CNN Isolates Audio of Zimmerman 911 Call: Racial Slur Now Very Likely

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

In the context of the case the only difference it makes is who investigates it. Whenever a white person calls a black person a name, it's investigated by the Feds. So if the FBI agrees that he said "coon" then the FBI takes over the investigation. The actual parameters around the case, ie, the legitimacy of the defense claim, still entirely revolves around the evidence of who hit who first.

Especially considering the racial slur is said to himself, not to the target, not that being called a racial slur is ever justification for assaulting someone.

The only two things according to the law that matter are thus:

Who struck who first.
What position were the two men in at the time of the shooting.

And the racial slur only dictates who investigates.

False.

If it is determined he did utter a racial slur this will establish Zimmerman's intentions and motive. Hate crimes also carry much stiffer penalties.

Aren't 32nd degree masons supposed to be like, educated? Or was this deliberate?

Hate crime statutes—federal criminal civil rights statutes and laws now on the books in forty-five states and the District of Columbia—do not punish speech or thoughts. The First Amendment does not protect violence, nor does it prevent the government from imposing criminal penalties for violent discriminatory conduct directed against victims on the basis of their personal characteristics. Americans are free to think, preach, and believe whatever they want. It is only when an individual commits a crime based on those biased beliefs and intentionally targets another for violence or vandalism that a hate crime statute can be triggered. Under these laws, a perpetrator can face more severe penalties only if the prosecutor can demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the victim was intentionally targeted on the basis of his or her personal characteristics because of the perpetrator's bias against the victim.

I knew it, I knew 100% that he hated black people; it’s all coming out now why he killed an unarmed infant child. This is sad, he killed an embryo caring a pack of skittles’ im so glad he will finally go to jail, and be prosecuted for his despicable racists crime.
OMG OMG, HE USED THE WORD 'KOON’ …are you serious?
Let the prosecution begin,’ that’s motive' and enough motive to prosecute….easy.

To me it just seems like Zimmerman was just looking for a confrontation so he could get the opportunity to shoot Martin.

reply to post by Rockpuck

And? Doesn't change the fact that Martin punched Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground prior to being shot.

I think you misspelled allegedly.

When you chase after someone, in direct violation of the "Stand your ground" laws, you are the agressor.

Even IF Martin did punch Zimmerman, Zimmerman can not claim self defense.

It will be interesting to see where this goes once it gets to court. Based off of the evidence i have seen Zimmerman is in some deep doo-doo.

DC

I am a bit hesitant to participate in threads where people are focused on the ugliness of prejudice. But what I don't understand is, and mark my words, someone will likely take offense at this question...

Does being a racist make it illegal to defend yourself against those who you identify as 'bad'?

Suppose he is a racist. Does that mean his bigotry disqualifies him to determine that he was the target of assault? Or is that still in contention? Presumably, if the evidence collected thus far by the police indicated there was an element of malfeasance they would have brought charges, no? Or is this a case of insisting the entire policing institution is biased as well?

I noticed people saying he "targeted" this man because of his skin color. But my understanding (perhaps wrong) was that he was frequently "on watch" and thus the idea of targeting would have to be proved as a matter of premeditation. Is that what is being suggested?

These questions may have been asked before and answered ad nauseum; but I've been out of the loop and am trying to get the 'fix' on our communities' deliberations in this matter.

It seems to me that this tragedy is being 'played' by the media-savvy.... or am I wrong?

Edit to add: Apparently some of my questions have been answered while I was typing.

I want to be sure I understand; there is no evidence of assault now? Wasn't there a witness? Or is their (his/her) character also being brought into question? I am afraid I must suffer from some gross ignorance on the law, because I always believed that once struck, you are under assault; and self-defense is no longer in question. Of course if the assault is an 'allegation' that remains to be determined - I suppose.

Originally posted by muse7
To me it just seems like Zimmerman was just looking for a confrontation so he could get the opportunity to shoot Martin.

I am beginning to agree - and I don't think Zimmerman would have been man enough to confront Martin had he not been packing.

Those of you on ATS who are trying to make Zimmerman into a hero - you're hero is a coward. A man that took a gun to a fist fight, killed another, and cried like a b$%#ch when he realized he was probably going to rot behind bars for the rest of his life. His tears weren't for his victim, they were for his own failures and what he has now given up.

I am also 100% confidant that Zimmerman wouldn't have approached Martin if he wasn't armed. I also am beginning to believe that Zimmerman wouldn't have approached Martin if he wasn't a child. Zimmerman has what I like to call "little man syndrome."

I have faith that Zimmerman will be brought to justice.

Race doesn't matter.
Who punched who first doesn't matter.
What matters is, a guy was told to stand down
and he didn't, and now a kid is dead.

That's what matters.

Look at Zimmerman's priors and tell me he didn't follow that kid looking for a fight, and when he got what he wanted, and was getting his ass whipped as a result, he shot and murdered said someone to save his own cowardice hide. No matter how you look at this case, Zimmerman is a murderer.

reply to post by Maxmars


I don't think anyone here is saying that it's illegal to defend yourself if you're racist.

I don't look at this as a race crime, I look at this as a murder carried out by a paranoid/trigger happy individual.

He did use the word "Coon" and I think racial profiling did have something to do with ti too. But when he decided to ignore the instructions give by the 911 operator and followed martin, when Martin was going away from him...to me that disqualifies him from claiming self defense

Originally posted by satron

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused

If you were just attacked, you'd probably be throwing out every racial slur in the book if you were scared and in shock enough.

Except he said it before any confrontation occurred.

But I hear it both ways. I hear "coon" and "punk". It's too hard to tell and I have a $200 set of noise-reduction headphones that I use for my job as a transcriptionist, which I have been doing for over a decade. If I had to testify as to what I heard, I could not say one way or the other.

Should it be a crime to say things?

The distinction of what was said is the difference between it being a local versus a federal case, not whether there is a case at all.

I don't see what makes this shooting so special that it deserves all the attention it is getting.

There are about 43-44 OTHER murders in the US per day, why does this one get the media's attention?

Oh yeah, because they're turning it into a race issue.


To be honest I believe both sides are wrong.

Zimmerman's side is wrong because he shouldn't have been patrolling his neighborhood with a loaded weapon. Taser or pepper spray? Sure. But to be walking around with a loaded weapon at night when you don't need one is just asking for trouble. And when a police officer tells you over the phone not to pursue a subject, you listen to them and wait for assistance.

Trayvon's side is also wrong for trying to make their kid out to be a saint when he had discipline problems at school like a good chunk of US teens these days. He wasn't the perfect little child they made him out to be and to be honest if I saw a kid I did not know walking around my gated community I would probably be very suspicious as well. I'm not going to say he was up to no good, but he very well could have been. So what, he was going out for skittles and just randomly decided to just trespass in a gated neighborhood? It's still trespassing, which last time I checked is a crime.

Both sides need to just shut the f__k up already, it's not going to bring justice if you incessantly bicker about who's right and who's wrong. That's what we have the court system for.

Zimmerman SHOULD stand trial for his actions, but it should also be weighed against why a suspicious looking teenager was trespassing in a gated community late at night.

I know from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that most teenagers snooping around a gated community late at night are usually up to no good. What kind of 'no good' they are up to is completely dependent on the kind of person they are. I've known teens from my old school to trespass in gated communities for the purpose of breaking & entering vacant houses to deface them and steal things.

But I've also known teens from my old school to trespass in the same gated community just to throw a bunch of soap & detergent in their fountains as a prank.

Like I said, it depends on the character of the person.

We will never truly know what Trayvon was up to that night, but I still hold that both sides are wrong and that this should all be decided in a court of law. Not in the media or on ATS.

Originally posted by muse7
To me it just seems like Zimmerman was just looking for a confrontation so he could get the opportunity to shoot Martin.

Could be, but that doesn't mean that someone can attack some because of what they said. I definitely wouldn't do it in Florida. I mean, have you seen their laws?

EDIT: I'm sure we still haven't heard everything there is to hear.

I feel the bottom line is, Zimmerman went after this kid after being told not to. He took the law into his own hands. He was not in any danger and he went after this kid and killed him (doesn't really matter who attacked first at that point). So you have to say it is Zimmerman's fault. He should have let the police do their job.

I am beginning to become very worried about this whole thing. We have the Walgreens being looted today and I'm afraid we could be on the verge of some very serious rioting.

Something needs to be done quick or things could get seriously out of hand.

This is being discussed in numerous threads.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please add further comments to the ongoing discussion in the above linked threads.
Thanks

**Thread Closed**

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by Maxmars

 

I don't think anyone here is saying that it's illegal to defend yourself if you're racist.

I don't look at this as a race crime, I look at this as a murder carried out by a paranoid/trigger happy individual.

He did use the word "Coon" and I think racial profiling did have something to do with ti too. But when he decided to ignore the instructions give by the 911 operator and followed martin, when Martin was going away from him...to me that disqualifies him from claiming self defense

Thank you. I understand now. So this "neighborhood watch" guys failed to obey the 911 operators instructions. How did he go after him though? Follow him? Called him out? Shot at him?

Don't get me wrong, I for one do not believe that neighborhood watches should consist of armed civilians... too much room for adrenaline to screw things up. And I sure as heck don't see how anyone walking around their own neighborhood should have to fear their own "neighborhood watch" folks... let alone face lethal force for a personal confrontation between to adversaries, regardless of personal feelings.

That he used racially charged inflammatory and disrespectful epithets should also not be so much an indicator of what happened as what eye-witness reports and professional investigators offer. My point in asking this was simple.

Assuming he is a racist... or better yet, let's take a hypothetical and say I am a racist that hates Puerto Ricans... does that mean Puerto Ricans can be assured that if I ever hurt one of them I won't get a fair trial because I hate them? That everything I do will be colored by the bias I have, even the legal things? It seems to be treading on some very precarious ground.

Personally I think this should be left to the authorities to resolve once all the facts are legally compiled and then we can discuss what happened. Until then... aren't we guilty of the same kind of biased thinking we charge this neighborhood watch guy is guilty of?