Shot for getting skittles

Why is sandbagger going so far out of his way to defend someone who clearly was in the wrong?

Did Breitbart's ghost tell him to?

[ironymeter]

:ironymeter:

Is that what happened to you?

Yes, exactly. The drug task force (and cops in general to a lesser degree) are going all out lately. They just had a few huge undercover long-term investigations that nailed a lot of folks. Even if just a few flip, they'll get a lot of intel on the major suppliers.

BTW this weekend a North Carolina man was stopped on I-20 for a light out. This is a major drug running route. Turns out he had 15 lbs. of weed in the car.
10 lbs. is trafficking, so I'm guessing he some explaining to do.

Apparently, the whole incident may have been recorded...

Because the dead guy is black. The shooter is white. Or was white until I read the follow-up posts in this thread. Either way our shooter is "not black" and therefore as can be seen:

Tensions are swelling in the black community over why Zimmerman is free.
"You've got a little dead black boy, and the community sees you protecting the shooter," one man said.

CNN Linkage

Note: I'm not saying he will be found guilty. Just that he will be charged. That DA will twist and turn to get a Grand Jury to indict.

Zimmerman doesn't know that this kid is walking to the home of a black man. Zimmerman doesn't know the kid. Unless the kid is on the only road that leads to exactly one house, the house of the black guy, that kid could be going anywhere.

And before you bitch back Zimmerman was wrong to create the conditions that led to a confrontation and then a shooting and he will probably get charged for it.

There is no "a lot higher" standard for using lethal force against a minor.

The statute as you quoted says no such thing regarding age of the person.

Plenty of teenagers have gotten shot and killed by others using force to defend themselves.

Now if Zimmerman had shot a five year old he'd be charged with murder. That much is obvious because unless he has video tape showing that 5 year old kicking his ass (in which case he should shoot himself for letting that happen) he's getting charged. His claim of self defense will be laughed at. But claim self defense against a 17 year old? Yeah that will get a harder look because the state understands that 17 year olds aren't 5 year olds.

Again the investigation determines whether the "state" thinks you're justified in your response to a situation. Certainly the age of the participants in any incident plays a factor but there is no higher standard in writing for minors.

And given the dead kids age such a standard wouldn't apply. Seventeen year old kids, contrary to Garamets worldview about size and weight, are no less deadly then 18 year old adults.

There is no political process in Florida. All deadly force incidents go to a Grand Jury automatically.

Even if the State Attorney agrees it was justified it will still go before a Grand Jury.

You're not required to run away when a fight starts. You have the right to defend yourself. However it would have been the smart thing to do in this case.

But Zimmerman may not have wanted to leave his car at the mercy of this pissed off kid.

Or Zimmerman may have not been able to run because he was getting his ass handed to him by the kid.

The best thing Zimmerman could have done was one of two things:

#1 Hang back so the kid doesn't see you.

#2 If the kid does see you stay in your car. Kid can run his mouth all he wants but you stay in the car until the police arrive. If the kid attacks your car I'd still not get out of the car and if and only IF the kid tried to get in the car would I shoot.

If that is true the community could face a lawsuit. If the neighborhood watch is an official part of the community and they knew he carried a gun.....

That said one anonymous caller to some blog....

But I do want to post this which you left out and is kinda important:

Also we have multiple witnesses according to this article.

So given all that, Zimmerman freely talking to the police not once but multiple times (Apostle is having a heart attack), Zimmerman reenacting the events (Apostle is having a stroke), and the witnesses and yet Zimmerman has still not been charged by the police?

I think that kids family is going to be pissed off.

Of course as I said above: some blog....

If the assertion that Zimmerman was knocked to the ground and his blood spilled holds true--and, of course, if there's no evidence Zimmerman did it to himself--then this one's a slam dunk. The defense will be able to present evidence that Martin not only had the capability to attack Zimmerman, but that he actually did.

My biggest problem with Zimmerman's position to date was that the news did not present any evidence that they'd struggled. A physical struggle--particularly one in which Zimmerman seems to have gotten the worst of it--lends a lot more credibility to the claim of self-defense.

And if witnesses back up Zimmerman's story? Fuhgedaboutit.

Racial politics might drive this one for a little while, but, barring something explosive coming out, Zimmerman ain't going to trial.

Why are you busy measuring rope out to hang a man, when you don't have all the facts?

Not convinced on this analysis, and especially on the conclusion that "barring something explosive coming out, Zimmerman ain't going to trial."

1) Evidence that they struggled and that Zimmerman took some hard knocks is not, in itself (even if it is confirmed) an indication that he "got the worst of it."

2) If you provoke a fight with someone who is minding their own business, and it escalates to the point where you think you are going to get hurt real bad, does that make it "self defense" to shoot the person? I don't think so.

I think you are a little too quick to decide in Zimmerman's favor. You need to wait and see what comes out about Zimmerman's guilt (or lack thereof) in causing the confrontation in the first place, and in making it physical (if indeed it was). That might be hard to come by, since only one side of the story is available now, but I still think it is way too early to decide that it would take "something explosive coming out" for it to go to trial.

Yep, that's my whole line of reasoning. Zimmerman fucked up from the git-go by not taking the advice of hang back and don't confront him.

You think he's a threat? Avoid a head-on confrontation with the threat! YOU ARE ARMED! If shit is found to be genuinely dangerous, you have last-second protection. Just keep this possible threat under observation and keep your head on a swivel, and fucking pay attention.

Jesus H. Christ do I need to drag every motherfucker down to a military recruiter and make them do a "hitch in the service" just to learn how to function in sketchy situations?

He was apparently doing that, and everyone's pissed off about it.

If all he was doing was "keeping him under observation," how did it get to the point where he shot him, when it is clear the kid was not doing anything illegal?

So, no, everyone is not "pissed off about him keeping the kid under observation." Some people think it is way too early to judge that he was obviously justified in shooting an unarmed kid just because, in his mind, the kid was "suspicious."

I will need evidence that the kid started something, when Zimmerman was not harassing or threatening him in any way, and that Zimmerman soon found himself in a situation where the only thing he could do was shoot him, before I decide that it was justified self-defense.

You are too quick, in my opinion, to decide that he was "just keeping the kid under observation." Aren't you the one who's been repeating throughout the whole thread that we should not jump to conclusions until there is enough information available to justify those conclusions?

Never underestimate a DA to get a Grand Jury to charge someone with murder.

And never underestimate a jury to convict when they shouldn't.



Zimmerman will have to hope he gets a judge that can just immediately reject the charges and throw the case out.

uhhhh

Wordforge's secret name is Ropehandlers.

According to Zimmerman the kid took exception to being observed.

He didn't shoot the kid because he thought he was "suspicious." He followed him and kept him under observation because he thought he was "suspicious."

Therein lies the problem though -- why 'observe' where the kid would notice and possibly get confrontational and not 'observe' from a distance?

Yeah it is. It depends on the kids body. If the only real damage to the kid came from the bullet then it will be obvious that in the fight that Zimmerman was getting his head handed to him.

Also, of course this assumes what I'm about to say is true, the evidence per the police report says that Zimmerman's back was wet and had grass on it. This matches up with someone being on the ground on their back getting their head smashed into the ground which results in the wound to the back of Zimmerman's head.

Unless the kids body has a lot of damage from things other then the bullet the forensic team will know who got the worst of it.

Of course if witnesses confirm that there was one guy getting his ass kicked that just strengthens Zimmerman's claim if it was Zimmerman's ass that was getting kicked.

And as long as Zimmerman didn't start the fight then yes it could make it self-defense to shoot.

They were both wrong. Both could have walked away.

You're stretching things. An argument is not provoking a fight.

The same can be said in reverse to you about deciding in Zimmerman's guilt.

And what is the appropriate distance? And how far apart were they when the confrontation occured? Who confronted who?

You just contradicted yourself, and agreed with me. If "it depends on the kid's body," then "evidence that they struggled and that Zimmerman took some hard knocks is not, in itself, an indication that he got the worst of it." If it requires B to demonstrate something, then A is not in itself a demonstration of it.

Which is my whole point. It remains to be seen who started the fight.

It seems to me that you are very quick to decide that anything that indicates that no verdict is as yet possible is somehow an argument in favor of the kid. That, in turn, seems to indicate that you have a very strong interest in Zimmerman being innocent.

Why is that?

Then it's a good thing I haven't yet said anything either way about Zimmerman's guilt, isn't it?

I thought conservatives were opposed to things like unnecessary surveillance.

If the "observer" had been a government agent, rather than a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain, would you still have been okay with it?

If you're a stranger in a private gated community, keeping an eye on you until your purpose can be determined is not out of line.

You mean like say a cop?

What's with all the hate for the neighborhood watch?

Yes I'd be alright with it. I doubt the circumstances would be similar.


Would you be okay with it?

You don't get to pick and choose who may "observe" you in public. That angle is neither here nor there.

Would I be okay with someone following me around when I'm minding my own business? Can't say I would be.

And I have no "hate" for neighborhood watch. I have a serious problem with some asshole stuffing a gat in his pants, following a kid around because he wants to get his junior g-man badge and the kid ending up dead.

You're just being stupidly picky here.

You said that the fact that Zimmerman has wounds is not an indication that he got the worst of the fight.

I'm saying it is depending on the kids body. If the kids body is relatively damage free (except for of course the bullet hole) then the investigation will determine that Zimmerman was getting the worst of it.

Investigations determine the whole picture not snapshots. So yes the police will use B to show A.

I don't have a strong interest either way. If evidence shows him being in the wrong he should be tried and convicted. If it doesn't he shouldn't be tried then.

You and others in this thread on the other hand do have a strong interest in Zimmerman being guilty.

Just like the knee-jerker anti-cops on this board who automatically assume the cop is guilty you're doing the same thing to Zimmerman.

I don't know if he's guilty or not. I'd rather wait for the evidence. So far what little has been told to the public is not looking good for your side. It looks as if Zimmerman won't even make it to trial.

Personally I think the DA will try and get him charged anyway and have a trial.

And even with that said I still think Zimmerman was wrong but that doesn't mean I think he was legally wrong.

Stop playing the tap dancing game like Garamet. One can't read your posts and come to any other conclusion.

I won't even begin to speculate on your last two questions. As for the first, clearly he was too close, otherwise the kid would likely still be alive. The fact that the kid noticed to get in Zimmerman's face suggests Zimmerman was too close. Keeping someone within eyeshot while not being noticed shouldn't be too difficult.

Too bad, if you're a stranger wandering through my gated secure communinity.

My but you're the impartial voice of reason.

That's an interesting way of putting things. The kid's reaction to being observed is Zimmerman's fault?

There it is again.

Maybe Zimmerman missed that class at spy school.