It's very hard to tell what actually happened here. I hear gunshots but where they are coming from isn't clear. It could be from the gun he is trying to take from the guy during the struggle. I'm gonna wait until I hear more information before I make a judgement. I wrongly condemned George Zimmerman as a murderer, until I watched the entire trial.
Regardless, charging a group of armed men while you are unarmed isn't a recipe for success, and can result in them having the legal justification to shoot you. It's not acceptable even if someone is harassing you anyway.
It is more likely than not that this was just a case of straight up murder since there wasn't any serious bodily injury involved and a normal fight with no injuries usually isn't sufficient. However, if he was trying to grab the gun, that's a different story.
George Zimmerman was told, directly, by the cops, to mind his own business. At what point does a child being stalked by a vigilante in the dark have the right to stand THEIR ground?? And Zimmerman's behavior since the trial has validated everything ever said about him at the time. I still maintain he will murder again before it's all said and done.
That was the entire argument, basically. Zimmerman was a bad man, therefore he was a murderer. Bad men shouldn't have rights. It doesn't work that way in reality. Every credible witness, including the closest one to the scene, testified to the fact that he avoided trying to use his gun until he was on the ground, getting his head pounded in.
Stand your ground law doesn't allow you to shoot people who stop you to ask you questions, nor should it allow severe assault for the same reasons. A 9/11 operator also isn't a cop, and aren't supposed to give legal advice of any sort since they aren't trained for it and can be held responsible. This also came up during the trial.
Did Zimmerman kill Trayvon Martin?
If the answer is yes, then Zimmerman is a murderer.
Just because backwatered states like Florida have draconian laws that acquit people of violent acts doesn't take away that Martin is dead at the hands of Zimmerman.
It's also worth noting the one witness and person's account we didn't hear about at the Zimmerman trial was Martin's because he was dead. Martin acted in self defense. What? Would you stop beating up an armed person who approached you from behind? Idiotic argument.
?
He did not act in self defense, that much is clear. A person approaching you and asking questions, however unjustified, isn't a form of assault, and doesn't require a violent response. He could have even gotten violent and still lived had he stopped after he knocked him to the ground. But no, he got on top of him and kept going, to the point where a jury found a reasonable belief on Zimmerman's part that he would endure serious bodily injury or death. There is a constant stream of excuse-making on the part of the assailants in these sort of situations and I don't understand it. It was *not* a justified response.
He was being stalked in the dark by an armed man. Those are the facts. A grown adult was stalking a child with a gun. We know he was stalking him because Zimmerman was giving a running commentary about it on the phone. Apparently he wasn't the ninja he thought he was, and Trayvon actually UNDERSTOOD instinctively he was in danger from this lunatic neighborhood watch vigilante, and decided to protect himself. But we know people like him are not ALLOWED to protect themselves. Law enforcement and our entire society only exists to protect people FROM Trayvon, even if there nothing to be protected from.
It's the same story every damn time. Someone is concerned about the amount of "burglaries" in a specific area, a black man is sighted somewhere in the vicinity (doesn't seem to matter what they're doing) and either the cops get called or they are hunted down by that person personally. Rarely, if ever, is there ANY connection to an actual burglary proven. But it's ALWAYS insinuated.
Simple question: does anyone think for one second if the roles were reversed in this case in Georgia that the dead man wouldn't be in jail awaiting trial?? Does anyone HONESTLY believe that??
I already told you I think there's something fishy about this Georgia case. Without additional evidence, such as the only gunshot wound being in the leg (or wherever else the shotgun blast hit him - looked like a leg wound to me), I'm betting on murder for this one. Why else would they still not have announced where the fatal shot was.
Speculation? An execution shot in the head or the back.
I don't agree that this case is much more than superficially similar to the Zimmerman case, however.
However you want to phrase it, "the facts" are that he attacked someone, and chose to continue that attack to the extreme, rather than ceasing when it was clear he wasn't in danger, or better yet, not attacking anyone at all. Those aren't the choices of the scared little kid that the media has tried endlessly to propagandize into existence. Zimmerman made a bad choice by trying to act on some vague non existent authority as the local neighborhood watch or whatever he was, but Martin made a far worse choice by assaulting someone and choosing to continue it.
Zimmerman's innocence rested on the fact that his head getting beaten against the concrete constituted a serious threat of bodily harm or death.
I do think both cases show the poor wisdom of regular people trying to cosplay as armed police officers. In both cases had the vigilantes not brought guns there would likely have been no deaths.
I realize in Georgia case that one guy had some law enforcement experience, but that just makes his behavior all the more indefensible. Still not quite sure what I think of the Georgia case, the video is pretty strong evidence for murder, but I'm going to wait and see. Certainly seems to be more than enough evidence to indict, and once that happens we'll see a lot more evidence.
However you want to phrase it, "the facts" are that he attacked someone, and chose to continue that attack to the extreme, rather than ceasing when it was clear he wasn't in danger, or better yet, not attacking anyone at all. Those aren't the choices of the scared little kid that the media has tried endlessly to propagandize into existence. Zimmerman made a bad choice by trying to act on some vague non existent authority as the local neighborhood watch or whatever he was, but Martin made a far worse choice by assaulting someone and choosing to continue it.
Of course he was in danger. He was being followed by an armed stranger who assumed he was a criminal. In what country is that NOT mortal danger for a black man?? Certainly not this one..............
I do think both cases show the poor wisdom of regular people trying to cosplay as armed police officers. In both cases had the vigilantes not brought guns there would likely have been no deaths.
I realize in Georgia case that one guy had some law enforcement experience, but that just makes his behavior all the more indefensible. Still not quite sure what I think of the Georgia case, the video is pretty strong evidence for murder, but I'm going to wait and see. Certainly seems to be more than enough evidence to indict, and once that happens we'll see a lot more evidence.
They don't seem all that concerned about helping him once he collapses from a gunshot wound either. They are giving it no more thought than if they hit a raccoon with their truck.
However you want to phrase it, "the facts" are that he attacked someone, and chose to continue that attack to the extreme, rather than ceasing when it was clear he wasn't in danger, or better yet, not attacking anyone at all. Those aren't the choices of the scared little kid that the media has tried endlessly to propagandize into existence. Zimmerman made a bad choice by trying to act on some vague non existent authority as the local neighborhood watch or whatever he was, but Martin made a far worse choice by assaulting someone and choosing to continue it.
Zimmerman's innocence rested on the fact that his head getting beaten against the concrete constituted a serious threat of bodily harm or death.
These aren't "facts" though. This is just Zimmerman's version of events. We ultimately will never know, for a fact, what happened in those final moments. And I'm sorry but it's not actually easy to kill someone with your bare hands, this isn't the movies. And it's Zimmerman who raised the stakes of that encounter by bringing a gun to it. It's his own reckless decisions. And those are the facts we can be sure of.
Perhaps Zimmerman's version of those final moments is enough to reach the "reasonable doubt" standard. But he was not found "innocent", merely "not guilty." And our judicial system attempts to err on the side of letting people go free.
We don't even know, for a fact, that Martin initiated the physical fight between the two. Again, all we have is ZImmerman's version. Unlike the hitting the head part of the story, we don't even have a witness for that. You're relying on the testimony of one party of the fight for your "facts" here.
I do think both cases show the poor wisdom of regular people trying to cosplay as armed police officers. In both cases had the vigilantes not brought guns there would likely have been no deaths.
I realize in Georgia case that one guy had some law enforcement experience, but that just makes his behavior all the more indefensible. Still not quite sure what I think of the Georgia case, the video is pretty strong evidence for murder, but I'm going to wait and see. Certainly seems to be more than enough evidence to indict, and once that happens we'll see a lot more evidence.
They don't seem all that concerned about helping him once he collapses from a gunshot wound either. They are giving it no more thought than if they hit a raccoon with their truck.
Nothing about their story makes sense. Who robs houses in a neighborhood like that (not even sidewalks, pretty spread out) on foot? The dude isn't so much as carrying a bag. Are we supposed to believe he was just stealing credit cards or jewelry or something? People rob houses with a car. It's insane. And as you say, the first glance we get of him in the video, clearly seems to look like a standard jogger. Again, I can't be 100% sure, so I could change my mind. But it's absolutely insane they didn't recommend indicting initially.
However you want to phrase it, "the facts" are that he attacked someone, and chose to continue that attack to the extreme, rather than ceasing when it was clear he wasn't in danger, or better yet, not attacking anyone at all. Those aren't the choices of the scared little kid that the media has tried endlessly to propagandize into existence. Zimmerman made a bad choice by trying to act on some vague non existent authority as the local neighborhood watch or whatever he was, but Martin made a far worse choice by assaulting someone and choosing to continue it.
Zimmerman's innocence rested on the fact that his head getting beaten against the concrete constituted a serious threat of bodily harm or death.
These aren't "facts" though. This is just Zimmerman's version of events. We ultimately will never know, for a fact, what happened in those final moments. And I'm sorry but it's not actually easy to kill someone with your bare hands, this isn't the movies. And it's Zimmerman who raised the stakes of that encounter by bringing a gun to it. It's his own reckless decisions. And those are the facts we can be sure of.
Perhaps Zimmerman's version of those final moments is enough to reach the "reasonable doubt" standard. But he was not found "innocent", merely "not guilty." And our judicial system attempts to err on the side of letting people go free.
Not Zimmerman's version, the witnesses version. The person who saw the fight from his porch, the closest person to the scene who didn't know who Zimmerman was, testified to the crucial parts of the fight, when Martin was on top pounding his head in. "MMA style", I believe was his description.
You are correct, I believe, that there was no witness to the very beginning. They pieced together the opening moments through context and some form of forensic evidence, if I recall correctly.
When someone is found innocent by the facts even though the entire public wants them to hang, it gives me some small faith in the justice system. That it is actually evidence based, and resistant to the court of public opinion. As long as you aren't rich that is, because laws don't apply to them.
I do think both cases show the poor wisdom of regular people trying to cosplay as armed police officers. In both cases had the vigilantes not brought guns there would likely have been no deaths.
I realize in Georgia case that one guy had some law enforcement experience, but that just makes his behavior all the more indefensible. Still not quite sure what I think of the Georgia case, the video is pretty strong evidence for murder, but I'm going to wait and see. Certainly seems to be more than enough evidence to indict, and once that happens we'll see a lot more evidence.
They don't seem all that concerned about helping him once he collapses from a gunshot wound either. They are giving it no more thought than if they hit a raccoon with their truck.
Nothing about their story makes sense. Who robs houses in a neighborhood like that (not even sidewalks, pretty spread out) on foot? The dude isn't so much as carrying a bag. Are we supposed to believe he was just stealing credit cards or jewelry or something? People rob houses with a car. It's insane. And as you say, the first glance we get of him in the video, clearly seems to look like a standard jogger. Again, I can't be 100% sure, so I could change my mind. But it's absolutely insane they didn't recommend indicting initially.
"There have been alot of burglaries lately" is the rolling stop of excuses for why black men end up shot dead. And it isn't just used for that, it's used anytime a cop wants to question you unjustifiably. I have been confronted with this bullshit twice myself for having the temerity to be in my own car in the parking lot of the residences I was living in at the time after *gasp* midnight.
But as you say, it's broad daylight. He has a t-shirt and shorts on. This guy isn't exactly an obvious member of the Wet Bandits.
I do think both cases show the poor wisdom of regular people trying to cosplay as armed police officers. In both cases had the vigilantes not brought guns there would likely have been no deaths.
I realize in Georgia case that one guy had some law enforcement experience, but that just makes his behavior all the more indefensible. Still not quite sure what I think of the Georgia case, the video is pretty strong evidence for murder, but I'm going to wait and see. Certainly seems to be more than enough evidence to indict, and once that happens we'll see a lot more evidence.
They don't seem all that concerned about helping him once he collapses from a gunshot wound either. They are giving it no more thought than if they hit a raccoon with their truck.
Nothing about their story makes sense. Who robs houses in a neighborhood like that (not even sidewalks, pretty spread out) on foot? The dude isn't so much as carrying a bag. Are we supposed to believe he was just stealing credit cards or jewelry or something? People rob houses with a car. It's insane. And as you say, the first glance we get of him in the video, clearly seems to look like a standard jogger. Again, I can't be 100% sure, so I could change my mind. But it's absolutely insane they didn't recommend indicting initially.
According to what I read, the father and son weren't accosting the Ahmoud for a specific crime that occurred that day. One of the two, I think it was the dad, thought Ahmoud looked like a burglary suspect recorded on somebody's (I think a neighbor's) security camera so he and his son grabbed their guns (because the suspect been seen 'reaching into his pants' at times, they thought he might be armed) jumped in their truck and paid him a visit. I have no idea what their big plan was, maybe they were just going to ask him nicely if he was the robber?
When someone is found innocent by the facts even though the entire public wants them to hang, it gives me some small faith in the justice system. That it is actually evidence based, and resistant to the court of public opinion. As long as you aren't rich that is, because laws don't apply to them.
It's very hard to tell what actually happened here. I hear gunshots but where they are coming from isn't clear. It could be from the gun he is trying to take from the guy during the struggle. I'm gonna wait until I hear more information before I make a judgement. I wrongly condemned George Zimmerman as a murderer, until I watched the entire trial.
Regardless, charging a group of armed men while you are unarmed isn't a recipe for success, and can result in them having the legal justification to shoot you. It's not acceptable even if someone is harassing you anyway.
It is more likely than not that this was just a case of straight up murder since there wasn't any serious bodily injury involved and a normal fight with no injuries usually isn't sufficient. However, if he was trying to grab the gun, that's a different story.
George Zimmerman was told, directly, by the cops, to mind his own business. At what point does a child being stalked by a vigilante in the dark have the right to stand THEIR ground?? And Zimmerman's behavior since the trial has validated everything ever said about him at the time. I still maintain he will murder again before it's all said and done.
That was the entire argument, basically. Zimmerman was a bad man, therefore he was a murderer. Bad men shouldn't have rights. It doesn't work that way in reality. Every credible witness, including the closest one to the scene, testified to the fact that he avoided trying to use his gun until he was on the ground, getting his head pounded in.
Stand your ground law doesn't allow you to shoot people who stop you to ask you questions, nor should it allow severe assault for the same reasons. A 9/11 operator also isn't a cop, and aren't supposed to give legal advice of any sort since they aren't trained for it and can be held responsible. This also came up during the trial.
Did Zimmerman kill Trayvon Martin?
If the answer is yes, then Zimmerman is a murderer.
Just because backwatered states like Florida have draconian laws that acquit people of violent acts doesn't take away that Martin is dead at the hands of Zimmerman.
It's also worth noting the one witness and person's account we didn't hear about at the Zimmerman trial was Martin's because he was dead. Martin acted in self defense. What? Would you stop beating up an armed person who approached you from behind? Idiotic argument.
?
He did not act in self defense, that much is clear. A person approaching you and asking questions, however unjustified, isn't a form of assault, and doesn't require a violent response. He could have even gotten violent and still lived had he stopped after he knocked him to the ground. But no, he got on top of him and kept going, to the point where a jury found a reasonable belief on Zimmerman's part that he would endure serious bodily injury or death. There is a constant stream of excuse-making on the part of the assailants in these sort of situations and I don't understand it. It was *not* a justified response.
See, was it like that though? or did Zimmerman use force first? Even grabbing a shoulder or an arm is force.
We don't know, we have 1 person's side of the story, the one person who didn't end up dead and the one person who was carrying a deadly weapon. And Zimmerman was armed? What would you do if an armed person approached you, stated a confrontation that you some how ended up beginning to win? Would you turn your back on an armed person? Fuck that bullshit. You would continue to beat the shit out of the person until they were subdued and couldn't use that fire arm
Once again, sorry if backwater Floridians think this is excusable. It isn't.
\
I do think both cases show the poor wisdom of regular people trying to cosplay as armed police officers. In both cases had the vigilantes not brought guns there would likely have been no deaths.
I realize in Georgia case that one guy had some law enforcement experience, but that just makes his behavior all the more indefensible. Still not quite sure what I think of the Georgia case, the video is pretty strong evidence for murder, but I'm going to wait and see. Certainly seems to be more than enough evidence to indict, and once that happens we'll see a lot more evidence.
They don't seem all that concerned about helping him once he collapses from a gunshot wound either. They are giving it no more thought than if they hit a raccoon with their truck.
Nothing about their story makes sense. Who robs houses in a neighborhood like that (not even sidewalks, pretty spread out) on foot? The dude isn't so much as carrying a bag. Are we supposed to believe he was just stealing credit cards or jewelry or something? People rob houses with a car. It's insane. And as you say, the first glance we get of him in the video, clearly seems to look like a standard jogger. Again, I can't be 100% sure, so I could change my mind. But it's absolutely insane they didn't recommend indicting initially.
According to what I read, the father and son weren't accosting the Ahmoud for a specific crime that occurred that day. One of the two, I think it was the dad, thought Ahmoud looked like a burglary suspect recorded on somebody's (I think a neighbor's) security camera so he and his son grabbed their guns (because the suspect been seen 'reaching into his pants' at times, they thought he might be armed) jumped in their truck and paid him a visit. I have no idea what their big plan was, maybe they were just going to ask him nicely if he was the robber?
Maybe he was adjusting his ball sack. This "his hands were somewhere near his waist" thing is something that would make me not even want to leave the house if I was a black male. And I assure everyone, there is a DISTINCT difference in how you run for exercise and how you run FROM something. You can see him switch to the later when he realizes he is boxed in.
I do think both cases show the poor wisdom of regular people trying to cosplay as armed police officers. In both cases had the vigilantes not brought guns there would likely have been no deaths.
I realize in Georgia case that one guy had some law enforcement experience, but that just makes his behavior all the more indefensible. Still not quite sure what I think of the Georgia case, the video is pretty strong evidence for murder, but I'm going to wait and see. Certainly seems to be more than enough evidence to indict, and once that happens we'll see a lot more evidence.
They don't seem all that concerned about helping him once he collapses from a gunshot wound either. They are giving it no more thought than if they hit a raccoon with their truck.
Nothing about their story makes sense. Who robs houses in a neighborhood like that (not even sidewalks, pretty spread out) on foot? The dude isn't so much as carrying a bag. Are we supposed to believe he was just stealing credit cards or jewelry or something? People rob houses with a car. It's insane. And as you say, the first glance we get of him in the video, clearly seems to look like a standard jogger. Again, I can't be 100% sure, so I could change my mind. But it's absolutely insane they didn't recommend indicting initially.
According to what I read, the father and son weren't accosting the Ahmoud for a specific crime that occurred that day. One of the two, I think it was the dad, thought Ahmoud looked like a burglary suspect recorded on somebody's (I think a neighbor's) security camera so he and his son grabbed their guns (because the suspect been seen 'reaching into his pants' at times, they thought he might be armed) jumped in their truck and paid him a visit. I have no idea what their big plan was, maybe they were just going to ask him nicely if he was the robber?
If anything this makes their actions more indefensible. At least if he was in the process of committing robberies there might be the argument that you could search his belongings and find some damning evidence that you otherwise wouldn't have been able to produce. The idea that we're going to stop him on some other day and maybe get him to confess, as you say, at gunpoint? It's straight-up lynching logic.
I do think both cases show the poor wisdom of regular people trying to cosplay as armed police officers. In both cases had the vigilantes not brought guns there would likely have been no deaths.
I realize in Georgia case that one guy had some law enforcement experience, but that just makes his behavior all the more indefensible. Still not quite sure what I think of the Georgia case, the video is pretty strong evidence for murder, but I'm going to wait and see. Certainly seems to be more than enough evidence to indict, and once that happens we'll see a lot more evidence.
They don't seem all that concerned about helping him once he collapses from a gunshot wound either. They are giving it no more thought than if they hit a raccoon with their truck.
Nothing about their story makes sense. Who robs houses in a neighborhood like that (not even sidewalks, pretty spread out) on foot? The dude isn't so much as carrying a bag. Are we supposed to believe he was just stealing credit cards or jewelry or something? People rob houses with a car. It's insane. And as you say, the first glance we get of him in the video, clearly seems to look like a standard jogger. Again, I can't be 100% sure, so I could change my mind. But it's absolutely insane they didn't recommend indicting initially.
According to what I read, the father and son weren't accosting the Ahmoud for a specific crime that occurred that day. One of the two, I think it was the dad, thought Ahmoud looked like a burglary suspect recorded on somebody's (I think a neighbor's) security camera so he and his son grabbed their guns (because the suspect been seen 'reaching into his pants' at times, they thought he might be armed) jumped in their truck and paid him a visit. I have no idea what their big plan was, maybe they were just going to ask him nicely if he was the robber?
Ya he looked black.
And instead of giving the video to the police and saying who they suspect the person is in the video, they went vigilante style and killed an innocent person. And the reaching into his pants BS is complete BS and more reason not to approach the guy if you think he's armed.
Okay, so reading more about the case, two facts stuck out to me.
- it sounds like the gunshots that were going off were from the gun that guy had during the struggle. It may indeed have been an accident. Still, given the circumstances, I hope they get manslaughter even if it is the case. Stopping someone to try to talk to them is one thing, or even following and calling the police if you are really that concerned, but you don't chase them down of your own voilition and when they run you don't chase them down again, rifle in hand, like you're hunting an animal.
- which is basically what they did. They confronted him once, and he ran from them, so they chased him down again. No mention of any police being called until after the fact. They tried to take the law into their own hands, and as former cops they should know better than anyone what the law is and isn't. They used a shoddy citizens arrest justification that doesn't hold up for a second. I hope they burn.
I do think both cases show the poor wisdom of regular people trying to cosplay as armed police officers. In both cases had the vigilantes not brought guns there would likely have been no deaths.
I realize in Georgia case that one guy had some law enforcement experience, but that just makes his behavior all the more indefensible. Still not quite sure what I think of the Georgia case, the video is pretty strong evidence for murder, but I'm going to wait and see. Certainly seems to be more than enough evidence to indict, and once that happens we'll see a lot more evidence.
They don't seem all that concerned about helping him once he collapses from a gunshot wound either. They are giving it no more thought than if they hit a raccoon with their truck.
Nothing about their story makes sense. Who robs houses in a neighborhood like that (not even sidewalks, pretty spread out) on foot? The dude isn't so much as carrying a bag. Are we supposed to believe he was just stealing credit cards or jewelry or something? People rob houses with a car. It's insane. And as you say, the first glance we get of him in the video, clearly seems to look like a standard jogger. Again, I can't be 100% sure, so I could change my mind. But it's absolutely insane they didn't recommend indicting initially.
According to what I read, the father and son weren't accosting the Ahmoud for a specific crime that occurred that day. One of the two, I think it was the dad, thought Ahmoud looked like a burglary suspect recorded on somebody's (I think a neighbor's) security camera so he and his son grabbed their guns (because the suspect been seen 'reaching into his pants' at times, they thought he might be armed) jumped in their truck and paid him a visit. I have no idea what their big plan was, maybe they were just going to ask him nicely if he was the robber?
If anything this makes their actions more indefensible. At least if he was in the process of committing robberies there might be the argument that you could search his belongings and find some damning evidence that you otherwise wouldn't have been able to produce. The idea that we're going to stop him on some other day and maybe get him to confess, as you say, at gunpoint? It's straight-up lynching logic.
Sorry, I agree with you. I was trying to be 'tongue in cheek'. I guess my sarcasm, probably from me being in a northern state, wasn't as apparent as I thought it was...
I do think both cases show the poor wisdom of regular people trying to cosplay as armed police officers. In both cases had the vigilantes not brought guns there would likely have been no deaths.
I realize in Georgia case that one guy had some law enforcement experience, but that just makes his behavior all the more indefensible. Still not quite sure what I think of the Georgia case, the video is pretty strong evidence for murder, but I'm going to wait and see. Certainly seems to be more than enough evidence to indict, and once that happens we'll see a lot more evidence.
They don't seem all that concerned about helping him once he collapses from a gunshot wound either. They are giving it no more thought than if they hit a raccoon with their truck.
Nothing about their story makes sense. Who robs houses in a neighborhood like that (not even sidewalks, pretty spread out) on foot? The dude isn't so much as carrying a bag. Are we supposed to believe he was just stealing credit cards or jewelry or something? People rob houses with a car. It's insane. And as you say, the first glance we get of him in the video, clearly seems to look like a standard jogger. Again, I can't be 100% sure, so I could change my mind. But it's absolutely insane they didn't recommend indicting initially.
According to what I read, the father and son weren't accosting the Ahmoud for a specific crime that occurred that day. One of the two, I think it was the dad, thought Ahmoud looked like a burglary suspect recorded on somebody's (I think a neighbor's) security camera so he and his son grabbed their guns (because the suspect been seen 'reaching into his pants' at times, they thought he might be armed) jumped in their truck and paid him a visit. I have no idea what their big plan was, maybe they were just going to ask him nicely if he was the robber?
Maybe he was adjusting his ball sack. This "his hands were somewhere near his waist" thing is something that would make me not even want to leave the house if I was a black male. And I assure everyone, there is a DISTINCT difference in how you run for exercise and how you run FROM something. You can see him switch to the later when he realizes he is boxed in.
Actually, now that I think about it, back in my running days I think ballsack adjusting was a frequent occurrence for me. Damned briefs! I mostly wear boxers now...
In the end, the idea that the burden of "keeping their cool" falls to the guy confronted out of nowhere by an armed mob instead of on these guys to not arbitrarily attempt to detain a random citizen on a "hunch" is absurdity.
In the end, the idea that the burden of "keeping their cool" falls to the guy confronted out of nowhere by an armed mob instead of on these guys to not arbitrarily attempt to detain a random citizen on a "hunch" is absurdity.
You're right of course, but that's small consolation to Ahmoud now. He could have been passive and (maybe) still alive, but instead he was in the right and dead because he reacted. I've never been in Ahmoud's situation so I have no idea if I'd done anything differently. I do know I'd never have put myself in the place of the pursuers, however. That's what we have police for.
On the contrary, I expect people to keep their cool and seek other alternatives to violence if they exist. However, that's exactly what he did. He fled, and they chased him. At that point, knowing that you aren't getting away, I'd say all other options are exhausted. I would have personally still tried to talk my way out of it, because that's just who I am, but in such a situation you can forgive a bit of desperation.
That's a welcome diversion, but we all know that the real news these days has to be coronavirus .
A while ago the Chief Medical Officer in Scotland was forced to resign after twice visiting her second home during lockdown. Now, Neil Ferguson has become the latest victim of "do as I say, not as I do". He's the head of the epidemiological team at Imperial College that produced the 250,000 predicted deaths model - that resulted in a government change of direction and he was a member of the SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies).
That was the entire argument, basically. Zimmerman was a bad man, therefore he was a murderer. Bad men shouldn't have rights. It doesn't work that way in reality. Every credible witness, including the closest one to the scene, testified to the fact that he avoided trying to use his gun until he was on the ground, getting his head pounded in.
Stand your ground law doesn't allow you to shoot people who stop you to ask you questions, nor should it allow severe assault for the same reasons. A 9/11 operator also isn't a cop, and aren't supposed to give legal advice of any sort since they aren't trained for it and can be held responsible. This also came up during the trial.
The only eyewitness account I can find says that the person in question did not see Trayvon slamming Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk. The 911 operator also advised Zimmerman to not follow Trayvon. The record of the call makes it clear that Zimmerman had profiled Trayvon as "suspicious" on the basis of essentially nothing. Trayvon was just a teenager who'd purchased a snack at a convenience store, and the notion that he was acting "suspiciously" comes solely from the guy who was trying to avoid a murder conviction. Same with the story that Trayvon attacked him for essentially no reason. That comes from Zimmerman too.
Given Zimmerman's life since he murdered Trayvon Martin, it's pretty clear this man is fairly violent and given to disproportionately violent responses. Zimmerman's estranged wife reported that he had threatened her with a gun in 2013, and later that year he was arrested for aggravated assault after pointing a shotgun at his girlfriend. Defending Zimmerman, a man who accosted and then murdered a teenaged boy, is not a hill I'd think anyone reasonable would want to die on.
Specifically, what he saw was Martin on top of him punching him in the head "MMA style". The persons name was John Good. I'm amazed that I remember this. The lacerations to the back of his head were consistent with someone doing this while someone's head is on concrete. Young people lack self control and where/how they are raised plays a big part in how they behave, so I honestly feel bad for him. But this level of violence puts your own safety at risk, and is never okay. I don't see why people find that so hard to accept.
Zimmerman is the perfect example for why the decisions in a court of law, rather than the uneducated, ill informed opinions of forum posters and the masses at large, is the only one that matters. Precisely because he is so unpopular, and people want him to be a murderer so bad, that their entire view is tainted. People you don't like get the benefit of the law too. This is exactly why juries are forbidden from looking at media stories and stick only to the facts in the trial.
For my part, I don't know what to think of him. I think a perfectly legitimate case can be made that he is not a bad person at all, but caught himself up in a terrible situation. I think it is telling that all of his little outbursts happened after the trial, and his record was entirely clean before that. That could just as easily be untrue, and he could be awful. I know for a fact that nothing I say is going to change what people have been programmed to believe.
Specifically, what he saw was Martin on top of him punching him in the head "MMA style". The persons name was John Good. I'm amazed that I remember this. The lacerations to the back of his head were consistent with someone doing this while someone's head is on concrete. Young people lack self control and where/how they are raised plays a big part in how they behave, so I honestly feel bad for him. But this level of violence puts your own safety at risk, and is never okay. I don't see why people find that so hard to accept.
Zimmerman is the perfect example for why the decisions in a court of law, rather than the uneducated, ill informed opinions of forum posters and the masses at large, is the only one that matters. Precisely because he is so unpopular, and people want him to be a murderer so bad, that their entire view is tainted. People you don't like get the benefit of the law too. This is exactly why juries are forbidden from looking at media stories and stick only to the facts in the trial.
For my part, I don't know what to think of him. I think a perfectly legitimate case can be made that he is not a bad person at all, but caught himself up in a terrible situation. I think it is telling that all of his little outbursts happened after the trial, and his record was entirely clean before that. That could just as easily be untrue, and he could be awful. I know for a fact that nothing I say is going to change what people have been programmed to believe.
If this happened in Canada, Zimmerman would have been in jail for minimum seven years. It'd be considered manslaughter with his pathetic "life in danger" excuse.
The whole decision in the court of law thing is one of my biggest gripes about this entire case. There are laws in Florida that shouldn't be laws that allow people to get away with shit like this because of the I-need-my-gun-more-than-another-person-needs-their-life backwater culture that certain people spoon feed to the actual uneducated, ill informed masses of that state.
But what do expect from the hanging chad state? What do expect from the state that wouldn't close down beaches during spring break during a pandemic? What do you expect from a state that suffered 4 mass shootings in the last decade leaving 74 dead and crickets when it comes to protecting their population?
In some states, the very act of CARRYING a gun infers upon you rights people without guns don't have. I've said it a dozen times, but it bears repeating here. Unless you are traveling to and from a shooting range, the ONLY reason to have a gun on you is that you may use it to kill someone. It can't serve any other purpose. It doesn't transform into a slow cooker or air conditioner with the press of a button. It is only able to do one thing, which is kill. So when Zimmerman starts tracking this kid in the dark WITH a gun, he has already made the decision that lethal force is an option before the encounter ever takes place. He CHOOSE to track Trayvon and he CHOOSE to do so while carrying a weapon. And by default, carrying the weapon means he was willing (or even looking) to take a life.
Premeditation (Zimmerman) and reaction to a surprise encounter (Trayvon) are not the same thing. And you can't use the same standard for how one reacts. The entire chain of events is the responsibility of George Zimmerman for deputizing himself. That's the be all and end all of the situation. Zimmerman took powers upon himself he did not have, and then was seeking to actively use those powers against another person, who happened to be 16 years old. If he WAS assaulted, yes, he deserved it. 100%. He was actively attempting to take the freedom and rights of Trayvon Martin into HIS hands. Not the cops, not a judge, not a jury. George Zimmerman, Arbiter of Justice in his own head. Not just having an opinion of the situation like any normal person, but taking the matter into his own hands, even AFTER being told not to. If I tell you not to put your hand on the stove, and you do it anyway, I'm not shedding a tear over your burns.
There is a something called the "castle doctrine" which basically applies to protecting your home with violent force if necessary. I suppose that is reasonable enough assuming that situation takes place. But in many states, the very act of carrying a weapon means your castle is.......wherever you choose to take the weapon. Thus you are able to defend your "ground" anywhere. Even if YOU are the one invading the space and privacy of someone else. The world is your oyster. You can start a confrontation that is ENTIRELY your fault, and if the the other person responds to that provocation, you can then shoot then. You can manufacture a consequence-free murder. Having the gun not only gives you the power of life and death, it also makes you effectively immune from the consequences of using it, assuming the person you shoot is the right color.
So in this scenario, Zimmerman's defenders will say he had every right to use a weapon and lethal force to protect himself, but Trayvon had NO right to attempt to protect himself from grown-ass adult stalking him in the darkness. And the subtext is implicit. A black male has no right to defend himself, and is assumed the guilty party in ALL instances. It's beyond a Catch-22.
As we have been saying, if 4 African-American in two Honda Civics had tracked down a white jogger, cornered him, brandished weapons, and the white jogger got shot and died on the street, there is absolutely ZERO chance all 4 wouldn't be facing not just manslaughter, but capital murder charges, probably including the death penalty. Shit, they probably would have tracked down anyone they talked to in the 48 hours prior and brought them up on accessory charges. These guys haven't even been ARRESTED yet.
Comments
He was being stalked in the dark by an armed man. Those are the facts. A grown adult was stalking a child with a gun. We know he was stalking him because Zimmerman was giving a running commentary about it on the phone. Apparently he wasn't the ninja he thought he was, and Trayvon actually UNDERSTOOD instinctively he was in danger from this lunatic neighborhood watch vigilante, and decided to protect himself. But we know people like him are not ALLOWED to protect themselves. Law enforcement and our entire society only exists to protect people FROM Trayvon, even if there nothing to be protected from.
It's the same story every damn time. Someone is concerned about the amount of "burglaries" in a specific area, a black man is sighted somewhere in the vicinity (doesn't seem to matter what they're doing) and either the cops get called or they are hunted down by that person personally. Rarely, if ever, is there ANY connection to an actual burglary proven. But it's ALWAYS insinuated.
I already told you I think there's something fishy about this Georgia case. Without additional evidence, such as the only gunshot wound being in the leg (or wherever else the shotgun blast hit him - looked like a leg wound to me), I'm betting on murder for this one. Why else would they still not have announced where the fatal shot was.
Speculation? An execution shot in the head or the back.
I don't agree that this case is much more than superficially similar to the Zimmerman case, however.
Zimmerman's innocence rested on the fact that his head getting beaten against the concrete constituted a serious threat of bodily harm or death.
I realize in Georgia case that one guy had some law enforcement experience, but that just makes his behavior all the more indefensible. Still not quite sure what I think of the Georgia case, the video is pretty strong evidence for murder, but I'm going to wait and see. Certainly seems to be more than enough evidence to indict, and once that happens we'll see a lot more evidence.
Of course he was in danger. He was being followed by an armed stranger who assumed he was a criminal. In what country is that NOT mortal danger for a black man?? Certainly not this one..............
They don't seem all that concerned about helping him once he collapses from a gunshot wound either. They are giving it no more thought than if they hit a raccoon with their truck.
These aren't "facts" though. This is just Zimmerman's version of events. We ultimately will never know, for a fact, what happened in those final moments. And I'm sorry but it's not actually easy to kill someone with your bare hands, this isn't the movies. And it's Zimmerman who raised the stakes of that encounter by bringing a gun to it. It's his own reckless decisions. And those are the facts we can be sure of.
Perhaps Zimmerman's version of those final moments is enough to reach the "reasonable doubt" standard. But he was not found "innocent", merely "not guilty." And our judicial system attempts to err on the side of letting people go free.
Nothing about their story makes sense. Who robs houses in a neighborhood like that (not even sidewalks, pretty spread out) on foot? The dude isn't so much as carrying a bag. Are we supposed to believe he was just stealing credit cards or jewelry or something? People rob houses with a car. It's insane. And as you say, the first glance we get of him in the video, clearly seems to look like a standard jogger. Again, I can't be 100% sure, so I could change my mind. But it's absolutely insane they didn't recommend indicting initially.
Not Zimmerman's version, the witnesses version. The person who saw the fight from his porch, the closest person to the scene who didn't know who Zimmerman was, testified to the crucial parts of the fight, when Martin was on top pounding his head in. "MMA style", I believe was his description.
You are correct, I believe, that there was no witness to the very beginning. They pieced together the opening moments through context and some form of forensic evidence, if I recall correctly.
"There have been alot of burglaries lately" is the rolling stop of excuses for why black men end up shot dead. And it isn't just used for that, it's used anytime a cop wants to question you unjustifiably. I have been confronted with this bullshit twice myself for having the temerity to be in my own car in the parking lot of the residences I was living in at the time after *gasp* midnight.
But as you say, it's broad daylight. He has a t-shirt and shorts on. This guy isn't exactly an obvious member of the Wet Bandits.
According to what I read, the father and son weren't accosting the Ahmoud for a specific crime that occurred that day. One of the two, I think it was the dad, thought Ahmoud looked like a burglary suspect recorded on somebody's (I think a neighbor's) security camera so he and his son grabbed their guns (because the suspect been seen 'reaching into his pants' at times, they thought he might be armed) jumped in their truck and paid him a visit. I have no idea what their big plan was, maybe they were just going to ask him nicely if he was the robber?
He wasn't found "innocent". That's not a fact.
See, was it like that though? or did Zimmerman use force first? Even grabbing a shoulder or an arm is force.
We don't know, we have 1 person's side of the story, the one person who didn't end up dead and the one person who was carrying a deadly weapon. And Zimmerman was armed? What would you do if an armed person approached you, stated a confrontation that you some how ended up beginning to win? Would you turn your back on an armed person? Fuck that bullshit. You would continue to beat the shit out of the person until they were subdued and couldn't use that fire arm
Once again, sorry if backwater Floridians think this is excusable. It isn't.
\
Maybe he was adjusting his ball sack. This "his hands were somewhere near his waist" thing is something that would make me not even want to leave the house if I was a black male. And I assure everyone, there is a DISTINCT difference in how you run for exercise and how you run FROM something. You can see him switch to the later when he realizes he is boxed in.
If anything this makes their actions more indefensible. At least if he was in the process of committing robberies there might be the argument that you could search his belongings and find some damning evidence that you otherwise wouldn't have been able to produce. The idea that we're going to stop him on some other day and maybe get him to confess, as you say, at gunpoint? It's straight-up lynching logic.
Ya he looked black.
And instead of giving the video to the police and saying who they suspect the person is in the video, they went vigilante style and killed an innocent person. And the reaching into his pants BS is complete BS and more reason not to approach the guy if you think he's armed.
NOPE do not buy it for a second.
- it sounds like the gunshots that were going off were from the gun that guy had during the struggle. It may indeed have been an accident. Still, given the circumstances, I hope they get manslaughter even if it is the case. Stopping someone to try to talk to them is one thing, or even following and calling the police if you are really that concerned, but you don't chase them down of your own voilition and when they run you don't chase them down again, rifle in hand, like you're hunting an animal.
- which is basically what they did. They confronted him once, and he ran from them, so they chased him down again. No mention of any police being called until after the fact. They tried to take the law into their own hands, and as former cops they should know better than anyone what the law is and isn't. They used a shoddy citizens arrest justification that doesn't hold up for a second. I hope they burn.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/05/us/ahmaud-arbery-jogging-georgia-shooting/index.html
Sorry, I agree with you. I was trying to be 'tongue in cheek'. I guess my sarcasm, probably from me being in a northern state, wasn't as apparent as I thought it was...
Actually, now that I think about it, back in my running days I think ballsack adjusting was a frequent occurrence for me. Damned briefs! I mostly wear boxers now...
You're right of course, but that's small consolation to Ahmoud now. He could have been passive and (maybe) still alive, but instead he was in the right and dead because he reacted. I've never been in Ahmoud's situation so I have no idea if I'd done anything differently. I do know I'd never have put myself in the place of the pursuers, however. That's what we have police for.
A while ago the Chief Medical Officer in Scotland was forced to resign after twice visiting her second home during lockdown. Now, Neil Ferguson has become the latest victim of "do as I say, not as I do". He's the head of the epidemiological team at Imperial College that produced the 250,000 predicted deaths model - that resulted in a government change of direction and he was a member of the SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies).
The only eyewitness account I can find says that the person in question did not see Trayvon slamming Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk. The 911 operator also advised Zimmerman to not follow Trayvon. The record of the call makes it clear that Zimmerman had profiled Trayvon as "suspicious" on the basis of essentially nothing. Trayvon was just a teenager who'd purchased a snack at a convenience store, and the notion that he was acting "suspiciously" comes solely from the guy who was trying to avoid a murder conviction. Same with the story that Trayvon attacked him for essentially no reason. That comes from Zimmerman too.
Given Zimmerman's life since he murdered Trayvon Martin, it's pretty clear this man is fairly violent and given to disproportionately violent responses. Zimmerman's estranged wife reported that he had threatened her with a gun in 2013, and later that year he was arrested for aggravated assault after pointing a shotgun at his girlfriend. Defending Zimmerman, a man who accosted and then murdered a teenaged boy, is not a hill I'd think anyone reasonable would want to die on.
Zimmerman is the perfect example for why the decisions in a court of law, rather than the uneducated, ill informed opinions of forum posters and the masses at large, is the only one that matters. Precisely because he is so unpopular, and people want him to be a murderer so bad, that their entire view is tainted. People you don't like get the benefit of the law too. This is exactly why juries are forbidden from looking at media stories and stick only to the facts in the trial.
For my part, I don't know what to think of him. I think a perfectly legitimate case can be made that he is not a bad person at all, but caught himself up in a terrible situation. I think it is telling that all of his little outbursts happened after the trial, and his record was entirely clean before that. That could just as easily be untrue, and he could be awful. I know for a fact that nothing I say is going to change what people have been programmed to believe.
If this happened in Canada, Zimmerman would have been in jail for minimum seven years. It'd be considered manslaughter with his pathetic "life in danger" excuse.
The whole decision in the court of law thing is one of my biggest gripes about this entire case. There are laws in Florida that shouldn't be laws that allow people to get away with shit like this because of the I-need-my-gun-more-than-another-person-needs-their-life backwater culture that certain people spoon feed to the actual uneducated, ill informed masses of that state.
But what do expect from the hanging chad state? What do expect from the state that wouldn't close down beaches during spring break during a pandemic? What do you expect from a state that suffered 4 mass shootings in the last decade leaving 74 dead and crickets when it comes to protecting their population?
Premeditation (Zimmerman) and reaction to a surprise encounter (Trayvon) are not the same thing. And you can't use the same standard for how one reacts. The entire chain of events is the responsibility of George Zimmerman for deputizing himself. That's the be all and end all of the situation. Zimmerman took powers upon himself he did not have, and then was seeking to actively use those powers against another person, who happened to be 16 years old. If he WAS assaulted, yes, he deserved it. 100%. He was actively attempting to take the freedom and rights of Trayvon Martin into HIS hands. Not the cops, not a judge, not a jury. George Zimmerman, Arbiter of Justice in his own head. Not just having an opinion of the situation like any normal person, but taking the matter into his own hands, even AFTER being told not to. If I tell you not to put your hand on the stove, and you do it anyway, I'm not shedding a tear over your burns.
There is a something called the "castle doctrine" which basically applies to protecting your home with violent force if necessary. I suppose that is reasonable enough assuming that situation takes place. But in many states, the very act of carrying a weapon means your castle is.......wherever you choose to take the weapon. Thus you are able to defend your "ground" anywhere. Even if YOU are the one invading the space and privacy of someone else. The world is your oyster. You can start a confrontation that is ENTIRELY your fault, and if the the other person responds to that provocation, you can then shoot then. You can manufacture a consequence-free murder. Having the gun not only gives you the power of life and death, it also makes you effectively immune from the consequences of using it, assuming the person you shoot is the right color.
So in this scenario, Zimmerman's defenders will say he had every right to use a weapon and lethal force to protect himself, but Trayvon had NO right to attempt to protect himself from grown-ass adult stalking him in the darkness. And the subtext is implicit. A black male has no right to defend himself, and is assumed the guilty party in ALL instances. It's beyond a Catch-22.
As we have been saying, if 4 African-American in two Honda Civics had tracked down a white jogger, cornered him, brandished weapons, and the white jogger got shot and died on the street, there is absolutely ZERO chance all 4 wouldn't be facing not just manslaughter, but capital murder charges, probably including the death penalty. Shit, they probably would have tracked down anyone they talked to in the 48 hours prior and brought them up on accessory charges. These guys haven't even been ARRESTED yet.