"Racism is dead in America." Bullshit
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Sunday, August 30, 2026 19:02
VIEWED: 28755
PAGE 5 of 27
Yup, hope to see a civil case right soon. And yes, if someone shot someone on the street late at night, no witnesses, a couple of bruises, how DO the police determine it wasn't self-defense?
I'm going by a few things:
This guy VOLUNTEERED to be watch captain, had a background in criminal law (which means he's well aware of that particular law giving him the right to shoot someone), and had made a hellofalot of 911 calls. This tells me something about him.
The idea there's Hispanic v Black makes it unimportant is asinine. As people learn more, their opinions are bound to change, simple as that.
The kid was an "A-B student" and had only one incident at school against him, a minor one.
Zimmerman had a past record of violence, which the police omitted at first:Quote:
The father of the teen, Tracy Martin, was told by police that Zimmerman had a ‘squeaky-clean’ record and that is why he has not been charged yet. Zimmerman was arrested back in 2005 in Orange County for resisting arrest using violence and battery on a law enforcement officer, according to public records. The records were found with the Orange County Clerk of Courts. The charges were filed in July of 2005 but were dropped.
“They just lied to the family,” Crump said. “They just couldn’t see why [Zimmerman] would do anything wrong or be violent. But not only do you know the guy killed this kid, because he admitted to it, you knew that he has a propensity for violence because of his past record.”
Tracy Martin said in an interview last week that he was told by officers that:
“They respected [Zimmerman's] background, that he studied criminal justice for four years and that he was squeaky clean. My question to them was, did they run my child’s background check? They said yes. I asked them what they came up with, and they said nothing. http://www.jdjournal.com/2012/03/12/neighborhood-watch-captain-involve
d-in-shooting-has-violent-past/ more that comes out, I'm starting to see a guy who might well have a bit of a hair trigger; dunno why the charges were dropped, but from what the cops in Florida said, maybe the police in the other incident respected him too, or he apologized, or something. But it's THERE and shows he could be aggressive, even toward cops.
The facts BEFORE the shooting are pretty clear. The kid was carrying candy, etc., and had just come back from the convenience store. Zimmerman called him in, was told not to follow him, followed him in his car and then on foot.
As to racism, they say Zimmerman has friends and relatives who are Black. That doesn't mean that a Black kid, walking through a gated community at night, wearing a hoodie, wouldn't be more suspicious to any "community watch" person than a white kid. That he PUSHED the situation speaks to me, and I just don't buy a kid who's got a clean record, isn't doing anything, and is much smaller, starting something as easily as a guy who WANTS to be in a position of authority, makes many calls to 911, is interested in criminal law and has at least one previous incident of being violent to an authority figure.
That's where I stand until and unless some further information comes out.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, we've not discussed this aspect of it:Quote:
Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee has characterized Martin as the aggressor, based on the police department’s investigation. In an interview published by the Miami Herald, Lee asked rhetorically, “If someone asks you, ‘Hey do you live here?’ is it OK for you to jump on them and beat the crap out of somebody?” Lee said. “It’s not.”
Actually, in Florida, it might be.
Under the same self-defense statute that Zimmerman is relying on to avoid prosecution, Trayvon Martin also had the right to defend himself against a perceived threat of danger. Section 776.013 provides:
“A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
Trayvon Martin was a teenaged boy who was walking home from a convenience store. He was not engaged in an unlawful activity. He was in a place where he had a right to be – near the home of his father’s fiancée. George Zimmerman followed him, even after being told by the 911 dispatcher not to. Zimmerman left his vehicle holding a loaded gun and began pursuing Martin on foot. It is plausible to infer that Zimmerman, not Martin, initiated the attack. The tapes indicate that Zimmerman may have been the aggressor in initiating contact with Martin. Assuming the published reports are true, Martin, not Zimmerman, was exercising his lawful right to “stand his ground and meet force with force” by engaging in an altercation with Zimmerman.
By questioning why Martin didn’t simply stop and answer Zimmerman’s questions, and characterizing Martin as the aggressor, Sanford Police Department Chief Bill Lee Jr. appears to have assessed the Martin case using the standards that apply to law enforcement officers. This is wrong. Martin was under no legal duty to obey or to cooperate with Zimmerman in being questioned, because George Zimmerman is not a law enforcement officer.
Being the local neighborhood watch captain does not elevate him to that status. Nor was Zimmerman asked by any law enforcement officer to assist in detaining Martin – in fact, he was specifically told not to follow Martin. Zimmerman is entitled to none of the presumptions available to law enforcement officers under Florida law. The presumptions of acting in good faith that are afforded to law enforcement officers do not apply to Zimmerman.
If Zimmerman provoked the altercation with Martin, he is not entitled to claim self-defense. Under Section 776.041, use of force is not justifiable under the statute to a person who initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
“(a) such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.”
Neither exception applies to Zimmerman. Martin was armed only with a bag of Skittles and a can of Arizona Iced Tea. Zimmerman had a 9mm handgun. http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/19/opinion-trayvon-martin-not-g
eorge-zimmerman-was-engaged-in-self-defense/?hpt=hp_t1 makes sense to me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, they're going through the call logs now - and so far they prettymuch support events being much as I described them.
Now Troll brought up the legal presumption of innocence, but honestly that falls since Zimmerman deliberately approached and confronted someone against policy, the advice of the police dispatcher and common sense, and also in regards to it his comment showed quite clearly this was a matter of his ego than any necessity.
I don't see how one could presume "innocence" of an armed goon who violated all of those things to needlessly confront someone, which makes HIM the aggressor in the situation.
From a legal standpoint, the smart thing to do, which prolly wouldn't save him but might mitigate the damage, is to get a decent lawyer, clam up, and refuse to take the stand - and here's why.
Firstoff, a public defender, as I have mentioned before, is a professional dive-taker who's sole intent is to put up just enough of a fight to make the prosecutor look good, in hopes of someday being on that side of the courtroom with the stacked deck - they're NOT on your side, they're selling you out, and if he winds up with an appointed attorney I assure you they will encourage him to be stupid.
See, from a prosecution angle, all you have to do is get this guy on the stand and start poking his fragile ego, and he'll ruin himself, lickety split - and worse, he will WANT to do it, just as his pride and ego forced that confrontation, demanded that he shoot, it will push him to tell his side of the story and "dress it up" in some logically inconsistent way that will allow a prosecutor with even a peanut for a brain (which is most of em) to completely excoriate his ass.
So even if he gets a decent attorney, chances are he will no more listen to them about shutting the fuck up and staying off the stand, than he did the police dispatcher telling him not to pursue.
Really, guys like this, all you have to do is hand them a shovel, you understand ?
Also, in regards to those call logs, I've listened to one of Trayvon's just prior to the incident, and it's abundantly clear he knew he was being followed by someone HE considered creepy and suspicious, and in response tried to lose them - the person on the other end of the line was encouraging him to flee, in fact...
And that call does include the beginning of the incident, and at NO point does Zimmerman identify himself or his intentions before a physical altercation breaks out.
Ergo, events are very likely just as I called em.
And this guy is gonna catch hell for it, as he should.
Sometimes public outrage is the grease the wheels of justice need, and yeah verily from a legal standpoint the presumption of innocence must stand till the issue is decide in court, but it took that public outrage based on some REALLY DAMN OBVIOUS evidence of bad conduct in order to cause it to BE decided in court, instead of brushed off and ignored - and I seriously question your assumptions there Troll, to the point where I flat out question your motives.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, and a non-incident from last night I'll relate, just as an example of how things can go right.
I was coming around building five about to hit the last key of the night and file my report and as such was walking at the edge of the complex with the road there, and suddenly for no reason I could immediately determine one of the local cops pulls over the car in front of him.
I keep a loose eye on the situation and punch the last key, then linger near the building within earshot cause I note that the officer in question has stated with the forfeiture-fishing-expedition set of questions prepatory to trying some bullshit much like this...
http://www.theagitator.com/2012/03/15/breakfast-in-collinsville/
And yes, it was a local K-9 officer last night as well - don't you just love it when they use your refusal to allow a search as justification for one ?
Especially since them dogs have been proven utterly unreliable, eh ?
So I linger in hearing range, and quietly pull my camera, but the range and light levels would require me to get closer to use it, which risks needlessly provoking something given that yon badge bearer has not yet exceeded his authority...
But then I notice the cop keeps throwing nervous glances over his left shoulder, mind you they KNOW this is my turf, and when in duty and in uniform I am a total hardass for proper procedure, having torn a strip off them before in regards to letting slide some blatant misconduct by a repossesion service, lying to a resident about how stalking/harrassment is handled, and creeping around private property unwanted scoping for expired tags and such - despite that animosity though there's a certain detente cause I am both very professional and fully aware of how and where my work is different from theirs.
That's come in handy a time or two for them as well as me - and so long as their conduct is equally professional I will back them up to the fullest, and if you need anywhere near here searched for a fleeing perp, missing kid or lost pet, I am your go-to-guy, so there's respect if not affection.
Ergo those nervous glances cue me in that he'd rather I not see what he's up to, unaware that I am already watching from a pool of shadow with excellent visual cover, and so I wait till he looks away to make a note on his clipboard, and slip out into the beam of the floodlights and lean against the building all phony casual like, and he spots me as he takes the drivers license back to the car to run it, and utters a very unprofessional word starting with F...
He brings back the drivers license and registration, and issues them a warning for a (parking) light out and sends them on their merry, then pulls a U-turn in the middle of the street and offers me ye olde digitus impudicus out the window of his SUV, and I give him the ole Red-eye, and nothing comes of it.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EyelidPullTaunt
Sometimes just HAVING a witness can radically change the dynamics of a situation, you understand ?
If Trayvon had beat feet back to the convenience store, things might not have turned out that way.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Under the same self-defense statute that Zimmerman is relying on to avoid prosecution, Trayvon Martin also had the right to defend himself against a perceived threat of danger.
Martin was under no legal duty to obey or to cooperate with Zimmerman in being questioned, because George Zimmerman is not a law enforcement officer.
If Zimmerman provoked the altercation with Martin, he is not entitled to claim self-defense.
Yes, yes and yes! I'm glad there are people going after this nonsense. The way Troll would have it, all I have to do is get in someone's face and talk smack until they try to push me out of the way, then I'm free to murder them in "self-defense'.
Frem: I've known public defenders, and I'd kindly ask you to be less blanket-y with those blanket statements. I understand that you have many bad ones in your life, but there are some damned fine people out there trying to do their jobs.
I was going to ask you about the calls, but I just saw the headline. I'm not looking forward to it. I think I'm going to end up even angrier about this.
ETA: OK, I'm feeling a lot less like going easy on the police, after seeing how they "investigated", and what Zimmerman's initial story was. The man lied, and I think he's well on his way to finally getting busted.
"According to the Miami Herald, Zimmerman told the police that he had stepped out of his SUV to check the name of the street he was on, and that Trayvon sprang out of nowhere to attack him from behind as he was walking back to his truck. He said he feared for his life and shot Martin in self-defense. That account doesn't easily fit into the narrative cobbled together from what evidence had been made public."
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And here we go...
Quote:
A Black Militia Group Says It Plans To Arrest The Neighborhood Watchman Who Shot A Black Teenager
http://www.businessinsider.com/a-black-militia-group-says-it-plans-to-
arrest-the-neighborhood-watchman-who-shot-trayvon-martin-2012-3#ixzz1pgO2fzYx
"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. - Someone.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Castle doctrine does apply under Florida law.
From wiki:
Quote:
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and may in certain circumstances attack an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution.
And:
Quote:
The term derives from the historic English common law dictum that "an Englishman's home is his castle".
There was no 'castle' in this case. And Trayvon was not an 'intruder' in any sense.
Quote:
I am saying that from the available evidence, no crime was committed.
A 17 year old, unarmed kid is lying dead on the ground, and the shooter's claim for self-defence is highly dubious (since he started the altercation, and outweighted the kid by 100lbs). Are you saying the police have no right to suspect the shooter, and investigate to find out exactly what happened? That's what they chose not to do. Seemingly, they treated it as an open and shut case where 'the black kid must've been asking for it'.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Frem: I've known public defenders, and I'd kindly ask you to be less blanket-y with those blanket statements. I understand that you have many bad ones in your life, but there are some damned fine people out there trying to do their jobs.
Point acknowledged - just that in my experience in several states over many years has indicated a majority of em that way, but I am sure exceptions exist.
I've gotten so pissed off at our local prosecutor for shenanigans I was going to flat out refuse to testify any further and call her on it while on the stand - but the accused copped a plea at the last minute, I *would* have called her out, too, cause she was laughing up her sleve TO ME about privledged information the public defender leaked to her on purpose...
That offended me beyond reason cause there wasn't ANY bloody need for it, being that I caught the lot of them red-handed WITH the goods ON THEIR PERSON - but that's just the way she does things.
The line between good guys and bad guys here is kinda murky most days, so I can be a bit cynical, sure.
Anyhows, them that DO the job deserve full credit Mal4, that I freely give ya.
Quote:
ETA: OK, I'm feeling a lot less like going easy on the police, after seeing how they "investigated", and what Zimmerman's initial story was. The man lied, and I think he's well on his way to finally getting busted.
Yep, called that one straight - all one needs do is hand this guy a shovel, let him run his yap till he sinks himself good and deep, and then fill in the hole...
Again, I know the type, I toss enough of em out on their ear when they get interviewed - ironically they get quite pissed about it, even angry, and I've had to have one removed by force after he made threats and wanted to fight about it... which I mighta gave him were it not for Echo and Becky all but sitting on me.
I don't claim to be "better than", just "smarter than", and even when I ain't, my people are.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Stereotypes don't just happen.
A lot of people have to see a behavior before one is born. Then that behavior has to be reinforced over time for it to be vetted.
Drunk Irish.
Covetous Jew.
Mob Italian.
Bookworm Asian.
Maybe instead of blaming the aftermath of said stereotypes... you should try changing them. (Tho I give a pass to Asians.... getting good grades is not a vice.)
Everyone was all set to jump on this. "WHITE MAN KILLS BLACK BOY!"... and all that entails.
But now that the guy was Hispanic... you backpeddle. Cus God knows, its only ok to cry raciss when the target is white.
When its an "other"... well then. That gets all sorts of complicated, right? Only white people are raciss, right?
Racism does exist. But you might want to look in the mirror first before you start throwing that word around.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
KPO,
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute
&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html
Section 3 is the applicable statute.
I erred in referring to it as the Castle law. My apologies. The Florida law is called the "Stand Your Ground" law. If threatened you can use deadly force. Don't like the law? Move to Florida and get it changed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME