Neighborhood watch shooting in FL

[Unagi]

Is it the gun that bothers you?

Maybe it is.

What if Martin had jumped Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, pounded his head into pavement, and then Zimmerman was able to turn the tables and happened to kill him with a freak punch to the head?

Let's look at this... you may be on to something.
I feel almost like I would indeed be less inclined to 'blame Zimmerman' for a 'senseless death', if he managed to do it with his own 'fight'. Something about the speed and ease of killing someone with a gun .... it makes me wonder if that Split Second action could have been avoided.
It's interesting that you also had to serve up an analogy to me that involved a "freak punch to the head". I think you may also understand the nature of what I'm getting at.

Would it be less offensive to you because a gun wasn't involved? Or is it because of the race issue?

I'm not really getting big into 'the race' part of this. While I think it's unfortunate that it seems like he was targetted for being black - I personally feel he was more targetted for being young and out of place.

Or did you buy into the media campaign that Zimmerman made a racist 911 call and you haven't been able to get over that even though it's been shown to be a fabrication?

I am not aware of this part of the media frenzy, in all honesty.


I think, without the gun - Zimmerman wouldn't have been "so damn brave". I think without such a 'brave Neighborhood Watcher' - Martin would never have been confronted and no fight would have happened.
This leads me to feel that Zimmerman and his Gun killed Martin.

Sorry.

[Paingod]

Zimmerman was after this guy. That's all I know.
Oh, and he killed him.

Your choice of wording puts everything on Zimmerman and implies guilt.

Corrected:

Zimmerman followed this guy and wanted to make sure he didn't get away before cops showed up. That's all I know.
He claims he was forced to kill him in self defense.

I think, without the gun - Zimmerman wouldn't have been "so damn brave". I think without such a 'brave Neighborhood Watcher' - Martin would never have been confronted and no fight would have happened.
This leads me to feel that Zimmerman and his Gun killed Martin.

A gun can give you peace of mind, but it's also frightening; it's a metric assload of responsibility tucked neatly under your arm. It only makes idiots feel brave, and given Zimmerman's history as outlined in the last article about him, I don't see "idiot" there.

I had to carry pepper spray for my job as a Corrections Officer. That never made me feel powerful and I hated having to pull it out as my last resort before calling in a platoon of backup to subdue someone.

[Remus West]

Zimmerman was after this guy. That's all I know.
Oh, and he killed him.

Your choice of wording puts everything on Zimmerman and implies guilt.

Corrected:

Zimmerman followed this guy and wanted to make sure he didn't get away before cops showed up. That's all I know.
He claims he was forced to kill him in self defense.

He is guilty of killing Martin. That is not in question. What is in question is whether or not it was justified.

[Paingod]

He is guilty of killing Martin.

Guilt: The fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime

Self defense is neither an offense (a breach of a law or rule; an illegal act) or crime as far as I know. He can't be guilty of killing Martin if it was self defense. So, yes - he did kill Martin, but his guilt in killing him has yet to be determined. Guilt implies he will be punished.

Even if cleared of all charges, he'll likely never feel safe anywhere he lives because of this case. Too many people have assumed too much guilt by now for him to ever be free of this.

[noxiousdog]

He is guilty of killing Martin.

Guilt: The fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime

Self defense is neither an offense (a breach of a law or rule; an illegal act) or crime as far as I know. He can't be guilty of killing Martin if it was self defense. So, yes - he did kill Martin, but his guilt in killing him has yet to be determined.

Well, he's guilty of killing Martin. But that doesn't necessarily make him guilty of homicide or manslaughter, or another death related crime.

[Paingod]

Well, he's guilty of killing Martin. But that doesn't necessarily make him guilty of homicide or manslaughter, or another death related crime.

Did I eat the apple, or am I guilty of eating the apple?

Say it one way, I ate an apple I owned. Say it the other, and I ate someone else's apple.

It just bothers me to use the word for an innocent person. He can't be guilty of anything until he's convicted.

[msduncan]

How have you possibly not heard a single thing about Martin having some guilt? The story that Zimmerman tells is that he lost Martin and was heading back to his car. He then was attacked by Martin who proceeded to bash his head into the ground. If indeed this is what happened (I have no idea) then Martin is guilty of something. Is it possible he has no guilt? Sure, I have no idea what happened, but there is a plausible explanation of what happened out there that includes Martin being guilty of something. So how have you not heard a report that Martin is guilty in this too?

I'm only going on the things that I've heard that are not up for debate - basically Zimmerman's call to 911.

Zimmerman was after this guy. That's all I know.
Oh, and he killed him.

I'm not really all over this 'defense' of Martin, as it seems - I'm just amazed that (some) people didn't even think this was worth a trial.

Zimmerman was MONITORING this guy, and keeping him within sight, or trying to. I love the verbiage you keep using -- he was AFTER him. lol

[Unagi]

sigh... while I can see that word as inflamatory (After Him). I don't mean it to be.

By 'After him', I am talking about him being a person of high interest to Zimmerman. A person he was not going to let out of his sight. A person he wanted to see out of his neighborhood. A person he likely had actually pre-judged as being a theif.

am I wrong about that stuff?

I can't get over the image of one guy walking down a street doing nothing and another one (well meaning, mind you) confronting him and starting an argument that leads to the well meaning guy killing the guy that was just recently minding his own business.


If it's really:
Careful Calm Guy staying way back, enough to actually lose track of Martin, and then when he heads back to his car, he is then jumped by Martin.... Then I retract a number of my positions on this. Then this is a jack ass kid that messed with the wrong neighborhood watch and sadly lost his life.

[Remus West]

Well, he's guilty of killing Martin. But that doesn't necessarily make him guilty of homicide or manslaughter, or another death related crime.

Did I eat the apple, or am I guilty of eating the apple?

Say it one way, I ate an apple I owned. Say it the other, and I ate someone else's apple.

It just bothers me to use the word for an innocent person. He can't be guilty of anything until he's convicted.

He has never contested that he is guilty of killing Martin. You are simply confused as to what that means. It means he directly caused the death of the kid. If he is proven "innocent" by reason of self-defense, stand your ground, or any other point of law it does not change the fact that he is guilty of killing Martin it will simply mean that doing so was not criminal.

I agree that, regardless of the outcome, he will be hounded the rest of his life. To me that is as much a crime as what he is being accused of. If he is proven innocent then he should also receive forgiveness. Sadly, our society rarely works that way.

[Victoria Raverna]

A little background on Zimmerman and the events leading up to that night.

Weird. That looks like journalism. I thought that was extinct.

Look more like Zimmerman or his family paid someone to write something to help his image.

[Combustible Lemur]

A little background on Zimmerman and the events leading up to that night.

Weird. That looks like journalism. I thought that was extinct.

Look more like Zimmerman or his family paid someone to write something to help his image.

Really?

Because if I want a fluff piece, I want it to look like I have every reason to be suspicious of younger man of specific ethnic background. I want it to look like a I'm crusader for virtue who out of frustration acted irresponsibly and ended with the death of an adolescent. I want it to appear that I had every reason to pick a fight that tragically left me responsible for the death of someone. That's exactly what I would unethically pay for when my life or my loved one's is on the line.

Sent from mah Incredible'

[Rip]

How have you possibly not heard a single thing about Martin having some guilt? The story that Zimmerman tells is that he lost Martin and was heading back to his car. He then was attacked by Martin who proceeded to bash his head into the ground. If indeed this is what happened (I have no idea) then Martin is guilty of something. Is it possible he has no guilt? Sure, I have no idea what happened, but there is a plausible explanation of what happened out there that includes Martin being guilty of something. So how have you not heard a report that Martin is guilty in this too?

I'm only going on the things that I've heard that are not up for debate - basically Zimmerman's call to 911.

Zimmerman was after this guy. That's all I know.
Oh, and he killed him.

I'm not really all over this 'defense' of Martin, as it seems - I'm just amazed that (some) people didn't even think this was worth a trial.

I think it was certainly worth investigation and probably even trial.

I am with Dershowitz and he is right on the money in his commentary about the affidavit.

[noxiousdog]

Did you two just accuse Reuters of taking money to publish a story of this magnitude that goes against popular opinion?

I've heard some crazy conspiracy theories before, and that's got to be high on the list of craziest.

[pr0ner]

Did you two just accuse Reuters of taking money to publish a story of this magnitude that goes against popular opinion?

I've heard some crazy conspiracy theories before, and that's got to be high on the list of craziest.

I know VR did (as usual). I'm not sure CL did.

[silverjon]

I think the smilie is meant to indicate VR is yanking our chains by being an outrageous contrarian again.

CL's response was bringing the snark.

[Paingod]

So Zimmerman collects $204,000 in donations for his defense, and turns around to spend approx. $54,000 on "living expenses" in a matter of a week or two and has $150,000 left that his lawyer has yanked and put into a trust fund.

I take it back. He is an idiot. I don't imagine that was stuff like "Pay off the mortgage and car" - even if it was, he should have been holding every dime since his laywer is saying his defense will cost $1,000,000 or so.

[Combustible Lemur]

Yeah, my snark was heavy. I was just floored by VR.

[Chrisoc13]

How have you possibly not heard a single thing about Martin having some guilt? The story that Zimmerman tells is that he lost Martin and was heading back to his car. He then was attacked by Martin who proceeded to bash his head into the ground. If indeed this is what happened (I have no idea) then Martin is guilty of something. Is it possible he has no guilt? Sure, I have no idea what happened, but there is a plausible explanation of what happened out there that includes Martin being guilty of something. So how have you not heard a report that Martin is guilty in this too?

I'm only going on the things that I've heard that are not up for debate - basically Zimmerman's call to 911.

Zimmerman was after this guy. That's all I know.
Oh, and he killed him.

I'm not really all over this 'defense' of Martin, as it seems - I'm just amazed that (some) people didn't even think this was worth a trial.

Oh it is certainly worth a trial. I agree.

[Chrisoc13]

So Zimmerman collects $204,000 in donations for his defense, and turns around to spend approx. $54,000 on "living expenses" in a matter of a week or two and has $150,000 left that his lawyer has yanked and put into a trust fund.

I take it back. He is an idiot. I don't imagine that was stuff like "Pay off the mortgage and car" - even if it was, he should have been holding every dime since his laywer is saying his defense will cost $1,000,000 or so.

Yeah it certainly took an interesting twist today.

It is kind of funny when you see the attorney say "Yeah, a defense like this isn't cheap. Probably going to cost a million dollars." It sounds like he is saying "yep, I'm going to make a cool million off this case." Maybe I am the only one that laughed when I read it. Not that the attorney doesn't deserve the money. By all means I think they earn their money. I just thought it was funny to see the attorney talk about how expensive this was going to be, especially seeing as he would be making a lot of money here.

[Paingod]

A CNN article with other "self defense" cases.

1. A mentally disabled man walking his dog almost gets hit by someone driving an SUV. He starts yelling at the driver, flailing his arms. The driver pulls his .40 S&W and kills the dog-walker, who never even touched the car or driver. Pending Trial. On a personal note - WTF?!

2. A relief worker with a concussion accosts an elderly couple during the tense days following a natural disaster and acts erratically, forcing his way into their home. They shoot him. Not Guilty.

3. A man gets tired of having his home burglarized and waits for the criminals to come back - with a shotgun. He captures and subdues 4 children and apparently executes one of them. Not Guilty; jury wanted to protect their right to defend themselves inside their homes more than convict the man on murder.

4. A man grabs a knife and chases a thief down the road, killing him after catching up. The thief did attack him with a bat and had a number of car radios in a bag he could use as a weapon. Not Guilty.

[hepcat]

SYG is a fantastic law...if no one ever raises their voice in anger towards another person.

[Zurai]

Paingod's #2 and #3 are both Castle, not SYG, for the record.

[Pyperkub]

Is it the gun that bothers you? What if Martin had jumped Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, pounded his head into pavement, and then Zimmerman was able to turn the tables and happened to kill him with a freak punch to the head? Would it be less offensive to you because a gun wasn't involved? Or is it because of the race issue? Or did you buy into the media campaign that Zimmerman made a racist 911 call and you haven't been able to get over that even though it's been shown to be a fabrication?

Yes. Going out patrolling the neighborhood with a gun at night indicates to me that he might have an inclination to use it, rather than wait for the police. I believe with a 99% certainty that he would not have gotten out of his car if he did not have a gun. He stays in the car and listens to the police dispatcher.

This DOES NOT HAPPEN if Zimmerman is not out after dark patrolling his neighborhood with a gun. PERIOD.

He was asking for trouble by doing so, and even if found innocent of all charges he killed an innocent minor whose life has now been ended far short of when it should have been ended, and his life will never be the same either.

It is NEVER a bright idea to go around outside after dark with a gun. I don't give a damn if you have a right to do so, it's still a STUPID idea and you're lucky if you get home and no-one has gotten shot, including yourself.

[Paingod]

Yes. Going out patrolling the neighborhood with a gun at night indicates to me that he might have an inclination to use it, rather than wait for the police. I believe with a 99% certainty that he would not have gotten out of his car if he did not have a gun. He stays in the car and listens to the police dispatcher.

I was under the impression that he was driving to the store and happened to see what he thought was unusual. As a free citizen, wearing a gun is not a crime. Even on the neighborhood watch, wearing one is "prohibited" but still violates no laws. He has a right to carry, and he does.

This DOES NOT HAPPEN if Zimmerman is not out after dark patrolling his neighborhood with a gun. PERIOD.

True. He probably would have just gotten his ass kicked and both parties would still be alive. Again, though, he is well within his rights to carry a firearm. You cannot take that right away from him.

He was asking for trouble by doing so, and even if found innocent of all charges he killed an innocent minor whose life has now been ended far short of when it should have been ended, and his life will never be the same either.

Carrying a gun is not "asking for trouble" unless you've never handled one and don't know proper safety. IMO, correct gun control is about training and experience, not restriction. To say that he was asking for trouble is a broken statement. He was just as easily asking for trouble by simply leaving his house that night. He was just as easily asking for trouble by driving his car. The gun had nothing to do with it.

It is NEVER a bright idea to go around outside after dark with a gun. I don't give a damn if you have a right to do so, it's still a STUPID idea and you're lucky if you get home and no-one has gotten shot, including yourself.

The gun is irrelevant except as a means to protect yourself or commit a crime. Going out at night is either a good idea or a bad idea. You're saying that going outside at night is a bad idea?

I, for one, am very grateful that people who share your viewpoint don't rule over my government. I favor a gun in every home and citizens trained in their safe and proper use. Guns don't inherently make a society bloodthirsty - just look at Switzerland. Guns don't actually corrupt people. The unfortunate truth seems to be that America has a very violent past and hasn't evolved much beyond that. You fix that problem, and everyone can have a gun and live peacefully. You take away the guns and we'll just start running each other over with cars and killing one another with knives.

[Crux]

It is NEVER a bright idea to go around outside after dark with a gun. I don't give a damn if you have a right to do so, it's still a STUPID idea and you're lucky if you get home and no-one has gotten shot, including yourself.

This guy might disagree with you - otherwise he might have ended up like this guy.

But you're right. It's NEVER a good idea.

[hepcat]

The unfortunate truth seems to be that America has a very violent past and hasn't evolved much beyond that.

That's bull$h*t. Pick up any world history book and start reading. Our past is no more violent than countless other countries. I think you need to look elsewhere for a knee jerk explanation about complex social issues that have plagued mankind since we first learned how to create gunpowder or even sharpen a stick.

[Paingod]

The unfortunate truth seems to be that America has a very violent past and hasn't evolved much beyond that.

That's bull$h*t. Pick up any world history book and start reading. Our past is no more violent than countless other countries. I think you need to look elsewhere for a knee jerk explanation about complex social issues that have plagued mankind since we first learned how to create gunpowder or even sharpen a stick.

...and hasn't evolved much beyond that.

I know the world is full of bloody violence in history. Somehow, some societies manage to move on and others get stuck. The Scandanavian countries - Denmark, Norway, etc - used to be a land of viking raiders. Now these places are ranked as some of the happiest nations on earth. America seems to be lagging behind in sociological development, and it's not guns that are the cause of that. You can be a civilized and happy nation without demanding that citizens give up the right to defend themselves with lethal force.

[hepcat]

Most Europeans would disagree that outlawing guns doesn't help. I just disagree with the immediate assumption that we as a society are kill crazy psychos every time a sensationalistic murder occurs on our shores.

p.s. the world consists of more than Sweden and Norway. And Denmark and Iceland have pretty strict gun control laws. So much for your theory of a gun owning Viking society that lives in perfect harmony with the world.

[noxiousdog]

I know the world is full of bloody violence in history. Somehow, some societies manage to move on and others get stuck. The Scandanavian countries - Denmark, Norway, etc - used to be a land of viking raiders. Now these places are ranked as some of the happiest nations on earth. America seems to be lagging behind in sociological development, and it's not guns that are the cause of that. You can be a civilized and happy nation without demanding that citizens give up the right to defend themselves with lethal force.

That's because they are all clones.

[gameoverman]

The United States is still a young nation. It's not reasonable to expect it to have 'evolved' as much as nations or cultures that have been around substantially longer.

In that CNN article I couldn't help noticing that, except for that truck at a drive thru, every situation involved people violating other people's personal space before they got killed.

Take that FEMA guy for example. He's coming around asking for water at 2am. What's up with that? If it turns out later that he had a skull fracture and that might have accounted for his erratic behavior, so what? The people who lived on that property don't know jack shiat about him, other than he's skulking around at 2am.

The guy in the truck though, I'm amazed he's not up for murder. He even admits no one's life was in danger. His excuse for not simply driving away is that the dog was in the way. So shooting a guy is doable, but running over the dog would be over the line?

[hepcat]

The guy in the truck though, I'm amazed he's not up for murder. He even admits no one's life was in danger. His excuse for not simply driving away is that the dog was in the way. So shooting a guy is doable, but running over the dog would be over the line?

Yeah, that one struck me as the most egregious abuse of SYG laws...and in my opinion, shows the inherent flaws in it.

[GreenGoo]

In that CNN article I couldn't help noticing that, except for that truck at a drive thru, every situation involved people violating other people's personal space before they got killed.

My kids are learning about personal space in school. It hasn't fully taken yet, especially my mildly autistic son. Perhaps I should say something like "stay out of peoples' bubble space or you might die!" and see if that works. Bubble space is what they call it at school, fyi.

[Grifman]

The unfortunate truth seems to be that America has a very violent past and hasn't evolved much beyond that.

That's bull$h*t. Pick up any world history book and start reading. Our past is no more violent than countless other countries. I think you need to look elsewhere for a knee jerk explanation about complex social issues that have plagued mankind since we first learned how to create gunpowder or even sharpen a stick.

I don't believe he said that other countries weren't violent in the past. But his point is well taken that the US is STILL a rather violent country. That's pretty undisputed, especially compared with other first world countries. Is there another that is even close?

[hepcat]

Discussing statistics is a losing endeavor, unfortunately. Where I would see a differentation of 2 or 3 per 100,000 as not being indicative of a violent culture when viewed against the rest of a list, you would probably counter that it is. Plus, we would need to define the parameters of "violent". Just murders? Or do we include assault? Overall, we have a much larger crime rate in comparison to the rest of the world (at least according to this chart), but as many comment on that list's site, that may very well be due to a much more effective police force and the willingness to report crimes, as well as what's defined as "criminal".

I maintain we're no more inherently violent than most of our peers on the world stage. Do we have problems? Sure, of course. But what country with our diversity and population doesn't? My contention is not that we're perfect, but that we shouldn't hold up every instance of sensationalistic violence as proof that we've failed in some way, or that we're simply a violent culture.

p.s. I do apologize to Paingod for my earlier confrontational tone. I was feeling cranky and let it show in my reply. Sorry about that.

[Zurai]

Overall, we have a much larger crime rate in comparison to the rest of the world (at least according to this chart), but as many comment on that list's site, that may very well be due to a much more effective police force and the willingness to report crimes, as well as what's defined as "criminal".

Yeah, no kidding. According to that list, China has fewer criminals than Montserrat.

[Rip]

You would also have to take the collection of those statistics with a grain of salt. I am pretty sure places like Libya, Syria, and China would show a low number as most of the killing is done by the people controlling the statistics. No telling how many thousands die in Africa every week that go unreported/noticed.

[Rip]

Many stories that begin this way end much worse. Another colleague recently wrote about the final defendant to be sentenced in the beating death of 19-year-old James Robertson in East Ocean View five years ago. In that case, a swarm of gang members attacked Robertson and two friends. Robertson's friends got away and called for help; police arrived to find Robertson's stripped, swollen corpse.

Forster and Rostami's story has not, until today, appeared in this paper. The responding officer coded the incident as a simple assault, despite their assertions that at least 30 people had participated in the attack. A reporter making routine checks of police reports would see "simple assault" and, if the names were unfamiliar, would be unlikely to write about it. In this case, editors hesitated to assign a story about their own employees. Would it seem like the paper treated its employees differently from other crime victims?

More questions loomed.

Forster and Rostami wondered if the officer who answered their call treated all crime victims the same way. When Rostami, who admits she was hysterical, tried to describe what had happened, she says the officer told her to shut up and get in the car. Both said the officer did not record any names of witnesses who stopped to help. Rostami said the officer told them the attackers were "probably juveniles anyway. What are we going to do? Find their parents and tell them?"

The officer pointed to public housing in the area and said large groups of teenagers look for trouble on the weekends. "It's what they do," he told Forster.

Could that be true? Could violent mobs of teens be so commonplace in Norfolk that police and victims have no recourse?

Police spokesman Chris Amos said officers often respond to reports of crowds fighting; sirens are usually enough to disperse the group. On that night, he said, a report of gunfire in a nearby neighborhood prompted the officer to decide getting Forster and Rostami off the street quickly made more sense than remaining at the intersection. The officer gave them his card and told them to call later to file a report.

The next day, Forster searched Twitter for mention of the attack.

One post chilled him.

"I feel for the white man who got beat up at the light," wrote one person.

"I don't," wrote another, indicating laughter. "(do it for trayvon martin)"

Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teen, died after being shot by a community watch captain with white and Hispanic parents, George Zimmerman, in Florida.

Forster and Rostami, both white, suffered a beating at the hands of a crowd of black teenagers.

Was either case racially motivated? Were Forster and Rostami beaten in some kind of warped, vigilante retribution for a killing 750 miles away, a person none of them knew? Was it just bombast? Is a beating funny, ever?

Here's why their story is in the paper today. We cannot allow such callousness to continue unremarked, from the irrational, senseless teenagers who attacked two people just trying to go home, from the police officer whose conduct may have been typical but certainly seems cold, from the tweeting nitwits who think beating a man in Norfolk will change the death of Trayvon Martin.

How can we change it if we don't know about it? How can we make it better if we look away?

Are we really no better than this?

http://hamptonroads.com.nyud.net/2012/05/beating-church-and-brambleton

Sounds like some people that could have used a gun to defend themselves.

Of course some would rather that if they did they would just end up in jail instead of dead.

I used to run the streets of Norfolk and only remember having one altercation so I am guessing it is worse now than the eighties.

[Crux]

Overall, we have a much larger crime rate in comparison to the rest of the world (at least according to this chart), but as many comment on that list's site, that may very well be due to a much more effective police force and the willingness to report crimes, as well as what's defined as "criminal".

Compare to other developed, first-world countries like the UK, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, and I think you can see there is still something of a problem.

Just a quick search found this, but in 2007, Australia had 1.3 homicides per 100k people. That same year, the US had 5.7. More than triple the homicide rate.

[msduncan]

Overall, we have a much larger crime rate in comparison to the rest of the world (at least according to this chart), but as many comment on that list's site, that may very well be due to a much more effective police force and the willingness to report crimes, as well as what's defined as "criminal".

Compare to other developed, first-world countries like the UK, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, and I think you can see there is still something of a problem.

Just a quick search found this, but in 2007, Australia had 1.3 homicides per 100k people. That same year, the US had 5.7. More than triple the homicide rate.

We also have an ethnic component that contributes to our higher than Europe crime rate. I would be inclined to say that this is directly related to socio-economic hurdles and issues within several cultures that are still profoundly affected by events in history.

You can't simply compare one country to another and it be apples to apples just because one country has firearm ownership. I could compare Switzerland or Israel and they don't fit. It has a LOT to do with socio-economic issues that can't be ignored when looking at the differences in those crime rates.

[El Guapo]

What's the ethnic component to our crime rate? European countries definitely have "socio-economic hurdles and issues within several cultures that are still profoundly affected by events in history" too. While some countries are more homogeneous than others, almost all have some type of disadvantaged minority group(s).