The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Moderators: Mick, TheGingerMan

Forum rules
IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 27 Apr 2012, 00:10

bob wrote:He certainly "had been" following him.


No, he wasn't. But, even if he had been, so what?

bob wrote:I only ask because I am pretty sure that that constitutes threatening behaviour.


So threatening that it required punching his face and slamming his head off the hard concrete?

bob wrote:And the fact that Zimmerman wasn't wearing a uniform makes this case at least somewhat analogous to the defense Zimmerman used in his own case where he assualted a police officer.


The police officer that GZ "assaulted" was in the act of roughing up GZ's friend. GZ was doing a neighborhood watch, and to the "extent" that he was following TM, it was at the direction of the 911 dispatcher.

No analogy.

But, even if the situations were analogous, GZ shoved the undercover cop. TM repeatedly punched GZ in the face and repeatedly slammed GZ's head against the hard concrete.

Again, not analogous.
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17695
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
262 Recommends(s)
195 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby bob » 27 Apr 2012, 00:22

So, GZ was "wasn't" following TM, but to the extent that he "was" following TM he was following the instructions of a 911 dispatcher, in a way perhaps somewhat analogous to the undercover officer being present in a bar in plain clothes?

Following someone around in a dark neighbourhood "might" be threatening enough to justify a punch in the face. I don't think so really but then again I wasn't there. What I do know is that in a lot of places you'd be lucky to escape with just a punch in the face.

I don't believe that anyones head was "pounded on the concrete." The scars on the back of Zimmerman's head look like he got scratched. Did they check under Trayvon's fingernails? How about the cat's? Maybe the cat did it.
bob
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
 
Posts: 8624
Joined: 14 May 2004, 14:11
Location: sunk
21 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby bohica » 27 Apr 2012, 01:31

Tigerman wrote:When determining whether the use of deadly force or non-deadly force was warranted, a Florida jury will look at the facts and circumstances as they appeared to GZ at the time GZ claims to have acted in self-defense. The jury will examine what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances appearing to GZ at the time of the incident.


I think this is what we'll have to wait for. I don't think a continued debate on whether deadly force is warranted in this case is going to go anywhere.

Tigerman wrote:Section 776.032 Florida Statutes grants Immunity from civil action for justifiable use of force - A person who uses force as permitted in 776.012 is justified in using such force and is immune from civil action for the use of such force... Thus, if GZ used force lawfully in self-defense against TM, then GZ's actions are justified and he may not be arrested, criminally prosecuted or sued in civil court.

This is referring to Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law. If the law doesn't apply, then he can't claim civil immunity under SYG.

Tigerman wrote:I hope GZ gets off scott free, and I will be happy that the system worked properly if he does, provided no new facts come to light to change the story as we now know it.

And I hope GZ gets convicted and sent to prison, and I will be happy that the system worked properly if he does. But if GZ does get off scott free, all the people in the "Gunshine State" better brace themselves because there may a Rodney King-style riot.
bohica
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
 
Posts: 242
Joined: 01 Jun 2011, 17:10
16 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby bohica » 27 Apr 2012, 01:55

TheGingerMan wrote:
bohica wrote:
sandman wrote:
As I've been saying, someone hitting you with their bare hands doesn't rise to the level necessitating a lethal retaliatory response, that's what a "reasonable" person will think.

I'm a reasonable man. I'm 53 years old and sorry to burst your bubble, but if some guy is on top of me, pounding my face and slamming my head into the sidewalk, then he is intent on killing me and I will retaliate out of fear of my life. I have a wife, a kid and a mortgage and if some douche is trying to take ANY of that away (apart from the mortgage -- he can assume FULL responsibility for that) then I am in fear of my life.
Some twat tried to punch me once outside of Roxy a few years back -- a drunk stupid Canadian youth. I didn't retaliate -- then. I DID get pics, and took the douchebag to court. Got only around NT$80,000 out of him, but it was sweet, as it was basically all he had. There was not ONE SINGLE person who thought he was treated unjustifiably. "Hey! It was just a couple of punches, eh? That's OK in Moosehead, eh?"


Yes you can retaliate, you have the righ to defend yourself. But make the distinction between force and lethal force. The law will scrutinize you a little more if you want to play judge, jury, and executioner.


Force is force. When one plays that game, the levels tend to diminish the more one is thrust upon such. Most especially, in an environment where the great unwashed have access to firearms.


What are you saying? If you use force that you reasonably should have known that would kill(such as shooting a guy), you need to have enough justification for it. However if you just punched your assailant and he immediately drop dead because he happened to be one of those people that would drop dead after a single punch, then tough luck for that guy.


bob wrote:What for sure happened was that a 17 year old kid got shot and killed, supposedly for beating up on a man considerably older and heavier than himself. George Zimmerman's injuries "supposedly" included a broken nose, but when he shows up in the surveliance videos there is no blood on his shirt. He had supposedly had his head pounded on the sidewalk, and yet there is no evidence of bruising (that we have seen so far,) and no trip to the hospital made. You would think that visiting the hospital and obtaining treatment and hospital records would have been a matter of simple procedure.


You have point there, it is very curious why GZ did not suffer a more serious injury. This may be something the prosecution will ask in court, that if GZ was indeed savagely beaten with his head pounded on the sidewalk, why was his injury so minor he didn't even need to go to hospital.
bohica
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
 
Posts: 242
Joined: 01 Jun 2011, 17:10
16 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Northcoast Surfer » 27 Apr 2012, 02:48

bohica wrote:But if GZ does get off scott free, all the people in the "Gunshine State" better brace themselves because there may a Rodney King-style riot.

It's already happening now. But, we hear very little about these stories and there appears to be little to no outrage over these alleged revenge attacks or threats of revenge attacks against whites by blacks. Unfortunately, this is just the beginning of what's to come. :loco:

Danielle Wright on 4/25/2012 wrote:
Black teens admit to committing crimes because of their outrage over the Florida teen’s death.

Image

Trayvon Martin’s parents have promoted peace in the aftermath of their son’s death, but some have used the tragic set of events as another reason to incite violence.

In Mobile, Alabama, a group of Black youth allegedly beat a white man who asked them to stop playing basketball in front of his house. The reason? Possibly Trayvon Martin, witnesses say.

Up to 15 young people reportedly beat Mathew Owens on Saturday. When the group left, Owens' sister indicated one of the attackers said, “That’s justice for Trayvon Martin.”

Reports indicate there was a high degree of racial tension simmering prior to Saturday night, which left Owens in critical condition at a local hospital.

“This type of mob violence will not be tolerated,” said Sam Jones, the mayor of the city of Mobile. “If people think we are going to tolerate that to bring attention to some national event, they are sorely mistaken. They will be arrested and prosecuted for assault or whatever the appropriate charge may be."


Suntimes on 4-26-2012 wrote:
Officials: Trayvon case cited in racial beating

A man charged with a hate crime in Oak Park this week told police he was so upset about the Trayvon Martin case that he beat up a man because he was white, authorities said.

Image

Alton L. Hayes III, 18, of Oak Park, and a 15-year-old Chicagoan — both black — walked up behind the 19-year-old victim and pinned his arms to his side early Tuesday, police said. Hayes then picked up a large tree branch, pointed it at the man and said, “Empty your pockets, white boy.”

They rifled through his pockets, threw him to the ground and punched him in the head and back “numerous times,” police said.

They ran off, but officers sent to the scene spotted them and arrested them.

After he was arrested, Hayes told police he was upset by the racially charged Trayvon Martin case in Florida and beat the man because he was white, Cook County state’s attorney’s office spokeswoman Tandra Simonton said, citing court records.

Hayes was charged with attempted robbery, aggravated battery and a hate crime, all felonies.

He was ordered held on $80,000 bond and remained in Cook County Jail on Friday. The 15-year-old was referred to juvenile court.


Recent Twitter messages wrote:
Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


Zoeja Jean wrote:
First Rap Song Devoted to Trayvon Martin Calls for Violence

The Trayvon Martin case has inflamed passions like perhaps no case in recent memory, and there is plenty of ugliness resulting from those passions. Now, the first rap song devoted to the Martin case has appeared on Youtube, titled “All Black in My Hoodie,” by the rapper Zoeja Jean.

It is not exactly a pleasant listening experience. The chorus goes as follows:

All black in my hoodie
All black in my hoodie
Strapped up with them AKs
Fuck protesters
Let’s start a riot
Fight, let’s start a riot


The lyrics then proceed apace, with vulgarity continuing to escalate as it goes on:

Burn the house
And everybody in it
I don’t give a fuck about the racist white children
Fuck all that bull!!
Protest with justice
I feel like the Black Panthers
Let’s start a fuckin' riot
Ain’t trying to talk like Dr. King
Like Malcom X I’m runnin'
Fuck them crackers KKK
We black and strapped with them A-K-K
They did us wrong in Haiti
They did us wrong in Africa
Black folks let’s keep it real
These fuckin' crackers don’t love us
If we don’t do shit
And lynch that cracker
Six months later
They gonna kill another brother


Note the phrasing. “Lynch that cracker,“ the ”cracker” in question presumably being George Zimmerman. Apparently, either the reference to lynching has now been explicitly adopted by Martin’s more violent supporters, or Zoeja Jean has gone off the reservation with this wording. Either way, it doesn’t bode well for this already excessively violent case. Tempers are flaring, and the most irresponsible observers of this tragedy appear to be doing everything they can to encourage that.


MRCTV wrote:
Rapper David Banner Calls for Violent Action in Trayvon Martin Case

Link to video interview
Forumosan avatar
Northcoast Surfer
Not actually banned (he just tells everyone he is)
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: 30 Jun 2008, 16:37
175 Recommends(s)
142 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Homey » 27 Apr 2012, 03:41

Yeah I saw that one story a few days ago, very sad stuff. Made me think of Taiwan. I've never heard of this type of violence in the States beyond the Rodney King and other police beatings. One on one violence is bad enough, but when it's many against one it's downright depressing. Definitely the act of cowards and barbarians to gang up on one person like this. While their frustration is understandable, their actions are only deepening the divide and planting seeds for further race related violence.

This case has obviously enraged people, and in some ways it should wake them up. Beyond Zimmerman NOT FOLLOWING Martin in the first place, the police could have handled it a lot differently. The whole race issue wouldn't have erupted like it did if the police charged and detained Zimmerman right off the bat. I think many feel that if it had been a dead white guy then with the overwhelming facts and evidence charges would have been filed instantaneously. The police in the states are rarely so quick to let an obvious killer walk away.
Why not???

If you are what you eat, then I guess that makes me "fast, cheap, and easy"!
Forumosan avatar
Homey
High School Triad Member (gāozhōng liúmáng)
High School Triad Member (gāozhōng liúmáng)
 
Posts: 525
Joined: 20 Jan 2008, 00:27
2 Recommends(s)
17 Recognized(s)



The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby headhonchoII » 27 Apr 2012, 07:05

jdsmith wrote:
the bear wrote:
Okami wrote:by crime stats 92% of black murder victims are killed by other black people, but this case is important

50% of blacks do not graduate from high school, but this case is important

Spike Lee sends a tweet of the wrong address sending a lynch mob to the wrong house, but this case is important

Obama's support amongst blacks was dropping, but this case is important

The economy is in the tank and oil is going up, but this case is important

It's all about priorities. A black man getting shot by another black man doesn't make the news. Students protesting at a Detroit high school for education, still not newsworthy. Black kid shot by "white hispanic" is newsworthy though.


An unarmed black man is shot for no apparent reason and the police make no arrest. The case is important because if Zimmerman gets off it means the American public is empowered to shoot black men simply on suspicion of being up to no good. It's not hard to see that at the very least Zimmerman has to be tried. If he can produce witnesses that show he was attacked so be it. But it's for a court of law to decide the veracity of witness statements.

Absolutely.

However, if you read Z's account, he was on his back to his SUV when Trayvon came up to him and threatened him, then started to whip him but good.


This is an artifact of allowing people to carry weapons around and giving them broad rights to to use it. There are always a few % that are unhinged out there. Street fights are fairly common, its unusual to become deadly. Bring a gun to the fight and this is what happens. If that is indeed what happened.
I can remember the fourth of July runnin' through the backwood bare.
And I can still hear my old hound dog barkin' chasin' down a hoodoo there
Chasin' down a hoodoo there.
headhonchoII
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 12780
Joined: 26 Aug 2002, 10:40
Location: Taipei
1787 Recommends(s)
641 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 27 Apr 2012, 08:07

bob wrote:So, GZ was "wasn't" following TM, but to the extent that he "was" following TM he was following the instructions of a 911 dispatcher...


Yes.

bob wrote:...in a way perhaps somewhat analogous to the undercover officer being present in a bar in plain clothes?


No.

Look, whether GZ followed TM is irrelevant. The moment TM attacked GZ, and GZ reasonably feared imminent death or serious bodily injury, GZ was justified in using lethal force. Its really as simple as that. In fact, in virtually every common law country, this has been the law for many, many years.

You want to claim that GZ was following TM, and some want to go further and assert that GZ was hunting TM and that GZ was out for blood. But, none of the facts that we know support that line of thinking.

Some of you want to argue that GZ was at fault for having a gun. He was not at fault for having a gun. He has a valid license to carry. Some of you want to argue that GZ took a gun to a fist fight. But, you don't have any clue as to why GZ carried the gun. In fact, GZ purchased the gun and got himself properly licensed to carry the same at the recommendation of an animal control officer. There is a pit bull running free in the community and GZ and many others in the community had been menaced by this dog on multiple occasions. The animal control officers had been called to the community many times, and GZ had considered buying pepper spray for use if needed against the dog. The officer advised GZ that pepper spray would take several moments to take effect and that the dog could attack before the spray worked. It was the officer who advised GZ to get a gun. The narrative that GZ wanted to have a gun so as to play cop is false.

bob wrote:Following someone around in a dark neighbourhood "might" be threatening enough to justify a punch in the face. I don't think so really but then again I wasn't there. What I do know is that in a lot of places you'd be lucky to escape with just a punch in the face.


bob... with all due respect, as you are and have always been one of my favorite posters and people... that is simply nonsense. GZ was acting as a neighborhood watch. He was coordinating his watch with the 911 dispatcher and the cops. The 911 call is over 4 minutes long. If TM actually felt threatened by a short guy watching him, TM should have gone right home to his father's house. The more than 4 minutes time that elapsed would have been plenty of time for poor little TM to get himself home. That isn't what happened. We know that TM initiated the confrontation with GZ. We know that a fight ensued. We do not know who started the physical altercation. But, we know that TM was on top of GZ and was punching GZ in the face and was repeatedly slamming GZ's head off the hard concrete. We have at least one eye witness to this, and we have injuries to GZ that are consistent with this account. We have a photo of the back of GZ's bloody head that has been verified as being taken three minutes after the fight ended. We have police statements and EMT personnel statements regarding GZ's injuries. The person who took the photo of GZ's bloody head has stated that he saw clear powder stains on TM's hoodie.

Those are the facts that are available to us.

I don't believe that GZ was following TM, other than to the extent that the 911 dispatcher asked GZ to keep a watch on TM and tell the 911 dispatcher what TM was doing... when the 911 dispatcher wondered if GZ was following TM, the dispatcher advised GZ not to, and GZ replied affirmatively and then began discussing where he would meet the cops when they arrived at the community. At that point, GZ was no longer following TM. So, how did GZ and TM meet? By that time, TM should have easily made it back to the safety of his father's house. I believe that TM doubled back to confront GZ, and I expect that TM initiated the physical altercation. I doubt that GZ was waving his gun around, as if he was, I don't think TM would have confronted GZ.

Being followed in a place where your house is located and where you could easily take shelter there is not so reasonably threatening as to justify confrontation and violence. Why didn't TM simply answer GZ'd inquiry when GZ asked what TM was doing?

bob wrote:I don't believe that anyones head was "pounded on the concrete." The scars on the back of Zimmerman's head look like he got scratched. Did they check under Trayvon's fingernails? How about the cat's? Maybe the cat did it.


Well, fortunately for GZ, the presumption of reasonable fear is easy to meet. GZ got those injuries somewhere, and I don't think it was a cat that caused them.

I find it amazing that people who are from common law nations and jurisdictions are struggling to understand the right to self defense...
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17695
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
262 Recommends(s)
195 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 27 Apr 2012, 08:13

headhonchoII wrote:This is an artifact of allowing people to carry weapons around and giving them broad rights to to use it.


GZ was lawfully carrying. He was carrying to protect himself from a pit bull that had been menacing residents in the community, and he had the gun because an animal control officer suggested he get one rather than pepper spray.

The problem is seldom people lawfully carrying guns. The problem is far more often with people carrying guns illegally. The problem is the culture of violence that exists in the US.

headhonchoII wrote:There are always a few % that are unhinged out there.


I haven't read anything that would cause me to believe that GZ is unhinged.

headhonchoII wrote:Street fights are fairly common, its unusual to become deadly.


I think its more common than you might imagine. But, in any event, the right of self defense does not require that we fear only for our life. We are justified in using force to prevent serious bodily injury, also.

headhonchoII wrote:Bring a gun to the fight and this is what happens. If that is indeed what happened.


Start a fight with someone carrying a gun and this might happen.
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17695
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
262 Recommends(s)
195 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Dr. McCoy » 27 Apr 2012, 09:56

Northcoast Surfer wrote:
In Mobile, Alabama, a group of Black youth allegedly beat a white man who asked them to stop playing basketball in front of his house. The reason? Possibly Trayvon Martin, witnesses say.

Up to 15 young people reportedly beat Mathew Owens on Saturday. When the group left, Owens' sister indicated one of the attackers said, “That’s justice for Trayvon Martin.”

Reports indicate there was a high degree of racial tension simmering prior to Saturday night, which left Owens in critical condition at a local hospital.

“This type of mob violence will not be tolerated,” said Sam Jones, the mayor of the city of Mobile. “If people think we are going to tolerate that to bring attention to some national event, they are sorely mistaken. They will be arrested and prosecuted for assault or whatever the appropriate charge may be."

This story was reported on Fox News, but they left out the part where Owens was yelling racial insults at a group of people and coming after them with knives. The police are still trying to figure out what happened and if the "justice for Trayvon" quote was ever actually said. I guess Fox forgot about their fair and balanced logo. Or were they just trying to stir up something.
Forumosan avatar
Dr. McCoy
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 10298
Joined: 11 Oct 2007, 12:41
Location: New Taipei City, Yonghe District
146 Recommends(s)
95 Recognized(s)



FRIENDLY REMINDER
   Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
   Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.
PreviousNext




Proceed to International Politics



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: Mucha Man and 4 visitors

Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind -- DR SEUSS