Shot for getting skittles

If I'm walking home from the local convenience store at twilight and notice a car following me - close enough for me to notice - I'd get a bit paranoid too. It wouldn't be the first time I turned around and confronted the jackass demanding to know what the fuck he was up to.

and I'm just a small, white female.

and, as for Paladin and Sandbagger, would you be so quick to defend the shooter if the kid was white and the neighborhood watch was black? walking home in the projects?

I doubt it.

How is it unnecessary surveillance?

Neighborhood watches tend to sprout up in response to crime taking place int he community.

Where I live we didn't have one until we had a string of break-ins over a two month period. Now that the break-ins have stopped everyone has lost interest in the neighborhood watch.

If you see someone you don't know and in your mind looking suspicious in your neighborhood are you going to ignore them? I'm not saying you will follow them like Zimmerman did but certainly you'd take a look for more then a few seconds.

And if you're the son of a resident, and you tell the vigilante that your father lives in the community, all the vigilante would have to do was ring your father's doorbell and verify that.

Right?

And I'd agree. In today's world if you notice someone following you it pays to be paranoid.

Ahhhhhhh yes the old "you're racist because you wouldn't be saying what your saying if the colors of the people involved were reversed" card.

Tiresome and stupid when one whose paid any attention over the last few years to Paladin would know he would not do such a thing. Sandbagger is relatively new so I'd give you a pass on it since you're trolling but you owe Paladin an apology for implying he's a racist.

Please. That's something that retail workers know. And they WON'T get involved beyond 'keep an eye out' for liability reasons.

The father and son apparently were both visitors to the soon to be stepmom's townhouse.

Actually I would have simply kept on walking to my soon to be stepmom's instead. Since no one was stopping me.

It would bother me, too, and I'd have some choice words for the dude myself. I'm under no obligation to heed his commands or show him the tiniest measure of respect, but also I would not be justified in initiating a physical confrontation on the basis of some creepy fuck following me down the street.

We weren't there, so we can't really say what actually happened here. But if it went like:
"Got a problem asshole?"
"Just keeping my eye on you damned punk kids. What are you up to out here?"
"None of your fucking business, old man. Get the hell away from me or I'll break my foot off in your ass."
"You just try it, junior."
*push*
*shove*



Then they both would've been expected to walk away, and neither is completely innocent. We need to know who laid hands on whom first, if that happened at all. Nothing short of that justifies or mitigates the violence that ensued, but a 17 year old could easily be stronger and faster than an old, out-of-shape guy, so I could see it being a "feared for my safety and shot him in self-defense" situation.

I just refuse to give anyone the benefit of the doubt just because it makes me look like more of an enlightened, socially-progressive being.

So you were there, and you saw the whole thing? Wow. You should be talking to the police, not wasting your time here.

Sorry. Nothing he has said in this thread makes any sense in correlation to the information we have.

If there is some other reason he's viewing things the way he is, aside from the blatantly obvious, then he can state it. If it makes sense, I'll apologize.

And you know otherwise? You know Zimmerman stopped the kid from continuing to walk on to the house?

Well please show us the news article then......

Yawn...

We know Zimmerman has previously been in trouble with the law because of violence. The only thing we know about Martin is that he was suspended from school - and these days, that just might mean he was tardy 3 day within a specified time period.

Looking at the "evidence" thus far presented, Zimmerman is the one at fault.

I'd say the 9mm round speaks for itself.

Everything he has said has made sense in this thread.

What little has been released to the public supports every argument Paladin has made.

You may not like that fact but it is a fact. Everything released to the public supports Paladin.

If anything supported your side the police probably would have charged Zimmerman. The fact that after an investigation, multiple interviews with Zimmerman and then the witnesses, the physical evidence, multiple reenactments by Zimmerman of what happened, and Zimmerman still hasn't been arrested? It's looking like Paladin is more and more right as time goes on.

No. Because as Elwood previously said - Zimmerman gave a statement. Until the investigation is over, he will remain free. When the investigation is over, he may or may not be arrested.

But ..., it's looking more and more like he is going to be arrested.

Neither of those facts is anything approaching evidence relevant to this incident.

The kid could be a gang-banging thug with a bag of crack in one pocket and a nickel-plated 9mm in the other, and still be completely innocent if he did nothing to provoke the situation.

The Zimmerman guy (I only assume he's an older bald guy because the name makes me think of Robert Picardo) could be the worst sort of trigger happy white supremacist assbag who blogs daily about how badly he wants to shoot a brown person, and still be completely innocent if he did nothing to provoke the situation.

Whether or not either of them has a history of projecting a sympathetic, appealing image is irrelevant.

That's not how it works all the time.

If the police had thought he was in the wrong that night they would have arrested him on the spot. Then the investigation would have gone on.

Sometimes they won't arrest you on the spot and sometimes they will. The fact that after taking Zimmerman to the station and interrogating him that they then released him indicates they at that point knew they didn't have enough to hold him. Now if after the investigation they determine that they do have enough then they will go back and arrest him.

But it is never an automatic that they release you until the investigation is complete and then arrest you.

There are plenty of people sitting in my jail who were arrested and charged and the investigation of their cases is on going.

You must be reading stuff from another dimension. Let's look at some stuff:

#1 Incident happens. Zimmerman taken to police station and interrogated. Police release him. Investigation continues.

#2 Multiple articles talk about how police have had several follow up interviews with Zimmerman.

#3 Multiple articles talk about how Zimmerman has reenacted the scene for the police multiple times.

#4 We know there are multiple witnesses (but don't know what they actually saw) and we know that Zimmerman had physical damage to his body indicating he was laying on the ground at some time during the fight. We also don't know how far Zimmerman was from the kid when he fired nor what position Zimmerman was in when he fired (laying down on his back or standing or something else). But you can bet your ass the police already know where Zimmerman and the kid were when the shot was fired.

#5 We know that the police chief has indicated that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. Sine the police are writing the report that they will give to the DA it is highly likely that said report will say the police investigation shows Zimmerman was justified. What the DA does after that is of course up to him but they usually follow the police investigation.


And we don't know if Zimmerman has a lawyer. I think he probably doesn't since he has talked to police multiple times and even done reenactments which any competent lawyer would not let their client do for the police.

After all that Zimmerman is still a free man. It's not looking like he's going to be charged at all at this point.

Was Zimmerman wrong? Yeah he should have backed off. If he had been caught he should have stayed in his vehicle or drove off.

But was he legally wrong? At this point with what we in the public know things are not pointing to him being legally wrong.

Why the hell would we wait for the professionals to investigate when we can make wild-ass guesses based on personal bias and Monday morning quarterback this shit into the ground over and over?

Because we're bored?

Not me. I'm a code-monkey for a telemarketing company. Every fucking day is an adventure for me.

This was your first mistake.

Nobody is going to pay me to do something I enjoy.

The best I could do is take something I enjoy, and completely fucking ruin it by trying to do it for a living.

Until the law changes, anyway. I do live in farm country...

Not in itself. But if that evidence is consistent with Zimmerman's statements, then it tends to back his claim of self-defense.

If X and Y get into an argument, Y initiates violence against X, and X defends himself by killing Y, then X is justified even if he was completely wrong in the original argument.

I'm saying that the evidence that exists is consistent with Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. For all I know, Zimmerman gunned the kid down in cold blood. But the evidence doesn't support that theory.

Zero, unless what's been reported has omitted crucial details.

Zimmerman does not lose his right to self-defense because he got in an argument with someone...even if Zimmerman himself was at fault or caused the arguement.

As I said to CD upthread, if I rear end your car on the highway, I've done you wrong and you may get upset, but that doesn't give you a free pass to attack me.

Again, Zimmerman says the kid confronted him when he noticed he was being followed. If so, does Martin have any "fault" for escalating the situation? Why does Zimmerman bear ALL the blame for the escalation?

Note: I'm not blaming Martin for confronting Zimmerman. It was within Martin's rights and the law to do so.

I admit I could very well be wrong.

If I am, it's because the reported story has left out significant facts, though.

Hate to say it, but no matter how they bleat, sheep can't give consent.

The fuck is that supposed to mean?

No, no, no. You asked it wrong.

You're supposed to ask "Why do you hate black people so much?"



And the answer is no, absolutely not. I do not automatically "side up with my race" when a crime involving a white person occurs. Race does not bear on my interpretation of the facts. But, and you'll pardon me for saying so, I think it does with a lot of you.

The narrative of the black-hatin' itchy-trigger-finger self-appointed watch captain who goes out of his way to blow away a kid he had already reported to the police seems to resonate with some of you, while you reflexively discount the possibility of a 17-year-old kid tearing into a creepy old guy who was following him.

Don't believe Martin attacked Zimmerman? Why? Just because? But you can easily believe Zimmerman shot Martin and then covered it up with a claim of self-defense...even though the evidence supports the claim.

Why is that?

The, um, "old guy" is 28. Let's start there. No need to even mention that he's twice the size of the dead kid, and armed. Doesn't matter if he's green or purple, unless

http://gma.yahoo.com/orlando-watch-...nable-police-conduct-032002155--abc-news.html

Hmmmmmmmm.

There's no evidence Martin was stopped by anyone, let alone Zimmerman. In fact, the reports say it was Martin (who noticed he was being followed) who confronted Zimmerman.

But sandbagger's statement raises a good question: if you're quick to condemn Zimmerman for following the kid, why not condemn Martin for simply not continuing on his way home?

Size doesn't matter.

If you don't know how to fight or are not aggressive enough or just not mentally capable of a physical fight or not physically capable of fighting (out of shape) you're going to lose.

Going around talking about how the guy has a hundred pounds on the kid, a high school football player judging from the pictures mean he's in great shape, means nothing.