17 year old kid shot dead by Neighborhood Watch "Captain"

[ATOMonkey]

I find it odd how people can invest themselves in the truth or untruth of something they can't know about. I'm talking about people here on this thread.

I don't know what the truth is, but I have no investment in either outcome. It may turn out that the kid attacked Zimmerman, or that Zimmerman was a racist who set out to murder the kid. I don't know.

Why does anyone here have an investment in one set of facts over the other? Especially when we know so little.

You can't see blood in the video. Okay. There are a dozen possibilities about why you can't see blood. One of them is that there was never any blood. That's not the only one, though. With no knowledge whatsoever, why pick a particular reason and argue that one?

What this situation reveals more than most is the bias people bring to it.

I think people are more invested in being right than anything else.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I would think that if I were lying on my back and shot a guy who was on top of me, I'd have at least some of his blood on the front of me. We're Zimmermans clothes tested for Martin's blood?

Excellent question and all the more reason for a grand jury.

New police video shows Zimmerman post shooting.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...mmerman-shortly-after-trayvon-martin-shooting

 

[yotewacker]

It just came out that the kids mom gave the news a 10 year old picture of her son. Now he is 6'3" suspended from school for drug use. His mom has already got his name and all sayings used licensed, so she can sell T-shirts and a movie.

 

[lucky4034]

Often a young kid will try for a beat down of somebody of authority (real or imagined) in an area to gain street cred.

If they get caught they just end up at a juvenile lockdown, knowing their age will get them no lasting record. Heck, they go nuts on the workers where my GF works, knowing they can beat the crap out of somebody. The workers can't retaliate, can only use enough force to control them.

Breeds a false sense of toughness in the would be gangsters and jacks up their understanding of cause & effect.

If he was a dealer (or would be dealer), might not he have had such an attitude?

In general or possibly in trying to set up a new area of business?

 

[CarmelHP]

It is not the responsibility of NW to pursue and try to re-establish visual contact.

Says who?

They are supposed to stay put and wait for police to arrive.

Even if it was the responsiblity of NW to maintain visual contact, he should have done so in a manner that did NOT result in a confrontation.

Do you carry a gun? If so, why? You should just conduct yourself in a manner that does NOT result in a confrontation. All the old anti-gun, anti-carry arguments are being put forth against this guy.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Says who?



Do you carry a gun? If so, why? You should just conduct yourself in a manner that does NOT result in a confrontation. All the old anti-gun, anti-carry arguments are being put forth against this guy.

NW is not police. If you want people to follow around other citizens, armed, in an attempt to either detain or prevent them from commiting a criminal act, then you may as well give them a badge.

And yes, the very last thing I EVER want to do is use my sidearm. I will do everything in my power to avoid that sitution until that is the only option left available to me.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I also recognize the fact that just because I avoid confrontation, doesn't mean confrontation won't find me.

 

[CarmelHP]

NW is not police. If you want people to follow around other citizens, armed, in an attempt to either detain or prevent them from commiting a criminal act, then you may as well give them a badge.

And yes, the very last thing I EVER want to do is use my sidearm. I will do everything in my power to avoid that sitution until that is the only option left available to me.

So, don't have any private security or guards, because, well, that's the police's job? When did we became a police state with the police the only party with a right to guard property or repel criminals? How many times have I seen on here "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away." All the people who are always wailing about the power of the state are now arguing for a state monopoly not only on force, but any protecting of property. If the state gave him a piece of tin with "police" on it then everything is hunky-dorey? Who said he wanted to use his "sidearm?" He may very well, from what we have heard so far, had no other option left available to him. If you're carrying a gun, you are in the very same position as Zimmerman that if you have a shooting, you'll be second guessed and be subject to the political winds and opportunism. There but for the grace of god...

 

[hornadylnl]

Zimmerman looked pretty good considering he was just in a fight for his life.

Here's to hoping that there was an unbiased and complete investigation in the forensics of this case.

 

[ATOMonkey]

So, don't have any private security or guards, because, well, that's the police's job? When did we became a police state with the police the only party with a right to guard property or repel criminals? How many times have I seen on here "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away." All the people who are always wailing about the power of the state are now arguing for a state monopoly not only on force, but any protecting of property. If the state gave him a piece of tin with "police" on it then everything is hunky-dorey? Who said he wanted to use his "sidearm?" He may very well, from what we have heard so far, had no other option left available to him. If you're carrying a gun, you are in the very same position as Zimmerman that if you have a shooting, you'll be second guessed and be subject to the political winds and opportunism. There but for the grace of god...

Valid.

I don't think a populace of busy bodies following each other around, questioning, and attempting to detain each other because they "look suspicious" is the right answer either.

 

[CarmelHP]

Valid.

I don't think a populace of busy bodies following each other around, questioning, and attempting to detain each other because they "look suspicious" is the right answer either.

How is he a busybody? The HOA appointed him (it's in their newsletters) to help watch over their property and that's what he was doing. Was he then supposed to ignore anyone or anything suspicious until AFTER break-ins or whatever. He was supposed to watch, he watched, reported a problem to the police. If he was attacked, how's that his fault given the above? I know Martin was a "child" at 17 and would be magically transformed into an adult at 18 with all the responsibilities thereof, so, if he attacked Zimmerman while 17, we can't lay any of the blame on him. I don't see the sense in it.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I find it odd how people can invest themselves in the truth or untruth of something they can't know about. I'm talking about people here on this thread.

I don't know what the truth is, but I have no investment in either outcome. It may turn out that the kid attacked Zimmerman, or that Zimmerman was a racist who set out to murder the kid. I don't know.

Why does anyone here have an investment in one set of facts over the other? Especially when we know so little.

You can't see blood in the video. Okay. There are a dozen possibilities about why you can't see blood. One of them is that there was never any blood. That's not the only one, though. With no knowledge whatsoever, why pick a particular reason and argue that one?

What this situation reveals more than most is the bias people bring to it.

I know that my initial reaction to the news of the shooting was the same as the OP. When new information started coming out and it became obvious that the MSM was slanting the coverage, I began to become a somewhat skeptical advocate for Z., basically just because of who was calling for his scalp. As various portions of Florida law and the police report were published, it became more clear to me why Z. wasn't jailed or charged with manslaughter - Florida law prohibits charges unless evidence points away from self-defense. (As a side note, Florida statutes also make it a crime to threaten or assault a neighborhood watch representative). As I have said a number of times, based on the evidence presented, we will never be able to verify the facts of those last minutes of M.'s life, but the evidence submitted tends to support Z.'s version, so no charges have been filed. EVERYTHING ELSE being presented; the girlfriend's statement, the police station video, M.'s twitter comments, is supposition designed to sway emotion, not facts that can be relied on as evidence.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I would think that if I were lying on my back and shot a guy who was on top of me, I'd have at least some of his blood on the front of me. We're Zimmermans clothes tested for Martin's blood?

Greg Garrison addressed that this morning on his radio show. He said even a body shot with a .45 often will not cause extensive blood splatter; it takes a shotgun to do that.

 

[KLB]

Excellent question and all the more reason for a grand jury.

New police video shows Zimmerman post shooting.

U.S. News - Police video shows George Zimmerman shortly after Trayvon Martin shooting

I love the attempt to try the case in the media.

 

[HICKMAN]

Mas Ayoob posted on his blog that the gun was a 9mm Kel-Tec. Also said the gun's mag was still at full capacity. Wonder if the evidence will show damage to the kids hand where he was griping the side of the gun?

He did not look any worse for wear in the police videos, that's for sure.

 

[ATOMonkey]

How is he a busybody? The HOA appointed him (it's in their newsletters) to help watch over their property and that's what he was doing. Was he then supposed to ignore anyone or anything suspicious until AFTER break-ins or whatever. He was supposed to watch, he watched, reported a problem to the police. If he was attacked, how's that his fault given the above? I know Martin was a "child" at 17 and would be magically transformed into an adult at 18 with all the responsibilities thereof, so, if he attacked Zimmerman while 17, we can't lay any of the blame on him. I don't see the sense in it.

Assuming that Zimmerman was attacked without provocation(bad assumption IMO), is it my understanding that he bears no responsiblity for the life taken?

Arbitrary age limits mean little to me.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Valid.

I don't think a populace of busy bodies following each other around, questioning, and attempting to detain each other because they "look suspicious" is the right answer either.

We had an attempted child abduction here in my neighborhood a few months ago and the PD renewed their efforts to beef up the NW. I think you are mis-characterizing folks who believe they have reason to keep watch over their property and their neighbors because they don't fit into your particular ideals of self-reliance (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here). I have, in the past, called the police because strangers were acting suspiciously around my neighbor's house while they were gone. While calling the police, I followed the stranger far enough to determine a direction of travel and complete a description for the police. Was I being a "busybody"? Especially, was I being a "busybody" because I don't belong to NW? Or was I just trying to be a good neighbor? As I said before concerning "profiling" (threat assessment) and self-defense, "Screw all of you and your concepts of self-reliance and mind-your-own-business. I'll keep my eye out for threats to my neighbors and hope they'll do the same for me."

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Assuming that Zimmerman was attacked without provocation(bad assumption IMO), is it my understanding that he bears no responsiblity for the life taken?

Arbitrary age limits mean little to me.

IF M. attacked Z., M. was in violation of Florida Statute that makes it a crime to assault or interfere with a neighborhood watch representative in the performance of his duties. Under such circumstance, M. would have been shot in the commission of a criminal act. I have no idea how jurisprudence would view such a thing, but, combined with the "Stand-your-ground" statute, that would make the responsibility M.'s as far as I'm concerned. ONCE AGAIN, all we have is Z.'s story, which appears to be satisfactory according to all the evidence previously in the possession of the State.

 

[CarmelHP]

Assuming that Zimmerman was attacked without provocation(bad assumption IMO), is it my understanding that he bears no responsiblity for the life taken?

Arbitrary age limits mean little to me.

I don't know about it being a bad assumption. Martin may have been innocent, or he may have been up to no good and acting suspiciously, we'll probably never know. If we're going to convict Zimmerman based on the representations made by Martin's friends and family then that's a bad idea. Martin's family and friends represented that he was a 12 year old (from pictures) choirboy who only went out for candy and a drink. Now we know he was a 6'3" athletic man-child who had a somewhat ambiguous past. Going out for candy and a drink says nothing about his intent or actions on the way back. I still haven't seen anything that makes me believe Zimmerman should be culpable for anything. If there is evidence that he first touched, threatened or attempted to detain Martin then it would be different.

 

[Rob377]

Police Surveillance Video | George Zimmerman | Head Injury | The Daily Caller