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

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Well, in my defence, we do know for a fact that Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed teenager. We also know that, barring some intervening tragedy, if Zimmerman hadn't been out patrolling the perimeter of his gated community with a loaded firearm, Trayvon Martin would still be alive.

Again, I'm not saying that these facts alone mean that Zimmerman was guilty of murder (or indeed any criminal offence). However, they are enough for my sympathies in this tragic story to lie with Martin, the dead child. I'm surprised that, for other posters, despite these few known facts, their sympathies lie with Zimmerman.

Or...Zimmerman may be dead. We just can't know what 'would have' happened. That's the tragedy I see here. There are so many 'what if's' and variables, who knows what would have happened.

I look at the case, and I think that it sucks that someone's died, and another person is likely to go into hiding for the rest of his life. That's where my sympathies lie.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Or...Zimmerman may be dead. We just can't know what 'would have' happened.

??? In what plausible scenario would Zimmerman be dead if he had stayed home that night?

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Makarov

??? In what plausible scenario would Zimmerman be dead if he had stayed home that night?

I took away the "loaded firearm" part of your post. Zimmerman was a community watchman. If he had been patrolling but without a loaded firearm...

Cleaned the post up a bit for clarity.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by nik-

You don't even need to go that far ... if Zimmerman had stayed in his car and called the police, Martin would be alive today.

He's a neighbourhood watch captain. It's his job (volunteer job granted) to investigate. Maybe he was wrong for observing Martin, and he was racist. However, that does not give the right to Martin to assault Zimmerman. That may not have actually been what happened but they weren't able to prove that Zimmerman started the physical altercation in the courts.

You obviously never had block watch in your neighbourhood. When me and my friends were teenagers wandering around at night, they would stop us and ask us questions all of the time. There's absolutely nothing illegal about that. This was on public streets. Zimmerman was on private property in a gated community.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

I took away the "loaded firearm" part of your post. Zimmerman was a community watchman. If he had been patrolling but without a loaded firearm...

Cleaned the post up a bit for clarity.

He was advised by authorities to carry the gun. He didn't start carrying it until after that.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Well, in my defence, we do know for a fact that Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed teenager. We also know that, barring some intervening tragedy, if Zimmerman hadn't been out patrolling the perimeter of his gated community with a loaded firearm, Trayvon Martin would still be alive.

Again, I'm not saying that these facts alone mean that Zimmerman was guilty of murder (or indeed any criminal offence). However, they are enough for my sympathies in this tragic story to lie with Martin, the dead child. I'm surprised that, for other posters, despite these few known facts, their sympathies lie with Zimmerman.

What we know is that we don't really know what happened that night. Anyone arguing differently are clearly biased. I mean we can't help but form opinions, but I simply don't think it's fair to make assumptions about either Zimmerman or Martin. Of course people who have formed opinions are going "but he did...but he had..but...but" which is all just bull#### (in my opinion of course).

As I believe heavily in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, I don't see why I need to chose which side I feel sympathy for either. Why can't it be both? Zimmerman has to live with killing a 17 year old and half the nation hating him (some going so far as to put a bounty on his head) thinking he's a racist murderer where from all accounts he's not racist. While the Martin family has to deal with the death of their child.

If I need to hate someone or something about this trial, it's easily the media for me. Bunch of scumbags.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

As I believe heavily in the concept of innocent until proven guilty

For the record, I practice criminal defence law. Suffice to say, so do I.

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

, I don't see why I need to chose which side I feel sympathy for either. Why can't it be both? Zimmerman has to live with killing a 17 year old and half the nation hating him (some going so far as to put a bounty on his head) thinking he's a racist murderer where from all accounts he's not racist. While the Martin family has to deal with the death of their child.

Fair point. It was silly of me to frame it as a choice between two mutually exclusive options. I suppose what I meant to say was: I'm surprised by the total absence of sympathy for Martin and his family from some posters.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by blankall

He's a neighbourhood watch captain. It's his job (volunteer job granted) to investigate. Maybe he was wrong for observing Martin, and he was racist. However, that does not give the right to Martin to assault Zimmerman. That may not have actually been what happened but they weren't able to prove that Zimmerman started the physical altercation in the courts.

You obviously never had block watch in your neighbourhood. When me and my friends were teenagers wandering around at night, they would stop us and ask us questions all of the time. There's absolutely nothing illegal about that. This was on public streets. Zimmerman was on private property in a gated community.

His job is to observe and contact the authorities. It's "Neighbourhood Watch" not "Neighbourhood Get Out Of Your Car And Chase A Presumed Perpetrator"

[blankall]

Originally Posted by nik-

His job is to observe and contact the authorities. It's "Neighbourhood Watch" not "Neighbourhood Get Out Of Your Car And Chase A Presumed Perpetrator"

Not true. He's allowed to ask people what they are doing. We have no proof as to the extent to which he chased Martin. All we know is that he got out of his car to observe him and then phoned the police. Following someone is part of observing them.

The idea that he has to stay within the confines of his car is ridiculous. You would be very limited in your ability to observe anything if that was the case.

[nik-]

What it comes down to is he created the situation in which he felt he had to kill someone. If he hadn't of created that scenario, they'd both be alive. For this reason he should be in jail, but thanks this messed up law, he's free.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by nik-

What it comes down to is he created the situation in which he felt he had to kill someone. If he hadn't of created that scenario, they'd both be alive. For this reason he should be in jail, but thanks this messed up law, he's free.

Garbage. So getting out of your car to observe and follow someone suspicious is now a jailable offense.

so maybe those two teens that chased down a child kidnapper should be charged then under your laws?

I mean at this point under your law, its irrelevant if Zimmerman was armed or not armed.

We know next to nothing about the actual scenario that lead to Martin's death. All we know is that Zimmerman was told to break off pursuit, he agreed, we heard the sound of him as he stopped running, then we heard Martin's girl friends comment. Then we jump to a witness talking about Martin on top of Zimmerman. you don't know about the confrontation and who actually initiated it. I don't know.

But your legal theory is completely unsound. Basically any time in the next little while where someone chases down a criminal and tackles him, or breaks up a mugging and punches out the mugger, you should be enraged. You should have 60 posts in the thread screaming for jail time.

Because under your model as soon as Zimmerman left his truck, well that's the legal breaking point.

This whole thing is an unfortunate and tragic situation. Zimmerman is an idiot, Martin took what I think was a foolish rish. Its tragic that Martin a young teenager is dead. But it seems to me that in this case under the rules of law in that state, Zimmerman was found not guilty.

Until the law changes, which is something that gets reviewed due to this, that is the law.

But this thread has gotten bizzarre. As has the reaction, they seem to think and this is been argued on this board over and over again, that the law should be in place to make the victims feel better. But as has been pointed out and argued, that's not what its there for in a what do people call it, a progressive society.

The prosecution failed to prove murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt. The courts gave the jury the opportunity to pursue manslaughter. Under the definition of the law they did a thorough job, and probably held their noses and upheld the law.

The problem to me, is this has really come down to race, and stirring up of emotions which has happened on both sides. But the courts couldn't prove racism, they couldn't improve intent.

Unless you want to get rid of beyond reasonable doubt and replace it with, close enough. Or this will make a faction of society feel better if we convict, or whatever. The justice system is the justice system.

The vigilantism is sickening to me at this point its gross and immoral and stupid. The media coverage on this was sickening and unethical. We're all caught up in the whirlwind of the emotion of it, myself included. But until there's some change in the burden of proof, until there's some proof that there was actually a civil rights violation, and not a tragic incident, bought on by a vigilant with a gun, and a kid who should have just gone home after he lost Zimmerman. This thing needs to be over, and people need to find their bearings.

Two lives are destroyed. Martin is dead and his family grieves and deals with their anger. Zimmerman will probably never be able to stop running and looking over his shoulder.

The whole thing is stomach churning.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by nik-

What it comes down to is he created the situation in which he felt he had to kill someone. If he hadn't of created that scenario, they'd both be alive. For this reason he should be in jail, but thanks this messed up law, he's free.

No.

First, I'd argue that American society created the situation. American society created a situation where black men are both stereotyped and more likely to commit crimes. American society created the situation where neighbourhood watchmen are advised to carry weapons.

Secondly, you have no evidence that Zimmerman was doing anything differently than neighbourhood watchmen do every night. The idea of "Creating a situation" is BS. you don't know what actually happened in between the moment that Zimmerman told 911 callers he was disengaging from his chase and witnesses said they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.

If it's true that Martin turned around and turned what was going on into a physical confrontation, that's the intervening act that led to this series of events.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Garbage. So getting out of your car to observe and follow someone suspicious is now a jailable offense.

so maybe those two teens that chased down a child kidnapper should be charged then under your laws?

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.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Garbage. So getting out of your car to observe and follow someone suspicious is now a jailable offense.

so maybe those two teens that chased down a child kidnapper should be charged then under your laws?

I mean at this point under your law, its irrelevant if Zimmerman was armed or not armed.

We know next to nothing about the actual scenario that lead to Martin's death. All we know is that Zimmerman was told to break off pursuit, he agreed, we heard the sound of him as he stopped running, then we heard Martin's girl friends comment. Then we jump to a witness talking about Martin on top of Zimmerman. you don't know about the confrontation and who actually initiated it. I don't know.

But your legal theory is completely unsound. Basically any time in the next little while where someone chases down a criminal and tackles him, or breaks up a mugging and punches out the mugger, you should be enraged. You should have 60 posts in the thread screaming for jail time.

Because under your model as soon as Zimmerman left his truck, well that's the legal breaking point.

Am I missing something? As far as I know, at the time Zimmerman began monitoring him, Trayvon Martin was just walking down the street. He wasn't doing anything suspicious, he hadn't kidnapped anyone, he wasn't a criminal, and he didn't mug anyone.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by blankall

American society created the situation where neighbourhood watchmen are advised to carry weapons.

Secondly, you have no evidence that Zimmerman was doing anything differently than neighbourhood watchmen do every night.

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.)

[nik-]

Originally Posted by blankall

No.

First, I'd argue that American society created the situation. American society created a situation where black men are both stereotyped and more likely to commit crimes. American society created the situation where neighbourhood watchmen are advised to carry weapons.

Well I can't disagree with that.

[FlamesAddiction]

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 agree. There are apparently 200 house holds in this "neighbourhood" as well. How would you even recognize an outsider?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I agree. There are apparently 200 house holds in this "neighbourhood" as well. How would you even recognize an outsider?

Look for the black or latino guy? (Likely not in this particular case, but I suspect that is the criteria in many similar neighbourhoods in the United States.)

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Am I missing something? As far as I know, at the time Zimmerman began monitoring him, Trayvon Martin was just walking down the street. He wasn't doing anything suspicious, he hadn't kidnapped anyone, he wasn't a criminal, and he didn't mug anyone.

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

[valo403]

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

Did they? What's your basis for that? A not guilty verdict doesn't stamp every piece of evidence presented in support of the defense as 'believed' or otherwise lend it any legitimacy. A not guilty verdict says that the weight of ALL of the evidence did not rise beyond a reasonable doubt.