Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest

[j4l]

I'm sure Holder already has something cooked up if the state DA fails to invent something or the Grand Jury balks on an indictment. I'm not saying Mr Zimmerman is guilty of anything except prehaps... PERHAPS... poor judgement. I wasn't there. Maybe he did keep a safe distance until Mr. Martin abruptly turned, closed the gap and attacked without either man saying a word.

I just think it's unfortunate this kid is now dead.

What makes me the sickest is the exploitation on display by the fascists who keep black people on the dependency plantation, have zero solutions to the problem of black kids killing each other, selling dope, having more children and failing to achieve successful independence at the same rate all the other minorities have been doing.

Then again I'm the racist for pointing it out.

Indeed.
One honest question to ask ourselves: Where is all this level of rage, speculation, and media-whoring for any of the other, potentially dozens, of such cases per week, that dont even make the news, when it's one type of person vs. another of the same type? (either race).
And usually over things even more silly than this incident? ( a facial expression, a comment from one to another in a "club", a gesture, or hand-sign, or even a robbery or drug deal gone bad)

 

[marshaul]

What makes me the sickest is the exploitation on display by the fascists who keep black people on the dependency plantation, have zero solutions to the problem of black kids killing each other, selling dope, having more children and failing to achieve successful independence at the same rate all the other minorities have been doing.

Then again I'm the racist for pointing it out.

Culture is not race. Race does not cause people to behave in any particular way.

 

[j4l]

Culture is not race. Race does not cause people to behave in any particular way.

We really need to get you out of the house more often..

Yes, and no- BUT- some folks are more inclined towards certain behaviors than others, and on a large enough scale, as to give many other folks the impression that they do. It's why I always say the "stereotyping" excuses are usually self-inflicted.
Folks of all types have this odd tendancy to go out of their way to live up to the very "stereotypes" they claim to despise, and when called-out on it, fall back on "culture" as their excuse for it.

Regardless of the race, gender, nationality, ethnic make-up. Human nature is what it is- it cant be legislated away or "stereotyped" out of existence.

 

[marshaul]

We really need to get you out of the house more often..

Yes, and no- BUT- some folks are more inclined towards certain behaviors than others, and on a large enough scale, as to give many other folks the impression that they do. It's why I always say the "stereotyping" excuses are usually self-inflicted.
Folks of all types have this odd tendancy to go out of their way to live up to the very "stereotypes" they claim to despise, and when called-out on it, fall back on "culture" as their excuse for it.

Regardless of the race, gender, nationality, ethnic make-up. Human nature is what it is- it cant be legislated away or "stereotyped" out of existence.

I'm not sure what your point is. My statement is accurate.

Certain groups might associate their culture with their race, or their nationality, or what have you, but that itself is a cultural phenomenon.

Furthermore, "culture" is a neutral term. There are cultures with admirable qualities, and those without. Culture is nothing to "fall back on" in defense of immoral, aggressive, or irresponsible behavior.

Does the "culture" of NAMBLA deserve any sympathy? Or is that a race thing, too?

You seem to be quite bothered by any attempt to point out that race is causally irrelevant (any relevance is purely correlative or associative). Or you misunderstand my posts. Either way, I submit that it is you who needs to "get out of the house" more. My experiences are manifold and extensive.

 

[PrayingForWar]

Culture is not race. Race does not cause people to behave in any particular way.

That's a very good point.

Does it make me a "culturalist" that I maintain a disdain for the "thug" culture? Or just a racist?

Not that I give a flip what our resident Jesse Jackass wanna be has to say in all his dip$#!tted omniscence.

 

[wrightme]

So by your logic, if zimmerman attacked trayvon first, and trayvon had gotten a hold of zimmermans gun and shot him in self defense, trayvon would have been a murderer. But the situation in reverse was a good shoot?

Trayvon wasn't being attacked, thus, self-defense isn't available as justification of actions. By LE accounts, Trayvon was the aggressor. Thus, if Trayvon had acquired Zimmerman's weapon, it would be Trayvon's escalation of his attack, which would rightfully be considered a murder.

 

[wrightme]

How exactly does seeing "the end" of the confrontation prove anything???

By this guys own admission he only saw the end...



How many times as a child have people been hit and then responded only to be seen by the teacher and end up in trouble despite being the one that defended oneself? I have...

None of that negates what was seen. Unless contrary evidence gets presented, it indicates that Zimmerman's account of events is plausible, and isn't contradicted.

 

[marshaul]

That's a very good point.

Does it make me a "culturalist" that I maintain a disdain for the "thug" culture? Or just a racist?

Not that I give a flip what our resident Jesse Jackass wanna be has to say in all his dip$#!tted omniscence.

Unfortunately, a "culturalist" is one who studies culture (a cultural anthropologist), and a "culturist" is one who grows things.

There isn't a word for it, that I'm familiar with. But I agree with you. I loathe "thug" and "urban" cultures. It's unfortunate that so many, from within and without those cultures, refuse to recognize that these are not functions of race. Race, frankly, is a distraction. I've known "urban" "thugs" of every race. And they are all equally repugnant.

Any groups which conflate inborn neutral characteristics with negative characteristics they have adopted in pursuit of social acceptance within that group, are doing themselves a disservice, as well as everyone who shares those inborn, neutral characteristics.

Those of us who are white are fortunate in that nobody believes KKK membership is genetically engendered, except for of course the KKK themselves.

 

[marshaul]

None of that negates what was seen. Unless contrary evidence gets presented, it indicates that Zimmerman's account of events is plausible, and isn't contradicted.

This is true. Zimmerman may have initiated physical altercation, and failed to gain the upper hand. But there is no evidence of this. Right or wrong, it is merely speculation to suggest that he did so.

All the same, I think Zimmerman was a fool to follow this kid around over what amounts to nothing criminal. I am an advocate of minding one's own business, and defending oneself. Far too many people place far too much credence in the effectiveness or validity of "policing" and police-type behavior.

I am confident that, should I ever be forced to defend myself, the act will not inspire such controversy, as I will have been minding my own damn business. As I should.

Incidentally, were I to be forced to defend another against present aggression, I would still consider that within the purview of "minding my own business". There's a difference between following someone around, hoping to bust them for being a criminal, and happening across an act which good conscience cannot tolerate.

 

[j4l]

"around over what amounts to nothing criminal."

Other than the obvious swallowing of the media's propaganda, and the endless speculation by just about everyone on this matter, does one jump to the conclusion that the kid wasnt doing anything criminal, or behaving as though had he done so, or was about to do so (body language, acting paranoid even before contact is made, or whatever)?
What does one actually have to be brazenly, and openly doing in the full and public view of any and all, to justify someone seeing them and thinking ..."err.. something isnt right, here...."?
None of us were in Z's shoes, looking through his eyes, or otherwise able to tell what was causing his instincts to fire off alarms.

 

[marshaul]

"around over what amounts to nothing criminal."

Other than the obvious swallowing of the media's propaganda, and the endless speculation by just about everyone on this matter, does one jump to the conclusion that the kid wasnt doing anything criminal, or behaving as though had he done so, or was about to do so (body language, acting paranoid even before contact is made, or whatever)?
What does one actually have to be brazenly, and openly doing in the full and public view of any and all, to justify someone seeing them and thinking ..."err.. something isnt right, here...."?
None of us were in Z's shoes, looking through his eyes, or otherwise able to tell what was causing his instincts to fire off alarms.

You just think you know it all, don't you?

If you were to ask me, I'd answer that I actually believe Zimmerman is innocent. I haven't "swallowed" any "propaganda". Believing the man was within his rights doesn't mean I can't criticize his behavior as unwise.

The simple fact is, there was no prior evidence of any crime committed by M. Listen to the recordings. Z simply claims the guy is "suspicious". It is my opinion that armed citizens are unwise to go looking for trouble, by "investigating" someone walking down the street because they are "suspicious". We are not police (nor should anybody be). Zimmerman may be innocent, but his name is all over the media, and he has to carry the weight of M's death the rest of his life (rumor is he is distraught over this affair). Was that price worth it? Investigating a guy who went to grab some snacks? And what if M had got ahold of his gun? Mightn't Z wished he had just gone home then?

Who knows what instigated the conflict. Maybe M was annoyed at being followed and decided to beat Z up over it. If so, Z is perfectly justified. But it is pretty clear that M was, at the time Z took interest in him, doing nothing more than walking back to his stepfather's house.

There are plenty of people who, if I were to annoy them, would force me to defend myself. That's a possibility I'd rather avoid. Therefore, I don't "investigate" every time I see a black person walking down the street. Nothing good can come of that. There is plenty of behavior which is within my right but which I avoid because it's unwise. Kind of like going into the inner city and shouting racial slurs. Within my right? Sure. But is it a good idea?

If M were, you know, actually breaking into a house, or mugging someone, or assaulting someone, that's an entirely different story.

Look, Z is free to "investigate" every little thing. He is free to decide the price he paid is worth it. All I'm saying is, for me, it isn't. And I'm advising others to consider that.



Like I said: Mind your own business. Avoid conflict. But be ready, for it will find you of its own accord.

 

[j4l]

You just think you know it all, don't you?

If you were to ask me, I'd answer that I actually believe Zimmerman is innocent. I haven't "swallowed" any "propaganda". Believing the man was within his rights doesn't mean I can't criticize his behavior as unwise.

The simple fact is, there was no prior evidence of any crime committed by M. Listen to the recordings. Z simply claims the guy is "suspicious". It is my opinion that armed citizens are unwise to go looking for trouble, by "investigating" someone walking down the street because they are "suspicious". We are not police (nor should anybody be). Zimmerman may be innocent, but his name is all over the media, and he has to carry the weight of M's death the rest of his life (rumor is he is distraught over this affair). Was that price worth it? Investigating a guy who went to grab some snacks? And what if M had got ahold of his gun? Mightn't Z wished he had just gone home then?

Who knows what instigated the conflict. Maybe M was annoyed at being followed and decided to beat Z up over it. If so, Z is perfectly justified. But it is pretty clear that M was, at the time Z took interest in him, doing nothing more than walking back to his stepfather's house.

There are plenty of people who, if I were to annoy them, would force me to defend myself. That's a possibility I'd rather avoid. Therefore, I don't "investigate" every time I see a black person walking down the street. Nothing good can come of that. There is plenty of behavior which is within my right but which I avoid because it's unwise. Kind of like going into the inner city and shouting racial slurs. Within my right? Sure. But is it a good idea?

If M were, you know, actually breaking into a house, or mugging someone, or assaulting someone, that's an entirely different story.

Look, Z is free to "investigate" every little thing. He is free to decide the price he paid is worth it. All I'm saying is, for me, it isn't. And I'm advising others to consider that.



Like I said: Mind your own business. Avoid conflict. But be ready, for it will find you of its own accord.

I dont disagree with that at all. As I said in the other post- they both probably (and that's me jumping to a conclusion based on what little info there is) were complete idiots about how they reacted to one another-on some level, at least.
BUT- What I do disagree with is everyone jumping to the conclusion of- or assuming that- the kid was just be-bopping down the street.
Short of Z being ultra-paranoid (which we also dont know one way or the other) or just stark-raving-mad, do any of us really think he was just some super gung-ho yahoo trying to be a cop? Or- given we were not seeing whatever he was seeing- may he have seen something or other that raised the hairs on the back of his neck, and may have been cause for a legitimate concern for the safety of his community?
We just dont know, one way or the other, and I dont see any more need to jump all over the guy than there is to assume the kid WAS up to no good.- works both ways, if we are objective about things, doesnt it?

 

[marshaul]

I dont disagree with that at all. As I said in the other post- they both probably (and that's me jumping to a conclusion based on what little info there is) were complete idiots about how they reacted to one another-on some level, at least.
BUT- What I do disagree with is everyone jumping to the conclusion of- or assuming that- the kid was just be-bopping down the street.
Short of Z being ultra-paranoid (which we also dont know one way or the other) or just stark-raving-mad, do any of us really think he was just some super gung-ho yahoo trying to be a cop? Or- given we were not seeing whatever he was seeing- may he have seen something or other that raised the hairs on the back of his neck, and may have been cause for a legitimate concern for the safety of his community?
We just dont know, one way or the other, and I dont see any more need to jump all over the guy than there is to assume the kid WAS up to no good.- works both ways, if we are objective about things, doesnt it?

Yes, I suppose you're right. I can envision circumstances which would inspire me to "investigate". It's possible such was present here. Also, it should be mentioned that the reasons for his investigation are of less concern to all parties, as he was within his right to do so.

I'll revise my statement and say, if there was nothing more than a black guy walking down the street, I wouldn't investigate. This is all Z provided in the 911 call. On the other hand, maybe he felt unable to articulate the reason for his suspicion, and maybe that reason was a very good one. I can't know that.

 

[j4l]

Yes, I suppose you're right. I can envision circumstances which would inspire me to "investigate". It's possible such was present here. Also, it should be mentioned that the reasons for his investigation are of less concern to all parties, as he was within his right to do so.

I'll revise my statement and say, if there was nothing more than a black guy walking down the street, I wouldn't investigate. This is all Z provided in the 911 call. On the other hand, maybe he felt unable to articulate the reason for his suspicion, and maybe that reason was a very good one. I can't know that.

Agreed in full. Offers handshake^

 

[marshaul]

Agreed in full. Offers handshake^

And I accept.

 

[Jack House]

This is all Z provided in the 911 call. On the other hand, maybe he felt unable to articulate the reason for his suspicion, and maybe that reason was a very good one. I can't know that.

"He looks high, he keeps stumbling around"

 

[marshaul]

"He looks high, he keeps stumbling around"

Now that right there is an unacceptable reason to get into another's business.

In Blacksburg, if I decided to follow every person who stumbles around, I'd just be an *******.

 

[Jack House]

You stated that Zimmerman only said Martin was black and that was the only reason given for his suspicion. That is incorrect. Not only did Zimmerman state a few reasons why he was suspicious of Martin, he only ever said that he thinks Martin might be black.

As much as I dislike bringing it up because it is largely irrelevant to the case at hand, the neighborhood had some serious problems with crime. It's also a gated community. A strange person, stumbling down the street of a gated community in the rain, is going to raise suspicion for some people. Especially when the community has a problem with crime as it is. Just because you don't find something suspicious, doesn't mean no one will or that it is wrong for others to do so.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

It's the middle of the night, you are walking home, you are seventeen. There is a man in a truck following you around. The man exits his vehicle, and makes his way towards you. You begin to pick-up your pace but the man is attempting to keep up. Would you be the aggressor if you were to stop, turn around, and demand to know why the grown man is following you?

Zimmerman had no business following, or pursuing the individual; you choose which. Zimmerman was a grown man that, in the middle of the night, was following a young man.

I wonder how many of you would draw down on Zimmerman if he was coming after you in the middle of the night. Personally, a man is following me in the middle of the night, and I step up my pace, and the man is still behind me, I would turn around, no point in getting beat from the back, or shot in the back. (Plus, I don't have much wind, depending on the time of the year. So a person chases me, they will see me go anywhere from a few feet to a few blocks; like I stated, depending on the time of the year--bad allergies, breathing issue.) I would have seen Zimmerman as a personal threat considering it is the evening, and he is following (pursuing) me.

 

[rscottie]

It's the middle of the night, you are walking home, you are seventeen. There is a man in a truck following you around. The man exits his vehicle, and makes his way towards you. You begin to pick-up your pace but the man is attempting to keep up. Would you be the aggressor if you were to stop, turn around, and demand to know why the grown man is following you?

Zimmerman had no business following, or pursuing the individual; you choose which. Zimmerman was a grown man that, in the middle of the night, was following a young man.

I wonder how many of you would draw down on Zimmerman if he was coming after you in the middle of the night. Personally, a man is following me in the middle of the night, and I step up my pace, and the man is still behind me, I would turn around, no point in getting beat from the back, or shot in the back. (Plus, I don't have much wind, depending on the time of the year. So a person chases me, they will see me go anywhere from a few feet to a few blocks; like I stated, depending on the time of the year--bad allergies, breathing issue.) I would have seen Zimmerman as a personal threat considering it is the evening, and he is following (pursuing) me.

If someone is creeping around the backyards of other peoples homes, in a neighborhood that had experienced a rash of burglaries, then Zimmerman had every right to follow him.

Treyvon should have been explaining what he was doing in someone else's backyard and loitering.

Treyvon obviously did not feel too threatened, he called his girlfriend instead of the police.