Black teen shot and killed by neighborhood watch in Orlando gated community

[HELPNEEDED]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't know who Digital Journal is, but an interesting article about this case being tried in the court of public opinion and the media's role in it including a I guess unedited copy of the 9/11 call and discussions around the amount of editing that's happened to this tape by the media

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/321817

Different groups calling for hate crime charges, some people come out in Zimmerman's defense

http://www.daily-chronicle.com/2012/...urorry/?page=1

More from CBS

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...ly-remorseful/

I don't know, this thing is getting a bit silly with the Black Panther's offering a bounty on Zimmerman, and the whole charge him with a hate crime aspect.

You can't start arresting people and charging them with hate crimes because of public opinion, the justice system is suppossed to be above public opinion.

I think this is a case of a moron with a gun trying to be a cop, I think this is a case of a teenager making a bad decision (I know this makes me look bad, but 1. I learned early that you don't charge a person unless you know what that person's state of mind is, and if he's packing. 2) I'm going off of the theory that the stories about Zimmerman's injuries and torn shirt are true.)

I think this was a tragic confluence of events, a guy that was legally licenced to carry a gun and appointed to a neighbourhood watch program who shouldn't have had a fire arm, who made a bad probably hyped up judgement call, a teenage boy who made a decision that wasn't a good decision.

I very much doubt that this falls into a hate crime.

Because of the job that the media has done on this and the various groups have done on this ie Black Panthers, Al Sharpton (again!!), the invesigations and the steps forward are probably not going to gain a conviction, and if they do there will be questions about a fair trial. How the F would you even sit a jury in this case without it being a appealed either which way along racial lines?

What this has shown me, is the amount of mistrust and anger along racial lines in the states that is happening to this day, and that's the biggest tragedy in this whole thing.

But you can charge them with murder, for shooting someone in cold blood.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

1. Who exactly has been charged with a hate crime?

Go back and take a look at all of these reports today that are crying out to charge Zimmerman with hate crimes, you even have prosecutors talking about it in the media. I didn't say that he had been, and if it came off that way I apologize for that.

2. Interesting that you're willing to jump to conclusions and believe select bits of evidence when they agree with how you've decided that this scenario played out.

What? I don't believe that I've reached a conslusion on anything, I can't reach a conclusion until this thing hits a court and everything comes out. I have a theory, that's a whole different thing, maybe I should change my post from "I think" to I have a theory.

Even if I believe that Zimmerman has a torn shirt and was 'charged' are you seriously sitting there and suggesting that fighting back against a psychopath who comes at you with a gun is a bad decision? You would have just stood there and took it? I find that incredibly hard to believe. You have no idea when the gun entered the equation, you have no idea who charged who, and actually none of us do because we're dealing with a police force that took a 'nothing to see here' approach to the death of a 17 year old boy walking home from the store.

Your adding in a lot of after the fact data hoss, your saying that the police should have been prejudged by the victim?

Your labeling the shooter as a psychopath, but you don't know that and I don't know that, and again I agree with you, we don't know what happened.

I'm not saying that there is a nothing to see here case, I don't know where the hell you got that from, but to me this has become a battle between the media, special interest groups and the justice system more then anything else. We don't have the facts, and I will admit that I mis stated my OPINION that this wasn't a hate crime, it was stupidity and probably stupidity on both sides.

If anything I theorize, think, that at this point this isn't a debate about racial issues, and about hate crimes as much as it should be a debate about gun control, and neighbourhood vigilatism and the stupidity of the stand fast law and its interpretation.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by HELPNEEDED

But you can charge them with murder, for shooting someone in cold blood.

sure you can, but there is little in the way of actual proof that this was even a cold blooded killing.

I don't want to come out on one side or the other, because apparently I'm already a villian after one post.

But I doubt that you could even look at anymore then manslaughter here due to witness statements of Zimmerman of the ground with the victim on top of him.

[HELPNEEDED]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

sure you can, but there is little in the way of actual proof that this was even a cold blooded killing.

I don't want to come out on one side or the other, because apparently I'm already a villian after one post.

But I doubt that you could even look at anymore then manslaughter here due to witness statements of Zimmerman of the ground with the victim on top of him.

I don't know, gun shot, dead unarmed kid and a vigilante with a gun. Really hard to debate.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by HELPNEEDED

I don't know, gun shot, dead unarmed kid and a vigilante with a gun. Really hard to debate.

I think it is hard to debate. Can you prove that its cold blooded? Just because it was a moron with a hero complex and a gun that resulted in death doesn't make it cold blooded at all.

Just to play Devils Advocate here, Prove the intent, with the conflicting eye witness statements, prove that there wasn't a fight that left the shooter feeling that he needed to defend himself.

You could certainly argue manslaughter (lawyers could help me out here), but I have my doubts that they could convict on first or even second degree murder.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Go back and take a look at all of these reports today that are crying out to charge Zimmerman with hate crimes, you even have prosecutors talking about it in the media. I didn't say that he had been, and if it came off that way I apologize for that.

Your adding in a lot of after the fact data hoss, your saying that the police should have been prejudged by the victim?

Your labeling the shooter as a psychopath, but you don't know that and I don't know that, and again I agree with you, we don't know what happened.

I'm not saying that there is a nothing to see here case, I don't know where the hell you got that from, but to me this has become a battle between the media, special interest groups and the justice system more then anything else. We don't have the facts, and I will admit that I mis stated my OPINION that this wasn't a hate crime, it was stupidity and probably stupidity on both sides.

If anything I theorize, think, that at this point this isn't a debate about racial issues, and about hate crimes as much as it should be a debate about gun control, and neighbourhood vigilatism and the stupidity of the stand fast law and its interpretation.

Since when is the media being outlandish in this world of 24 hour news channels a new thing? The fact that media outlets are going overboard is to be expected, it does not however have anything to do with whether or not this is actually a hate crime.

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding the police being prejudged by the victim, I'm not even sure what that means. I have yet to see a lick of evidence that indicates that Martin did anything wrong, he walked home with his hood up. That's it. All we know beyond that is that he was stalked down by a guy who was told by the police to not do so. What happened when they encountered each other is a mystery, but what's very clear is that the local police department did very little to change that.

Btw, I never said that you think this is a nothing to see here case. I explicitly said that the local police force handled it in that manner.

I agree completely with your last paragraph, this is about allowing anyone to have a gun and then putting a law in place that makes it way too easy for them to use it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think it is hard to debate. Can you prove that its cold blooded? Just because it was a moron with a hero complex and a gun that resulted in death doesn't make it cold blooded at all.

Just to play Devils Advocate here, Prove the intent, with the conflicting eye witness statements, prove that there wasn't a fight that left the shooter feeling that he needed to defend himself.

You could certainly argue manslaughter (lawyers could help me out here), but I have my doubts that they could convict on first or even second degree murder.

I don't think there's anyway that you'd get a conviction on a murder charge based on the facts available. It's definitely more of a manslaughter situation.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think it is hard to debate. Can you prove that its cold blooded? Just because it was a moron with a hero complex and a gun that resulted in death doesn't make it cold blooded at all.

Just to play Devils Advocate here, Prove the intent, with the conflicting eye witness statements, prove that there wasn't a fight that left the shooter feeling that he needed to defend himself.

You could certainly argue manslaughter (lawyers could help me out here), but I have my doubts that they could convict on first or even second degree murder.

It will largely depend on where the first shot went in, if it turns out kid was shot in the back then they aught to be able to fire up old sparky.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

It will largely depend on where the first shot went in, if it turns out kid was shot in the back then they aught to be able to fire up old sparky.

Don't disagree with that at all.

Wait I thought you were anti-death penalty?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Don't disagree with that at all.

Wait I thought you were anti-death penalty?

Largely am, on practical rather than moral grounds, none the less if it turns out the kid was shot in the back the narrative will become 'hispanic shots american' real quick and in florida that means 'frying tonight'.

[nik-]

I don't even think it matters where the kid was shot. The guy called in, was told not to pursue, obviously initiated contact and then shot the kid.

This isn't self defence, it's starting a fight and murdering someone.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by nik-

I don't even think it matters where the kid was shot. The guy called in, was told not to pursue, obviously initiated contact and then shot the kid.

This isn't self defence, it's starting a fight and murdering someone.

Are you basing it on the 2 minute tape of the 9/11 recording or the 4 minute tape?

Even if I start a fight, I feel my life is in jeopardy because I'm over matched etc then that falls under self defense whether I started it or not.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

sure you can, but there is little in the way of actual proof that this was even a cold blooded killing.

I don't want to come out on one side or the other, because apparently I'm already a villian after one post.

But I doubt that you could even look at anymore then manslaughter here due to witness statements of Zimmerman of the ground with the victim on top of him.

You've lost your way Captain. I can't believe you are defending the shooter.

If someone had described a scenario where YOU (CaptainCrunch) were walking through a neighbourhood doing nothing more than returning to your grandmothers home and you were confronted and challenged by a citizen who demanded to know who you were and what you were up to, the Captain I know would say something along the lines of "I'd kick the a$$ of anyone who tried that with me".

And then you'd be dead and certain people would be arguing that you probably had it coming.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by nik-

I don't even think it matters where the kid was shot. The guy called in, was told not to pursue, obviously initiated contact and then shot the kid.

This isn't self defence, it's starting a fight and murdering someone.

Even if that's all true and he started the altercation I don't think it would rise to the level of a murder charge.

This is the language in Florida's homicide statue for second degree murder:

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree

That bolded portion is key, and I think it would be pretty difficult to make that case unless there is a lot more to the story than we have heard. There are other ways to get to murder, mainly through a death occurring in the course of a list of other crimes, but I don't see any that would be applicable to Zimmerman.

This is the manslaughter language:

The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree

It basically says that any killing that doesn't meet the level of murder, and isn't excused, is manslaughter. I think that's where this falls.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Are you basing it on the 2 minute tape of the 9/11 recording or the 4 minute tape?

Even if I start a fight, I feel my life is in jeopardy because I'm over matched etc then that falls under self defense whether I started it or not.

That's not always true

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You've lost your way Captain. I can't believe you are defending the shooter.

If someone had described a scenario where YOU (CaptainCrunch) were walking through a neighbourhood doing nothing more than returning to your grandmothers home and you were confronted and challenged by a citizen who demanded to know who you were and what you were up to, the Captain I know would say something along the lines of "I'd kick the a$$ of anyone who tried that with me".

And then you'd be dead and certain people would be arguing that you probably had it coming.

to be honest, I'm not all that comfortable in the role in this debate, I know how I would react to someone following me or stalking me, and there have been times, (when I was much younger where I should have been dead. I've got a nice scar on my shoulder that made me a little smarter after the fact, and a small scar on my forehead that attests to it too.)

I've probably lost my way on this because I am torn on this debate.

There is a huge part in my head that no doubt believes that at the very least this has to be examined by a unbiased justice system and at the very least run through the courts.

There is a huge part in my head that's screaming out that we don't know the fact and where I'm debating poorly is that people are throwing out terms like hate crime, and cold blooded murder, and I'm not sure that is the case and that we don't have enough information to be making those leaps but the media is certainly making large leaps.

There is a small part in my brain that's telling me that even if Zimmerman is charged that there is next to no chance that there is going to be a jury that they can seat that's going to be fair and unbiased anywhere.

I don't know, maybe I am lost, I clearly have no clue about what actually happened, and I don't think anyone does but all of us, myself included really seem to be eager to fill in details as fact.

And trust me when I go, there will be people who stand over my coffin and swear that I had it coming.

[HELPNEEDED]

Its amazing when you can't even walk down a street without getting shot by block watch.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Are you basing it on the 2 minute tape of the 9/11 recording or the 4 minute tape?

Even if I start a fight, I feel my life is in jeopardy because I'm over matched etc then that falls under self defense whether I started it or not.

But that's not self-defence, that's an escalation in your offence.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by HELPNEEDED

Its amazing when you can't even walk down a street without getting shot by block watch.

I was in Phoenix in November, doing some trail running in the desert when I decided to take a shortcut out of the park through what turned out to be a gated community.

It was fenced but there was an opening for the residents to enter the park from their communty so I blazed onward and inward, entering their land of wonderful, protected homes.

Bit of a maze to get out of there and get on the road I wanted to be on.

Fortunately, I wasn't shot.

Cowperson

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Fortunately, I wasn't shot.

Asking the inevitable question - are you black?