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

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Makarov

This is my real complaint about the whole tragedy: untrained, unmonitored, self-appointed people arming themselves and patrolling their neighbourhoods for "suspicious behaviour" (i.e., outsiders) are very, very dangerous. This sort of behaviour should be strongly condemned and discouraged (in my opinion.)

I don't disagree with you.

The bigger issue in this is gun control. When you have people carrying conceaeld weapons, relatively minor fights are going to turn into deadly situations. That's just a fact.

However, Zimmerman was not self-appointed. He volunteered for the watch yes, but the strata asked him to be the captain and set up the watch. Zimmerman also went through all training required for him to carry that gun.

As far as citizens acting as neighbourhood watchmen, Zimmerman was relatively well trained. He had a ton of experience being a watchmen, and had been one for several years before this incident. He had an educational background in criminal justice.

Read this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...83O18H20120425

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by nik-

Don't feign thickness CC. He created a confrontation in which someone was killed. He obviously didn't simply follow him. What a ridiculous response, typical internet extremism.

Holy crap, get the f%%% over yourself.

Go back and review the transcript of the call to 9-11.

Oh wait, the transcript is irrelevant because it doesn't matter what it says you won't believe it.

Eyeing houses, (in the transcript) stared at Zimmerman (hand in waist band) takes steps towards Zimmerman to check him out (something in his hand) takes off and runs.

So that's fairly suspicious, probably to a neighbourhood watch guy in a neighbour hood with Robberies.

Then in the transcipt to 9-11, he (zimmerman) says he lost him. The police say to stop pursuit, he does (again if the transcript is to be believed) and he's told to head back to meet the cops which is by his truck.

We don't know what happened until the actual fight. So you claiming confrontation, would be like me saying that Martin snuck up on Zimmerman and beat the crap out of him.

your theory is as full of holes as anyone else. But going by the 9/11 transcript, the behaviour was interpreted as at the very least odd.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

He was in the 9-11 transcript eyeing houses. In a neighbour good with breakins. Also in the transcript in teh 9-11 call he stared at Zimmerman, put his hand in the waist band of his pants. And then in the 9-11 transcript he moved towards Zimmerman with something in his hand. Before taking off.

He wasn't just walking down the sidewalk minding his business if the 9-11 call is to be believed, which the courts and investigations did

Even accepting all of this as true, if, in this scenario, Zimmerman had been a police officer and Martin had been an accused person and my client, and Cst. Zimmerman stopped Martin and questioned him, I would strongly argue that my client's s. 8 and s. 9 Charter rights were infringed by that police conduct.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by blankall

I don't disagree with you.

The bigger issue in this is gun control. When you have people carrying conceaeld weapons, relatively minor fights are going to turn into deadly situations. That's just a fact.

However, Zimmerman was not self-appointed. He volunteered for the watch yes, but the strata asked him to be the captain and set up the watch. Zimmerman also went through all training required for him to carry that gun.

As far as citizens acting as neighbourhood watchmen, Zimmerman was relatively well trained. He had a ton of experience being a watchmen, and had been one for several years before this incident. He had an educational background in criminal justice.

Read this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...83O18H20120425

Thanks for that information. I suppose, in my view, this only reinforces my point. Despite Zimmerman having more training than the average Joe Blow out there patrolling his neighbourhood, things still went terribly and tragically wrong. I just see so much potential for more and more of these types of tragedies.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Even accepting all of this as true, if, in this scenario, Zimmerman had been a police officer and Martin had been an accused person and my client, and Cst. Zimmerman stopped Martin and questioned him, I would strongly argue that my client's s. 8 and s. 9 Charter rights were infringed by that police conduct.

We aren't dealing with police conduct here. Citizens have the right to question other citizens on the street. In this case, Martin was on private property. Zimmerman had been appointed by his strata to patrol that private property.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Holy crap, get the f%%% over yourself.

Go back and review the transcript of the call to 9-11.

Oh wait, the transcript is irrelevant because it doesn't matter what it says you won't believe it.

Eyeing houses, (in the transcript) stared at Zimmerman (hand in waist band) takes steps towards Zimmerman to check him out (something in his hand) takes off and runs.

So that's fairly suspicious, probably to a neighbourhood watch guy in a neighbour hood with Robberies.

Then in the transcipt to 9-11, he (zimmerman) says he lost him. The police say to stop pursuit, he does (again if the transcript is to be believed) and he's told to head back to meet the cops which is by his truck.

We don't know what happened until the actual fight. So you claiming confrontation, would be like me saying that Martin snuck up on Zimmerman and beat the crap out of him.

your theory is as full of holes as anyone else. But going by the 9/11 transcript, the behaviour was interpreted as at the very least odd.

And all coming from the mouth of the perpetrator. The 911 transcript isn't the voice of god dude, it's the interpretation of Zimmerman himself. Your post was hyperbolic and ridiculous, and I pointed it out. Next time respond to what I actually said instead of creating some new narrative.

[WhiteTiger]

You know what I wonder in all of this? Since everyone's so fond of 'what if' scenario's...I wonder if this would even be being discussed at all if Zimmerman had been a woman. There are female neighborhood watch people. Would anyone be questioning this at all if that was the case?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by nik-

And all coming from the mouth of the perpetrator. The 911 transcript isn't the voice of god dude, it's the interpretation of Zimmerman himself. Your post was hyperbolic and ridiculous, and I pointed it out. Next time respond to what I actually said instead of creating some new narrative.

Perpetrator?

This says enough about your position. Zimmerman is the formely accussed who was found innnocent in a court of law.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by blankall

We aren't dealing with police conduct here. Citizens have the right to question other citizens on the street.

In fact, in Canada, citizens do not have the right or authority to detain and question (which is what we are really talking about here) people, unless a citizen find someone committing a criminal offence.

Originally Posted by blankall

In this case, Martin was on private property. Zimmerman had been appointed by his strata to patrol that private property.

Was he on private property? I honestly don't know.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

You know what I wonder in all of this? Since everyone's so fond of 'what if' scenario's...I wonder if this would even be being discussed at all if Zimmerman had been a woman. There are female neighborhood watch people. Would anyone be questioning this at all if that was the case?

Doubful.

If the female watchmen had shown up in the media with a broken nose and blood coming out of the back of her head, this case would look entirely different. That being said, there are few scenarios that involve a man punching a woman, hard enough to break her nose, and looking justified in those actions.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

You know what I wonder in all of this? Since everyone's so fond of 'what if' scenario's...I wonder if this would even be being discussed at all if Zimmerman had been a woman. There are female neighborhood watch people. Would anyone be questioning this at all if that was the case?

Um, yes. An unarmed teenager was shot and killed.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Was he on private property? I honestly don't know.

yep...gated community as a matter of fact.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Makarov

In fact, in Canada, citizens do not have the right or authority to detain and question (which is what we are really talking about here) people, unless a citizen find someone committing a criminal offence.



Was he on private property? I honestly don't know.

Firstly Martin was never detained.

And, yes, it was a private gated community. The streets and sidewalks within it were private property owned by the strata.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by blankall

Perpetrator?

This says enough about your position. Zimmerman is the formely accussed who was found innnocent in a court of law.

I'm sorry ... did someone else shoot Martin?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by nik-

I'm sorry ... did someone else shoot Martin?

I'm sorry was Zimmerman found guilty of committing a crime? A perpetrator is someone who has actually committed a crime.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by nik-

I'm sorry ... did someone else shoot Martin?

Are there any situations in which it would be a justified shooting in your eyes?

What kind of evidence would you have to see in this particular case to convince you that it could possibly have been a justified self-defence?

[nik-]

Yeah, killing someone is a crime. He got off on a law built on a technicality.

There's a difference between being found not guilty and being innocent, and a lot of people seem to this this guy is innocent, and he's not. If you want to sell yourself on Zimmerman the daring angel, protecting a community from the ruffians ... that's fine. He chased down and shot an unarmed kid, and we only have his side of the story, and I don't believe it, because why would he tell any sort of tale that doesn't portray him as innocent.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Are there any situations in which it would be a justified shooting in your eyes?

What kind of evidence would you have to see in this particular case to convince you that it could possibly have been a justified self-defence?

If Zimmerman hadn't of got out of his car and initiated, and Martin came and jumped him, and was beating him, then yeah ... it's justified. If Zimmerman was walking down the street and Martin jumped him out of the blue, then yeah ... that's justified. That's not what happened.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by nik-

Yeah, killing someone is a crime. He got off on a law built on a technicality.

There's a difference between being found not guilty and being innocent, and a lot of people seem to this this guy is innocent, and he's not. If you want to sell yourself on Zimmerman the daring angel, protecting a community from the ruffians ... that's fine. He chased down and shot an unarmed kid, and we only have his side of the story, and I don't believe it, because why would he tell any sort of tale that doesn't portray him as innocent.

Technicality? No, he was found innocent after trial where the trier of fact found that he had properly used self-defence. An example of a technicality would be getting off because the police had filed forms improperly. This was not a technicality by any definition of that word.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

I'm sorry was Zimmerman found guilty of committing a crime? A perpetrator is someone who has actually committed a crime.

Actually a perpetrator is someone responsible for something. Zimmerman is responsible for shooting and killing Martin, regardless of the legal outcome.