Child killed by Neighborhood Watch captain while walking home

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ah yes, dismal logic has been exposed, so now you resort to - what? You're white, so you don't understand? Your powers of reasoning are truly stunning.

[Anonymous]

pp, you might want to reread your last sentence.

[Anonymous]

woops. the "reread your last sentence" was aimed at hte pp who said the op was allowing "reason to overcome emotion." You mean the opposite.

We all THINK we know what happened: A racist sonofabitch shot and killed a black boy who didn't belong in the neighborhood. And that is quite likely what did, in fact, happen. But it isn't yet proven, so to start demanding "street justice" is premature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, I'm not. Whether the shooting was accidental or not, all signs point to the fact that Zimmerman is one of those overzealous neighborhood watch types that act like they're are newly sworn in police officers.

I mean....who carries a weapon during a Neighborhood Watch patrol that you're doing in your car? And for what purpose?

You seem to assume that I'm hysterical over this; I'm not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:woops. the "reread your last sentence" was aimed at hte pp who said the op was allowing "reason to overcome emotion." You mean the opposite.

We all THINK we know what happened: A racist sonofabitch shot and killed a black boy who didn't belong in the neighborhood. And that is quite likely what did, in fact, happen. But it isn't yet proven, so to start demanding "street justice" is premature.

Yes, thanks for the correction.

And you also have articulated in one paragraph what I've struggled with over several posts. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Actually no.

I'm sorry, but how can a person claim self-defense when HE was carrying a deadly weapon and the other person had NO weapon on him. From what exactly do you need to defend yourself from? And please - I don't believe for a second that this young kid decided to attack an older (probably larger) adult man carrying a gun. No effing way.

With the fact that are out now, this man literally killed in cold blood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ah yes, dismal logic has been exposed, so now you resort to - what? You're white, so you don't understand? Your powers of reasoning are truly stunning.

History does prove that many young black men were senselessly murdered by racist white men (who were never punished). The black American psyche still has not recovered, and probably never will. Especially given that many black people in this country lived under Jim Crow and lived with the atrocities that whites in America inflicted upon blacks. You expect people to be able to get over that and pretend that we now live in a post-racial world where this was not racially motivated? Get real. My grandmother is 90 and still shakes when she sees policemen because she remembers her father being dragged out of their home on the Eastern Shore of MD and beaten almost to death by the local police chief and his deputy in 1930 when she was 6 years old. His offense? Selling more pigs than a neighboring white farmer. They also shot all of his livestock. Most white people do not believe me when I tell this story. No wonder I am an angry black woman.

Given the facts available in this situation, it is not a leap to conjecture that Zimmerman's zeal to follow Martin was racially motivated and that he chose to shoot him because that same prejudice that led him to follow Martin also led him to believe that Martin was dangerous.

I

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:woops. the "reread your last sentence" was aimed at hte pp who said the op was allowing "reason to overcome emotion." You mean the opposite.

We all THINK we know what happened: A racist sonofabitch shot and killed a black boy who didn't belong in the neighborhood. And that is quite likely what did, in fact, happen. But it isn't yet proven, so to start demanding "street justice" is premature.

I mentioned street justice. I DID NOT mean that someone should go out and hunt Zimmerman down...I clarified this in a follow up post. What I mean is that if I were the parent and Zimmerman ultimately is not charged, I would seek retribution. It is wrong...I know this...I would do it anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ah yes, dismal logic has been exposed, so now you resort to - what? You're white, so you don't understand? Your powers of reasoning are truly stunning.

History does prove that many young black men were senselessly murdered by racist white men (who were never punished). The black American psyche still has not recovered, and probably never will. Especially given that many black people in this country lived under Jim Crow and lived with the atrocities that whites in America inflicted upon blacks. You expect people to be able to get over that and pretend that we now live in a post-racial world where this was not racially motivated? Get real. My grandmother is 90 and still shakes when she sees policemen because she remembers her father being dragged out of their home on the Eastern Shore of MD and beaten almost to death by the local police chief and his deputy in 1930 when she was 6 years old. His offense? Selling more pigs than a neighboring white farmer. They also shot all of his livestock. Most white people do not believe me when I tell this story. No wonder I am an angry black woman.

Given the facts available in this situation, it is not a leap to conjecture that Zimmerman's zeal to follow Martin was racially motivated and that he chose to shoot him because that same prejudice that led him to follow Martin also led him to believe that Martin was dangerous.

I

I agree with you 100%. And I'm sorry about what happened to your great-grandfather. I try not to think too much about the cruel treatment of the past. It is such a sad, sad, sad, sad, SAD thing to think about.

[Anonymous]

Actually no.

I'm sorry, but how can a person claim self-defense when HE was carrying a deadly weapon and the other person had NO weapon on him. From what exactly do you need to defend yourself from? And please - I don't believe for a second that this young kid decided to attack an older (probably larger) adult man carrying a gun. No effing way.

With the fact that are out now, this man literally killed in cold blood.

You really don't think someone could ever claim self defense if he was armed? How about this: Man confronts kid, kid shouts back. Verbal altercation ensues. Man says something that enrages kid, kid punches him, takes man by surprise, has man down on ground, hitting and kicking him, man pulls gun and shoots kid. Not self defense?

You're assuming the gun was out, and that Trayvon knew about it. Why is that?

You jump right from "I don't believe for a second" to "with the facts that are out now." Your beliefs, no matter how fervently you hold them, are not facts. Witnesses said they heard a fight, than gunshots, though - which belies your "in cold blood" theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Actually no.

I'm sorry, but how can a person claim self-defense when HE was carrying a deadly weapon and the other person had NO weapon on him. From what exactly do you need to defend yourself from? And please - I don't believe for a second that this young kid decided to attack an older (probably larger) adult man carrying a gun. No effing way.

With the fact that are out now, this man literally killed in cold blood.

You really don't think someone could ever claim self defense if he was armed? How about this: Man confronts kid, kid shouts back. Verbal altercation ensues. Man says something that enrages kid, kid punches him, takes man by surprise, has man down on ground, hitting and kicking him, man pulls gun and shoots kid. Not self defense?

You're assuming the gun was out, and that Trayvon knew about it. Why is that?

You jump right from "I don't believe for a second" to "with the facts that are out now." Your beliefs, no matter how fervently you hold them, are not facts. Witnesses said they heard a fight, than gunshots, though - which belies your "in cold blood" theory.

Not pp, but must say: Even if the fight happened as you claim, Zimmerman was still not justified in using deadly force. You don't get to kill someone because you don't know how to fight. In fact, that's even more reason to stay your ass in the car and let the police handle it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ah yes, dismal logic has been exposed, so now you resort to - what? You're white, so you don't understand? Your powers of reasoning are truly stunning.

History does prove that many young black men were senselessly murdered by racist white men (who were never punished). The black American psyche still has not recovered, and probably never will. Especially given that many black people in this country lived under Jim Crow and lived with the atrocities that whites in America inflicted upon blacks. You expect people to be able to get over that and pretend that we now live in a post-racial world where this was not racially motivated? Get real. My grandmother is 90 and still shakes when she sees policemen because she remembers her father being dragged out of their home on the Eastern Shore of MD and beaten almost to death by the local police chief and his deputy in 1930 when she was 6 years old. His offense? Selling more pigs than a neighboring white farmer. They also shot all of his livestock. Most white people do not believe me when I tell this story. No wonder I am an angry black woman.

Given the facts available in this situation, it is not a leap to conjecture that Zimmerman's zeal to follow Martin was racially motivated and that he chose to shoot him because that same prejudice that led him to follow Martin also led him to believe that Martin was dangerous.

I

I agree with you 100%. And I'm sorry about what happened to your great-grandfather. I try not to think too much about the cruel treatment of the past. It is such a sad, sad, sad, sad, SAD thing to think about.

Yeah, and I will NEVER try to not think about this horrific part of our past. This is a common thing I hear from white friends. It allows them to get over their white guilt. We need to be mindful of the past and honest about it so that we can make sure it never happens again.

When people talk about trying not to think about the past, it makes me sick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ah yes, dismal logic has been exposed, so now you resort to - what? You're white, so you don't understand? Your powers of reasoning are truly stunning.

History does prove that many young black men were senselessly murdered by racist white men (who were never punished). The black American psyche still has not recovered, and probably never will. Especially given that many black people in this country lived under Jim Crow and lived with the atrocities that whites in America inflicted upon blacks. You expect people to be able to get over that and pretend that we now live in a post-racial world where this was not racially motivated? Get real. My grandmother is 90 and still shakes when she sees policemen because she remembers her father being dragged out of their home on the Eastern Shore of MD and beaten almost to death by the local police chief and his deputy in 1930 when she was 6 years old. His offense? Selling more pigs than a neighboring white farmer. They also shot all of his livestock. Most white people do not believe me when I tell this story. No wonder I am an angry black woman.

Given the facts available in this situation, it is not a leap to conjecture that Zimmerman's zeal to follow Martin was racially motivated and that he chose to shoot him because that same prejudice that led him to follow Martin also led him to believe that Martin was dangerous.

I

I agree with you 100%. And I'm sorry about what happened to your great-grandfather. I try not to think too much about the cruel treatment of the past. It is such a sad, sad, sad, sad, SAD thing to think about.

Yeah, and I will NEVER try to not think about this horrific part of our past. This is a common thing I hear from white friends. It allows them to get over their white guilt. We need to be mindful of the past and honest about it so that we can make sure it never happens again.

When people talk about trying not to think about the past, it makes me sick.

I didn't mean that in the way you took it. I'm black. I meant that if I think too much about the way my ancestors were treated, I get really angry. That anger does me no good. I love to have a great discussion about the past, but I'm talking specifically about being angry about the cruel treatment. I make an effort to separate my emotions from the conversation because otherwise it gets to be too much. I once took an English course that focused on the Mistresses of slave plantations. The Professor played an audiotape of slaves who were interviewed right after emancipation. I had to leave the room because I was in tears. I was very angry for the rest of that day thinking about the injustice. It would have been very easy for me to direct this anger in the wrong way.

That's all I meant. I NEVER meant to suggest that we should ignore our past. I'm extremely proud of my ancestors; it just makes me very sad/pissed when I think about how they were treated. I try very hard to focus more on their perseverance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually no.

I'm sorry, but how can a person claim self-defense when HE was carrying a deadly weapon and the other person had NO weapon on him. From what exactly do you need to defend yourself from? And please - I don't believe for a second that this young kid decided to attack an older (probably larger) adult man carrying a gun. No effing way.

With the fact that are out now, this man literally killed in cold blood.

You really don't think someone could ever claim self defense if he was armed? How about this: Man confronts kid, kid shouts back. Verbal altercation ensues. Man says something that enrages kid, kid punches him, takes man by surprise, has man down on ground, hitting and kicking him, man pulls gun and shoots kid. Not self defense?

You're assuming the gun was out, and that Trayvon knew about it. Why is that?

You jump right from "I don't believe for a second" to "with the facts that are out now." Your beliefs, no matter how fervently you hold them, are not facts. Witnesses said they heard a fight, than gunshots, though - which belies your "in cold blood" theory.

Not pp, but must say: Even if the fight happened as you claim, Zimmerman was still not justified in using deadly force. You don't get to kill someone because you don't know how to fight. In fact, that's even more reason to stay your ass in the car and let the police handle it.

Yes, exactly. The PP who is saying we don't know what happened is either an idiot or trying to incite debate. Nothing would have happened if Zimmerman had followed police instructions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ah yes, dismal logic has been exposed, so now you resort to - what? You're white, so you don't understand? Your powers of reasoning are truly stunning.

But yet, she is correct.