It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Racial Profiling and A Heartbreaking Tragedy.

page: 21
34
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
This thread was Trashed:




My.mind.is.mine...........posted on 28-3-2012 @ 19:25

I beleive George Zimmerman is going to die.. And the *SNIP* will hit the fan, page 1



the thread title is little extreme... but the Anarchy and the 'Bounty' and the mass discontent is exactly what the wanna-be dictator wants to happen--- so that Marshall Law can be implemented...
the administration is letting the madmen run the Asylum as-it-were...with all that black panther Million Dollar reward to find Zimmerman (the ? ]white Latino ? ) just how does that work ?





then the Obama can decree his Øbama-Care health plan legal despite the SCOTUS reservations


No wonder the Fed & FBI & all local Police are not raising a fuss about the 'contract' being put on Mr. Zimmerman... all before there has been a thorough investigation or the wheels of Justice being engaged
(that might happen on 10 April at the Grand Jury)


who knows




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


I know exactly what he is talking about.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Moderator requested transfer of threads : )

MY one question. what do the potential " Jurors " think?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


really... martial law.....

Geeze....

Are people really that incapable of visualizing what would need to occur for martial law to be implemented? Every single member of the Federal Government (all 3 branches, all agencies, all federal employees), all members of the US military, all members of state, county and local governments and all of their employees, all members of state county and local law enforcement, all members of the State National guard units.....

All would be needed to go along with the martial law plan in order for it to work....

We cant get our government to agree on whether or not Obamas is a valid Us citizen, and anything that is secret / classified is leaked 5 minutes before its made official....

To assume every single members of government, particularly those who are armed, not to mention the 300 million citizens, the bulk of which are armed, are going to just go along with it........

This incident with Martin and Zimmerman is stupid... It was created by a flawed law that Florida knew was flawed and failed to address. The Media blew it out of proportion and off we go...

If you want to look at a conspiracy ask yourself this -

Why is an incident that occurred in the beginning of February, a local incident mind you, making national headlines in March, noting that the incident deals with a young black male and a "white Hispanic", whatever the hell that is, in a state with a large electoral votes, which seems to have over taken the Sheriff Arpaio Obama investigation and has also drowned out the Supreme Court Coverage of his health care law? Its also drowned out Maxine Waters ill advised comment to the oil companies that the intent is to nationalize their industry....

Martial law???? please....



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
lets list the ACTUAL facts below that apparently mean nothing since our children have no value anymore.

Zimmerman tried and convicted a kid of many crimes for walking down a street talking on a phone. As evidenced by his 911 phone call grouping him together with every bad person that has ever done anything in his neighborhood stating they always get away.

He proceeds to follow that kid for no reason other than appearance. Walking down the street talking on the phone is definitely not ominous so all he had was the kids clothing and skin color for him to determine guilt.

He does not identify himself or ask why the kid is there, why should he since he already tried and convicted him in his mind. He also proceeds to follow the kid against the 911 operators advice.

The kid finaly gets scared noticing this stalker and IF he attacked then good for him. This was an older full grown man 100 pounds bigger AND carrying a gun. If I noticed someone stalking me and saw a gun when I went to confront him, then I'll take him down as quickly as possible and disarm him too.

Zimmerman is a full grown responsible adult where as Trayvon is a kid, he cannot be held to the same level of responsibility. Zimmerman had ABSOLUTELY no reason to make a determination of the kids guilt, hind sight is 20/20 we know the kid was just walking to the store buying skittles and ice tea and walking to where he was staying where he had every right to be.

Zimmerman built this fear up in his mind with absolutely no justifiable reason for it other than seeing a black kid in a hoodie since he had no other information to go from.

Trayvon on the other hand is followed by a man 100 pounds larger carrying a gun with that man watching his every move. HIS fear was justified and provides a legitimate reason for a fight or flight response which could have led to zimmerman's legal death.

Zimmerman received MINOR injuries, yet somehow those minor injuries are supposed to justify the murder of a kid. Zimmerman is a much larger man that could have easily pushed the kid off of him or gotten away. Zimmerman created every single problem including the kids fear that caused himself to be attacked, if he was attacked. Zimmerman was never in any real danger whatsoever of losing his life and never tried to diffuse the situation of which he had MANY chances.

He is an ignorant cowardly man that should have never been able to carry a gun. Put him behind bars and let him learn what fear really is when he has a man twice his size do whatever he wants to him.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1977
 


Well if you are ignorant enough to believe that being followed somehow makes it OK for you to attack someone... And are dumb enough to try to attack someone and take their gun for no good reason, you will probably end up dead too.

Life is not a videogame or movie you know.
edit on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:50:30 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1977
 


Great post Seeker.

I don't understand that some can't understand what you are saying.

Zimmerman is 100% responsible for everything that transpired - - - because he created the "vehicle" for it to happen. He is solely responsible.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


If you are ignorant enough to just allow any kid to be followed and just ignore it than I feel sorry for your kids.

People do NOT just follow people for absolutely no reason and they do NOT watch every move you make for no reason. It is very easy to tell intent by looking at someone, his intent was not good towards Trayvon he tried and convicted him and would be looking at him with nothing but hatred making his intent clear.

Feel free to ignore it anytime you get stalked by an armed man showing nothing but malice towards you and pretend nothing is going on until you get killed.
edit on 28-3-2012 by seeker1977 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
The point is that Trayvon had every right to legally attack for his own personal safety in a situation where he had EVERY reason to believe Zimmerman was some psycho stalker, child rapist, murder or any other such horrible thing.

In his mind he would be in direct immediate danger, if I felt the same way you are absolutely right I would defend myself but likely with better success as I am actually an adult with some training.

By the way I have actually lived life and seen things most people here will never have to see or experience.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by seeker1977
 


Oh please.... I am a white looking guy, I been followed and stalked going to the slummy parts of NYC, guys following me saying crap like "Whiteboy must be lost, what you doing here white boy?". Did I attack them? No.... I ignored them and went where I was going. Being followed down the road does not give you the right to attack someone, period......

If someone assaults you, you have a right to defend yourself, period. Attack the wrong person, you get what's coming to you. Keep your hands off other people, especially in places that still allow people to defend themselves per the second amendment.
edit on Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:34:39 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1977
lets list the ACTUAL facts below that apparently mean nothing since our children have no value anymore.

Zimmerman tried and convicted a kid of many crimes for walking down a street talking on a phone. As evidenced by his 911 phone call grouping him together with every bad person that has ever done anything in his neighborhood stating they always get away.

He reported a suspicious person, which is a valid claim when the 2 have never met. He stated as much to the 911 operator.


Originally posted by seeker1977
He proceeds to follow that kid for no reason other than appearance. Walking down the street talking on the phone is definitely not ominous so all he had was the kids clothing and skin color for him to determine guilt.

Nor is it illegal to follow an individual. At no point did he determine guilt. He called 911 and reported a suspicious person. Let me see if I can qualify this. As A Police Officer we can't randomly stop a person / vehicle. We have to have reasonable suspicion to do so. However, if we are in an area that is experiencing a spike in crime - break ins / burglaries, we are justified in stopping and making contact with people in the area where if there was no crime, there would be no justification to make a valid contact.

Civilians are not subject to the standards above that apply to law enforcement. Again he reported a suspicious individual. A person who he does not know and who does not live in the neighborhood. Mr. Martins dad lived in the neighborhood and Mr. Martin was visiting him.


Originally posted by seeker1977
He does not identify himself or ask why the kid is there, why should he since he already tried and convicted him in his mind. He also proceeds to follow the kid against the 911 operators advice.

Please provide a link / cite source that shows what occurred from the moment of contact to the point police showed up.


Originally posted by seeker1977
The kid finaly gets scared noticing this stalker and IF he attacked then good for him. This was an older full grown man 100 pounds bigger AND carrying a gun. If I noticed someone stalking me and saw a gun when I went to confront him, then I'll take him down as quickly as possible and disarm him too.

Hence the reason Florida law is jacked up and being called into question. Again show me the source / cite where it states Mr. Zimmerman had his gun out and point at Mr. Martin at initial contact.



Originally posted by seeker1977
Zimmerman is a full grown responsible adult where as Trayvon is a kid, he cannot be held to the same level of responsibility. Zimmerman had ABSOLUTELY no reason to make a determination of the kids guilt, hind sight is 20/20 we know the kid was just walking to the store buying skittles and ice tea and walking to where he was staying where he had every right to be.

he is 17 years old, so yet he is an adult and yes he can be held to the same standard. If not, then you are arguing that the law take that into account, which it cant. Thats why questionable actions are judged by a jury of a person peers or judge, and only when those actions violate a law. Again, suspicious person..



Originally posted by seeker1977
Zimmerman built this fear up in his mind with absolutely no justifiable reason for it other than seeing a black kid in a hoodie since he had no other information to go from.

Suspicious person.... Again show me what occurred from the moment of contact to the moment police showed up.


Originally posted by seeker1977
Trayvon on the other hand is followed by a man 100 pounds larger carrying a gun with that man watching his every move. HIS fear was justified and provides a legitimate reason for a fight or flight response which could have led to zimmerman's legal death.

Again please support this with sources that explain what occurred from moment of contact to moment of police arrival.


Originally posted by seeker1977
Zimmerman received MINOR injuries, yet somehow those minor injuries are supposed to justify the murder of a kid. Zimmerman is a much larger man that could have easily pushed the kid off of him or gotten away. Zimmerman created every single problem including the kids fear that caused himself to be attacked, if he was attacked. Zimmerman was never in any real danger whatsoever of losing his life and never tried to diffuse the situation of which he had MANY chances.

Read Florida Law 776.012 and go through the ENTIRE 776 chapter for a refute to your argument above.


Originally posted by seeker1977
He is an ignorant cowardly man that should have never been able to carry a gun. Put him behind bars and let him learn what fear really is when he has a man twice his size do whatever he wants to him.

So your fear of reading and understanding the law is enough for you to convict an individual?

Nothing you have stated is a "fact". Specifically the parts from contact between the 2 individuals, and by contact im referring to physical contact and not just watching each other.

You are doing to Zimmerman what you accuse Zimmerman of doing to Mr. Martin.

how about we wait for all the facts to come out, including those that support Zimmerman's version of events. Or is that to much to ask?
edit on 29-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


He clearly determined guilt with his statement: "They always get away".



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Q2IN2Y
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


He clearly determined guilt with his statement: "They always get away".




In the court of make beleive possibly, but not here in the real world.

Absent you being present and witnessing what occured from moment of contact to arrival of the police, you have absolutely nothing to support the claim - at all. An indpendent firm has been hired in order to process the 911 tapes, including that supposed racial slur as well as who was the one screaming for help can be heard in the background.

Until then, and as people like to point out about the hoody and how that makes a person a criminal as well as those people who take the other side fo the argument, are all coming to their conclusions using a term called a "leap of logic".

Its when people come to a conclusion that is based off of their own interpretation of the facts at hand.

Example -
Was a gun present during the encounter? - Yes there was.

Now, tell me how that gun was used during the encounter. Was it holster, in hand, concealed under clothing, pointed at Mr. Martin, pointed at the ground, at the low ready? Did Mr. Martin see the gun and immediately go for it? Did Mr. Martin base his actions off of the gun itself, Mr. Zimmerman alone, a combination of both? Was their a struggle over the gun and if so, who had leverage during the struggle. What occured during the struggle that resulted in the gun being discharged? How was the gun discharged?

What does the forensic evidence state with regards to GSR being found on the person who discharged the gun, and is there GSR on the victim. If so where is it located and in what concentration? what does the impact wounds look like? Is there a dark circle surrounding the entry point? Is there charring / burn marks near the entry wounds? Is there an inconcsistent spread of GSR?

What angle does the entry wound / ext wound support? What angle did the gun have to be held at time of discharge in order to create the wounds present?

I can keep going a few more paragraphs just on the gun alone but you get the idea.

The goal for both sides to find the truth.. The goal is not to interpret the evidence by people who are not trained to do so - such as the public as well as retired officers who are not certified in the process of forensic science.

Another piece of info that has come out that is being ignored is the fact the police have now stated they wanted to arrest, and applied for an arest warrant for Mr. Zimmerman. As I have been stating, and people have ignored, The Prosecuting Attorney is the final authority on whether or not a person will be charged with a crime and what those charges are, not the police.

the PA denied the police request and stated there was not enough evidence to support the charges against Mr. Zimmerman.

That leads me to my final point - People who have no clue about how Law Enforcement or the judicial system works are in no place to voice their opinion on how that system failed, let alone criticise the people involved in it who are more trained than those people voicing their opinions.

Let the system work.... Ignoring the system to exact their own revenge does nothing but undermine their own arguments whcih will continue the idiotic cycle we see now.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


What did Zimmerman mean by "They always get away"? Who gets away? What did he do? He wait, he did something? Now he's getting away with it. Away with what? He has evidence that this man has done something? Did he witness this man in the act of a crime?

Oh, he got away with walking down the street with a hoodie on his head.


My point.

edit on 29-3-2012 by Q2IN2Y because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Q2IN2Y
 


Tell me what he means by who... Black people? Criminals? People whereing hoodies who engage in criminal activity? Males? Young people? People taking a walk?

Quit jumping to a conclusion that is not supported by any verifiable information. It makes you no different than the person you are accusing of being racist.

The "racial slurs" are not even agreed to by people who have heard the tapes. Some say there are slurs, others says its not clear whats present while others state it says nothing at all and is just noise. Hence the reason for hiring the outside firm to evaluate ALL 911 tapes, including the ones that have not been released to do whats contianed in them.

Or are you suggesting behaving in the same manner you accuse Zimmerman of doing is somehow ok when that same behavior is done by you?

It makes as much sense as all the morons who are pointing to the police video stating Zimmerman had no broken nose or injuries. What they are ignoring, simply because it doesnt support there claims, is the fact Zimmerman was treated by EMS on scene. Of all of thw accidents / medical calls / domestic abuse calls / etc etc calls I have responded to EMS / FIRE / 1st REsponders, including myself as police, have administered immediate first aid, which is to check the person over for major trauma and to tend to visible wounds / bruises etc as appropriate. We apply pressure to control bleeding and will assist in cleaning up bllod on the individual if possible.

Gee why would people ignore those facts?
edit on 29-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You are going off about racial slurs, etc. I'm saying that he determined his guilt by saying they always get away.

Did you listen to the 911 call? He was in pursuit of someone he believed to be a criminal. If not a criminal, he believed this person was engaging in some sort of suspicious activity that would lead to criminality.

That's why he said "They always get away" Because in Zimmerman's paranoid mind, Martin was already a criminal. He was already guilty to Zimmerman. Race is a non-factor in my point. The fact that he used those words pretty much seals his judgement upon the young man.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Q2IN2Y
You are going off about racial slurs, etc. I'm saying that he determined his guilt by saying they always get away.

Actually no.. I am stating that we don't know specifically what was going on. There is a difference between listening to a person describe something and seeing it done on tape. Don't beleive me look up the fisrt televised presidential debates between Kennedy and Nixon and you will see how that works,

Zimmerman called 911 to report a suspicious person. Suspicious being the key word... The Police were dispatched.. Why? Did the police also assume Mr. Martin was suspicious and breaking the law? If the police knew who Mr. zimmerman was and had the level of contact media is reporting, then why did they even respond? If they opted not to respond are they stating Zimmerman is guilty before investigating?

Zimmerman saw someone he did not recognize...
He saw a person that, to him in his neighborhood, was out of place....
That neighborhood has been undergoing a spike in property crimes....
Zimmerman, in addition to the rest of the nieghborhood watch members, were in contact with each other and established times to patrol the neighborhood... If it was not Mr. zimmerman it could ghave been someone else? If that someone else was black, and the exact same occurence was present, where would we be right now? How would it be reported?

My point is you cannot take what a person states and pretend to know exactly what they mean. As I pointed out with the comment about "they always get away with it". Absent Zimmerman explaining exactly what he meant, you have absolutely no way to determine what he meant by it. The ONLY way you can do that is to fill in the gaps based on the information that is coming from speculation, which is not fact.

Going down that thought process with Zimmerman and his actions / comments makes you no different than what you accuse Zimmerman of towards Mr. Martin.



Originally posted by Q2IN2Y
Did you listen to the 911 call? He was in pursuit of someone he believed to be a criminal. If not a criminal, he believed this person was engaging in some sort of suspicious activity that would lead to criminality.

People need to get off the kick of using the term pursuit / following etc. The term does NOT hold the same meaning as it does for law enforcement. Secondly, 911 is NOT comissioned police officers, so them telling the individual we dont need you to do that is a suggestion only and failing to comply with that request is NOT a criminal action.

In all the time Ive done this I have had 1 incident where I ordered a dispatcher to specifically tell an individual to cease an action, and had him relay it in that manner to make the command lawful.

He never stated criminal.. He said suspicious... Again, stop using terms that are not used in the tape. It is not against the law, nor is it racist, to call 911 to report a suspicious person. Regardless of how many times media tries to spin it that way, as well as the civil right wingnuts using this for their own personal gain, does not make it true.


Originally posted by Q2IN2Y
That's why he said "They always get away" Because in Zimmerman's paranoid mind, Martin was already a criminal. He was already guilty to Zimmerman. Race is a non-factor in my point. The fact that he used those words pretty much seals his judgement upon the young man.

So now you know whats going on in Zimmermans mind? Using your logic Zimmerman then new what was going on in Martins mind right?

You are making an argument against Mr. Zimmerman using the same flawed logic you accuse zimmerman using against Martin.

"They always get away" - You have no clue what that means. As I stated before, Does it mean black, criminal, hoodie, male, adult male, a minor, talking on the phone? You don't know and making a claim like you are off of your own interpretation does not make it a fact.

This is my point.... This is why politics and civilians need to stay out of criminal investigations. they dont know the law, they apply their own standards instead of looking at the evidence present and having a different agency / department process it. Its why at the end of the investigation its all submitted to the PA, who then does there own review of the material to see if a crime was actually committed.

You were not present... Zimmerman was...
You aren't a telepath / empath so you cant speak to what Mr. Zimmermans mindset is / was...

You are doing exactly what you are accusing Zimmerman of doing. Are you justified in doing that because you know what type of person Mr. Zimmerman is? Or is it ok for you to do that because you don't agree with Mr. Zimmermans decisions?

These cases are not as easy to investigate / process as you think.. Making ana rgument against Zimmermans decision making process while using the EXACT same process undermines your argument.

Leave it to the professionals...
edit on 29-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Wow, where was there any valid claim of ANY suspicion. We know the KID was walking down the street talking on the phone and that is it.

Your ignorance and ability to ignore what is right in front of your face knows no bounds.

Again this is a KID, exactly at what age now is it okay to murder our kids because of "Fear" of our lives while we sustain nothing but minor injuries per the very police reports of that day. I'm not even wasting my time with every single other statement you made wrong.

By your mentality I guess our teachers would be justified in murdering students for shooting spit balls at them. Hey maybe they get scared and jump and suffer minor injuries too. Why not allow them to shoot the students. Let some kid half your size attack you, will you be afraid for your life?



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by seeker1977
 


You and several other posters are falling into a common set of misconceptions here.

First off, your equating the rights of an individual to the rights of the justice system. They are two different things, and they have two different sets of rules that they have to follow.

An individual is allowed to make a judgment and act on that judgment.
The legal system then has to decide whether or not those actions were legal under the law. Whether that individual was legally in the right to act in the manner they did, and if they violated anyone else’s rights in doing so.


Your second mistake is that you're equating your personal feelings on what is morally right and should be legal or illegal, with what the law actually states. They are not always the same.

As much as you may not like what Xcathdra has posted here, he has told your what the law actually says, not his personal feelings on whether the law is morally right or wrong. You guys are going off your feelings not what is written in law.

As Xcathdra also stated, the “stand your ground” law was a bad law that has a loophole in it that they never took into account. That loophole is basically, “what happens when you have two people who are both within their rights to defend themselves and both feel threatened”.

Its an imperfect law, that was written by imperfect men, who didn’t have the foresight to see what would happen if two people, both acting within their legal rights, ever had a confrontation.

BTW… Please stop making the accusation of “stalking”. There was no stalking in the situation, and it’s making you look like you have no idea what you’re talking about. Legal “stalking” is a behavior pattern that MUST include repetitious instances of following a person.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1977
Wow, where was there any valid claim of ANY suspicion. We know the KID was walking down the street talking on the phone and that is it.

A kid who did not live in the neighborhood. A kid who was out late at night walking through the neighborhood. A kid walking through an area that sees an increase in property crimes, which because it deals with cars and houses are felony crimes.


suspicious [səˈspɪʃəs]
adj
1. exciting or liable to excite suspicion; questionable
2. disposed to suspect something wrong
3. indicative or expressive of suspicion
suspiciously adv
suspiciousness n


Stating a person is acting suspicious does not mean the person is engaged in crime. It means the individuals behavior, while taking into account all circumstances, is out of the norm - in this case a young person who is not recognized as living in the nieghborhood who is out at night and is in an area where there is a spike in crime.

If a police officer were driving through the neighborhood those reasons alone are enough to establish reasonable suspcion and allow contact to be made. It would be a stop and identify encounter and the police would explain their reasons for contact. Because the action would meet law enforcement requirements, which is a higher standard than applied to civilians, it would be reasonable to belive Mr. Zimmerman came to the same conclusion.

The use of the term kid is not relevent to the situation. In Florida the age to be considered an adult is 18 yeaes old, however depending on the situation a minor can be ceretified as an adult. Also, Mr. Martin knows his own age where as Mr. Zimmerman, nor the Police if they mnade contact, know how old Mr. Martin is. That is taken into account when an investigation occurs.


Originally posted by seeker1977
Your ignorance and ability to ignore what is right in front of your face knows no bounds.

Not really... What we know is there was some type of contact between Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Martin. What we don't know id what actually occured from the momen of that contact to the arrival of the police. As I have stated before until we have those facts, we don't know what occured. Assuming you know those facts based on supposition in fact makes you ignorant, not me.

The points being raised by you and others have absoutely no effect with the laws in question. Floridas stand your ground law makes absolutely no distinction / exemptions based on age. It also makes it very clear its based on what was observed by the individual in question and not what peope who werent present think after the fact. The law does not allow monday morning quarterbacking.



Originally posted by seeker1977
Again this is a KID, exactly at what age now is it okay to murder our kids because of "Fear" of our lives while we sustain nothing but minor injuries per the very police reports of that day. I'm not even wasting my time with every single other statement you made wrong.

The mindset that a "kid" is not a threat is a dangerous one. A 6 year old with a gun is just as deadly as a 96 year old with a gun. In this case age is NOT a factor. As far as ignoring my other statements dont give up. pick them a part and I will give you my response and cite the law for you to read up on. As I stated, you can't ignore the bits and pieces you don't like / agree with / or does not fit your moral views. Its not how the law works, and for good reason. Again if you don't beleive that look up Clarence Darrow and John T. Scopes.



Originally posted by seeker1977
By your mentality I guess our teachers would be justified in murdering students for shooting spit balls at them. Hey maybe they get scared and jump and suffer minor injuries too. Why not allow them to shoot the students. Let some kid half your size attack you, will you be afraid for your life?

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if a 6 year old kid in school pointed a gun at me or someone else that I would use deadly force to end that encounter as quickly as possible to protect the lives of others in the immediate area.

However, your atttempt here at the end to confuse the issue reinforces my view that you are not understanding what Florida law is stating or what I am stating. You and others are making your positions based off of media accounts and nothing more. The Florida Stand your Ground Law is to blame for this incident to an extent for the reason stated a few times over now in my and other peoples posts.

As far as my view on this goes, start here -
ATS - Racial Profiling
After I posted that I started researching the issues invovled, and a big factor in the change in my opinion is in fact the Florida Stand your Ground Law. Had Mr. Zimmerman been in any other state, he would have been arrested and charged. A LOT of state have based their Castle doctrine laws off of Floridas stand your ground laws. the reason for the name difference is in castle doctrine the use of deadly force is only allowed if a person breaks into your house, and a few states extend it to car jackins as well. All states have laws that seperately cover the use of deadly force in defense of a 3rd party.

Of those states a good majority requires the individual to withdraw from the situation if they can safely do so. If they can, and opt not to, then their actions can be considered criminal and the person can be charged, even if they are the victim. Its like that specifically to avoid issues like what occured in Florida.

To drive that point home that section of Florida law, allowing an aggressor to justify the use of deadly force when the individual they are dealing with escalates the use of force. To my knowledge only Florida has that language, which was stripped out of the laws of toher states when they put their laws together.

Personally I dont think zimmerman should have placed himself into any position that would have resulted in contact. Even if Martin decided to come to Zimmerman to see what was going on, Zimmerman should have driven off and observed from a different area. Florida law allows an uneeded escalation in force by civilians that other states strictly reserve for only law enforcement officers, not civilians.

With that being said, its does not matter what the feelings are towards Zimmerman or his actions. If Florida law allows the action, then thats the way it goes. Attempting to circumvent that law in order to charge and individual based solely on public opinion is going to set up an autmatic appeal since the action can be viewed as malicious prosecution / prosecutorial misconduct.

The term you are looking for is called Ex Post Facto and there is a reason its not allowed and is part of the US constitution. The Florida law needs to be reviewed and changed as it is what allowed the situation to occur in the first place.

Just beause his actions violate your opinion / moral standards does not make him guilty. However it does call the law into question.

ETA - The other fact that has come out is the police wanted to charge Mr. Zimmerman. They took the info to the Prosecuting Attorney, who declined based on lack of evidence (again because of the state law). The police did everything they could do legally under Florida Law and 42 USC 1983.
edit on 31-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join