Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

[catharina]

Forget race and forget the ages. We have a situation where a man, living in a community that has experienced a rash of break in crimes recently, communicates with a 9-11 dispatcher that, while serving in the neighborhood watch, has observed a large man wearing a hoodie who he believes is acting suspiciously. When asked if he is pursuing the person, he answers “Yes” and is told “We don’t need you to do that” to which he responds “Okay”. Zimmerman is also legally in possession of a licensed firearm. After being told by the dispatcher that he shouldn’t follow the person, he heads back to his SUV.

On his way back to his vehicle, the person whom he spotted earlier confronts him, supposedly saying “Do you have a problem?” and then proceeds to assault him, breaking his nose, knocking him to the ground, and hitting his head on the concrete sidewalk. Several witnesses observe or hear Zimmerman’s calls for help. When it becomes apparent that the large, athletic man intends to continue his violent assault and no one is answering his pleads for help, he withdraws his firearm and takes care of the threat.

Do I have a right to patrol my neighborhood in an effort to deter a rash of crimes that has been happening there? If I have a legal license to carry a concealed weapon, is it not acceptable for me to carry one, particularly in a situation where someone who is intent on committing crime may not appreciate my efforts to deter them? If I see someone who appears to be acting suspiciously (wearing dark clothing, concealing his face, cutting across people’s property), is it okay for me to call 911 to report the issue, while at the same time trying to keep tabs on the person who is acting out of place? If someone violently attacks me, is it okay for me to call for help and then stop the attack by whatever means necessary if I feel like my life is in danger?

Wow, this “make up your own narrative” is a fun game. I am surprised more of you aren’t doing it.

My narrative?

I would never be carrying a loaded gun.
I would never be following a stranger -
especially a stanger who seemed “suspicious” to me.

If I saw such a person from my home -
not while out patrolling the streets - if
I thought it was warranted, I would call 911.

Different narratives.

Perhaps George’s town should have posted a notice:
“ALL STRANGERS - report to home of George Zimmerman
to explain your presence in his community.”

Would have saved a bullet and a LIFE.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

My narrative?

I would never be carrying a loaded gun.
I would never be following a stranger -
especially a stanger who seemed “suspicious” to me.

If I saw such a person from my home -
not while out patrolling the streets - if
I thought it was warranted, I would call 911.

Different narratives.

Perhaps George’s town should have posted a notice:
“ALL STRANGERS - report to home of George Zimmerman
to explain your presence in his community.”

Would have saved a bullet and a LIFE.

Right…because criminals have a duty to report to the neighborhood watch.

 

[sw85]

Slightly censored copy of the first responders’ police report available here: [cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/mart(name removed by moderator)olicreport.pdf](http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/mart(name removed by moderator)olicreport.pdf).

 

[catharina]

No. You accuse Zimmerman because of your previous posts. Read them from beginning to end. You’ve come around to new evidence. Good.

I accuse Zimmerman of killing a child because he killed a child.
Nothing new to that. Should this be investigated???
Absolutely YES. If my child had been killed I’d be demanding
a new and unbiased investigation. Just to make sure Sanford PD is now ok.
In the very recent past, Sanford PD engaged in cover-up. A simple fact.

 

[catharina]

Right…because criminals have a duty to report to the neighborhood watch.

He was no criminal.
He was an ordinary visitor.

With George in charge - can’t be too careful.

 

[scipio337]

OK guys,

So since we are going to give attention to this menacing New Black Panther Party, a fringe and racist group, I thought I’d draw some attention to the other side of the coin. Race baiting anyone. . . . .

buzzfeed.com/katienotopoulos/white-supremacists-react-to-trayvon-martin

Or do these guys not count? Stormfront, the largest white supremist site on the web has hundreds of thousands of members.

Actually reading through the posts I’m shocked by similarities there and SOME of what I am reading in this thread.

Really? Would you point out SOME of these “similarities” between Stormfront, and here?

 

[sw85]

Also came across this comment at a blog I follow, from a reasonably intelligent poster. I’m not nearly well read enough about what happened so I will leave it to others to judge the integrity of his claims. I edited out one slightly inflammatory remark and censored a bad word reportedly attributed to Zimmerman:

The following is the sum total of the credible evidence that I’m aware of and I’ve done a lot of looking.

There was only one eye witness to the fight, John. He saw Trayvon on top of George Zimmerman straddling him punching him repeatedly in the face creating a bloody face, while GZ screamed repeatedly for help. John then locked his porch, ran upstairs to call 911 and while on the way heard a shot, then saw Trayvon lying to GZ’s side, face down, apparently dead. He didn’t see how the fight began. GZ says he was panicked that he’d be killed. The screams are on a 911 tape and are screams of panic. [Update, I’ve recently seen one media report that a 13 year old boy was also an eyewitness for a few seconds before the gunshot. He saw Trayvon in the hoodie on top of the red sweater wearing Zimmerman hitting him as well.]

There is no credible evidence that contradicts that. That’s what GZ said happened from the point where John saw and heard what happened onward. Further the physical evidence which the police found at the scene support this account. GZ’s face and the back of his head were bloodied. He had grass stains on his back and his back was wet (the grass was wet). Trayvon had no face or other injuries other than the gunshot wound.

Ear but not eye witness until well after the shooting Mary Cutcher thinks she heard (not saw) things which contradict this and was quite vehement about that to CNN but she’s mistaken in her conclusions, not in what she heard. She heard the rather high pitched screams which she assumed must have been from the “little kid” Trayvon (a fruit of the Martin family’s spinning the 4 or 5 year old pictures they gave the media), yet his father after listening to the 911 tapes said that was not the voice of his son. Two of Zimmerman’s friends one of whom is black said that was his voice. The woman witness also heard no “sounds of fighting” other than the screaming so assumed there must have not been a fight before GZ shot Trayvon. That’s also an unwarrented conclusion. The sounds of punching are a lot less loud than that of screaming.

As for how the fight began, Zimmerman says he followed Trayvon in his SUV then got out of it to talk to him. The 911 operator is not a cop and has no authority to tell Zimmerman not to follow TM. In fact he didn’t, he said “we don’t need you to do that”, I think largely out of fear that GZ might put himself in danger not knowing he was armed. TM’s girlfriends says she was on the cell phone with TM just before the fighting began. She heard TM demand of GZ “why are you following me?” to which GZ responded “what are you doing around here?” Both repeated the same questions probably in TM’s case in a more heated way. Then TM ended the cell call.

GZ says as soon as their conversation started getting heated, he turned to go back to his SUV to avoid a fight. He was then punched by TM and knocked to the ground. Then GZ gives the same story that eye witness John tells except he adds that TM repeatedly bashed his head against the sidewalk first, maybe before John started watching after he heard GZ’s screams. The blood on the back of GZ’s head backed that up.

I have seen NO credible evidence that contradicts GZ and eyewitness John’s accounts of what happened, or TM’s girlfriends bit of evidence either. Yeah she concluded that GZ “must have” started the physical fight because he ended the cell call abruptly but that’s just as consistent with him getting mega pissed about being he thinks profiled and “dissed” and punching GZ first. There’s actually no evidence that GZ punched TM at all. His face wasn’t bloodied and there was no injury other than the gunshot wound.

It’s far from clear that GZ used the word “c**n” on the 911 tape. He uttered a word that’s about that long maybe, but really is indiscipherable. Could have been goon or something else. . . . There’s no record of GZ using that kind of language. Besides for something to be a hate crime there has to be an underlaying crime to begin with which was motivated by racial animus. There was no underlying crime.

To me this is an open and shut case. All the rest is spin and twisting of evidence and unwarrented conclusions. The MSM have been shockingly biased in their reporting of this, and shockingly misleading. CNN has been the worst.

If anyone has any information at odds with this that they’ve really looked into the actual primary source for, I’d really like to know it. As I said I’m looking for the truth here, and neither a high tech unjust lynching out of racial emotion, nor letting someone off who’s guilty.

 

[Geist]

I carry a 9mm precisely to protect myself from the unprovoked attacks of the Trayvons of the world.

“child” my butt. Smashing someones head into concrete is fatal.

This future murderer got taken out early, thank God for providing George Zimmerman the means to defend himself so he never got a chance to murder an innocent like he tried to do that day.

I’m strongly considering putting up 15k of my own money to provide Zimmerman with safe harbor while racist radicals like the Black Panthers put a 10k bounty on his head.

Edit: The innocent “child” tried to grab the gun, why only the chambered round went off and the magazine was still full; the slide was blocked by the “child” trying to take the gun. I’m sure he was going to turn it in the police, then innocently skip away to buy more skittles.

 

[Stjudeprayforus]

There is no statement to the police by anyone that says that Zimmerman chased Martin or tried to detain him. Do you have additional evidence that there was a chase or that Zimmerman attempted a citizens arrest?

There was a witness saying that Martin was beating Zimmerman.

You are right. He never chased him.

Like a 250 pound 5’8 man could catch a 6’3 in shape 17 year old anyway.

 

[scipio337]

My narrative?

I would never be carrying a loaded gun.

Your perogative, but still LEGAL in the state of Florida.

catharina:

I would never be following a stranger- especially a stanger who seemed “suspicious” to me.

If I saw such a person from my home -
not while out patrolling the streets - if
I thought it was warranted, I would call 911.

Different narratives.-

Again, this is your perogative, but are all still LEGAL in the state of Florida.

 

[donsnow]

Good afternoon, all,

Well, I’d like to step into the discussion here, after reading the original BBC article about the shooting. Now, the British have a dangerous prejudice when it comes to self defense, a prejudice dangerous to home owners and to people attacked by violent individuals. It’s the British prejudice that formulated laws about home owners had to retreat from intruders and that’s dangerous to the home owner.

So, there’s that.

Further more, the British media seem to take little notice of cultural context. Personally, I think that Gangsta Rap DVDs, Videos and culture has gotten a lot of kids killed. Because kids like to dress like their heroes. So, was Trayvon a gangsta dressed in a gangsta hoodie? Or, was he a wanna be gangsta dressed in a hoodie? Or was he a silly teenager fashionably dressed in the cultural music clothing of the day?

So, there’s that.

While on Trayvon’s age, he was a young adult, with childhood far behind him. And, about innocent children: In Hungary during the '50’s when Soviet troops went in to put down an economic revolt, 12 year old Hungarian children were killing the troops; in the reinstatement of Israel, Jewish youngsters fought beside their parents to drive off hordes of genocidal Jordanians, Egyptians and Arabs; in Vietnam, eight year olds would wander into a group of American soldiers and detonate the tykes vest of hand grenades. Also in Afghanistan, nowadays. What these anecdotes describe is a global phenomena of children in combat. So, even if Trayvon was a child, that’s no defense, because children can be vicious killers with today’s technologies.

So, there’s that.

When Zimmerman reported he was pursuing Trayvon, the police dispatcher said, “You don’t have to do that.”

Let me tell you where I’m writing from. I have worked as unarmed uniformed security guard in California, Texas and Boston, Mass. I have twice worked as an armed uniformed security guard in Texas. All my security work was mostly at night, with some few exceptions. As a security guard, we have a post, which we do not leave. As security guards, we call in suspicious sightings to our dispatcher and do what the dispatcher says to do. And, I worked with Texas state law rules, Tarrant county rules, city rules and employer rules, when armed. So, my training and experience tell me these things:

Trayvon was coming home from the store wearing gangsta garb at night, in a culture with violent music calling for the killing of cops by others in like garb. Zimmerman was right to call in the suspicious sighting. We do not know if he hailed Trayvon to halt, or not. All we know, is that he pursued Trayvon when told it wasn’t necessary by his dispatcher. So, both men (Trayvon was a young man, not a child) were culpable for the incident.

Now, American law comes under perusal from a society hostile to America’s rights and liberties. Yes, the English who favor running and hiding in your own house, the English who call and armed house owner “dangerous”, the English who favor the criminal over the victim, they are hostile to our rights and liberties. That’s who wrote the news article upon which this thread is based.

So, there’s that.

LIke I say, there’s no telling how many kids that gangsta rap has gotten killed. Gansta rap instills fear into others and is meant to do that. Willy nilly, the silly gangsta’s don’t know that you can get yourself killed if you scare the wrong person. And, that should always be true, to subdue citizens who violent tendencies. Trayvon identified himself with the gangsta scene when he put on that hoodie. And he knew that, and his momma knew that and they are as culpable as Gansta rap and as culpable as Zimmerman and as culpable as American laws, in getting Trayvon killed.

If Trayvon’s family had guided him away from the gangsta scene or away from emulating gangstas, he would be alive today.

So, there’s that.

And, that’s where I am at, on this topic.

God loves all of you, lurkers, too,
Don

 

[johnnyjones]

Also came across this comment at a blog I follow, from a reasonably intelligent poster. I’m not nearly well read enough about what happened so I will leave it to others to judge the integrity of his claims. I edited out one slightly inflammatory remark and censored a bad word reportedly attributed to Zimmerman:

At this point nothing contradicts Zimmermans account. Thats the biggest statement yet . Good reporting.

 

[catharina]

Your perogative, but still LEGAL in the state of Florida.
Again, this is your perogative, but are all still LEGAL in the state of Florida.

Definitely my perogative and the essence of my narrative.

 

[Geist]

Definitely my perogative and the essence of my narrative.

Your narrative seems to be the “child” (as if using that word 600 or so times will make it true) should have been allowed to sucker punch Zimmerman and then smash his skull into concrete.

Which is what happened.

 

[pnewton]

I’m not nearly well read enough about what happened so I will leave it to others to judge the integrity of his claims.:

Like many posts here, it mixes facts (knowns) with opinions (unknowns).

 

[pnewton]

Your narrative seems to be the “child” (as if using that word 600 or so times will make it true) should have been allowed to sucker punch Zimmerman and then smash his skull into concrete.

Which is what happened.

His head was not smashed. He did not even get transported to the ER. We do not know who threw the first punch, or whether it was a “sucker punch”. Remember earlier when someone quoted the Catechism. It applies to Trayvon Martin as much as it does to George Zimmerman.

 

[scipio337]

Definitely my perogative and the essence of my narrative.

Right, but if you could, please provide what activity at this point was ILLEGAL in Zimmerman’s case, provided that his explanation of self defense is true (which I am not sure of).

The fact that YOU wouldn’t carry a loaded gun (an unloaded gun is also known as a “club”) doesn’t make the act of doing so, or following someone you think is suspicious a crime.

 

[johnnyjones]

I accuse Zimmerman of killing a child because he killed a child.
Nothing new to that. Should this be investigated???
Absolutely YES. If my child had been killed I’d be demanding
a new and unbiased investigation. Just to make sure Sanford PD is now ok.
In the very recent past, Sanford PD engaged in cover-up. A simple fact.

You mean you don’t accuse because “You don’t BELIEVE it?” or because you assert GZ did’yt listen to the 9911 operator. Or “this wouldn’t have happened” if GZ would have “watched” instead have done more. Your contradicting yourself all over the place.

You didn’t care one bit about new evidence a day ago. You had GZ guilty (accused) with you as judge and jury along with the rest of some media outlets and “leaders”.

 

[catharina]

Good afternoon, all,

Well, I’d like to step into the discussion here, after reading the original BBC article about the shooting. Now, the British have a dangerous prejudice when it comes to self defense, a prejudice dangerous to home owners and to people attacked by violent individuals. It’s the British prejudice that formulated laws about home owners had to retreat from intruders and that’s dangerous to the home owner.

So, there’s that.

Further more, the British media seem to take little notice of cultural context. Personally, I think that Gangsta Rap DVDs, Videos and culture has gotten a lot of kids killed. Because kids like to dress like their heroes. So, was Trayvon a gangsta dressed in a gangsta hoodie? Or, was he a wanna be gangsta dressed in a hoodie? Or was he a silly teenager fashionably dressed in the cultural music clothing of the day?

"gangsta garb" is a fallacy. Hoodies are cheap and washable.

So, there’s that.

While on Trayvon’s age, he was a young adult, with childhood far behind him. And, about innocent children: In Hungary during the '50’s when Soviet troops went in to put down an economic revolt, 12 year old Hungarian children were killing the troops; in the reinstatement of Israel, Jewish youngsters fought beside their parents to drive off hordes of genocidal Jordanians, Egyptians and Arabs; in Vietnam, eight year olds would wander into a group of American soldiers and detonate the tykes vest of hand grenades. Also in Afghanistan, nowadays. What these anecdotes describe is a global phenomena of children in combat. So, even if Trayvon was a child, that’s no defense, because children can be vicious killers with today’s technologies.

Yet our national concensus tells us he WAS a child.
This boy was armed with a bag of Skittles and an iced tea.

So, there’s that.

When Zimmerman reported he was pursuing Trayvon, the police dispatcher said, “You don’t have to do that.”

Let me tell you where I’m writing from. I have worked as unarmed uniformed security guard in California, Texas and Boston, Mass. I have twice worked as an armed uniformed security guard in Texas. All my security work was mostly at night, with some few exceptions. As a security guard, we have a post, which we do not leave. As security guards, we call in suspicious sightings to our dispatcher and do what the dispatcher says to do. And, I worked with Texas state law rules, Tarrant county rules, city rules and employer rules, when armed. So, my training and experience tell me these things:

Trayvon was coming home from the store wearing gangsta garb at night, in a culture with violent music calling for the killing of cops by others in like garb. Zimmerman was right to call in the suspicious sighting. We do not know if he hailed Trayvon to halt, or not. All we know, is that he pursued Trayvon when told it wasn’t necessary by his dispatcher. So, both men (Trayvon was a young man, not a child) were culpable for the incident.

No to the “gangsta garb” rap. George=adult. Trayvon=child.
Courts hold to that rule - or they make an exception.
Citizens can NOT make that exception because they feel like it.
Trayvon was where he was supposed to be - returning to his father’s care.

Now, American law comes under perusal from a society hostile to America’s rights and liberties. Yes, the English who favor running and hiding in your own house, the English who call and armed house owner “dangerous”, the English who favor the criminal over the victim, they are hostile to our rights and liberties. That’s who wrote the news article upon which this thread is based.

So, there’s that.

LIke I say, there’s no telling how many kids that gangsta rap has gotten killed. Gansta rap instills fear into others and is meant to do that. Willy nilly, the silly gangsta’s don’t know that you can get yourself killed if you scare the wrong person. And, that should always be true, to subdue citizens who violent tendencies. Trayvon identified himself with the gangsta scene when he put on that hoodie. And he knew that, and his momma knew that and they are as culpable as Gansta rap and as culpable as Zimmerman and as culpable as American laws, in getting Trayvon killed.

Blaming one’s clothing in this case is so similar
to blaming a rape victim for her choice of clothes. Totally irrelevant.
Even Geraldo apologized for doing so - as well he should have done.

If Trayvon’s family had guided him away from the gangsta scene or away from emulating gangstas, he would be alive today.

So, there’s that.

And, that’s where I am at, on this topic.

God loves all of you, lurkers, too,
Don

God loves all of us, Don.

 

[EasterJoy]

I carry a 9mm precisely to protect myself from the unprovoked attacks of the Trayvons of the world.

“child” my butt. Smashing someones head into concrete is fatal.

This future murderer got taken out early, thank God for providing George Zimmerman the means to defend himself so he never got a chance to murder an innocent like he tried to do that day.

I’m strongly considering putting up 15k of my own money to provide Zimmerman with safe harbor while racist radicals like the Black Panthers put a 10k bounty on his head.

Edit: The innocent “child” tried to grab the gun, why only the chambered round went off and the magazine was still full; the slide was blocked by the “child” trying to take the gun. I’m sure he was going to turn it in the police, then innocently skip away to buy more skittles.

So if a 9-11 dispatcher told you not to chase someone whom you had not seen committing any crime, you’d feel totally free to do that?

If, conversely, you were walking down the street in a strange neighborhood, caught with nothing on you to defend yourself but a bag of Skittles and a glass bottle of iced tea, and some guy with a gun who had a weight advantage on you was checking you out, would you think it an admission of guilt if you were to run? If he started chasing you and caught up with you, muttering “these a******s always get away” into his cell phone, would you say someone in that position should just let himself be apprehended? Are you saying that people who are looked at by a stranger and react by running deserve whatever treatment they get?

That’s just the thing. I don’t accept that if a stranger in my neighborhood walking down my street looking at the houses deserves to be run down by the neighbors, let alone shot. Say that I live dangerously, but I don’t see how you let Zimmerman do what he did and still claim you live in a free country. What you’re going to live in is a country ruled by self-important paranoids.

That’s what I think Zimmerman seems most likely to be guilty of: Not racism, but arrogance, arrogance that thinks it can decide when someone needs to be killed. I don’t think that anyone of any age, no matter how menancing a mug the good Lord put on their face or how nosy they are about what’s in their host’s neighbor’s yards as they walk down the sidewalk, deserves to be killed because they had the bad luck to run into some self-appointed Barney Fife! You ought to be free to walk or run to 7-11 and back in a strange neighborhood without any fear of getting shot by a paranoid neighbor!

If the citizens of the State of Florida think otherwise, they can keep the whole nutty war zone that they’re asking for, and good riddance!