Trayvon Martin

[ArcIyte]

You claimed earlier that you couldn't make it out, but it "sounded like fucking coons", and now you're using it as fact? Which is it?

You didn't answer my question. What crime did he commit before the supposed fight started? Walking up to someone and asking them what they're doing in the neighborhood isn't a crime. So yes, whoever started the physical altercation is largely at fault.

He's definitely gonna go through the legal system a few times. The cops told him to stop following the guy. He also muttered "they always get away". Very stupid on his part, assuming he's telling the truth.

[Figment]

Regardless of he shouts that, you can definitely make a case for hate crime based on:

"They always get away with it".

How can one boy be a "they"? Something about the boy triggered a stereotype for him that says criminal. Doesn't have to be based on just skin, could well be "gangster youth" appearance, for instance. Whatever it was, something triggered a characterization of the kid that made him want to see "justice" done.

Sounds to me though, this is a culmination of events over a very long time in which he created such a stereotype.

[Crator]

He was a self proclaimed neighborhood watch man. "They" could just mean anyone who's done something wrong in the neighborhood.

Not certain he had a right to shoot the kid though. I could see if the kid had a gun, or even threatened that he had a gun even if he didn't.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

This case would be getting very minimal attention had it been a white guy killing a white guy.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by BuzzCutPsycho

This case would be getting very minimal attention had it been a white guy killing a white guy.

It would of still been the first killing under the "because they made me feel icky" law.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

Originally Posted by Vash02

It would of still been the first killing under the "because they made me feel icky" law.

And you'd of never heard about it.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by BuzzCutPsycho

This case would be getting very minimal attention had it been a white guy killing a white guy.

Not so sure about that. An armed guy pursuing and shooting an unarmed guy to death for looking "suspicious" and then walking away is pretty fucked up. There wouldn't have been any kind of big marches in the streets or whatever, but it would have made national news I'd think.

Originally Posted by Malorn

Amazing how so many people know so little about what happened but are so quick to judge exactly how it went down.

All I'm claiming is that a guy running down and shooting an unarmed guy who posed no threat to him, and then being allowed to walk away after the police get there, is bullshit.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

Originally Posted by Warborn

Not so sure about that. An armed guy pursuing and shooting an unarmed guy to death for looking "suspicious" and then walking away is pretty fucked up. There wouldn't have been any kind of big marches in the streets or whatever, but it would have made national news I'd think.

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?se...cal&id=8590150

You'd think but in our fucked up country it doesn't. This happened on the 21st by the way.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by BuzzCutPsycho

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?se...cal&id=8590150

You'd think but in our fucked up country it doesn't. This happened on the 21st by the way.

Uhm, regardless of how screwed up that is and typical of (youth) gang behaviour, how is that anywhere near the same kind of thing? What you show is a robbery, where a bunch of criminals physically assault someone and get away with it because they have not been identified or caught.

You said:

"This case would be getting very minimal attention had it been a white guy killing a white guy."

What you need to show if you want to back up your statement, is an extremely local news thing where a known white person shoots another white person on the street, but is let go based on self-defense without any evidence for self-defense.

That would be an illustration of a case that would be similar to this one.

What exactly is your point with the link you provided?

[NivexQ]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clip...-now-committee

Pretty much sums up my stance on that.

[Effective]

Originally Posted by Warborn

An unarmed person was shot and killed by an armed person. The armed person actually pursued the unarmed person out onto the street to confront him. There is no "tough call" to it. It's cold blooded murder. A kid was murdered over nothing and the killer is walking free. It's a travesty.

This. Shooting someone unarmed isn't self-defense 2 blocks away from your home.

[Baneblade]

The distance from his home has nothing to do with whether it was self defense or not... or are you insinuating that nobody should be able to defend themselves where ever they go?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

The distance from his home has nothing to do with whether it was self defense or not... or are you insinuating that nobody should be able to defend themselves where ever they go?

Probably the distance was a reference to that "castle" law thingy.


PS: Can't you actually not just build a castle instead? Would you need a permit to build a castle so you can defend yourself with burning hot oil instead of guns? Hmmm questions questions.

[Traak]

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

Trayvon Martin. He's a pretty polarizing topic in the news right now.

A black sixteen year old kid, shot by a Hispanic male who says that Trayvon was "snooping around windows in his neighborhood."

The shooter, George Zimmerman, says that he followed the boy for several blocks, asked him what he was doing, and then the boy attacked him and ran. So Zimmerman shot him once in the chest.

Zimmerman then cited the 'castle doctrine' as his defense.

For those that don't know, castle doctrine or the 'stand your ground law' is a law in Florida that states that it is legal for you to shoot an intruder on your property if your life is reasonably threatened by said intruder.

The problem with that defense is, this kid was no where near Zimmerman's house. They were 2 blocks down when the kid was shot.

Zimmerman also says that he was a part of neighborhood watch, and that the castle doctrine applies since his castle was technically the whole neighborhood.

I don't know guys, part of me says that this was an avoidable and senseless killing...and part of me would like to know what exactly the kid was doing.

Two other neighbors came forward and said they've seen this kid snooping in windows before.

What strikes me about this, is the NAACP and the black community are comparing this kid to Emmet Till.

There is no comparison to Emmet Till to be had here. None.

What I do see, is that people are going to use this to take away Castle Doctrine, and further curtail our second amendment rights.

I need more information on this kid though to make a determination of who was right here.

Thoughts?

Actually, I think the law he was standing on was the "You don't have to run away in fear gibbering and shrieking every time someone attacks you, no matter where you are, as long as you are legally allowed to be there."

So if you run up on someone when they are on a public sidewalk, or anywhere else they are legally allowed to be, then you can get a chest full of lead like homeboy G-dogg got. I guess when he tried to ac' the foo' he wound up dead.

Laws used to read, and still do in some freedom-hating jurisdictions, that if someone attacks you in a public place, you have to run away screaming like a little girl, and can't stand your ground and defend yourself.

This is not the case in Florida, so thugged-out gangstas actually get shot instead of being able to swagger down the street saying "boo" to people who then, by law, have to run away.

There is a cure for getting shot in self-defense. Quit snooping around houses in the neighborhood and don't attack someone who confronts you for doing it.

Yo.

It's typical National Association Against Cracker People tactics, though, to turn someone from a thief and an assailant into a glowing halo-polishing saint of righteousness that would make Jesus himself look dirty in comparison.

Yeah, he was a good kid, sure. So was Rodney King, and every Tom, Javier, and Jamal that has ever walked the face of the Earth. However, good kids get shot just as dead for attacking someone as evil horrible persons.

[Traak]

Originally Posted by Vecha

While the kid may have been a punk..maybe even a petty theft, that doesn't mean he should have been shot.

He was unarmed.

So, if, for example, a 300-pound martial artist attacks your sixteen-year-old daughter, she shouldn't shoot him.

He's unarmed.

The cure for being shot in self-defense is to NOT GO AROUND ATTACKING PEOPLE.