PsiChick: Silly Jesus: Damnit Subby...

Your "article" is merely a long winded link to a several day old article, which is a rehashing of a month old article from the same "newspaper."

And yet still worth the greenlight.

/Amazingly enough, useful information does not come with expiration dates.

This information was already discussed at length in more than one other thread.

Thanks for your contribution to the dialogue, though.

PsiChick: Kit Fister: PsiChick: Silly Jesus: Damnit Subby...

Your "article" is merely a long winded link to a several day old article, which is a rehashing of a month old article from the same "newspaper."

And yet still worth the greenlight.

/Amazingly enough, useful information does not come with expiration dates.

Except said "useful" information is biased to the nth degree, and does not even begin to cover the nuances or individual particulars of each case being measured. Funny how statistics can be made to show whatever you want...

These aren't statistics, these are cases where the law is being used to get away with murder (because if someone's lying on the ground or walking away, hey, they aren't a threat anymore). So that means there's a loophole, and it needs to be closed.

I don't see any bias in the article beyond what's always present in journalism nowadays.

I know that facts get in the way of sensationalism and knee jerk emotional responses, but stick with me here for a second.

The incident where the guy was shot while laying on the ground...yeah, that was nearing the end of two people shooting at one another. Guns still work even if you are laying on your back while you use it, and bullets are hard to outrun. In other words, someone laying on their back with a gun pointed at you is still a pretty big threat to your life.

I didn't immediately find the details for the walking away / shot in back case, but I'm pretty comfortable assuming that it had some merit given how the above example was sensationalized by leaving out important details.

Silly Jesus: Eh, it's all about painting a picture. Terms are used for a reason

Spin it any way you want, he followed him with the intent of not letting Martin be another "asshole that got away".

Silly Jesus: It's implied from your side.

I don't have a side. I would say you inferred it.

Silly Jesus: Yes, that's quite insensitive, how dare he provide an accurate description of all of those that had committed crimes in the neighborhood in the recent months.

So every crime committed was committed by a black youth? I assume you can link to the police report of every crime committed, and the subsequent arrest and conviction of a young black male for the crime?

Silly Jesus: If I remember correctly, he did not know his race when he was initially following him (as per the 911 call).

When asked, he said he was black. Just as he did in every call he made to the police regarding a suspicious person.

Silly Jesus: Also, are you completely unable to grasp that sometimes, due to demographics and crime patterns (see my example above of my college neighborhood) race *ghasp* might just be a valid component of establishing in your mind whether someone is suspicious or not?

You are absolutely correct. In Zimmerman's case, EVERY young black male was automatically suspicious. Not as a component. Black = suspicious.

Silly Jesus: It doesn't make him a racist murderer though.

A: I've never said he was a racist. I've said that Martin's race was the only factor in determining, in Zimmerman's mind, that he was suspicious.
B: I've never said he was a murderer. He has not been convicted.

Silly Jesus: It works both ways...

Yes, it does. So, which is it? Did Zimmerman slap his girlfriend? Did he assault an officer? Your side, I think we can safely say you are on Zimmerman's side, wants to discount both the girlfriend and the officer. But, you want to accept as fact the tweet from a cousin. Pot, meet kettle.

Paschal: So the obvious solution is MORE GUNS! Amirite?

Right now, in the US, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 million firearms. Everyone that wants one has one, and it's still very easy to get one. What would your solution be? Take away guns?

NightOwl2255: Silly Jesus: Eh, it's all about painting a picture. Terms are used for a reason

Spin it any way you want, he followed him with the intent of not letting Martin be another "asshole that got away".

...by maintaining visual contact with him so that he could direct the police to his location.

Silly Jesus: It's implied from your side.

I don't have a side. I would say you inferred it.

Fair enough.

Silly Jesus: Yes, that's quite insensitive, how dare he provide an accurate description of all of those that had committed crimes in the neighborhood in the recent months.

So every crime committed was committed by a black youth? I assume you can link to the police report of every crime committed, and the subsequent arrest and conviction of a young black male for the crime?

From what I have read, the many burglaries in the neighborhood, in the months prior to this incident, were committed by young black males. I remember off hand one incident where some construction workers across the street noticed the burglary and were able to direct the cops to their location and get them arrested.
I don't have access to their police reports.
People commit crimes all the time and are not arrested for them...but they still committed them.
People commit crimes all the time and are not convicted of them...but they still committed them.
Here's an article from CNN about the burglaries and the race of the individuals involved.
Neighbors say that all 8 of the burglaries in the prior 15 months were committed by young black males. The media was only able to confirm that young black males were involved in 3 or 4 of those. So I don't know where the information of the neighbors comes from. A neighbor also stated that Zimmerman previously scared off a black male attempting to break into his (the neighbor's) apartment. This would have been the 9th burglary.
So, based on there being no documentation in half of the cases, I'll concede that my prior statement (based on the word of neighbors) is a little flimsy as far as ALL of the burglars being young black males. Half of them were though...and the other half were unknown. I don't think that it's a huge stretch to see a pattern there and make some educated guesses about the other half of the burglaries, but, I'll admit, it could have been white guys etc.

Silly Jesus: If I remember correctly, he did not know his race when he was initially following him (as per the 911 call).

When asked, he said he was black. Just as he did in every call he made to the police regarding a suspicious person.

Ok, I took the time to look it up and I was recalling incorrectly. He initially said "he looks black" and was unsure. Later he confirms that he is black when he is able to see him more clearly.

Silly Jesus: Also, are you completely unable to grasp that sometimes, due to demographics and crime patterns (see my example above of my college neighborhood) race *ghasp* might just be a valid component of establishing in your mind whether someone is suspicious or not?

You are absolutely correct. In Zimmerman's case, EVERY young black male was automatically suspicious. Not as a component. Black = suspicious.

Citation Needed

Silly Jesus: It doesn't make him a racist murderer though.

A: I've never said he was a racist. I've said that Martin's race was the only factor in determining, in Zimmerman's mind, that he was suspicious. Citation Needed
B: I've never said he was a murderer. He has not been convicted. Ah, I see what you did there.

Silly Jesus: It works both ways...

Yes, it does. So, which is it? Did Zimmerman slap his girlfriend? Did he assault an officer? Your side, I think we can safely say you are on Zimmerman's side, wants to discount both the girlfriend and the officer. But, you want to accept as fact the tweet from a cousin. Pot, meet kettle.

I don't completely discount those incidents, but I do put the police incident into context and take the word of the girlfriend with a grain of salt (in college I knew more than one girl who would routinely start shiat with her bf and then call the cops). Also, if you are of the opinion that the word of Zimmerman's girlfriend should be taken as the gospel, then you should also take the word of Martin's Twitter and Facebook friends etc. as the gospel.

PsiChick: Silly Jesus: PsiChick: Kit Fister: PsiChick: Silly Jesus:

I know that facts get in the way of sensationalism and knee jerk emotional responses, but stick with me here for a second.

The incident where the guy was shot while laying on the ground...yeah, that was nearing the end of two people shooting at one another. Guns still work even if you are laying on your back while you use it, and bullets are hard to outrun. In other words, someone laying on their back with a gun pointed at you is still a pretty big threat to your life.

I didn't immediately find the details for the walking away / shot in back case, but I'm pretty comfortable assuming that it had some merit given how the above example was sensationalized by leaving out important details.

In the case of the person laying on his back, the question then becomes: Why was he on his back? Was he realistically able to lift the gun and fire it, or was he injured?

And more to the point: That's one case. You might be comfortable assuming the other cases have merit. I have a lot more experience with people who will unhesitatingly try to punish people they think are in the wrong, and that type of person usually loves guns and Stand Your Ground type laws because it lets them fantasize about punishing people via execution and getting away with it. Laws aren't made under the assumption that everyone's a good person, and when you do try to make laws that way, you get very bad situations arising. Laws work best when made under the idea that some people are assholes.

It would be interesting if it were possible to design a study to determine if any of these people in these example cases thought about SYG prior to making their decision to shoot.

It's similar to people that argue that the death penalty is a deterrent to people committing murder. Maybe in a vary rare instance, but in the vast majority of murders, which are split second decisions made without a perfectly clear mind (adrenaline, tunnel vision etc.), people aren't consciously analyzing the consequences of their actions. That is done immediately afterwards.

I think that SYG is likely the same way. I doubt that many, if any, of these decisions to shoot were made with SYG actively in mind. It merely comes in to play later.

Hell, people here, after having read the statute 100 times, can't even figure it out. I highly doubt that these low lifes (mostly) are pondering the legal ramifications of a complex statute in the midst of a shoot out.

tl;dr
I don't buy into the notion that the SYG law changes the behavior of folks in the vast majority of these cases. It merely comes up as a defense after the fact and people assume that it was part of the decision making process during the commission of the crime.

PsiChick: Silly Jesus: PsiChick: Silly Jesus: PsiChick: Kit Fister: PsiChick: Silly Jesus: It would be interesting if it were possible to design a study to determine if any of these people in these example cases thought about SYG prior to making their decision to shoot.

It's similar to people that argue that the death penalty is a deterrent to people committing murder. Maybe in a vary rare instance, but in the vast majority of murders, which are split second decisions made without a perfectly clear mind (adrenaline, tunnel vision etc.), people aren't consciously analyzing the consequences of their actions. That is done immediately afterwards.

I think that SYG is likely the same way. I doubt that many, if any, of these decisions to shoot were made with SYG actively in mind. It merely comes in to play later.

Hell, people here, after having read the statute 100 times, can't even figure it out. I highly doubt that these low lifes (mostly) are pondering the legal ramifications of a complex statute in the midst of a shoot out.

tl;dr
I don't buy into the notion that the SYG law changes the behavior of folks in the vast majority of these cases. It merely comes up as a defense after the fact and people assume that it was part of the decision making process during the commission of the crime.

I agree. Like I said, there's a group of people who are very likely to abuse the law to begin with. That's my problem with it--there's no addressing of the loophole. The law's basic principle is fine by me.

I don't think that such a "loophole" can be closed though. Besides, I look at it in the same light as the "it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to wrongfully hold one innocent man" concept.

PsiChick: Kit Fister: PsiChick: No, that's not my argument at all. My argument is that there is a group of people who are hardwired to use this law the wrong way, and we currently have no mechanism for catching these abusers of the law. There is one case where, as it turns out, it's not a good example, but the other two cases may actually be a very good example of those times.

Yes, there are times where Stand Your Ground is a wholeheartedly good law, which you outlined quite well. There is a group of people documented by psychology who will abuse it. We need to address both.

Unfortunately, there are pathological predators that abuse just about any legal loophole they can. Congress critters are a classic example. Which is better: obfuscate the law to stop the few who would abuse it and, along with judges who are already biased in one way or another, deny protection to the vast majority of people who the law is meant to protect with an 'oh well, gotta break a few eggs' approach, or do you accept that the law will never be perfect, no matter HOW complex it's written, and accept that the law can only lay a groundwork and it takes competent people in the judicial system to make sure that those who truly are guilty are found guilty?

The problem with the crowd that wants to take away guns/restrict guns/drop CCW/whatever is that they are treating a symptom, they are not addressing the problem directly. The only way to do so logically is to push for more education and to place responsibility where it belongs. Now that is certainly easier said than done.

Or we could just state in the law that the attacker cannot shoot if the person is making a gesture recognizable by the average person as an attempt to disengage. Problem solved.

Not sure if serious...

/This isn't actually just one or two sociopaths, BTW, this is a very large group of people. Your argument would hold a lot of merit except for that.

Citation Needed (as in specific evidence that anyone has read this law and gone out searching for someone that they could set up to kill within the framework of the law so that they could get away with murder)

PsiChick: Kit Fister: PsiChick: Silly Jesus: PsiChick: Silly Jesus: PsiChick: Silly Jesus: PsiChick: Kit Fister: PsiChick: Silly Jesus:

I don't think that such a "loophole" can be closed though. Besides, I look at it in the same light as the "it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to wrongfully hold one innocent man" concept.

See above post.

I think, ultimately, it's incredibly naive to believe that, short of making laws that are so incredibly complex as to be simultaneously unenforceable and so broadly sweeping that they could be applied to anyone or everyone no matter the circumstances to prevent them the protections the law is designed to grant. I'm sorry, but this is not a case where we can say "yes, if we just do X, it will prevent more people from getting away with things".

It's the same basic justification people use to argue for more control of business by government, or more government programs, more government spending, etc. etc. etc.: oh, but if we only do this to close these loopholes or that to better control things, then what we're trying to stop won't happen", not realizing that doing so hurts no one but the truly innocent who do NOT have intentions of gaming the system.

First, are you seriously arguing that anyone at all, regardless of their mental state, has the right to shoot someone in the back as they're walking away? That's what closing the loophole will address. It will not take away anyone's rights, because those rights never farking existed. Second, the reason this needs to be addressed is because of the group of people in the link I gave you. Seriously. Read it. I linked it for a reason. If I made a law saying 'anyone can run a light' and meant to say 'anyone can run a red light when there's no one else around and it's 3 AM', why on Earth would I assume people wouldn't start running green lights?

Silly Jesus: PsiChick: Kit Fister: PsiChick: Or we could just state in the law that the attacker cannot shoot if the person is making a gestu ...

Your specific suggestion for closing the loophole simply would not work. There may be another way out there, but your suggestion isn't it. Hint: I can give the signal, you put down your weapon, I immediately raise mine and shoot you. Ta-da!

As Kit Fister said above. You would have to add so many caveats to it to make it water tight that it would be 10,000 pages long and become meaningless.

I scanned your linked article...I know that those people exist, but this law can't be structured in such a way that it takes them into account and at the same time remain effective for everyone else. Either you have the law with loopholes, or you do away with it altogether.

Silly Jesus: Also, if you are of the opinion that the word of Zimmerman's girlfriend should be taken as the gospel, then you should also take the word of Martin's Twitter and Facebook friends etc. as the gospel.

Zimmerman's girlfriend call the police, twice, and reported violent actions by Zimmerman. I put a lot more weight on a person who actually calls the police and makes a report than I do on a one line tweet that we don't even know was actually directed to Martin. And I put an enormous amount of weight on the fact that Zimmerman basically admitted to assaulting the officer and was required to take anger management classes.

As I've said, and I stand by it, Zimmerman was a greater risk to the safety of certain members the neighborhood than Martin was to anyone. We have Martin who was walking home, and short of being targeted, followed and killed by Zimmerman, we would have never heard of any of these people. We have Zimmerman who was an armed man with a history of violence and an attitude, and he was gawd-damn sure not gonna let another one of these assholes get away.

Is Zimmerman guilty of a crime, maybe, even probably, not, but he damn sure is no one to be admired. And this case is not one anyone should use to hang their hat on. Not CCW supporters. Not SYG type law supporters. Zimmerman brought this on himself.

Kit Fister: Actually, most of us who support both CCW and SYG laws and are serious about the whole thing have pretty much said from the beginning that the law didn't apply and that it was a case for court.

No one who takes self defense seriously believes what Zimmerman did is as it is presented to be, and i doubt you could find a single goddamn person to support him.

Have you missed the 500+ (at least) post from the Zimmerman Admiration Club (ZAC) members? He has a lot of supporters here on Fark. A lot.

Kit Fister: Jeffery Dommer and Hitler have thousands of followers and supporters, that don't mean they're right, either.

I'm not going to touch that, I was just pointing out that you could certainly find Zimmerman supporters on Fark.

NightOwl2255: Silly Jesus: Also, if you are of the opinion that the word of Zimmerman's girlfriend should be taken as the gospel, then you should also take the word of Martin's Twitter and Facebook friends etc. as the gospel.

Zimmerman's girlfriend call the police, twice, and reported violent actions by Zimmerman. I put a lot more weight on a person who actually calls the police and makes a report than I do on a one line tweet that we don't even know was actually directed to Martin.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. As I've said above, I've been privy to a number of women flippantly calling the police over "domestic" nonsense. There weren't any injuries reported in these incidents and Zimmerman took out a restraining order against her as well. Also, the male is not always the aggressor. So, yeah, I don't give those situations any more weight than I do the Tweets and Facebook posts.

And I put an enormous amount of weight on the fact that Zimmerman basically admitted to assaulting the officer and was required to take anger management classes.

The police officer was not in uniform. He was undercover and was attempting to restrain one of Zimmerman's friends. Zimmerman was coming to the aid of his friend. There is no indication that he knew beforehand that the guy was a police officer. On top of that, his charge of felony assault on a police officer isn't something that is just taken lightly in the courts, if it's legit. The charges against him were dropped with his agreement to take some classes. Sounds like a pretty weak case to me. I do enjoy how people always leave out the details when bringing up this case though. Jumping on a uniformed officer (which I am sure is what you'd like to imply) is DRASTICALLY different from shoving one that is undercover and accosting your friend.

As I've said, and I stand by it, Zimmerman was a greater risk to the safety of certain members the neighborhood than Martin was to anyone.

Do you outright discount any good that he did? His tutoring of troubled youth? His community activism in getting justice for a beaten homeless man? Do those carry no weight in your assessment of his character? Martin had a questionable character as well. And judging by Zimmerman's face and head, wasn't exactly the harmless angel that you would wish to paint him as being.

We have Martin who was walking home, and short of being targeted, followed and killed by Zimmerman, we would have never heard of any of these people. We have Zimmerman who was an armed man with a history of violence and an attitude, and he was gawd-damn sure not gonna let another one of these assholes get away.

Someone should be able to walk through their neighborhood and look at someone in the distance without being approached and attacked by them. Looking out for your community is a character flaw now apparently.

Is Zimmerman guilty of a crime, maybe, even probably, not, but he damn sure is no one to be admired. And this case is not one anyone should use to hang their hat on. Not CCW supporters. Not SYG type law supporters. Zimmerman brought this on himself.

I don't know if he's a role model or not (I don't automatically discount the good things that he has done, as you do, and I obviously don't see his vigilance as pure evil), but I certainly don't see him in the solely negative light that you do. I think he had good intentions and shiat went bad. As I've said before, I've observed suspicious people in my old gentrifying crime-ridden neighborhood and called the cops. I was outside of my house and even moved down the sidewalk in the direction that they were moving so that I could maintain visual contact with them. I wasn't cowering behind my locked door and wetting my pants. Does that make me a horrible person? Would I be a horrible person if one of the guys (who were later arrested on numerous charges) that I kept an eye on had turned on me and fractured my nose, blackened both of my eyes and helped my head strike the ground before I shot him to preserve my life?

PsiChick: No one said anything about putting the weapon down. There is nothing that requires you to lower your guard at all--just don't attack until, say, the other person is openly grasping or moving in a way that might suggest grasping a weapon. This would actually do virtually nothing beyond address the few cases where the law could actually be misused.

Can you explain this in a scenario? I"m not following.

Silly Jesus: As I've said above, I've been privy to a number of women flippantly calling the police over "domestic" nonsense.

She said he slapped her. Give his history, I tend to believe her. But, hey, they are lying biatches, amiright?

Silly Jesus: So, yeah, I don't give those situations any more weight than I do the Tweets and Facebook posts.

Well, that's just, silly, And not a little bit disingenuous.

Silly Jesus: There is no indication that he knew beforehand that the guy was a police officer.

The office said that when he told Zimmerman he was an office, Zimmerman replied, "I don't care who you are". Have you ever been ordered to take anger management classes?

Silly Jesus: Do you outright discount any good that he did? His tutoring of troubled youth? His community activism in getting justice for a beaten homeless man? Do those carry no weight in your assessment of his character?

Not even a little.

Silly Jesus: Martin had a questionable character as well.

Might I remind you, Martin is dead. He has not been charged with a violent crime. His character is not an issue. I have admired the ZAC's swift-boating of Martin. Karl Rove would be proud.

Silly Jesus: Someone should be able to walk through their neighborhood and look at someone in the distance without being approached and attacked by them.

Yes, poor ol Zimmerman was out for an evening stroll when Martin ambushed him. Come on dude, you're better than that. Hey, here's a thought, maybe Martin should be able to walk through his neighborhood without being followed, harassed and reported to the police for the crime of what? WWB?

NightOwl2255: Silly Jesus: As I've said above, I've been privy to a number of women flippantly calling the police over "domestic" nonsense.

She said he slapped her. Give his history, I tend to believe her. But, hey, they are lying biatches, amiright?

Sure, if you apply the same blind trust to Martin's acquaintances and their statements.

Silly Jesus: So, yeah, I don't give those situations any more weight than I do the Tweets and Facebook posts.

Well, that's just, silly, And not a little bit disingenuous.

Why?

Silly Jesus: There is no indication that he knew beforehand that the guy was a police officer.

The office said that when he told Zimmerman he was an office, Zimmerman replied, "I don't care who you are".

So I can't keep it straight. Are cops all idiots who can't do their jobs and lie and bungle investigations, or are they good guys just trying to correctly do their jobs who tell no lies? If Zimmerman was indeed told that the guy was an officer, he should have given that statement the benefit of the doubt and backed off (not sure whether he struck the guy after him identifying himself or not). So, yes, I concede that drunk stupid guy in the bar is drunk and stupid. Do I base my entire assessment of his character on that one incident 6 years ago? No.

Have you ever been ordered to take anger management classes?

Nope. I've never been accused of something that didn't stand up in court and been ordered to take a joke course as compensation.

Silly Jesus: Do you outright discount any good that he did? His tutoring of troubled youth? His community activism in getting justice for a beaten homeless man? Do those carry no weight in your assessment of his character?

Not even a little.

Seriously? That lack of reasonableness sheds a lot of light on our discussions. Why should the "bad" things that he's done in his past carry any weight with me or anyone else? Or do you have a double standard on that too?

Silly Jesus: Martin had a questionable character as well.

Might I remind you, Martin is dead. He has not been charged with a violent crime. His character is not an issue. I have admired the ZAC's swift-boating of Martin. Karl Rove would be proud.

So if the "defense" of Martin (and thus the condemnation of Zimmerman) is framed as him being an innocent little cherub who could not have possibly been up to anything suspicious that night and was a staunch pacifist, it isn't relevant to the discussion to bring up facts that counter those assertions?

Silly Jesus: Someone should be able to walk through their neighborhood and look at someone in the distance without being approached and attacked by them.

Yes, poor ol Zimmerman was out for an evening stroll when Martin ambushed him. Come on dude, you're better than that. Hey, here's a thought, maybe Martin should be able to walk through his neighborhood without being followed, harassed and reported to the police for the crime of what? WWB?

Martin ran around the corner of the building and disappeared from sight. Two minutes later he reappeared at that very same spot. Zimmerman remained in that spot the whole time. Who ambushed who? If Martin wanted to be far away from Zimmerman, he very easily could have been. He could have been at home sitting on the couch watching the game and eating Skittles before the police arrived. He didn't do that though.

Again, I go back to my personal experiences. Certain people walking through my neighborhood were more suspicious than others due to past incidents. I don't think that it is unreasonable that someone would want to look out for their neighborhood. If that's insensitive, then so be it. I, and my neighbors, have thwarted crimes due to our insensitivity.

Silly Jesus: Sure, if you apply the same blind trust to Martin's acquaintances and their statements.

She called the police. There is a police report. You can read it. She's not some unknown tweeter. If the shoe was on the other foot you would be singing a much different song. And no one that's being honest would weigh a random tweeter with a person that calls the police and gives a very believable story. But, you obviously never believe a woman's side of the story.

Silly Jesus: So I can't keep it straight. Are cops all idiots who can't do their jobs and lie and bungle investigations

You can climb off that monkey. I've NEVER said anything regarding the police investigation being sub-par. I have no more faith in the police than the next guy. But, once again, you can read a police report. It's very clear what happened. The officer said that Zimmerman grabbed his arm. I've never implied otherwise. I find that the cop told him, I'm an office and Zimmerman replied, "I don't care" believable. Of course everyone lies about Zimmerman's actions. Right?

Silly Jesus: Nope. I've never been accused of something that didn't stand up in court and been ordered to take a joke course as compensation.

Nice spin job. You are truly the ZAC's spinmeister.

Silly Jesus: So if the "defense" of Martin (and thus the condemnation of Zimmerman) is framed as him being an innocent little cherub who could not have possibly been up to anything suspicious that night and was a staunch pacifist, it isn't relevant to the discussion to bring up facts that counter those assertions?

Why would Martin need to be defended? I think you forget. He's dead.

Silly Jesus: Zimmerman remained in that spot the whole time.

I've seen you repeat that assertion several times. Funny thing is, you don't, and can't, actually know that for a fact. Unless you have a video or a GPS tracking log that no one else knows about.

Silly Jesus: Certain people walking through my neighborhood were more suspicious than others due to past incidents.

That is the very heart of why I find this entire affair despicable. By your own assertion a back male is automatically suspicious for no other reason than being black. You obviously have no issue with Zimmerman "profiling" Martin. Martin was watching a game on TV. At half time he walked to the store. On the way back a man saw him walking and decided that he looked suspicious. I believe, and I think you know it's true, that the only thing suspicious about Martin that night was the color of his skin. He was followed and the police were called. If the police would have arrived before the shooting, Martin would have been stopped and questioned by the police. I find it reprehensible that in a (cliche alert) free country a young man can't walk home without being harassed simply because of the color of his skin. And you seem to have no issue with it, because, hey, other blacks had committed some crimes so it's okay.

NightOwl2255: She called the police. There is a police report. You can read it. She's not some unknown tweeter. If the shoe was on the other foot you would be singing a much different song. And no one that's being honest would weigh a random tweeter with a person that calls the police and gives a very believable story. But, you obviously never believe a woman's side of the story.

Ok, he's a "wife-beater."

NightOwl2255: You can climb off that monkey. I've NEVER said anything regarding the police investigation being sub-par. I have no more faith in the police than the next guy. But, once again, you can read a police report. It's very clear what happened. The officer said that Zimmerman grabbed his arm. I've never implied otherwise. I find that the cop told him, I'm an office and Zimmerman replied, "I don't care" believable. Of course everyone lies about Zimmerman's actions. Right?

Ok, he beats up police.

NightOwl2255: Nice spin job. You are truly the ZAC's spinmeister.

What spin? Felony charges of an attack on a police officer are not routinely dropped down to an anger management class. There's at least probation etc. Either the case was very weak or his magical out of state traffic court father pulled some strings. Which ever one you think is more plausible.

NightOwl2255: Why would Martin need to be defended? I think you forget. He's dead.

His character will make a difference to the jury. If he was an honor student on his way home from a stop at the library after his shift at the soup kitchen, that would be viewed differently than if he was, well, what he was (I won't rehash it). Point being, his character is going to be somewhat relevant in the minds of the jury.

NightOwl2255: I've seen you repeat that assertion several times. Funny thing is, you don't, and can't, actually know that for a fact. Unless you have a video or a GPS tracking log that no one else knows about.

You're right. I don't have video of him staying there. And please forgive me for taking his word for it barring any evidence to the contrary. I forgot that he is Nazi Satan.

It's logical that he stayed there. It fits with the time line. It fits with his breathing. It fits with what he was saying on the 911 call. But, it was probably just part of the cover for his black guy hunting expedition all along, planned out weeks in advance...

NightOwl2255: That is the very heart of why I find this entire affair despicable. By your own assertion a back male is automatically suspicious for no other reason than being black. You obviously have no issue with Zimmerman "profiling" Martin. Martin was watching a game on TV. At half time he walked to the store. On the way back a man saw him walking and decided that he looked suspicious. I believe, and I think you know it's true, that the only thing suspicious about Martin that night was the color of his skin. He was followed and the police were called. If the police would have arrived before the shooting, Martin would have been stopped and questioned by the police. I find it reprehensible that in a (cliche alert) free country a young man can't walk home without being harassed simply because of the color of his skin. And you seem to have no issue with it, because, hey, other blacks had committed some crimes so it's okay.

I lived in a neighborhood composed solely of white college age kids. All of the burglaries that were thwarted, caught in progress, or later solved, involved black teen males from nearby projects. Our neighborhood wasn't a cut-through to anywhere, so there wasn't really any reason for people that didn't live there to be wandering through, especially not between houses at night. Setting aside your emotions for a moment, can you honestly say that under those circumstances, it would not be logical to be more suspicious of a black teen male wandering through the neighborhood at night than, say, a white guy? Is that profiling? Of course it is. Profiling has become such a dirty word... Certain people committed all of the property crimes in the neighborhood. They all fit a profile. It follows logically that when another person fitting that profile appeared in my neighborhood under suspicious circumstances, they would draw more attention than someone who did not fit the profile of the frequent criminals.

That mentality reminds me of the ultra-PC actions in the airports after 9/11. Sure, the 90 year old white grandmother from Wisconsin might be the next hijacker, but resources might be better put to use if you acknowledged that she doesn't exactly fit the profile of the hijackers. Someone might think that we are insensitive if we search the guy in traditional garb saying prayers so lets get this partially paralyzed 8 year old boy in the wheelchair and give him a thorough searching....

You know what else is suspicious? Ask any cop this. A white guy driving into the all black projects at 1am. Guess what, he's there to buy drugs. Is that racist to presume that based on his race? Could it be an incorrect guess? Sure. He could have made a wrong turn on his way to get an early start cooking at the soup kitchen. But probably not.

I don't accept your assertion that Zimmerman thought Martin was suspicious solely because he was black.
1. Martin was someone in the neighborhood unfamiliar to Zimmerman. The burglars were not residents.
2. He was walking around out in the rain.
3. He was going close to buildings (I believe solely to avoid the rain) and
4. He matched the description of known criminals that had been responsible for crimes in the neighborhood over the course of the previous year.
Take all of those things together, and I don't think that it is entirely unreasonable to want to keep an eye on them.

Perhaps I am just biased because I have lived in a relatively high crime area before and I've left my house to keep an eye on folks before while police are on the way. In my situation I deemed the people suspicious due to 1. Inappropriate dress for the weather (long pants and long shirt, all black, in the hot ass summer)
2. People that I knew didn't live in the neighborhood.
3. They had no reason to be walking between houses.
4. They fit the physical description of the folks responsible for all of the burglaries over the course of the (at the time) previous 8 months.

Two of the three had warrants. One was carrying stolen items later traced to an earlier burglary and yet another has since been arrested again after committing more burglaries.

The people in both of our scenarios happened to be black, that wasn't the sole factor in their being suspicious though. It wasn't even that their skin color was suspicious in and of itself, either. It was that their physical characteristics matched those of known criminals targeting our respective neighborhoods.

I'd be especially interested in your assessment of my actions in attempting to look out for my neighborhood.

auckerman: Silly Jesus: I'd be especially interested in your assessment of my actions in attempting to look out for my neighborhood.

Did you chase them down shoot them in the street? If not, then you did better than Zimmerman.

I briefly had to jog to maintain visual contact with them around a corner. I didn't full on run though, but neither did they.

It's funny how people can forget that Martin had a perspective. Some guy was suspiciously following him, confronted him (citation needed), and pulled a gun on him (haha, citation needed, unless this is just your inflammatory way of saying that he shot the person who fractured his nose, gave him two black eyes and hit his head into the sidewalk because he was looking at him). The kid's biggest failing is that he didn't call the police on Zimmerman, so they could stop him before he gunned someone down (gunned someone down, niiice. You're good at this.).

Silly Jesus: Ok, he's a "wife-beater."

Why the hyperbole? Never said that, never implied it. The GF called the police and said Zimmerman got upset and slapped her. She also reported that on another occasion he got upset and grabbed a phone out of her hands. If you accept these reports at face value (and I know you don't want to) it leads one to believe Zimmerman has a bit of an anger issue.

Silly Jesus: Ok, he beats up police.

Again, why won't you accept the record at face value? The officer reported that Zimmerman grabbed his arm, and when the officer identified himself Zimmerman said "I don't care who you are". As a result of the assault Zimmerman was required to take anger management classes. Which tends to make one believe that maybe he has anger issues.

And let's not forget the random motorist that Zimmerman had a run in with. You can read the police report. Not a random tweet. Zimmerman called the police because the guy cut him off. Zimmerman followed the motorist and when Zimmerman pulled up along side of him, the motorist said that Zimmerman was so mad he feared that Zimmerman was going to attack him. It seems pretty clear that Zimmerman has anger issues.

On the night of the shooting, during his call to the police Zimmerman said "these assholes always get away". I think you can safely say, he was a bit upset that night. Which given his obvious anger issues isn't a big surprise.

Silly Jesus: His character will make a difference to the jury.

It will be interesting to see how Zimmerman's lawyer attempts to get any of Martin's "history" admitted as there is no criminal record, no police reports of any kind, that would in anyway indicate any history of violence. You think he will try and get the tweet admitted? That would be amusing.

Silly Jesus: And please forgive me for taking his word for it barring any evidence to the contrary.

Ah, so someone facing the possibility of a criminal charge, you take everything they say as the gospel. The officer and his GF, liars. Got it.

Silly Jesus: I lived in a neighborhood composed solely of white college age kids

Was Zimmerman's neighborhood composed solely of whites? Did Martin, in fact, has a very legitimate reason (not that he needed one) to be there? Should Martin have had the expectation of walking home without being harassed simply because of the color of his skin? Yes? Then every thing you posted after the above statement is completely irrelevant.