Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Murder doesn't work that way. Also, a person going around alleys is pretty suspicious in itself. He didn't have to follow him, but he did. He was not given an order to "not follow the kid". He was suggested not to. That is a huge difference. There was nothing legally holding him back from making sure the kid doesn't cause trouble. Problem is, the trouble was caused towards him. We don't know if the kid would do something else.
He entirely acted in self-defense. He really should not have followed, and that was his real mistake. It's blatant he doesn't feel regret for it, and that's a problem too. Nobody is questioning it's racially motivated, but it's blatant he only fired because he was attacked first, pretty badly, I might add. Why would a kid need to outright attack him with freaking concrete unless something was up with the kid himself? That's a little strange. You know, it could've been easy as not attacking Zimmerman and see what happens there. If it was entirely a planned murder on Zimmerman's part, he would've been caught for it since he fired first. But that's not what happens. Whether planned or not, there's no way to prove it was murder, as the evidence entirely shows it's self defense.
Things aren't always black and white(no pun intended), and there's more to the story than meets the eye.
Shadow?
Following someone while very visibly armed is a pretty aggressive thing to do. When you're a black kid in a white neighborhood and a man with a handgun is following you, you're probably going to die that day.
They're not just keeping an eye on you, they're not protecting their home. If they were gonna do that they'd have called the police and let that be that. In fact Zimmerman defied police warnings not to follow him. They're hunting you at that point.
Martin knew that, Zimmerman knew that, anyone who's lived in the South and is familiar with race relations down here knows that.
Everything Martin did was justified and then some, he knew that man was planning on killing him and he did his best to defend himself.
edited 12th May '16 9:43:36 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?You don't think Martin was acting in reasonable self defence? He was being followed by a strange man down back streets at night from my understanding, that certisnly sounds like legitimate reason to fear for ones life.
I guess it being unlawful comes down to if Zimmerman while armed following Martin was malicious (if not murderous) intent counts as threatening behaviour, if it does then Zimmerman started the confrontation by carrying out threatening behaviour towards Martin.
Maybe because the strange man with a gun whose been following him is coming towards him? That sure sounds like a strong case of self defence to me.
edited 12th May '16 9:45:49 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
He may be confusing you with our other gaskmasked avatar wearer that lives in a crime filled hellhole.
Or not. They're both part of the South.
edited 12th May '16 9:47:03 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
Florida is very much part of the greater South. That's South with a capital S. Anyone who lives down here and any person of color down here will tell you exactly I've told you. If you're black and a man is following you with a gun, they're hunting you and planning on killing you.
And for the record, I've lived in Florida too. I was actually born there.
edited 12th May '16 9:51:25 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?![]()
I know his point. It's part of that whole "hard to take him serious" thing.
Is one of said people, know exactly what you're talking about, you still come off as way too over top about, well, everything to me. Maybe I just live in a better place than you, but everyone who is not you, or disagrees with you, is not somehow ignorant to all of this.
edited 12th May '16 9:50:22 AM by LSBK
Regardless of if the specific word "murder" is correct, Zimmerman chose to follow Trayvon, in spite of what he was told to do. Zimmerman chose to threaten him. Zimmerman chose to use his gun rather than to run.
Zimmerman had multiple opportunities to avoid causing the death of a kid, but he didn't take them. He made the choices that led to Trayvon dying.
The fact that Zimmerman felt no guilt AT ALL both during and after the trial should be an enormous red flag. You're trying to say you had a right to self-defense but you don't "Regret" the night's circumstances? Even though a child is dead? I'd feel like shit even if I was practicing castle doctrine and shot someone breaking into my house. Because I have a thing called *empathy*.
If that fact doesn't convince people that his account of what happen is extremely suspect I don't know what will.
edited 12th May '16 9:51:58 AM by TacticalFox88
New Survey coming this weekend!I live in Florida, and I can confirm this place is kind of a shithole when it comes to race relations. I've met people in one of my old high schools who disapproved of interracial relationships and told me, to my face, that my American mom and my Mexican dad should not have been married.
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?Had the kid not attacked, Zimmerman would've either shot because he intended to murder him, or make sure the kid wasn't going to cause trouble, the other possibility. There's really no way to outright know what could've happened. It's a terrible situation altogether, but it still wasn't murder regardless.
Zimmerman was a cop going after a kid suspiciously wandering around an alley. He was suggested not to do so(he wasn't told not to, big difference. This is vastly important and people need to remember the actual facts here), and wait for backup, which was his main mistake. It's telling that the kid had some violent intent to hurt Zimmerman that much with concrete alone.
That said, yeah, it was clearly a hate crime, but it's really hard to prove that with the evidence, so there's little we can do legally. That's sometimes the downsides of legal systems. You need evidence to prosecute. Even with that, there's no way to prove it he intended murder, as the evidence shows completely otherwise. How do we know that the kid wouldn't have attacked Zimmerman if the guy didn't have a gun out? That's a major issue with this. We don't. That was a still a very brutal blow to the head, which does matter overall.
edited 12th May '16 9:53:38 AM by Irene
Shadow?Zimmerman Was NOT a cop, he was a best a self appointed neighbourhood watchman and realy simply a wanna be vigilante.
Not if Martin was acting in self defence due to being stalked down a back ally by an armed stranger.
edited 12th May '16 9:55:45 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI honestly forgot that bit.
Although it doesn't change much in the way of what evidence we have. Unfortunately, despite the blatant hate crime, there's little we can do about it.
The best thing done so far since then was removed the auctioned item.
Exactly this. Self-defense generally only works for the person who was attacked first, not the person who was first being the aggressor.
edited 12th May '16 9:57:43 AM by Irene
Shadow?Let's imagine a scenario here,
I'm stalking you while armed with a very clear intent to kill you. I've got you cornered. I haven't said a word to you or touched you but my motives and intentions are very clear. We both see that.
Are you gonna do something or let me kill you? And remember, I've got the gun and you're unarmed. Once I make my move it's over and you're dead.
edited 12th May '16 10:02:18 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?@ Garcon:
Does that include places like Orlando, Miami and the Keys?
Keep Rolling OnSure you can, otherwise it wouldn't be legal to shoot an armed intruder in your house until he'd tried to shoot you.
To be acting in self defence you simply need a reasonable fear that your life is in danger, which I'm pretty sure "Oh fuck this guy who's been following me has a gun and is coming at me" counts as.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Zimmerman knew what following him and confronting him would lead to. And he followed and confronted him because he was black.
Zimmerman was the aggressor in the situation. He was armed and Martin was not. You can't pick a fight and then kill someone after they hit you, that's murder. Racially motivated murder.
Oh really when?