The Trayvon Martin Case

[SimplyTide]

It depends on if you're cornering me for no reason. How you respond when I do or don't answer. If I say leave me alone or don't answer its very possible. Remember you as a citizen have no right to approach me demanding anything of me from where I'm going to what I'm doing there. If you continue to approach me I just might get physical. Again, that man has no right to demand anything of the kid and if Zimmerman doesn't leave him alone he has the right to try and make him. He already fled once and Zimmerman followed him. How many times is the kid obligated to run from this man before he can defend himself physically?

This is exactly why we have the right to shoot and kill an unarmed person who breaks into our home. You do not have to wait to be attacked to defend yourself if a person has done things that a reasonable person would deem to be threatening. Following you around in the dark is pretty threatening. Add the confrontation and you have almost certainly crossed the threshold into committing assault.

Florida law: Assault is defined as "an intentional threat by word, or act that seeks to physically harm another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent."

 

[Rasputin]

Do you think there is a possibility he targeted young black males for another reason than just simple racism?

Actually, I did, very clearly. My answer was, and I quote, "I do not believe that this incident was purely a result of racial profiling, but I think that it was a huge factor."

Ok, fair enough. Now what are those other factors besides profiling that you think he used, and why do you think he "profiled" the young black kid as a potential problem?

 

[SimplyTide]

Ok, fair enough. Now what are those other factors besides profiling that you think he used, and why do you think he "profiled" the young black kid as a potential problem?

Minor factors: Recent breakins, though we have no idea what race the perpetrators were, or whether or not they wore hoodies on rainy nights & the fact that the kid was walking in the dark (maybe kids don't wlak to-from the store with regularity in that neighborhood?)
Major factors: The ego of Zimmerman

Why do I think he profiled him? Because he fits typical profiles - young, black, wearing a hoodie. Add in the fact that he called him a coon and you have a slam dunk.

My conclusion has always been that this is a power hungry idiot who saw a young, black guy wearing a hoodie and assumed the worst. If the kid had been white, would he have acted differently? Almost certainly.

 

[G-VilleTider]

This is exactly why we have the right to shoot and kill an unarmed person who breaks into our home. You do not have to wait to be attacked to defend yourself if a person has done things that a reasonable person would deem to be threatening. Following you around in the dark is pretty threatening. Add the confrontation and you have almost certainly crossed the threshold into committing assault.

Florida law: Assault is defined as "an intentional threat by word, or act that seeks to physically harm another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent."

You are comparing apples to oranges, and it doesn't work. If someone breaks into your home, don't even say freeze, just blow the thief away. But out on public property, on the street, I personally believe whoever escalates the altercation from a verbal one to a physical one is the one in the wrong.

 

[SimplyTide]

You are comparing apples to oranges, and it doesn't work. If someone breaks into your home, don't even say freeze, just blow the thief away. But out on public property, on the street, I personally believe whoever escalates the altercation from a verbal one to a physical one is the one in the wrong.

If someone chases you down on the street, in the dark, you have just as much reason to fear for your life.

 

[willie52]

You are comparing apples to oranges, and it doesn't work. If someone breaks into your home, don't even say freeze, just blow the thief away. But out on public property, on the street, I personally believe whoever escalates the altercation from a verbal one to a physical one is the one in the wrong.

Not necessarily addressing this situation but I don't think your statement should be all inclusive or we wouldn't have laws against inciting a riot. If for example, you and I were in a verbal argument and you chose to start in on my wife and family, I think it would go to physical fairly quickly. Am I wrong then, maybe but the emphasis would actually be on you for creating the scenario where violence was rendered. Just saying and not addressing that to this thread.

 

[Dallas4Bama]

You are comparing apples to oranges, and it doesn't work. If someone breaks into your home, don't even say freeze, just blow the thief away. But out on public property, on the street, I personally believe whoever escalates the altercation from a verbal one to a physical one is the one in the wrong.

So how many times are you obligated to flee from someone chasing you? I'm trying to understand the logic here. So the kids obligation is to run away how many times? So you're minding your own business on a public street and someone approaches you in a confrontational manner asking questions of you in an aggressive manner, something like "What are you doing here? Where have you been?" and in this situation the questioning very possibly included racial slurs because of the information we have. Either way, you flee the situation, the other person continues to pursues you and catches you, again they approach you in a confrontational manner approaching you to within arms reach. You're telling me I have to run?

So if my wife were chased by someone for no reason she could imagine through an alley in the rain or dark and when he caught her she turned and slapped him he could shoot her with no repercussions? How many times do you have to run?

Why don't you put the same level of responsibility to flee on Zimmerman? Why did he have to shoot? Why didn't he flee? So the guy without the gun who isn't chasing someone is the victim?

 

[cbi1972]

Available options that do not involve attacking someone:
Answer their questions
Ignore their questions
Tell them to mind their own business
Keep walking
Knock on someone's door
Get to a public place with witnesses

 

[SimplyTide]

Available options that do not involve attacking someone:
Answer their questions
Ignore their questions
Tell them to mind their own business
Keep walking
Knock on someone's door
Get to a public place with witnesses

There are many available options in a home invasion, too.

 

[cbi1972]

There are many available options in a home invasion, too.

In a home invasion, there is a decided imbalance of rights in favor of the homeowner/resident, and rightly so. In public places, each party has a responsibility not to initiate aggression, and the first to fail in that responsibility loses the high ground.

 

[SimplyTide]

In a home invasion, there is a decided imbalance of rights in favor of the homeowner/resident, and rightly so. In public places, each party has a responsibility not to initiate aggression, and the first to fail in that responsibility loses the high ground.

Sorry, by Florida law Zimmerman had already "initiated aggression" by commiting assault when his actions put Martin in a situation in which he felt threatened, with good cause.

Another option that Martin had at that point - shoot Zimmerman in the face. Sadly, Martin did not have a gun. The thug walks free and the innocent child is laid to rest.

 

[cbi1972]

Sorry, by Florida law Zimmerman had already "initiated aggression" by commiting assault when his actions put Martin in a situation in which he felt threatened, with good cause.

Another option that Martin had at that point - shoot Zimmerman in the face. Sadly, Martin did not have a gun. The thug walks free and the innocent child is laid to rest.

No evidence of assault (intentional, credible threat creating well-founded fear) has been revealed in this case to this point. Following someone and asking them questions is not a crime, even if it is scary to someone.

 

[Dallas4Bama]

Available options that do not involve attacking someone:
Answer their questions
Ignore their questions
Tell them to mind their own business
Keep walking
Knock on someone's door
Get to a public place with witnesses

So tell my kids if chased down a street and caught by some man they are to answer all his questions? How does he really know what this guy really wants? Pretty sure everyone said the boys should have kicked Sandusky and ran. So does he have to have his pants down in order to believe he could have other bad intentions in mind? Ok, so we've got that first solution which is to ignore what I've always been told about strangers. Stop and put myself in a situation i can't control amd answer all his questions.

Ignore their questions, it sounds like that's what he did. So scratch that one.

Tell him to mind his own business. Ok, I think running away let him know you didn't want him in your business, but you could always verbalize it. Although you have no obligation to answer questions for a stranger who is chasing you.

Keep walking, that's a good one. He's run to chase me, but I will just walk right past him. Never mind he's a grown man and keeps getting in my way and I can't get away from him.

Ok, trespass in someone's yard and break the law? Possibly run onto someone's porch who might shoot me. No thanks, I will take my chances on public property.

Or run to a public market somewhere, in the middle of this gated residential neighborhood. I bet there is one a few feet away.

So there we have it folks. In the United States of America your only recourse against someone with a gun chasing you when you've done nothing wrong, yelling at you and someone who won't leave you alone and continues to pursue you after you've run away is to run, run, run. You have no right to defend yourself unless they have actually put a finger on you. But if an unarmed teenage boy touches you then you have the right to blow them away.

Ladies, if a man chases you at night through a mall parking lot you should either run, run or run. You should also answer any and all questions the stranger chasing you might have. Whatever you do in no situation do you have the right not to be chased. You don't have the right to defense yourself against a perceived attack, if you do the pursuer has the right to shoot you dead for defending yourself.

 

[SimplyTide]

No evidence of assault (intentional, credible threat creating well-founded fear) has been revealed in this case to this point. Following someone and asking them questions is not a crime, even if it is scary to someone.

Yes,there is. You are just ignoring it. A 250 lb man following a 150 lb kid in the dark and confronting him clearly qualifies as an intentional, credible threat and would strike fear in any reasonable kid that age. Remember, this is just an innocent kid. He is not a gang member, or a thug. He is not a drug user, or a punk. He was a scared kid, running until he came to realize that he couldn't escape this guy. That this guy was just going to keep chasing him. He was probably scared spitless.

 

[CrimsonPride]

Do you think there is a possibility he targeted young black males for another reason than just simple racism?

My question was not injected with the sentiments to be answered with another question. Answer the question instead of deflecting a good question with a suggestive one!

Sorry - I didn't want to answer for her, but I will answer for myself. I do not believe that this incident was purely a result of racial profiling, but I think that it was a huge factor. I think that Zimmerman would have let a white kid keep on walking in the same scenario.

Okay, I will answer your question. First off, I don't think I said anywhere in my post that he targeted the black males based on simple racism. I was only reporting what his neighbors had said. Yes, there is a possibility that that he targeted young, black males because of previous reports of burglaries in the neighborhood by them. However, by only targeting young, black males and advising neighbors to be on the lookout for them, he was providing plenty of opportunity for young Hispanic or white males to commit crimes in the area.

As I said, I have no problem with people watching out for their neighborhood, but it has to be done with good judgement and within the rules. It seems that Zimmerman did not think that the rules applied to him. The instruction by the police dispatcher not to follow Martin was not the first time Zimmerman had been told that. During a community watch presentation by a police volunteer in September, Zimmerman was told not to engage in a person if he did not recognize them,...“I said, ‘If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out,’ ” Dorival said. “‘Observe from a safe location.’ There’s even a slide about not being vigilante police. I don’t know how many more times I can repeat it.”
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249/shooter-of-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html

 

[SimplyTide]

Within that article, it is clear that the local police are now completely in a defensive posture. The last sentence is pretty scary if you are a young, black man in that community. The cop says that Zimmerman would probably do things differently if he could go back in time, and he closes with, "I'm sure Trayvon would, too."

Yeah, if Trayvon knew what the other black residents knew about Zimmerman, he would have stayed inside and kept his head down, like they do. After all, an man has to know his place.

 

[cbi1972]

Within that article, it is clear that the local police are now completely in a defensive posture. The last sentence is pretty scary if you are a young, black man in that community. The cop says that Zimmerman would probably do things differently if he could go back in time, and he closes with, "I'm sure Trayvon would, too."

Yeah, if Trayvon knew what the other black residents knew about Zimmerman, he would have stayed inside and kept his head down, like they do. After all, an man has to know his place.

Because the only options are staying home, and fighting with the neighborhood watch.

 

[CrimsonPride]

Available options that do not involve attacking someone:
Answer their questions
Ignore their questions
Tell them to mind their own business
Keep walking
Knock on someone's door
Get to a public place with witnesses

Why you are unwilling to acknowledge any possible wrong doing by this guy? In your mind, it is all the kid's fault. Under the circumstances described so far in this instance, here is how I would handle your options.

Answer their questions: Why? I don't know this guy. For all I know, he could be a pedophile or serial killer, especially since he has been following me for while.
Ignore their questions: In this instance, I don't think that would have satisfied Zimmerman, particularly given than Martin had already tried to avoid him.
Tell them to mind their own business: same response as above
Keep walking: same response as above
Knock on someone's door: Probably would be my first thought, but could try to. Don't think he would have been allowed to make it to someone's door.
Get to a public place with witnesses: Probably not really a viable option given that it is raining and at night in a subdivision.

 

[Tide1986]

So tell my kids if chased down a street and caught by some man they are to answer all his questions? How does he really know what this guy really wants? Pretty sure everyone said the boys should have kicked Sandusky and ran. So does he have to have his pants down in order to believe he could have other bad intentions in mind? Ok, so we've got that first solution which is to ignore what I've always been told about strangers. Stop and put myself in a situation i can't control amd answer all his questions.

Ignore their questions, it sounds like that's what he did. So scratch that one.

Tell him to mind his own business. Ok, I think running away let him know you didn't want him in your business, but you could always verbalize it. Although you have no obligation to answer questions for a stranger who is chasing you.

Keep walking, that's a good one. He's run to chase me, but I will just walk right past him. Never mind he's a grown man and keeps getting in my way and I can't get away from him.

Ok, trespass in someone's yard and break the law? Possibly run onto someone's porch who might shoot me. No thanks, I will take my chances on public property.

Or run to a public market somewhere, in the middle of this gated residential neighborhood. I bet there is one a few feet away.

So there we have it folks. In the United States of America your only recourse against someone with a gun chasing you when you've done nothing wrong, yelling at you and someone who won't leave you alone and continues to pursue you after you've run away is to run, run, run. You have no right to defend yourself unless they have actually put a finger on you. But if an unarmed teenage boy touches you then you have the right to blow them away.

Ladies, if a man chases you at night through a mall parking lot you should either run, run or run. You should also answer any and all questions the stranger chasing you might have. Whatever you do in no situation do you have the right not to be chased. You don't have the right to defense yourself against a perceived attack, if you do the pursuer has the right to shoot you dead for defending yourself.

If Martin was so afraid, why didn't he call 911? He had a phone in his possession, he supposedly "escaped" once, and he had time to talk to his girlfriend. Zimmerman called 911, and Martin did not. I wonder if that means anything in this soap opera?

 

[cbi1972]

Why you are unwilling to acknowledge any possible wrong doing by this guy? In your mind, it is all the kid's fault. Under the circumstances described so far in this instance, here is how I would handle your options.

Acknowledgement of "possible wrongdoing by this guy" is already well represented in the furor this case has generated. However, I don't agree with people wanting to string the guy up without knowing what really happened. The facts may in fact be totally in Martin's favor, but we DO NOT KNOW THAT. An investigation is certainly warranted. There is always more than one side to a story like this, and it is not fair to ignore the one that is less popular.

Answer their questions: Why? I don't know this guy. For all I know, he could be a pedophile or serial killer, especially since he has been following me for while.

And for all Zimmerman knew, Martin was a burglar who was going to kill him before letting himself be caught. A reasonable explanation might have saved his life.

Ignore their questions: In this instance, I don't think that would have satisfied Zimmerman, particularly given than Martin had already tried to avoid him.
Tell them to mind their own business: same response as above
Keep walking: same response as above

None of these passive actions invokes a defensive shooting. Attacking the questioner does.

Knock on someone's door: Probably would be my first thought, but could try to. Don't think he would have been allowed to make it to someone's door.
Get to a public place with witnesses: Probably not really a viable option given that it is raining and at night in a subdivision.

Within walking distance of a store. And there were witnesses in range to hear the altercation and screaming. The presence of a single witness would probably have defused any threat that Zimmerman might have been bringing, which according to the available evidence was in the form of following him, asking questions, not making overt threats.