There are many reasons why people are asking questions about Trayvon's character. They want a clearer picture of what really happened that night.
For central Floridians like me, we understand just how dangerous black males(followed by Hispanics) can be. They are behind every single cop killing in Tampa Bay since I moved down. This isn't to say that all black males are violent criminals. It's just pointing out that I can totally relate to anyone, white or black who has felt threatened in certain situations.
From Long Island to Lakeland, you can't help but notice how minorities seem to be responsible for most shootings and stabbings. People and law enforcement don't racially profile because of racism. They do it to avoid being victims.
Just to call a spade a spade, they said the SAME thing about the Italians and Irish in NYC and many other groups at one time or another regardless of location. The fact is that race isn't a major factor in whether you will commit crimes or not, most of these groups commit crimes because of the abject poverty that many live in that creates the conditions for them to turn to a life of crime.
As a Hispanic - American (born in NYC), I take issue with your comment. What about all the underage Hispanic girls that have been raped/assaulted/carried sexual relationship in NYC schools by white males/females in recent memory? Come on bro, calm down and have a little respect.
I am not defending one group over another cause every group has its own share of bad apples. I just think we should be mindful of making statements to misrepresent entire races.
Dapper Don, I have no clue what you are talking about.
I do know that I'm right. Some groups have more bad apples these days. Take Long Island for example. Crime in minority neighborhoods is out of control out there. It's the new Compton. Things are so bad in black and Latino areas(Brentwood, Hempstead, Wyandandch, Roosevelt) that police installed "Shot Spotter" devices to immediately alert them when and where there's a shooting.
As for stereotyping Italians, it goes on all the time. Look at shows like Mob Wives, Sopranos and Jersey Shore. As far back as the 60's cop used racial profiling against the mob. French Connection case was supposedly initiated b/c two NYPD officers saw some Italian men out having a good time and tailed them assuming they had to be trafficking narcotics. And it does not bother me.
Re: Crime & Justice
[Re: olivant]
#641917 03/28/1212:28 AM03/28/1212:28 AM
A few things. Trayvon Martin had no criminal record. Zimmerman did. Zimmerman had no business going up to Martin and challenging his right to be where he was. Zimmerman is not a police officer. It is amazing, well really more amusing at this point in my life, to see people who claim to be for individual rights, suddenly decide that treating people differently is just fine, as long as it's black people, cause they're scary. The Stand Your Ground law does not mean that you can initiate a confrontation with someone and then shoot them should you feel yourself in danger. The reason this case has taken off is not because an unarmed young man got shot but rather because the police did not arrest the shooter. Usually arguments of self-defense or the like need to be made AFTER the arrest.
1) I first heard about the shooting two weeks ago. Unarmed black youth shot by white patrol officer, was the impression I got. In Florida. Well, this automatically played into my feelings about the South, and those feelings came from my parents (especially my mother) who had fled it, making it clear in no uncertain terms that, in their opinion, violence against blacks was institutionalized and supported as late as the 1960's.
2) When I found out Zimmerman wasn't even a cop but a "neighborhood watch" guy, I thought, certainly he would be arrested. Apparently, due to a Florida gun law, what happened was legal--if it was self defense. Hearing that Zimmerman observed and stalked Trayvon, confronted him, seemed to weaken that case. The fact that he outweighed Trayvon by over 100 pounds made him a coward and fool at the very best. And at worst...again, I didn't want to think about that. Certainly justice would be done. ...
"When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives." Winter is Coming Now this is the Law of the Jungle—as old and as true as the sky; And the wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the wolf that shall break it must die. As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk, the Law runneth forward and back; For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.
Re: Crime & Justice
[Re: SC]
#641951 03/28/1211:47 AM03/28/1211:47 AM
I see a lot of ugliness here. There is no room for it on these boards.
The only thing I've read here the last posts has been complete and utter shit. Sorry, no other word for it. It makes my stomach turn that there are still people out there who don't understand the outrage at this shooting.
An unarmed child was helplessly slaughtered. Where is the compassion for a life cut tragically short? Where is the sorrow for his parents who are living every parent's nightmare?
Why does it come into the discussion that someone who looks like him was in a gang? Why should it matter if someone of the same racial or ethnic background killed a cop? Did he? He was walking home with a bag of candy in his pocket. No weapons, no drugs, no alcohol. Some Skittles. And he was shot and killed for no other reason than some hero-wanna-be was walking around with a gun.
Reading some of these posts just makes me realize how little some of us have evolved.
President Emeritus of the Neal Pulcawer Fan Club
Re: Crime & Justice
[Re: olivant]
#641952 03/28/1211:52 AM03/28/1211:52 AM
I haven't commented on this shooting because there are still so many unknowns. However, I do teach about the criminal justice process in my classes. A constitutional arrest must be based upon probable cause which is the belief by law enforcement that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed. Killing someone does not by itself constitute probable cause.
"Generosity. That was my first mistake." "Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us." "Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."
Lilo. You're right that Zimmerman should not have approached Trayvon. He should have stayed in his car.
Witnesses say Zimmerman was going back to his truck when Trayvon punched him from behind and mounted him and was beating him up pretty good. Broke his nose and scratched his head up too. If it's true that Trayvon attacked from behind instead of fleeing I wonder what the jury will say?
By msnbc.com staff Court documents obtained by msnbc.com on Tuesday evening show that George Zimmerman, who fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, went to court in 2005 and 2006 for accusations of domestic violence, tussling with a police officer and speeding.
He probably approached Trayvon and Trayvon, at 6'3 but a skinny 165 figured he would put the chubby punk in his place and started beating him up not knowing he had a gun. That's what I think happened based on Zimmerman's busted nose and witnesses who saw the fight and gave statements long before this case became so big.
I said before that I see grandstanding on all sides in this. Both sides trying to paint the other as the bad guy. From what I can tell, neither Martin or Zimmeran were exactly "pillars of the community." Neither were "innocent."
And now we've got Spike Lee tweeting the address of Zimmerman's parents?
What the hell does that video have to with anything??? Including something like that in an attempt to further your argument only weakens it and shows a deep-seated prejudicial background.
What the hell does that video have to with anything??? Including something like that in an attempt to further your argument only weakens it and shows a deep-seated prejudicial background.
CUT IT OUT NOW!! You won't be warned again!!!
See? This is what I mean. I'm simply pointing out how situations like this tend to get hijacked and exploited, with all sides grandstanding, portraying themselves as totally innocent while demonizing the other side....and then I get accused of some "deep-seated prejudicial background."
Mods should mind their own business and leave poster's profile signatures alone.
See? This is what I mean. I'm simply pointing out how situations like this tend to get hijacked and exploited, with all sides grandstanding, portraying themselves as totally innocent while demonizing the other side....and then I get accused of some "deep-seated prejudicial background."
OK... I'll let you tell it.
Argue the point again, and you're going on vacation.
If it isn't fair to you, tough! Some aren't listening to my earlier pleadings and I'm cracking down now. If you want to argue the point wait 'til Geoff gets back next week and make your case to him. Until then......
Not only did that idiot Lee tweet, he tweeted an incorrect address and now the elderly family of that address have had to flee because of threats and fear someone will show up thinking Zimmerman is there.
Not only did that idiot Lee tweet, he tweeted an incorrect address and now the elderly family of that address have had to flee because of threats and fear someone will show up thinking Zimmerman is there.
It's one thing to argue the shooting here, and stick to the facts of that event. It is another thing, and one that will not be tolerated here to bring an agenda of hate. These agendas have shown in some of the recent posts here... they don't have anything to do with the shooting that is being discussed. They all point to issues that arose AFTER the shooting and do nothing more than provide a soapbox for some member's outlooks.
We, here on the Board, can't tell you what to think, but we can take steps to prevent flaming and wars here. That is what just happened..... you can argue your points of the argument til the cows come home and you'll be allowed to do so as long as you follow the rules. When things get hot and a moderator steps in and calls for some cooling space and gets ignored, this is what happens.
I hate suspending any members but I will do so in order to keep peace on the boards.
ABC News has obtained a video of Zimmerman on the night of shooting that shows him at the police station in handcuffs. It appears to show that he is uninjured.
Yes I am watching right now. He supposedly had broken nose and head injuries but it certainly isn't visible by this video.
I also earlier saw the parent of a teenager who saw Trayvon on the ground immediately after he was shot. The boy said he heard what sounded like a young kid screaming, a shot and the screaming stopped. By the time he reached the area he only saw a body. He called the police and reported but mom said it took days for the police to take a report. She said she assumed that perhaps they had other witnesses and didn't need to talk to her son.
I'm not buying Zimmerman's or the police story. As far as I'm concerned it is looking more and more like what it seemed from the very beginning. This kid was minding his own business and got murdered by this "wanna-be" Joe Cop. What a shame.
"Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind. War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today." JFK
Oh for some reason the media doesn't mention this much (if at all) but Zimmerman's father is a retired Supreme Court Magistrate in Fla. It pays to have connections.
Last edited by The Italian Stallionette; 03/28/1208:29 PM.
"Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind. War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today." JFK
I'm trying to remain open-minded about the facts, but I don't understand how Zimmerman is still walking around free. The facts of the case are for a jury to decide.
Again, I want to caution everyone about probable cause. That is the only basis for a constitutional arrest. We Board members are only exposed to media reports while it is only law enforcement which has exposure to witness statements, and ballistics and autopsy findings.
"Generosity. That was my first mistake." "Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us." "Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."
Re: Crime & Justice
[Re: olivant]
#642057 03/29/1204:54 AM03/29/1204:54 AM
The state of Florida, like nearly every other state in America, subscribes to the "Castle Doctrine" which permits residents to use deadly force when attacked in their homes. See Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044, 1051 (Fla. 1999) (holding that "[w]e join the majority of jurisdictions that do not impose a duty to retreat from the residence when a defendant uses deadly force in self-defense, if that force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm from a co-occupant."). In 2005, Florida sought to expand the "Castle Doctrine" beyond the confines of the home and passed statute 776.013 (hereinafter the "Stand Your Ground Law"), which provides in pertinent part: 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. Fla. Stat. § 776.013(3) (2012).
Quote:
The Stand Your Ground Law acts as an immunity to both criminal and civil liability once it is successfully raised at or before trial by somebody who has been accused of using deadly force. See Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27, 29 (App. Ct. 2008) (holding that "[t]he [Florida] Legislature finds that it is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.")...
Quote:
CONCLUSION: It is unlikely that a Florida court will hold that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" statute allows an armed Florida resident to claim self-defense in the shooting of an unarmed resident when the armed resident pursued and confronted the unarmed resident after being told by the police to stand down. Therefore, a Florida court will likely hold that the Stand Your Ground Law does not apply to the Trayvon Martin case. Although not central to this discussion, it should be noted that the determination of whether the Stand Your Ground Law applies or not is ultimately one that is made by the Courts, not the police department. The standard criminal procedure is to arrest any defendant who kills someone else and detain him or her until a court or the state attorneys make a determination to release the defendant.
"When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives." Winter is Coming Now this is the Law of the Jungle—as old and as true as the sky; And the wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the wolf that shall break it must die. As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk, the Law runneth forward and back; For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.
Re: Crime & Justice
[Re: olivant]
#642067 03/29/1210:03 AM03/29/1210:03 AM
When our state legislature replaced the longstanding Castle Doctrine with a version of the Stand Your Ground statute, the fiercest opposition to the new law came from an unexpected source: The District Attorneys.
Prosecutors felt that there was no apparent need to alter the law, and that the new law would promote confrontation. Thus, they argued that the new law frustrated public policy considerations.
Under the previous Castle Doctrine type statutes it was still possible to raise a self defense claim outside of your home. The Castle Doctrine differs from the Stand Your Ground laws in that the former imposed a duty to remove yourself from a dangerous encounter if it was reasonably feasible. It was considered better policy to avoid the altercation if possible. If the threat became so imminent that attempting to flee was not reasonable, using appropriate force would be justified.
Also, self-defense is an affirmative defense, like duress, coercion, necessity, which means that the defendant bears the burden of establishing the elements of the defense. It is a question of fact, which therefore rests in the purvieew of the finder of fact, usually a jury.
Self defense is only available as a defense when the defendant, whose presence is lawful, reasonably believes he is in imminent danger of death or seriously bodily injury. The focus is not just on his subjective perception, but whether that belief was reasonable under the circumstances. Of course, one, who is in the commission of a crime or unreasonably advanced the confrontation that gave rise to the need to use deadly force, is generally not entitled to the protection of the statute.
Exactly. I posted elsewhere that a constitutional arrest must be based upon probable cause. However, various states' statutes as well as elements of due process do authorize law enforcement to detain someone and to otherwise take them into custody. From the subject's point of view it can be argued by one's attorney that one believed they were under arrest once law enforcement deprived them of their freedom of movement.
It can be rather complicated. Thus, I encourage everyone to withhold judgement.
"Generosity. That was my first mistake." "Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us." "Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."
I presume Zimmerman to be innocent as I must, but its interesting that the newly released video shows him with no injuries, contrary to what he claimed.
Welcome to Florida, where you can shoot an unarmed kid and go unpunished and try to register people to vote and go to prison.
"Io sono stanco, sono imbigliato, and I wan't everyone here to know, there ain't gonna be no trouble from me..Don Corleone..Cicc' a port!"
There are women in prison today who killed abusive partners because they feared for their lives. However, because the threat to their lives wasn't "imminent", they are serving time. Why do they go to jail, but Zimmerman isn't even arrested?? And if he did receive such a beating, I'm assuming that he received medical treatment. Any evidence of that?? There are plenty of unanswered questions out there.
COVINGTON, Ky. -- The captain of the Cincinnati Ben-Gals cheerleading squad has been charged by a northern Kentucky grand jury with first-degree sexual abuse involving a student when she was a high school teacher.
The Kentucky Enquirer reports Sarah Jones, who is about 26, also was indicted on a charge of unlawful use of electronic means to induce a minor to engage in sexual or other prohibited acts. Jones taught at Dixie Heights High School before resigning in November. Her mother, Cheryl Jones, principal of Twenhofel Middle School in Independence, was indicted on a charge of tampering with physical evidence in her daughter's case. She was placed on administrative leave.
"Generosity. That was my first mistake." "Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us." "Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."
HELENA, Mont. (AP) -- The West Texas district attorney who prosecuted former NFL quarterback Ryan Leaf in 2009 said Saturday that he'll file a motion to revoke Leaf's probation following his arrest in Montana. Leaf was arrested Friday in his hometown of Great Falls on burglary and drug possession charges, police said.
James Farren, the Randall County district attorney who prosecuted Leaf in Texas and negotiated a plea deal with him in 2010, said he would file the motion Monday to revoke the 10-year probation Leaf got in the agreement.
"I think it's sad," Farren said of the allegations against Leaf in Montana. "While I hoped for better results I'm not surprised it happened."
A guy's on trial here for trying to solicit "underage sex" online from a "13-year-old girl" who was actually an undercover police officer. Trial began with prosecution testimony. Then the defense lawyer moved for a mistrial because he claimed the jury was stacked against his client: 11 women, one man. Of course, the judge disallowed it because the lawyer should have made that motion after the jury was seated and before the trial began. He also could have used some of his peremptory challenges during the voir dire. His client could be convicted because of his negligence.
Ntra la porta tua lu sangu � sparsu, E nun me mporta si ce muoru accisu... E s'iddu muoru e vaju mparadisu Si nun ce truovo a ttia, mancu ce trasu.
You see TB, this is what most of our fellow Board members and most Americans don't understand: the complexities, the nuances of our states' and federal government's justice systems. Such lack of understanding is manifest regarding events in Florida over the past couple of weeks.
"Generosity. That was my first mistake." "Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us." "Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."
