bhodilee wrote:Yawn......
Obama himself isn't stupid enough to turn this into a racial election. He'll lose if he does that. Insofar as BET pandering to black people, well, it isn't Cracker Entertainment Television now is it? It's playing to the audience that watches the network, exactly as one would expect. Which is why you're not very likely to see many Pro Obama pieces on Fox News this month.

Not so sure about this. He's trying to walk a fine line of heavily (and heavy-handedly) playing the race card to gain guiltburger votes without quite making it a truly racial election (which, as you quite correctly point out, he would lose).

Obama has managed, with his henchthing Holder, to set race relations in this country back at least 30, if not 50 years -- at least in terms of the attitudes of people I hear.

rpm wrote:Obama has managed, with his henchthing Holder, to set race relations in this country back at least 30, if not 50 years -- at least in terms of the attitudes of people I hear.

This is a tremendously loaded statement and without further explanation, it sounds like you're blaming Obama and Holder for others' ignorance and stupidity.

kylemittskus wrote:This is a tremendously loaded statement and without further explanation, it sounds like you're blaming Obama and Holder for others' ignorance and stupidity.

True...it is more likely that O & Holder are carriers of ignorance and stupidity. I truly cannot remember a public statement by either that I did not cringe from in disagreement.

If Obama is trying to exploit a group's fear of persecution by the masses in order to win votes, it's cheap and it sucks but it's standard procedure. The only way to avoid voting for a candidate who does that is to write in someone who's not running. I'm having a hard time buying the Obama-hates-whitey narrative.

coynedj wrote:Wait a sec. The comment about the 50's was made by a journalist on a video made by BET - as I read the article, neither of them is associated with the actual Obama campaign. Having a link on a web site is different from being a confirmed strategy of the campaign committee.

The claim that the Obama campaign will say that opposition to Obama must be based on race came from a GOP strategist, and is an assertion without any real evidence supporting it (unless you consider "they had a link on their website to something where someone said something that can be construed that way, and therefore it's an official policy of the campaign" as being real evidence).

Because do you really think the Obama campaign will come out and say that? Or will it be whispered in the shadows, as in his last campaign? The GOP guy is just stating the obvious.

These are some of his closest supporters, some of whom are sure to slant BET programs just as much as NBC, Fox, etc. do.

It's never what is said, but what you can read between the lines. And his current policies as well.

kylemittskus wrote:I retract my apology and comment and stand by my first statement. Your turn Sparky.

Then you didn't read the article. Multiple links to the videos, not just one. And including Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s longtime aide and a former Chicago government official. So she should know more about what goes on inside Obama's campaign than most.

And what about .. “We have to press reset, start over, wipe the slate clear and tell the story to young people,” Butterfield-Jones added."??

What's to reset? Other than to try to hide the truth?


Edit: And if Obama was really "For America", he wouldn't have anything on the Trayvon Martin incident until all the facts are out ... which more and more looks like the media's rush to false judgement.

MarkDaSpark wrote: And if Obama was really "For America", he wouldn't have anything on the Trayvon Martin incident until all the facts are out ... which more and more looks like the media's rush to false judgement.

This one is interesting to me. I read somewhere (can't remember specifics) that conservatives were a bit up in arms about what Obama said. I only remember Obama saying that we should find out exactly what happened, and that if he had a son he'd look like Trayvon. Now again, I'm just going on vague memory, but that doesn't seem all that inflammatory. It's no secret that someone's appearance influences first impressions of them, and to pretend otherwise would be disingenuous.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Then you didn't read the article.

Yep. Still didn't click. Mainly because I think that it's really uninteresting. I don't think Obama is playing race fear cards any more than any one else plays religion is dying fear cards or condoms fear cards etc. etc. I'm really sick of any discussion relating to race on either side of the coin. Obama is black. Everyone needs to get over it, black and white and the rest.

chemvictim wrote:This one is interesting to me. I read somewhere (can't remember specifics) that conservatives were a bit up in arms about what Obama said. I only remember Obama saying that we should find out exactly what happened, and that if he had a son he'd look like Trayvon. Now again, I'm just going on vague memory, but that doesn't seem all that inflammatory. It's no secret that someone's appearance influences first impressions of them, and to pretend otherwise would be disingenuous.

I was actually surprised that this didn't come up before (I meant to bring it up myself). I haven't heard Obama say anything that I thought was out of line, although I may have missed it. The situation itself is really interesting to me. Seems really shady at best, IMO, that an unarmed kid is shot by a man who police told not to pursue... We will never know exactly what happened, but I think it's an interesting jumping off point for right to bear arms discussions, right to use deadly force discussions, etc. I think the race issue, which was obviously going to be brought up immediately is far less interesting, although certainly discussable, as well.

gregorylane wrote:True...it is more likely that O & Holder are carriers of ignorance and stupidity. I truly cannot remember a public statement by either that I did not cringe from in disagreement.

Which is a completely different statement. They both may be complete fools, but to say that they have negatively affected "race relations" to the point where they are back to the level they were during segregation is, IMO, pretty absurd. I'm not saying that there aren't people who fit into that belief category; I'm saying the people who do would be there either way and to put that blame on someone else is equally absurd.

kylemittskus wrote:I was actually surprised that this didn't come up before (I meant to bring it up myself). I haven't heard Obama say anything that I thought was out of line, although I may have missed it. The situation itself is really interesting to me. Seems really shady at best, IMO, that an unarmed kid is shot by a man who police told not to pursue... We will never know exactly what happened, but I think it's an interesting jumping off point for right to bear arms discussions, right to use deadly force discussions, etc. I think the race issue, which was obviously going to be brought up immediately is far less interesting, although certainly discussable, as well.

And that's the problem in a nutshell. He WASN'T told by the police not to pursue. Plus NBC was called out for making it seem he was racist, when in fact he isn't. AND he was by his car (after giving up looking for TM) when he confronted by TM. Know the facts of the incident before assuming someone is guilty.

The other thing the MSM isn't mentioning is how the accused was one of the driving forces to get justice for a homeless black man who was beaten by the son of a police officer.


And the whole point that you are missing is that the law the MSM (and liberals) are up in arms about (and in fact really doesn't apply to this incident) has nothing to do with the using deadly force, but rather that you don't have to run away in a public area when someone threatens you. In essence, they want to go back to the days they could prosecute you for not running away when someone attacks you in a public area.

chemvictim wrote:This one is interesting to me. I read somewhere (can't remember specifics) that conservatives were a bit up in arms about what Obama said. I only remember Obama saying that we should find out exactly what happened, and that if he had a son he'd look like Trayvon. Now again, I'm just going on vague memory, but that doesn't seem all that inflammatory. It's no secret that someone's appearance influences first impressions of them, and to pretend otherwise would be disingenuous.

One of the BET videos that the Obama For America website previously hosted touched on the contentious issues surrounding the Feb. 26 Trayvon Martin shooting.

“Trayvon Martin’s death sparks outrage,” Kim Keenan, the NAACP’s counsel, said in a video carried on Obama’s campaign website until Tuesday afternoon.

“These kinds of things are happening in communities all over America, but it takes something like this to finally get a camera on it, and that’s what we need to change.

If Obama wanted to find out "exactly what happened", why was this link there, if not to pander to voters?

And if you compare the two, it's highly unlikely that Obama would have a son who looked like TM.


And speaking of first impressions, how about those of the accused? Booking photos aren't really that good for first impressions, are they?

MarkDaSpark wrote:If Obama wanted to find out "exactly what happened", why was this link there, if not to pander to voters?

And if you compare the two, it's highly unlikely that Obama would have a son who looked like TM.


And speaking of first impressions, how about those of the accused? Booking photos aren't really that good for first impressions, are they?

Obama panders to voters because he's a politician, and he will do it at any opportunity. I still haven't seen anything to suggest he said something out of line.

The photos were obviously chosen to make T look as young and innocent as possible and for Z to look menacing. That's an easy one. I don't blame Obama for it.

Z's story is not really all that clear. There's some fuzziness and conflicting reports about what happened between his leaving the car and the shooting. What does seem clear is that he followed the kid around for awhile in the car, and then got out of the car and tried to follow him on foot. He didn't have to do that, the police were on their way. He was not in a position where he was forced to stand his ground at that time. If he ever was in that position, it was after he pursued T. From the 911 transcripts, Z seems quite agitated and aggressive, and he'd have been better off going home and popping a xanax rather than creeping around the neighborhood like Elmer Fudd. I don't buy the 'mean old racist out to shoot a black man for no reason' nonsense, but I'm not buying Z as an innocent victim either.

chemvictim wrote:If Obama is trying to exploit a group's fear of persecution by the masses in order to win votes, it's cheap and it sucks but it's standard procedure. The only way to avoid voting for a candidate who does that is to write in someone who's not running. I'm having a hard time buying the Obama-hates-whitey narrative.

BARACK OBAMA DOESN'T CARE ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE!

chemvictim wrote:Obama panders to voters because he's a politician, and he will do it at any opportunity. I still haven't seen anything to suggest he said something out of line.

The photos were obviously chosen to make T look as young and innocent as possible and for Z to look menacing. That's an easy one. I don't blame Obama for it.

Z's story is not really all that clear. There's some fuzziness and conflicting reports about what happened between his leaving the car and the shooting. What does seem clear is that he followed the kid around for awhile in the car, and then got out of the car and tried to follow him on foot. He didn't have to do that, the police were on their way. He was not in a position where he was forced to stand his ground at that time. If he ever was in that position, it was after he pursued T. From the 911 transcripts, Z seems quite agitated and aggressive, and he'd have been better off going home and popping a xanax rather than creeping around the neighborhood like Elmer Fudd. I don't buy the 'mean old racist out to shoot a black man for no reason' nonsense, but I'm not buying Z as an innocent victim either.

True, but then again, he did have a bloody nose and an injury to the back of his head. And the Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, because supposedly Z was on his back on the ground, with T trying to beat him. Hard to stand at that point.

kylemittskus wrote:This is a tremendously loaded statement and without further explanation, it sounds like you're blaming Obama and Holder for others' ignorance and stupidity.

No, I'm blaming Obama for fostering a climate of divisiveness and racial hatred that belies the 'hope and change' and unifying rhetoric of the 2008 campaign. And, the Justice Department under Henchthing Holder has been anything but evenhanded and colorblind. The evidence of their behavior suggests to me that their views are virulently racist, even if they avoid saying it openly.

Note (to respond here to a point you made further down the thread) I am not saying this is a return to the period of actual segregation -- that was more than 50 years ago. I'm specifically saying they are encouraging the kinds of interracial tension that existed in the period after the end of legal segregation that led to riots and other violence in LA, Detroit, Newark and other places.

I was around during the period of the Civil Rights movement, and I remember it pretty vividly right there in black and white (pun intended). I was even a participant (in a very small way) in the Southern Students Organizing Committee (SSOC) in college in Virginia. Being opposed to segregation wasn't an easy 'mom and apple pie' proposition at VMI in the mid-1960s. I saw integration happen in a number of places.

It has taken America - both black and white - a generation to heal many of those wounds and for people's attitudes to evolve. And, to be sure, the loose tribalism we call 'racism' in this country still exists in some people of both races. Blacks have pretty much been let off the hook for virulently racist attitudes towards whites, and there are people out there like Rev. Wright, Farrakhan, the late Derrick Bell, who are as viciously racist as any unreconstructed Klansman. (One might respond that there are also still white racists as vicious. While true as far as it goes, such people are marginalized, not influential in the way Wright, Farrakhan, Jackson, Sharpton, Bell, etc. are in the black community and on the larger political stage.)

Obama's life, from his high school age association with Frank Marshall Davis on through his life in Chicago as a member for more than 20 years of Wright's church, has been thoroughly marinated in deeply and viciously racist attitudes which permeate the way he views the world.

MarkDaSpark wrote:True, but then again, he did have a bloody nose and an injury to the back of his head. And the Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, because supposedly Z was on his back on the ground, with T trying to beat him. Hard to stand at that point.

I still find it hard to believe that Z was standing peacefully by himself when T emerged from the darkness to beat him silly with his iced tea bottle. I find it much more likely that Z had a more active part in their confrontation, considering he was actively stalking the kid and was angry that he might get away. I think you're really pushing 'stand your ground' when you go out armed and stalking strangers in the night. FL law apparently says otherwise, but I'm still not buying Z as the good guy.

chemvictim wrote:I still find it hard to believe that Z was standing peacefully by himself when T emerged from the darkness to beat him silly with his iced tea bottle. I find it much more likely that Z had a more active part in their confrontation, considering he was actively stalking the kid and was angry that he might get away. I think you're really pushing 'stand your ground' when you go out armed and stalking strangers in the night. FL law apparently says otherwise, but I'm still not buying Z as the good guy.

Well, I'm simply not privy to what actually happened so I'm not certain what was likely and unlikely.

Your characterization of a neighborhood watch guy stalking the kid is at best misleading. Following someone because they are behaving (to your mind - regardless of the person's actual intentions) suspiciously is not stalking, which implies following stealthily.

Moreover, suggesting that a neighborhood watch group member looses the right to self-defense because they are legally armed in an environment where crime is high, is absurd.

As much as some people would like to be able to rely on the police to protect them, essentially abdicating their duty of self-preservation to the police, the fact is that the police serve to deter crime and investigate crimes after they happen. It is only serendipitously that a policeman/woman can actually stop a crime in progress.

We should encourage people to defend themselves, their families and their property, and encourage them to have, and be trained in the use of, the means to do so. For most of us, that means firearms. The old saw is God created men and women, but Sam Colt made them equal. Generally speaking, most men are physically larger and stronger than most women. To defend herself, the most effect means for a woman is a pistol she knows how to shoot, of sufficiently large caliber to stop a berserk thug. A .25 or .32 caliber PPK won't cut it. .357 magnum or better, imho, though my father always thought a .38 special or 9mm was adequate.

What we don't know is whether Z continued to follow M after his conversation with the dispatcher - Z says no, but I'll call it unknown - and who actually initiated the confrontation.

If there was a fight, regardless of who started it, this was not a 'stand your ground' situation, but rather one where ordinary principles governing raising the affirmative defense of self-defense would apply.

rpm wrote:Well, I'm simply not privy to what actually happened so I'm not certain what was likely and unlikely.

Your characterization of a neighborhood watch guy stalking the kid is at best misleading. Following someone because they are behaving (to your mind - regardless of the person's actual intentions) suspiciously is not stalking, which implies following stealthily.

Moreover, suggesting that a neighborhood watch group member looses the right to self-defense because they are legally armed in an environment where crime is high, is absurd.

As much as some people would like to be able to rely on the police to protect them, essentially abdicating their duty of self-preservation to the police, the fact is that the police serve to deter crime and investigate crimes after they happen. It is only serendipitously that a policeman/woman can actually stop a crime in progress.

We should encourage people to defend themselves, their families and their property, and encourage them to have, and be trained in the use of, the means to do so. For most of us, that means firearms. The old saw is God created men and women, but Sam Colt made them equal. Generally speaking, most men are physically larger and stronger than most women. To defend herself, the most effect means for a woman is a pistol she knows how to shoot, of sufficiently large caliber to stop a berserk thug. A .25 or .32 caliber PPK won't cut it. .357 magnum or better, imho, though my father always thought a .38 special or 9mm was adequate.

What we don't know is whether Z continued to follow M after his conversation with the dispatcher - Z says no, but I'll call it unknown - and who actually initiated the confrontation.

If there was a fight, regardless of who started it, this was not a 'stand your ground' situation, but rather one where ordinary principles governing raising the affirmative defense of self-defense would apply.

QFT
Live in the county next to Sanford, 20-25% of the residents have a CWP.

rpm wrote:Well, I'm simply not privy to what actually happened so I'm not certain what was likely and unlikely.

Your characterization of a neighborhood watch guy stalking the kid is at best misleading. Following someone because they are behaving (to your mind - regardless of the person's actual intentions) suspiciously is not stalking, which implies following stealthily.

Moreover, suggesting that a neighborhood watch group member looses the right to self-defense because they are legally armed in an environment where crime is high, is absurd.

As much as some people would like to be able to rely on the police to protect them, essentially abdicating their duty of self-preservation to the police, the fact is that the police serve to deter crime and investigate crimes after they happen. It is only serendipitously that a policeman/woman can actually stop a crime in progress.

We should encourage people to defend themselves, their families and their property, and encourage them to have, and be trained in the use of, the means to do so. For most of us, that means firearms. The old saw is God created men and women, but Sam Colt made them equal. Generally speaking, most men are physically larger and stronger than most women. To defend herself, the most effect means for a woman is a pistol she knows how to shoot, of sufficiently large caliber to stop a berserk thug. A .25 or .32 caliber PPK won't cut it. .357 magnum or better, imho, though my father always thought a .38 special or 9mm was adequate.

What we don't know is whether Z continued to follow M after his conversation with the dispatcher - Z says no, but I'll call it unknown - and who actually initiated the confrontation.

If there was a fight, regardless of who started it, this was not a 'stand your ground' situation, but rather one where ordinary principles governing raising the affirmative defense of self-defense would apply.

We don't know for sure. My opinion =/= law, so I'm not saying we must run out and arrest Z, just that I don't believe he's this poor innocent. Whatever you want to call it, he was following T around the neighborhood first in the car and then on foot. There's no law against doing that as far as I know, but a reasonable person would understand that it may be perceived as threatening. I'd feel very threatened if some random guy was following me around, especially if he got out of the car and got closer. If a non-policeman is going to patrol the neighborhood, he should at least have the common sense to realize that. A cop would have identified himself to T, and likely would be in uniform and recognizable. Z was just a creepy stranger following him around.

Believe it or not, I'm not anti-gun, so you don't have to convince me. However (to me at least), a responsible gun owner is one who hopes he won't have to use it. I'm not arguing that Z didn't have the right to carry a gun, or the right to defend himself if he was attacked, but it's a bad idea and just plain irresponsible to behave in an aggressive or threatening manner since you can just shoot the guy if it goes wrong.

chemvictim wrote:
Believe it or not, I'm not anti-gun, so you don't have to convince me. However (to me at least), a responsible gun owner is one who hopes he won't have to use it. I'm not arguing that Z didn't have the right to carry a gun, or the right to defend himself if he was attacked, but it's a bad idea and just plain irresponsible to behave in an aggressive or threatening manner since you can just shoot the guy if it goes wrong.

Of course a responsible gun owner hopes he won't have to shoot anyone, but is prepared to do so.

Where we differ is that the facts of this particular case are sufficiently unclear from everything I've read to say with certainty that Z was or was not behaving aggressively or threateningly. Up to a grand jury, in the first instance, to listen to all the stories from Z and the witnesses, and to sift through any forensic evidence, diagrams of who was where when, etc.

rpm wrote:No, I'm blaming Obama for fostering a climate of divisiveness and racial hatred that belies the 'hope and change' and unifying rhetoric of the 2008 campaign. And, the Justice Department under Henchthing Holder has been anything but evenhanded and colorblind.

What have they done specifically? I obviously don't want a comprehensive list, but I would have never thought such a thing, mainly because I largely ignore race issues that are brought up from both sides. Racism absolutely exists and it exists on both sides. Talking about who's more racist or why one group has justification for their racism is a completely pointless endeavor, IMO, but it's largely what people who make race such an issue want to discuss.

kylemittskus wrote:What have they done specifically? I obviously don't want a comprehensive list, but I would have never thought such a thing, mainly because I largely ignore race issues that are brought up from both sides. Racism absolutely exists and it exists on both sides. Talking about who's more racist or why one group has justification for their racism is a completely pointless endeavor, IMO, but it's largely what people who make race such an issue want to discuss.

That is a very long reply for which I do not have time now.

I don’t know with any certainty what happened that night in Sanford. None of us do. Zimmerman’s seeming eagerness to confront Martin, who from what I’ve seen was not doing anything suspicious beyond simply walking with his Skitles and iced tea, does indicate (not conclusively, of course) that it was he who started the confrontation. It is not a stretch to think that it was Martin who was standing his ground, rather than Zimmerman.

Where I do have a problem is in the blanket assertions being made about this case. Obama hasn’t made them – saying that if he had a son he would look like Martin doesn’t in any way address the facts of what happened that night. But one poster here has said that Zimmerman “in fact” isn’t racist, and was standing by his car when Martin confronted him, neither of which seems to be an established truth. There is also the statement that the police did not tell him not to pursue, despite the 911 transcript (the words “don’t pursue him” were not stated, but the message was abundantly clear).

The “stand your ground” law, even if it doesn’t apply in this case, does merit the scrutiny it is receiving. And Zimmerman’s actions deserve scrutiny as well; the fact that he was armed and the fact that he was engaging in a neighborhood watch, by themselves, give me no trouble whatsoever. It is his actions that are in question. I’ve seen claims that Zimmerman is a hero which sicken me in their blatant racism. Those who say categorically that Martin is at fault sure seem to be depending on the word of someone who, if he said differently, would be facing a murder charge.

coynedj wrote:I don’t know with any certainty what happened that night in Sanford. None of us do. Zimmerman’s seeming eagerness to confront Martin, who from what I’ve seen was not doing anything suspicious beyond simply walking with his Skitles and iced tea, does indicate (not conclusively, of course) that it was he who started the confrontation. It is not a stretch to think that it was Martin who was standing his ground, rather than Zimmerman.

Where I do have a problem is in the blanket assertions being made about this case. Obama hasn’t made them – saying that if he had a son he would look like Martin doesn’t in any way address the facts of what happened that night. But one poster here has said that Zimmerman “in fact” isn’t racist, and was standing by his car when Martin confronted him, neither of which seems to be an established truth. There is also the statement that the police did not tell him not to pursue, despite the 911 transcript (the words “don’t pursue him” were not stated, but the message was abundantly clear).

The “stand your ground” law, even if it doesn’t apply in this case, does merit the scrutiny it is receiving. And Zimmerman’s actions deserve scrutiny as well; the fact that he was armed and the fact that he was engaging in a neighborhood watch, by themselves, give me no trouble whatsoever. It is his actions that are in question. I’ve seen claims that Zimmerman is a hero which sicken me in their blatant racism. Those who say categorically that Martin is at fault sure seem to be depending on the word of someone who, if he said differently, would be facing a murder charge.

I'm conflicted. In the end I think both parties may have been "standing their ground" If Martin attacked Zimmerman then the shooting was valid. But I can't help but think that by following Martin he made Martin nervous (since it's a high crime area, Martin very well could have thought he was about to get jacked) and Martin thought he'd be better off by acting first and confronting him. This of course is the EXACT opposite of what one should do, but I can't say that I'd have done anything differently.

Sounds like this is going to be one of those, completely avoidable procreateups that sometimes happens, but doesn't usually end in someone getting shot to death. Honestly, I'm quite sick of the coverage. When something definitive happens, let me know. Otherwise, I don't care anymore. Both parties were at fault equally in my mind. One just brought a gun to an iced tea fight.

bhodilee wrote:I'm conflicted. In the end I think both parties may have been "standing their ground" If Martin attacked Zimmerman then the shooting was valid.......One just brought a gun to an iced tea fight.

This my issue with the situation. I don't know how the Florida law is written, but someone using lethal force without any blatantly obvious threat (although he may have felt that his life was in danger) such as a gun is concerning. It seems like a fight ended with a gunshot. And that goes against my pedestrian understanding of any law allowing a person to defend him/herself.

kylemittskus wrote:This my issue with the situation. I don't know how the Florida law is written, but someone using lethal force without any blatantly obvious threat (although he may have felt that his life was in danger) such as a gun is concerning. It seems like a fight ended with a gunshot. And that goes against my pedestrian understanding of any law allowing a person to defend him/herself.

I keep seeing it as one of those movie scenarios where the gun goes off during a struggle. Probably not what actually happened, but that's how my head has it. Until I know more though, I'm going with the side of Zimmerman had cause and that's why Martin is dead. Until he's charged, that's my mindset, even if I'm not entirely comfortable with it.

kylemittskus wrote:This my issue with the situation. I don't know how the Florida law is written, but someone using lethal force without any blatantly obvious threat (although he may have felt that his life was in danger) such as a gun is concerning. It seems like a fight ended with a gunshot. And that goes against my pedestrian understanding of any law allowing a person to defend him/herself.

The physical evidence of Zimmerman's injuries to his face and back of his head appears consistent with his story (and the eyewitness report) of Martin attacking him to the ground, and continuing to strike him when he was on the ground.

Generally speaking, attacking a prone opponent from a superior position is a factor that frequently elevates an assault and battery charge into aggravated assault, if not attempted murder, due to the victim's inability to flee and significantly-impaired ability to defend himself.

At least to me, had both men remained standing the entire time, and/or if Zimmerman were not being struck multiple while in a defenseless position (i.e., on the ground), and/or if Zimmerman fired while standing, it changes my opinion of the appropriateness of firearms usage in this particular instance.

But when you have 2 choices -- either TRY to "turtle up" (assuming you can even get face down) and hope he stops before you die, or shoot, I am of the opinion that the use of deadly force is absolutely appropriate.

kylemittskus wrote:What have they done specifically? I obviously don't want a comprehensive list, but I would have never thought such a thing, mainly because I largely ignore race issues that are brought up from both sides. Racism absolutely exists and it exists on both sides. Talking about who's more racist or why one group has justification for their racism is a completely pointless endeavor, IMO, but it's largely what people who make race such an issue want to discuss.

Take a look at this. From a former long-term DOJ employee.

PetiteSirah wrote:The physical evidence of Zimmerman's injuries to his face and back of his head appears consistent with his story (and the eyewitness report) of Martin attacking him to the ground, and continuing to strike him when he was on the ground.

Please tell me how Zimmerman's injuries show that they came about through an "attack" by Martin. Could they not just as easily come about through a response by Martin to an attack by Zimmerman?

kylemittskus wrote:This my issue with the situation. I don't know how the Florida law is written, but someone using lethal force without any blatantly obvious threat (although he may have felt that his life was in danger) such as a gun is concerning. It seems like a fight ended with a gunshot. And that goes against my pedestrian understanding of any law allowing a person to defend him/herself.

The law states that the belief must be "reasonable". So, the belief of imminent danger isn't by itself enough to justify force - the belief must pass a test of reasonableness. The law also restricts protection if one initiates the conflict. These are points that I haven't seen much discussion of in the media, but maybe I simply missed it.

coynedj wrote:Please tell me how Zimmerman's injuries show that they came about through an "attack" by Martin. Could they not just as easily come about through a response by Martin to an attack by Zimmerman?

Multiple injuries to the back of an individual's head generally aren't found in an "equal footing" fight or in an attack that one initiates.

coynedj wrote:The law states that the belief must be "reasonable". So, the belief of imminent danger isn't by itself enough to justify force - the belief must pass a test of reasonableness. The law also restricts protection if one initiates the conflict. These are points that I haven't seen much discussion of in the media, but maybe I simply missed it.

Yes and no. It also depends on the level of the force. For example, if I very lightly (but insultingly) slap you in the face, but you slug me back, and continue beating me when I'm on the ground, I didn't initiate that level of conflict -- you escalated it. At that point, if I were being beaten on the ground, I'd be justified in using deadly force to defend myself.

Reasonable in this case is a subjective standard in context, not an objective standard as in tort law. As in, reasonable from the standard of a neighborhood watch member in a high crime area. Cf. Bernie Goetz.

As I stated earlier, being on the ground (especially on one's back) and being attacked pretty much makes it per se reasonable to use deadly force in defense.

bhodilee wrote:I'm conflicted. In the end I think both parties may have been "standing their ground" If Martin attacked Zimmerman then the shooting was valid. But I can't help but think that by following Martin he made Martin nervous (since it's a high crime area, Martin very well could have thought he was about to get jacked) and Martin thought he'd be better off by acting first and confronting him. This of course is the EXACT opposite of what one should do, but I can't say that I'd have done anything differently.

Sounds like this is going to be one of those, completely avoidable procreateups that sometimes happens, but doesn't usually end in someone getting shot to death. Honestly, I'm quite sick of the coverage. When something definitive happens, let me know. Otherwise, I don't care anymore. Both parties were at fault equally in my mind. One just brought a gun to an iced tea fight.

Perhaps we need an explanation of what "Stand Your Ground" means.

And here's an even better explanation: What does Florida’s "Stand Your Ground" Law Really Say?, which includes the Florida law and a summation about the old "Duty to Retreat" standard.

PetiteSirah wrote:Yes and no. It also depends on the level of the force. For example, if I very lightly (but insultingly) slap you in the face, but you slug me back, and continue beating me when I'm on the ground, I didn't initiate that level of conflict -- you escalated it. At that point, if I were being beaten on the ground, I'd be justified in using deadly force to defend myself.

Reasonable in this case is a subjective standard in context, not an objective standard as in tort law. As in, reasonable from the standard of a neighborhood watch member in a high crime area. Cf. Bernie Goetz.

As I stated earlier, being on the ground (especially on one's back) and being attacked pretty much makes it per se reasonable to use deadly force in defense.

Re your first point, that's why I said "restricts" rather than "rejects". I didn't want to go through each clause of the law. Re your second point, it still sounds like a test of reasonableness. To use an extreme example, one could not use as a defense "he was a black guy and they're all killers, so I had to shoot him to save my life".

Re your third point - what if being on the ground and being beaten is itself due to a "use of force in defense"? If person A pulls a gun on person B, and person B strikes person A and continues to do so while person A is on the ground but still in possession of the gun and able to shoot person B, do both of them have the right to use deadly force? How could that make sense?

coynedj wrote:Re your first point, that's why I said "restricts" rather than "rejects". I didn't want to go through each clause of the law. Re your second point, it still sounds like a test of reasonableness. To use an extreme example, one could not use as a defense "he was a black guy and they're all killers, so I had to shoot him to save my life".

Re your third point - what if being on the ground and being beaten is itself due to a "use of force in defense"? If person A pulls a gun on person B, and person B strikes person A and continues to do so while person A is on the ground but still in possession of the gun and able to shoot person B, do both of them have the right to use deadly force? How could that make sense?

They don't still have the right (if you would read the law) when they initiate the confrontation. So in your example, then person B doesn't still have the right to use deadly force per se ...


But then that isn't the issue here.

coynedj wrote:Re your first point, that's why I said "restricts" rather than "rejects". I didn't want to go through each clause of the law. Re your second point, it still sounds like a test of reasonableness. To use an extreme example, one could not use as a defense "he was a black guy and they're all killers, so I had to shoot him to save my life".

Re your third point - what if being on the ground and being beaten is itself due to a "use of force in defense"? If person A pulls a gun on person B, and person B strikes person A and continues to do so while person A is on the ground but still in possession of the gun and able to shoot person B, do both of them have the right to use deadly force? How could that make sense?

Generally speaking, once somebody's on the ground, it's unreasonable to keep attacking them. When the guy on the ground has a gun, it's probably a little murkier, but I'd have to come down on the side that the standing guy has much more opportunity (because of leverage) to disarm the prone guy or make an escape before the bottom guy can fire, if he has any desire to do so. Or, as soon as the top guy disengages and makes such disengagement known, and/or announces a retreat (as per the retreat rule), deadly force is no longer permissible by the prone guy.

PetiteSirah wrote:Generally speaking, once somebody's on the ground, it's unreasonable to keep attacking them. When the guy on the ground has a gun, it's probably a little murkier, but I'd have to come down on the side that the standing guy has much more opportunity (because of leverage) to disarm the prone guy or make an escape before the bottom guy can fire, if he has any desire to do so. Or, as soon as the top guy disengages and makes such disengagement known, and/or announces a retreat (as per the retreat rule), deadly force is no longer permissible by the prone guy.

It seems like a lot of assumptions are being made here. A) that a 16 year old kid has the ability to disarm someone obviously larger, older, and likely more experienced due to his participation in the watch group. B) That the top guy can run as fast as the Flash. And C) when the gun was fired. You're assuming that the kid was actively attacking, let's say smashing the guy's head on the ground, when he shot. Maybe he knocked the guy down and was defending since the bigger, more experienced person was fighting. I'm not saying innocent or guilty; I'm just making sure that if assumptions are being made, they're being made from both perspectives.

MarkDaSpark wrote:They don't still have the right (if you would read the law) when they initiate the confrontation. So in your example, then person B doesn't still have the right to use deadly force per se ...


But then that isn't the issue here.

When did the confrontation initiate? Should we ignore the following that Z did and the fear, that I think we can assume, said following would cause? If it's a high-crime area which is why Z was so on edge, why shouldn't the same argument be made on behalf of the kid? I would argue that the altercation was initiated by Z when he followed the kid, against law enforcement advice. And I don't for a second buy the "police can't always protect us" argument. Had he not followed the kid, we have no reason to believe anything would have happened. Z didn't start out in any immediate danger; he put himself into the situation. Therefore, there was no need for the police to protect him, whether we think they are able to or not.

kylemittskus wrote:When did the confrontation initiate? Should we ignore the following that Z did and the fear, that I think we can assume, said following would cause? If it's a high-crime area which is why Z was so on edge, why shouldn't the same argument be made on behalf of the kid? I would argue that the altercation was initiated by Z when he followed the kid, against law enforcement advice. And I don't for a second buy the "police can't always protect us" argument. Had he not followed the kid, we have no reason to believe anything would have happened. Z didn't start out in any immediate danger; he put himself into the situation. Therefore, there was no need for the police to protect him, whether we think they are able to or not.

#1 - 17 years old, hardly a "kid"

#2 - Four inches Taller than Z

#3 - Z is only 20 pounds more than M

But The New York Times reported this week that Zimmerman is 5-foot-9 and 170 pounds, while Martin was 6-foot-1 and 150 pounds.

#4 - Several burglaries had been reported about young black men in the area

#5 - Police Dispatch, a civilian employee, recommended Z not follow. No police told him not to, nor was there an order to stop following.

#6 - From appearances, Z had stopped pursuit, and was heading back to his vehicle. So it would appear (if true) that M is now the initiator.

#7 - How many reports have we seen where the Police haven't prevented someone's death by a stalker/demented ex? Even when there has been a restraining order against the culprit, the police cannot prevent an attack.

It's quite obvious that the police CANNOT always protect us, nor can they protect us half the time. Else crime would be almost non-existent. The police, for the most part, work hard at their jobs, but let's face it, they cannot be everywhere at once, especially in hard economic times (where there are cutbacks in service).

And I've been in situations where the police haven't prevented a crime against me or a family member. So you keep buying into your argument. Right up til a crime happens to you or a family member. Because the police will always prevent it, right?


#8 - TM wasn't the fresh faced kid all the media has been portraying. There's this (use of middle finger involved) or this one. Not the pics of a younger him that the media has been using. And yet they use Z's mug shot (from an earlier arrest) to demonize him.



Which is one reason I try to keep an open mind and not pre-judge anyone from media reports. I'm not sure Z was justified in using his gun, because I don't know all the facts yet. But I'm not about to condemn him yet either. Nor assume M was a gang-banger looking for a place to rob.

MarkDaSpark wrote:#7 - How many reports have we seen where the Police haven't prevented someone's death by a stalker/demented ex? Even when there has been a restraining order against the culprit, the police cannot prevent an attack.

It's quite obvious that the police CANNOT always protect us, nor can they protect us half the time. Else crime would be almost non-existent. The police, for the most part, work hard at their jobs, but let's face it, they cannot be everywhere at once, especially in hard economic times (where there are cutbacks in service).

And I've been in situations where the police haven't prevented a crime against me or a family member. So you keep buying into your argument. Right up til a crime happens to you or a family member. Because the police will always prevent it, right?

All your points are valid except for this one. My point was that Z wouldn't have needed protection if he hadn't pursued M in the first place. And of course police can't protect us all the time. Nowhere did I even allude to anything remotely saying so. But putting yourself in situations (let's assume that Z thought M was one of the robbers) is a terrible idea! He did the exact opposite of trying to avoid any confrontation. Like I said, I haven't judged innocent or guilty. I'm just arguing the other side of the coin as you are. And I think doing so is bringing out interesting points and ways to look at the situation.