Trayvon Martin

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by bigmack

Good for you. Shame you might end up dead as well.

When you & lsbets can answer my question honestly, you'll see the reason why this death occurred.

A few weeks ago I was involved in a road rage situation with a car filled with people who originate from Mexico. I felt threatened. Should I have stopped the car and 'escalated things 'real quick'

This death occurred because a grown man made the decision to carry a weapon out after a 17 year old kid... then confront him... and then leave the minor to decision of whether to fight or flight. Thats why this death occurred.

A adult went out looking for a kid with a gun.

I own a lot of guns. Have access to one nearly all the time. And because I have half a gd brain this would have NEVER happened to me.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Seriously... WTF planet are you on? A kid is dead but thats alright because he was dumb and defended himself?

Zimmermann doesn't go out with a gun and NONE OF THIS HAPPENS!

It's obvious that Zimmerman was at best abusing his "authority" as self-appointed Neighborhood Cop and at worst a borderline predator.

It's obvious that his inappropriate actions caused a confrontation that lead to the death of a young man.

But is this manslaughter? I don't know that the law can prove that.

Is this a case where a person caused the death but it comes down to Zimmerman, the police and their witness, vs the counter witness and basically nothing else except the fact that Mr. Martin is dead??

[jelly]

Originally Posted by lsbets

If you want to look at it like that, a much higher percentage of blacks get murdered than any other race.

You're right,by Blacks.

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

A adult went out looking for a kid with a gun.

Am I on Candid Camera and you're Allen Funt?

Don't you get it? Concealed carry license, neighborhood wannabe cop, COMING HOME FROM GROCERY SHOPPING.

And you think he saw it was a kid. Maybe black, maybe not. Went home (as an adult) got his gun and went hunting for a kid?

HE ALWAYS HAS THE DAMN GUN!

The reason the kid is dead is because he cold-cocked the MF.

End of starry.

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by lsbets

Oh come on Elysian, just listen to Box. The darkie deserved it. He got what was coming to him. How dare one of those uppity negroes defend themselves!

Is throwing the first punch & breaking the nose, then pounding the guy's head into the pavement defending oneself? Not in any normal world.

How often is a 50 year old (regardless of race) going to instigate a fight with a 17 year old? Its not gonna happen. Go ask any number of 50 year old males and tell them you'll give them a thousand bucks to pick a fight w/someone like Trayvon Martin. You won't get any takers.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by lsbets

You don't get it.

The guy appointed himself the neighborhood sheriff and went out looking for trouble as noted by his numerous previous calls to the police about nothing.

So, what!? Seriously, so what? The world is filled with irrational people, stupid people, idiots -- people who do all kinds of things for the dumbest and most incomprehensible reasons -- but that doesn't give anyone the right to assault such people, unless it's in self-defense -- unless he's defending himself from physical harm.

So you think Zimmerman did nothing wrong.

And you said, I don't understand proportional response. What about the proportional response of Martin using his God-given mouth to see what was up with Zim, instead of hauling off on him? There's a scripture text here that could very well apply to Martin:

Prov 27:12
12 A prudent man sees evil and hides himself,
The naive proceed and pay the penalty.
NASB

What did Martin do to conceal himself -- to extricate himself from evil or what he might have perceived as a bad situation -- or maybe perceived to have been Zim's evil intentions toward him? Did Martin exercise any wisdom? Did he act prudently? Was it wise to escalate or aggravate a potentially bad situation? Or was Martin totally naive? Maybe he was one of these young Blacks who bought into the Left's militant racism propaganda that says all Whites are out to get all Blacks. That Whites are never to be trusted. That Whites only mission in life is to oppress Blacks,, etc., etc. And, therefore, Blacks must always fight this oppression. What if Martin had this kind of mindset? Would you say this was naive thinking on his part? I certainly would. But look what it got him.

There is an old adage that is similar to the above scripture. You've heard it, I'm sure. "Fools rush in where even devils fear to tread".

Boxcar

[Robert Fischer]

Why has the shooter's account of Martin punching Zimmerman become fact?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

I don't care why they aren't dead.

Maybe because this kid was a low-life thug and deserved it... or... maybe... because he actually had the courage to try and protect himself seeing as how he wasn't doing anything wrong.

Protect himself from what, specifically? Please answer this. Do you have a story you can post that says that Zim assaulted Martin? Do you have a story that shows that Zim initiated the assault?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Why has the shooter's account of Martin punching Zimmerman become fact?

Zim's wounds? Just a wild, crazy guess. Another really wild, zany, out-there reason could have something to with the eyewitness to the case.

Try to keep up, Robert.

Boxcar

[duncan04]

Don't know if anyone posted this but here is the link to the police report

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/documen...n4i3lvbdofcpb4

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Zim's wounds? Just a wild, crazy guess. Another really wild, zany, out-there reason could have something to with the eyewitness to the case.

Try to keep up, Robert.

Boxcar

There are conflicting eye witnesses and Zimmerman was not treated until the next day.

[lsbets]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

There are conflicting eye witnesses and Zimmerman was not treated until the next day.

That's been pointed out numerous times in this thread. Zimmerman had no real wounds.

But, Box gave himself away with his what if Martin was one of those militant blacks musing.

Our resident expert on Christianity seems to think the kid got what he deserved.

[lsbets]

Originally Posted by Valuist

Is throwing the first punch & breaking the nose, then pounding the guy's head into the pavement defending oneself? Not in any normal world.

How often is a 50 year old (regardless of race) going to instigate a fight with a 17 year old? Its not gonna happen. Go ask any number of 50 year old males and tell them you'll give them a thousand bucks to pick a fight w/someone like Trayvon Martin. You won't get any takers.

We do not know who threw the first punch, and while Zimmerman's head may have hit the pavement, I doubt it was being "pounded" into the pavement. If that were the case he would have needed medical treatment immediately.

And Zimmerman is not even close to 50 years old, so I'm not sure what your point is there.

[Robert Fischer]

Zimmerman is a 250lb man with a gun, who is in good enough shape to pursue dangerous suspicious people, AND was in fact in the process of pursuit when he contacted police.

Chances are Zimmerman was a coward. He still deserves a fair trial.

[Steve 'StatMan']

If Martin goes on what his supposed intent was and just goes to his friend/family home and gets let it, with Zimmerman watching, nothing goes badly. Martin appearenly tries to lose him, now Zimmerman really has to be wondering what this kid is up to. Either no contact should have occured, or civil verbal discussion should have occured. Then when Martin follows through with that intent (and if Zimmerman want to watch or not, fine) then there still is no problem. But of course, no one wants to be followed, esp. in the dark. No idea when the come comes out until the shot happened (no word of more than one shot I'm aware of. Either Zim said stuff to infuriate the kid, or the kid was infuriated by being followed. Or thd kid was up to trouble after all. Also, word selection and tone are critical. Anything said with acusatory words or tones/inflections could escalte the sitution. We're looking at an amature investigator and as I sometimes reflect on teens (nowdays teens, and even myself at that age) as an Amature Person. They are young. They don't have all of life's experiences. They may not have good problem resolution skills. This could have been resolved with words, preferably non-treatening ones. Or left to the police and 911 to investiage, and see if they even wanted to talk to Martin, or observe him if they even found him. or look for general things or problems in the area - not necessarily related to anyone in particular in the area, including Martin or Zimmerman.

The more that comes out, the more it seems that more than at one person has acted badly, or at least started a continually and quickly deteriorating situation.

Now I don't know if Zim walk follows without a gun, if Zim doesn't come out of this dead. Or maybe he doesn't follow so close.

I'm trying to remember, but when I had a condo where they tried to start a neighborhood watch 20+ years ago, I thought the cops said it was ok to ask questions. I know in my apartment building, they want us to ask questions of people who want to enter the security door if they haven't buzzed in and we don't know them. Questions - if asked properly, aren't wrong. Doesn't mean someone won't go off on you, but it isn't wrong. But one must ask the right way, prerably in a neutral way. Make it start as a positive or at least neutral dialog, not an accusatory dialog - if there's bad intentions, you'll soon learn it from the manner of the answers. But usually, they want people just to look out their windows, but I do remember the cops suggested voluteers take occasional walks around. And defiintely not with a gun.

I am seeing this case unravel quite a bit, but still want to see all the facts come out in court to know exactly what happened.

Maybe this will start a dialogue that will help all people, both those who watch/follow/investigate and those who are being observed/followed/investigated, know how to act/react then there is no ill intent on either's part.

Sure, a predator stalking a victim for an assult, and an investigator following someone who may actually intend to do bad will not want to behave in a good manner, or may use confidence to get closer to either attack or do bad things.

I don't know. But this does need to become a teaching moment of some kind.