Trayvon Martin case to go to grand jury, Fla. state attorney announces

[RendeR]

You don't shoot someone in a fist fight.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by RendeR

You don't shoot someone in a fist fight.

I agree with this. The Zimmerman guy sounds like the Ronnie character in Observe and Report. This was his one big chance to finally be the vigilante hero he always wanted to be.

All of the racism and reverse-racism stuff needs to calm down and wait for the dust to settle. A lesson will be learned from this, we just don't know what it is yet.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Havok

...Obama chiming in for no apparent reason, like he did with the Harvard professor.)

You forgot Romney & Santorum, who felt they needed to echo Obama "for no apparent reason." (to use your words)

(As for the Harvard prof... Obama's statement on that should have just been "I don't know exactly what happened, but I know him. He is a good man. It would be out of place for the President to comment further on this."

By the way... can you tell I'm sick to fucking death of the people who bitch because Obama keeps waking up every damn morning?

[molson]

Originally Posted by RendeR

You don't shoot someone in a fist fight.

Ideally. But then when they go and do, its a friggen mess.

[Havok]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

By the way... can you tell I'm sick to fucking death of the people who bitch because Obama keeps waking up every damn morning?

Don't worry, we won't have to wake up to him as president much longer.

Now back on topic, So Zimmerman was 'much bigger' then Trayvon. Last i heard, Trayvon was 6'3 and very athletic, and Zimmerman was a short fat guy.

But again, maybe he is a big guy, i don't know that facts on that one.

[RedKingGold]

Everyone needs to chill the fuck out instead of jumping to conclusions...on both sides.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Havok

Don't worry, we won't have to wake up to him as president much longer.

Just another four years & 10 months, then we'll finally be free from listening to people bitch about him as President...

Then they can whine about him out of office.

[Havok]

Originally Posted by RendeR

You don't shoot someone in a fist fight.

ok, I'll give you a gun, then I'll sit on top of you and bash your face in, think you'll shot eventually? (especially if it's just me and you, and you don't know me?)

just sayin...

But maybe Zimmerman started the whole fight, i honestly have no clue. But neither does anyone else, and turning this case into a racial circus is ridiculous.

[Havok]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Just another four years & 10 months, then we'll finally be free from listening to people bitch about him as President...

Then they can whine about him out of office.

Keep dreaming, your boy's done, just like that city you live in

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Can we all at least agree that they guy who sent a threatening email about the police chief & his family may be the biggest idiot out there?

[Havok]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Can we all at least agree that they guy who sent a threatening email about the police chief & his family may be the biggest idiot out there?

agreed

now back to the basketball game!

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Common sense.

Commit a crime against someone, you deserve what you get. You break into someone's house and that is going over the line... all bets are off.

Shoplifting is not a crime against someone, a traffic accident is not a crime.

Well, you're fine with him being killed for breaking into a car to steal a radio, so you're fine with property damage being enough to kill them. How much property?

Shoplifting is a crime against a corporation or business. Corporations have rights as people in the United States, therefore their security should be able to gun you down in the parking lot, right?

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Havok

Keep dreaming, your boy's done, just like that city you live in

I'm not thrilled with Obama. I just see nothing better out there to vote for.

As for my city... nowhere to go but up, baby!

[bulletsponge]

Originally Posted by RendeR

You don't shoot someone in a fist fight.

i hate to say this but..... you do if you want to win. and lets not fool ourselves, a fist fight can turn into someone dying without weapons real fast all by itself.

if i ever got into a fist fight and i thought the other guy seriously wanted to hurt me, id shoot him (if i had a gun) before i let him get me to the ground

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Havok

Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman


I don't know what to think about this case, but after reading this article, all i can think of is the Duke lacrosse scandal all over again. Maybe this story is all bullshit, who knows. I just get irate when everyone and their mom are jumping to conclusions in this case without all the facts. (Miami Heat and their stupid hoodie thing, and Obama chiming in for no apparent reason, like he did with the Harvard professor.)

I wonder if this would have made top headlines if the shooters name had been Jose Martinez? doubtful....

Yeah, why would the Heat players be upset that a unarmed black kid got shot for wearing a hoodie?

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Havok

ok, I'll give you a gun, then I'll sit on top of you and bash your face in, think you'll shot eventually? (especially if it's just me and you, and you don't know me?)

just sayin...

But maybe Zimmerman started the whole fight, i honestly have no clue. But neither does anyone else, and turning this case into a racial circus is ridiculous.

How about just calling it what it appears to be? An overzealous wannba be neighborhood watch guy pursuing someone he was asked not to pursue. He catches up with him, the other person fights back as many would, Zimmerman starts getting his ass kicked and shoots him.

Who initiated the confrontation after they were told not to?

It will be interesting to see whay happens when the facts all come out, but Zimmerman could have avoided everything by just doing what people watching neighborhoods are supposed to do....Watch.

[miked]

Obama chimed in because he's a politician, millions of people have signed petitions and obviously care about this, and he was asked about. To the horror of everyone who hates the president, he said:

"When I think about this boy I think about my own kids,” Obama told reporters at the White House. “And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together – federal, state and local - to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.”

Just terrible for him to reflect on the fact that it could be anybody's kid and we should investigate. Clearly all part of his horrible liberal agenda.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Havok

Don't worry, we won't have to wake up to him as president much longer.

Now back on topic, So Zimmerman was 'much bigger' then Trayvon. Last i heard, Trayvon was 6'3 and very athletic, and Zimmerman was a short fat guy.

But again, maybe he is a big guy, i don't know that facts on that one.

Zimmerman had 100 pounds on him. That's a pretty massive advantage in a fight regardless of how athletic you are.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Zimmerman had 100 pounds on him. That's a pretty massive advantage in a fight regardless of how athletic you are.

Disagree. I've seen many situations where smaller, more athletic person absolutely destroyed an overweight individual.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Disagree. I've seen many situations where smaller, more athletic person absolutely destroyed an overweight individual.

It's still really tough. 100 pounds is a huge advantage. Even 20 pounds in a fight is a big advantage. Just much more difficult to take down and control.

Zimmerman also wasn't some 65 year old guy. He was young and fit enough to want to be a police officer. Give me a fully grown adult at 240 over a teenager at 140 anyday in a fight.

Regardless, even if Trayvon ended up on top in a scuffle, he was being stalked at night by a stranger.

[Flasch186]

Not reading the thread or participating but Ill bet Jimga has some gold in here

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Regardless, even if Trayvon ended up on top in a scuffle, he was being stalked at night by a stranger.

This. It's called neighborhood watch, not neighborhood chase and confront, for a reason. IMHO, if you chase someone who is doing nothing more than walking around, and you catch up to them, then nothing that you do afterward to the person whom you chased constitutes "self-defense." Self-defense is when you are just minding your own business and someone else comes up to you and starts trouble. Even the National Review gets this.

[CrimsonFox]

another reason to dislike Florida...

[molson]

Originally Posted by King of New York

This. It's called neighborhood watch, not neighborhood chase and confront, for a reason. IMHO, if you chase someone who is doing nothing more than walking around, and you catch up to them, then nothing that you do afterward to the person whom you chased constitutes "self-defense." Self-defense is when you are just minding your own business and someone else comes up to you and starts trouble. Even the National Review gets this.

Self-defense is whatever the Florida legislature says it is. (and however Florida appellate courts have interpreted what the Florida legislature says it is).

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's still really tough. 100 pounds is a huge advantage. Even 20 pounds in a fight is a big advantage. Just much more difficult to take down and control.

Zimmerman also wasn't some 65 year old guy. He was young and fit enough to want to be a police officer. Give me a fully grown adult at 240 over a teenager at 140 anyday in a fight.

Regardless, even if Trayvon ended up on top in a scuffle, he was being stalked at night by a stranger.

I don't know. I've seen many situations where a younger, more athletic individual just absolutely dominates an older, heavier person. Situations where I'm sitting with a person while an ambulance is coming to take them to a hospital kind of domination.

Knowing how to fight can easily offset a weight advantage. Not that I'm saying Trayvon knew how to fight or Zimmerman was a slug.

[molson]

Two of the other controversial criminal cases that were discussed here in the past were the guy that killed the two kids that tried to rob his pharmacy and the guy who chased the home invader down the street and killed him. Here, Zimmerman apparently acted like an overzealous wanna-be police officer goof and it seems so many are willing to say that since he overstepped the bounds of standard neighborhood watch protocol, then whatever happened to him was his own fault and he was on his own. Where in those other two situations, it seems the consensus was that even a home invader and pharmacy burglar had a right and expectation for the people they victimized to act completely rationally in response to the crimes against them - everybody wanted to string up the victimized store owner and homeowner. I think this shit is hard, where you find yourself in a violent situation you don't expect, even if it's by some questionable decisions on your own part (and especially when it's brought on by violent criminals acting against you) However it goes down, it's a lot different to me than the domestic violence murderer, or the gang murderer, who are a dime a dozen and don't get any publicity.

[RainMaker]

I understand what you're saying. I just think it is a big advantage, even if it doesn't end up that way. Most of us aren't going and picking fights with a guy who has 100 pounds on us for a reason.

One other thing that bothers me. Even if Trayvon hit him, isn't that exactly what we teach kids to do? I remember learning about that in school. If an adult stranger confronts you, kick, punch, scream and do whatever you have to.

Seriously, pretend it's your kid. An adult male twice his/her size is stalking them in a car. Do you tell them to not fight back in that situation? Obviously Zimmerman wasn't looking to abduct the kid, but his actions are straight out of that playbook. What was Trayvon supposed to think was happening? And why would he just randomly start punching a guy twice his size?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Two of the other controversial criminal cases that were discussed here in the past were the guy that killed the two kids that tried to rob his pharmacy and the guy who chased the home invader down the street and killed him. Here, Zimmerman apparently acted like an overzealous wanna-be police officer goof and it seems so many are willing to say that since he overstepped the bounds of standard neighborhood watch protocol, then whatever happened to him was his own fault and he was on his own. Where in those other two situations, it seems the consensus was that even a home invader and pharmacy burglar had a right and expectation for the people they victimized to act completely rationally in response to the crimes against them - everybody wanted to string up the victimized store owner and homeowner. I think this shit is hard, where you find yourself in a violent situation you don't expect, even if it's by some questionable decisions on your own part (and especially when it's brought on by violent criminals acting against you) However it goes down, it's a lot different to me than the domestic violence murderer, or the gang murderer, who are a dime a dozen and don't get any publicity.

Trayvon Martin was not a burglar or home invader. He committed no crime. I don't see how they are comparable at all.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Trayvon Martin was not a burglar or home invader. He committed no crime. I don't see how they are comparable at all.

I wasn't comparing Martin to the burglars, I was thinking about the the idea that if you violate neighborhood watch protocols you're responsible for anything bad that results. Where on the other hand, our society doesn't seem to think that if you commit violent robberies/home invasions you're responsible for anything bad that results.

I'm not saying that's the only theory at play here. Zimmerman being guilty of a crime isn't necessarily dependent on him violating neighborhood watch protocols. Someone can rationally think that doesn't matter at all, and that the real problem was his actions once he got to the confrontation, or whatever the hell it was. I just think I disagree with the idea that if he acted stupidly or outside the scope of neighborhood watch protocol, he loses all rights to defend himself no matter what. The nuts and bolts of whatever happened after he started following Martin are still important, IMO, in both a moral and legal sense.

[RainMaker]

I don't know, I think he did lose all rights to defend himself. It's like picking a fight with someone out of the blue and then killing them when the other guy gets the advantage. "The other person fought back so I was in my right to kill them". Every abusive husband would love that rule I'm sure.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by molson

Self-defense is whatever the Florida legislature says it is. (and however Florida appellate courts have interpreted what the Florida legislature says it is).

And the Florida legislator who sponsored the bill has stated quite clearly that he did not intend it to cover behavior such as Zimmerman's: "As the prime sponsor of this legislation in the Florida House, I'd like to clarify that there is nothing in the law that provides for the opportunity to pursue and confront individuals. It simply lets those who would be victims use force in self-defense." If the guy who wrote the bill says that Stand Your Ground does not apply, then I think it is safe to say that Zimmerman's actions do not constitute self-defense--surely the appellate courts will be good strict constructionists and use the legislator's intent when ruling on the law.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know, I think he did lose all rights to defend himself. It's like picking a fight with someone out of the blue and then killing them when the other guy gets the advantage. "The other person fought back so I was in my right to kill them". Every abusive husband would love that rule I'm sure.

If the evidence showed that Zimmerman initiated a physical fight and then Martin got the better of him, and then Zimmerman shot him, I can kind of see that, but even then - the key charge there to me would be Zimmerman's initial aggravated battery in starting the fight. I'd want to charge him with that, argue for an aggravated sentence (i.e. years) based on the end result, but I'd have a tough time calling it murder, or charging him with murder.

And to me, robbing that pharmacy or invading that house is MUCH more "picking a fight", I'm much more comfortable saying that those guys are on their own, and that if they're killed in the commission of those violent crimes, it sucks for them, but they're not victims in any shape or form. So I'd be reluctant to want to prosecute anyone too severely for, at worst, acting irrationally when they were victims of a violent crime. (in the same way, if Martin had been armed and had killed a weirdo neighborhood watchman that was following him around and breaking every neighborhood watch protocol and physically confronting and restraining him - I wouldn't see that as murder either, though maybe as a lesser crime depending on the facts).

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know, I think he did lose all rights to defend himself. It's like picking a fight with someone out of the blue and then killing them when the other guy gets the advantage. "The other person fought back so I was in my right to kill them". Every abusive husband would love that rule I'm sure.

This too. You don't even have to wait for the other guy to get the advantage--you just make them look crossly at you and then, claiming that you feel threatened, you blow them away. Any law that permits you to kill someone in a public place because you "feel threatened," or that permits you to provoke a fight and then to kill the person with whom you are fighting, is basically giving every citizen an easy way to commit murder with impunity.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by molson

If the evidence showed that Zimmerman initiated a physical fight and then Martin got the better of him, and then Zimmerman shot him, I can kind of see that, but even then - the key charge there to me would be Zimmerman's initial aggravated battery in starting the fight. I'd want to charge him with that, argue for an aggravated sentence (i.e. years) based on the end result, but I'd have a tough time calling it murder, or charging him with murder.

And to me, robbing that pharmacy or invading that house is MUCH more "picking a fight", I'm much more comfortable saying that those guys are on their own, and that if they're killed in the commission of those violent crimes, it sucks for them, but they're not victims in any shape or form. So I'd be reluctant to want to prosecute anyone too severely for, at worst, acting irrationally when they were victims of a violent crime. (in the same way, if Martin had been armed and had killed a weirdo neighborhood watchman that was following him around and breaking every neighborhood watch protocol and physically confronting and restraining him - I wouldn't see that as murder either, though maybe as a lesser crime depending on the facts).

I agree with the second point, but not the first one. Think about it--if you wanted to kill someone, all you would have to do is to instigate a fight with that person, kill them with the weapon that you just happened to have on you, and then face nothing worse than an assault charge.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

How do we know that Trayvon Martin didn't head out looking to beat somebody's ass, get a bag of skittles and a soda at the story, then find his perfect mark on the way home. Hey, here's this fat slob... I'm gonna jump him for no reason other than to have some fun & beat his ass!

Then, the hero of our story, George Zimmerman (aka The Protector,) while keeping watch for hoodlums, is violently attacked! "Please stop!" he cried in vain. He does the only thing he can do. As a last resort, he pulls his gun in an attempt to ward off his attacker, shooting with a tear in his eye as he tries to save his own life from this vile attacker whose bare hands could have killed any man... and likely would have if not for the 2nd Amendment.

If the poor, innocent George Zimmerman, who was simply minding his business, had not killed his ruthless attacker, he would surely have been the one killed. He is a true hero to us all.

Did you ever know that you're my hero,
and everything I would like to be?
I can fly higher than an eagle,
'cause you are the wind beneath my wings.

Oh wait... he called the cops and lamented how "These assholes always get away" and continued to follow despite being told not to. Never mind.

[molson]

Originally Posted by King of New York

I agree with the second point, but not the first one. Think about it--if you wanted to kill someone, all you would have to do is to instigate a fight with that person, kill them with the weapon that you just happened to have on you, and then face nothing worse than an assault charge.

Ya could be, I may be too reluctant to see things as 1st degree murder, too reluctant to find that pre-meditation - I just see a world of difference between the typical 1st degree murder v. tragedies like this....but the end result is ultimately the same for the families of both so I get that too. I may be too forgiving generally, of the killings that take place in these chaotic, unexpected situations - it's just an entirely different category to me. I've never been a situation like that, but I've read enough about them, heard their testimony, etc, who knows what we would do in those situations, what our breaking point would be. Normal, non-criminal people don't initiate and commit murders, but when we find ourselves in a street fight (even if we started it), or someone breaks into our house, how can we judge that exactly the same as the clear premediated killer?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

If the evidence showed that Zimmerman initiated a physical fight and then Martin got the better of him, and then Zimmerman shot him, I can kind of see that, but even then - the key charge there to me would be Zimmerman's initial aggravated battery in starting the fight. I'd want to charge him with that, argue for an aggravated sentence (i.e. years) based on the end result, but I'd have a tough time calling it murder, or charging him with murder.

As King pointed out, that would just mean you can pick a fight with someone and just so happen to pull out your deadly weapon when they fight back and only get charged with aggravated battery.

I just don't see how this ever ends up in a self-defense scenario. The only thing that has made it one is the fact Trayvon was black. If he was a white kid doing the same thing, Zimmerman would be in jail right now and we all know it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya could be, I may be too reluctant to see things as 1st degree murder, too reluctant to find that pre-meditation - I just see a world of difference between the typical 1st degree murder v. tragedies like this....but the end result is ultimately the same for the families of both so I get that too.

I don't think it's 1st degree murder, but it's either 2nd degree murder or maybe manslaughter. And I'm not sure "black teenager walking in my neighborhood" is grounds to argue the emotional element required for manslaughter.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by molson

... but I'd have a tough time calling it murder, or charging him with murder.

So how about a lesser charge? I agree that murder may be too much... negligent homicide perhaps? Or something of that nature?

At the very least there needs to be a thorough investigation, and most likely a trial. Hopefully all the details will come out then. And if things look to have gone like they appear to have, there needs to be a clear statement made that a boy's life was ended unjustly by this man.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If he was a white kid doing the same thing, Zimmerman would be in jail right now and we all know it.

Right, because police officers and prosecutors are all racists and all of their decisions are racially motivated, I know your feelings on that, which makes rational discussions in this area with you completely impossible.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by molson

Right, because police officers and prosecutors are all racists and all of their decisions are racially motivated, I know your feelings on that, which makes rational discussions in this area with you completely impossible.

I don't think that you can say that nobody's perceptions in this whole situation are not in any way colored by race. Could some police officers and prosecutors be thinking to themselves "some black kid in a hoody walking through a gated community late at night.. I can see how he saw that as suspicious, and then things just got out of hand"? Would that make them "racist"? I don't know. But totally dismissing race out of the equation is just a bit much for me.

[chadritt]

Ive been stopped by the cops three times in the last year while walking late at night with my hoodie on, apparently it looks suspicious in my area too. Im REALLY glad that it was the cops who stopped me and not someone like this guy. 2 times they never even got out of their car, they just asked me who I was, what I was doing, where I lived, and if I was on parole. The third time was more involved because the Hollywood arsonist had literally just struck 2 exits away on the freeway but even then none of the 6 cops even made a hint of a move for a gun because its just stupid to do that for some who LOOKS suspicious.

This guy clearly wasnt trained for what he was doing, if he was then he wouldve realized this was an unarmed kid and nothing wouldve come from it. You know.....just like a real authority figure is trained to do in this situation. If your argument is "well hes not trained" then why the hell was he trying to stop a kid by using a gun in the first place? *edited to add* Thats why I hope this guy gets serious time when he finally gets charged. If you dont know the proper way to do something like this then you either wait for cops or accept responsibility for the results of your actions.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Telle

I don't think that you can say that nobody's perceptions in this whole situation are not in any way colored by race. Could some police officers and prosecutors be thinking to themselves "some black kid in a hoody walking through a gated community late at night.. I can see how he saw that as suspicious, and then things just got out of hand"? Would that make them "racist"? I don't know. But totally dismissing race out of the equation is just a bit much for me.

Since the burden of proof is on government officials to show that their actions are not racist (they're all assumed to be racists without that proof), myself and judicial clerk have discussed earlier many of the other factors at play that go into arrest decisions. Maybe race was a factor here, maybe it wasn't, but it isn't clear at all from the facts that we know here. If we're just going to make the assumptions off the bat that all of the decisions were absolutely based on race, it's difficult to have a rational conversation.

I guess what bugs me, perhaps irrationally, is how people throw out that stuff when they don't understand the process and don't understand or just ignore the other factors involved. It's just racist whenever the police or prosecutors make any decision that disadvantages a minority. When that's the starting point, where can you go? If someone can make a case of racism against a specific individual, that's serious, and we all should listen. I just hate the general racial cynicism. If you want to raise the question, fine, I don't think it's always appropriate to do so, and I think those racial assumptions can be very hurtful to the individuals you're making them against, but whatever, ask a question. But Rainmaker has already decided that everyone involved was racist, and that's what I objected to.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Right, because police officers and prosecutors are all racists and all of their decisions are racially motivated, I know your feelings on that, which makes rational discussions in this area with you completely impossible.

Do you honestly think that if this was a teenage white kid we would be in this situation? I'm not saying everyone's a racist, just that there is no way this goes down the same way if he's white. I don't know how anyone could argue that.

Put it this way. Explain to someone the story. Tell them a grown man twice the size of a teenager was stalking him in a neighborhood as he walked home from the store. This teenager has no record yet the adult male has had a few minor violent run-ins. The situation ended up with the unarmed teenager dead. If you leave out race when telling someone this story, is there any human being out there that would be claiming this was self-defense?

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Do you honestly think that if this was a teenage white kid we would be in this situation? I'm not saying everyone's a racist, just that there is no way this goes down the same way if he's white. I don't know how anyone could argue that.

Yes, an absolutely non-racist cop could have decided not to arrest Zimmerman based on entirely non-racist factors. Yes, that is possible. To conclude otherwise is "every cop is a racist" type stuff.

Edit: Zimmerman could be talking like crazy to officers now, we don't know. All those statements are 100% admissible and they'll hang him if they're inconsistent with any of the physical evidence or the 911 calls. As JC pointed out, when you arrest him, all that's over, now you lose that, and you get motions to dismiss and motions to suppress flying at you everywhere. So if you're in that position to make that decision, you have to choose - do I do the right thing for proving this case and whatever crime took place, or do I hold back and weaken the case so that nobody calls me a racist? The good prosecutor/cop, the courageous prosecutor/cop, of course picks the first option. It's just a hypothetical, and it may not apply in this case - but it's a very common issue cops and prosecutors have to deal with - it's not often that the perceptions against you blow up nationally like this of course, but on a smaller scale, it's a common issue. Prosecutors/police DO refrain from immediate arrests in trickier cases all the time, and even decline to pursue charges - even where the defendant is black. I know people don't believe that, and that's a sad racial cynicism that isn't helpful, and is in fact hurtful. And maybe its an understandable cynicism based on our country's history, but whatever, I just still thinks it sucks and it holds back progress.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by molson

Since the burden of proof is on government officials to show that their actions are not racist (they're all assumed to be racists without that proof), myself and judicial clerk have discussed earlier many of the other factors at play that go into arrest decisions. Maybe race was a factor here, maybe it wasn't, but it isn't clear at all from the facts that we know here. If we're just going to make the assumptions off the bat that all of the decisions were absolutely based on race, it's difficult to have a rational conversation.

I guess what bugs me, perhaps irrationally, is how people throw out that stuff when they don't understand the process and don't understand or just ignore the other factors involved. It's just racist whenever the police or prosecutors make any decision that disadvantages a minority. When that's the starting point, where can you go? If someone can make a case of racism against a specific individual, that's serious, and we all should listen. I just hate the general racial cynicism. If you want to raise the question, fine, I don't think it's always appropriate to do so, and I think those racial assumptions can be very hurtful, but whatever, ask a question. But Rainmaker has already decided that everyone involved was racist (he thinks all cops are racist if you've read previous threads), and that's what I objected to.

I think what everyone is saying is that the whole situation would seem a whole lot more suspicious to law personnel if Martin had been white. Would that have led to a more likely arrest? I don't know. Given the laws in the state and the way the whole grand-jury thing works.. maybe not. But I bet you a ton that there would be a whole lot fewer armchair cops/prosecutors/whatever not nodding their little heads along going "I can see that happening" if this kid had been white. There would be more question of why the hell the guy was pursuing him to begin with.

Let's take things a step further. If instead of there being a black boy in a hoody there had been a white girl in a tank-top that ended up shot dead by a "neighborhood watch" guy, don't you think there would be fewer people defending the shooter and more people wondering just what the fuck happened?

And yes I realize that the shooter doesn't exactly have as many defenders as the kid does.. but you still have people saying "well if he wasn't wearing a hoody" and whatnot, and you know there's plenty thinking "wtf was a black kid doing there that night anyways"... and if he had been white, that wouldn't be happening.

So in short.. I don't know if the law enforcement is being racially biased or not in this case. But I do think that there's a certain segment of the public that in some way or another, deep inside, believes that Martin got what was coming to him for the crime of being black in the wrong place at the wrong time. And that is wrong.

[Havok]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Zimmerman had 100 pounds on him. That's a pretty massive advantage in a fight regardless of how athletic you are.

He's a short fat guy from all accounts. I'm 5'10, 185 former athlete myself and i workout out 4 times a week. I would destroy a 5'4 285 lbs slob in seconds.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Telle

I think what everyone is saying is that the whole situation would seem a whole lot more suspicious to law personnel if Martin had been white. Would that have led to a more likely arrest? I don't know. Given the laws in the state and the way the whole grand-jury thing works.. maybe not. But I bet you a ton that there would be a whole lot fewer armchair cops/prosecutors/whatever not nodding their little heads along going "I can see that happening" if this kid had been white. There would be more question of why the hell the guy was pursuing him to begin with.

Let's take things a step further. If instead of there being a black boy in a hoody there had been a white girl in a tank-top that ended up shot dead by a "neighborhood watch" guy, don't you think there would be fewer people defending the shooter and more people wondering just what the fuck happened?

And yes I realize that the shooter doesn't exactly have as many defenders as the kid does.. but you still have people saying "well if he wasn't wearing a hoody" and whatnot, and you know there's plenty thinking "wtf was a black kid doing there that night anyways"... and if he had been white, that wouldn't be happening.

So in short.. I don't know if the law enforcement is being racially biased or not in this case. But I do think that there's a certain segment of the public that in some way or another, deep inside, believes that Martin got what was coming to him for the crime of being black in the wrong place at the wrong time. And that is wrong.

Well, now you're talking about what the public perception is and I 100% agree - the coverage/opinions of this case is completely different depending on the age/gender/race of the shooter/victim involved. I feel comfortable making that general statement, but I would be reluctant to take any random person and say, "well, you're only upset about this case because the victim is black, and this is your chance to make some political points," unless I actually had some other independent reason to suspect that was the case with that particular person. It would be totally ridiculous to go up to some stranger and make those kinds of accusations based on nothing more than the fact that he's upset by this case. And I think that's basically what people are doing when they see an end result and assume that everyone involved from the law-enforcement end made racially-based decisions. And like I said, maybe that's the burden of the government, and that's fair game, I just think it's worth acknowledging. Those are real people too, the majority of which are dedicated public servants who are not racist.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Havok

He's a short fat guy from all accounts. I'm 5'10, 185 former athlete myself and i workout out 4 times a week. I would destroy a 5'4 285 lbs slob in seconds.

Very nice!

Now if one attacks you, don't fight back. He would apparently have the right to shoot you dead in self defense. Some might even laud him as some sort of hero.

[Telle]

Yeah I'm not one to jump in and say that this case would have been handled 100% different if Martin had been white. But I think at the same time you can't say that none of the law enforcement personnel had any thoughts that may have been colored by race. Thus I neither agree with those who say that the shooter would have been immediately arrested for murder if Martin had been white, nor with those who say that it's ridiculous to say the police or prosecutors might have racist inclinations.

So I think it's important to keep a close eye on any and all racial implications of this case, without necessarily accusing any individual involved with the case of acting improperly thus far.