Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Hang about diamonds and non-diamond issues that are not exactly related to diamond education and consumer’ assistance.




• 640 posts • Page 15 of 221, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,


Be a part of the community It's free, join today!

Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by beebrisk » April 3rd, 2012, 11:28 pm
Written by Gypsy » April 3rd, 2012, 10:59 pm:
Written by Maria D » April 3rd, 2012, 9:24 pm:
Most people in this thread have not gone on and on about racism being a factor in the kids, um, not exactly "death" but at the very least manslaughter. And yes, I use that term as an ignorant layperson without the deep understanding of manslaughter that someone who passed the bar would have. Because this is a discussion forum on a diamond site, not the Supreme Court. People discussing whatever here aren't causing any of the harm that you talk about. We are not violating a man's right to be free from UNREASONABLE arrest. Those of us who disagree with you think it would be more than reasonable to arrest a man whose immunity claims do not stand up to our interpretation of this stand your ground law. I get it, you think your interpretation counts and ours doesn't because you are educated about the law and we are not. Then do yourself a favor Gypsy and argue this out in a forum of like-educated people. I'm sure you'll still find plenty who disagree with you to argue with and the conversation will be more stimulating for you because you can argue solely on the basis of law and not have to keep trying to inform a group who is not really interested in changing their opinions, but in stating them.

Yes, we need real proof to convict. But the way it looks now, with this law, is that they can't even arrest. No prosecution = no conviction. That's what's upsetting to people and that's why Deb is talking about some other way to get to Zimmerman -- since this SYG law is ridiculous, an end run must be made. They got Capone on tax evasion, didn't they? I'm sure there were plenty of people and corporations evading far more taxes than poor accused Al.

I don't really care if Zimmerman was more inclined to follow Martin around because Martin was black. Zimmerman killed Martin, SYG (stupid as it is) should not apply because even if Zimmerman was attacked, MARTIN was the one standing his ground not Zimmerman, Zimmerman should have been arrested already and if SYG gets in the way of this I personally have no problem with an end run of calling it racism to facilitate an arrest that should have happened already. Not a conviction, an arrest that leads to prosecution that leads to Zimmerman's day in real court, not the court of public opinion. My opinions, right or wrong, have no bearing on this or any other case. If they make you sad, go hug one of your kitties, you'll feel better.



Maria,
I was responding directly to Thing's post. Which referenced racism in particular. Which is why I was talking about racism.

This is plain disturbing:
" Yes, we need real proof to convict. But the way it looks now, with this law, is that they can't even arrest. No prosecution = no conviction. That's what's upsetting to people and that's why Deb is talking about some other way to get to Zimmerman -- since this SYG law is ridiculous, an end run must be made. They got Capone on tax evasion, didn't they? I'm sure there were plenty of people and corporations evading far more taxes than poor accused Al."

And end run? Around this guy's civil liberties. Really? Do you realize that's what might be advocating? An "end run" around this Florida law may not be possible without violating George's civil liberties. Would that be okay with you?

Al Capone was actually guilty of tax evasion-- irrelevant how many others were doing it and didn't get caught. There was evidence of the crime and it wasn't manufactured by the media or anyone else. The FBI didn't cook books for Capone. He broke the law. There's no proof Zimmerman is guilty of anything Deb is saying. So what you are saying is that would be morally right to try to convict George based on fabricated racism charges.

I have news for you... if that's where "stating your opinion" rather than actually trying to learn something gets you... I'm glad I'm posting here. As an American citizen and yes, a former member of the bar, it is my duty to protect civil liberties. Even when it's unpopular. If for members here are advocating "an end run' around anyone's civil liberties is okay, then THIS is exactly where I need to be posting. Because someone needs to stand against the mob mentality.


^^Once again. Yes. ^^

No matter what anyone thinks about Zimmerman; whether their opinions are based on fact, fiction or somewhere in between, he must be given the chance for a fair trial. His civil liberties must be protected. If the constitution fails him then it fails us all.
***
"...we should note this curious mark of our own age: the only absolute allowed is the absolute insistence that there is no absolute."-Francis Schaeffer
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by GlamMosher » April 3rd, 2012, 11:32 pm
Written by beebrisk » April 3rd, 2012, 11:28 pm:If the constitution fails him then it fails us all.


It certainly seems to have failed the kid who is dead...
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by beebrisk » April 3rd, 2012, 11:48 pm
Written by GlamMosher » April 3rd, 2012, 11:32 pm:
Written by beebrisk » April 3rd, 2012, 11:28 pm:If the constitution fails him then it fails us all.


It certainly seems to have failed the kid who is dead...


The Constitution failed Trayvon Martin? Really? Can you point us to something--anything--that backs up your assertion?

I do hope that if you ever find yourself in a situation where you or a loved one are rightly or wrongly suspected or accused of a crime, that you come appreciate the rights afforded to you under the law. They are in place to protect you, me and yes, even an unlikeable George Zimmerman.
***
"...we should note this curious mark of our own age: the only absolute allowed is the absolute insistence that there is no absolute."-Francis Schaeffer
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by Imdanny » April 4th, 2012, 12:02 am
Written by Karl_K » April 3rd, 2012, 10:30 pm:If it is real it changes the story a lot:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-police-report-reveals-crime-scene-details-175656087.html
But given all the fake stuff the media created in this case to stir stuff up, I view it as fake until there is official confirmation it is real.


With all due respect to Yahoo! news, there is nothing new about this report. This is an aspect of the story people at various forums have been talking about for about a week. Yahoo is recycling news, to put it kindly.

We've heard ad infinitum about Zimmerman's alleged injuries. However, if there is any credible evidence of the type and severity of these alleged injuries, I have not seen it. The only thing we have to go on at this point is the 6 minutes of survellience footage of Zimmerman at the Sanford police station.

For allegedly being beaten on concrete no less, I don't see that his nose is broken or ever bled, and the samt thing with the back of his head. There is not so much as a black eye. There is no blood on his clothes. He moves freely and looks like he has not even been touched.

The Sanford police department is a house divided. I believe that we will learn more about Officer Smith and his report in due time.
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by GlamMosher » April 4th, 2012, 12:06 am
Written by beebrisk » April 3rd, 2012, 11:48 pm:The Constitution failed Trayvon Martin? Really? Can you point us to something--anything--that backs up your assertion?

I do hope that if you ever find yourself in a situation where you or a loved one are rightly or wrongly suspected or accused of a crime, that you come appreciate the rights afforded to you under the law. They are in place to protect you, me and yes, even an unlikeable George Zimmerman.



Well, I am only a convict descendant in Australia so i can't quote anything, but he is dead... shot by someone else... and apparently that person had the right to shoot him. Something seems wrong somewhere.

I would hope that if I was in a situation like Trayvon's family that i could trust someone would be held accountable.
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by Gypsy » April 4th, 2012, 12:22 am
Written by GlamMosher » April 3rd, 2012, 11:32 pm:
Written by beebrisk » April 3rd, 2012, 11:28 pm:If the constitution fails him then it fails us all.


It certainly seems to have failed the kid who is dead...


Glam, I know you aren't American. The Constitution (as interpreted by the Courts) applies to State action. It restricts and regulates the actions of the State, not the individual private citizen when he is acting in his capacity as a private citizen (generally). If I ban my husband from buying a gun, he can't sue me under the Constitution. If the State bans my husband (unless there is a compelling public interest that amounts to cause) from buying a gun, he can sue the State under the Constitution.

Victim's have rights and since they conflict with those of the accused, they are balanced against the accused's rights. But they don't outweigh the accused's rights. Because, it's not a private individual who is prosecuting the kid, it's the State. And the State has to obey the Constitution as it has been interpreted by the Courts. And the Constitution doesn't talk about victim's rights but it does very clearly talk about the rights of the accused.

As it is, we have innocent people convicted. To change our laws would just result in more innocents being jailed. And in the American Justice system it is considered better to let a guilty man go free that to jail an innocent man. So yes. The system may fail and individual victim. But even that serves the greater public/societal interest in the right of the individual to be free from unreasonable seizures and detainment by the State.

There's no good answer. There's only bad and worse. I see that. I really do. But I do agree that the "bad" is that the victim may not get justice and the "worse" is that the public is not protected against the State from unreasonable detainment.

It's not perfect. But there isn't a better system anywhere. I firmly believe that.

Hope this helps, at the least, explain my perspective.

Edited to remove late night ramblings that I barely remember from my Con. Law classes.



"Experience is inevitable in life; learning from it isn't."

Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by minousbijoux » April 4th, 2012, 12:43 am
Written by Gypsy » April 3rd, 2012, 8:06 pm:
Written by minousbijoux » April 3rd, 2012, 12:07 pm:This thread has been remarkable on many levels and I have been riveted. Until recent postings, it has been a model of civil discourse. It is extremely difficult to discuss an issue as charged as the Trayvon Martin case without emotions escalating. But now, thirteen pages in, it has become snarky and close to personal attacks of those with differing perspectives. Can you back off, please? I'm not saying don't post, but don't go after each other. We are all long term members of good standing in this community.

As for racism in this case, it is really hard not to bring our own life experiences to bare on this case. Right or wrong, those of us who've been impacted by prejudice and racism are more likely to see it in this situation. And from that perspective, its interesting to note that quite a few members responding to this thread - including me - have seen enough instances of racism in our lives to bring it to the table here. You may be right, Beebrisk and Gypsy, and this may be a simple case of self defense, or even just a guy losing it temporarily and shooting someone because he felt threatened, and at that point, would've felt threatened by a man of any skin color. But we don't know. In the meantime, we will all continue to have our perspectives and speak what we speculate is the truth. Your advice, Gypsy, to reserve judgement until all the facts are in is just really, really difficult in such a charged circumstance. I'm not saying we shouldn't wait, I'm saying we probably won't, particularly with the media providing new information daily, even if some of it is "Gotcha journalism."


MB. I appreciate your post and agree with it very much, especially the part in bold. But I would like to correct one thing. *I* do not believe , nor have I stated anywhere in this thread, that I think this is a simple case of anything.

I have stated is this:
A tragedy occurred and we do not know the facts as they are being fed to us by tainted sources.
The majority of the American public, including people posting in this thread, don't understand how our justice system works.
Until and unless there is solid proof that there was an actual crime I don't believe that law enforcement should jump the gun and arrest someone.
There appears to be a lack of proof which is why no one has been arrested yet.
The laws of Florida may need to be revised.
And that I don't believe alleged (but unproven) racism is the reason why that boy is dead (it may have been why he was considered suspicious but I don't believe it is why he is dead).

What I have also said is... IF this ends up in criminal court the jury will be asked to see things from George's perspective and to evaluate whether or not that perspective was reasonable. And for GEORGE this may be a simple case of self defense. And whether or not that belief is reasonable is a question for a jury to answer. Not for me and not for the media.


Gypsy: Thanks so much for the clarification. And thank you for your prior response to Deb in which you outline your beliefs. I am a little surprised to say that I think we may be more on the same page than I originally thought.

I share your beliefs about Zimmerman. I too agree that it appears that he was frustrated, had a vigilante mentality and seemed to feel empowered by his relationship with the police. I guess the question is whether the same events would have transpired if it had been a white teenager wearing the hoodie. But at this point, its moot. What I really care about, is that justice is served. If, along the way, indisputable facts are identified that make it clear that it was self defense on Zimmerman's part, so be it. But if facts show that he provoked this, I don't want him getting off on a SYG technicality.

I also would be curious to know how the SYG law in Florida has been enforced and whether it has been color blind in past instances of its use.

Oh, and thanks for responding in a civil manner to my posts, without histrionics. ;))
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by Gypsy » April 4th, 2012, 1:21 am
Written by minousbijoux » April 4th, 2012, 12:43 am:
Written by Gypsy » April 3rd, 2012, 8:06 pm:
Written by minousbijoux » April 3rd, 2012, 12:07 pm:This thread has been remarkable on many levels and I have been riveted. Until recent postings, it has been a model of civil discourse. It is extremely difficult to discuss an issue as charged as the Trayvon Martin case without emotions escalating. But now, thirteen pages in, it has become snarky and close to personal attacks of those with differing perspectives. Can you back off, please? I'm not saying don't post, but don't go after each other. We are all long term members of good standing in this community.

As for racism in this case, it is really hard not to bring our own life experiences to bare on this case. Right or wrong, those of us who've been impacted by prejudice and racism are more likely to see it in this situation. And from that perspective, its interesting to note that quite a few members responding to this thread - including me - have seen enough instances of racism in our lives to bring it to the table here. You may be right, Beebrisk and Gypsy, and this may be a simple case of self defense, or even just a guy losing it temporarily and shooting someone because he felt threatened, and at that point, would've felt threatened by a man of any skin color. But we don't know. In the meantime, we will all continue to have our perspectives and speak what we speculate is the truth. Your advice, Gypsy, to reserve judgement until all the facts are in is just really, really difficult in such a charged circumstance. I'm not saying we shouldn't wait, I'm saying we probably won't, particularly with the media providing new information daily, even if some of it is "Gotcha journalism."


MB. I appreciate your post and agree with it very much, especially the part in bold. But I would like to correct one thing. *I* do not believe , nor have I stated anywhere in this thread, that I think this is a simple case of anything.

I have stated is this:
A tragedy occurred and we do not know the facts as they are being fed to us by tainted sources.
The majority of the American public, including people posting in this thread, don't understand how our justice system works.
Until and unless there is solid proof that there was an actual crime I don't believe that law enforcement should jump the gun and arrest someone.
There appears to be a lack of proof which is why no one has been arrested yet.
The laws of Florida may need to be revised.
And that I don't believe alleged (but unproven) racism is the reason why that boy is dead (it may have been why he was considered suspicious but I don't believe it is why he is dead).

What I have also said is... IF this ends up in criminal court the jury will be asked to see things from George's perspective and to evaluate whether or not that perspective was reasonable. And for GEORGE this may be a simple case of self defense. And whether or not that belief is reasonable is a question for a jury to answer. Not for me and not for the media.


Gypsy: Thanks so much for the clarification. And thank you for your prior response to Deb in which you outline your beliefs. I am a little surprised to say that I think we may be more on the same page than I originally thought.

I share your beliefs about Zimmerman. I too agree that it appears that he was frustrated, had a vigilante mentality and seemed to feel empowered by his relationship with the police. I guess the question is whether the same events would have transpired if it had been a white teenager wearing the hoodie. But at this point, its moot. What I really care about, is that justice is served. If, along the way, indisputable facts are identified that make it clear that it was self defense on Zimmerman's part, so be it. But if facts show that he provoked this, I don't want him getting off on a SYG technicality.

I also would be curious to know how the SYG law in Florida has been enforced and whether it has been color blind in past instances of its use.

Oh, and thanks for responding in a civil manner to my posts, without histrionics. ;))


8) We probably do largely share similar beliefs about this on a personal level.

In part, I have been playing the devil's advocate in this thread because I feel that it is a valuable perspective in discussion like this. If I can see it, I know that a decent defense attorney will be able to paint reasonable doubt with it. That doesn't mean that the perspective I am sharing is my own personal belief of what happened at all times.

I think something bad happened. But bad things happen that make me feel sad and angry that aren't criminal all the time. This feels to me on a personal level as if it should be criminal. But the laws of the state of Florida may not agree with me, and I acknowledge that. And I understand the system that places the interests of the accused above those of the victim. And I understand why that system is the way it is. And I understand that even if I think that the Florida law as interpreted by the courts is ridiculous, it might still protect George. Even if it is subsequently overturned. And that George, like Charles Manson, might be the horse that escaped before the barn door was closed. That doesn't mean I don't think Charles should have been put to death. And that doesn't mean that I don't think that George belongs in jail.

And thank you for the same courtesy of civility. I enjoyed your posts in this thread and I appreciate your voice.



"Experience is inevitable in life; learning from it isn't."

Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by GlamMosher » April 4th, 2012, 2:24 am
Written by Gypsy » April 4th, 2012, 12:22 am:But I do agree that the "bad" is that the victim may not get justice and the "worse" is that the public is not protected against the State from unreasonable detainment.

It's not perfect. But there isn't a better system anywhere. I firmly believe that.


Most I agree with apart from the first bit above - I think I would rather have a loved one in goal for something he didn't commit than killed and no-one held accountable.

And is there a better system? Probably we will have to agree to disagree. :wink2:
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by Gypsy » April 4th, 2012, 2:31 am
Written by GlamMosher » April 4th, 2012, 2:24 am:
Written by Gypsy » April 4th, 2012, 12:22 am:But I do agree that the "bad" is that the victim may not get justice and the "worse" is that the public is not protected against the State from unreasonable detainment.

It's not perfect. But there isn't a better system anywhere. I firmly believe that.


Most I agree with apart from the first bit above - I think I would rather have a loved one in goal for something he didn't commit than killed and no-one held accountable.

And is there a better system? Probably we will have to agree to disagree. :wink2:



Heehee. I had to read this out loud and think "Aussie" (my dad lives in Australia and I have joint Aussie citizenship) to get it. When I think of someone "in goal" I think of hockey. And I KNEW that was wrong :lol: . So funny how we can speak the same language and still have such differences even in diction. Not surprising that we have different perspectives on much larger issues as well.

Agree to disagree is what makes the world go around instead of blow up. So it's works for me.



"Experience is inevitable in life; learning from it isn't."

Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by GlamMosher » April 4th, 2012, 2:43 am
and ahem, i am going to blame bloody auto correct for spelling it wrong... GAOL!!

Where does your dad live? You should come visit us out west - you know there is a magnificent diamond ring somewhere here for you to see!
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by Imdanny » April 4th, 2012, 2:56 am
Written by Gypsy » April 3rd, 2012, 11:11 pm:
Written by Imdanny » April 3rd, 2012, 9:45 pm:I believe Zimmerman is a racist. I believe it because in the 911 call he mutters the slur "effing coons". His so called friend Oliver had two explanations. He said that his teenage daughter told him "coons" was a term of endearment. He said when questioned further that people in Louisana call themselves "coons". In point of fact a slur is what a person mutters under their breath. A slur is a perjoritive against a group of people. The slur "coons" goes back to slavery times. A "coon" is a slave who has escaped. This particular slur used to be used with another phrase: "coon hunting" meaning to hunt down escaped slaves. Zimmerman used the slur "coons". This tells me that he is a racist. It would be like someone using a slur against me. It is not me projecting something on to someone else when that happens. It is the opposite. Zimmerman also said, "These asholes always get away." He also had a history of racial profiling with his long list of 911 calls. The FBI and the Department of Justice are investigating these matters at this time. I'm glad about this. I hope and expect that these matters will be investigated thouoghly.


Danny, I think Oliver is an idiot. And I did not hear coons or goons or tools (which is what other people are saying the word is) or even an ooo sound. I hear punks. I keep listening to it and that's what I hear. And I'm not alone, I've seen others and heard others say that "punk" is what they hear. All the credible news stations that have say is that word is incomprehensible. It's a bad piece of evidence because it is garbled and open for interpretation. And worse for me, it doesn't match what I hear and I believe what I hear over the interpretation of Oliver or the media.

If it wasn't against forum rules to link to other forums I could post a bunch of threads and polls where other people clearly hear punks.

Here's one place that's saying the guy was talking about the weather for goodness sakes: http://jneilschulman.rationalreview.com/2012/03/what-george-zimmerman-really-said/

So I can't count this as evidence of racism. Because all it's evidence of, to me, is the fact that George mumbles.


I thought we weren't going to engage each other in this thread anymore, but as long as it doesn't get personal, and it won't on my part, Gypsy, I'm fine with it.

So, to you, as you've just said, all it's evidence of is that Zimmerman mumbles. I've listened to you, and I hear what you are saying. You did not hear the words, "effing coons". I did, though. In fact, I can hear them without that part of the tape being isolated and amplified. Also, it's clear to me that he muttered. To me, this doesn't equate to mumbling.
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by Gypsy » April 4th, 2012, 2:58 am
Written by GlamMosher » April 4th, 2012, 2:43 am:and ahem, i am going to blame bloody auto correct for spelling it wrong... GAOL!!

Where does your dad live? You should come visit us out west - you know there is a magnificent diamond ring somewhere here for you to see!


Ahh. Much better. GAOL I would have gotten. If only from Terri Pratchett's The Last Continent (which if you haven't read as an Aussie and you enjoy smart satire and silliness combined I highly recommend http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Continent-Terry-Pratchett/dp/0061059072)

I've been, quite a few times actually. And would adore to return. Especially while we are still living on the west coat and the flight is only 14 hours instead of longer. My dad lives in Sydney. But I would go straight to the Queensland.

Australia doesn't need diamonds to attract me. It's got the Great Barrier reef, BUGS ( YUMMY! I miss those so much. ), and so much more. I've been to Queensland, Canberra, Melbourne and of course many times to Sydney.



"Experience is inevitable in life; learning from it isn't."

Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by Gypsy » April 4th, 2012, 3:03 am
Written by Imdanny » April 4th, 2012, 2:56 am:
Written by Gypsy » April 3rd, 2012, 11:11 pm:
Written by Imdanny » April 3rd, 2012, 9:45 pm:I believe Zimmerman is a racist. I believe it because in the 911 call he mutters the slur "effing coons". His so called friend Oliver had two explanations. He said that his teenage daughter told him "coons" was a term of endearment. He said when questioned further that people in Louisana call themselves "coons". In point of fact a slur is what a person mutters under their breath. A slur is a perjoritive against a group of people. The slur "coons" goes back to slavery times. A "coon" is a slave who has escaped. This particular slur used to be used with another phrase: "coon hunting" meaning to hunt down escaped slaves. Zimmerman used the slur "coons". This tells me that he is a racist. It would be like someone using a slur against me. It is not me projecting something on to someone else when that happens. It is the opposite. Zimmerman also said, "These asholes always get away." He also had a history of racial profiling with his long list of 911 calls. The FBI and the Department of Justice are investigating these matters at this time. I'm glad about this. I hope and expect that these matters will be investigated thouoghly.


Danny, I think Oliver is an idiot. And I did not hear coons or goons or tools (which is what other people are saying the word is) or even an ooo sound. I hear punks. I keep listening to it and that's what I hear. And I'm not alone, I've seen others and heard others say that "punk" is what they hear. All the credible news stations that have say is that word is incomprehensible. It's a bad piece of evidence because it is garbled and open for interpretation. And worse for me, it doesn't match what I hear and I believe what I hear over the interpretation of Oliver or the media.

If it wasn't against forum rules to link to other forums I could post a bunch of threads and polls where other people clearly hear punks.

Here's one place that's saying the guy was talking about the weather for goodness sakes: http://jneilschulman.rationalreview.com/2012/03/what-george-zimmerman-really-said/

So I can't count this as evidence of racism. Because all it's evidence of, to me, is the fact that George mumbles.


I thought we weren't going to engage each other in this thread anymore, but as long as it doesn't get personal, and it won't on my part, Gypsy, I'm fine with it.

So, to you, as you've just said, all it's evidence of is that Zimmerman mumbles. I've listened to you, and I hear what you are saying. You did not hear the words, "effing coons". I did, though. In fact, I can hear them without that part of the tape being isolated and amplified. Also, it's clear to me that he muttered. To me, this doesn't equate to mumbling.


We did. But I agree as long as we stay impersonal and polite, cause I do like you Danny (and I also adore Deb and some of the other posters in this thread that I don't agree with on this issue), it's all good.

I don't deny what you heard, hon. And it's unclear enough that you might be right. But, I might be too. And since neither of us were in George's head when he said it... I don't think we're ever going to know. Even if he did say coons, he'd be a moron to admit it now. And if he didn't say coons, then he's been accused of something really ugly. I'm just saying that when there is this much disagreement and ambiguity, it's not a persuasive piece of evidence for me. That's all. 8)



"Experience is inevitable in life; learning from it isn't."

Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by biggerliz » April 4th, 2012, 3:08 am
Written by Gypsy » April 2nd, 2012, 10:08 pm:
Deb, this thread is a hard one.

Here's where I think we diverge.

I have my own opinion about what happened. But I am keeping an open mind and willing to change that opinion if new facts come to light that contradict what I believe.

Here's what my personal opinion is, based on what I have seen, heard and read. I realize 100% that the information I am basing this on has been filtered through the media.

George was predisposed to violence. He had an assault charge. And there are other reports of his temper.
George was paranoid. He called 911 at the drop of a hat (he has some 40 something 911 calls on record).
George was a vigilante. He was on the neighborhood watch because he felt that he needed to act and that he was entitled to act.
George was frustrated about the crime occurring in his neighborhood and was not satisified with the police's handling of this issue, because there were no convictions or arrests to appease him.
As a result George needed a scapegoat for his anger, frustration, paranoia, and and outlet for his violence.

I think he saw a kid walking at night and assumed that kid was up to no good. He felt empowered by his position on the neighborhood watch to report the incident. He decided that he could not wait until the police arrived to allow them to handle the situation, and decided to pursue the kid himself to catch him so that *he* could be the vehicle for justice.

I think that George thought the kid might have a weapon of his own.
I think Trayvon did attack George IN SELF DEFENSE, because he was terrified of this crazy man following him. I don't think it was a 'bad' fight. I think George was just surprised, hit his head and had the wind knocked out of him.
I think George interpreted that attack as heightening the threat level he already believed existed and allowed himself to decide that shooting this kid was justified.
I think the kid ended up dead as a result of a horrible set of assumptions, predispositions, and events.

My opinion, is based on the quality of George's character and on the events that occurred not on anyone's skin color.

George could be purple and so could Trayvon and I think the same series of events would have happened. I don't think that by changing Travyon into a white kid that he would be alive. THAT is why I think it is inappropriate to call this a race crime. I acknowledge that racial stereotypes may have been a factor in George's belief that Trayvon was up to no good. But I don't believe it is the reason for the kid's death. I think that is pretty solidly a result of George's predisposition to violence, the state of Florida's asinine decision to allow this man to have a gun, and his own vigilante entitlement.

I do think that many people are assuming that JUST BECAUSE George was not black, lived in Sanford that he was also a racist. I have not seen one piece of evidence that proves or even corroborates this assumption.

How is it okay for you to say that George: Based on where HE lives, what color HIS skin is that he is a racist. But it's NOT okay for George to think that just because Trayvon is black and walking around at night that he is a criminal.

No. NEITHER of those is right. THAT'S why I said that you are part of the problem. To me it looks like you are doing the same thing you are preaching against and you don't even see it. I think that's reverse racism and I don't think it helps anyone or anything heal. To me, you are judging George on the color of his skin and the location of his house instead of on the content of his character and on his actual actions. And I just don't think that's okay.

As for wounds and examining and puss. We're going to have to agree to disagree about where racial tensions are in this country and how much has been accomplished and what needs to be done going forward. I don't think we are ever going to agree on that.


great post. everybody should read this again.
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by Imdanny » April 4th, 2012, 3:28 am
Written by ame » March 25th, 2012, 12:21 pm:As soon as this boy ran away it stopped being stand-your-ground or self-defense. Period. Does not matter if he was armed or not, that boy was running away, and he was hunted by this adult who murdered him. That was NOT self-defense. At all.


Ame, I've been thinking about this post since I read it. I like that you don't pull punches. It is a terrible thing to look at, to think about, to face, but when this thread got to the police department video of Zimmerman, I realized I agree with your post 100%. Thank you for posting this.
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by Imdanny » April 4th, 2012, 4:02 am
I'd like to come back to something I posted about earlier. This is a list of things a person does or does not do which would mean that the "stand your ground" law is not applicable (i.e. "... is not available to a person who...). I don't claim to be a lawyer, but I've bolded the part of this I think is relevant.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102

Neither of the caveats [i.e. (a), (b)] applies, from everything I can tell.

I don't think my view that probable cause existed that Zimmerman committed an unlawful act is controversial. This is what the Sanford police department's lead homicide investigator in this case said in his affidavit, after all.
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by biggerliz » April 4th, 2012, 8:08 am
No need to publish the specific nuances of the law, since it is clear few of us here can interpret it correctly.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/21/opinion/bellin-stand-your-ground-law/index.html

As such, please read the above. Takes a complex issue and breaks it down for easy reading. From what I can gather, pursuing Trayvon was not stand your ground. However, if Trayvon was pursued, and then in a public area, Trayvon attacked/defended himself, and then George felt his life endangered, due to the 2005 amendment, George can defend his actions with "stand your ground."

It sounds silly to me, and to us. These are the rules and laws currently in place, and regardless of how we personally feel, these are the rules and laws that are being used to prosecute this case. Now, whether or not these rules and laws can be proven unconstitutional is another matter.
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by Imdanny » April 4th, 2012, 8:18 am
GlamMosher, I'd like to visit Australia someday. It sounds like a nice place. :))
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by mary poppins » April 4th, 2012, 10:05 am
Written by Imdanny » April 4th, 2012, 4:02 am:I'd like to come back to something I posted about earlier. This is a list of things a person does or does not do which would mean that the "stand your ground" law is not applicable (i.e. "... is not available to a person who...). I don't claim to be a lawyer, but I've bolded the part of this I think is relevant.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102

Neither of the caveats [i.e. (a), (b)] applies, from everything I can tell.

I don't think my view that probable cause existed that Zimmerman committed an unlawful act is controversial. This is what the Sanford police department's lead homicide investigator in this case said in his affidavit, after all.



Being an aggressor generally means being the first to use force or acting with an intent to cause another to respond physically. One who merely engages in conduct that creates an opportunity for conflict is not precluded from claiming self-defense. We know that Zimmerman had a gun, but we don't know that he was brandishing it while following Martin. Following someone, even with an intent to ask a question, alone likely does not qualify one as an aggressor. In short, setting a sequence of events in motion by acting aggressively does not necessarily legally make one an aggressor.

Even an initial aggressor may have the right to self-defense under certain circumstances. If he withdraws from the confrontation, and communicates the withdrawal to the other person, he regains the right to self-defense. Also, if the victim of relatively minor aggression escalates the confrontation to one involving deadly force, without providing adequate space or opportunity for withdrawal, the initial aggressor may assert the right to self-defense.

From the facts generally known now, Zimmerman may possibly successfully argue that he was not the aggressor. He can certainly claim he was following Martin so the police would know where to go when they arrived in the neighborhood, to ask a question or to prevent (by just being present) or be a witness to a crime. It's based on misconduct, not lack of judgment. Even if he was deemed the initial aggressor, he could argue that he withdrew from any supposed confrontation when he lost sight of Martin and was heading back to his truck. At that point, he claims Martin made comments (something to the effect of "Do you have a problem?" and then "You do now") and then punched him, thus escalating the matter. Martin could be the aggressor if he threw the first punch.

Of course, the girl on the phone said she heard Martin ask something like "Why are you following me?" and heard a male ask "What are you doing here?" in response. That still does not answer the question of who acted with force first.

Not necessarily defending Zimmerman here, just providing an explanation as I wait for all the facts before I judge. It is a tough situation for the investigators, prosecutors and Martin's family.
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by AGBF » April 4th, 2012, 12:59 pm
Written by mary poppins » April 4th, 2012, 10:05 am:
Being an aggressor generally means being the first to use force or acting with an intent to cause another to respond physically. One who merely engages in conduct that creates an opportunity for conflict is not precluded from claiming self-defense. We know that Zimmerman had a gun, but we don't know that he was brandishing it while following Martin. Following someone, even with an intent to ask a question, alone likely does not qualify one as an aggressor. In short, setting a sequence of events in motion by acting aggressively does not necessarily legally make one an aggressor.

Even an initial aggressor may have the right to self-defense under certain circumstances. If he withdraws from the confrontation, and communicates the withdrawal to the other person, he regains the right to self-defense. Also, if the victim of relatively minor aggression escalates the confrontation to one involving deadly force, without providing adequate space or opportunity for withdrawal, the initial aggressor may assert the right to self-defense.

From the facts generally known now, Zimmerman may possibly successfully argue that he was not the aggressor. He can certainly claim he was following Martin so the police would know where to go when they arrived in the neighborhood, to ask a question or to prevent (by just being present) or be a witness to a crime. It's based on misconduct, not lack of judgment. Even if he was deemed the initial aggressor, he could argue that he withdrew from any supposed confrontation when he lost sight of Martin and was heading back to his truck. At that point, he claims Martin made comments (something to the effect of "Do you have a problem?" and then "You do now") and then punched him, thus escalating the matter. Martin could be the aggressor if he threw the first punch.



mary poppins-

If Mr. Zimmerman is prosecuted for a criminal charge I would hope that his lawyer could ensure that all of his rights remain intact. All of the points you made above sound extremely sensible to this (non-legally trained) mind. I support all the rights of a defendant. I have been saying that in the case of a death under these circumstances, that this case involved self-defense as the civilized world (as opposed to Florida) recognizes it is NOT self-evident...and that, therefore, the matter should be examined. I won't get into the wound analogy that trips Gypsy and me up again, but you get the idea!

Instead of the Constitution, let me go back a few years more in time (excuse me, but while some of you are lawyers, I studied history) to the Declaration of Independence. (Yes, I do know that Florida was not among the thirteen original colonies.) I believe that Trayvon Martin should have had the right to, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I am bothered by his having been deprived of them.

Deb/AGBF
:read:

"If someone asks me how many people work here, I say, 'about half '. " John Corey
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by Imdanny » April 4th, 2012, 1:43 pm
Written by mary poppins » April 4th, 2012, 10:05 am:At that point, he claims Martin made comments (something to the effect of "Do you have a problem?" and then "You do now") and then punched him,


Actually, I'd like to compile a list of all of the "dialogue" Zimmerman's father and brother have given us. It reads like a B movie. I think at some point there's the word, "homie". "You're going to die tonight" or something to that effect. And, "You got me!" the boy said before keeling over dead. :rolleyes:
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by smitcompton » April 4th, 2012, 3:43 pm
Hi,

There is a grand jury convened for next week, I believe. We should know something soon. GZ has a new attorney who appeared on TV last nite and said GZ would not be using the SYG law to defend himself. We shall see.

Annette
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by Gypsy » April 4th, 2012, 5:32 pm
Written by GlamMosher » April 4th, 2012, 2:24 am:
Written by Gypsy » April 4th, 2012, 12:22 am:But I do agree that the "bad" is that the victim may not get justice and the "worse" is that the public is not protected against the State from unreasonable detainment.

It's not perfect. But there isn't a better system anywhere. I firmly believe that.


Most I agree with apart from the first bit above - I think I would rather have a loved one in goal for something he didn't commit than killed and no-one held accountable.

And is there a better system? Probably we will have to agree to disagree. :wink2:



Glam, there's one thing I forgot to mention last night.

We still have the death penalty in this country. So... your loved one might not sit in jail long until they are put to death by the State for something they did not do. And in America the state putting an innocent man to death is the boogeyman in the closet. The worst failure of the justice system-- because it makes the whole of the public into murderers. Maybe that will help you see why it the accused's rights are give more weight than the victims.



"Experience is inevitable in life; learning from it isn't."

Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by GlamMosher » April 4th, 2012, 5:49 pm
Written by Imdanny » April 4th, 2012, 8:18 am:GlamMosher, I'd like to visit Australia someday. It sounds like a nice place. :))


We would love to have you Danny! I have always enjoyed my visits to the US, not least because of the fabulous shopping! Do not expect to be able to buy bargains if you come here. :nono:
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by GlamMosher » April 4th, 2012, 5:54 pm
Written by Gypsy » April 4th, 2012, 5:32 pm:
We still have the death penalty in this country. So... your loved one might not sit in jail long until they are put to death by the State for something they did not do. And in America the state putting an innocent man to death is the boogeyman in the closet. The worst failure of the justice system-- because it makes the whole of the public into murderers. Maybe that will help you see why it the accused's rights are give more weight than the victims.


I think we have swayed away from the topic a bit too far again, so i won't get into a discussion about the death penalty etc as i have no knowledge of your laws and penalties. I would doubt GZ would be charged with murder, so I wouldn't think he would ever face the death penalty. And he has not even been charged with anything (yet).
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by GlamMosher » April 4th, 2012, 5:55 pm
Written by Imdanny » April 4th, 2012, 1:43 pm:And, "You got me!" the boy said before keeling over dead. :rolleyes:


Danny, this is a joke - right? (God I hope so!)
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by sstephensid » April 4th, 2012, 5:58 pm
Written by GlamMosher » April 4th, 2012, 2:24 am:
Written by Gypsy » April 4th, 2012, 12:22 am:But I do agree that the "bad" is that the victim may not get justice and the "worse" is that the public is not protected against the State from unreasonable detainment.

It's not perfect. But there isn't a better system anywhere. I firmly believe that.


Most I agree with apart from the first bit above - I think I would rather have a loved one in goal for something he didn't commit than killed and no-one held accountable.

And is there a better system? Probably we will have to agree to disagree. :wink2:


Huh?
Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by Gypsy » April 4th, 2012, 6:02 pm
Written by GlamMosher » April 4th, 2012, 5:54 pm:
Written by Gypsy » April 4th, 2012, 5:32 pm:
We still have the death penalty in this country. So... your loved one might not sit in jail long until they are put to death by the State for something they did not do. And in America the state putting an innocent man to death is the boogeyman in the closet. The worst failure of the justice system-- because it makes the whole of the public into murderers. Maybe that will help you see why it the accused's rights are give more weight than the victims.


I think we have swayed away from the topic a bit too far again, so i won't get into a discussion about the death penalty etc as i have no knowledge of your laws and penalties. I would doubt GZ would be charged with murder, so I wouldn't think he would ever face the death penalty. And he has not even been charged with anything (yet).


It is on point, IMO. We have to offer equal protection of the laws in this country. That means that whether or not it's a capital crime the treatment of the accused has to be substantially the same. So because we have the death penalty we are as a society, more risk adverse toward putting innocents in jail period. And therefore the balance between vicitm's rights and the the rights of the accused will always lean toward the accused.

And no, he hasn't been charged with anything. But hopefully smitcompton was right and there is a grand jury convening. At least we'll know if there is enough evidence to proceed or not at the end of that process.



"Experience is inevitable in life; learning from it isn't."

Re: Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

Post by AGBF » April 4th, 2012, 6:22 pm
Written by Gypsy » April 4th, 2012, 6:02 pm:
It is on point, IMO. We have to offer equal protection of the laws in this country. That means that whether or not it's a capital crime the treatment of the accused has to be substantially the same. So because we have the death penalty we are as a society, more risk adverse toward putting innocents in jail



Well...this is getting off topic, but I am not the one who started to discuss the death penalty.

First, in some states (like California) the treatment of the accused can be quite different when he is accused of a capital crime.

Second, I think the notion that the United States in risk averse to trampling the rights of innocents is risible. Texas, for example, has a veritable assembly line running from the back of the jail house to the execution chamber!

Deb/AGBF
:read:

"If someone asks me how many people work here, I say, 'about half '. " John Corey


640 posts • Page 15 of 221, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,

« Return to Hangout