increases the likelihood of harm with little upside (see previously posted stats).

Originally Posted by curi0us

Have you ever been in a fight like Zimmerman and Martin were in?

Here's a hint, I'm not so **** ing stupid as to go chasing paranoid fantasies with a firearm. If I were playing neighborhood watch I wouldn't have a gun by my side and if I saw something suspicious I'd call the police and let them do their job. I DAMN SURE would never be in Zimmerman's shoes because I'm not a god damn idiot.

You?

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Temecula

Straight Democratic Ticket Voter.
"Liberal" or "left" on most issues.
Totally stoked about socialism.
Atheist.
Gun Owner. (where I depart from "traditional" dems/liberals)
US citizen.

There is not enough information for the general public to make any decision about the events of that night. I don't have any judgment of the events, but I reject quite a few claims made by other people. For example I see people making accusations of racism based on public information, but I don't see any grounds for that accusation in the information. I also noticed that the discussions on this topic often include many voices that say that the events are irrelevant, and the outcome of a dead unarmed teen being slain by an armed man alone is enough for charges against the armed man. I disagree.If Zimmerman's story is indeed true, he should be free and clear. I think people should think twice before attacking another person physically, because they might get shot if they go too far. There should be no civil or criminal liability for self defense.

Interesting break down on the political side. Good post.

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by Temecula

I think people should think twice before attacking another person physically, because they might get shot if they go too far. There should be no civil or criminal liability for self defense.

Complete agreement.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Temecula

I think people should think twice before attacking another person physically, because they might get shot if they go too far.

I think if Zimmerman had the chance to think twice he wouldn't have put on his super hero cape and armed himself. I would suggest others should think twice before they play super hero.

Think I'm wrong? Ask Zimmerman who is in hiding.

And hey, unlike your scenario I don't have to assume anything.

[Temecula]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I think if Zimmerman had the chance to think twice he wouldn't have put on his super hero cape and armed himself. I would suggest others should think twice before they play super hero.

Think I'm wrong? Ask Zimmerman who is in hiding.

And hey, unlike your scenario I don't have to assume anything.

According to his statement he was on his way back from a run to a store, not out on patrol. Arming yourself is hardly extraordinary behavior. Keeping an eye out in your neighborhood is not playing super hero. Why are you treating my hypothetical as an assumption? Care to try again without the exaggeration?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Temecula

According to his statement he was on his way back from a run to a store, not out on patrol. Arming yourself is hardly extraordinary behavior. Keeping an eye out in your neighborhood is not playing super hero. Why are you treating my hypothetical as an assumption? Care to try again without the exaggeration?

No exaggeration. I wouldn't have gotten out of my car with a firearm (I wouldn't have one in the first place) but if I did I damn sure wouldn't try to keep a suspicious person in sight by getting out of my car and following him or her.

No, I don't at all care to try again, other than getting out of the car to look at street signs Zimmerman is an idiot. And hey, he told the dispatcher he was following Martin. I'm just not that dumb.

You?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I wouldn't have gotten out of my car with a firearm (I wouldn't have one in the first place) but if I did I damn sure wouldn't try to keep a suspicious person in sight by getting out of my care and following him or her.

What is it that people don't get about this? Okay, the law gives you the right to play cop. Fine. If you kill someone and have to hide that's your own damn fault. Don't come crying to me.

I won't be that person. Know why? Look, I'm happy to report suspicious activity but I'll leave the super hero **** to those who have actually been trained. I haven't been trained and because I have the brains god gave a billy goat, I actually know that chasing strangers with a gun can end badly. Absent clear and present danger, what good inveighs against the risk? And BTW, buying a gun doesn't suddenly make me competent to play cops and robbers.

You?

[Temecula]

Originally Posted by RandFan

No exaggeration.

Yeah, no exaggeration whatsoever.

Originally Posted by RandFan

I wouldn't have gotten out of my car with a firearm (I wouldn't have one in the first place) but if I did I damn sure wouldn't try to keep a suspicious person in sight by getting out of my car and following him or her.

So?

Originally Posted by RandFan

No, I don't at all care to try again, other than getting out of the car to look at street signs Zimmerman is an idiot. And hey, he told the dispatcher he was following Martin. I'm just not that dumb.

Because the only possible explanation for Zimmerman's course of action was stupidity in your mind. There is no logical reason to limit it to only that. For all you know he had a sense of duty, or he could have been secretly yearning for the chance to shoot someone. Maybe he didn't want this guy to get away without the cops having a chance to look into him. I can think of a lot of reasons Zimmerman might have done what he claimed to do, but I guess that's because I'm not trying to stifle discussion.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Temecula

Yeah, no exaggeration whatsoever.

Yeah, no.

Quote:

So?

Not being an idiot speaks for itself.

Quote:

Because the only possible explanation for Zimmerman's course of action was stupidity in your mind. There is no logical reason to limit it to only that.

Having a firearm calls for responsibility. IMO, people shouldn't be able to play with people's lives.

Quote:

For all you know he had a sense of duty

A sense of duty doesn't justify his actions.

Quote:

Maybe he didn't want this guy to get away without the cops having a chance to look into him.

Doesn't justify the fact that Martin is dead. What's so hard to understand about that simple fact?

• No crime had been committed.
• There was no clear and present danger.

What Zimmerman "wanted" is irrelevant.

Quote:

I can think of a lot of reasons Zimmerman might have done what he claimed to do, but I guess that's because I'm not trying to stifle discussion.

I'm not trying to stifle discussion. I'm trying to point out plain and simple facts. Martin didn't need to die. Zimmerman didn't need to follow Martin as no crime had been committed and there was no basis to believe there was a clear and present danger.

Here's a subject for discussion, let's try to avoid this happening this again. If you are not trained then don't go following people with guns when you have no basis to believe a crime has been committed and there is no imminent danger. What do you think?

[Temecula]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I actually know that chasing strangers with a gun can end badly.

As though there was some sort of heated close range foot pursuit like an 80s detective movie, Zimmerman and Martin bounding over fences and knocking over empty boxes, Zimmerman with a large caliber revolver clutched in his hand the entire time, screaming FREEZE(No exaggeration btw). It could just as likely have been Zimmerman casually walking to see where he went, then heading back to his car. There might have even been a cartwheel involved. But we can't possibly consider any of that! He could have only pursued him because he wanted to play bumbling cops and robbers, because you were there and saw it all.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Temecula

As though there was some sort of heated close range foot pursuit like an 80s detective movie...

As if Zimmerman got his ass up out of his car seat to follow someone with a gun. Someone that Zimmerman says he thought was suspicious.

Don't make my argument into something that it is not.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool

(Bolding mine)

Had GZ ignored recomendation/instruction and exited his car, and events then transpired where TM killed GZ, would TM likewise be innocent because of GZs initial action? Of course not.

All else being the same? Horse feathers.

[Temecula]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Yeah, no.

Not being an idiot speaks for itself.

Don't waste emotional response on me.

Quote:

Having a firearm calls for responsibility. IMO, people shouldn't be able to play with people's lives.

Implying carrying a firearm for self defense is playing with lives. I disagree. No point beating the gun control dead horse here.

Quote:

A sense of duty doesn't justify his actions.

I don't see anything wrong with trying to maintain sight contact with a suspicious person.

Quote:

Doesn't justify the fact that Martin is dead. What's so hard to understand about that simple fact?

implying you know the full and complete chain of events leading to Martin's death. You need to contact the Sanford PD.

Quote:

• No crime had been committed.
• There was no clear and present danger.

So he cannot follow someone unless they commit a crime? Is he supposed to psychically know whether or not Martin is a criminal? What relevance is "clear and present danger" to his decision to follow martin?

Quote:

I'm not trying to stifle discussion. I'm trying to point out plain and simple facts.

That's not how you spell opinions.

Quote:

Martin didn't need to die.

I agree.

Quote:

Zimmerman didn't need to follow Martin as no crime had been committed

How was he supposed to know that? And why does there have to be justification for simply following someone?

Quote:

and there was no basis to believe there was a clear and present danger.

This does not matter.

Quote:

Here's a subject for discussion, let's try to avoid this happening this again.

That's a bit premature considering we don't quite know what happened. But I doubt that will stop you.

Quote:

If you are not trained then don't go following people with guns when you have no basis to believe a crime has been committed and there is no imminent danger.
What do you think?

Sounds like a bad idea, and a loaded question.

[Temecula]

Listen Randfan, I posted to fulfill the request of the OP, not to argue with someone who is wholly entrenched in opinion based on incomplete data. You've made up your mind, and I've decided to wait to make up mine. No amount of arguing presented by anyone or regurgitating of popular Trayvon Martin Fanfiction is going to make me leap to judgment. Sorry.

[curi0us]

Originally Posted by RandFan

No. There was nothing that made his actions necessary.

You are confusing "necessary" with "negligent".

Quote:

And that is why you are wrong.

Not everyone carries a gun. That's the part you are bending over backwards to avoid.

I really didn't think me saying "EVERYBODY should bear responsibility for their decisions" was going to get that response.

I don't carry, or even own a gun. What do you think I am trying to bend over backwards to avoid in regards to me thinking "not everyone carries a gun".

Quote:

A gun significantly increases the likelihood of harm with little upside (see previously posted stats).

This is insane. There is no gun in the example. I asked if it was a mistake to go investigate a possible scream for help at my local park unarmed. You said it was, and I asked why? And your answer is nothing but another gun stat. WTF?

Quote:

Here's a hint, I'm not so **** ing stupid as to go chasing paranoid fantasies with a firearm. If I were playing neighborhood watch I wouldn't have a gun by my side and if I saw something suspicious I'd call the police and let them do their job. I DAMN SURE would never be in Zimmerman's shoes because I'm not a god damn idiot.

You?

Again. Now on this different example I asked you to imagine if there was no gun involved and yet to you it is still all about "paranoid fantasies with a firearm." My questions were intended to encourage dialog about experiences with fights and violence in general. Have you ever needed to defend yourself from an attacker who had malevolent intent to hurt you? Can you not conceive of a situation where despite your ever so reasonable behavior that someone might want to kick your ass anyway?

Or perhaps you maybe needed to come to the assistance of another person. It wasn't your problem but you tried to help? Or maybe you had a friend that was violently attacked and though you weren't there at the time you had a great deal of empathy for what it was like for them.

As far as my own experiences the closest incident I have to what is on the tape was related to me fighting to help a kid who had been jumped by twelve other guys in front of an arcade I worked at. One of his older friends told me later that, "It really would have been okay if you didn't step in, nobody would have blamed you for not doing anything." I thought about that for a moment, and my sincere reply was, "I figured fighting twelve guys by myself would be easier then watching twelve guys beat another guy to a pulp."

[Mumbles]

(shakes his head)

Seriously. Drive into some city or suburb, at night. Pick an empty street. Find a pedestrian. Follow them in your car while staring at them. And then, get out of your car, and follow them on foot. And do it a few times, and tell us how people react.

My suspicion is, you'll end up saying "well, this one woman ran off screaming, and then another maced me when I turned a corner, and the guy punched me in the throat...", and so on.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool

(Bolding mine)

Had GZ ignored recomendation/instruction and exited his car, and events then transpired where TM killed GZ, would TM likewise be innocent because of GZs initial action? Of course not.

To me, it depends.

If Zimmerman walked to within striking distance, with his hands in his pocket, and then Martin hit him in the face, and Zimmerman hit his head on the concrete and died, I'd be against any punishment for Martin. In this case, Zimmerman would be a complete idiot who had no idea how threatening he looked, and Martin was well within his right to protect himself.

If Zimmerman had thrown up his hands, backed off, and said "No, no no, I'm no mugger or anything, I'm part of the neighborhood watch, I was just wondering if you were okay." and Martin had pulled his own gun and shot him, I'd say that that was way over the line, and Martin should be in prison - but that Zimmerman still shouldn't have ran after Martin.

But in any case, neither of these happened.

[Sabretooth]

Originally Posted by Xulld

Hindsight, its a wonderful tool, except when you forget that it is hindsight.

Are you suggesting that GZ is justified in his action with this statement?

Whether there was "clear and present" danger or not, GZ was advised to stay in his car until police arrived. Period. That's not hindsight, that's fact.

Instead, GZ took the law into his own hands. That's not hindsight, that's fact.

This isn't a "what if" situation. GZ made a decision, and his error cost the life of an innocent human being. That's not hindsight, that's fact.

[Dcdrac]

Originally Posted by RandFan

What is it that people don't get about this? Okay, the law gives you the right to play cop. Fine. If you kill someone and have to hide that's your own damn fault. Don't come crying to me.

I won't be that person. Know why? Look, I'm happy to report suspicious activity but I'll leave the super hero **** to those who have actually been trained. I haven't been trained and because I have the brains god gave a billy goat, I actually know that chasing strangers with a gun can end badly. Absent clear and present danger, what good inveighs against the risk? And BTW, buying a gun doesn't suddenly make me competent to play cops and robbers.

You?

Too damn right especially when going up against someone armed to the teeth with iced tea and skittles

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

GZ was advised to stay in his car until police arrived. Period.

Why are people still making this false claim? Zimmerman was not advised to stay in his car at any time. Nor did "the police" order him not to follow Martin.

If you are going to repeat that claim, then why not repeat that "the police" also asked Zimmerman a few times to let them know if Martin did anything?

Quote:

Let me know if he does anything, OK?

Quote:

Just let me know if this guy does anything else.

Quote:

Which way is he running?

[KatieG]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Why are people still making this false claim? Zimmerman was not advised to stay in his car at any time. Nor did "the police" order him not to follow Martin.

If you are going to repeat that claim, then why not repeat that "the police" also asked Zimmerman a few times to let them know if Martin did anything?

The exact quote from the dispatcher is "ok, we don't need you to do that". Not an order, a comment. If he'd listened to that comment, TM would not be dead.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by KatieG

The exact quote from the dispatcher is "ok, we don't need you to do that". Not an order, a comment.

Hallelujah KatieG! One person on the "TM side" (sorry, I hate putting it that way) with the intellectual honesty to quit twisting what was said.

Quote:

If he'd listened to that comment, TM would not be dead.

There is no was you can say that with such certainty. There are any other number of ways TM could have died on the way home, for instance he could have been hit by a car or suffered a heart attack. Just kidding . Thought I'd play some of the intellectual games a couple others here like to play just so they can say "aha, you;re wrong" .

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by KatieG

The exact quote from the dispatcher is "ok, we don't need you to do that". Not an order, a comment. If he'd listened to that comment, TM would not be dead.

I believe he did listen to the comment. Thus his "OK" response.

I believe he had lost track of Martin anyway, and was returning to his truck to meet the police officer.

I believe Martin then confronted him about being followed.

One main reason is because it seems like Martin had plenty of time to have made it to where he was staying if he just ran away and kept going.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...inal_hour.html

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by KatieG

The exact quote from the dispatcher is "ok, we don't need you to do that". Not an order, a comment. If he'd listened to that comment, TM would not be dead.

How was he supposed to let the dispatcher know if TM did anything else if he didn't follow him ?