Racial Profiling and A Heartbreaking Tragedy.

Despite some early suspicions, it might be possible that race was not a major factor in this tragedy.

The Washington Post reports today (Fri., March 23rd) that the shooter, Zimmerman, has a very mixed background: A former altar boy at the Catholic Church, a white father, Latino mother, and somehow has cousins who are decidedly Afro-American. So maybe this wasn't racial profiling.

The remarkable thing is that Zimmerman was not immediately charged or taken into custody because he was supposedly protected by the "Stand Your Ground Law" -- except he wasn't standing his ground, he was gratuitously following Trayvon Martin around -- even after the Police dispatcher told him not to. Considering that Martin was carrying only candy and an iced tea, it's a bit tough to see how the Stand Your Ground Law applies.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Annee

 

Politics has nothing to do with the Judicial system and anyone who thinks otherwise should probably go back and learn how our government works - respectfully.

A person cannot be charged with a crime if the law in quesiton is not violated, regardless of loudly people scream and demand it. The law that allowed Mr. Zimmerman to go down this course of action is the same law that protects his actions.

I live in Arizona - - we have the same law (or similar). And the same type "wannabe" vigilantes.

I am well aware of "letter of the law" - - not being affected by emotions.

However - - - there are many questions - discrepancies - twisted truth - - and violations of neighborhood watch rules in this case.

Zimmerman weighed 250 pounds - - had a gun - - and was in his car - - but claims self defense against a 140 pound 17 year old kid just walking down the street - - who he was told not to follow. (yes I know - not by police - but a 911 dispatcher).

This is like going back to the 50s and lynch mobs.

Think Progress has interesting info: thinkprogress.org...

Originally posted by Shoonra
Despite some early suspicions, it might be possible that race was not a major factor in this tragedy.

The Washington Post reports today (Fri., March 23rd) that the shooter, Zimmerman, has a very mixed background: A former altar boy at the Catholic Church, a white father, Latino mother, and somehow has cousins who are decidedly Afro-American. So maybe this wasn't racial profiling.

The remarkable thing is that Zimmerman was not immediately charged or taken into custody because he was supposedly protected by the "Stand Your Ground Law" -- except he wasn't standing his ground, he was gratuitously following Trayvon Martin around -- even after the Police dispatcher told him not to. Considering that Martin was carrying only candy and an iced tea, it's a bit tough to see how the Stand Your Ground Law applies.

This Stinks - - - I mean it REALLY Smells bad. IMO (No not you )

8. Zimmerman “was charged in July 2005 with resisting arrest with violence and battery on an officer. The charges appear to have been dropped.” [Huffington Post]

9. Zimmerman called the police 46 times since Jan. 1, 2011. [Miami Herald]

10. According to neighbors, Zimmerman was “fixated on crime and focused on young, black males.” [Miami Herald]

11. Zimmerman “had been the subject of complaints by neighbors in his gated community for aggressive tactics” [Huffington Post]

thinkprogress.org...

UPDATE NO CHARGES ARE GOING TO BE FILED..
I told you so.

Feds Doubt They Can Charge Trayvon's Killer
www.montananewsreports.com...

Zimmerman is innocent.

The feds know zimmerman acted
in self defense. Treyvon attacked
him first this is why they have no case.
Treyvon bullied the wrong guy this time..


This is just a MSM political race war.
Obama has made sure to stick his
nose into it.. Dont let a good crisis go to waste.

reply to post by femalepharoe


The law allows an individual to take action when they believe they are witnessing a unlawful act, whether its the start of one, in progress, or just after it occurred.

What is not being reported by the news, and im not sure why, is Zimmerman and the victim apparently engaged each other in a physical confrontation. Apparently Mr. Zimmerman ended up with injuries to his face.

With that being said im not sure how accurate that info really is. If that did occur then its another argument that supports Zimmerman's actions.

Some more info about Florida law that people have not posted yet -
776.013 was posted a few pages back and deals with deadly force for home protection.

For some reason I am not able to link to the statutes on FL website.
What is being overlooked -

776.012
Use of force in defense of person.

776.013
Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

776.031
Use of force in defense of others.

776.032
Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

776.041
Use of force by aggressor.

776.05
Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.

776.051
Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.

776.06
Deadly force.

776.07
Use of force to prevent escape.

776.08
Forcible felony.

776.085
Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.

We still do not know if Mr. Zimmerman had his gun out when the contact was made or if it was holstered / concealed. We are getting conflicting reports of a possible physical confrontation between the 2.

Under Florida law a person can be an aggressor and is allowed to use deadly force when the person they are dealing with places that "aggressor" into imminent fear / safety of his life.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

The above rolls directly into this -

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

After reading all the info I was wrong with the section B as it is coupled to defense of home. The above sections are from the same Chapter as home defense. While I got the application wrong on the statute that was posted, the argument remains the same after viewing the other statutes in the section.

Florida law in this area is so convoluted its not even funny. I see contradictions, vagueness as well as ambiguity in the sense of the investigation and what forensic evidence suggests. Law Enforcement is forced to take Mr. Zimmerman's version of events at face value until evidence to contrary is located / developed.

Absent that, Mr. Zimmerman was within the law.

Again my apologies for my mistake on the Home Defense statute. It was not my intent to mislead or to paint a picture to lessen the event.

I'm sorry but:

Originally posted by popsmayhem
www.montananewsreports.com...

Originally posted by popsmayhem
UPDATE NO CHARGES ARE GOING TO BE FILED..
I told you so.

Feds Doubt They Can Charge Trayvon's Killer
www.montananewsreports.com...

Zimmerman is innocent.

The feds know zimmerman acted
in self defense. Treyvon attacked
him first this is why they have no case.
Treyvon bullied the wrong guy this time..


This is just a MSM political race war.
Obama has made sure to stick his
nose into it.. Dont let a good crisis go to waste.

heaven forbid the grand jury be conducted on ATS

Originally posted by KillerQueen
I'm sorry but:

Originally posted by popsmayhem
www.montananewsreports.com...

www.google.com... =f&aqi=d2&aql=&gs_sm=12&gs_upl=994l994l0l1907l1l1l0l0l0l0l367l367l3-1l1l0

It just hit the wires look it up yourself google the headline
jokes on you

treyvon martin agressor
Trayvon Martin was the "The Aggressor"http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/glenn-beck-blaze-trayvon-martin
www.hollywoodreporter.com...
Trayvon Martin Case: 911 Tapes 'Not As Conclusive As People Think,' Says Defense Attorney
www.ibtimes.com...


A WITNESS HAS JUST CAME OUT
STATING THEY SAY TREYVON BEING THE AGRESSOR
THIS IS HUGE..

Just hitting the wires folks...
ZIMMERMAN IS INNOCENT
THE PROOF IS HERE
JUST WAIT AND SEE

Originally posted by KillerQueen
I'm sorry but:

Originally posted by popsmayhem
www.montananewsreports.com...

You are aware the Federal investigation dealt with civil rights violation only? Aside from a violation in 42 USC, the incident occurred in Florida, the laws that govern it are in Florida, and the authority to investigate it resides with Florida Police and the PA's office.


reply to post by popsmayhem

I am curious about the reaction the people who were marching in protest over his killing are going to respond to this.

reply to post by Xcathdra


This is just huge, fox 13 tampa has spoke to
the witness, the witness saw treyvon jump out
from behind a bush and attack zimmerman.
ZIMMERMAN WAS THE ONE SCREAMING
ON THE TAPES..

ZIMMERMAN was acting in self defense IT IS ALL
COMING OUT NOW FOLKS~~

reply to post by popsmayhem


Well Al Sharpton and the liberal elite over at MSNBC are calling for Zimmerman to be arrested and charged with murder. Lawrence O'Donnell (sp) went so far as to accuse the police of a cover up.

If the facts do indeed support Zimmerman's actions, I am going to wager they will be ignored / called untrue by those who want to lynch Mr. Zimmerman.

Nothing like a 100 meter rush to judgment to get Sharpton going..

reply to post by popsmayhem


OBAMA "if I had a son he would look like Treyvon"

This is wrong wrong wrong coming from our President

reply to post by popsmayhem


lol. lol.

Link?

Originally posted by rebellender
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

OBAMA "if I had a son he would look like Treyvon"

This is wrong wrong wrong coming from our President

I thought the same... What was goofy about it was that is the only question he took. I was impressed to see him comments about his commenting and possible ramifications for judicial proceedings though. When he made that comment, about his son looking like him, he hesitated just after it. I think he realized that by stating that, he accidentally tossed out the race card that was most likely not intended to come across that way.

There is a reason why we wait for investigations / evidence to be collected / researched before charging someone with a crime.

Mob mentality does not work, as we have seen in Afghanistan.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I'm really not trying to be a witch here, just help me:


so did you say at the very end of your post ...which I read, mind you...that we should discount your entire post because it didn't actually pertain to the case??? honest mistake, naturally.

none the less, according to you, the information you posted still places Zimmerman well within his rights even though you ADMIT that it has nothing to do with the scenario????

please clarify.

reply to post by femalepharoe


Lol I don't think you are trying to be a witch. I take your argument / debate / questions as that of seeing a different story than I do. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I think its good since it forces me to dig deeper into the material.

By all means, ask / disagree all you want. It increases the chances that we will both learn something new. Thats a good day in my book.

I was mistaken in terms of the first statute that was posted. I stated that section B would cover Zimmerman which is incorrect because its tied into home defense. The other statutes I posted are applicable to the situation, specifically Mr. Zimmerman's claim of self defense. There is a statute in the same chapter that also covers use of force (defense) by the "aggressor".

My original opinion was Zimmerman was covered under the law. I stated that by following and then confronting Mr. Martin that Mr. Zimmerman escalated the situation. I also stated the law is vague and needs to be refined, and my opinion on that has not changed. It relies to much on a persons account with no real checks or balances in place to verify.

However now we have information coming out that Mr. Martin may have been the aggressor, not Zimmerman. The goofy part here, if its true, is Zimmerman would be covered under the aggressor exemption. Even though Zimmerman followed and confronted (which to me escalated the situation - just my opinion though) Mr. Martin, if Mr. Martins actions escalated the encounter to the point where Zimmerman felt his life was in danger, then he is still covered under the law.

I've looked around on the Fox13 website out of Florida and they have a crap load of info on this. I am looking for the part where the other posted stated witnesses were supporting Zimmerman. I did find a blog article on MSNBC's website that does interview a person who knows Zimmerman and defended his actions. He also clears up the confusion on Zimmerman's status in the neighborhood watch. The claim is Zimmerman appointed himself which apparently is not true. Then the accusation was Zimmerman promoted himself to captain, which apparently was not true either.

With information coming out that paints a different picture , we all need to take a step back.

Hope this clarifies.. If not let me know and I will try again.

I have been watching this story gather steam for quite awhile without responding. With all due respect to the victim and their family. I think the media is wagging the dog on this one. Just more of the usual divisive rhetoric and cultivating an environment of fear and paranoia between all of us.

To me, this sounds like your average run-of-the-mill violence in America. It started out with a confrontation, heated exchanges, and someone was shot. It happens all over the country from rural areas to the inner city. No one marches in the streets for them, and the media allocates a few paragraphs or a couple sound-bytes to cover it. Meanwhile as violence is rampant across the country, government is spending like drunken sailors, high unemployment, potential economic paralysis, energy crisis looms, perpetual war, and many other social misfortunes plaguing society. The media goes out of their way to cover this story with such zeal and persistence?

Instead of reporting the facts about this case as they are it seems the media is convicting the alleged perpetrator before any trial or legal procedure? People are gobbling it up hook, line, and sinker without viewing it with a rational and logical mind. I mean tensions are flaring over this and if people could lynch George Zimmerman he would be hanging from the nearest tree. It does not make sense to me. Just more of the same mob incitement by the media. What happened to objectivity? Both sides of the story?

As people are in an uproar over this story. Just last weekend some 10 people were murdered and 49 people injured by gang violence in the City of Chicago.

Weekend of violence claims 10 shooting victims across Chicago

At least 10 people were killed, including a 6-year-old girl, in shootings over the weekend in Chicago.

The slain were among at least 49 people wounded in shootings from 5 p.m. Friday to 6 a.m. Monday, according to information compiled by the Chicago Tribune.

Among the victims was a 6-year-old-girl playing on her front porch with her parents present. Where is outrage and mobilization of the public demanding action? Meanwhile in Florida and across the nation, there is pandemonium and outrage about the Trayvon Martin case and MSM is spinning the crime like a throwback to the dark and dismal days of Jim Crow. Even the President chimed in about it as his own hometown was under siege over the past weekend.

I want justice like any other person, would like to know what happened to this teenager, but I will not cater to the mob mentality being conjured up at the moment by some irresponsible individuals. Nor will I allow myself to be led astray by some jingoist commentators or the propagandists in the mainstream media. I would hope for everyone's sake that people would just relax and breath. Lets wait until all the information is known about the incident in Florida, and after the inquiry by the grand jury. As far as I know the investigation is ongoing. Just my thoughts on this controversial issue.

reply to post by popsmayhem


Seems you don't know anything about what you're spewing.

Even if Martin made the first move, there's still the fact that Zimmerman was armed with a handgun, and that the person most likely to be on the defensive in this case would be Martin. Martin was still significantly younger, weighed significantly less, was completely unarmed and was traveling on foot.

From your own link. source

Originally posted by Jakes51
I have been watching this story gather steam for quite awhile without responding. With all due respect to the victim and their family. I think the media is wagging the dog on this one. Just more of the usual divisive rhetoric and cultivating an environment of fear and paranoia between all of us.

I've been listening to this discussed on Talk Radio for a couple weeks.

With both scheduled call ins - - and locals calling in.

This is NO Wag The Dog.