FBI Finds No Racial Bias in Trayvon Martin Shooting

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

If there hadn't been a gun involved this would be a completely different story and we'd also have two versions of the story instead of just the one

It definitely would have been a completely different story. There may not have been two versions though. One possible outcome would have been that George Zimmerman would have been beaten to death by Trayvon Martin.
It happens.

It happens - sure

But it's like playing rock-paper-scissors - what beats gun?

As bigfatfurrytexan mentions not far above - Mr. Zimmerman - having a gun - should have been more cautious in this situation - instead he allowed himself to get close enough to get into a physical altercation. That never should have happened - at all

Someone died because of his choices - even if the young man was beating the holy crap out of him - it was Zimmerman's decision that allowed that particular situation to happen in the first place

This thread is about race - ultimately. The FBI has decided that this wasn't a hate crime. I agree with that - profiling is not the same as hate. But the boy was singled out - regardless. Again - Mr. Zimmerman called this in in the first place based on very little evidence of anything - just a black kid walking through a neighborhood

No matter what happened in this neighborhood before - Mr. Zimmerman had no business deciding he was a problem or a threat - he should have only gone so far as to report something that might be a problem - and then let the police do their job

I think there are plenty of reasons to make this case about race - but those came after the young man was killed. I see this case as being more about vigilantism - and whether or not this is really something we want to condone and support - as a nation

We should still be arguing about how this whole thing was handled - that's where the accusation of racism makes the most sense

Originally posted by butcherguy

So you are saying that when it comes to stalking, there are some things that are illegal about eating ice cream cake?

And some members want to critique other members reading ability and comprehension.

If you were trying to make a relevant point, that is exactly what your post says. If it is not what you meant to say then you need to re-think your argument.

Sorry but there are things that are illegal about following people. It is not ALWAYS OK TO DO.
I hate that I have to correct this for you because you were told otherwise by some liar on a forum that claims to be a cop and is routinely corrected about the law. Just getting the FACTS straight. Your opinion about me means very little.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Apparently both but again we have no eye witness / physical evidence to support Zimmerman confronting Martin. Secondly hindsight 20/20 cannot be used to challenge the use of force, by either party. Its what would a reasonable person do based on the situation at the time it occured and in this case was the action justified under FL law

And again I have to say - which of these two men had the most to fear? It's one of those...

This is why it now goes to court - where in the beginning of this whole story Mr. Zimmerman might have gotten off scot-free

A person was killed - and someone is responsible for that death. It's not unreasonable for people to want justice

This case is going to be very interesting - no matter what

Originally posted by butcherguy

In that they were both facing complete unknowns, that is a difficult question to answer.

Zimmerman knew he was safe and fine in his car with his gun and his phone which he just used to call police who were on their way. Trayvon THOUGHT he was just walking home and had no idea some pissed off wannabe with a gun was now following him to find out what he was up to.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Lets talk about judgement. Common sense. Isn't this what the law is meant to actually reflect?

Which brings us to letter of the law and spirit of the law. Common sense is a factor but again a lack of common sense does not mean a law violation.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Just about everyone here agrees that he likely should not have followed Martin. That he had no duty to do so, and really had to reason to do so outside of his affiliation with Neighborhood Watch. It is obvious to most here that it was a bad decision.

I am one of the people who also thinks Zimmerman should have made better decisions and I stated as much when this first hit. Again what we think and how the law works / applied are 2 different areas that are not interchangeable. My position since relies on the law, what it allows and does not allow.

Secondly the letter City of Sanford released states at the time of the incident Zimmerman was running a personal errand and was not acting in the capacity as neighborhood watch. With that being said, even if Zimmerman was acting in that capacity, a policy violation of neighborhood watch rules do not trump Florida Law. If there are conflicts between Zimmermans actions and watch policy, its a matter between Zimmerman and the watch group, not the law.

A duty to act / not act is another term that is used but not appropriately. I say this because even law enforcement has absolutely no duty to act under state or federal laws (Supreme Court decision). So again if we go down the duty to act / not act, it comes back to the watch policies, not the law.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
The 911 operator, too, identified this as a bad decision. She repeatedly told Zimmerman to not approach Martin. To wait for officers.

Correct but again, the 911 operator is not commissioned law enforcement and cannot legally give orders to people, and this was also addressed by the city stating as much. Also we run back into the issue of who confronted who. So while the PA could bring this up in court they still cannot prove that by ignoring the 911 operator is what resulted in Martins death. Its not enough to just bring it up - there must be supporting evidence.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Why do so many people see this as an error in judgement? I think it is because the obvious conclusion of this interaction is going to be less than pleasant, with Zimmerman being completely incapable of doing anything other than talking to the individual, and possibly causing a physical altercation where there was none.

An error in judgement does not equate into criminal conduct / law violation. Personally speaking and based on the evidence thus far I am amazed the case has not been thrown out with prejudice by the judge. We do not know for a fact that Zimmerman confronted Martin.

If this makes it to court, and as I posted before, the defense will call the lead detectiv e to the stand and ask what evidence he has that shows Zimmerman confronted Martin, and the detective is going to state they have none.

Right out of the shoot the jury will hear the lead detective admit theyhave no evidence that Zimmerman confrtoned Martin.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
But to take this one step further....Zimmerman had a CCL. As such, he has an additional duty beyond that of a person without a CCL who is carrying a firearm. You are an officer...you likely have similar training. The whole reason for a firearm is to prevent physical confrontation.

We have higher standards when it comes to training, use of force law, case law etc. However civilians have access to the exact same training and info we do. As law enforcement we are required by law to train / have continuing education, civilians do not.

Law Enforcement, like civilians, do not use a firearm to deescalate a situation. It is used to stop an imminent and immediate threat, whether or not that threat is directed at the yourself or a 3rd party. When it comes to the use of firearms the leeway applies to civilians, not the police. Civilians, unlike police, do not have to worry about the restrictions put in place on law enforcement.

The possession and concealment of a gun by Zimmerman was lawful. There is a difference between a holstered firearm and an unholstered firearm. This portion, his ccw etc, will not apply to this situation. The use of a firearm under the SYG laws is where this is falling.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Why did Zimmerman ignore common sense, as adivsed by the 911 operator? And to follow that up, whey did he allow Martin to actually make physical contact with him, and create a situation where Martin is going to have access to his gun?

Common sense is not law. The 911 operator is not commissioned and cannot legally order Zimmerman to do something or not do something. Secondly, we dont know who confronted who let alone how that confrontation occured (see him coming, jumped while looking in a different direction, etc etc) and that applies to Zimmerman and MArtin.

Because of that we cannot state how the situation was created.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
To me it shows INCREDIBLE negligence on Zimmermans part. Not pertaining to murder, but pertaining to manslaughter.

There was no negligence under FL law for being a CCW holder.
There was no negligence under FL law for being in possession of a weapon.

In order to show negligence you will have to show how the negligence occured. In order to do that there is going to have to be a law violation. Its lawful to use deadly force in FL to protect yourself or a 3rd party and there is also no duty to retreat law either.

Without evidence on who confronted who, its pretty much impossible to argue and prove negligence.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
And again I have to say - which of these two men had the most to fear? It's one of those...

You can apply the fear to both. Again hindsight is 20/20, which cannot be used to review a use of force simply becuase those facts were not known at the moment the use of force occured. We get the timeline, from start to finish, we know about Martins history and Zimmermans history etc etc etc. All the info we have, and use in our posts, were not known fully known to the 2 parties that night.

A person does not have to be in possession of a firearm in order to have deadly force used against them. A person does not have to be assaulted / shot at first in order to defend themselves. It comes back to what was known by either party when the incident occured and the sequence of events.

We do not know who confronted who.
We do not know if Zimmerman had his weapon out or holstered.
We do not know if Zimmermans gun was concealed, visible or both (holstered but visible if his coat was unzipped).

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
This is why it now goes to court - where in the beginning of this whole story Mr. Zimmerman might have gotten off scot-free

Based on everything coming out I still think Zimmerman will be free. I think this case will be tossed before we reach the trial stage.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
A person was killed - and someone is responsible for that death. It's not unreasonable for people to want justice

They are not wanting Justice, they are wanting revenge. As for Martins death it is classified as a homicide. What remains is was it justifiable or not.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
This case is going to be very interesting - no matter what

Agreed... Based on the latest batch released I think we will be seeing motions from the defense coming in the next month or so. Unless there is some smoking gun no one knows about yet, the information being released is chipping away at the PA's case. If it continues down that road the PA is not going to be able to meet their burden.

Just to clarify something from comments I have seen in this thread and other threads directed at me -
As an officer I dont agree with / condone Zimmermans actions. I think he should have observed only while waiting for the police. I dont think he should have ever left his vehicle either. I have dealt with neighborhood watches before and while we explain the law to them and their abilities under the law as civilians, we always tell them its better to be a live witness than it is to be a death statistic that may not be solved. I dont condone a civilian taking direct action towards criminal activity that deals solely with property crimes. Property can be replaced, people cannot.

I fully support the 2nd amendment and fully support civilians rights when it comes to owning, carrying and using firearms.

What I have noticed after going through 2 police academies in 2 states as well as home defense classes / CCW classes prior to law enforcement is one question.

In the academies the very first questioned they asked on day one was -
"Can you take another persons life?" - There were officers who could not answer that question, many of which dropped out through the academy.

In my CCW classes they cover the laws, home / self defense, use of your weapon and range time, etc but I have never seen them cover the topic of can you take another persons life. Its something they seem to avoid at all costs.

There is responsibility in owning and using a firearm. If a civilian is not prepared / never asked himself / never been asked about taking another persons life, then they should not be allowed to carry a weapon (whether concealed or exposed) of their property and into the public.

I say this because it has the potential to cause way more issues should their weapon be taken from them because they are having a mental argument on taking / not taking a persons life.

In the academy we learn defensive tech niques, which includes a hefty amount of training on weapons retention as well as training on removing weapons from people we might be dealing / fighting with. Whats the point in carrying a loaded firearm if you dont know how to retain that weapon so its not used against you or someone else?

My point is people need to ask themselves the hard to think about questions on ending anothers persons life and what comes with that action. Its not like the movies where the person watching is detached and knows the person being killed is not really dead.

I have seen people make the comment about why didnt they do this, shoot that, wait a few more seconds.. The issue with that is you do not know how you would react in a similar situation.

People, contrary to popular belief, do not rise to the occasion - they fall back to their level of training.

reply to post by habitforming


So was Martins girlfriend lying when she stated Martin told her on the phone some guy was watching / following him?

reply to post by Xcathdra


From a legal perspective, you are right. To that I have only two things to say:

1. It is no wonder that people feel like justice is not served in our justice system. Thus, it is no wonder that people do not trust the justice system.

2. It is a damn shame that we, as people, do not hold ourselves to higher standards in behavior. You are right, as an LEO you have a higher standard. I posit that all people should have that higher standard. In a system where ignorance of the law is no excuse, we allow ignorance to define a large portion of our law. In your example, as an LEO your higher standard comes from training. As a civilian, he didn't have that higher standard. He is just held to being some dumbass with a gun. Where is the expectation of responsibility? I am responsible, why isn't he?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by habitforming

 

So was Martins girlfriend lying when she stated Martin told her on the phone some guy was watching / following him?

Wow do you suck at this. Do I really need to explain why this response is retarded or do you think you can figure it out yourself, detective?

reply to post by habitforming

If you were trying to make a relevant point, that is exactly what your post says. If it is not what you meant to say then you need to re-think your argument.

Try learning how to read.
I never mentioned 'ice cream cake'.
How is exactly defined in your world?

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by butcherguy

In that they were both facing complete unknowns, that is a difficult question to answer.

Zimmerman knew he was safe and fine in his car with his gun and his phone which he just used to call police who were on their way. Trayvon THOUGHT he was just walking home and had no idea some pissed off wannabe with a gun was now following him to find out what he was up to.

Okay, here's how you need to handle your life when Trayvon is in your neighborhood, George.
Don't get out of your car.
This is the new law, when Trayvon is around you have to stay in your car.

reply to post by butcherguy


I like how you are able to read at least one or two words out of the post you reply to.
Get someone to read the whole thing to you and explain how what you just responded is not even close to anything I suggested.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by habitforming

 

If you were trying to make a relevant point, that is exactly what your post says. If it is not what you meant to say then you need to re-think your argument.

Try learning how to read.
I never mentioned 'ice cream cake'.
How is exactly defined in your world?

OK, you said birthday cake.
Now explain the world of difference my mistake being fixed will now make.

Originally posted by habitforming
reply to post by butcherguy

 

I like how you are able to read at least one or two words out of the post you reply to.
Get someone to read the whole thing to you and explain how what you just responded is not even close to anything I suggested.

It is all you playing games with words.
I decided to play like you do.

Since you are the one that insists that following someone is illegal, why don't you try this little exercise,

Google search the following things:

Crime of burglary
Crime of assault
Crime of murder
Crime of trespassing
Then,
Crime of following.

Check out how the hits come up.

For some odd reason, following doesn't come up as a crime.
You don't seem to understand, but when you combine an illegal act with a legal act, they arrest you for the illegal act, not the legal act. There are cases where combining them can modify the legal act, but that is not the case with the Zimmerman/Martin case.

How following is related to the topic, I don't know.

reply to post by jjkenobi


Since when did people take the words of the FBI at face value on ATS?

I mean, REALLY?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
From a legal perspective, you are right. To that I have only two things to say:

1. It is no wonder that people feel like justice is not served in our justice system. Thus, it is no wonder that people do not trust the justice system.

I agree.. I have found, and have pointed it out here on ATS, that sometimes verbal communications / education go a whole lot farther than writing someone a ticket or making an arrest. If we are to enforce the law, we must know the law and we should act as a resource for the community in that regard. We should, when appropriate, educate citizens we come into contact with on a daily basis (legal exception is giving a person who is detained / arrested legal advice). I did not go into law enforcement so I could screw with people who do not know / understand the law.

When citizens are knowledgable about their rights, the law etc I have found my job becomes easier. This is a 2 way street though...

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
2. It is a damn shame that we, as people, do not hold ourselves to higher standards in behavior. You are right, as an LEO you have a higher standard. I posit that all people should have that higher standard. In a system where ignorance of the law is no excuse, we allow ignorance to define a large portion of our law. In your example, as an LEO your higher standard comes from training. As a civilian, he didn't have that higher standard. He is just held to being some dumbass with a gun. Where is the expectation of responsibility? I am responsible, why isn't he?

A very good question... The one argument people will make is for the government to require continual training for civilians who own firearms. Since thats not in the 2nd amendment, its not going to happen as people will view it as an over reach, and rightfully so. I have seen some states require refresher course every 2 years to so they are current on case law that affects them.

Sadly it comes down to personal responsibility. Whether or not its a gun, driving a motor vehicle, drinking alcohol etc, there are laws that govern those areas and if a person is going to take on the responsibility of owning / driving a car, drinking alcohol or owning / using a firearm it should be their responsibility to ensure they know what they are doing and what the consequences are if they violate the law.

No amount of law is going to correct that deficiency which means its up to the individual.

As for Zimmerman he knew the law, from his CCW to the SYG law. Even in his responses to law enforcement he used the catch words - I felt my life was in imminent danger, I was in fear, I could not disengage etc etc etc.

Some people have argued that by Zimmerman using those words in his explanations that he is attempting to legally hide a crime by using the law. I view it as Zimmerman knowing the law and how it applied (it does not mean he could not have chosen a different course of action though).

How do you create a law that applies to everyone without placing restrictions on everyone? We are individuals and as such we have differing levels of education / street smarts / book smarts / common sense / personal accountability etc etc.

Hence the reason the law is being looked at and why we have this unfolding drama.

How can people hold the government accountible if they dont know the laws to do so?

Originally posted by habitforming
Wow do you suck at this. Do I really need to explain why this response is retarded or do you think you can figure it out yourself, detective?

You are the one who made a false claim -

Originally posted by habitforming
Trayvon THOUGHT he was just walking home and had no idea some pissed off wannabe with a gun was now following him to find out what he was up to.

Martin knew someone was watching / following him nad his gf stated as much because she advised him to just leave / run away.

As a side note are you going to act like an adult anytime soon? All you have done is launched insults / attacks on people while doing your best to drag the topic off track.

Its Officer, not detective..
My question is valid and I would like for you to explain your response since Martin knew he was being watched / followed.

ABC - Source

ABC News was there exclusively as the 16-year-old girl told Crump about the last moments of the teenager's life. Martin had been talking to his girlfriend all the way to the store where he bought Skittles and a tea. The phone was in his pocket and the earphone in his ear, Crump said.

"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."

So yeah... Martin knew he ws being watched and followed so please explain your statement.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by jjkenobi

 

Since when did people take the words of the FBI at face value on ATS?

I mean, REALLY?

Im sure that if the FBI did find a race issue that question would not be asked.

reply to post by Xcathdra

The one argument people will make is for the government to require continual training for civilians who own firearms. Since thats not in the 2nd amendment,

It kinda is

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Regulated in this sense means disciplined or trained, if you are going to own a gun it is your duty to be trained how to use it.