Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

[Jub]

You can own a gun, but carrying it to and from the place where you'll use it outside of a case is pretty uncommon. Even paintball gear has to be barrel bagged/plugged and in a dufflebag for transport and even then I've heard of guys getting called for concealed carry because the paintbal gun was hidden in the bag... Knives are much the same and you'd best have a work/hobby related reason if you're carrying one around.

I carry a pocket knife with me everywhere I go (except for airports and federal buildings, obviously). I don't have a particular reason...just that it has come in useful from time to time when I need a blade. That sort of thing would be frowned upon in Canada?

I doubt anybody would say anything as long as you weren't misusing it. Plus it sounds like it's more of a tool and you can justify it as such. If you carried a 6" folding hunting knife or something like that you'd likely need to explain a bit more if anybody cared to ask you about it.

[RogueIce]

mr friendly guy

I think the main problem in your hypothetical scenario is that the wannabe vigilante is not a police officer which makes quite a bit of difference. Police officers have different rules and standards when it comes to these sorts of things than the general public.

KS can correct me if I'm wrong, but if the police reasonably believe they are trailing a potentially armed and dangerous suspect, they are allowed to draw down on said suspect to affect an arrest. Your average citizen can not draw their gun on somebody who has not shown an imminent threat to said citizen or others. That would be an illegal act in and of itself, and also potentially deadly force from the perspective of the "suspect" so their responding in kind would likely be justified, so if the "vigilante" shot they'd get in trouble. Police officers who show their badges, draw their weapons and yell, "POLICE, GET DOWN/HANDS UP/[whatever]!" is a different situation than a civilian, who has no badge to show (if they did it'd be impersonation of a police officer, also a crime) and could only yell get down, hands up, etc. It's an entirely different standard the two parties operate under.

[Edi]

Not surprised at the verdict in this case, nor of the fallout. What it will do is make certain that the same defense Zimmerman pulled is going to be used by anyone who shoots someone else under any circumstances that are similar. I wouldn't be surprised to see it turned around and someone like Zimmerman trying to pull something similar getting shot as a matter of course and the defendant claiming self-defense based on what happened to Trayvon Martin, because given the precedent, there is a real reason to genuinely fear for your life and consequently shoot first.

It's going to lead to an escalation of violence in nearly every situation I can think of. And the moment it becomes a situation of a black man shooting a white man, you'll see just how much the support for Zimmerman was principle and how much was pure old school racism.

[aerius]

For the record, despite what the media and other race baiters such as Jesse Jackson would have you believe, George Zimmerman IS NOT WHITE. Mr. Zimmerman is in fact Hispanic.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I am no expert, but I am not proposing something to try and fool CSI and pretend the killer didn't fire the bullet. I am proposing a person claims self defence and with the law phrased in such a way about me feeling threaten, its more of a case of convincing jurors. Especially when in America apparently claiming the guy looked like he was reaching for a gun is apparently adequate justification to empty bullets into him. Mix and match from the Zimmerman case and we have a winner.

No, the claim alone of "I thought he was reaching for a gun" is not sufficient. You would need to have information that this specific individual was armed and further more you would need to be a police officer to go tracking down suspects of criminal activity.

As a civilian you can make a citizens arrest when and only when you observe a crime happen in front of you. This power does not extend to the apprehension of fugitives.

Unfortunately Fox News and various other threads aren't bad movies. Ad hominems have been used to try and downplay accidental killings. Just to show you I am not picking on America, I will point out when UK security forces killed a Brazilian man. When they realise they fucked up and he wasn't a terrorist, the stories can out that he was an illegal immigrant running away from security forces because he mistook them for immigration. So sorry, using ad hominems doesn't just occur in movies, and the fact that this tactic doesn't bother you is quite troubling. Saying that the victim is a suspect of a particular crime (even when he wasn't) or he looked suspicious is just an ad hominem and should be treated as such.

It does bother me in terms of the results of the Diallo shooting but I'm also aware of the realities of combat with firearms but what really does it for me is in these examples is that they run from the cops. Sure, Diallo may have mistakenly thought the four men all shouting "Police! Stop!" weren't cops. Menezes doesn't have such a luxury because he was confronted by fully uniformed officers and ran and then resisted arrest which under the UK protocol for suicide bombers was to shoot them in the head.

So, what we can conclude here is running from the police is hazardous. Resisting arrest even more so.

When considering the actions of vigilantes going out with the plan to kill people or confront them or whatever. No, it doesn't bother me because there are too many variables that they'd have to satisfy and likely would not be able.

As for the realities of combat with firearms. Your mind goes through a four step process. Observe. Orient. Decide. Act. Which puts you behind the curve when reacting to an actual lethal threat but it also makes it so that an officer may fire just as he/she realizes the object is not a threat even though they believed it to be one before.

I have to know he hasn't been captured. Really? Why can't I say I didn't realise he was captured at the time. Isn't the burden of proof on the prosecution that I somehow know this? Or is it only reversed for my hypotheticals. Going on, I would like you for your next trick to explain how I am "glossing over the fact these officers were charged with 2nd degree murder" when my argument relies on the fact they were found NOT GUILTY in a case which I apparently glossed over.

Since you can't reasonable know if a fugitive is captured then attempting to apprehend one isn't a reasonable action. It is also not a power vested in the general public.

Even over here a few years ago we get episodes of America's most wanted or unsolved mysteries (yeah I know). They show pictures of the suspect. I am not saying a wannabe vigilante will go against random guy on the street, but its quite possible they can mistake someone for the wanted person given this information.

Yes, and they clearly instruct you to call the police and not go attempt to apprehend him yourself.

The first point I won't contest too tightly, because it was only a less important part of the argument. The second part I am surprise you even raise that issue given the Zimmerman case. Ignoring advice to wait for police apparently doesn't hinder a self defence argument. Lets say the vigilante did call police but decided to follow them anyway. So what.

I was thinking along the lines of you trying to apprehend. Not just follow. Of course, you don't really mean follow. That's the excuse you would tell the police investigators. So, you'd say "I thought I saw this guy who matches this description of this really bad guy that is known to carry firearms so I went and followed him. He spotted me and then confronted me. He went for his waistband and I thought he was going for a gun so I shot him".

So, your basic plan is to memorize some wanted poster and then wander the area he is believed to be operating in and confront someone that matches his description and face because you're looking at a wanted poster and not just a vague "white male, 6ft, brown hair blue eyes". You're going to need to find a person that looks like the actual wanted person...

...and you wonder why I think you've watched too many movies.

Good luck. If you did manage to pull that off then yeah I could see that it is possible you would get off with a self defense claim. I also find it just as likely that you'd would run into the actual wanted person. In which case you may just as likely end up as another victim.

I can play this game just like how a few people tried it in the previous Trayvon Martin thread. Its not illegal for me to follow someone (used in that previous thread to defend Zimmerman even if they thought his actions were stupid). Its not illegal for me to ask someone to stop and answer questions (they don't have to of course). And of course after I shoot him there is no one to dispute my version of events that he looked like he was reaching for something, and I was afraid it was a firearm.

Nothing you've described in that paragraph would lead to reasonable belief that he was pulling a firearm and not a wallet.

Let me put it to you like this. Let's say Osama Bin Laden is still alive. I want to go out and kill people because I'm a murdering psychopath. So, in SLC, UT I go find someone of middle eastern decent that has similar features to Osama Bin Laden and I kill him. My actions would not be reasonable because Osama Bin Laden is not believed to be in the US. Take any other wanted person and you have the same scenario.

Wouldn't the lack of up to date information help the defense lawyer for the vigilante? No seriously, I trying to work out why this hinders their case because with a police officer who tries what I am suggesting might face the inconvenient question of how he doesn't know a suspect was taken in when state wide notification would have been, the vigilante can easily claim that was no way for him to know this because, well he is not a police officer and thus not privy to that information.

Unless police don't actually give out suspect descriptions like artist impressions etc. Please tell me you do, or my opinion of the US is just going to drop further.

The lack of information hurts the reasonableness of your decision. The less data you have the more reckless your actions become.

We do release information to the media which includes pictures. Now all you need to do is find someone that looks like that person and then kill them. Good luck.

1. So I guess you didn't get where I am coming from if you think I am asking a question because I don't understand the US. As oppose to I think laws / rulings which allow leeway for wannabe vigilantes are a bad idea. Because you know, if such laws appeared in my country I would totally not question them because god damn it, its my country and its not like that totally different USA.

2. Hard for me to reach for a Marissa Alexander case when I didn't even know who she is, nor quoted an example. Are you sure you are not mistaking me for someone else.

My mistake. I was tired and I have been involved in a number of other discussions in which people went that direction and thus I didn't read your entire paragraph. I apologize.

3. I don't say the Diallo case or Zimmerman case is the same, because my argument isn't contingent on ONLY one law which sucks, but on multiple laws which individually give wannabe vigilantes quite a bit of a hand, but combine makes it worse, rather than discouraging vigilante behaviour and letting police do the job.

Maybe we need to compare. Will you cite the self defense laws of your country.

[aerius]

I am not going to argue the civil court thing, because as far as I can see, even if you are not guilty in a criminal court, you can still get successfully sued in a civil court for wrongful death. However I will bite for the other reasons.

1. Physical evidence - I am no expert, but I am going to guess that the evidence for a bullet going through someone from the front is going to be the same regardless of whether they were doing a "reaching" motion or holding their hands up in the air. Remember, I am not claiming the bullet isn't the wannabe vigilante's, only that it was self defense.

Yes, no, maybe so. Depends on what your story is. If the shot went through his body at a downward angle resembling an execution shot at a kneeling person, yet you claim the guy was running at you, it's not going to jibe.

2. Self defence according to the letter of the law - ok that might be a problem, although if the situation worked before, therefore it should work in the same type of circumstances, with some variation between states. So I just better check the laws of the state are similar enough to the examples I gave since they occurred in other states.

Altercations, especially violent ones tend to play out in all sorts of unpredictable ways. You are taking a big risk of either having the situation getting out of hand and YOU being the one getting shot or you shoot at the wrong time & end up with a manslaughter conviction. A violent altercation is not something that plays out to a script.

3. Witnesses - Witnesses? What witnesses, I just killed the number one witness against me. Oh, you mean the other people who might have seen. I haven't followed this case as much as others, but in the other thread didn't you point out that the main witness is Zimmerman and he aren't talking. The point being its hardly that implausible even in this day and age with video footage that they only two witnesses are the killer and the person he killed. Its not like I am proposing that the wannabe vigilante takes his sweet time torturing his victim or anything like that, thus minimising the time an actual third witness can get a good look at what happened.

Cameras are everywhere these days, everyone has a cell phone camera and security cameras of various sorts are all over the place as well. A would be vigilante might get lucky, but it's not a bet I'd make in this day & age.

4. Other forensic evidence eg powder residue - why don't I just say I shot him from the range I really shot him from.

Because depending on what that range is and what your story is, it may no longer fall under justifiable self-defence and you then get hit with manslaughter. And there's a bunch of other details like that which you need to ensure are reasonably consistent with your story.

So yes, hypothetically speaking we could have some Frank Castle types offing "undesirable characters" and getting away with it. But I don't see the Zimmerman verdict opening up the floodgates and unleashing an army of Punishers in the US.

[une]

For the record, despite what the media and other race baiters such as Jesse Jackson would have you believe, George Zimmerman IS NOT WHITE. Mr. Zimmerman is in fact Hispanic.

Hispanic is not a race. You can be a white/black/asian Hispanic person.

[Mr. Coffee]

For the record, despite what the media and other race baiters such as Jesse Jackson would have you believe, George Zimmerman IS NOT WHITE. Mr. Zimmerman is in fact Hispanic.

Hispanic is not a race. You can be a white/black/asian Hispanic person.

The US Census Bureau says you're wrong.

[Terralthra]

The mainstream media also needs to get the shit sued out of them for doctoring photos and interview transcripts then presenting them as "fact".

Well, they are already going ahead with their case against NBC.

When asked how the not-guilty verdict affects the civil case against NBC News, Beasley responded, “This verdict of not guilty is just that, and shows that at least this jury didn’t believe that George was a racist, profiling, or anything that the press accused George of being. That probably doesn’t get you that much but it’s simply time for us to start the case and hold accountable anyone who was irresponsible in their journalism.”

It doesn't show anything of the sort. The jury could absolutely believe that Zimmerman was engaged in profiling or was racist. It just didn't find him guilty of murder.

[une]

For the record, despite what the media and other race baiters such as Jesse Jackson would have you believe, George Zimmerman IS NOT WHITE. Mr. Zimmerman is in fact Hispanic.

Hispanic is not a race. You can be a white/black/asian Hispanic person.

The US Census Bureau says you're wrong.

No, it doesn't.

http://www.census.gov/population/hispan ... t/faq.html

Relevant part:

Persons who report themselves as Hispanic can be of any race and are identified as such in our data tables.

[Elfdart]

One microscopic silver lining has been watching the grief stricken faces of Faux News hosts, looking utterly depressed that there were no riots in response to the verdict.

Well, unless you want to count this:

Soul Singer Attacked on Stage for Dedicating Song to Trayvon Martin

Legendary musician and future R&B Hall of Fame inductee Lester Chambers suffered injuries Saturday after he was attacked on stage for dedicating a song to Trayvon Martin.

According to police, the Civil-Rights-era leader of soul rock group The Chambers Brothers was performing at the Hayward-Russell City Blues Festival in downtown Hayward, California, when he was suddenly rushed by a woman identified as 43-year-old Dinalynn Andrews Potter after he dedicated Curtis Mayfield's "People Get Ready" to Trayvon Martin shortly following George Zimmerman's acquittal.

Chambers' wife Lola said the 73-year-old musician told audience members that Mayfield would have changed the lyric "there's a train a comin" to "there's a change a comin" were he alive today.

Friend and fellow musician Kurt Crowbar Kangas filed this report following the incident:

[T]he woman who attacked him was white and yelled something like “it’s all your fault” before she hit him, he went down hard but was halfway caught by Barren, thank God, she was subdued by Police and taken away while the para-medics came and took him to a local Hospital where he went thru a series of cat scans, no broken bones, the only injury for now is a 8″ scratch in the kidney area of his back and it’s starting to swell.

A photo posted on Facebook by Chambers' son Dylan showed Lester recovering at home with a large bruise on his back.

You can see the photo and the rest of the article at the link.

[Ralin]

For the record, despite what the media and other race baiters such as Jesse Jackson would have you believe, George Zimmerman IS NOT WHITE. Mr. Zimmerman is in fact Hispanic.

Hispanic is not a race. You can be a white/black/asian Hispanic person.

The US Census Bureau says you're wrong.

I've actually met an Asian guy who is Hispanic, i.e., born in Spain. And a Mexican and Dominican who get pissed off if you call them one.

[Mr. Coffee]

No, it doesn't.

http://www.census.gov/population/hispan ... t/faq.html

Relevant part:

Persons who report themselves as Hispanic can be of any race and are identified as such in our data tables.

Yes, it's their catch all term for anyone spanish-speaking latin american origin. It's not a race, it's the catch all for everyone that isn't white and doesn't self identify as anything else. Point fucking is, Zimmerman isn't a white guy anymore than Martin was an innocent little angel of a teen. But thanks for letting me know you['re yet another one of those obnoxious motherfuckers that fell for NBC's lying bullshit.

Also, do yourself a favor and do not respond to this.

[une]

No, it doesn't.

http://www.census.gov/population/hispan ... t/faq.html

Relevant part:

Persons who report themselves as Hispanic can be of any race and are identified as such in our data tables.

Yes, it's their catch all term for anyone spanish-speaking latin american origin. It's not a race, it's the catch all for everyone that isn't white and doesn't self identify as anything else. Point fucking is, Zimmerman isn't a white guy anymore than Martin was an innocent little angel of a teen. But thanks for letting me know you['re yet another one of those obnoxious motherfuckers that fell for NBC's lying bullshit.

Also, do yourself a favor and do not respond to this.

My point is that Hispanic and white are not mutually exclusive, so saying, "he's Hispanic" doesn't make Zimmerman non-white.

[Mr. Coffee]

My point is that Hispanic and white are not mutually exclusive, so saying, "he's Hispanic" doesn't make Zimmerman non-white.

Have you seen what Zimmerman looks like? I've employed Mexicans that look less ethnic. Now quit being a disingenious shitbag. Point is, he is not a white guy, so all this shit about "oh, a white guy shot a black kid" is utter horseshit. Fact is a light brown guy shot a darker brown guy. Now get the fuck out of the thread, you useless shitposting wanker.

[une]

My point is that Hispanic and white are not mutually exclusive, so saying, "he's Hispanic" doesn't make Zimmerman non-white.

Have you seen what Zimmerman looks like? I've employed Mexicans that look less ethnic. Now quit being a disingenious shitbag. Point is, he is not a white guy, so all this shit about "oh, a white guy shot a black kid" is utter horseshit. Fact is a light brown guy shot a darker brown guy. Now get the fuck out of the thread, you useless shitposting wanker.

I didn't post an opinion on whether I thought Zimmerman was white. My sole point was that someone being Hispanic doesn't automatically make them non-white.

[Mr. Coffee]

So basically you posted to waste bandwidth and my time with a useless fucking aside that had jack and shit to do with anything people were actually discussing. No, seriously, get the fuck out.

[une]

So basically you posted to waste bandwidth and my time with a useless fucking aside that had jack and shit to do with anything people were actually discussing. No, seriously, get the fuck out.

Someone wrote that Zimmerman was Hispanic, not white. I pointed out that they are not mutually exclusive. That's a fact. Saying, "Zimmerman isn't white, he's Hispanic" is like saying, "Idris Elba is not black, he's British."

You wasted your own time by arguing about something I never wrote.

[aerius]

Yup, looks white to me!


Actually he looks Latino, if someone just showed me this picture I'd say he was one of Mr. Coffee's Mexican workers.

But the mainstream media would have you believe that he's some lily-ass white guy who shot a black kid.
And people still trust what the media is telling you about this case when it's been caught doctoring photos, videos, and emergency call transcripts. Also note how damn near every picture of Trayvon Martin in the press is actually a photo of him as a 12 year old.

It's always this one



Instead of this one



That is propaganda at work, and most of you don't even know it's happening. You are being led to believe that Martin is some angelic kid who could not possibly have been doing anything suspicious which would've caused Zimmerman to follow him. When in fact the truth is Martin was a fucking thug in training. He'd already been caught for possession of stolen property and burglary tools, not to mention drug paraphernalia and the fact that he was stoned when he was shot. Does the media report that? Hell no, but the events were documented and I posted about it in the original thread. It's entirely plausible that Martin was casing out the area looking for homes to burglarize, and that Zimmerman had seen him doing suspicious shit which then led to the events which went down.

[Losonti Tokash]

It's also possible you're just posting irrelevant crypto racist bullshit like usual, but that doesn't mean you deserve to be murdered either.

Edit: I don't know if there's enough irony in the world for someone with a signature linking to yahooka.com saying someone using marijuana makes them a degenerate thug in training who deserved to die.

[aerius]

It's also likely that you're a brainwashed dumbass with no critical thinking skills, but that's not my fucking problem.

[Losonti Tokash]

It's also likely that you're a brainwashed dumbass with no critical thinking skills, but that's not my fucking problem.

Please masturbate to the RaHoWa somewhere else, tia.

[Mr. Coffee]

So basically you posted to waste bandwidth and my time with a useless fucking aside that had jack and shit to do with anything people were actually discussing. No, seriously, get the fuck out.

Someone wrote that Zimmerman was Hispanic, not white. I pointed out that they are not mutually exclusive. That's a fact. Saying, "Zimmerman isn't white, he's Hispanic" is like saying, "Idris Elba is not black, he's British."

You wasted your own time by arguing about something I never wrote.

No, dumbass, I'm arguing with you wasting space with some bullshit whine about terminology. Did you add anything to the discussion? No, you didn't. Now get the fuck out and go back to lurking, you useless cunt.

[aerius]

Please masturbate to the RaHoWa somewhere else, tia.

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about or what the fuck your problem is, other than being a dumbass motherfucker I mean.
I'm with Mr. Coffee, quit your pissy whining, sit down, and shut the fuck up, the adults are trying to have a discussion here.

[Losonti Tokash]

It's okay, aerius, we understand that it was probably pretty scary that time you saw a black guy outside all on his own and he tried talking to you. We can even accept that even in your darkest fantasies Trayvon never caused nearly as much harm to his community as you have (and lucky you, he'll never get the opportunity, leaving your record unchallenged). But stop pretending you're contributing anything by posting more irrelevant dog whistle racism, it's just embarrassing you in front of your friends.