Remember George Zimmerman? It seems that the media has all but stopped talking about the senseless death of teen Trayvon Martin, especially with the presidential election nearing and so many other tragedies in the news. Nonetheless, this is still an important trial that everyone in the country should be paying attention to—as it may define whether or not some people can get away from murder with these "stand your ground" laws. The latest update in this case (and the updates are becoming fewer and farther between) comes with some delightful news.
There will be no gag order in this trial. Prosecutors had requested one, and the judge presiding over the case has rejected this request. Judge Debra Nelson said that there is no reason to instate a gag order and that this wouldn't affect whether or not the 29-year-old will get a fair trial.
It seems rather pointless to ask for a gag order anyway, seeing as though the public knows many of the details in this case. The public is well aware of plenty—in particular the massive amount of money George Zimmerman has pandered from his so-called supporters, many of which only support him out of twisted political views and bigoted ideology. While the so-called "liberal media" immediately wanted to know whether this case was racially fueled or not, there were plenty in the public (and in other media outlets) politicizing this tragic murder case to suit their own agendas. All the way around, this case has been very high profile. It's too late for a gag order.
The brother of the accused child murderer spoke to the media again recently, as he's been known to do, and he wants you to know his family isn't racist. Really though, it seems that at this point, people would get over the racial issue in this case and simply look at the fact that this boils down to a grown man shooting a juvenile—a teenager. It's bad enough without race baiting—even though there do appear to be some racial elements in this case.
Did Trayvon Martin die in vain?
Probably not. This high profile case cast a light over the "stand your ground" laws in the country; not just Florida. A lot of attention has been given to these laws because of this case, and that may affect whether or not these laws exist in the future. With more people aware of the "stand your ground" laws, more people might be willing to change them. Trayvon Martin didn't deserve to die, and his death may never be given justice—even if Zimmerman is convicted. But the future could be changed thanks to the attention Trayon's case garnered.
Photo: Philadelphia Sun
Crime analyst & profiler Chelsea Hoffman can be found on Huffington Post or Chelsea Hoffman: Case to Case. You can follow her on Twitter @TheRealChelseaH or contact her via her personal blog. Fan the Facebook page for updates on missing persons cases, issues in civil rights and details on Chelsea's fiction works.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 168 ( 13 removed by Chelsea Hoffman )
Interesting title for an article. It is like asking, "When are you going to stop beating your spouse?" It shows the the person has presuppostions and the one being asked already agrees.
Both murder and racism are wrong. But this title makes it seem the author believes racism is worse than murder. This idea if truly believed by some people begs another question. But I will refrain from asking at this point.
Thanks for reading.
Murder is murder, and in this case this one is hinged on racism upon speculation.
Me too, but I'd still feel "bad" for killing someone... even if it was a "me or them" type of thing (and it would be them, not me, for sure)
No. Murder is the willful killing of INNOCENT life. Self-defence and man-slaughter are not the same as murder.
From there, there are several forms of murder with varying definitions.
That is according to "Criminal Justice: Ninth Edition" James A. Inciardi; a McGraw/Hill educational resource for CJ310/Criminal Justice.
George- in a regular dictionary it is defined as unlawful, yes.
@nancy -- If you don't like it, don't read it.
You were missing the rest of the definition.
I'm going to trust the definition being used in my Criminal Justice related degree
If they could without fear of being sued for libel they would to drive internet traffic.
or do you think "journalists" will give you a proper education in "criminal justice" ??
Giving me a page number would do little without the book next to me. Please feel free to search any of the legal dictionaries online though and find me a single description that doesn't exclude self defense.
pages 64 through 68 cover "murder".
And while you're complaining about not having access to a credible educational resource, google "Willful ignorance."
Have a good one
P.s. - - I am not a journalist.
Second; It's not how I define murder, it's how murder is legally defined.
The case could certainly be made that the shooting of Trayvon was not a purposeful action. If the evidence and testimony showed that George walked up to Trayvon and shot him without other interaction, it would likely be murder.
There is not much doubt in anyone's (the prosecution and defense) that there was a struggle. In that struggle George says that he was in the following position:
Trayvon, who was larger and arguably stronger than George, was on top.
Trayvon had hurt George in the fight.
Trayvon noticed that George was armed and made a verbal threat to George's life.
You can certainly argue that those are George's words and Trayvon cannot add his words in death.
However if those words of George turn out to be found truthful in trial, we might find that this case should not have gone to court after all.
It's not the "basic" murder definition.
It's a term used to determine whether or not a killing was unlawful
That's all I said about race in the article aside from the title. There's your "circle."
0_o
Unless you're talking about the "murder" discussion, and I see no circles there :)
You are so hypocritical in your story!
Your point is a nonpoint
Your definition is so narrow that police officers, soldiers and a number of other people would all be arrested for doing their job.
As mentioned by other posters, you need malice and it has to be unlawful. Please ask your professors the next time you have class.
It's not my definition. It's the definition taught in school, in "law related" degree programs. Anyone who takes CJ learns this definition; that includes judges, cops, lawyers and others involved in the CJ industry and who are formally trained and educated about it.
I have explained this thoroughly, provided the book title, author and page #. Beyond that, I'm not interested in educating people who are apparently unable to grasp education and fact.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/murder
Here is a great legal website from a top tier university. If you don't believe Ivy League law schools I'm not sure who you believe. If you have an E-Copy of that book feel free to link it.
Of course I believe in them. They exist. It isn't like they're deities and debatable on existence.
However, seeing as though the cornell page is moderated by school staff and not those who accredit the same text books that even cornell uses (the very same book I have, as they do in fact use McGraw/Hill materials) I'm still inclined to just go with what physical college materials supports -- and not what a condensed university website happens to have for the general public to view.
I shared how the book can be obtained. You just have to be willing to read through this thread. It'll probably take about as much time as it took you to google a cornell ref. :)
(p.s. my school has online resource pages too -- and they're written and condensed by staff. Contrary to what you might believe, you can't get an accredited education through Google unless you're googling a school to ENROLL into ;) )
The staff are the people teaching the students. The judges, lawyers and law enforcement are very much aware that murder is defined as unlawful.
If a police officer has a legally justified kill on a terrorist while they are committing a crime is it murder?
If you're a law student, then you have access to the appropriate, accredited materials.
"If a police officer....."
Wouldn't that be a justifiable homicide?
It took me 4 tries to post that btw -- gather is glitching bad
CHAPTER 782
CRIMES/HOMICIDE
George Zimmerman has been charged with second degree murder. The state of Florida allows for self defense. In other words Florida doesn't group all murders under one heading.
I doubt a jury will convict George Zimmerman of second degree murder given the weak evidence. Maybe the D.A. should have filed manslaughter charges instead, but I truly believe that he should have never been charged in the first place.
The Town of Sanford is not far from where I live, and known for a high crime, and gang activity rate. If I had been in George Zimmerman's shoes that day I would have watched with suspicion, "a teenager wearing a hoodie on a ninety degree day too."
George Zimmerman has been attacked on the news without a thought about how such biased half truths, and outright malicious lies will pretty much pollute any jury from any county, or state.
research finds him to be nothing more than a thug
what proof do you have he was
proof that statement
give name and places
what people or person
who show with proof he is a thug
On Feb. 26, 2012 it was 52 degrees during the rain and nighttime hours.
research finds him to be nothing more than a thug
what proof do you have he was
proof that statement
give name and places
what people or person
who show with proof he is a thug
did you just get done watching mississippi burning or something...?
When George is inevitably acquitted of the patently absurd charges against him, perhaps a lucrative book/movie deal and/or a successful wrongful prosecution suit will bring him some measure of justice.
Perhaps he's a wannabe, but I happen to like the idea that someone that's motivated, and alert is watching the "hen house"
You must LOVE Austin Sigg, then.
Your post requires us to take a leap and believe that Trayvons death does not allow the third option of a man acting in self defense.
2 (semantics) This has been discussed at the top of the discussion thread between Lee, myself and Amanda.
Thank you for reading.
The typical dress of millions of American teenagers, white, black, latino, alike~are your eyes as closed as your mind?!!?
With that kind of logic it would be "right" to profile and "watch" anyone who is doing anything just because you "feel suspect." That paranoid frame of thought is a slippery slope that leads to the persecution of anyone who looks "different" from what the local society deems as "normal." Example: The West Memphis 3 who were quickly tried and convicted of murdering three little boys on almost NO evidence whatsoever -- just because they were the "goth" kids that were "weird" to everyone in that little podunk Arkansas town. Like two decades later they're free and cleared of all those charges and one of the murdered boys' fathers has actually been connected and tied to the deaths with DNA evidence as well as testimonies by those who had always suspected him and were ignored while the WM3 were in prison as the innocent scapegoats.
The fact of the mater is that George Zimmerman is not, was not and will never be an officer of the peace. He was a self appointed neighborhood watchman who was obviously itching to use his gun.
There is nothing fact about what you said. If someone calls the police 30 times in a neighborhood being robbed and does not use a weapon until number 30+ how is that quick to use a weapon? Could it be possible that something this time might have been different?
then, by comparing deedee's and zimmerman's phone records we can see that trayvon was at the mail shed for at least 4.5 to 5.5 minutes before zimmerman even called the nen line. ... five minutes of ambling randomly yet not going anywhere, yakking on the phone, looking at private residences, and NOT getting his mail. residents get their mail and go home. residents use their phones in their homes, out of the rain. they DON'T stand at the mail shed in the rain on a cellphone NOT getting their mail. that's something NON-residents would do. ergo, 'suspicious behavior'.
if he'd been itching to use his gun, it would have been out. it wouldn't have taken him nearly a minute of being beaten to GET it out.
he may have been 'self-appointed', but that's because no others wanted the thankless job. would you call gary cooper in 'high noon' self-appointed as well?
it sounds as if your biases are starting to show.
That is not closed minded, what teenagers wear and how they are percieved is often times all about where you live. If you want to think that is closed minded you are just being dishonest.
Take any color child in Conneticut and dress him like a blood, then take another child and put him in LA, dress him like a blood. Which one would you be more affraid of?
It doesn't matter if anyone "wanted the thankless job" -- it wasn't his authority to give himself the job. He was told by the cops, on the phone, to stop CHASING Trayvon Martin. If he shot him in self defense, why'd he chase him after being told not to?
I know...thinking is hard.
I think your biases are beginning to show...
Should I have said any race, including white?
how could zimmerman follow someone he could not see?
trayvon knew exactly where he was going.
zimmerman had no idea, he was presuming the southeast gate, according to his call.
both zimmerman and deedee said trayvon had lost him.
tm has no right to go back minutes later and 'get even'.
color child? perhaps you are confusing me with another poster. i'll thank you for reading.
i can understand the difference between 'we don't need you to do that', what legal experts might call a 'disclaimer', and an ORDER such as 'don't do that'. i'm surprised how many intelligent people DON'T seem to know the difference.
Pasty -- apparently it is.
i'm sorry to hear that.
Because we all know you forgot to ad the "ed"
"Any color person" means the child could be periwinkle and the example would still hold true.
This from someone who's grammar & punctuation are atrocious~your comments are nearly illegible.
'this from someone who's [sic] grammar....'
greatest apologies for the confusion i've created by using a comma where i should have used a dash.
you may want to look up the word 'whose' btw ;) lol
Because we all know you forgot to ad the "ed""
NAACP.
Yeah, it's a 100 year old organization.
Calling African Americans "colored" is racially insensitive.
Thanks for admitting that this is what you were calling Trayvon though, instead of continuing to pretend that the term "color person" was a thing. ;)
One error, not hundreds~lol!
0_o well aren't we grown up. You seemed to have read quite a lot into such few words.
Have fun with that.
No what you have stated here is not on the NEN placed by Zimmerman.
Zimmerman was asked, "are you following him"? Following someone and chasing someone are two very different things.
Zimmerman answered yes, and the dispatcher told Zimmerman, "we don't need you to do that". Zimmerman answer "ok". Now Ms. Hoffman you have no proof that Zimmerman took one more step in the direction in which Trayvon ran.
"He was told by the cops, on the phone, to stop CHASING Trayvon Martin."
Ms. Hoffman, the NEN dispatcher is not a COP, the dispatcher is an hourly employee just like the guy at Sears.
yes, I acknowledged this literally a comment above yours.
Regardless of what may have transpired that night. Trayvon was a teenager -- a child -- and he was unarmed. Now he is dead.
if trayvon had not been striking zimmerman during that time, what was his motivation for calling for help? ...a relentless tickle assault?
and trayvon HAD the opportunity to stop. when witness 6 came outside and called to them that he was calling the police, tm could have stopped, and run, and probably gotten away, from both zimmerman and the crime of attacking him, but he didn't. that's when his actions were verging on attempted murder.
They normally are if someone is bashing someones head into the ground or using any hard object like baseball bat or car door etc...
zimmerman's call connected at 7:09:34pm.
deedee's next-to-last call connected during the 7:04-7:05pm minute. that means trayvon was at the mail shed for about 4.5 to 5.5 minutes just moving slowly if at all in the rain while talking on the phone before zimmerman called. again, i suggest that is not standard behavior for those who live there.
trayvon and deedee became disconnected when he ran, but she called him right back, and they reconnected during the 7:12-7:13pm minute. however, at approximately 7:12:11 gz said 'he ran' and stopped following him, and not quite a minute later he said he didn't want to give his address aloud because, he said, 'i don't know where this kid is'. so zimmerman said essentially twice trayvon had lost him, both before and after trayvon's cellphone had chimed... and there is zero indication that zimmerman heard or saw it ring or trayvon answer it.
witness 11's 911 call came at 7:16:11pm, so the fight didn't happen until almost four minutes after zimmerman gave up following tm, and two-and-a-half minutes after he'd stopped. and the fight would only be 20-30 feet from that spot. so was there a great chase, and they came back to the same spot, or did only trayvon go back?
phone records are VERY important, along with deedee's statement to the prosecutor. together they show that trayvon ran, lost zimmerman and stopped running when he got home and answered his phone, talked with deedee for around a minute, discussing some interesting things i'm sure.... perhaps something concerning his reputation as no_limit_trayvon who'd run like a skeered little girlie from an 'old' 'white' guy, as trayvon described him to her.... then started walking north again on the cental sidewalk, unimpeded, for a COUPLE MINUTES, and suddenly came together with gz again.
both deedee and zimmerman said trayvon had lost gz.
both deedee and brandy green said he'd made it home.
four minutes after he'd stopped following.
Many of Zimmerman's neighbors, whose identities are redacted, told federal agents they did not know him. And those who did have nothing derogatory to say about him.
Similarly, interviewed co-workers are complimentary of Zimmerman. Several noted an incident in which a lock Zimmerman used to attach his orthopedic chair to his desk was cut, but said he handled it appropriately and professionally.
One apparent co-worker, whose identity was redacted, told agents she saw Zimmerman as he was waiting to speak to human resources the Monday after the shooting and noticed his injuries. The woman told agents that Zimmerman was “absolutely emotionally devastated.”
A report on an interview with Zimmerman’s ex-fiance was also released. The woman told authorities that while she and Zimmerman had physical altercations and at one point filed restraining orders against one another, she never saw Zimmerman exhibit any other violence or exhibit any racial bias.
There goes your journalistic integrity.
In the same way you danced around actually reading the article? Your bellering about "racism" is a nonpoint in this case. Try RTFA before typing next time :)
The brother of the accused child murderer spoke to the media again recently, as he's been known to do, and he wants you to know his family isn't racist. Really though, it seems that at this point, people would get over the racial issue in this case and simply look at the fact that this boils down to a grown man shooting a juvenile—a teenager. It's bad enough without race baiting—even though there do appear to be some racial elements in this case.
"The public is well aware of plenty—in particular the massive amount of money George Zimmerman has pandered from his so-called supporters, many of which only support him out of twisted political views and bigoted ideology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
"The brother of the accused child murderer spoke to the media again recently, as he's been known to do, and he wants you to know his family isn't racist." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_spite
Please read these and stop using them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
(http://marcmacyoung.com/)
Also I teach crime avoidance/personal safety/self-defense. Add to this, I know a lot more about this case than the Average Joe. I certainly know more than the misinformation/disinformation and -- I hate to say it -- but occasional out-right falsehoods the media has been caught reporting regarding this case. I'm not talking the media frenzy over the outrage of the shooting, I'm talking about things like the deliberate editing of the 911 call. (That is a fact, the speculation of why they did it is not relevant to this point.)
I tell you all of this because even though I am a court recognized expert -- who has reviewed much of the publicly available data -- I cannot say for certain what this incident was.
In fact, I can explain to you how, two seconds this way it would be murder. Two seconds that way it would be manslaughter. And two seconds in the middle it WOULD be self-defense.
That's without going into variables and complications of the case itself or the actual physics of the situation. (Hint, size, physical fitness and age are legitimate factors in estimating disparity of force) Was Zimmerman approaching Martin or was Martin charging Zimmerman? Was 'Why you following me?' a scared plea of a child afraid for his life or a war cry of an enraged and attacking youth?
Neither I, nor anyone else who has commented knows -- and this includes you Ms Hoffman. What we can say for certain is that the situation went political when the media got a hold of it and the word 'racist' got thrown into mix.
What I can say is the D.A. acted correctly that evening by not ordering Zimmerman arrested because of lack of evidence. (The was no danger of the statute of limitations running out while the police built a better case). I will tell you to prepare yourself for it not resulting in the lynching many of your readers appear to want. The public outcry and pressure resulting in a special prosecutor being appointed and her bringing murder charges was a bad tactic. Had they gone after manslaughter it would have been much easier. A murder conviction is going to be harder to get
Getting your head jack hammered on the ground by a football player **does** qualify as a situation where lethal force is arguably justified. The question is did he shoot before and Martin tackled him (arguably murder), did he shoot after the beating and while Martin was standing up to leave (arguably manslaughter) or did he shoot while getting his head slammed into the ground?
Like I said, two seconds this way, two seconds that way and two seconds in the middle. It's a lot more complicated than people think or understand
Is he racist or a murderer? Either way, he killed a kid. Whether it was in "self denfense" or malice, there is a 17-year-old boy dead who didn't deserve to have his life taken. Now this is a battle of ideology with people taking sides as though this is some sort of sports game and Trayvon and Zimmerman are opposing teams. This isn't about a black kid being killed, it's about a kid being killed. And although I do believe there are *some* racial issues involved in this, I believe that the public is mostly to blame for it.
i don't think it is the public that's responsible for the division though. i think the main divide was created, or at least widened greatly, when the president made the 'if i had a son he'd look like trayvon' statement. could a statement BE more racist?
For those of you who think that looks, and fashion shouldn't be cause for stopping, or investigating one of those thugs in your neighorhood then either you already live in the "hood" or you don't read, or hear the news about rapes, muggings, and home invasions that occur -courtesy of your local street thugs.
In a perfect world a person's manner of dress might not offer a clue about that particular person, but in the real world it's often a statement of arrogance, and disregard for law abiding people, and the law!
I find it interesting, and informative that the prosecution fought hard to keep Trayvon's school records from being made available as part of the evidence packet.
I could easily be profiled as a "goth" like one of those "trenchcoat mafia" kids. I could easily be profiled (wrongly) as a youth member of a subculture that may render me "non law abiding" in the eyes of people like YOU, Bubba.
But I am nearly 30-years-old, I am Criminal Justice and Psychology major, and I am involved with the field of criminology and offender profiling.
You cannot judge a person by them wearing a hoodie; especially when it's during 52 degree weather and a rainstorm. That is simply asinine and it is also a violation of a person's civil rights if they are hassled because of said "profiling".
1. I am nearing completion of my BSc. in Criminal Justice. I am also going to graduate with honors. Criminology is my passion and statistics is my hobby. There are absolutely NO correlations between youth fashion (aside from gang colors/patterns/tats) and violent crime. It is a fundamental fact known by anyone who has had even a week of police/investigative training that you CANNOT profile a potential criminal or behavior by clothing that is popular in youth fashion at a given time.
This is not just an "opinion" or "way of thinking" -- it's just a fact. And if you insist it is, I would like to ask for your credible statistical proof as provided by an EDU source on statistics and criminology.
An alert police officer wouldn't have shot an unarmed 17-year-old boy. Think again.
2. I shared the February 26, 2012 almanac for Sanford, Florida in this thread already and it specifically says for the weather almanac that the low was 52 degrees F -- which was the temperature during the rainy NIGHT that Trayvon was shot. That isn't my opinion of "typical" florida weather, that was information that was cited from an ALMANAC and is linked above.
Sounds as if you're quoting a textbook Chelsea, but few textbooks actually mirror real situations in a given event when it comes to applying experience, and emperical evidence to the contrary.
Other than math, of which there is only one correct answer in a given problem, other disciplines are less reliable. Crime prevention, and criminal apprehension would easily fall into the latter disciplne.
Criminals don't always dress, or look the same, A mass murderer might look like your neighbor, a gray haired old guy with bushy eyebrows. The bank robber might look like the mailman, or the local news anchor. But in 'most' crimes of property, and personal injury, or violent murders there are distinct 'tells' that are notoriously associated with a certain manner of apparel, together with the preponderance of race, or ethnicity. And I'm saying MOST crimes, alluding to the fact that our prisons are mostly populated with an enormous number of blacks, and hispanics compared to white inmates.
http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=174
Profiling is much more affective than cops, or the social media would admit, but in the end it's a tool that works more often than not. And if probable cause is the only test needed before stopping a suspicious perp before he commits a crime than profiling should be part of probable cause.
My neighbor, and my brother are retired from the business, ask your teacher in class if you dare, or he, or she dares to tell the truth without the worry of offending the sensibilites of the press, or ACLU.
Statistics do not lie. On a vast scale the clothing a person wears isn't correlated to any crimes they may or may not commit. Furthermore your speech is bordering on the admission that George Zimmerman racially profiled the kid, which is what people who support him are trying to discredit.
Fact: Trayvon Martin had no "gang" tattoos. He had no gang related jewelry, no rags and no "colors" pertaining to any gang. He was simply a kid wearing a hoodie, buying tea and candy. Zimmerman is MY age. He isn't some old fart that doesn't recognize what's popularly worn. He is well-aware that hoodies of every color, especially blacks and grays, are popular casual pieces. I wouldn't be surprised if he had a hoodie himself. The store Trayvon had left obviously clarified that the kid wasn't vandalizing the place or stealing, so what was Zimmerman's motive?
You're blaming it on wearing hoodies, well this isn't 1980 and prior. Hoodies are everywhere. It's a sweater; nothing more. The "urban" style that Trayvon had is also extremely popular among the youth -- especially among those who are not criminals. White kids, black kids, asian kids and hispanic kids all dress like that. It's part of the fashion for that scene.
If you're saying that Zimmerman "could just tell" that Trayvon was up to no good, then that's in his mannerisms and NOT his clothing, obviously, which brings us back to the point that you don't profile based on clothing **alone**.
And as for your comment about reading out of the book; An education is called an education for a reason. You don't just pull stats out of the air and fart out random numbers and figures assuming you are correct when it comes to criminology. There are studies, models and statistical analysis that goes into use when figuring out statistics/#s and facts regarding crime correlations and the sort. It's not all by the book and by the instructor -- it also involves deep research on the topics of which you are trying to find the numbers to accommodate . The logic you are using now to denigrate the value of actual training in this field is the same that can be applied to me just telling you randomly that only midgets vote for republicans -- and of course you know that is untrue, but I can just tell you that you are "only listening to the news" and are blind to reality. It's the same concept and just as illogical of thought put toward the point. (no offense).
The fact of the matter has been clear -- it really doesn't matter what the kid was wearing, unless you are admitting it was because he was black and dressed in urban getup -- and in that case, I think I've said enough.
It's also rarely rainy and 52 degrees inside of a McDonalds.
It's really hard to play apologetic for racism and the homicide of children. You get an 'a' for trying tho
Nice move calling me racist though. It's a great debate tactic if you lack all others.
Seeing everything as whether or not it's about being one color or the other IS kind of racist. No offense of course.
This isn't a debate, and I simply say things exactly how I see them.
How exactly do you see it when a franchise owner demands no hoods are worn in a restaurant? Perhaps mandated politeness?
"It's a sweater, nothing more."??? The sign said nothing about no sweaters allowed.
Here's how I see this whole case.
It started out great for Rev. Al Sharpton and the army of the outraged.
A white, perhaps Jewish guy named Zimmerman shot a young black boy and killed him right on the sidewalk. The police reportedly never investigated the case, never even brought the Zimmerman guy to the station. He just went back home that night while the cops conspired to subdue the press and the family. Only when the family found their voice in the press was the killer going to be shown justice.
Truth is Trayvon's girlfriend's says that Trayvon approached George. George was beaten. George says his gun was in play during the struggle and he shot Trayvon in self defense.
The press picked this incident up and turned it into something it was not.
"The truth is SOMEONE SAYS" ?? ;)
http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/03/29/31835/police-defend-officer-who-shot-unarmed-black-man-p/
http://www.chron.com/news/article/One-in-three-police-shootings-involve-unarmed-1651275.php
It would be good to research your information prior to posting.
2. racial profiling is illegal when it turns into a hate crime
3. I didn't say that Zimmerman did this out of racism -- so why are his supporters still trying to justify the shooting based of racial profiling?
4. I said an alert police officer -- not just a police officer. Naturally I should have also said a "well trained" officer, but figured that should go without saying. Your argument is invalid.
Thanks for trying though :) it was cute.
Trayvon wasn't wearing a hoodie for that reason, but it did add to the paranoid Zimmerman's list of things that make you go hmmmmm when you are on neighborhood watch.
"The truth is SOMEONE SAYS"??
Yeah... it's true that someone said that.
http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-10/175449600-19083951.pdf
I believe that if (IF) Trayvon was being a "thug" that night, he should be in jail, but he should be ALIVE. He was a child. And because this child is dead we may never know whether he "deserved" to be shot or not.
(and i don't believe any child deserves to be shot, call me a softy, I don't care)
A gun against an unarmed teenager isn't self defense. (especially when the cops have already been called, the teen is running, and you've been told to stop following)
Don't get too caught up on the 'unarmed teenager' element, it is not as important as the circumstances. As in an unarmed 6' football player sitting on someone's chest and pounding his head into the ground IS likely to cause death or grievous bodily injury.
That is why it is important to know other factors than just 'an unarmed teenager.' Did Zimmerman -- as the prosecutor is trying to say -- hunt down the teen and shoot him in cold blood? (Allowing for the dying Martin to tackle his murderer in a final desperate act)
Or -- as other evidence suggests and Zimmerman claims -- did Martin slip away, turn around, come back and attack Zimmerman? This would make Martin the aggressor, knocking Zimmerman to the ground and putting him into conditions where Zimmerman can legitimately make the claim of self-defense due to the circumstances.
This isn't just about the law. Nor is it about a 'child.' It's also about if the circumstances warranted lethal force (immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury)
Can we try to at least use logic when we come up with arguments? 0_o I can't even read further than your first paragraph when you open with such drivel.
If anything, the age difference might play a part in the disparity of force factors that make the claim of 'self-defense' plausible. 6' tall, younger, stronger football player vs. a shorter, apparently out of shape adult. Oh just so you know, disparity of force is a big factor of women being acquitted when attacked by a lager, stronger male.
Taking this disparity of force and putting them into -- what is known in Mixed Martial Arts as -- a 'ground and pound,' but without the safety equipment IS dangerous. It is a situation where the criteria for use of lethal force is met. People can and do die when they hit their heads going to the ground (a common cause for man slaugther charges). But getting your head jack hammered against the hard ground while someone is beating you in the face **IS** likely to cause brain damage (grievous bodily injury). Incidentally, this kind of 'compression attack' is also why the shod human foot on a downed opponent is considered a lethal force implement (That is why the Jena 6 were charged with attempted murder.)
This is why knowing when the trigger was pulled is important. I previously stated we don't know when it happened. Two seconds this way (murder), two seconds that way (manslaughter), two seconds in the middle (self-defense). And who approached -- much less attacked --who is another big wrench in the works.
Welcome to the complexity of violent situations and how they interact with the law (and in this case politics).
You keep on returning to the 'unarmed teenager' as your focal point. While that is a strong appeal to emotion, it is not however, the only factor in the legal case. Then you both accuse me of drivel while appealing to logic (claiming you can't 'even read further' because of my lack of logic).
My position on this case is only why it is not so clear cut.
Unfortunately it seems there are two 'camps' when it comes to this case. The 'It's murder! Let's lynch him! (After the kangaroo court finds him guilty, of course. We're not a lynch mob after all)" vs. 'It's self-defense! He's being persecuted because of reverse racism and politics!"
I don't belong to either of those camps. But I do question your refusal to read about factors -- from a court recognized expert on violence reconstruction -- other than 'unarmed teenager' on the grounds that it is not 'logical.'
Was there another gag order that you were referring to or did you just make a mistake? I'll bet this doesn't get printed.
I do apologize for the mistake, however.
well hell, they only said they wanted the kid home.. didn't say they had to.
good grief.. SMH
I don't think Zimmerman is too bright, but the problem is that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. I think they will have a hard time.
The evidence suggests that Martin was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into the sidewalk. If Zimmerman was in fear of his life, I think he did what he had to do.
So legally, I never saw what George Zimmerman was doing wrong carrying a gun with permit. If you want to go ahead and accuse him of some sort of vigilantiism, then good luck. Like Bill Cosby said its the gun and I'm surprised that this doesn't happen more often in Florida.
The T has a long clear field of view. Anyone approaching another person other than from behind them would be seen. Zimmerman was afraid of Trayvon while he was armed sitting in his truck, nothing suggests getting out of the safety of his truck made him suddenly brave other than Trayvon's absence. Trayvon left the area and returned, too little occurred before he punched Zimmerman in the nose to suggest it was spontaneous instead of planned.
Continuing the beating after Zimmerman was helpless on the ground is depraved indifference.
Well, let's address the burning question posed in the title: "Is George Zimmerman Racist or Just a Murderer?" A poignant question, to be sure, since being a "racist" is obviously much worse than being "just" a murderer. So, let's see...what part of George's life should be considered "racist?" Was it his advocacy for charges to be brought against police in the beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware? Was it his work with black school children? Or was it his act of self-defense when being savagely attacked by the 17-year-old Martin?
The vapidity, naivete, and just plain idiocy of this article is beyond belief. It is perfect Huffington Post material, however.