What happened in Sanford, Fla., between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman? No one knows exactly what went down… yet.
All we know for sure is that this is an utter tragedy for the family of Trayvon Martin. They have our heartfelt sympathy for their terrible loss. Hopefully, state law enforcement officials will get to the bottom of what happened. There should, however, be no rush to judgment until we get an in-depth investigation of what actually happened rather than just media reports and claims by advocacy organizations.
Unfortunately, a chorus of politicians and local activists has succeeded in bringing the federal Department of Justice into the case. DOJ announced late Monday that its Civil Rights Division would investigate the shooting.
While it would be unfair for anyone to prejudge this case until the facts are known, one can — unfortunately — predict that DOJ’s investigation will be anything but objective or credible.
Over the last three years, DOJ, including the Civil Rights Division, has been systematically politicalized. In the process, it’s been un-professionalized.
The result has been a series of embarrassments and outright scandals. Foremost, of course, is Operation Fast & Furious, the “felony stupid” gun running operation that Holder’s Justice Department set in motion to justify more restrictive gun laws. That program led directly to the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent. DOJ has spent the better part of a year stonewalling a congressional investigation into what went wrong. It has repeatedly refused to answer questions about who approved the operation or to turn over documentation that would shed light on the agency’s actions. And these are the stand-up investigators who will doggedly pursue truth in Forida?
The most recent black eye for the Department is the 500-page report by special counsel Henry F. Schuelke. It documents the intentional misbehavior of DOJ criminal prosecutors in the Ted Stevens case. Schuelke reports that they concealed “significant exculpatory evidence that would have independently corroborated Senator Stevens’s defense and his testimony, and seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the government’s key witness.” The DOJ’s case was dismissed by Judge Emmet Sullivan, who said that he had never seen such misconduct in his 25 years on the bench.
I understand Al Sharpton is going to lead a march down there. i can understand his outrage. You should have to be called “Reverend” before you can act in ways that get people killed on the streets.
– while watching him on Morning Joe today to switch to Imus and CNBC watching from now on. Scarborough has become the token “moderate” on an increasingly leftist panel and rotating guests.
Has the national media or the DOJ ever looked into the kidnap/rape/murders of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom?
Because nationally, I’ve already seen more news stories on Trayyvon Martin than I have about Channon and Chris. I don’t know why that is…
Because Channon and Christopher are white and the disgusting pigs who sodomized, brutalized and murdered them were black. I don’t know how mch simpler it needs to be said.
For thjose of you who are unfamiliar with the inhumane way in which these two were systematically, google their case. It makes one want to bring back public hangings.
I think it might be time for a body at the Federal level that interposes itself between the Executive Branch and the states and the eople, in a grand jury fashion, allowing it to intervene only when states have proven they cannot (when it comes to issues of dual sovereignty)–but should have.
“…. No rush to judgment”? from the American people? LOL good one!
“No one knows exactly what went down… yet.”
True, but it sure looks like cold-blooded murder in the first degree.
Since Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and the back of his head when the police arrived we can be certain that it wasn’t cold-blooded.
To me this looks like a confrontation that escalated to a fight that ended with a gunshot. The key question is who escalated the confrontation into a fight. If it was Zimmerman he needs to go to jail. If it was Martin he suffered the consequence of his decision.
Well, since Zimmerman followed him, got out of his car, and chased him, the preponderance of the evidence is pretty clear that he is the one who escalated it.
Indeed it would seem by the Florida Stand and Defend Law, it was Martin who had the right to use deadly force against the threat posed to him by Zimmerman who was stalking him on a public street with a deadly weapon that he rather obviously intended to use.
The fact that Zimmerman initiated the contact is not evidence that he escalated it. If Zimmerman intended to shoot Martin, why did he get out of the car? Why were they fighting? Why not just shoot the kid in the back and drive off? The intent to use the weapon is an assumption, not a deduction.
I think it’s safe to infer from the wound on the back of his head and his bloody nose that at some point Zimmerman was on the ground. Either he hit his head on the ground after being struck in the nose or hit his nose on the ground after being struck in the back of the head. The fact that the conflict continued past that point indicates that at that time Martin was not in fear of his life. This was a residential neighborhood. There were people around who were paying attention and calling 911. There would have been lights on and faces in windows. If Martin wanted to deescalate he would have run to them.
So the question remains: Did Martin think he was trading blows with some wanna-be Batman, or did he think he was going to teach an asshole a lesson for daring to challenge him?
Challenge him over what?
There are a few things you’re leaving out:
1) Martin was unarmed.
2) Martin was not engaging in any furtive activity. He was “suspicious” because he was walking through a neighborhood where he didn’t seem to belong. However, I am a 28 year old white male who looks middle class and was harassed by a “concerned woman” asking if I lived in my very own neighborhood not far from the house I own because I was out taking a walk alone at night. Do-gooders are like that.
3) The dispatcher told him to not get out and pursue.
If you go after someone who does not give you probable cause and confront them, you are the one putting them on the defensive. It is far more likely that Martin, not Zimmerman, had a lawful case for self-defense.
Also, to Mike’s point, Zimmerman was a self-appointed neighborhood watch “captain”, and he was walking around this complex armed with a lethal weapon. That’s a HUGE problem. Huge. This was an individual taking on authority the law does not give him.
Frankly, I hope Trayvon’s parents sue the heck out of the HOA in this case. When homeowners realize how much it’s going to cost them to have these wannabe-cops “patrolling” their neighborhood, you can bet things will change. I really do hope they sue. I can just imagine the special assessment for that one, and how hard it will be to resell their homes with that hanging over them.
@Nora – “This was an individual taking on authority the law does not give him”
What a load of tripe! Since when do citizens need a “LAW” that allows them to protect their neighborhoods/community? I don’t like it at all that an innocent kid was killed, but people who think relying of the police is the answer are insane. The police are only good for arriving late and drawing an outline of the dead body with chalk. Period!
After Zimmerman made the call to the police, and after the dispatcher told him not to follow him, Zimmerman’s job was done. Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher, chased down this kid, attempted to apprehend this kid even though he had zero legal right to do so, and now that kid — a perfectly innocent kid who had every right to be where he was and dress as he wanted to — is dead because some cop-wannabe took the law into his own hands.
When it’s your kid lying dead in the street, I’m thinking you won’t be singing the same song. But it’s just another black kid, so big freakin’ deal, right?
Zimmerman was out of line, he aggressively chased down this kid, whom he’d already tried and convicted in his sad little mind, and he shot him dead.
If you think that’s what this country is about, please do not dare to tell me all about your rights and freedom. If Trayvon Martin’s rights and freedom mean nothing to you, then don’t expect me to care about yours.
Nora, if all you have are emotional appeals then do us a favor and admit you are simply another unreasoning member of the lynch mob. Look at what I’ve written. I’m not saying Zimmerman is innocent, just that we don’t have enough information to establish his guilt. If we get evidence that Zimmerman initiated the use of violence, then I’d be happy to stick the needle in his arm. But until then our legal system is founded on the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
Tom: Challenge Martin over being “suspicious” in his neighborhood. Zimmerman has a first amendment right to be a racist asshole. That doesn’t give anyone the right to assault him.
Mike, I’m leaving them out because they’re irrelevant. It’s a free country. You’re free to walk through my neighborhood. I’m free to ask you what you’re doing there. And you’re free to tell me to pound sand. What neither of us is free to do is assault the other.
Actually, it is.
There was no contact between the two.
By establishing contact Zimmerman escalated the encounter.
There is no reasonable way to parse around that without making it legal to wander the streets, annoy strangers, then claim “self-defense” because the person fought back and “scared” you.
And, critically, because of the Florida Stand and Defend law, Martin’s motives are irrelevant.
He was walking down the street and some complete stranger first started following him, then started chasing him, and finally challenged him. He had every right to defend himself with nothing else required to be proven.
Parsing that means mandating that people always flee, no matter the degree of immediate danger, or the potential danger from trying to escape an armed assailant.
Finally, you are absolutely wrong about Martin not being in fear of his life just because Zimmerman had a bump on his head and a bloody nose. That is absolutely ridiculou, but typical of the standards for self-defense that people who hate the concept want to promote.
A bump on the head and a bloody nose in no way prevents a person from standing back up and throwing more punches. Boxing matches prove that regularly. They certainly do not prevent a person from pulling a gun and shooting someone, as this case clearly proves.
All Martin had to do was see, feel, or have Zimmerman refer to the gun to be fully aware that his life was absolutely in imminent danger, creating full and complete justification for him to use any means at his disposal to prevent Zimmerman from murdering him.
There was no contact between the two.
By establishing contact Zimmerman escalated the encounter.
I’m not sure what meaning you are giving to the word “contact” here. if you are claiming that Zimmerman physically attacked Martin, that Martin hit him back in self-defense, and that Zimmermen then shot him, you making some unfounded assumptions. We do not know who initiated physical contact.
Self-defense law does not allow you to use force against a person because they are looking at you or following you in a public place.
Contact is contact, including verbal.
You cannot challenge someone then claim self-defense – dueling is illegal.
Self-defense law does allow you to use non-lethal force against someone pursuing you then verbally challenging you.
Again, by trying to parse away Zimmerman’s culpability your are legitimizing random shootings, and by trying to parse Martin’s rights your are disparaging any right to stand your ground and defend yourself.
Contact is contact, including verbal.
No, is is not. You may not physically attack a person for being in “verbal contact” (that is, talking) with you. You and I are “in contact” at present, but you have no legal right to hit me on that basis.
You cannot challenge someone then claim self-defense
You certainly can. If you encounter a stranger in your home, you may verbally challenge them. If they respond by lunging at you, you may respond with force. Regardless of whether or not you first challenged them.
Self-defense law does allow you to use non-lethal force against someone pursuing you then verbally challenging you
It does not.
by trying to parse away Zimmerman’s culpability your are legitimizing random shootings, and by trying to parse Martin’s rights your are disparaging any right to stand your ground and defend yourself
You are the person making all sorts of very fanciful speculations about what exactly happened in this case, not me. Was Martin “standing his ground and defending himself”? Perhaps. That is for the DA to decide. Is Zimmerman “culpable”? You have already decided that he is, based on zero evidence. I’m not impressed by your pose of “defender of rights”.
Steve,
Great strawman. Too bad the facts of the case are that Martin was in a public space, minding his own business and no one has established that Martin was behaving furtively or suspiciously. The best case you can make here is that he was trespassing because it was a gated community, but even that is suspect because not all “gated communities” are really closed communities. I used to live in one that was “gated,” but had no fences, barriers, etc. except the gates. It was actually so open that you could walk into from the street (it was off a major city street) without even knowing it was a “gated community” as the gates were simply meant to stymie thieves that planned to bring in vehicles to wholesale rob people.
Great strawman. Too bad the facts of the case are that Martin was in a public space
It is not a “strawman”. The assertion was made that you cannot challenge somebody and then claim self-defense. I responded to that mistaken claim.
As for the facts of this case, we have no idea whether anybody “challenged” anybody here or if so, who issued the challenge.
Yes, Martin was in a public space. So was Zimmerman, and he had to right to follow Martin in a public space if he wished.
At some point they got into a physical altercation. We don’t know exactly how that happened. If Martin was the aggressor then Zimmerman was within his rights to defend himself with his gun.
Steve,
Self-defense comes down to state of mind invoked by someone’s behavior. If three men dressed like gangbangers followed you closely at night, you sure might be tempted even as a grown man to consider it a matter of self-defense if they confront you.
It’s not hard at all to imagine how a grown man stalking a teenage boy might evoke a genuine fear for one’s life in the boy. So he may have attacked first, who cares if that’s true? Not all self-defense is reactive. Isn’t that what conservatives have been saying since 9/11 about terrorism?
So he may have attacked first, who cares if that’s true?
If you attack somebody they are entitled to defend themselves. Why is that not obvious to you?
Not all self-defense is reactive. Isn’t that what conservatives have been saying since 9/11 about terrorism?
Liberals are stupid people. Stop trying to change the subject, and do try to get over the fact that you lost the argument over 9/11.
Jeff,
From the data we have, Zimmerman did not do that. He could have called out to him and identified himself, but didn’t. If you aren’t wearing a police uniform, you have absolutely no right in a public place to chase after someone and expect them to not assume you are possibly a criminal. Also, it came out on Hannity last night that Martin was actually seen running toward a point that would have him leaving the neighborhood.
I have been confronted in a similar fashion in my own neighborhood, despite the fact that I am a clean-cut, white, middle class man who dresses accordingly. I have also lived in a “gated community” that was really just a completely open townhouse community that had gates at the main entrances, but that you could easily walk into without realizing it was “gated.” I can see a whole lot of situations in which Zimmerman provoked this without assessing before hand that Martin was doing nothing that would give an officer probable cause to say anything to him.
You’re right, it is a free country. However, after you confront someone, you better be prepared to leave them alone. If you stalk me at night after I give you a decent answer, you better be prepared to get your ass kicked.
This appeared in NRO at:http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/294006/standing-your-ground-and-vigilantism-robert-verbruggen. Let me repeat the comment I made there about jumping to conclusions: “I agree with commenters who say that we need to wait for a full police investigation before jumping to conclusions about the innocence or guilt of Mr. Zimmerman. Right now, I give Mr. Zimmerman the benfit of the doubt of being innocent until proven otherwise. (For all of you who think he is guilty, just keep in mind the Duke-LaCrosse case.)”
I am sure Holder is going to go full throttle on this case and gin up whatever he needs to convict Zimmerman and then use that as entre into arguing for more gun control. That was the whole point of Fast and Furious, and now this case gives him a golden opportunity to further his nefarious aims.
I have read many times that the dispatcher advised him not to follow the suspect…..Well i am sorry, dispatchers do not have any authority to tell anyone what to do in a case like this…Just because some dispatcher said BOO, does not make it written in stone….The people of the USA are getting scarred beyond belief over the young Gangbangers….Please GB`s dont feel too good about this, because what happened here is what will happen more often….You will be shot first, and then allow Bro. Jesse Jackson, Bro. Al S.,and the likes of Bro. Eric Holder to cry foul play…..This was a tragic happening , but for the three Idiots named above to Hog the camera`s sure will not soften the blow to this and others of the same….39 hoodlems shot this past weekend in 0zamb0`s SS chicago turf. 10 fatalites….Where will the 3 Goon Bros go to Chicago and spew….Oh i forget, They all live there and are the major problem and cause of all dis Banging…..Say what is UN-PC ok….Jimi
It appears the logic of the lynch mob has changed. It used to be “If a crime is committed, a black man dies.” Now it’s “If a black man dies, a crime has been committed.”
“Lynching, also known as Lynch law; named after Charles Lynch (jurist); a form of extralegal judgment and punishment, usually by killing”
Yeah, this could well be a case of lynching all right.
Don’t think that’s what you meant though.
Why not? Lynching has killed far more white people than black. When did black people start owning it? The 60′s? Well, they can’t have it.
What’s your investment in stirring up the anger, Dave? Why not wait for the investigation (and nearly inevitable trials) to finish?
The Media is leading the Lynch Mob and they’re not awaiting any investigation. Every “crime” involving an African-American victim is immediately decided by the Media.
Look at the so-called Duke Rape Case. There was no rape. Just a mentally unstable Black Women and a legion of White Newscasters.
Every serious crime involving an African-American perpetrator becomes “Man Bites Dog,” old news, ignored. Even physical descriptions of Black suspects are omitted or removed. And if you call the Media on that lie, someone accuses you of “stirring up anger.”
If White Racism is an acceptable topic for discussion, why isn’t Black Criminality?
Clearly Zimmerman made the move to confront Martin. One can pick which version one wants to believe until after a trial(s). Trying to sift through the reports, it seems there is:
(a) a lot of simply irrelevant information such as doing drug or alcohol testing on the shooter as “standard” but they did it on the victim. Probable cause? Autopsy? Doh?
(b) black witnesses changed their stories. not unusual but not really good at trial. some even claimed, with lawyer assist, two shots fired: first one, then screams of the kid for help, then the final one. Even the Boston Globe reports evidence of only one shot, the fatal one.
(c) no witnesses were all that close and it was at night, rainy and they all stayed indoors.
(d) media circus and inflamatory hype in abundance.
Which leads one to comparing this one with:
(1) the Caylee Anthony case. Lot’s of stuff, little actual evidence to support criminal “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Good luck prosecuting this one.
(2) the OJ case where the defendant walks on the criminal side but millions (and with Obama’s WH goons and stooges at DoJ), billions awarded in civil actions.
This, of course, will factor into Obama’s campaign as in what doesn’t? Won’t be enough tractor-trailers in the Universe to haul all the race cards about to be played.
The Caylee Anthony case had plenty of evidence to convict. The jurors, in the distressing style that has become prevalent of late, confused “beyond a reasonable doubt” with “beyond any doubt whatsoever.”
Try using more appropriate examples where you’ve actually done your homework.
One little detail missing from this report and the comments:
Mr. Zimmerman is a registered DEMOCRAT.
The media will hide the details and facts, and the case will probably be dismissed.
What a mess. It sure seems like the local cops did a very cursory investigation. Unfortunately, it isn’t the state police or FBI trying to re-examine the shooting for any crime. Instead, it’s a corrupt / politicized DOJ.
I don’t know what happened but it sure smells fishy. I hope if their was a real crime, Zimmerman is charges with it – not some kind of Civil Rights B.S.
How do you know the “cops did a cursory investigation”?
There has been so much misreporting in this case and even more uninformed opinionating.
I have heard reports that he lived in the neighborhood and that she was taking a shortcut through it. Both can’t be true.
The 911 tapes that have released have parts edited out at (least where Zimmerman gives his address an phone number).
Most of the time the recording of the the 911 operator telling him not to follow the young man on local radio or TV, it is cut off before he says “OK!”
Did you know that Zimmerman made over 40 calls to 911 on previous occasions? I wouldn’t be surprised if some were young White men.
There are a lot of unanswered questions:
If Zimmerman agreed not to follow what happened to change the situation.
Was Martin shot in the front or back?
How does that match up with Zimmerman’s story or the story of the family (that was not there)?
In the neighbor’s 911 call, who was yelling ‘help’ before the gunshot?
Norm Wolfinger (the D.A. for that and my county) has an excellent record. I am sure he will lead a good investigation. I hope he has the guts to arrest any Feds that interfere with the investigation.
What’s all the fuss about?
1. We’re talking about a black kid wearing a hoodie walking through a gated community.
2. The shooter was white.
3. The police did not feel this case warrents an investigation or trial.
Did you really think this only happens in Mississippi?
Oh, Nor, you sly fox you. The shooter was Hispanic, a protected ethnicity. Now isn’t that right?
Why are you lying, “Northern Light”?
StinkProgress blog is getting in its own way, not an uncommon occurrence. They are saying that somehow the Florida law is responsible for the death of Martin. This is a kind of oxymoron or self-contradiction. If Zimmerman was NOT threatened, as they imply, AND he had obeyed this law, Martin would be alive today. If Zimmerman were threatened with death or severe bodily harm that could lead to death, he has a right to self-defense. One can blame Zimmerman for not obeying this law, but logically he cannot be blamed for obeying it. There is nothing wrong with the law.
It is absolutely tragic, but the media from one end to the other, including that Stepford News Bot Shep Smith on Fox, is stoking the lynch mob mentality before the poor kids body is even cold.
Family Pictures show a handsome, smiling and confident looking young black man that looks like the baby brother Barack Obama never had, and the left is already playing it to its least logical hilt, with astroturfed marches in far away New York City.
This past weekend in Obama’s home town of Chicago’s overwhelmingly black South and West sides, 49 people were shot, with three dying of their wounds including a six year old girl caught in the crossfire. Nearly every one of them are black victims of black on black violence that is thinning the ranks of young black men like no project conceived in the racist hearts of the KKK.
One death is a tragedy, a million a statistic, I guess.
Many years ago, I was born and raised in Chicago. There were mob killings, about one a week on average, body in the trunk, 22 head wound, thug on thug. As late as about 1965, and possibly still, self-defense was basically against the law in Chicago. One was expected to run away from an attack, even a home invasion. How’s that working out for them to protect the lives of their citizens?
“”What happened in Sanford, Fla., between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman? No one knows exactly what went down… yet.”" —-
This of course is not true,
George Zimmerman knows what happened,
it is simply a case where the media what him to be a culprit and they restlessly keep labeling him a murder
But in Fact he is the only person that knows the truth.
Yes, but that’s true of every convicted criminal in jail. Means nothing.
The more we learn about Zimmerman, the clearer it becomes that he was the problem, not Martin.
At the end of the day, Zimmerman had zero legal authority to pursue and attempt to stop this young man from going about his business, and now that young man is dead.
If we allow every cop-wannabe to take the law in their hands and then fall back on a poorly interpreted law in order to justify their criminal actions, then we have total anarchy and chaos on the streets.
Zimmerman chose to chase down this kid and to draw a weapon on him. The ONLY person whose life was EVER in danger was Trayvon Martin.
If gun advocates can’t own up to the irresponsibility exhibited by gun owners, and how some laws are just a hot mess and a tragedy waiting to happen, then they deserve to have their gun ownership restricted.
So if Zimmerman abuses his rights then I must forfeit mine?
Nora, you deserve to be forbidden to ever comment on any issue ever again because other people abuse freedom of speech.
OK, Nora Troll, in case you are a female and of the white race, whoa, girl, statistically you have something to look forward to:
“According to U.S. Justice Department figures over 34,460 White women are sexually assaulted or raped by Black men each year, and most authorities believe that the actual rape figures are at least twice the reported number. In perhaps the most shocking crime figure of all is the number of White rapes against Black women. Statistically, it is 0! Because they have fewer than 10 cases nationally.”
I know this is not a tragedy, only a scandal, but you are welcome to read the rest at http://cofcc.org/2008/06/the-negro-crime-rate-a-failure-in-integration.
Also statistically (DoJ, who else), 28% of Negro males will end up in prison. But that, of course, is discrimination to you.
If a law is so poorly written that it creates a loophole allowing people to shoot other people dead based on nothing but on individual’s perception of the other’s body language, then that law is a problem. And if gun owners, who are the major proponents of the stand your ground laws, can’t admit that there’s a problem with the law, then they deserve the ultimate outcome — that gun laws will become harsher. That’s just a fact. You can call names all you like and act like big tough guys (kind of like Zimmerman…hmmm…) on teh interwebs when someone disagrees with you if it makes you feel all manly for a minute and a half, but that is what will happen. And you’ll have no one but yourselves to blame.
Nora, you are in the wrong. Deal with it.
It certainly appears that Zimmerman went outside the bounds of self-defense as defined in the Florida law. There are no “loopholes” here.
However, we used to have a tradition in this country where the evidence, not public sentiment, were what determined guilt or innocence, in the legal sense. If evidence of guilt is lacking, then Zimmerman must go free.
This has absolutely nothing to do with how poorly-written the law is. For examples of that, you must look to things like Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and other idiocy.
To quote Bertram Cabot Jr., as above, “So if Zimmerman abuses his rights then I must forfeit mine?”
Do you really want to start down that path?
Except that, to date, he hasn’t been arrested, and he and his supporters are claiming he’s covered by self-defense and stand your ground laws.
I’m not saying _I_ think you should lose your rights should others abuse those rights. I’m saying that’s what’s going to happen if the knee-jerk reaction on the part of gun owners is to defend the law (as written and as interpreted) regardless of its flaws.
You believe that only those wishing to commit murder should have the means to do so?
People who are intent on committing murder don’t worry about laws, do they?
What I’m saying is that, if you wish to retain your right to own a gun (which, btw, I do), or apply for a C&C (which, btw, I have), you have to be objective about a law like this stand your ground law if it presents problems.
Nora, you’re confused.
“Except that, to date, he hasn’t been arrested, and he and his supporters are claiming he’s covered by self-defense and stand your ground laws.”
From what I’ve read, there’s enough uncertainty – and no witnesses – to cast doubt on precisely whether he could be prosecuted successfully. If the prosecutors don’t think a case can be successfully made. should they spend public funds on it? Even if they’re sure, it doesn’t always work in their favor.
“I’m not saying _I_ think you should lose your rights should others abuse those rights. I’m saying that’s what’s going to happen if the knee-jerk reaction on the part of gun owners is to defend the law (as written and as interpreted) regardless of its flaws.”
I’d love to have only perfect laws, too. Not likely. How is this worse than the even faster a and larger knee-jerking from the socialist side, who have already tried and convicted both Zimmerman and the law in question (while simultaneously saying nothing at all about the last week’s death toll in gun-free Chicago)?
If a law is so poorly written that it creates a loophole allowing people to shoot other people dead based on nothing but on individual’s perception of the other’s body language, then that law is a problem
True. But that’s not what happened here. Zimmerman did not shoot anybody dead based on perceptions of their body language, he apparently shot somebody dead because the somebody was physically assaulting him.
We don’t know that. What we DO know is that Zimmerman decided, based on his own CLEARLY biased perceptions, that Martin was up to no good. He thinks Martin is on drugs, behaving bizarrely, etc. Yet Martin was not on drugs, he did belong where he was, and his behavior is exactly like every other person’s who is on their cell phone, outside, sort of wandering back and forth as they speak.
So Zimmerman, after doing the only thing required of him as this “neighborhood watch” person, CHOSE to pursue and confront Martin. And now Martin is dead, and Zimmerman is CLAIMING he was jumped by a gangly 17 year old boy he outweighed by 100 pounds.
Puhleeze.
Everyone is willing to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt ONLY because Martin is black. The comments here confirm this. This was a racially motivated, cold-blooded murder, and that gun owners are so caught up in protecting their “right” to murder anyone they want and then retroactively fit the facts to make it look justifiable is disgusting. Disgusting. May God have mercy on your souls.
So Nora, I take it you have access to the tox screens that were done on the body? You know for a fact that the kid wasn’t on PCP or some other drug that gives him super-human strength and dulls all his pain receptors?
Look, I’m not accusing the kid of actually being on anything, I’m trying to put some information in your head, that yes, a gangly 17 year-old COULD beat the living snot out of three or four cops, so you can drop that argument anytime you want.
BTW, I was an EMT for 18 years, and I’m telling you that the above scenario HAS happened, numerous times, much to the surprise of the arresting officers..
If Martin was a white kid, and a hispanic cop-wannabe shot him, you wouldn’t think the same thing.
This is racism, pure and simple. Martin was gunned down because he was black and because some loser with a chip on his shoulder decided to play cop, judge and jury and gunned him down in cold blood.
Whatever.
I’ve had enough of what passes for conservatives, or the “Tea Party” for a freaking lifetime. You ARE all racists. You ARE all trailer trash. You ARE all just ignorant, resentful, bitter losers who want to blame everyone else for you failures in life.
I’m done.
I will NOT vote for racists. Period.
Nora, you know, I don’t care what the color of your skin is. I only care about the color of the thought processes are that run in that organic computer located between your ears.
It sounds to me like you are reading your OWN prejudices into statements made by others, and are tar and feathering all within reach no matter what the facts are.
If it is found that Zimmerman acted improperly, (and the reports out so far indicate that he did,) then he needs to suffer the consequences, no matter what ‘race’ either party is.
I find it extremely sad and disturbing that a young man lost his life.
I also find it extremely disingenuous that people with your ‘bent’ look the other way when the ‘Black Panthers’ have people threating voters at polling places, and there is no hue and cry for a DOJ investigation of that for example.
The law was put into place to prevent procecutors with a political agenda from going after people who have defended themselves from the gremlins of this society, and are now having to defend themselves all over again.
When this all shakes out in the wash, I’m pretty sure Zimmerman won’t be ‘protected’ by this law at all.
Something tells me all is not what it seems here. It’s just way too tidy.
Here in Florida neighborhoods change in an instant. A good example is a recent visit to a friend that owns a beautiful home in Lighthouse Point (Boca). They were selling crack and sex an the gas station not 1/2 mile away as I went to fill up on the way home. Two women were raped and murdered in their home within 10 miles of here last week.
A good friend of mine was shot and killed resisting a mugging not too far away. There’s been a fair amount of gang violence at Boynton Beach Mall recently, including broad-daylight robberies and shootings, and that’s a fairly upscale place surrounded by gated communities. Here in Florida, it’s a good idea to carry a gun, that’s the price you pay for the lifestyle, not to mention the practice of these abundant sanctuary Florida cities actually trying to attract every third-world criminal to their “underprivileged” Latino centers.
I work 13 blocks from my home. Between here and there is an area that becomes predominately drug dealers and prostitutes after dark. One I assume working girl followed me right into my office recently “looking for a ride.” Until the Palm Beach Sheriffs took over from the local Lake Worth Police it was pretty rough out there, this is the new and improved situation.
Whether or not they eat Skittles while they case the “rich folks” homes I do not know for sure, but my neighbor has had their car(s) literally jacked up, put on blocks and all 4 wheels stolen twice in the past 12 months. Seems Honda Accord and Mazda Miata parts are in high demand in Brazil.
Anyone walking through our neighborhood at night, pulling up their hoodie is very, very suspicious, black, white or latino. The folks that live here generally do not wear hoodies pulled up over their head like this youth did; and/or baggie pants, with ass-crack being the only skin exposed to the night air. I have personally had words with those I believe were casing our street and it ain’t pretty.
All I’m saying is until you’ve walked down the tracks at night around here, I’d give the guy trying to protect his property from the recent, documented rash of robberies the benefit of the doubt, not the guy with the hoodie running away from the local neighborhood watch guy.
So, basically, the black neighborhoods need the cops to let them carry on their inherited rights to drug dealing, mugging, and prostitution. Traditions die hard.
B-I-N-G-O! LOL
Yes. Poor, innocent 17 year old black boy!
The waiting room for criminal court is filled with “Poor, innocent 17 year old black boys”.
Middle aged white men are non existent.
Al Sharpton is involved, and the rabble rouser in chief needs the race riots to start now, so people forget the gas riots that wll start any minute, now.
NEED I say more?
Several forces at work here: the anti-gun lobby will attempt to portray Zimmerman as a reckless cowboy empowered by the Florida stand and defend law. The Al Sharpton brigade will brand this a “hate crime” as if Zimmerman went sport hunting for Martin. Like it or not, profiling works because criminals behave in predictable patterns and often are minority group members. Unfortunately, Martin’s father made a bad decision to let the kid go out for some candy while he was doing we aren’t quite sure what with his girlfriend. As I read the reports, dad didn’t know his son was missing until the next day. How’s that for an intact family system? No, it isn’t a reason to exonerate Zimmerman if he behaved in a reckless manner, but the situation never should have existed in the first place. Note to young black males: if you have a cell phone and somebody is stalking you, don’t pull your hoodie over your head and call your 16 year old girl friend. Call 911.
This story has way too many emotionally misleading details included while way too many signifigant details omitted. First we have lots of childhood pictures of Tayvon Martin from the distant past and none of the 6′ 3″ young man he was at the time he was involved in this incident. We know he was watching sports on TV and went to 7-11 for some Skittels. We don’t know if this was at 7:30 in the evening or 2 AM! There is little mention of the fact that it was raining or how badly he needed his Skittels fix to go wandering the streets in the rain to get candy. It has been hyped that Zimmerman had made nearly 50 911 calls in the past year reporting suspicious activity!!! But isn’t that what neighborhood crime watchers do? We have also seen the banners that Zimmerman was charged with assulting a police officer. We DON”T know if he got in a fistfight with a cop over a traffic stop 3 months ago or if he was in a food fight in middle school 14 years ago and accidentally hit the school resource officer with a carton of chocolate milk. Since he apparently has a Florida concealed weapons permit, which is not easy to get, I would tend to believe the latter more than the former. The 911 dispatcher ORDERED Zimmerman to stop chasing Tayvon and leave the poor child alone! So the narrative goes. Actually the response of the dispatcher was more along the lines of “Suspect is considered armed and dangerous, maintain a safe distance until police arrive.” Zimmerman had been following the young man in his car since he crossed over onto private property at whatever hour of the night it was. He continued following the reported activity until Tayvon left the street and started running between homes to bring his Skittles home to the awaiting family. Zimmerman then left his car and proceeded on foot to keep Tayvon in sight until the cops arrived. Venturing into the darkness after the suspect, Zimmerman was clobbered on the back of the head with a fallen tree branch or some other blunt object which left a bleeding gash on his head. Dazed, he turned to face his attacker and was struck in the nose, at which time he drew his gun and fired. The story is that Tayvon did not have a firearm on him when police came, but the gash on Zimmermans head did not come from a bag of candy. There is scant mention that Tayvon was suspended from school for 5 days when the shooting occured. While we are constantly reminded that he was a CHILD, we still don’t know what time the events occured or if this CHILD was in violation of underaged curfew laws in Sanford. Mostly we don’t know why he had entered a gated, private neighborhood that night of if it was really on his way from 7-11 to home. This story contains lots of emotional details but is sadly lacking in relevant facts.
Let us get to the core of the case. In short, there was a white guy (actually hispanic) who shot a kid minding his own business for no good reason.
End of story.
I vote for the death penalty.
A civil society can not survive otherwise. There are no nuiances, there is no laws that can mitigate the loss of this life. It is immoral to the Christian construct of those few of us who still tether to our concept of reality to what we can actually see. This is such a case.
That said, all the parading around seems to be orchestrated to promote something else all together.
This is the disaster they have been waiting for. The left will use it to their upmost advantage. Shame on them.
Forgotten in it all is a kiddo who died for no good reason.
charles
Uhm, you should probably establish the facts in teh case before forming an opinion about a man’s life.
> Uhm, you should probably establish the facts
“Uhm,…” You obviously have not established any “facts” either… otherwise you would have stated them.
I would not post here unless I had a really good grasp of the facts. It would a diservace to the other posters time. But since you brought the subject up, here is the deal: the guy was a vigilante of the most unorginized kind. He shot a kid walking home from school.
Evidendtly, you think that the pigment of your skin rates some kind of license to have your own set of morals. Clue: It does not work that way no matter how hard obama pushes his corrupt agenda.
People are people. That is the morality that Martin Luther preached, and Martin Luther King carried that torch forward into the USA.
We cannot deny our humainity. It is what it is.
We are wired in a way that basically rejects overhead control.
It is this need that makes us behave the way we do. The problem with the left is that they candy coat totalitarism with a big coat of sugar. Sounds good, but has a 100% failure rate.
chales
Wallabee: “Uhm,…” You obviously have not established any “facts” either… otherwise you would have stated them.”
chukalabus: EVERYTHING YOU JUST POSTED
Seriously now. What is that? If you have already made up your mind about this, then yes… there is nothing to discuss. If you have not decided, they you might be aware that there are a variety of contradictory reports on what happened or did not happened, witnesses that have changed their accounts, et cetera.
Wallabee, I don’t have to lay out anything, since I am not taking a specific side. I’m not even saying that your vision of what transpired is wrong. I am saying that the basic facts of the case remain in dispute, and I urge people to not be too hasty in their rush to judgement.
Chuk, you have a terrible grasp on the facts – Trayvon Martin wasn’t walking home from school, he was walking home from a convenience store. That doesn’t have much moral impact on the case, but it suggests that you have no business telling anyone they are wrong about details. You impute some sort of racist motive to me… without knowing what my race is, because I suggest that maybe we should wait and see what other details emerge before forming hardened opinions?
I should sue you both for wasting two minutes of my life, but its my fault for bothering to reply. <>
I lived in Florida for 4 years and am returning for reasons that would boggle the minds of liberals. I enjoyed a mostly crime free environment in a “you loot, we shoot” state. Federalism creates an atmoshphere where the law has meaning and people have freedom. Let’s wait to hear the findings of this particular case before jumping into a frazzle. Just because a white man shot and killed a black person does not mean race was the cause. For every action there is a reaction, and in Florida one has the right to protect himself. I don’t think the black community will be satisfied with the outcome.
I was looking forward t the PJ Media take on this case and was impressed by the compassionate tone of Mr. von Spakovsky’s opening remarks. When the post turned into a a wide ranging criticism of the Justice Department (Mr. von Spakovsky’s former employer during the Geo. W. Bush administration), he lost me.
The media and the left will use this tragic case and the apparent mismanagement of the case by local police, to frame the issue as the death of a young man who’s crime appears to have been “walking while black”, to raise issues of gun control, and to highlight problems with “Stand Your Ground Laws”. In my view the involvement of the JD is positive: the investigation by local police clearly has no credibility. If no further, and more definitive, investigation takes place, the issue and emotions it has raised will simply fester and grow. Let’s not use this tragedy to further divide us as citizens.
Just to put this into perspective, there were 50 murders in Chicago this last weekend. Why no marchs there? Because it was black on black crime? But then most black on black murders tend to be vigilantism as many poor blacks do not trust the courts to give them justice.
In Florida, it was a Hispanic. Does this now mean that we will see Black vs. Hispanics fights within the democrats? Are not the Hispanics a higher victim class than blacks anyway? (Women are a lower class, gays are higher then Muslims are the highest level of being a victim).
Don’t worry. Black on black crime is whitey’s fault too. Even when whitey wasn’t in Africa back in the day when blacks ate each other for lunch rather than hunting for the plentiful meat available.
OOPS
Hispanic Jews do not kill black people.
Only white people kill black people.
That’s a rule.
[/sarc]
How did Jews get dragged into this? Zimmerman went to Catholic grade school, so I doubt he’s Jewish.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/who-is-george-zimmerman/2012/03/22/gIQAkXdbUS_story.html?tid=pm_lifestyle_pop
Yes, he was Catholic. Like I said.
Seems to me this whole article is a rush to judgement.
What I ment to say is maybe it is time judgement was rushed and let me ax you this, you want a bunch of people like the boy that was shot sneaking around your back yard.
As I was finishing my walk the other day, two bike riders went by me rather fast. As the second bike went by,they brushed the sleave of my shirt enough that I felt it. I mumbled, geez, can you get any closer as the two bikes went on. I watched and the first bike stopped, turned around and approached me. I saw his lips moving so I took my ear plug out of my left ear so I could engage him in conversation. This kid(teenage) was yelling at me for saying something to his sister. There was no trying to find out why I said it just the rush to say that I disrespected his sister. Now, they happen to be black. The current administration has done nothing to alleviate racial tension. I go to the inner city every day to work at an inner city school run by the Lutheran Church. It is a racially diverse school. I mention this only to say that I see every day what welfare has done to the black families. Also, there are not many democrats or lefties serving in the hood, only conservative, right wing, zealot, white people. Do not rush to judgment on this case. I am still looking over my shoulder. By the way, I did tell him to quit racing so fast on the sidewalk, and after he yelled at me some more, I told him to get out of my face and grow up.
I’m fine with the fact that Zimmerman owned his weapon legally and that Florida has the “stand your ground” policy – I’m totally pro-Second Amendment. Unfortunately, it doesn’t sound like he “stood his ground.” It sounds like he went looking for trouble and found it. What was he planning to do? “Keep the guy covered” with his pistol until the cops arrived?
I’ve lived in lots of places that had Neighborhood Watch patrols. In none of them was it NW policy for a patroller to get out of his car, trail a suspicious person around the neighborhood, confront him, question him, try to detain him, and “keep him covered” until the cops arrive. It’s definitely not NW police for patrollers to carry pistols and shoot people – in self-defense or otherwise. An armed Neighborhood Watch member is a vigilante, a disaster waiting to happen.
I’m not a mind-reader so I don’t know what Zimmerman thought he was doing that night. The right thing, probably. I don’t know if Zimmerman was paranoid about black people. But whatever he was, he was not a responsible gun-owner exercising his Second Amendment rights in a free and righteous manner. He was a stupid gun-owner who didn’t think through the consequences of using his weapon on a real, live human being.
I want this guy to go to trial. I want to know the facts. Unfortunately, thanks to the stupid police department, the stupid “civil rights” activists, and the stupid news media, I’ll have to listen not to facts but to lies, distortions, and emotional BS from all the people who already have their minds made up. At some point, if we’re lucky, there will be a true and legal reckoning. If we’re not, we’ll get a PC lynching or a race riot. I’m not getting my hopes up.
I think there. Should at least be a hearing when a death is envolved.
D.O.J. … henceforth to be known as the D.O.I. because ALL that comes forth from that particular flavor of government alphabet soup only knows INJUSTICE anymore.
My best guess as to what probably happened is that Zimmerman chased Martin, believing him to be a burglar, to keep him from escaping. Martin, not being a burglar, thought he was being attacked by some madman and defended himself. Zimmerman, finding himself being beaten, defended _himself_ — with a gun.
Case law says that the aggressor cannot claim the right to self-defense. Zimmerman may not have initiated violence, but at the very least he initiated the hostile encounter, so his right of self-defense is questionable. He might not be guilty of murder, but at the least he could be charged with attempted false-arrest, and the use of deadly force where it was not warranted.
My best guess as to how it will play out is that the Justice Department will be more interested in attacking the right to self-defense than in punishing Zimmerman for his fatal bad judgment. I suspect they will provide evidence of his guilt and then see to it that he walks free and clean so they can re-direct all the anger from Zimmerman onto availability of concealed carry permits in general. They won’t be satisfied with the attempt to ensure that shootings like this do not happen again; their goal is to ensure that even actual muggers and burglars can be safe while doing their crimes.
There is another factor that should be noted in this case:
It would seem the real problem with the law is not the part permitting self defense, or the part exempting aggressors from claiming self defense, but the part providing immunity:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
Note particularly subsection 2. Despite what is being said in the media it appears the police do NOT have any discretion in arresting anyone claiming self defense. The mere claim means you get to walk away until an active investigation determines some reason to suspect otherwise. Of course that investigation is likely to be strongly hampered by the lack of a direct opposing story, and can easily be compounded by a poor attitude on the part of police and DA if they do not like the law in the first place, but neither allows the police responding the discretion to even detain the person until they have first built a case.
Also note that it places a heavy burden on trying to bring a civil case, particularly if no criminal case is filed.
“Stand Your Ground” is not the problem here; “Get Out of Jail Free” is.
The unfortunate part of this entire incident other than the loss of a son, a young man losing his life is that this IS a racist incident, much like the ones that went on when I was younger in pre-civil right and some post civil right days.
The police completely botched the investigation. Zimmerman whatever his race is created the problem, then used unnecessary force and killed a black man that he targeted because he was black.
How that this administration screams racism for everything that happens whether it is a racist occurrence or not, we have a case that is racist…and we have a DOJ that has no credibility.
Where is the Black community’s outrage that the WH’s first response was, “no comment, it’s a local issue’???? Shame on them…and SHAME on Blacks who vote for this admin who is killing America…but that’s an entirely different topic.
Someone have a map showing the relevant locations: home, store, girlfriend’s place, location of shooting, and perimeter of gated community?
Why is that relevant?
Are people required to use the MapQuest directions when going to the store or become subject to a presumption of guilt?
Why would someone need to use MapQuest to go to a convenience store near their home?
Part of the “evidence” for Martin being an innocent victim was that he was a darling child who went out for some candy from a nearby store. Was that where he went? Was that his purpose? How did he end up in a gated community? Did he live there?
He was staying at his father’s fiancee’s house. That he belonged there is not in question. That he went out to purchase some snacks is not in question.
“The poor child just went out for some candy” was claimed by his family. That raises the issue of where he was. “Was he really?” Not wise for his family to bring up subjects not relevant unless they don’t mind the subject being examined.
Like I said, that this is where he went is not in question. He actually did go out and get ice tea and Skittles. He was speaking on his cell phone with his girlfriend a good deal of the time, too — and phone records support this. Why are you trying to paint him as being a liar and having some potentially criminal alternative for going out? He’s an American and is free to come and go as he pleases — or are his rights different because he’s a black teenager?
And people keep saying there’s nothing racist about this incident. Sure.
I guess “@#$&ing coons” is a term of endearment.
According the New York Times, Zimmerman is described as, “a “White-Hispanic.” Now…aside from the fact that this IS a tragedy and Zimmerman may(We should always wait for adjudication before jumping on the rush to judgement bandwagon, btw) be guilty of something nefarious, there clearly IS an agenda with the N.Y. Times and race-hustlers like Sharpton. BTW, where is that idiot when Blacks murder Whites en masse?????
I just want all the facts to be brought to the table, period. Zimmerman had a legal right to possess his firearm, Martin had a legal right to walk wherever the hell he wanted assuming he wasn’t trespassing on private property. For everyone who wants to string up Zimmerman, needs to take a step back and breathe, and on the flip side everyone trolling acting like Martin was in the wrong for possibly being 2 miles from where he “should”(who determines that?) needs to stop as well. Zimmerman was told not to follow him, he decided to go against that school of thought because he felt the need to protect his neighborhood, I can sort of see where he’s coming from. What IF Martin was a criminal up to no good? Zimmerman felt the need to make sure he wasn’t going to cause any trouble. I PERSONALLY think he made a poor decision, legally however he did nothing wrong.
Now from Martins perspective, he knew he was being followed by a grown man he didn’t know, in his world he’s thinking this guy could be up to anything. So if he did decide to stand his ground and fight there’s a strong possibility he did it to defend himself against a grown man following him. Now if Zimmerman threatened him or instigated the fight, Martin had a legal right to defend himself. We don’t know what was going through Martins head because, tragically he was killed.
I can sympathize with Martins actions if that’s what went down because when I was 18 I got jumped. I was walking back home from work and I happened to walk past 3 guys, not feeling like something was right I turned my head slightly to see they had turned and followed me. I had a feeling they weren’t turning back to go back to the house they left, they came to beat my ass and take whatever they could. I made a conscience decision I was going to defend myself, long story short I got away and they got nothing. I guess what I’m saying is; when you’re unarmed, undermanned and feel like your safety is in danger you’ll be willing to do anything to protect yourself.
Mr. Zimmerman misused the law. It is not one of persuit.
The espionage by the media will never cease until Mr. Zimmerman is convicted by a court of law that the media has endorsed and blessed.
This is perfect subterfuge for the Obama’s to sneak in another opulent vacation, and Congress to enact more legislation that applies more suction to the working man’s wallet, and redacts a few more lines from the Constitution.
But, the truth will not become evident until the next Republican administration, after several special prosecutors have been appointed to thoroughly investigate the hidden details of the Obama administration.
When “watch captains” do more than watch this is what happens. As others here have pointed out, this whole thing will get politicized and we’ll never know the truth because one the people involved is dead. But what we can know is that it was avoidable, no one had to die. Zimmerman didn’t have to run away; one shot into the pavement would’ve woke everyone up. I’m just guessin’ here but I’m betting Zimmerman, who’s not a professional law enforcement officer had a bug up his butt and it got loose that night. I’m sorry – this should not have happened.
Why are we even talking about what Zimmerman did or didn’t do? Why is this a national news story, when the far more flagrant and numerous racial murders committed by blacks against whites are scarcely even reported in the local press? Snap out of your hypnosis: if you’re worrying about the details of this one killing, you’re a stooge.
This is now an old thread, but those of us who said to wait until more of the actual facts came out are being vindicated by the truth. Those of you who insisted that Zimmerman “murdered” the man who assaulted him are looking very foolish now.