Trayvon Martin shooting - murder or justified?

[ChristineES]

This whole story is so tragic. I feel bad for poor Trayvon's parents. I hope they charge that guy who shot him. He was completely unjustified in killing that young man.

 

[Kathryn]

This whole story is so tragic. I feel bad for poor Trayvon's parents. I hope they charge that guy who shot him. He was completely unjustified in killing that young man.

If they don't charge him, I will want to, I don't know, go on a protest march or something. It makes me feel powerless, just sitting here hoping someone does something about it.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

If they don't charge him, I will want to, I don't know, go on a protest march or something. It makes me feel powerless, just sitting here hoping someone does something about it.

Oh I don't think you have to worry about that anymore. There is too much focus on this for it not to be handled properly. It's sad that it had to go public and get national attention for the right thing to happen but at least it will. I understand that patience is difficult now but we do want every procedure to be followed so that there are no loop holes for this guy to slip through. Let the authorities do their job now that they have been guilted in to it.

 

[Kathryn]

Oh I don't think you have to worry about that anymore. There is too much focus on this for it not to be handled properly. It's sad that it had to go public and get national attention for the right thing to happen but at least it will. I understand that patience is difficult now but we do want every procedure to be followed so that there are no loop holes for this guy to slip through. Let the authorities do their job now that they have been guilted in to it.

The voice of reason. I am just so mad about this. Here is a picture of one of my kids at about that same age:

My son was seventeen when this photo was taken. Lookin' like a real criminal, huh? I can just see him as he was back then, coming back from the store called "The Corner Market" at dusk with a packet of Skittles and a soda - a nearly every evening occurrence. This guy would have shot him down in the street like a stray dog if he'd walked thru the alleyway with this expression on his young, African American face - I mean, he's got his hat on backwards. That's nearly as criminal as a hoodie, right?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The voice of reason. I am just so mad about this. Here is a picture of one of my kids at about that same age:

Great looking kid.

My son was seventeen when this photo was taken. Lookin' like a real criminal, huh? I can just see him as he was back then, coming back from the store called "The Corner Market" at dusk with a packet of Skittles and a soda - a nearly every evening occurrence. This guy would have shot him down in the street like a stray dog if he'd walked thru the alleyway with this expression on his young, African American face - I mean, he's got his hat on backwards. That's nearly as criminal as a hoodie, right?

I think its sideways that means criminal.

I'm still reluctant to say this was a race issue. I think the guy wanted to shoot someone because that is what would make him more of a man in his eyes. I don't think he cared what race the "criminal" was. Any kid could have been seen as an opportunity to him.

 

[Kathryn]

Great looking kid.



I think its sideways that means criminal.

I'm still reluctant to say this was a race issue. I think the guy wanted to shoot someone because that is what would make him more of a man in his eyes. I don't think he cared what race the "criminal" was. Any kid could have been seen as an opportunity to him.

You may be right, and truthfully, I doubt anyone will ever know the real motivations of the shooter. But I can see why people would consider race as a possible motivation - or part of his "issue."

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

You may be right, and truthfully, I doubt anyone will ever know the real motivations of the shooter. But I can see why people would consider race as a possible motivation - or part of his "issue."

Oh sure. It's still a real possiblity that he believes all young African Americans are automatically criminal. I just feel that it is important to acknowledge that we don't know for sure and not jump to the conclusion automatically. All these folks screaming about him being a racist when they don't actually know makes them just as prejudice in my opinion.

 

[Kathryn]

Oh sure. It's still a real possiblity that he believes all young African Americans are automatically criminal. I just feel that it is important to acknowledge that we don't know for sure and not jump to the conclusion automatically. All these folks screaming about him being a racist when they don't actually know makes them just as prejudice in my opinion.

True. But his actions basically beg the question. It's a reasonable QUESTION but not necessarily a reasonable ASSUMPTION in my opinion.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

True. But his actions basically beg the question. It's a reasonable QUESTION but not necessarily a reasonable ASSUMPTION in my opinion.

Absolutely.

 

[work in progress]

Oh sure. It's still a real possiblity that he believes all young African Americans are automatically criminal. I just feel that it is important to acknowledge that we don't know for sure and not jump to the conclusion automatically. All these folks screaming about him being a racist when they don't actually know makes them just as prejudice in my opinion.

I think we certainly can jump to conclusions about the police chief -- who didn't bother with an alcohol or drug test on Zimmerman, and just took his word that he felt threatened by a much smaller black youth trying to run away from him....but he did call for a toxicology test on the dead victim....so what does that tell you?

As for Zimmerman -- the stories are streaming in about the unusually large number of calls this neighbourhood vigilante made to police before the shooting -- to me, this would have been enough evidence to take away his gun, racism or not! And on that subject, here's an interesting factoid that was published in a recent psychological study on an unusual property of just holding a gun from the Science and Religion News website a couple of days ago: Holding a Gun May Make You More Likely to Think Someone Else Is Holding One Too

As the investigation continues into last month’s fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed black teenager killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida, psychology researchers can point to one aspect of the tragedy: how easy it is to “see” that someone is holding a gun when he is not. In the latest research, scientists found that simply holding a gun, as George Zimmerman was when he confronted Martin in a gated community in Sanford, Florida, has an effect. (Sharon Begley, Reuters)
​

Now that should tell the gun nuts a few things about why you're more likely to die in a jurisdiction that allows concealed hand guns!

The other issue that needs to be addressed is the application of law -- because if we go by the reported chain of events, Trayvon Martin would have had a better case for using Jeb Bush's "Stand Your Ground" law than George Zimmerman...if he had a gun of course! But, even if he did, does anyone here believe that this sheriff and this police dept. would have interpreted it to mean that a black kid could "stand his ground" against a middle aged white resident? Hardly likely, in my estimation.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I think we certainly can jump to conclusions about the police chief -- who didn't bother with an alcohol or drug test on Zimmerman, and just took his word that he felt threatened by a much smaller black youth trying to run away from him....but he did call for a toxicology test on the dead victim....so what does that tell you?

It tells me you don't know the difference in jumping to conclusions and deductive reasoning. You start by saying we are justified in jumping to a conclusion but then use an example of deductive reasoning. Your example is fine but it has nothing to do with jumping to a conclusion, that is something you do without any evidence.

Now that should tell the gun nuts a few things about why you're more likely to die in a jurisdiction that allows concealed hand guns!

I'm a gun nut and it tells me no such thing. I understand you Canadians have a certain way of looking at guns but preaching to us about it is very annoying. Our culture is different, get over it.

The other issue that needs to be addressed is the application of law -- because if we go by the reported chain of events, Trayvon Martin would have had a better case for using Jeb Bush's "Stand Your Ground" law than George Zimmerman...if he had a gun of course! But, even if he did, does anyone here believe that this sheriff and this police dept. would have interpreted it to mean that a black kid could "stand his ground" against a middle aged white resident? Hardly likely, in my estimation.

I agree. :faint: Calm yourself, it had to happen eventually.

 

[work in progress]

It tells me you don't know the difference in jumping to conclusions and deductive reasoning. You start by saying we are justified in jumping to a conclusion but then use an example of deductive reasoning. Your example is fine but it has nothing to do with jumping to a conclusion, that is something you do without any evidence.

The point is that occasionally there are issues that don't have two sides...there's the obvious, and then there's denying the obvious! In this example, there is an obvious difference in the way this police dept. would handle the shooting of a black man by a white man, and the reverse situation. That's what is really important...not trying to figure out what was going in George Zimmerman's head. Even if he shot a white man (or woman), there would have been no immediate, unqualified presumption that he was "standing his ground."

I'm a gun nut and it tells me no such thing. I understand you Canadians have a certain way of looking at guns but preaching to us about it is very annoying. Our culture is different, get over it.

You're not talking about culture, you're talking about mythology! This point was ironically brought back to light after the shooting of Gabriella Giffords with a comparison of Arizona's present irresponsible gun rules compared with the gun laws back in the days of the real old west:

The Wild West Had Gun Laws, and So Should We

It's time for 'commonsense restrictions'



(Newser) – Following Saturday’s tragic shootings, the Pima County sheriff referred to Arizona as “the Tombstone of the United States,” a clear reference to the silver-mining town that played host to the OK Corral shootout some 130 years ago. "The irony of (his) remark," writes Katherine Benton-Cohen on Politico, “is that Tombstone lawmakers in the 1880s did more to combat gun violence than the Arizona government does today. For all the talk of the ‘Wild West,’ the policymakers of 1880 Tombstone—and many other Western towns—were ardent supporters of gun control.”
​

In fact, when they engaged in the shootout, the Earps and Doc Holliday were law officers enforcing Tombstone’s gun laws—which included a ban on concealed weapons. Today, not only can Arizonans purchase guns without licenses, they can also carry concealed weapons without permits. “Even the Tombstone town council of 1880 realized that some people with guns have intent to kill—and that reasonable laws could help stop them," Benton-Cohen concludes. (Jared Loughner, especially, shouldn't have been allowed to own a gun, considering he was suspended from college due to mental problems—click for Nathan Thornburgh's entire piece on that, in Time.)
​

I agree. :faint: Calm yourself, it had to happen eventually.

Who's not calm? If you are opposed to restrictions on gun ownership and open carry, you have own the fact that the real world will not allow all groups the same gun rights. Some groups will be quickly regarded as acting in self-defense while others will not, and be immediately charged and thrown in jail.

 

[Revoltingest]

It becomes more complicated.....
Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Who's not calm?

*sigh* I was making a funny, you know, as though me agreeing with you might be a shock to your system.

I agree with several of your points but not your attitude towards the discussion. You seem to be very contemptious of anyone who doesn't automatically share your view on the subject. I could be reading too much into it but thats the impression I get. So instead of jumping into an arguement with you I'll just go make sure my guns are all clean and well oiled.

 

[work in progress]

It becomes more complicated.....
Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman

Notice how this Foxnews affiliate (what a surprise) jumps past the beginning of the story (Zimmerman calling 911 telling the dispatcher that he is following "a real suspicious guy" who "looks like he's... on drugs or something" before this previously undisclosed witness's testimony would apply, but acknowledging: "And from that moment to the shooting, details are few." Sol let's just make something up: "The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not want to be shown on camera." Yeah, that's good enough for me! And good enough for most Foxnews viewers.....just scroll through the comments thread! That will tell you something about what makes these people tick.

 

[work in progress]

For anyone up to speed on the issue of the American Legislative Exchange Committee (ALEC) and how the business members have model legislation crafted for use by all levels of government, here's one that's been lying around for a couple of days:
ALEC Has Pushed The NRA's "Stand Your Ground" Law Across The Nation

Since the 2005 passage of Florida's law, similar statutes have been passed in 16 other states. This was no accident. In a 2008 interview with NRA News, ALEC resident fellow Michael Hough explained how his organization works with the NRA to push similar legislation through its network of conservative state legislators

NRA got what it paid for. According to a 2002 report from Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the NRA is "a longtime funder of ALEC." The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) reports that the gun lobby group was a "Vice-Chairman" level sponsor of ALEC's 2011 annual conference, and that an NRA operative was "the co-chair of ALEC's Public Safety and Elections Task Force for a number of years, until the Spring of 2011."
​

Next question is: is the NRA the only ALEC member pushing the Castle Doctrine Act? And are they doing it out from a concern for the interests of the average homeowner? Or does such model legislation spur gun and ammo sales? The real power behind the NRA is not gun owners, it's gun and ammunition manufacturers after all.

But what about the rest of the cabal behind ALEC. Do other ALEC members who represent utility and security companies that step in to replace government services that are privatized, have a stake in vigilante justice also? There is one very possible angle, if people accept the trend of having a loaded gun readily available at home, and a gun in the car or on their possession (or those who are part of the privileged elite can hire someone else to do the dirty work), as the fair exchange for withdrawing police along with all of the other public services!

 

[Revoltingest]

Next question is: is the NRA the only ALEC member pushing the Castle Doctrine Act? And are they doing it out from a concern for the interests of the average homeowner? Or does such model legislation spur gun and ammo sales? The real power behind the NRA is not gun owners, it's gun and ammunition manufacturers after all.

The NRA represents us, the members.
Methinks your accusation bespeaks hubris.

 

[Revoltingest]

If they don't charge him, I will want to, I don't know, go on a protest march or something. It makes me feel powerless, just sitting here hoping someone does something about it.

Some are suggesting a more dangerous response.
http://www.allvoices.com/contribute...r-george-zimmerman-by-new-black-panther-party
It seems that racist & violent vigilantism has a rainbow foundation.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

people prepared to kill inocent people should not be armed.

 

[Viker]

For anyone up to speed on the issue of the American Legislative Exchange Committee (ALEC) and how the business members have model legislation crafted for use by all levels of government, here's one that's been lying around for a couple of days:
ALEC Has Pushed The NRA's "Stand Your Ground" Law Across The Nation

Since the 2005 passage of Florida's law, similar statutes have been passed in 16 other states. This was no accident. In a 2008 interview with NRA News, ALEC resident fellow Michael Hough explained how his organization works with the NRA to push similar legislation through its network of conservative state legislators

NRA got what it paid for. According to a 2002 report from Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the NRA is "a longtime funder of ALEC." The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) reports that the gun lobby group was a "Vice-Chairman" level sponsor of ALEC's 2011 annual conference, and that an NRA operative was "the co-chair of ALEC's Public Safety and Elections Task Force for a number of years, until the Spring of 2011."
​

Next question is: is the NRA the only ALEC member pushing the Castle Doctrine Act? And are they doing it out from a concern for the interests of the average homeowner? Or does such model legislation spur gun and ammo sales? The real power behind the NRA is not gun owners, it's gun and ammunition manufacturers after all ( <---unsubstantiated, likely false claim ).

But what about the rest of the cabal behind ALEC. Do other ALEC members who represent utility and security companies that step in to replace government services that are privatized, have a stake in vigilante justice also? There is one very possible angle, if people accept the trend of having a loaded gun readily available at home, and a gun in the car or on their possession (or those who are part of the privileged elite can hire someone else to do the dirty work), as the fair exchange for withdrawing police along with all of the other public services!

I think Zimmerman exploited the law or was ignorant of it. Either way, I think he is guilty of murder/manslaughter. The point and reason, he had no right or permission to follow/pursue. That's a paid policeman's job, not a civilian's. All he had to do was call the actual police and relay info to them. Unless this kid was armed or dangerous and coming after him firstly, he was never in his rights because he failed to consider the laws governing this situation and trailed him. Stand Your Ground - Castle Doctrine laws do not apply to individuals who are not paid police professionals chasing around "perps". *Unless Florida's laws are radically different than my state's. They only apply to individuals minding their own business ( daily tasks, casual strolls, watching TV at home ), then being accosted. They are not solely for gun owners either. They are there in case you punch a mugger and seriously harm/kill him that you do not wind up being the one in jail or sued into oblivion.

If racial motivations are at play, then damn Zimmerman straight to hell.

*If Florida's laws concerning this matter are radically different than what I know of my own then jeesh, what a mess.