TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:

Jusster wrote:And the fact that he decided that a 17yo (black) young man walking home from the corner store was suspicious enough to call the police and follow even though he was not breaking any laws. I think that played an even bigger part in the escalation then him being part of NW. I agree with you, we will probably never know all the details of this case.


Jusster

But I ask you this; if the the break-ins in the neighborhood were being committed by black teenage boys, then is his suspicion of this individual racial profiling or just related to the fact he fits the description? The same goes for terrorists, they typically are young men of middle-eastern descent. So where does profiling stop and description matching start? It is a VERY gray line.

If the person fits the description of someone associated with the previous break-ins, then I believe it to NOT be racial profiling and only association with known evidence. Personally, if middle-aged overweight white guys with mustaches were trying to blow up planes, break into houses, etc, then I would not consider it profiling (racial or otherwise) and think it was just evidence matching. Admittedly his comments on the phone 'supposedly' included a racial epitaph (I couldn't hear it, my hearing is bad from shooting and years of rock and roll), Zimmerman's other comments didn't help in portraying him as just a concerned citizen, so that went against him in trying to say it was racially motivated. No matter, he still was on the phone to police and that was the right thing to do if there is ANY suspicious activity in the neighborhood. I would have done the same thing (calling 911 that is) if I saw someone suspicious in the neighborhood, but would have stayed in my vehicle.

Honestly Keith, the statement that I made was because I didn’t feel that Zimmerman being part of NW was the only major reason why this case has become such a media circus. If he would have shot and killed another white or hispanic male people probably would have been less interested in the story. Sad but true. I’ll try to address your question though.

For me, that would be based on whether or not it was an everyday occurrence or if it were just your typical crime that happens. In other words, if it were known that a crime spree were being committed by a black male or group of black males in my neighborhood then I would be on the lookout for sure. For instance, my neighbors truck was broken into a couple of months ago by a hispanic male on a bike (probably in his 20’s he said). He came down to my house and talked to me about it and asked me to keep an eye out for the guy. Now if I saw someone snooping around cars, peeking in windows, or hopping somebody’s fence then sure, I’d be the first one to call the police. But if I called for every hispanic male walking through my neighborhood especially months after the incident occurred, not only would I be spending a lot of my time on the phone with LEO, but I’m pretty sure at some point it would seem like more of a vendetta then an actual pursuit of justice for my neighbor.

Zimmerman lived in a multi-cultural neighborhood. Some say it is 25% black. To me that would mean it wouldn’t be out of the norm to see a black male walking, hanging out, or whatever. Maybe that’s because I live in Houston which is a pretty diverse place, so no, I wouldn’t just jump to the conclusion that he must be that guy based on skin color or simply similar attire. In fact because I have a 15yo son and regularly try to keep up with his FB page and friends he hangs out with. I’d be willing to bet half of them dress that way regardless of race, and only a few of them did I feel the need to tell him that he should find another friend to associate with.


Jusster

bzo311 wrote:

Jusster wrote:

bzo311 wrote:

Jusster wrote:

bzo311 wrote:Well, I hope that all the people whom have jumped the gun here saying that Zimmerman was "playing police" or not acting responsibly, have seen the light in the reports now coming out of Fl. If what I am reading is correct, Zimmerman was accosted by the "child" when all he was doing was taking an interest in his actions. Simply following someone is not "playing police", not when you are trying to protect your community. It is not breaking the law to take an interest in others actions, it is however breaking the law to mount and pummel someone. Zimmerman had a broken nose and cuts / bruises.

It seems that racial and anti-gun focus groups, and even some pro-gun / chl ppl, have jumped the gun here and now those focus groups are going to ride the wave in as far as they can. If Treyvon turned and attacked Zimmerman simply because Zimmerman took an interest in his actions, then I think the community really needs to step up and aid Zimmerman against this political machine that wants to nail him to the wall.. and for what? Bad decision making? I'd say it is in our interest to protect the integrity of the "stand your ground" laws.

I disagree. I do still believe Zimmerman was “playing police” and it was his actions that lead to the encounter in the first place. For instance, what was Martin doing that made him suspicious? It is not illegal to walk home from the store in a hoodie is it? At this point, nobody knows how the fight started, but we do know that Zimmerman called in to report a suspicious person who was breaking no law and then proceeded to follow/chase Martin after he ran away.

As I have stated before. I see no problem with the law. But I will not step up and aid Zimmerman in any way, nor do I have any obligation to do so. It is not protecting the integrity of the law if it’s not applied justly. There are way too many questions surrounding this case for it not to have been sent to the GJ weeks ago. That would have avoided the media circus we have now.

Jusster

IMO, Playing police would mean that Z would have stopped and questioned Trayvon, maybe tried for apprehension. Did he do that?. Second, it isn't against the law to trail someone whom you think is suspicious, nor is it a justifiable means to attack someone; just because they were following you? By your admission, Z instigated the confrontation, so by following someone you, for whatever reason is your own, deem suspicious then you're asking for a a broken nose...? Sorry, but simply trailing someone is a non-aggressive act that does not justify an aggressive solution, therefore I don;t see why we're saying Z automatically is the aggressor, without any details as to whom actually 'threw the first punch".

And how do you know that he didn’t stop and question Martin? Based on Martin’s GF’s statements Martin asked Zimmerman why are you following me and Zimmerman responded with what are you doing here. Nobody knows what was said that started the fight.

I agree with gdanaher. You say it’s not a crime to follow someone but I would disagree depending on the context. When the person runs from you and
you chase them is that still considered non-aggressive? If I were doing nothing wrong and I noticed a “suspicious” person following me. I attempt to run to avoid a confrontation only to find moments later that you chased after me. At that point I would probably feel threatened. Do I then have the right to stand my ground?


Jusster

From your reaction I can tell you don't have all the facts, that's OK, neither do I, but I am not rushing to condemn anyone in the absence of details. That .is my point here. Someone bridged the gap between a verbal and physical confrontation. It was That action alone that should be examined as the one despicable for the cause of the shooting. I don't know which party is guilty here, but again, I'm not rushing to throw the book at Z like so many here and elsewhere are.

You are right, I don’t have all the facts and I would agree with you except for the fact that people are convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time. They do look at the persons actions before and after the event that would allow a jury to determine what they believe actually took place. To say that they only need to focus on who threw the first punch is not reality as we know it.

Jusster

74novaman wrote:

A-R wrote:
IMHO, way too much is made of Zimmerman's NW status. This was an easy way to LABEL him for purposes of the initial media coverage, but it has little to no bearing on the circumstances. If someone who was NOT a member of NW did the same thing as Zimmerman, would that make the other person's actions more excusable because Zimmerman "was trained and should have known better" (heck, we're assuming he had any formal training at all beyond his CHL).

It's as you're saying his NW status somehow makes Zimmerman MORE liable for his stupid decision to pursue?

I think his participation in a Neighborhood Watch program is exactly what is leading people to paint him as a "wanna be cop".

Now it doesn't matter at all legally (if he was indeed "not on watch" when he confronted Martin) that he is a NW member, but its part of what has helped drag him through the court of pubic opinion with a guilty sign hung around his neck.

It'll be interesting when it all shakes out who said and initiated what (if we ever learn the facts...which I'm doubtful of at this point. Already too much of a circus for facts to be important to most people).

And the fact that he decided that a 17yo (black) young man walking home from the corner store was suspicious enough to call the police and follow even though he was not breaking any laws. I think that played an even bigger part in the escalation then him being part of NW. I agree with you, we will probably never know all the details of this case.


Jusster

speedsix wrote:...the "facts" keep changing like a kaleidoscope(yes, I had to look it up), but if NW "Captain Z" had followed his training...page 1, let alone the rest of it...it wouldn't have happened...he was playing police or he never would have been following, much less chasing(as evidenced by his breathless 911 conversation which prompted the dispatcher's question...) anyone...whether or not he spoke to the deceased, he was still all wrong for doing ANYTHING but calling it in...and he knew it...the conversation/conflict/battle/shooting could not have happened if he'd just done what the NW rules said...and he was acting as a NW watch person, whether he was on a scheduled patrol or not...no following...no confrontation...he was just wrong...from his own lips...
...try trailing someone on a dark night through any neighborhood, much less chasing them if they run, and see what it gets you when the police show up...they're not going to hold with "not breaking any law"...this guy knew better...he hadn't even seen him doing anything wrong...just walking...(unless he changes that part of his story,too...)

...we have only ONE witness (so far) of who touched, hit, or shoved who first...but that's not relevant to what I'm saying here...he went against all his training and played police, following and chasing a "suspect"...who hadn't DONE anything but walk down the street...or it wouldn't have happened...making a call from his car wouldn't have caused what followed...no matter whose version or which "reliable" witness account you choose to believe...and you're either a NW captain or a "concerned citizen"...but not both...whether or not you're wearing your cape...can't have it both ways...

bzo311 wrote:

Jusster wrote:

bzo311 wrote:Well, I hope that all the people whom have jumped the gun here saying that Zimmerman was "playing police" or not acting responsibly, have seen the light in the reports now coming out of Fl. If what I am reading is correct, Zimmerman was accosted by the "child" when all he was doing was taking an interest in his actions. Simply following someone is not "playing police", not when you are trying to protect your community. It is not breaking the law to take an interest in others actions, it is however breaking the law to mount and pummel someone. Zimmerman had a broken nose and cuts / bruises.

It seems that racial and anti-gun focus groups, and even some pro-gun / chl ppl, have jumped the gun here and now those focus groups are going to ride the wave in as far as they can. If Treyvon turned and attacked Zimmerman simply because Zimmerman took an interest in his actions, then I think the community really needs to step up and aid Zimmerman against this political machine that wants to nail him to the wall.. and for what? Bad decision making? I'd say it is in our interest to protect the integrity of the "stand your ground" laws.

I disagree. I do still believe Zimmerman was “playing police” and it was his actions that lead to the encounter in the first place. For instance, what was Martin doing that made him suspicious? It is not illegal to walk home from the store in a hoodie is it? At this point, nobody knows how the fight started, but we do know that Zimmerman called in to report a suspicious person who was breaking no law and then proceeded to follow/chase Martin after he ran away.

As I have stated before. I see no problem with the law. But I will not step up and aid Zimmerman in any way, nor do I have any obligation to do so. It is not protecting the integrity of the law if it’s not applied justly. There are way too many questions surrounding this case for it not to have been sent to the GJ weeks ago. That would have avoided the media circus we have now.

Jusster

IMO, Playing police would mean that Z would have stopped and questioned Trayvon, maybe tried for apprehension. Did he do that?. Second, it isn't against the law to trail someone whom you think is suspicious, nor is it a justifiable means to attack someone; just because they were following you? By your admission, Z instigated the confrontation, so by following someone you, for whatever reason is your own, deem suspicious then you're asking for a a broken nose...? Sorry, but simply trailing someone is a non-aggressive act that does not justify an aggressive solution, therefore I don;t see why we're saying Z automatically is the aggressor, without any details as to whom actually 'threw the first punch".

And how do you know that he didn’t stop and question Martin? Based on Martin’s GF’s statements Martin asked Zimmerman why are you following me and Zimmerman responded with what are you doing here. Nobody knows what was said that started the fight.

I agree with gdanaher. You say it’s not a crime to follow someone but I would disagree depending on the context. When the person runs from you and you chase them is that still considered non-aggressive? If I were doing nothing wrong and I noticed a “suspicious” person following me. I attempt to run to avoid a confrontation only to find moments later that you chased after me. At that point I would probably feel threatened. Do I then have the right to stand my ground?


Jusster

bzo311 wrote:Well, I hope that all the people whom have jumped the gun here saying that Zimmerman was "playing police" or not acting responsibly, have seen the light in the reports now coming out of Fl. If what I am reading is correct, Zimmerman was accosted by the "child" when all he was doing was taking an interest in his actions. Simply following someone is not "playing police", not when you are trying to protect your community. It is not breaking the law to take an interest in others actions, it is however breaking the law to mount and pummel someone. Zimmerman had a broken nose and cuts / bruises.

It seems that racial and anti-gun focus groups, and even some pro-gun / chl ppl, have jumped the gun here and now those focus groups are going to ride the wave in as far as they can. If Treyvon turned and attacked Zimmerman simply because Zimmerman took an interest in his actions, then I think the community really needs to step up and aid Zimmerman against this political machine that wants to nail him to the wall.. and for what? Bad decision making? I'd say it is in our interest to protect the integrity of the "stand your ground" laws.

I disagree. I do still believe Zimmerman was “playing police” and it was his actions that lead to the encounter in the first place. For instance, what was Martin doing that made him suspicious? It is not illegal to walk home from the store in a hoodie is it? At this point, nobody knows how the fight started, but we do know that Zimmerman called in to report a suspicious person who was breaking no law and then proceeded to follow/chase Martin after he ran away.

As I have stated before. I see no problem with the law. But I will not step up and aid Zimmerman in any way, nor do I have any obligation to do so. It is not protecting the integrity of the law if it’s not applied justly. There are way too many questions surrounding this case for it not to have been sent to the GJ weeks ago. That would have avoided the media circus we have now.

Jusster

Oh boy....I hope this isn't becoming an epidemic. Georgia to view its Stand Your Ground law.

http://pba.org/post/georgias-stand-your ... a-shooting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jusster

VMI77 wrote:

Jusster wrote:VMI...

The only one introducing statements that were not listed in there original post is you. In my opinion you are compairing apples to oranges as I have attempted to explain to you before. You can dismiss all the witnesses statements as to what they heard and saw immediately before and after the shooting if you like. That's your choice.

In the story YOU introduced in compairison to the Z/M case the VICTOM did not say why he was attacked. The Victom did not say he was doused with gasoline nor does his injuries imply that he was.

You asked me to address your main question as to why the case you introduced didn't get the same media scrutiny and I provided that answer in my previous post which you excluded from the quote. Those are my opinions as to why, feel free to re-read them if you like.

Jusster

I'm done with you. You have an agenda, I'm only interested in discussion. Bye bye.

That's funny. No I don't have an agenda. You on the other hand....well all of your comments and post speak for themselves. Sorry I don't live my life looking over my shoulder because I think big brother is out to get me. Nor do I believe everything is a consiracy. You're not interested in a discussion, your only interested in screaming at the top of your lungs that everyones out to get you. I realized a few post back that any meaningful discussion with you was pointless because you completely dismiss everyone's opinions that does not fit your.....ah......agenda. Best of luck with that. And on that note, I'm done with you


Jusster

VMI...

The only one introducing statements that were not listed in there original post is you. In my opinion you are compairing apples to oranges as I have attempted to explain to you before. You can dismiss all the witnesses statements as to what they heard and saw immediately before and after the shooting if you like. That's your choice.

In the story YOU introduced in compairison to the Z/M case the VICTOM did not say why he was attacked. The Victom did not say he was doused with gasoline nor does his injuries imply that he was.

You asked me to address your main question as to why the case you introduced didn't get the same media scrutiny and I provided that answer in my previous post which you excluded from the quote. Those are my opinions as to why, feel free to re-read them if you like.

Jusster

WMI77,

I’ll leave out all the quotes to shorten this post…..

1) My point was all parties are known. They are not known in the story you provided.
2) I will concede I was wrong about the dates. Guess I misread one of those alternative news sources.
3) There are witnesses to before and after the shooting. None in the story you provided.
4) Tell you what, how about we take a look at the ACTUAL original local news story. I don’t hear any racial tones being mentioned do you? I didn’t read anything about anyone being doused with gas either. In fact it sounds like this poor kid is being bullied at school. Nothing in this article indicates it was because he was white. Sounds like the story you provided is being embellished by those who have their own agenda don’t you think? (You don’t have to answer that)

Ok I will answer your main point as you say and leave it at that. Yes, I do think the other story you pointed out would have gone National if the following conditions applied:

1. The white teen died instead of superficial first degree burns.
2. The black teens were claiming self defense because the white teen looked suspicious and didn’t belong in their neighborhood.
3. Local LEO interviewed the black teens and released them because there was no evidence to refute their claim of self defense.

Now if you would have brought up a case like Jena Six….oh wait, you couldn’t because that would have tossed your theory right out the window. It did go National.

Jusster

Ameer wrote:

"They rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open," Coon told KMBC. "(One of them) poured the gasoline, then flicked the Bic, and said, 'This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy.'"

How many resources will Holder devote to prosecuting this Hate Crime under Federal law?

That's funny, because I don't remember reading anything in that case stating that the two black suspects were interviewed by local PD, who decided not to press charges, because the two black males are claiming self defense due to the fact that they thought the white kid looked suspicious because they never saw him walk up to that door before. Therefore, they decided to toss gas on him to protect the neighborhood.

You go find that story then we can have a meaningful discussion.


Jusster

VMI77 wrote:

Jusster wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Jusster wrote:But your details about gas being poured on the kid are incorrect. See news clip.

Enlighten me please....here's a quote from the article at the link I provided:

"They rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open," Coon told KMBC. "(One of them) poured the gasoline, then flicked the Bic, and said, 'This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy.'"

I didn't watch the clip, just read the article.....are you saying they just poured it "at" him, not "on" him?

WMI77 I provided you the link that included the news clip. You should watch it. The boy himself stated that they lit the gas can and it sounds like it exploded. He has 1st degree burns (if that). They show his eyebrows singed and they say some of his hair is too. I would think the suspects shouldn't be hard to find since one of them had him in a headlock he should have similar burns. Its your story, you brought it up, I would think I should also have to provide the details to you as well.

Jusster

I told you, I didn't watch the clip, I read the article. My remark is made in reference to the article, quoted above. I provided a link for an article, the article didn't contain the information you say is in the clip. I brought it up to illustrate the difference in how the media covers various categories of crimes. It's hardly the only possible example, just the first one that came to mind.

Sorry but I don't believe that is the best way to start a debate if you don't know the details of the subject you introduce to the debate. You lose all credibility that way.

Differences from what I can see:
1. The white kid, though he goes to school with these kids doesn't seem to know who they are. While in the M/Z case all parties are known and there is no dispute as to whether or not Z shot and killed M
2. From what I can tell the gas can story is a few days old, compared to the Z/M story which is weeks old.
3. The suspects in the gas story have not been interviewed and let go due to a self defense claim. When there are witness who state otherwise.
4. I don't see any new laws being challenged in the gas story like there is in the M/Z story.

I could go on and on but I won't...

Similarities:
Black on White crime vs. Hispanic/White on Black crime....that's it.


Jusster

VMI77 wrote:

Jusster wrote:But your details about gas being poured on the kid are incorrect. See news clip.

Enlighten me please....here's a quote from the article at the link I provided:

"They rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open," Coon told KMBC. "(One of them) poured the gasoline, then flicked the Bic, and said, 'This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy.'"

I didn't watch the clip, just read the article.....are you saying they just poured it "at" him, not "on" him?

WMI77 I provided you the link that included the news clip. You should watch it. The boy himself stated that they lit the gas can and it sounds like it exploded. He has 1st degree burns (if that). They show his eyebrows singed and they say some of his hair is too. I would think the suspects shouldn't be hard to find since one of them had him in a headlock he should have similar burns. Its your story, you brought it up, I would think I shouldn't have to provide the details to you as well.

Jusster

VMI77 wrote:

Jusster wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

PracticalTactical wrote:

By falling in with the lynch mob and not looking at applicable law, gun owners are falling into a trap. If, despite Florida law, this guy gets arrested and convicted because the Martin family's lawyers managed to whip up a media field day and convict Zimmerman in the carnival barking kangaroo court of public opinion, this sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of us if we're ever involved in a self defense shooting.

First they came for the stupid wannabe cop, and we didn't say anything.

Do we really want to see the rest of the poem?

Very astute observation --I'm rather chagrined it didn't occur to me. That is exactly the legal strategy here because that will be a lot easier to accomplish than changing the law. Where are the national media stories and coverage for unambiguous acts of self-defense, or gun owners saving a victim from rape or murder? There are none. Where's all the media outrage for the White kid doused with gasoline and set on fire by a couple of Black kids? There is none --and very very little coverage. None of that fits or advances the collectivist narrative and agenda. This gives the left fuel to fire up anti-gun, anti-self-defense, and racial identity agendas, AND it allows them to whore for the Obama campaign, by promoting the illusion that his administration is concerned about people and trying to bring "change" and "justice" to America, setting all those racist southern conservative types right.

While I do agree with you that the media has an agenda, and we do not hear enough stories about the good guys, where are those black kids who set the white kid on fire? Were they arrested for their actions? Or did they walk because they were defending themselves? That's the difference....justice is and will be served in that case.....this one for the first 3 weeks the guy was getting a pass.


Jusster

I don't know where they are, mainly because it's not being covered nationally. I don't think they've been caught, haven't found anything that says they were, but then, there is virtually no coverage. And that was really my point, it was a "hate" crime....they followed the kid, poured gas on him, and lit him on fire, because he's White...and there is no national media outrage as there would be if the races were reversed, while the race issue in this case is being hyped. And if the races had been reversed it's not too difficult to imagine national media attention and demands that the police devote more resources to catching them --since "justice" can't be served unless they're caught.

I don't see how you can contend he got a pass unless you're also contending that the police are either stupid or corrupt. To believe he got a pass you have to believe that the police who investigated either were fooled by the shooter (IOW, that the media is smarter than the police), or that they knowingly let him go without charges, which would imply that they're so racist they would let a killer go free.

Ok found the story about the white kid being burned by 2 black teenagers. Has the news clip in it too. I will say the same thing that I said about the Martin/Zimmerman case at the beginning. Not enough details at this time for me to state an opinion. If they are classmates who attend the same school then they shouldn't be hard to find. But your details about gas being poured on the kid are incorrect. See news clip.

Now back to the case that started the OP. The SDPD is currently under investigation AND yesterday SD city council voted that they have no faith in the police chief, which means they are asking that he be fired. So I don't know about stupid or corrupt, but looks like others already believe they are incompetent to say the least.


Jusster

VMI77 wrote:

PracticalTactical wrote:

By falling in with the lynch mob and not looking at applicable law, gun owners are falling into a trap. If, despite Florida law, this guy gets arrested and convicted because the Martin family's lawyers managed to whip up a media field day and convict Zimmerman in the carnival barking kangaroo court of public opinion, this sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of us if we're ever involved in a self defense shooting.

First they came for the stupid wannabe cop, and we didn't say anything.

Do we really want to see the rest of the poem?

Very astute observation --I'm rather chagrined it didn't occur to me. That is exactly the legal strategy here because that will be a lot easier to accomplish than changing the law. Where are the national media stories and coverage for unambiguous acts of self-defense, or gun owners saving a victim from rape or murder? There are none. Where's all the media outrage for the White kid doused with gasoline and set on fire by a couple of Black kids? There is none --and very very little coverage. None of that fits or advances the collectivist narrative and agenda. This gives the left fuel to fire up anti-gun, anti-self-defense, and racial identity agendas, AND it allows them to whore for the Obama campaign, by promoting the illusion that his administration is concerned about people and trying to bring "change" and "justice" to America, setting all those racist southern conservative types right.

While I do agree with you that the media has an agenda, and we do not hear enough stories about the good guys, where are those black kids who set the white kid on fire? Were they arrested for their actions? Or did they walk because they were defending themselves? That's the difference....justice is and will be served in that case.....this one for the first 3 weeks the guy was getting a pass.


Jusster