Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

[catharina]

Martin didn’t chase down Zimmerman, it was the other way around as demonstrated by the 911 tape. You can’t chase someone down, confront them, and then say you feared for your life. If Martin did indeed attack Zimmerman after he’d been chased down then Martin would be protected by the “Stand Your Ground” law, even if he ended up on top of Zimmerman breaking his nose.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman provoked the incident by chasing down Martin.

Peace and God bless!

YES - and that is the crux of the matter.

“I chased this stranger and when I caught him,
he attacked me.” So what? Why’d you chase him?

 

[catharina]

Tonight on the news they interviewed a lawyer who is representing the shooter. According to the interview there was a witness who saw a fight between Martin and the shooter with Martin inflicting a broken nose and what could be caller a grievious wound to the back of Zimmerman’s (the shooter) head. This witness also reported the incident to the Police.

This witness’s claim would seem to support the claim of both an attack by Martin that caused both bodily harm and lead to Zimmerman’s fear of imminent danger and fear of death. The witness’s observation lends support to the use of force by Zimmerman’s.

The castle doctrine refers to the defense of one’s home,. The “stand your ground law” refers in my opinion refers to the defense of your life outside of home.

Martin is 17 or 18 and for all purposes is a man, but a child who like all children can make bad decisions. My problem with this incident revolves around who started this fight between the two. That is a matter of legal investigation.

The Sanford is investigating the incident. The Florida department of law enforcement is overseeing the Sanford investigation to ensure that no mistakes are made. The govenor has empowered a special prosecutor. The Federal Department of Justice is investigating to ensure that Martin’s civil rights were not violated. There is also a governor panel to determine if the “stand your ground” if flawed and should be changed. Somehow between all these investigations I don’t see how a coverup can happen. Overall there will be a multiphased investigation.

The end result of this incident is that a live was cut short and lives have been forever changed. The main focus so far has been a deemed injustice and not on this fight between the two individuals. I think it will all revolve around who started the fight.

We do not have all the facts but we do have a lot unfounded charges by people who are leaders of the community. I grieve for the loss but a rush to judgement is not called for.

My sons when they were teenagers always complained about how they would be treated while in a store that made them feel like criminals. I think that all adults are leery of groups of teenager (no matter what their race, attire, or attitude is. I think that it is part of the aging processs to adulthood.

Chasing down a stranger, catching up to him, confronting him -
then complaing he attacked you so you acted in self-defense -
is to enter the no-fly zone of hubris and no-logic.

 

[catharina]

I also wonder, who started the physical fight - who put his hands on the other person first.

The way the media is reporting this, and the Al Sharptons, seems like rush to judgment to me.

What’s to wonder?
A law-abiding stranger is chased down by
a man with gun? The boy was NOT looking for trouble - but somone was.

 

[catharina]

…Martin is 17 or 18 and for all purposes is a man, but a child who like all children can make bad decisions. My problem with this incident revolves around who started this fight between the two. That is a matter of legal investigation.
…"

Trayvon was **17 yrs old **- a child.
Now he is a DEAD 17yr-old.

Zimmerman is 28 yrs old - an adult.

 

[bbarrick8383]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with approaching someone on your street out of curiosity of their being there. It is absolute ignorance to make any assumptions about what the media has said.

There is nothing wrong with walking down the street with a hoodie on, but even a gas station attendant will have you remove it out of suspicion. There is nothing wrong with me going outside and talking to someone walking around my neighborhood if I’m curious about them being there.

 

[catharina]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with approaching someone on your street out of curiosity of their being there. **Chasing down a stranger who seems “suspicious” to you, while you’re packing a loaded gun, is idiocy (at best). ** It is absolute ignorance to make any assumptions about what the media has said.

There is nothing wrong with walking down the street with a hoodie on, but even a gas station attendant will have you remove it out of suspicion. **In Oklahoma? I haven’t seen it in Illinois or California or Indiana or Wisconsin. **

 

[Lujack]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with approaching someone on your street out of curiosity of their being there. It is absolute ignorance to make any assumptions about what the media has said.

There is nothing wrong with walking down the street with a hoodie on, but even a gas station attendant will have you remove it out of suspicion. There is nothing wrong with me going outside and talking to someone walking around my neighborhood if I’m curious about them being there.

No, but there is something wrong about you tracking them for blocks to the point that this person starts to feel concerned for their own safety. And even if you are perfectly polite, that person has no obligation to answer any of your questions-they aren’t even obligated to give you name rank serial number, they can just flat-out ignore you. And Trayvon Martin was wearing a hoodie…outside…in the rain.

The question, to me, is what was Zimmerman’s best case scenario? He was looking for an altercation of some kind.

 

[L_piperatus]

What’s to wonder?
A law-abiding stranger is chased down by
a man with gun? The boy was NOT looking for trouble - but somone was.

Catharina, I would still like to know, who said what to whom, who pushed/shoved/hit the other person first. Hopefully at least some of this can be reconstructed from the testimonies of ear-witnesses (like Martin’s girlfriend on the phone), and others who might have heard what was going on. As far as I know, the eyewitness of their fight saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, and Martin punching Zimmerman in the face while Zimmerman was laying on the ground and crying for help, but the eyewitness didn’t see the beginning of the fight, he didn’t see the two men talking to each other and then one of them getting physical.

It might be that Zimmerman “chased down” Martin, but maybe he just “followed him”. And once the two started talking to each other, maybe Zimmerman really talked to Martin in a threatening tone, but then again maybe not. Maybe Zimmerman really started the physical fight by pushing or hitting Martin first, but maybe he didn’t. I could very well imagine Zimmerman being the aggressor both verbally and physically, but I will not jump to this conclusion - I will wait for the results of the investigation. Simply because he followed Martin with a concealed weapon, does not automatically mean that he talked in a threatening manner to Martin, and that he pushed or hit Martin first. And I don’t like your term “he chased down” - maybe he only “followed him”. “Chased down” is a loaded term, and I don’t know what kind of eye-witness/ear-witness testimony makes you confident enough to use the term “he chased down” Martin.

I will accept whatever the investigation establishes, but until then, I will hold back my judgment.

 

[ringil]

Let’s not indict on rumors, watch this quick segment by Hannity:

I don’t see him drawing any odd conclusions.

As to Geraldo, his diatribe about the hoodie was very clumsy, but I think the point he was trying to make was a cautionary one because he’s a dad and he’s worried about his own son being a target of profiling. You’ll notice he calls Trayvon “innocent” and says “God bless him”, so I truly do not believe Geraldo in any way means to implicate Trayvon’s complicity, but rather, he’s just venting as a worried dad.

aww. . . . .

So Geraldo in his ridiculous remarks gets a pass and the President expressing empathy in an eloquent and effective way doesn’t.

Double standard maybe.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Chasing down a stranger who seems “suspicious” to you, while you’re packing a loaded gun, is idiocy (at best).

I’ve walked up to a stranger I’ve suspected of stealing just to ask him how he was doing, he turned around and handed me what he stole and apologized. The fact that he has a gun makes it less stupid because if the kid was up to no good he can defend himself. If not he meets the guy, strikes up a conversation and they walk away. But like I said, to make any assumptions at this point, of what happened in this scenario is not very wise. Using words like “chasing down”, “stranger”, “gun” are for nothing other than to strike up negative emotions against the person with the gun.

In a shooting, the victim is not always the dead one. I live in a gated community and would feel absolutely comfortable walking up and talking to anyone to see what they were doing here.

In Oklahoma? I haven’t seen it in Illinois or California or Indiana or Wisconsin.

Yep, here in Oklahoma and there are other states I’m sure. Pay attention when you go into a gas station a lot of them are putting up signs warning people to remove their hoodie before entering the store. If you don’t see the sign, ask the attendant about it. Like in a bar, a backwards hat is suspicious, so is a hoodie.

 

[bbarrick8383]

No, but there is something wrong about you tracking them for blocks to the point that this person starts to feel concerned for their own safety. And even if you are perfectly polite, that person has no obligation to answer any of your questions-they aren’t even obligated to give you name rank serial number, they can just flat-out ignore you. And Trayvon Martin was wearing a hoodie…outside…in the rain.

The question, to me, is what was Zimmerman’s best case scenario? He was looking for an altercation of some kind.

You are absolutely right that he has no obligation to answer him. Whether he was looking for an altercation is nothing but an assumption, just as it is to assume that Martin is completely innocent. I’ll hold my condemnations off for awhile.

 

[bbarrick8383]

aww. . . . .

So Geraldo in his ridiculous remarks gets a pass and the President expressing empathy in an eloquent and effective way doesn’t.

Double standard maybe.

I have no problem with Obama commenting on this, but I would have thought he would have learned his lesson by now. He seems to end up with a foot in his mouth.

Personally I could care less what anyone on the left has to say about this, they care more about gun control and racism than they do a dead person or the safety of someone who was curious about his behavior in his gated community.

 

[ringil]

Lujack, a “watch captain” or member of a “neighborhood watch” by definition has no official position, which is why they should not be armed at all unless they also hold a Special Police or Auxiliary Police commission. Their only equipment should be a walkie-talkie or a cell phone with photo capability to call the police and take a photo of the intruder for the police. So concealed carry laws are arguably also part of the underlying problem.

I totally agree. This guy was the self appointed special forces agent. A busy-body to the extreme degree.

 

[catharina]

Catharina, I would still like to know, who said what to whom, who pushed/shoved/hit the other person first. Hopefully at least some of this can be reconstructed from the testimonies of ear-witnesses (like Martin’s girlfriend on the phone), and others who might have heard what was going on. As far as I know, the eyewitness of their fight saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, and Martin punching Zimmerman in the face while Zimmerman was laying on the ground and crying for help, but the eyewitness didn’t see the beginning of the fight, he didn’t see the two men talking to each other and then one of them getting physical.

It might be that Zimmerman “chased down” Martin, but maybe he just “followed him”. And once the two started talking to each other, maybe Zimmerman really talked to Martin in a threatening tone, but then again maybe not. Maybe Zimmerman really started the physical fight by pushing or hitting Martin first, but maybe he didn’t. I could very well imagine Zimmerman being the aggressor both verbally and physically, but I will not jump to this conclusion - I will wait for the results of the investigation. Simply because he followed Martin with a concealed weapon, does not automatically mean that he talked in a threatening manner to Martin, and that he pushed or hit Martin first. And I don’t like your term “he chased down” - maybe he only “followed him”. “Chased down” is a loaded term, and I don’t know what kind of eye-witness/ear-witness testimony makes you confident enough to use the term “he chased down” Martin.

I will accept whatever the investigation establishes, but until then, I will hold back my judgment.

latimes.com/news/local/la-me-banks-20120324,0,6872957.column
“Zimmerman’s ethnicity can’t excuse the killing of Trayvon Martin. And it doesn’t obliterate the racial slur that Zimmerman muttered on the 911 tape as he chased down the black teenager.”

nj.com/hudson/voices/index.ssf/2012/03/schecter_unarmed_and_dangerous.html
“In 2005, when Florida was considering its insane stand-your-ground-or-perhaps-chase-down-an-innocent-black-teenager-and-shoot-him law, state senator Dan Gelber was a voice of reason. Gelber, when asked what he thought of legislation that would transmogrify many a heat-packing Floridian into a juiced-up Judge Dredd, posed some questions of his own.”

abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fla-watch-captain-attorney-client-racist-15991281
"Martin was returning to a friend’s home from a convenience store when Zimmerman started following him, telling police dispatchers he looked suspicious. At some point, the two got into a fight and Zimmerman pulled out his gun.

Zimmerman told police Martin attacked him after he had given up chasing the teenager and was returning to his sport utility vehicle."

 

[catharina]

I totally agree. This guy was the self appointed special forces agent. A busy-body to the extreme degree.

Yes. - a vigilante looking for prey.

 

[L_piperatus]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with approaching someone on your street out of curiosity of their being there. It is absolute ignorance to make any assumptions about what the media has said.

There is nothing wrong with walking down the street with a hoodie on, but even a gas station attendant will have you remove it out of suspicion. There is nothing wrong with me going outside and talking to someone walking around my neighborhood if I’m curious about them being there.

Yes, I’m thinking along the same line. I want the details established. Two people talking to each other in the street does not automatically lead to a fistfight. Who started the fistfight?

Regarding the media, why the heck is the media showing this baby-faced picture of a 12-year old Trayvon Martin, when he was almost 18 at the time of the altercation, a football player with a handsome 6’3" figure? Why is the media failing to mention that at one point in the fight, Martin was on top of Zimmerman, punching Zimmerman in the face, while Zimmerman was crying for help? Why is the media failing to mention that when the police arrived, Zimmerman had a bloody nose, a bleeding wound at the back of his head, and grass stains on the back of his shirt from laying on the ground during the fight? Maybe it was Zimmerman who started the fistfight in spite of him ending up beaten, but the media has already convicted Zimmerman without even waiting to hear the results of the investigation.

 

[pnewton]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with approaching someone on your street out of curiosity of their being there.

Sometimes there is. In some cases, it is stalking. The young man was followed, or chased, as he thought. Also, approaching a stranger as a friend is vastly different that confronting a stranger with an attitude. Listening to the tape, I would say Zimmerman did not come with a friendly attitude.

This incident shows the reason I hate gated communities, homeowner associations and all the intrusion they bring into the lives of others. The only thing worse than a busybody is an armed busybody.

 

[ringil]

Of course he was an invited guest.
He and his father were visiting at the home of his father’s girlfriend.
He didn’t break in to her home. He was invited there. That makes
the child an INVITED GUEST. Who imagines that Zimmerman was
privy to the names and presence of all of his neighbors’ invited guests?
That notion is ridiculous and is a good example of “blame the victim.”
The boy was a “suspicious stranger” to Zimmerman.

And he was wearing a hoodie. And looking “suspicious”.

 

[catharina]

How can a law-abiding child be blamed for his own death?
What a huge twisting of the facts.

 

[catharina]

And he was wearing a hoodie. And looking “suspicious”.

Can’t imagine when the “acceptable” dress code changed.
Toddlers wear hoodies. Mommies wear hoodies.
Athletes wear hoodies. Does a hoodie make one look suspicious.

Absurd.