Child killed by Neighborhood Watch captain while walking home

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There would not have been a "fight" if there actually was one if Zimmerman had left the kid alone. If someone is following you in his car or on foot that is scary. Of course you would tell someone to leave you alone or f- off if you were a teenager.

It seems like Zimmerman is getting away with murder in this case. It's extremely sad and unjust.

Yes, if the kid said leave me alone or eff off and was shot, that isn't a self-defense case. Is that what happened? Wait, you don't know? Oh.

Here's what we do know (or at least what was in the video and article): There was a fight, as multiple witnesses said. During that fight, the kid got shot. How the altercation occurred, how the fight started, and what happened during and before the fight, will determine whether self-defense is appropriate. And we don't know any of that, and unfortunately may never.

And your last statement is just absurd. Based on a 4 minute video and a short written piece, you have determined that someone is getting away with murder. How prescient. I wish law enforcement had known that you were around for the past few years - we could have avoided so many lengthy and contentious investigations trials just by asking you. Do you volunteer to you services to MPD? Did you weigh in on George Hugley? OJ? Good grief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There would not have been a "fight" if there actually was one if Zimmerman had left the kid alone. If someone is following you in his car or on foot that is scary. Of course you would tell someone to leave you alone or f- off if you were a teenager.

It seems like Zimmerman is getting away with murder in this case. It's extremely sad and unjust.

Totally. If someone is following you, fight or flight kicks in. You would either run as fast as you can or stand your ground and fight. Poor Trayvon clearly had no clue that Zimmerman was not fighting fair since he was packing heat.

Agreed. If a man is following me in a car and then gets out, I'm already on the defense. I'm thinking he is up to something and might even be trying to kidnap me. Trayvon could've thought this guy was a predator looking to kidnap his next victim. In hindsight, we know the reason for Zimmerman's behavior. Unfortunately, Trayvon did not have that benefit.

We do? What is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After the police told Zimmerman not to confront the boy, he should have backed away.

Imagine if the boy had been armed as well and had shot Zimmerman. Do you think he would be in custody right now? I am betting so, even though the police are claiming they didn't take Z into custody because he has a 4 year degree and clean record. Because, you know, being a college grad means you must not be a criminal.

The kid would have been arrested immediately without bail.

Zimmerman has a bachelor's degree, BFD. I guess his victim will never have that opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm sorry, but Zimmerman exiting his car is an act of aggression. He instigated this confrontation. Why didn't he leave his gun in the car?

It's being reported that there were multiple calls made to the police about a fight. These calls haven't been released to the family. Is this routine?

Sadly, this can easily turn into a case where Zimmerman gets off with committing murder. If this happens, I can only hope that street justice takes care of this.

Except it's not. If he got out of the car aggressively and rushed the kid, sure. But if he just got out and followed the kid? Nope. The details matter here. And unfortunately, per the video, no one saw how or why the fight started. As the the gun, he had a permit to carry - whether you agree with that or not, and I don't, he's under no obligation to leave it in his car.

My point is, I don't know what happened, and neither do you. So jumping up and down about how it would be is a travesty of justice if he's not convicted and "gets away with murder" is completely overblown. And I agree with a PP - hoping "street justice" takes care of this is particularly appalling in this case. You don't mind vigilante justice if you agree with the perpetrator? How consistent of you.

Exactly. And we don't know which way it went. Why does your assumption trump my own?

If he got out of the car to follow the boy, which not just stay in the car to do that? Would accomplish the same goal except he wouldn't be in a position to engage in a altercation.

re: street justice. I meant more his father. I know as a mother that if someone killed my child and they got away, I couldn't rest until I took action. It might be wrong....I don't care. I will not allow someone to get away with gunning down my child.

I sorta, kinda, agree. Are there any pics of Zimmeman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There would not have been a "fight" if there actually was one if Zimmerman had left the kid alone. If someone is following you in his car or on foot that is scary. Of course you would tell someone to leave you alone or f- off if you were a teenager.

It seems like Zimmerman is getting away with murder in this case. It's extremely sad and unjust.

Yes, if the kid said leave me alone or eff off and was shot, that isn't a self-defense case. Is that what happened? Wait, you don't know? Oh.

Here's what we do know (or at least what was in the video and article): There was a fight, as multiple witnesses said. During that fight, the kid got shot. How the altercation occurred, how the fight started, and what happened during and before the fight, will determine whether self-defense is appropriate. And we don't know any of that, and unfortunately may never.

And your last statement is just absurd. Based on a 4 minute video and a short written piece, you have determined that someone is getting away with murder. How prescient. I wish law enforcement had known that you were around for the past few years - we could have avoided so many lengthy and contentious investigations trials just by asking you. Do you volunteer to you services to MPD? Did you weigh in on George Hugley? OJ? Good grief.

Why was there a fight in the first place? Oh, because the neighborhood appointed sheriff decided to go against what the POLICE told him to do and get out of his damn car. Self defense my ass. I hope he burns in hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm sorry, but Zimmerman exiting his car is an act of aggression. He instigated this confrontation. Why didn't he leave his gun in the car?

It's being reported that there were multiple calls made to the police about a fight. These calls haven't been released to the family. Is this routine?

Sadly, this can easily turn into a case where Zimmerman gets off with committing murder. If this happens, I can only hope that street justice takes care of this.

Except it's not. If he got out of the car aggressively and rushed the kid, sure. But if he just got out and followed the kid? Nope. The details matter here. And unfortunately, per the video, no one saw how or why the fight started. As the the gun, he had a permit to carry - whether you agree with that or not, and I don't, he's under no obligation to leave it in his car.

My point is, I don't know what happened, and neither do you. So jumping up and down about how it would be is a travesty of justice if he's not convicted and "gets away with murder" is completely overblown. And I agree with a PP - hoping "street justice" takes care of this is particularly appalling in this case. You don't mind vigilante justice if you agree with the perpetrator? How consistent of you.

Exactly. And we don't know which way it went. Why does your assumption trump my own?

If he got out of the car to follow the boy, which not just stay in the car to do that? Would accomplish the same goal except he wouldn't be in a position to engage in a altercation.

re: street justice. I meant more his father. I know as a mother that if someone killed my child and they got away, I couldn't rest until I took action. It might be wrong....I don't care. I will not allow someone to get away with gunning down my child.

Because I didn't make an assumption - I said I don't know what happened, and neither do you. You assume that self-defense is bullshit, and the guy committed murder. I say simply assuming that is ridiculous. You admit that you don't know what happened, then persist in assuming guilt. I'm really at a loss as to how to respond to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

[b]

My point is, I don't know what happened, and neither do you. So jumping up and down about how it would be is a travesty of justice if he's not convicted and "gets away with murder" is completely overblown. And I agree with a PP - hoping "street justice" takes care of this is particularly appalling in this case. You don't mind vigilante justice if you agree with the perpetrator? How consistent of you.

Exactly. And we don't know which way it went. Why does your assumption trump my own?

If he got out of the car to follow the boy, which not just stay in the car to do that? Would accomplish the same goal except he wouldn't be in a position to engage in a altercation.

re: street justice. I meant more his father. I know as a mother that if someone killed my child and they got away, I couldn't rest until I took action. It might be wrong....I don't care. I will not allow someone to get away with gunning down my child.

not that pp, but I would say her assumption trumps your own b/c she is erring on the side of presuming innocence, which is something *we do in this country.*

I get that you are emotional about this. histrionic even. but some of us look at this and understand we don't know all the facts. it certainly looks bad, but the facts need to come out... that said, if in fact that cops aren't acting to let the facts come out, that is another set of problems that demands a human rights investigation by the Feds.

But it doesn't warrant "street justice."

Nor does it mean we should presume Zimmerman is guilty. He's innocent until proven guilty. That isn't just something to which we pay lip service, regardless of the skin color of the parties involved.

Histrionic no. History is on PP side. Remember the Scotsboro Boys, Emmit Till, and all the other nameless black boys killed by a white man simply because of the color of his race. Walking suspiciously in ones own neighborhood. I have known of driving while black, now there is a walking while black.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There would not have been a "fight" if there actually was one if Zimmerman had left the kid alone. If someone is following you in his car or on foot that is scary. Of course you would tell someone to leave you alone or f- off if you were a teenager.

It seems like Zimmerman is getting away with murder in this case. It's extremely sad and unjust.

Totally. If someone is following you, fight or flight kicks in. You would either run as fast as you can or stand your ground and fight. Poor Trayvon clearly had no clue that Zimmerman was not fighting fair since he was packing heat.

Agreed. If a man is following me in a car and then gets out, I'm already on the defense. I'm thinking he is up to something and might even be trying to kidnap me. Trayvon could've thought this guy was a predator looking to kidnap his next victim. In hindsight, we know the reason for Zimmerman's behavior. Unfortunately, Trayvon did not have that benefit.

We do? What is it?

If you read my post, it's pretty clear. We know that Zimmerman wasn't following the teen for any nefarious sexual reason. Trayvon didn't have this insight.

Why are you so defensive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm sorry, but Zimmerman exiting his car is an act of aggression. He instigated this confrontation. Why didn't he leave his gun in the car?

It's being reported that there were multiple calls made to the police about a fight. These calls haven't been released to the family. Is this routine?

Sadly, this can easily turn into a case where Zimmerman gets off with committing murder. If this happens, I can only hope that street justice takes care of this.

Except it's not. If he got out of the car aggressively and rushed the kid, sure. But if he just got out and followed the kid? Nope. The details matter here. And unfortunately, per the video, no one saw how or why the fight started. As the the gun, he had a permit to carry - whether you agree with that or not, and I don't, he's under no obligation to leave it in his car.

My point is, I don't know what happened, and neither do you. So jumping up and down about how it would be is a travesty of justice if he's not convicted and "gets away with murder" is completely overblown. And I agree with a PP - hoping "street justice" takes care of this is particularly appalling in this case. You don't mind vigilante justice if you agree with the perpetrator? How consistent of you.

Exactly. And we don't know which way it went. Why does your assumption trump my own?

If he got out of the car to follow the boy, which not just stay in the car to do that? Would accomplish the same goal except he wouldn't be in a position to engage in a altercation.

re: street justice. I meant more his father. I know as a mother that if someone killed my child and they got away, I couldn't rest until I took action. It might be wrong....I don't care. I will not allow someone to get away with gunning down my child.

Because I didn't make an assumption - I said I don't know what happened, and neither do you. You assume that self-defense is bullshit, and the guy committed murder. I say simply assuming that is ridiculous. You admit that you don't know what happened, then persist in assuming guilt. I'm really at a loss as to how to respond to that.

I don't know what happened. I just find it hard to swallow a self-defense claim if you initiate the altercation. Self-defense implies that you fear for your life. Even if Trayvon had Zimmerman on the ground fighting him, that does NOT allow for the response of using deadly force.

BTW, how did Zimmerman even get to his gun? If they were fighting, did he just reach for it and shoot? It would seem the better response would be to pull the gun and use that as a way to get the other person to back away.

This guy was an overzealous moron with an itchy trigger finger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

[b]

My point is, I don't know what happened, and neither do you. So jumping up and down about how it would be is a travesty of justice if he's not convicted and "gets away with murder" is completely overblown. And I agree with a PP - hoping "street justice" takes care of this is particularly appalling in this case. You don't mind vigilante justice if you agree with the perpetrator? How consistent of you.

Exactly. And we don't know which way it went. Why does your assumption trump my own?

If he got out of the car to follow the boy, which not just stay in the car to do that? Would accomplish the same goal except he wouldn't be in a position to engage in a altercation.

re: street justice. I meant more his father. I know as a mother that if someone killed my child and they got away, I couldn't rest until I took action. It might be wrong....I don't care. I will not allow someone to get away with gunning down my child.

not that pp, but I would say her assumption trumps your own b/c she is erring on the side of presuming innocence, which is something *we do in this country.*

I get that you are emotional about this. histrionic even. but some of us look at this and understand we don't know all the facts. it certainly looks bad, but the facts need to come out... that said, if in fact that cops aren't acting to let the facts come out, that is another set of problems that demands a human rights investigation by the Feds.

But it doesn't warrant "street justice."

Nor does it mean we should presume Zimmerman is guilty. He's innocent until proven guilty. That isn't just something to which we pay lip service, regardless of the skin color of the parties involved.

Histrionic no. History is on PP side. Remember the Scotsboro Boys, Emmit Till, and all the other nameless black boys killed by a white man simply because of the color of his race. Walking suspiciously in ones own neighborhood. I have known of driving while black, now there is a walking while black.

Walking while black is very real. Just ask any black man who has walked in a predominantly white middle/upper-class area. Police will be there to question your "business in that area" before you can blink.

[Anonymous]

I just looked back, and I haven't seen anything that anyone posted about the shooter's motivation. There's been lots of speculation, mind you, but we don't KNOW anything (how many times to I need to repeat that?).

Seriously, what was his motivation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My point is, I don't know what happened, and neither do you. So jumping up and down about how it would be is a travesty of justice if he's not convicted and "gets away with murder" is completely overblown. And I agree with a PP - hoping "street justice" takes care of this is particularly appalling in this case. You don't mind vigilante justice if you agree with the perpetrator? How consistent of you.

Exactly. And we don't know which way it went. Why does your assumption trump my own?

If he got out of the car to follow the boy, which not just stay in the car to do that? Would accomplish the same goal except he wouldn't be in a position to engage in a altercation.

re: street justice. I meant more his father. I know as a mother that if someone killed my child and they got away, I couldn't rest until I took action. It might be wrong....I don't care. I will not allow someone to get away with gunning down my child.

not that pp, but I would say her assumption trumps your own b/c she is erring on the side of presuming innocence, which is something *we do in this country.*

I get that you are emotional about this. histrionic even. but some of us look at this and understand we don't know all the facts. it certainly looks bad, but the facts need to come out... that said, if in fact that cops aren't acting to let the facts come out, that is another set of problems that demands a human rights investigation by the Feds.

But it doesn't warrant "street justice."

Nor does it mean we should presume Zimmerman is guilty. He's innocent until proven guilty. That isn't just something to which we pay lip service, regardless of the skin color of the parties involved.

Histrionic no. History is on PP side. Remember the Scotsboro Boys, Emmit Till, and all the other nameless black boys killed by a white man simply because of the color of his race. Walking suspiciously in ones own neighborhood. I have known of driving while black, now there is a walking while black.

Walking while black is very real. [b]Just ask any black man who has walked in a predominantly white middle/upper-class area. Police will be there to question your "business in that area" before you can blink.

Exactly. Talk to my 6'5" AA husband about how often he is targeted by DC Police when we are visiting friends in the Palisades, Cleveland Park and Chevy Chase. He is a lawyer and has filed complaints with MPD.

[Anonymous]

Histrionic no. History is on PP side. Remember the Scotsboro Boys, Emmit Till, and all the other nameless black boys killed by a white man simply because of the color of his race. Walking suspiciously in ones own neighborhood. I have known of driving while black, now there is a walking while black.

Yes, since there was violence against young black men in 1931 and 1955, this must have been murder. Awesome logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Histrionic no. History is on PP side. Remember the Scotsboro Boys, Emmit Till, and all the other nameless black boys killed by a white man simply because of the color of his race. Walking suspiciously in ones own neighborhood. I have known of driving while black, now there is a walking while black.

Yes, since there was violence against young black men in 1931 and 1955, this must have been murder. Awesome logic.

You must be white. How lucky for you to be so privileged.

[Anonymous]

I just find it hard to swallow a self-defense claim if you initiate the altercation.

Once again, simply getting out of the car does not automatically eliminate a self-defense argument. You can initiate a verbal altercation without initiating violence. For example, say I see someone yelling at a child on the street, I say "hey, tone it down, bitch," and she attacks me. Is she acting self defense? If I defend myself, am I? Obviously a very different circumstance here, but the devil is in the details.

Even if Trayvon had Zimmerman on the ground fighting him, that does NOT allow for the response of using deadly force.

This is a different point than it wasn't self defense - it's that self defense may have been appropriate, but the level of force used wasn't. Again, the circumstances the appropriate level of force, but if you're on the ground getting your ass kicked, you certainly could fear for your life. but once again, we don't know anything.

But this takes the cake - you went from:

I don't know what happened.

to asking questions,

BTW, how did Zimmerman even get to his gun? If they were fighting, did he just reach for it and shoot?

to

This guy was an overzealous moron with an itchy trigger finger.

So, in a mere 8 sentences, you've gone from I don't know what happened to knowing exactly what happened. I know you're very upset about this, but you're letting reason overcome emotion.