Quote :

"Chief Bill Lee of the Sanford Police Department on Thursday evening said the account given by Martin’s family and attorney is correct, that Zimmerman saw the young man walking home from the store. He said that Zimmerman did indeed call 911 and report a suspicious person, and that he was told not to follow him."

stop here and all is well.

Quote :

"For some reason he felt that Trayvon, the way that he was walking or appeared seemed suspicious to him"

hmmmmm.

I'm 110% for people being able to make swiss cheese out of intruders who come into their home, but this dude is obviously firmly in the wrong.

3/9/2012 2:18:55 PM

Quote :

"911 operators have no legal authority. following the guy is not breaking the law. now, when he gets out and the fight begins is where things matter."

It doesn't matter if 911 dispatchers have legal authority or not. The dispatcher provided reasonable and prudent advice that Zimmerman should remove himself from the situation.

Zimmerman did not remove himself and de-escalate the situation when he had the opportunity.

...and let us not pretend that following someone isn't threatening.

3/9/2012 2:21:22 PM

Quote :

"I don't like people following me am I acting suspicious?"

3/9/2012 2:22:23 PM

^^^agreed on your first statement. However, it's easy to say that looking back. We weren't there.

As far as the suspicion part, that's a tough one. As wrong as it may be, even if this guy was a racist and only thought the kid was suspicious because he was black and the kid instigated the fight, then I still see it being tough to charge the shooter. It doesn't appear that the guy shot because he wanted to kill a black kid; it appears that there was a fight and the guy acted in self defense. If he followed the kid because he was black, then I hope there is evidence to show that this guy escalated and have him put away for life.

^^911 operators, for the most part, give canned responses. They don't always give the best advice, as I've already pointed out in this thread. Yes, looking back we can say this guy should have just let the kid be. and as the article states, the guy just followed the kid, nothing illegal about that. the kid then confronted this guy (according to how the article reads), then a fight broke out. it all hinges on who started the fight; not that this guy was following a kid.

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 2:26 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2012 2:23:25 PM

Zimmerman follows Martin and you believe Martin is the sole instigator?

Quote :

"They don't always give the best advice"

What would have prevented Zimmerman from following the dispatcher's advice?

Quote :

"the guy just followed the kid, nothing illegal about that"

Legal or not, do you at least acknowledge the possibility that a followee may be threatened by a follower?

3/9/2012 2:25:08 PM

Quote :

"Zimmerman was arrested in 2005 on suspicion of battery on a law-enforcement officer. He was not prosecuted, and it looks like the case was dismissed for some reason. "

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/man-who-shot-killed-teen-sanford-neighborhood-has-/nLPgL/

3/9/2012 2:25:54 PM

interesting... a twist to the story...

3/9/2012 2:27:39 PM

squeaky clean.

except for that one time he got into that scuffle with authorities...

3/9/2012 2:32:12 PM

Hahaha this thread is a case study in attaching extreme prior probabilities based on your personal biases

As if wdprice3 would be white-knighting for some black guy if this Zimmerman clown had gotten dropped off of S. Saunders

3/9/2012 2:34:08 PM

Adjust practically any of the racial parameters in this story and the police department would have made an arrest

If you can't see that, you'd probably argue at length to defend a grown man shooting a kid on the street

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 2:36 PM. Reason : gated community, not exactly "public" space but still -- walking]

3/9/2012 2:36:07 PM

the trash talking of calling anyone who disagrees with you a racist is old and unfounded. try again.

3/9/2012 2:42:56 PM

Quote :

"On his way back home, according to reports, he caught the attention of George Zimmerman, a 26-year-old college student and self-appointed captain of The Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood watch. "

Interesting.

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 2:47 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2012 2:44:22 PM

and the credibility of the man unravels.

3/9/2012 2:48:41 PM

^yeh... scuffle with cops... self-appointed leader.... he may be a head case

3/9/2012 2:51:24 PM

^

Quote :

"They don't always give the best advice"

What would have prevented Zimmerman from following the dispatcher's advice?

Quote :

"the guy just followed the kid, nothing illegal about that"

Legal or not, do you at least acknowledge the possibility that a followee may be threatened by a follower?

3/9/2012 2:52:45 PM

Quote :

" the kid then confronted this guy (according to how the article reads)"

The article says that this is all Zimmerman's account, correct? I mean, who else's could it have been? The police weren't there. The other guy is dead.
I don't see how you can let his account sway your opinion (as if it were fact)

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM. Reason : a]

3/9/2012 3:01:27 PM

Quote :

"the trash talking of calling anyone who disagrees with you a racist is old and unfounded. try again."

Haha, the race card card.

3/9/2012 3:01:57 PM

Unfortunately wdprice3 doesn't see that the extreme benefit-of-the-doubt he extends Zimmerman shares a common cause with Zimmerman's preferential treatment. You can only use that preferential treatment as independent support for extending the benefit-of-the-doubt if you place great confidence in the state here (despite the mountains of evidence of preferential/discriminatory practices in these matters).

Quote :

"I don't see how you can let his account sway your opinion (as if it were fact)"

It's not swaying his opinion, it's post-hoc justification for it. Thus the outpouring of confidence in his perception of the public/official account and in the judgment of a reckless, racial-profiling white vigilante

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 3:12 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2012 3:08:04 PM

^

And to accentutate your point

Quote :

"^yeh... scuffle with cops... self-appointed leader.... he may be a head case"

3/9/2012 3:11:14 PM

I hope the gated community has some sort of security video that can shed light on the situation.

At this point, is the smart money on Zimmerman having a wealthy daddy?

3/9/2012 3:12:42 PM

this is the Orlando, FL area...

3/9/2012 3:14:36 PM

you guys are right. let's convict him on an absence of evidence.

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 3:15 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2012 3:15:03 PM

Quote :

"you guys are right. let's convict him on an absence of evidence."

You must have spent all of your patience for careful reasoning when concocting your own hyper-agnostic/legalistic position earlier in the thread. Nobody's arguing we convict him on an absence of evidence. People are simply pointing out the culture of ignorance that caused this incident and now simply attempts to sweep it under the rug.

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 3:17 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2012 3:16:43 PM

Quote :

"The problematic confrontation begins with physical contact, not approaching someone and asking them questions. I assume for now that the evidence points to the kid starting the confrontation. It's irrelevant that the guy approached the kid to ask him questions. That is not illegal nor a threat. Assuming the kid started the physical confrontation, this guy may very well be in his right to use lethal force. If the guy started the physical confrontation/tried to physically detain him, then self defense is out the window."

+1. Criminally/legally speaking, I would think the following in his vehicle and the physical altercation/potential self-defense are two separate issues...people round here just can't seem to separate them.

Even if following him around the approaching him asking him where he was headed was stupid as hell, what laws did he break? If he attempted to physically detain him, then yeah laws were broken at that point, but *if* the kid started the fight and the dude rightfully felt threatened for his life, then I'd be curious what some of you would want to charge him with. Obviously we don't know what happened...all we can do is discuss what possibly happened after the dumbass stopped his vehicle.

Quote :

" "On his way back home, according to reports, he caught the attention of George Zimmerman, a 26-year-old college student and self-appointed captain of The Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood watch. " Interesting."

Where was that from?

Quote :

"The article says that this is all Zimmerman's account, correct? I mean, who else's could it have been? The police weren't there. The other guy is dead. I don't see how you can let his account sway your opinion (as if it were fact)"

I thought there was a witness who saw Zimmerman on his back getting his ass kicked...but unfortunately I'd bet the witness didn't see how it all started.

Quote :

"judgment of a reckless, racial-profiling white vigilante"

Reckless and white, yep. Racial-profiling...not sure that's been proven. I think that's a case of attaching probabilities based on personal biases.

Quote :

"I hope the gated community has some sort of security video that can shed light on the situation. "

Doubt it. *If* they had cameras they would probably cover common areas and the entrance/exits, but I doubt they do. Is that a normal thing...for these communities to have cameras?


[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 3:19 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2012 3:17:18 PM

Quote :

"Even if following him around the approaching him asking him where he was headed was stupid as hell, what laws did he break? If he truly attempted to detain him, then yeah laws were broken at that point, but *if* the kid started the fight and the dude rightfully felt threatened for his life, then I'd be curious what some of you would want to charge him with. Obviously we don't know what happened...all we can do is discuss what possibly happened after the dumbass stopped his vehicle."

Doubt is only reasonable here if you're afraid of black people

Not really sure how else to slice it so maybe you can explain it better for me, but not everybody's comfortable with an appeal to mystery as a defense for the slaying of a minor

3/9/2012 3:19:13 PM

Quote :

"I don't believe that's what the law says. The problematic confrontation begins with physical contact, not approaching someone and asking them questions."

Deadly force is never authorized to protect property, which, since he was just walking through the neighborhood, presumably in an unassuming manner prior to being confronted, and if you have a gun and someone else doesn't, it's terribly difficult to say you were protecting yourself by applying a proportionate amount of force in self-defense. You've got a fucking gun. They don't. Maybe FL allows for this sort of thing, I don't know. But on the face of it, it seems incredibly ridiculous.

3/9/2012 3:19:55 PM

But why would the kid attack him? What sort of logic does that make?

One person in this "fight" is walking home with no clue of the situation.

The other person is "looking for a suspicious black kid" in his neighborhood and has brought a gun with him.

Do you seriously think that the person walking home was the one who instigated the conflict or can you not see past your own racial biases?

3/9/2012 3:20:06 PM

^^^ So what would you charge him with then? First degree murder?

3/9/2012 3:20:54 PM

^^you are wrong. you can use deadly force (in many states) if a person is committing a felony, which includes property.

^^why would the kid attack him is a good point. and any answers to that are just a big of a jump as saying this guy was out looking to kill a black kid.

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2012 3:20:56 PM

First degree murder could reasonably be charged if it could be proved that the man was out looking for the kid with the intent to cause him harm. Which does not seem far from the truth.

^The dude called the police about the kid. Told them "THEY ALWAYS GET AWAY" and went AFTER him with a loaded gun. What the fuck ELSE was he planning?

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 3:22 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2012 3:21:48 PM

Quote :

"Do you seriously think that the person walking home was the one who instigated the conflict or can you not see past your own racial biases?"

But you see attaching a high probability to this kid being a criminal worthy of stalking with a loaded firearm was totally reasonable here

And when he ended up dead, that's just further evidence that he was actually dangerous, because why, it was self-defense (just read the police report!)

3/9/2012 3:22:10 PM

^^HE DIDN'T TALK TO THE POLICE. Secondly, he didn't go after him with a gun. Good spin there. there is a difference between being lawfully armed and going after someone with a gun. You're making the assumption that this guy approached the kid with the intent to kill. that hasn't even been hinted at with any released evidence.

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2012 3:23:49 PM

Quote :

"why would the kid attack him is a good point. and any answers to that are just a big of a jump as saying this guy was out looking to kill a black kid."

And any attempt to defend him is simply saying that it's totally reasonable to approach black kids with loaded weapons when they appear in YOUR (read: a white) neighborhood

You're willing to cut slack to a guy that's running around his neighborhood with a loaded pistol, approaching minors. This has resulted in a minor's death and you're looking with scrutiny at the dead child and not the adult. Boy oh boy I WONDER FUCKING WHY

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2012 3:24:13 PM

Quote :

"it could be proved that the man was out looking for the kid with the intent to cause him harm. Which does not seem far from the truth."

According to your bias, you're right.

So what you're saying he probably knew the kid from before, and was out looking for him? I would think if there had been a prior altercation or incident we would have heard about it by now

3/9/2012 3:24:33 PM

Excuse me.

He called 911.

And then later shot and killed the kid.

Better?

Let me put it this way: When someone is not committing any crime and ends up with a bullet in them. Someone else fucked up in a big way. Especially when the person killed is of a minority group that has been harassed for hundreds of years by the majority group of the shooter.

If it looks like a duck, etc.

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 3:26 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2012 3:24:41 PM

^^^I see you're wanting to call me racist again? Get a new story. If a black CCH holder did the same thing to a white kid I'd argue just the same as I am now. In fact, I'm pretty sure there was a recent story of a black CCH holder defending himself from white (I think) attackers and I praised him. OH THE RACISM.


^You left out the part about the fight, good spin though..

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 3:27 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2012 3:25:37 PM

Quote :

"you are wrong. you can use deadly force (in many states) if a person is committing a felony, which includes property."

outside of your own home?

post the statutes for me. thanks.

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 3:26 PM. Reason : i want to make sure i never visit these places]

3/9/2012 3:26:46 PM

I see you extending insane assumptions that are tailor-fit to exclude certain parties from scrutiny

Again: to follow Zimmerman ANY LENGTH OF THIS STORY you have to hold some kind of irrational, bigoted belief

Quote :

"If a black CCH holder did the same thing to a white kid I'd argue just the same as I am now. In fact, I'm pretty sure there was a recent story of a black CCH holder defending himself from white (I think) attackers and I praised him. OH THE RACISM."

Yeah somehow I fucking doubt it, because who here ever extends this much benefit of the doubt to shooters? It totally has to do with the people in the situation. If the racial parameters were any different here you'd simply see it as a murder, and you'd be arguing some flipped shit

I feel confident saying this because I've never seen you extend so much confidence and trust in the state before. Now a kid's dead and you're cool with the killer's story, and the only reasonable explanation is racial bias (because you only become Descartes when certain things are on the line)

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 3:28 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2012 3:26:46 PM

^^you've got the internet.
^as are you. THIS WAS A WHITE GUY WITH A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT AND A FIREARM. HE SHOT A BLACK KID. HE IS GUILTY AND A RACIST. NO EVIDENCE NEEDED.
keep posting lies if it makes you feel better.

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 3:29 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2012 3:27:47 PM

Quote :

"as are you. THIS WAS A WHITE GUY WITH A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT AND A FIREARM. HE SHOT A BLACK KID. HE IS GUILTY AND A RACIST. NO EVIDENCE NEEDED."

Not what anybody's saying here

And none of what you're saying makes you not a racist, especially "I'm not a racist". You're contorting in outrageous ways just to let the white guy off the hook here. If a black dude had done it you'd want to bag and tag em, because it's just another murder right?

3/9/2012 3:29:35 PM

^keep posting lies if it makes you feel better.

3/9/2012 3:30:13 PM

Quote :

"if you have a gun and someone else doesn't, it's terribly difficult to say you were protecting yourself by applying a proportionate amount of force in self-defense. You've got a fucking gun. They don't. Maybe FL allows for this sort of thing, I don't know. But on the face of it, it seems incredibly ridiculous."

[NO]

If you have a gun you have a duty to defend it. If someone tries to take the gun it is reasonable to assume your life is at stake and you have the right to defend yourself with it. The logic might be slightly circular, but that's why you can still be charged with manslaughter if you instigated the conflict. It makes a good case for not attacking people with guns.

Quote :

"But why would the kid attack him? What sort of logic does that make? One person in this "fight" is walking home with no clue of the situation. The other person is "looking for a suspicious black kid" in his neighborhood and has brought a gun with him. Do you seriously think that the person walking home was the one who instigated the conflict or can you not see past your own racial biases?"

I don't care to re-read every one of your posts in this thread, but all I can recall seeing from you is emotion. You're a fine one to talk about logic.

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 3:31 PM. Reason : l]

3/9/2012 3:30:23 PM

*injects a post-modern level of skeptical thought into considerations just in time to save a particular class of people from scrutiny*

Your reasoning might attempt to appear non-racist, but if you think people don't identify your obvious and sudden shifts in assumptions and probabilities (the application of this sort of reasoning being biased) then you give even TWW readership too little credit

3/9/2012 3:31:03 PM

I'll do your work for you. The first one that came up on Google was Hawaii's statute regarding the use of deadly force to protect property.

Quote :

" (3) The use of deadly force for the protection of property is justifiable only if: (a) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess the actor of the actor's dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or (b) The person against whom the deadly force is used is attempting to commit felonious property damage, burglary, robbery, or felonious theft and either: (i) Has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or (ii) The use of force other than deadly force to prevent the commission of the crime would expose the actor or another person in the actor's presence to substantial danger of serious bodily injury."

None of those elements are met, nor would a reasonable person hearing these facts be able to conclude that any of them are met.

3/9/2012 3:31:04 PM

Quote :

"If you have a gun you have a duty to defend it. If someone tries to take the gun it is reasonable to assume your life is at stake and you have the right to defend yourself with it. "

If he tried to take the gun from the guy, that's an entirely different set of facts.

I haven't read anything here that says that is the case. I haven't read anything that says it isnt. but wdprice's argument doesn't really acknowledge this as the reasoning behind his position.

3/9/2012 3:32:21 PM

Quote :

"(ii) The use of force other than deadly force to prevent the commission of the crime would expose the actor or another person in the actor's presence to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.""

If someone instigates a conflict with a person they know is armed they have exposed that person to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.

And why are you quoting Hawaii law? It can't be that hard to find the FL statutes.

3/9/2012 3:32:40 PM

Quote :

"If you have a gun you have a duty to defend it. If someone tries to take the gun it is reasonable to assume your life is at stake and you have the right to defend yourself with it"

There's no way the kid reached for the gun. You're only pointing that out because you're racist and will say anything to back up the white guy.

[/sarcasm]

Quote :

"wdprice's argument doesn't really acknowledge this as the reasoning behind his position."

Who says he actually has a position? You? At this point we don't know the facts. Most people (excluding Mcdanger) don't have positions because we don't know what happened. All we can do at this point is speculate on what happened...

3/9/2012 3:34:27 PM

Hawaii law, really? and you just proved yourself wrong there... isn't property mentioned?

3/9/2012 3:34:55 PM

you said "States"

im not attempting to win internet research points here.

enjoy your bigotry.

3/9/2012 3:37:13 PM

wdprice3 pointing to the police report in these kinds of cases with literally no attempt to look past it (or viewing it as perfectly neutral) is so willfully ignorant of the fact of the matter that racial-blinders is the charitable accusation here (rather than simple stupidity)

everything about this case was created by racial bias, including the fact that zimmerman's not in jail right now

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 3:37 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2012 3:37:21 PM