Trayvon Martin

[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?

[Quovatis]

It's a tough call. I don't know the specifics of the circumstances in this case, but if you have a reasonable risk of impending serious injury or death, I think you should absolutely be allowed to defend yourself by any means necessary.

What doesn't make sense are "hate crimes". I don't get why we are making a crime based on thoughts instead of actions. Punishment should be based on actions and the harm done to the victim, not what the state of mind of the perpetrator was. I mean killing someone because you hate people who eat turkey sandwiches is the same crime in my mind as killing someone because they are gay or black.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Originally Posted by Quovatis

It's a tough call. I don't know the specifics of the circumstances in this case, but if you have a reasonable risk of impending serious injury or death, I think you should absolutely be allowed to defend yourself by any means necessary.

What doesn't make sense are "hate crimes". I don't get why we are making a crime based on thoughts instead of actions. Punishment should be based on actions and the harm done to the victim, not what the state of mind of the perpetrator was. I mean killing someone because you hate people who eat turkey sandwiches is the same crime in my mind as killing someone because they are gay or black.

Exactly. I do not understand at all why this is being labelled as a hate crime.

I mean, the shooter was hispanic. So the black community is shouting that this reminds them of the Civil Rights era? Huh?

My brain: literally full of fuck.

Also Sauce: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...m_politics_pop

[Quovatis]

Yeah, they're calling him a "White Hispanic" whatever that means. Who cares.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Originally Posted by Quovatis

Yeah, they're calling him a "White Hispanic" whatever that means. Who cares.

So if a "White" black guy shoots another black kid, is that a hate crime too?

Or how about, if a black guy HATES the other black guy he's shooting...is that a hate crime?

Nah...I think it's only when White folks shoot Black folks is it a hate crime/travesty/racist/civil rights issue.

The point of fact, the kid was probably looking into windows and snooping around...because he's a kid. This guy over-reacted and shot him in the chest plate...and he should do some time for it.

But let's not make this a race thing. Seriously.

[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.

[WildGunsTomcat]

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.

See though Warborn, you're British...so you don't understand all the different rules that come with living in American society.

I agree with you, someone was shot. But what lead up to the shooting? I keep hearing that this kid was killed and it was a travesty, but two other neighbors said this kid was doing shit he shouldn't be doing...and that he hit this guy and ran away.

And now it's becoming a hate crime issue.

I agree the shooter should do some time...but how is this a hate crime in any way?

[WildGunsTomcat]

I've got a friend getting me the 911 tape, I'll link it when I get it.

I haven't heard this part, so maybe my opinion will change with more information.

[Quovatis]

The article I read said the victim "attacked" the shooter, then ran away. But yeah, the facts I've read do not support a "self-defense" plea.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Originally Posted by Quovatis

The article I read said the victim "attacked" the shooter, then ran away. But yeah, the facts I've read do not support a "self-defense" plea.

Not at all. It wasn't self defense. I would have let him hit me, and called the cops to go scoop him up.

I would definitely not have shot him. That's not the issue here, it was a cold blooded killing.

My problem is calling it a hate crime. That's all.

[Warborn]

I'm Canadian. I understand "castle doctrine" as everyone has heard about how Americans murder each other if they catch intruders on their property in certain states.

The kid was in the gated community visiting his father's fiance's house. He was out on the street because he was walking back to her home after having purchased a snack at the store. At the time he was attacked, he was talking on his phone to his girlfriend. So what are the neighbors saying? Was Martin attacking someone? Was he endangering someone's life? "Doing things he shouldn't be doing" is awfully vague. Bottom line, though, is that Zimmerman pursued Martin. It is not self-defense if you are actively pursuing the individual. Maybe if Zimmerman stayed in his home and waited for the police to arrive, but he even said during the 911 call that he was pursuing the kid.

If the kid was confronted by this Zimmerman person who was brandishing a firearm, and the kid hit him and ran away, guess what? Not a crime. If the kid felt his life was in danger, he was perfectly within his right to attempt to escape. That's what good self-defense is. And further, what does this say? That Zimmerman shot a kid in the back while he was fleeing?

I cannot believe this is something anyone with a brain is on the fence on. At the very least, Zimmerman should be locked up pending trial. An unarmed kid was pursued by an armed man out onto the street and killed. That isn't something the police should shrug their shoulders at.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Originally Posted by Warborn

I'm Canadian. I understand "castle doctrine" as everyone has heard about how Americans murder each other if they catch intruders on their property in certain states.

The kid was in the gated community visiting his father's fiance's house. He was out on the street because he was walking back to her home after having purchased a snack at the store. At the time he was attacked, he was talking on his phone to his girlfriend. So what are the neighbors saying? Was Martin attacking someone? Was he endangering someone's life? "Doing things he shouldn't be doing" is awfully vague. Bottom line, though, is that Zimmerman pursued Martin. It is not self-defense if you are actively pursuing the individual. Maybe if Zimmerman stayed in his home and waited for the police to arrive, but he even said during the 911 call that he was pursuing the kid.

If the kid was confronted by this Zimmerman person who was brandishing a firearm, and the kid hit him and ran away, guess what? Not a crime. If the kid felt his life was in danger, he was perfectly within his right to attempt to escape. That's what good self-defense is. And further, what does this say? That Zimmerman shot a kid in the back while he was fleeing?

I cannot believe this is something anyone with a brain is on the fence on. At the very least, Zimmerman should be locked up pending trial. An unarmed kid was pursued by an armed man out onto the street and killed. That isn't something the police should shrug their shoulders at.

Oh even worse, you're a Canadian.

"I've heard how Americans murder each other"

Dude seriously? You should write a book on how to be biased against Americans.

The long and short of it, many neighbors are now coming forward saying this kid did some funny shit around their houses.

I never said that it was okay for the guy to shoot this kid, so remove that from your head this instant.

My main question was "IS THIS A HATE CRIME" not "IS THE GUY WRONG FOR KILLING THE KID"

[Warborn]

When you put quotation marks around words it usually means you're quoting someone. As that wasn't why I said, I'm not sure why you seem to be quoting me on it. But that's cool, I just found out that I am biased against Americans, so I guess I'll just let you write that book for me as you seem to know what I'm all about for some reason.

[Hamma]

As someone who lives in a Castle state, owns many Firearms and understands the laws of said state.. I believe this dude was totally out of line and is giving those of us responsible a bad name. He followed this guy when told not to and was quite obviously looking to pick a fight.

There's no way for any of us to know exactly what transpired with the altercation but judging by the evidence I have seen thus far this guy is an idiot and should do serious time. Whether or not he is/was a racist is irrelevant.

So to answer the post, No it is not a hate crime and should not be categorized as such and based on the evidence I do in fact believe he was wrong.

This is now an excuse for people to tear apart stand your ground laws, castle doctrines and all other similar legislation just because one moron shot someone. Try and punish everyone for the fail of one.

[Quovatis]

It's just stupid they couldn't arrest him. The law needs to be amended.