Racial Profiling and A Heartbreaking Tragedy.

reply to post by Xcathdra


We are pretty much in agreement on the issue.

The only thing I was trying to explain is, here the magistrate decides the charges and the DA basically rubberstamps. That is usually the way it works unless something is way off, or the person's lawyer intervenes. Around here you usually don't see a cell until you've seen the magistrate unless you are violent or drunk. I have seen the magistrate completely kick out an officer's arrest and set some one free. Here our magistrates are the first line in weeding out the bs. So, the DA feels confident in proceeding with anything they send to them.

There is no need for arrest. I understand that. I am talking of a 24 hour investigative hold. From what I've seen that is pretty much standard in my area. It is basically a way to ensure the person doesn't flee while the police try to verify their claims.

reply to post by seeker1977


I am assuming you directed your post to me since it doesn't say and I was the last person to post.

If it is directed at me read my last post before your response. It contains more information that has been ignored up until now.. Also If it is I will go back and and respond to your points.

If its not directed at me then my bad.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Are you seriously trying to say that Trayvon, if he attacked, was not perfectly within his legal rights to do so? You believe that a kid scared the hell out of a man 100 pounds bigger, enough to make him fear for his life AND that he tried to escape from that much smaller kid which provides him justification to kill that kid?

Trayvon can't speak for himself, so apparently that means we assume everything the confessed killer said is correct and ignore the actual facts of minor injuries on Zimerman and ignore that he stalked the kid for no reason. Why not, who cares who is stalking our kids nowadays. We just take his word for it that he was so terrified for his life of such a smaller kid that he felt he had no option but to kill that kid.

Evidence does NOT support any of his claims it only proves he instigated everything and failed in his duty to try and retreat after instigating it. Trayvon can't speak for himself but common sense should.

reply to post by seeker1977


What I am saying is we only have bits and pieces with the gaps being filled in by media speculation and civil rights leaders playing the race card, which is then compounded by people ignoring what Florida State Law says simply because they don't agree with / like the law.

The problem and major flaw (not to mention hypocritical) in that position is people are using that law by stating Mr. Martin had a right to defend himself, which uses the very same law you and others are trying to claim does not apply to support Mr. Zimmerman.

Hindsight is always 20/20, which is problematic for people who don't understand how use of force works. At the time of this encounter neither Mr. Martin nor Mr. Zimmerman could have foreseen a deadly force encounter taking place.

It is not against the law to follow an individual. Harassment / stalking laws are based on multiple actions of the same type towards the same individual dealing with the same situation. Neither Mr. Zimmerman nor Mr. Martin are under any obligation to confront one or the other, however we know that a confrontation occurred. What we dont know is how it occurred or why it occurred.

By that I am saying we dont have all of the information. We don't know for sure what transpired from contact to police arriving. As a member of the neighborhood watch program its not unreasonable for Mr. Zimmerman to be "nosey" when he comes across a person he does not recognize as living in the neighborhood. Neighborhood watch programs are usually based on observe and report, which in this case Mr. Zimmerman did. He observed a person he did not know and he reported that information to 911.

Its not unreasonable for a members of neighborhood watch groups to keep "eyes on" the individual until law enforcement arrives.

On the off chance you and everyone else forgot, Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nowhere does it state in the court of public opinion. When the Federal and local investigations are done, and charges are not supported, what will be the argument then? As far as confessed killer you do understand that if a person kills another person, its homicide right? Even if the action is justified its still listed as a homicide - justifiable defense. Even if its a law enforcement officer involved shooting, its a homicide.

Its not a question on whether or not Zimmerman shot and killed Mr. Martin. Its whether or not the killing was justifiable under Florida law.

The article states Martin went for Zimmerman's gun. How? Did Mr Martin have it in his hand pointing at the ground? Did he have it out and aimed at Mr. Martin? Did he have it holstered and exposed? Did he have it holstered and concealed?

Did Mr. Zimmerman identify himself to Mr. Martin? Did Mr. Zimmerman make initial contact with Mr. Martin? Did Mr. Martin make contact with Mr. Zimmerman. The 16 year old girl stated she heard Mr. Martin ask why are you following me. Whats not clear is where and what he was doing prior to the question. Did he turn around and walk towards Zimmerman?

Unless of course you know all the answers to the above questions, resulting in your position that Mr. Zimmerman is guilty?

As far as your last comment goes, its another example of ignoring the law simply because you don't agree with it. An aggressor under Florida law can use deadly force if the person they are dealing with escalates the situation to that level.

Also food for thought -
You are arguing that Mr. Martin had every right to confront Mr. Zimmerman. Mr. Zimmerman also had every right to confront Mr. Martin. You argue the evidence does not support his action, yet we dont have all of the evidence available.

How are you getting to the conclusion that he is guilty? How does his actions violate State Law?

The law can NOT apply to both the attacker and the defender. What you posted yourself makes that clear.

I saw the same story that Trayvon, allegedly went for Zimmerman's gun, which to me if true further proves that Trayvon was scared for his life. He wasn't just stalked by a much larger man he noticed that much larger man had a gun. He did not however get control of the gun so Zimmerman was never in any real danger, are we to assume Zimmerman was afraid of this smaller kid wrestling the gun away from him.

IF they were fighting for the gun and it went off accidentaly then I can see Zimerman having a defense. However he had control of the gun the whole time apparently and made a consious choice to kill the kid. Yes there needs to be a fair trial where everything is laid out as evidence, however none of the evidence right now supports Zimerman in any way.

Not to mention he isn't even being charged with anything whatsoever which is completely unacceptable considering what we do know. I would dare you to go search for other cases where the defendant claimed self defense after stalking or instigating something in any way and see how those cases turned out. As for him being neighborhood watch, just as any poloceman has to provide reasonable suspicion to pull someone over any neighborhood watch should have to prove the same thing. There was absolutely nothing suspicious here except for the way he felt trayvon dressed, he had absolutely nor eason to consider this kid suspicious or dangerous whatsoever. Him calling 911 with such ignorance should have been legal grounds alone to arrest him, making false or flat out stupid 911 calls is against the law.

Originally posted by seeker1977
The law can NOT apply to both the attacker and the defender. What you posted yourself makes that clear.

Which is why I stated / pointed out that people who denounced the law for Zimmerman's actions are required to use it to defend Martins actions. So yes, both individuals can have the law applied to their actions. Another reason why its so controversial.

Originally posted by seeker1977
I saw the same story that Trayvon, allegedly went for Zimmerman's gun, which to me if true further proves that Trayvon was scared for his life. He wasn't just stalked by a much larger man he noticed that much larger man had a gun. He did not however get control of the gun so Zimmerman was never in any real danger, are we to assume Zimmerman was afraid of this smaller kid wrestling the gun away from him.

If the gun was holstered and not out then Martin had no reason to go for it. Secondly Martin was not stalked (please familiarize yourself with what stalking is under Florida law and the elemnts required to be charged with it).

When a person goes for a holstered weapon, its not relevant if the person was able to successfully / unsuccessfully gain control of it. The action alone is enough to establish imminent fear and justification for use of deadly force. That is solidified if Mr. Zimmerman was on the ground with Mr. Martin on top of him.

As far as the continued comments on size / weight difference the term is called totality of circumstances. Just because a person is 5'6 weighing 100 pounds does not mean they dont know how to fight or be armed themselves.

Originally posted by seeker1977
IF they were fighting for the gun and it went off accidentaly then I can see Zimerman having a defense. However he had control of the gun the whole time apparently and made a consious choice to kill the kid. Yes there needs to be a fair trial where everything is laid out as evidence, however none of the evidence right now supports Zimerman in any way.

Actually there needs to be a fair investigation first to determine if a law was actually broke. The first investigations results were no crime was committed. We shall see how that plays out the second time around. A person does not have to have a weapon in order to justify a deadly use of force. If Mr. Martin was going for Zimmerman's gun, and they are on the ground and Zimmerman's is getting the crap beat out of him, that would justify a deadly use of force.

As far as evidence goes it does support Zimmerman. The 13 year old witness who described who was on the bottom being hit, described Zimmerman, not Martin. There are 911 calls that have not been released yet that supposedly support Zimmerman's version of events. The physical evidence, Mr. Zimmerman's broken nose, bruising / cuts / scrapes etc support the physical altercation evidence. The fact that Mr. Martin did not live in the neighborhood (he was staying with his dad but lives with his mother) supports the suspicious person viewpoint from Zimmerman.

Originally posted by seeker1977
Not to mention he isn't even being charged with anything whatsoever which is completely unacceptable considering what we do know.

Which is not the whole story. Charging person who broke no law is just as unacceptable.

Originally posted by seeker1977
I would dare you to go search for other cases where the defendant claimed self defense after stalking or instigating something in any way and see how those cases turned out.

You cannot compare incidents from other states to this incident. The laws will vary depending on wording and case law. Speaking of just Florida the is not the first time this law has been called into question. Its also the reason the states that adopted Florida's model clarified / removed certain parts.

Originally posted by seeker1977
As for him being neighborhood watch, just as any poloceman has to provide reasonable suspicion to pull someone over any neighborhood watch should have to prove the same thing.

Actually no they don't. Law Enforcement is required because of 42 USC 1983, in addition to a bunch of other laws / court rulings. Civilians, which is what Mr. Zimmerman is, are not subject to the same requirements / laws / rulings.

Originally posted by seeker1977
There was absolutely nothing suspicious here except for the way he felt trayvon dressed, he had absolutely nor eason to consider this kid suspicious or dangerous whatsoever.

Martin did not live in the neighborhood so yes, Mr. Martin had every reason to be suspicious. It didn't help matter when Mr. Martin put his hoodie up when he noticed Zimmerman watching him.

Originally posted by seeker1977
Him calling 911 with such ignorance should have been legal grounds alone to arrest him, making false or flat out stupid 911 calls is against the law.

Actually not calling the police would be an ignorant move, since he is neighborhood watch. Secondly again we use the law and not personal opinions when it comes to calling 911 as being stupid. Abuse of the 911 system does not apply. Filing a false police report would require Mr. Zimmerman to lie and be confronted with evidence that supports the accusation he lied. Again, law and not personal moral opinions.

If you are going to continue making accusations please support them. Please learn how the laws work and what elements are required in order to be in violation of that law. Simply repeating that he was stalking, a threat because of his size difference or simply ignoring evidence because you dont agree with it does not mean its invalid.

Also - If a person attacks you, and you are able to beat the snot out of him, and you do so even after the individual goes down, then it moves from the area of self defense to manslaughter / murder. The moment the threat stops being a threat, justifying further action is about impossible.

Apparently many people here embrace ignorance, of course the law applies for Trayvon and NOT for Zimmerman being the aggresor. Attempting to use this law to justify flat out murder is horrible.

No matter what semantics you use Trayvon was stalked for ABSOLUTELY no reason whatsoever. Calling 911 because someone was walking down the street on the phone is flat out illegal and an abuse of the 911 phone system and grounds to arrest Zimmerman alone.

If I notice a large man following me, watching every move I make, and see a weapon on him than that would provide me reason enough to find a way to get away, or if I felt I could not accomplish that completely disable him or kill him in the attempt.

Trayvon was a kid completely unjustly determined to be dangerous and fully in his rights if he would bhave killed Zimmerman, There is ABSOLUTELY no excuse for Zimmermans actions. Uncaring ignorance seems to be a theme with many posters here. I can;t wait until he is behind bars since a kid terrified him so much he felt he could use lethal force and feels it was justified. Behind bars he will likely learn the meaning of fear.

There is absolutely no way in which that law can be twisted in order to justify Zimmerman's, or ANY aggressors actions in a case like this. How anyone could even consider that to justify the killing of a child is amazing. Why don;t you go to any school and follow a kid around staring at him watching every move he makes and see what happens.

Trayvon was staying in that community, walked from the home there to the store and back. He had every right to be there which why the stand your ground law is in place, it was initially intended for home defense however expanded to apply to anyone with a right to be where they were. There was nothing even remotely illegal with Trayvon's actions which makes the 911 call itself illegal by abusing the emergency response line. You go ahead and keep embracing ignorance to justify the killing of a kid though, just wait until this happens to your kid and remember everythng you posted here.

reply to post by Xcathdra



hahahaah ACTUALLY


that was the FIRST one I used. and the sentence says EXCEPT deadly force.

deadly force means to kills someone, there is an EXCLUSION that you can NOT kill someone in the law stated.

why disinfo agent do better

Look at this from both sides, supposedly Zimmerman acted in self defense and this is why he is not arrested. Yet from the very beginning Zimmerman is at fault on multiple levels.

Right from the start Zimmerman tried and convicted this kid of crimes in his mind which is made clear with his 911 recording staing these a-holes always get awy. He started manufacturing his fear from the start attributing all kinds of possible wrongdoings to this kid that just went shopping and was walking home basically.

He had absolutely no basis for makiung his determinations whatsoever, we know this kid was just walking down the street to the house he was staying and talking on the phone with his girlfriend.

On the other side we have Trayvon walking home from the store noticing a fully grown man almost twice his size folowing him and watching his every move not once attempting to talk with him. He may have noticed the gun he carried in a holster as well, now if that isn't going to be scary for any kid what is. Nowadays the first assumption I would make if I were him, with how the news has been, would be I am being stalked by some child molester and.or killer. My life is in serious jeapardy, the difference is Trayvon isn't manufacturing his fear himself Zimmerman is doing that for him. In Trayvon's mind Zimmerman was the very definition of a stalker with all kinds of horrible intent. Trayvon does not know that this guy is neighborhood watch at all, just as was posted before hindsite is 20/20 and he would have made the only possible assumption in that case that he was in some danger.

We have two people apparently afraid of what might possibly happen, one person rightly so and one person manufacturing that fear with assumptions based on nothing more than appearance since there was nothing else to go by. That fear can do dangerous thing and is the entire purpose of the stand your ground law and why it applies to Trayvon as fear was forced upon him by someone else.

Zimmerman had every opportunity to stop this by not jumping to assumptions and determinations of guilt. He could have stopped this outcome by voicing his intent and job as neighborhood watch then just asking the kid if he lived around. That would have likely reduced tensions on both sides, Trayvon may have been mad at being followed but he likely wouldn't fear for his life anymore. Zimmeman could have done what he was supposed to and allowed law enforcement to show up to address the issue after he dialed 911 and stayed well away from the siituation. Zimmerman could haveheld off the kid that was assaulting him (if he did) who was half his size and subdue him easily or gotten away. Again the police report states that Zimmerman had MINOR injuries and he didn;t even seek treatment until the next day.

As a responsible adult ALL of the responsibility must lie with him and not the kid. He made stupid choice after stupid choice compounding the issue where as Trayvon made one mistake, chosing to fight for what he likely thought meant his life but again Trayvon's mistake was justified as the fear he would have felt was forced on him. Kids always have the laws applied differently for them specifically because they are not yet considerred responsible adults which Zimmerman should have been.

No excuses whatsoever in this case and no justification for Zimmermans actions.

reply to post by seeker1977


reply to post by femalepharoe


Apparently neither one of you bothered to read the posts or the law in their entirety.

For starters -

Originally posted by femalepharoe
Xcathdra,

Its getting to the point where I am certain you are purposelly misquoting and categorizing the law to serve your agenda.

IN 776.012 it states "Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, EXCEPT deadly force,"

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) DOES NOT APPLY IF:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(3) A person who IS NOT engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

If you bothered to read what you posted, you omitted half of the statute for 766.012. This is what it actually states -

776.012

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

Your post did not contain all the statute. As I stated im not sure why you are intentionally trying to leave that part out.

766.013 - Which is the second part of your post and comes just other the portion of 76.012 refers only to defense while in the home, and has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about.

As far as the constant argument about the shooting not being justified alI can say is read and understand the law. Stop ignoring the parts that you dont like / agree with. Just because you dont like those parts doesn't make them invalid.

I can say for 100% certainty that Mr. Zimmerman is innocent. Why? Because its that way for any citizen, regardless of skin color. Presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law, and not your personal opinions based in the court of public opinion.

As far as the disinfo agent how about you read the entire statute and understand it before accusing me of something. This is the part you ommitted -

..........against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or .............766.013

The above rolls into this statute - 766.041 - Use of force by the aggressor, found one page back where the other statutes you guys ignored are located. If at any point either of you decide to debate based on the law and not your own personal morals let me know. Also if you both could provide me to the reports where it describes in detail what occurred from contact up to when the police arrived? Since your making the claims in the same manner the media is, I am curious where you got your info from.

Or are you guys hoping the info does not come out because it would undermine your position? I noticed you both ignored the eyewitness account by the 13 year old. Are you guys going to ignore any and all info that does not support your positions?

Ive cited my sources and linked to them. How about you both return the favor and link your source to support your position?

If all possible please cite ALL of the info and not just parts of / bits and pieces - Im specifically referring to the statutes and the omissions that are intentionally being made.

How do you keep conveniently ignoring the laws as they apply for an aggresor? The Aggresor has a responsibility to get away before they can decide to kill someone they started a fight with.

Everything verifies that Zimmerman is the aggresor as clearly pointed out in my previous post.

You have yet to provide an intelligent post.


FYI the defense within a home is exactly what we are talking about, it was expanded to encompass defense where anyone has a right to be. TRhe laws are the exact same, you cannot attack someone then decide you might die and be justified in killing them just like you cannot rape someone and get nervous when they fight back then kill them.

Zimerman was at fault in EVERY way going only by the actual facts of the case right now.

Originally posted by seeker1977
How do you keep conveniently ignoring the laws as they apply for an aggresor? The Aggresor has a responsibility to get away before they can decide to kill someone they started a fight with.

Not in Florida.. Hence the reason the law is so controversial. Florida law allows an aggressor to use deadly force if they fear they are in imminent danger. It also allows the aggressor to use deadly force when they attempt to retreat and aren't allowed to do so.

I am not understanding why you guys are ignoring that part of the law? I have posted it a few times now and it clearly spells out the criteria.

Originally posted by seeker1977
Everything verifies that Zimmerman is the aggressor as clearly pointed out in my previous post.

The article I linked gives more info, specifically the 13 year old witness who same Zimmerman on the ground and Martin attacking him. Also I posted information about the injuries to Zimmerman.

Again people need to stop ignoring information that does not support there position.

Originally posted by seeker1977
You have yet to provide an intelligent post.

edit on 27-3-2012 by seeker1977 because: (no reason given)

Ah yes.. when in doubt act like a 2 year old. If you spent more time reading and doing research and less time playing the 100 meter rush to judgment game, you wouldn't need to make comments like the one above. If you dont understand how the law works then by all means say so so we can help you out. Based on the law and your posts its evident you are lost.

Originally posted by seeker1977
FYI the defense within a home is exactly what we are talking about, it was expanded to encompass defense where anyone has a right to be. TRhe laws are the exact same, you cannot attack someone then decide you might die and be justified in killing them just like you cannot rape someone and get nervous when they fight back then kill them.

In this case, Chapter 776 is our guide. 766.013 deals with home defense and does NOT apply in this case. The other statutes in that chapter, namely 776.012 - self defense, and 776.041 - use of force by the aggressor.

Originally posted by seeker1977Zimerman was at fault in EVERY way going only by the actual facts of the case right now.

edit on 27-3-2012 by seeker1977 because: (no reason given)

Yet we dont have all the facts, and the new info coming out is telling a different story.

Again, stop the 100 meter rush to judgment, stop ignoring laws that apply simply because you dont agree with them. I am still waiting for you to provide links that has all of the facts. Until that occurs we do not know what occurred from contact to police arriving. So, again, your claim is not accurate.

I will say it again... This is the reason Florida stand your ground laws are so controversial. The sections I keep referring you guys to were not adopted by other states, specifically because of incidents like this.

Originally posted by femalepharoe
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

lol. lol.
Link?

Guess one missed this
eye witness testimony,
which is not heasay it
if real proof and evidence
that points to
Treyvon Martin was the agressor
and zimmerman acting in self defense.

www.bbc.co.uk...


"He said shortly before the tourists died, Mr Tyson had mentioned spotting the Britons walking around the public housing neighbourhood where he lived in Newtown, Sarasota.
James Kouzaris and James Cooper Mr Kouzaris (left) and Mr Cooper were found in a public housing neighbourhood in Newtown, Sarasota

Mr Bane told the court he received a phone call from Mr Tyson in which he talked about the British men, who he referred to as the "crackers", meaning white men."

and here we have the real ongoing genocide, the main racial story behind killings- it is mainly a black on white thing.

Just a couple of dead white boys, not worthy of a comment from the President of the USA or for mass agitation- some victims are more important than others

update zimmerman has been recieving death
threats this is sick zimmerman death threats
Thats right folks lynch mob is out in full swing!
This is america INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

Originally posted by blueorder
...some victims are more important than others...

Its not like we didn't see that position from Obama right out of the gate. Specifically wading into the local issue where a white police officer confronted and arrested a black man who was breaking into his own house.

That officer was accused of being racist, ignoring the fact he was a post certified instructor whose specialty was teaching / training officers about racial profiling, the laws involved, the civil rights violations that can come from it, etc etc etc.

The infamous beer summit at the White House.

Originally posted by popsmayhem

This is america INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

But it does not apply to Travon Martin?

Why is that?

Just answer that one simple question.

reply to post by Classified Info


You are supposed to wait for a trial to commence when being attacked?
What some kangaroo court is gonna flash mob to the scene, then let you know if you are allowed to defend yourself?

Originally posted by Classified Info

Originally posted by popsmayhem

This is america INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

But it does not apply to Travon Martin?

Why is that?

Just answer that one simple question.

What are you talking about????

reply to post by Classified Info


Because Mr. Martin is not charged with any crimes by the Prosecuting Attorneys office. Mr. Zimmerman is not charged with any crimes either.

Its not illegal to follow / watch and individual.
Its not illegal to walk up to a person and engage them in conversation.

Whether it s the death of Mr. Martin or Mr. Zimmerman, they are innocent until the state proves they are guilty of breaking the law.

As far as this incident, shouldn't we see what other info comes out? We seem to be seeing a lot of information that supports Zimmerman version of events. Or is that info being ignored because people are pushing the eye for an eye BS argument?