The Trayvon Martin Case

[beemerman2k]

Wouldn't you want SYG somehow refined such that it is more clearly understood going forward? Less ambiguity? I suppose you can accomplish this without touching the actual law, but I don't want to see anymore shootings done by people erroneously thInking that they are exercising the SYG law -- if indeed they are in error.

[philbytx]

Trial by media...welcome to the new millenium . Everyone has an opinion and, as we all know, they are like a'holes - most of them stink. With Twitter, FB and the lamestream media using them for "instant on-screen commentary", it just adds more fuel to their journalistic arson.

 

Conjecture is just that and, until the trial, it is all that we have. There is much that we do not know about this.

 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. As a CHL holder, I train regularly and am aware of the laws. I also KNOW what I can and cannot do. SYG and the Castle Doctrine are a trained and RESPONSIBLE CHL holder's friends.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[beemerman2k]

For the record, I had to modify pbharvey's post because it violated our "no politics" rule. But in all honesty, I felt it was a very good post and quite fitting in the spirit of this discussion.

 

Nonetheless, I do appreciate everyone's efforts to stay clear of the "no politics" rule.

[Jaguar]

Wouldn't you want SYG somehow refined such that it is more clearly understood going forward? Less ambiguity? I suppose you can accomplish this without touching the actual law, but I don't want to see anymore shootings done by people erroneously thInking that they are exercising the SYG law -- if indeed they are in error.

 

No matter how much you refine or try to perfect a law. There will always be people who try to define it to suit their needs or stretch it beyond it's intended means.

As I stated, there is nothing wrong with Florida's SYG law the way it is currently written.

[Rotor]

Like everyone else, I have an opinion on this whole mess. One thing that's got me amped is everyone, including our Governor saying it's now time to take a look at our "stand your ground law". As an armed Florida resident and owner of a concealed carry license, there is nothing wrong with the Florida stand your ground law, the way it is written. We have one person who interpreted that law his own way and now the system will decide weather that interpretation was legal or not. No need to rewrite laws.

 

I agree. There should be no requirement to flee from evil.

By-the-way, there is so, so much about this case we don't know: the police departments initial intent to arrest/not arrest, the State Attorney's Office recommendation to the police department is still not clear; and, most importantly the actual events that transpired between Martin and Zimmerman. Also, Martins mother may have said she thought it was an accident at one time; however, she has since clearly and adamantly proclaimed that she believes Zimmerman intended to carry out this assault.

Let the case go to trial and be judged by the facts, not the media - which may be too late. Leave the law alone, every American has a right to defend themselves from imminent harm and to use that force which is reasonable and necessary based on the circumstances at the time of the event.

[Bruce (Bedford)]

I’m English & live in England, without a doubt you guys in the USA are – different, whoever said that we are a people divided by a common language was somewhere close to the truth!

Culturally, without doubt there are vast gaps between our peoples.

Your fascination with guns is something that we Brits view with wonder and deep, deep appreciation that we do not have the associated issues here, give or take some inner city anomalies.

With this in mind I have read through this thread and I want to commend you all on your ability to discuss the topic with passion and alacrity in avoiding the ‘political’ requirements of the forum.

All we hear, here in the UK on this topic is via the media so we are mostly ill-informed but realising that discussion is alive and kicking bodes well for the future in my book.

The last 30 minutes have not been wasted!

Bruce

 

[tallman]

There was no "may have" in her statement.

 

SYG may need change.

It should be expanded to allow individuals to protect themself in all settings.

What needs to be changed is the behaviour of individuals.

In our county jail there are 10 juveniles awaiting charges

as an adult for using a weapon.

This week there have been 3 shootings, all in close proximity to schools.

I know of another case where a juvenile committed multiple armed robberies on a golf course, using a gun.

Identified by multiple winesses.

No doubt he did the deeds.

Our law says 10-20-life.

Minimum 10 years for using a gun.

So far he is free, wearing a gps anklet, no resolution, and it has been 10 months.

His victims would like their day in court too.

I have dealt with juveniles who have had over 20 felony charges and are out on the street, and carrying weapons.

 

We all want justice.

There is a tremendous amount of frustration by those who see criminal acts everyday, including use of a gun to injure or kill, where nothing happens for months/years and facts are not in dispute.

When the Martin case became cause celebre du jour, for whatever reason, the myriad number of other cases where nothing had been resolved yet got pushed even further on the back burner.

The consensus has become that there often are little to no consequences for criminal acts and it is incumbent upon the individual to protect themself and their loved ones.

[beemerman2k]

Bruce, thanks for sharing the view from over there. The divides exist even in this country; the younger you are and the more urban your lifestyle the less likely you are to own a gun. I have to be the first in a long line of my ancestry to not own a gun. Everyone from my father on back owned several guns and carried them quite proudly. But they all lived in rural areas of the country, mostly in the south, whereas I was born and raised in a northern city.

 

Although I don't own a gun, I certainly do not fear them or see them as the tools of evil the media loves to portray them as. I see them as representing the idea that each of us is ultimately responsible for both our own household safety and the safety of our communities. And in a more general sense, the safety of our nation.

 

Owning a gun carries with it very serious responsibilities. I have never taken the time to educate and train myself to carry out those duties, therefore, I forgo that right. Sadly, just as in the world of motorcycling, there are people out there who do own guns, yet have failed to equip themselves of the proper training and education necessary to be a responsible gun owner.

 

Truth be told, at the end of the day, that's probably the real story here: how one man lost his life because another did not train himself well enough for the level of responsibilities he decided to assume. While I do admire Mr Zimmerman's desire to serve his community, and we need more people with that same sense of community, it obviously can be disasterous if the volunteers are not properly trained and emotionally prepared. But again, this is another one of those proverbial planks that exist in the eyes of many Americans, black and white, so let's not spin this story along these lines or the media won't make any money. No one would want to follow a storyline like that one.

[tallman]

James,

How can you say that?

 

"Truth be told, at the end of the day, that's probably the real story here: how one man lost his life because another did not train himself well enough for the level of responsibilities he decided to assume."

 

Do you know something we don't?

 

That attitude is exactly the problem.

Prejudgement (what Zimmerman is accused of by the way) based on?

 

 

 

AFA gun ownership, urban vs rural, yes, more likely to be a gun owner in rural.

BUT,

"CHICAGO – Children in the most rural areas of the United States are as likely to die by gunshot as kids in the biggest cities, a new analysis of nearly 24,000 deaths finds.

 

Not surprisingly, murders involving firearms are more common among city youth. But gun suicides and accidental fatal shootings level the score: They are more common among rural kids.

 

"This debunks the myth that firearm death is a big-city problem," said lead author Dr. Michael Nance of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. "This is everybody's problem."

 

The findings were published Monday in the journal Pediatrics.

 

The researchers analyzed data on nearly 24,000 gun-related deaths among children 19 and younger from 1999 through 2006. That included about 15,000 homicides, about 7,000 suicides and about 1,400 accidental shootings for the eight-year period.

 

The researchers sorted them by county then compared the gun death rates for the most urban counties_ those with populations of 1 million or more, like Dallas County in Texas — and the most rural counties — the ones far from cities or with fewer than 2,500 people, like Powder River County in Montana. They found essentially the same rate, about 4 deaths per 100,000 children.

 

A previous analysis of adult deaths found similar patterns."

 

 

So, rate of ownership doesn't define rate of death invovling childre,

 

Two distinct facts.

A child (and this study incldes 18-19 yo's which would include retruning veteran for example/hardly a "child") likely to be murdered

by a gun is much more prevalent in urban setting.

Suicide and accidental shooting more likeley in rural setting.

 

The .00004 rate is consistent in both settings, so comments about percent/rate of ownership in urbam/rural aren't germane.

[beemerman2k]

James,

How can you say that?

 

"Truth be told, at the end of the day, that's probably the real story here: how one man lost his life because another did not train himself well enough for the level of responsibilities he decided to assume."

 

Do you know something we don't?

 

That attitude is exactly the problem.

Prejudgement (whqat Zimmerman is accused of by the way) based on?

 

Based on everything I am hearing about the case. I was hoping to confirm my suspicion when I asked "upflying" and "motorinLA" to tell us how they would have handled this situation were they in George Zimmermans shoes. I wanted to see how a real pro would handle this encounter. Odds are, and those are safe odds given that LEO does face this kind of situation on a daily basis, nothing would have come of it. A quiet and insignificant interaction that Martin might not have even been aware of as an LEO checking him out to determine whether he was a resident versus a criminal.

 

In this sense, I think Trayvon Martin's mother is spot on: Zimmerman initiated an encounter that got out of control and accidentally resulted in the death of her son. A pro would have acted in a way that would have made it extremely unlikely for that to have happened.

[Jaguar]

James,

How can you say that?

 

"Truth be told, at the end of the day, that's probably the real story here: how one man lost his life because another did not train himself well enough for the level of responsibilities he decided to assume."

 

Do you know something we don't?

 

That attitude is exactly the problem.

Prejudgement (whqat Zimmerman is accused of by the way) based on?

 

DITTO!

Thank you Tim

That's exactly what I was thinking as I was reading that post, and getting ready to send off a response.

[beemerman2k]

Tim, insert the word "legal" in front of the words "gun ownership" in my posts as that's what I was assuming. I would bet the ratio of illegal gun ownership is significantly higher in the cities than it is in the rural areas. In the cities, you have urban, young gun owners, but a huge percentage of these owners are not licensed or trained in how to use those illegally owned guns.

[tallman]

Gee, I'm also "hearing" Z was walking away and attacked.

 

Of course that could turn out to be bogus, just as anything else we "hear" in the media.

 

Making any judgement based on media (you are aware on source doctored the 911 call, right?) would be premature.

 

Also, are you aware that prosecution released tape info and states that Z did not use racial slurs etc ?

Of course we "heard" he did.

Didn't 2 "experts" tell us it was his voice etc?

 

Now FBI has released info on the tape.

Time will show us what purportedly happened, but justice may never be seen in this case because of blatantly false/prejudicial/discriminatory slander/libel published by the media.

[Jaguar]

At this point, where in the State of Florida can Z recieve a FAIR and unbiased trial by jury of his peers. Too many whites, too many blacks, too many hispanics on the jury. This can go on with appeals for a very long time.

[beemerman2k]

Fellas: if you are in possession of a firearm, you carry a huge responsibility--a much higher responsibility than an unarmed person--to ensure that any and all conflicts result in a peaceful end. In fact, you carry a greater responsibility to avoid conflict in the first place! If you get to a point where you have to pull out that weapon, you had better already exhausted your options for a peaceful encounter. By all indications so far, I am not convinced that Mr Zimmerman followed this principle. Do I KNOW whether he did or not? Of course not. But an unarmed man was killed on that night, and I don't see evidence that George Zimmerman did everything in his power to avoid that outcome.

 

For instance, the dispatcher told him to cease following Tryavon Martin. Did Goerge comply with that statement? If he did, then I stand corrected, he was not the "lone ranger" I get the impression he was. Go back in this thread and read what the real LEO's say about how Zimmerman seems to have handled this encounter and you'll see that I am not alone in seeing things this way. If he did not comply with that dispathers statement, then he assumed, of his own free will, to put himself into a situation that ended up in the death of Trayvon Martin.

[beemerman2k]

At this point, where in the State of Florida can Z recieve a FAIR and unbiased trial by jury of his peers. Too many whites, too many blacks, too many hispanics on the jury. This can go on with appeals for a very long time.

 

To me, Zimmerman doesn't carry a higher level of scrutiny because of his race, he carries it because he was armed, and he used that gun to shoot someone. Was he justified? We shall hopefully find out, but that's how it is when an unarmed man gets shot, the shooter has to go through a severe level of scrutiny. This is what I mean when I say that gun ownership carries with it a great degree of responsibility.

[tallman]

James,

Nowhere in our statutes does it say an armed individual must avoid/retreat, just becasue they are armed.

That assumption on your part has created a bias, IMO.

 

Comparing trained LEO's "behaviour" to an armed citizen is apples and oranges, truly different standard under the law, regardless

of any wishful thinking.

 

If you really think the issue is "because he was armed" all I can say is reread my post above wrt criminals using guns and resolution of any cases.

I will not quote them here, but please research data on gun use and crime vis a vis race of offender and race of victim.

IF being armed with a gun was the reason for scrutiny we would be inundated with coverage of crimes involving guns.

 

This case is all about race.

Look at the newly created white/hispanic label.

Remember, originally we "heard" Zimmerman was white.

Said it before, Z is allowed, under Census guidelines, to do exactly what Prez Ob has done and identify himself as a member

of the race he wishes to.

 

Gun ownership, and carrying a weapon in public are distinct.

Please don't lump them together.

 

Carrying a weapon in public,as allowed, with a CCW needs, according to you, "a severe level of scrutiny" if he used the gun to shoot somebody.

Agreed.

Let the law take its course.

Leave the media out of it.

 

And puhleese apply this same "severe level or scrutiny" to every individual who commits a criminal act using a gun, not just this one.

[beemerman2k]

One thing I sorely lament is that Trayvon Martin did not call the police. Had he done that, this whole thing would have been avoided. He would have been informed that he was being watched by a volunteer watchman, Zimmerman would have been told that Martin is there legitimately, and everyone would have had a peaceful evening.

 

So why didn't Martin call the police? Another "who knows", but were I to speculate, I would say that it's because he was a 17 year old man in his eyes, and he felt he alone could handle whatever situation was going to come his way. I would have felt this way were I in his shoes as well, "call the cops? Are you kidding? I ain't no weakling; I got this!".

 

I do hold Zimmerman to a higher standard because he was armed, but that does not mean that I think Martin handled this situation in a proper manner. IF Zimmerman was walking away, then Martin should have done the same. IF Martin attacked Zimmerman, then Martin is now the aggressor. IF no one was killed that night, yet this encounter went to trial anyhow (fight between resident and volunteer watchman), I would be interested to know what issues would have come up.

[beemerman2k]

And puhleese apply this same "severe level or scrutiny" to every individual who commits a criminal act using a gun, not just this one.

 

I think I do apply this same level of scrutiny to all who use guns -- criminal or otherwise. Do I not?

 

As a good friend of mine once said, "James, please help me remove the plank from my eye". "Terry, why would you ask that of me?". "So I can see clearly to remove the speck from yours" Woah, that was Terry's way of telling me that there was something in my life that needed correcting, but he wanted to give me the opportunity to "correct" him before he corrected me.

 

So I extend this same invitation to you, Tim, and everyone else here. "Please help me remove the plank from my eye". As the ancient Persian proverbs says, "The eye sees all but itself". Help me to see what my eye does not

[philbytx]

Well, here is another view.

 

If it looks like a gangsta, walks like a gangsta and talks like a gangsta....??

 

Then perhaps one should be more aware of peoples fears/reactions and not portray yourself as one if you AREN'T one? Then again, maybe the intimidation factor is why they like do it.

 

If I saw a "Trayvon" walking around OUR neighbourhood at night, it would certainly raise my awareness/threat level. However, I would not follow him nor confront him but simply call 911.

 

Coming onto or into my property would receive another response from me entirely!

 

 

 

 

[Kathy R]

Well, a view from the other side :

 

If it looks like a gangsta, walks like a gangsta and talks like a gangsta....??

 

Then perhaps one should be more aware of peoples fears/reactions and not portray yourself as one if you AREN'T one? Then again, maybe the intimidation factor is why they like do it.

 

If I saw a "Trayvon" walking around our neighbourhood at night, it would certainly raise my awareness/threat level to orange!

 

However, I would not follow him nor confront him but simply call 911. Coming onto or into my property would receive another response from me entirely!!

 

 

 

 

I'm speechless.

[beemerman2k]

If it looks like a gangsta, walks like a gangsta and talks like a gangsta....??

 

So this is another area of controversy. One side argues, "oh, so a black man automatically looks like a gangsta, does he?". But even I have to admit that this argument is highly problematic. The problem, in my view, is not that a black man so dressed looks like a gansta, the problem is that black men so dressed are being marketed by the music industry to look like gangstas!

 

This is why I have no regard whatsoever with the whole rap/gangsta rap music genre. They market this "tough guy" image -- young black men (and increasingly, young white men, too) so dressed as having no respect for society, no respect for others, no respect for themselves, and as being highly dangerous. I see my fellow blacks on the news shouting, "young black men are not criminals!", in an effort to rebuke law enforcement for assuming this about Trayvon Martin. Yet they are shouting to the wrong crowd. They need to turn their attention to all the "Snoop Dog's" and "T-Bone's" or whatever name they go by these days and tell them this very message. "Knock off the horrible, anti-social, anti-community marketing of this horrible image! Stop it now!" And yes, clearly whole generations of young black and white men have taken on this same attitude they see in the rap videos and they themselves now think they're the next "Snoop Dog". The whole thing is a national disgrace as far as I'm concerned.

 

So that's why Trayvon Martin looks like a gangsta, because he fits the image of the marketing machine that makes billions off of positioning young black men to be just that. And young black men feel like it's "cool" to live up to the stereotype. Disgraceful.

 

However, I would not follow him nor confront him but simply call 911.

 

This is all George Zimmerman had to do. Nothing more. We shall see.

[Jaguar]

But an unarmed man was killed on that night, and I don't see evidence that George Zimmerman did everything in his power to avoid that outcome.

 

You're trying and convicting based solely on what you heard on the news. What I heard was Z retreated and T.M. approached him aggressively. Attacked him and used his hands as a deadly weapon. "IF" that's is the case, then Z is justified to fight deadly force with deadly force.

[beemerman2k]

Well, a view from the other side :

 

If it looks like a gangsta, walks like a gangsta and talks like a gangsta....??

 

Then perhaps one should be more aware of peoples fears/reactions and not portray yourself as one if you AREN'T one? Then again, maybe the intimidation factor is why they like do it.

 

If I saw a "Trayvon" walking around our neighbourhood at night, it would certainly raise my awareness/threat level to orange!

 

However, I would not follow him nor confront him but simply call 911. Coming onto or into my property would receive another response from me entirely!!

 

 

 

 

I'm speechless.

 

On paper, his view is certainly un-politically correct, but it's out there and it's a reality. He did not conjure up this view of young black men in hoodies being criminals all by himself, this image is backed by a global, multi-billion dollar marketing machine. In all honesty, that is what makes me speechless, that this industry can enjoy such prosperity and peace in spite of what they're selling.

 

Kids see those videos and grow up wanting to reenact those very images. The whole thing is disgraceful.

[beemerman2k]

But an unarmed man was killed on that night, and I don't see evidence that George Zimmerman did everything in his power to avoid that outcome.

 

You're trying and convicting based solely on what you heard on the news. What I heard was Z retreated and T.M. approached him aggressively. Attacked him and used his hands as a deadly weapon. "IF" that's is the case, then Z is justified to fight deadly force with deadly force.

 

I am not "trying and convicting" anyone! I am simply stating that this is the impression I have based upon what I heard, and furthermore, from what LEO have stated in this thread. Go back and read what upflying and motorinLA have posted in this thread and respond to them!

 

And yes, IF that's the case, then things aren't so clear cut are they? From a legal perspective, Zimmerman is on much more solid ground. From a trial perspective, it won't be over at that point as questions will arise that will ask what transpired before Martin attacked Zimmerman?

 

Why would Martin attack Zimmerman? Was Martin out looking for someone to mug and he saw an easy target in Zimmerman or was his action an act of attacking someone he felt was stalking him? This does not exonerate Martin, that's not what I'm suggesting, but it does beg the question as to what role Zimmerman might have played in provoking the attack. Maybe, it could be argued, Martin was himself exercising the SYG law?

[Jaguar]

LEO's on this thread were not present that night. The Sanford police "DID NOT" arrest Z that night. Enough said!

[beemerman2k]

LEO's on this thread were not present that night. The Sanford police "DID NOT" arrest Z that night. Enough said!

 

Did the LEO's "try and convict" with their comments in this thread? Did I? You suggested that I did. How did I "try and convict" and they did not do so? Please explain the discrepancy.

[Jaguar]

But an unarmed man was killed on that night, and I don't see evidence that George Zimmerman did everything in his power to avoid that outcome.

 

For instance, the dispatcher told him to cease following Tryavon Martin. Did Goerge comply with that statement? If he did, then I stand corrected, he was not the "lone ranger" I get the impression he was.

 

 

????????

[upflying]

Based on everything I am hearing about the case. I was hoping to confirm my suspicion when I asked "upflying" and "motorinLA" to tell us how they would have handled this situation were they in George Zimmermans shoes. I wanted to see how a real pro would handle this encounter. Odds are, and those are safe odds given that LEO does face this kind of situation on a daily basis, nothing would have come of it. A quiet and insignificant interaction that Martin might not have even been aware of as an LEO checking him out to determine whether he was a resident versus a criminal.

Off duty, I would not have paid any attention to Martin. Just walking through a neighborhood with a hoodie and saggy pants is not enough of a threshold to create suspicion for me. If there was something about Martin that led me to believe he is involved in criminal activity, I would make a call to the PD and let the on-duty folks deal with him. I would never make direct contact with a suspect while off-duty. You are taught early in your LEO career to simply be a good witness while off-duty.

If I was on duty, it would depend on the totality of the circumstances. Without probable cause, I would violate Martins' civil rights to stop, detain and question him.

If I were to stop Martin in regards to a call made by Zimmerman, I would put Martin at ease by letting him know at the outset that he was being contacted due to a suspicious person call made by a citizen in the community. Once determining Martins' legitimate presence and contacting Zimmerman for his story, Martin would be sent on his way.

Although this is speculation on my part, I feel being armed made Zimmerman very brave. Zimmerman went beyond simply watching and observing because he knew he had an ace up his sleeve if things went sideways. Calls made to police about suspicious people take 10 minutes or more before a LEO arrives. Martin was walking and Zimmerman knew Martin would be gone by the time police arrived.

Zimmerman attempts to make contact and stop Martin until LEO's get there. Due to cultural background imprinting, Martin perceives Zimmerman as a crazy cracker-head and the two begin to stand their ground. We know what happens next.

[beemerman2k]

But an unarmed man was killed on that night, and I don't see evidence that George Zimmerman did everything in his power to avoid that outcome.

 

For instance, the dispatcher told him to cease following Tryavon Martin. Did Goerge comply with that statement? If he did, then I stand corrected, he was not the "lone ranger" I get the impression he was.

 

 

????????

 

That, to you, is "trying and convicting"? I think I used words like "IF" and "my impression". Do I not have a right to form a running opinion in my mind based upon information as it comes in? George Zimmerman may well have done the best job possible under the circumstances for all I know.

 

But just as others in this thread have done, I form an ongoing narrative in my mind as information comes in. I think to myself, as others have done, "do I know people like that?". Yes, I know kids who think they are the coolest thing since Snoop Dog, and yes I have met guards who are wanna be cops (I worked as a security guard while in college).

 

So I speculate! But that's all I think I am doing.

[philbytx]

And why pray tell?

 

This is the reality Kathy. What would your reaction(s) be if it were dark and you were walking down a Chicago side street to, say, Michigan Avenue and saw 6 large young black/latino/white/bi-racial men in baggy pants, some wearing hoodies, walking towards you doing the "pimp roll" and flashing gang signs?

 

Is a single young man doing the same less of a fear? Probably, but I bet the fear/intimidation factor is still there, as beemerman says, placed by Madison Avenue.

 

It is how it is...the reality of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[upflying]

If it looks like a gangsta, walks like a gangsta and talks like a gangsta....??

 

So this is another area of controversy. One side argues, "oh, so a black man automatically looks like a gangsta, does he?". But even I have to admit that this argument is highly problematic. The problem, in my view, is not that a black man so dressed looks like a gansta, the problem is that black men so dressed are being marketed by the music industry to look like gangstas!

 

This is why I have no regard whatsoever with the whole rap/gangsta rap music genre. They market this "tough guy" image -- young black men (and increasingly, young white men, too) so dressed as having no respect for society, no respect for others, no respect for themselves, and as being highly dangerous. I see my fellow blacks on the news shouting, "young black men are not criminals!", in an effort to rebuke law enforcement for assuming this about Trayvon Martin. Yet they are shouting to the wrong crowd. They need to turn their attention to all the "Snoop Dog's" and "T-Bone's" or whatever name they go by these days and tell them this very message. "Knock off the horrible, anti-social, anti-community marketing of this horrible image! Stop it now!" And yes, clearly whole generations of young black and white men have taken on this same attitude they see in the rap videos and they themselves now think they're the next "Snoop Dog". The whole thing is a national disgrace as far as I'm concerned.

 

So that's why Trayvon Martin looks like a gangsta, because he fits the image of the marketing machine that makes billions off of positioning young black men to be just that. And young black men feel like it's "cool" to live up to the stereotype. Disgraceful.

 

However, I would not follow him nor confront him but simply call 911.

 

This is all George Zimmerman had to do. Nothing more. We shall see.

 

The Gangsta culture is a major reason why young blacks have a high unemployment rate, why young blacks are murder victims and why young blacks are incarcerated at a disproportionate rate.

[beemerman2k]

The Gangsta culture is a major reason why young blacks have a high unemployment rate, why young blacks are murder victims and why young blacks are incarcerated at a disproportionate rate.

 

Absolutely this is true. The understatement of the century as far as I'm concerned. I see this very thing at work with some of my young relatives, nieces and nephews, and I am dismayed, all the while their mothers baby them and protect them from the grueling, yet maturing, ordeal of real responsibilities.

 

If there is a social component that is to blame for what happened that night, it is not law enforcement, it is not "white racism", it is this very industry.

 

One more thing: I cannot begin to express how grateful I am that my 3 daughters are not at all interested in that rap scene. My oldest and youngest love the violin, and my middle child plays the piano. They love pop music, but they also love classical music as well. Regina Carter and Esperanza Spaulding are big in my house these days.

[Quinn]

And why pray tell?

 

This is the reality Kathy. What would your reaction(s) be if it were dark and you were walking down a Chicago side street to, say, Michigan Avenue and saw 6 large young black/latino/white/bi-racial men in baggy pants, some wearing hoodies, walking towards you doing the "pimp roll" and flashing gang signs?

 

Is a single young man doing the same less of a fear? Probably, but I bet the fear/intimidation factor is still there, as beemerman says, placed by Madison Avenue.

 

It is how it is...the reality of it.

 

 

 

This is the "hoodie defense". If he's wearing a hoodie, can't be no goodie.

 

It does,however, smack of the rape victum "asking for it" by dressing provocatively.

 

In my neighborhood, it would get my attention for someone to just be walking down the steet at night. Parking beside the woods at night would get a 911 call and walking on my grass would warrent a warning shot.

 

 

 

Okay, I'm kidding about the last one. But speaking of shots, here there is no training required to buy a gun or to openly carry a gun(it is a Right listed in the Bill of Rights remember). There is training required, however, for a Concelled Carry Permit; most of which is concerned with the limitations and responsibilities. Also, Stand Your Ground was intended to prevent second guessing and the lawsuits for anyone defending themselves in a legal manner.

 

------

 

 

[Kathy R]

And why pray tell?

 

This is the reality Kathy. What would your reaction(s) be if it were dark and you were walking down a Chicago side street to, say, Michigan Avenue and saw 6 large young black/latino/white/bi-racial men in baggy pants, some wearing hoodies, walking towards you doing the "pimp roll" and flashing gang signs?

 

Is a single young man doing the same less of a fear? Probably, but I bet the fear/intimidation factor is still there, as beemerman says, placed by Madison Avenue.

 

It is how it is...the reality of it.

 

Having lived in Chicago, one block from the Mag Mile, I'll tell you that Michigan Ave isn't the best choice to use for your illustration for a scary street. Were 6 fellows to walk towards me there I'd simply be concerned that they weren't taking up the whole sidewalk.

 

There were many times I walked past young men who dressed in what to them was their style. I didn't approve of their droopy pants with their boxers showing. I also didn't assume they were criminals. I am sure that when I was an eighteen year old, wearing low rise bell bottoms and a halter top, that I didn't make the best impression on adults.

 

Well, a view from the other side :

 

If it looks like a gangsta, walks like a gangsta and talks like a gangsta....??

 

Then perhaps one should be more aware of peoples fears/reactions and not portray yourself as one if you AREN'T one? Then again, maybe the intimidation factor is why they like do it.

 

If I saw a "Trayvon" walking around our neighbourhood at night, it would certainly raise my awareness/threat level to orange!

 

However, I would not follow him nor confront him but simply call 911. Coming onto or into my property would receive another response from me entirely!!

 

He was a young man in a hooded sweatshirt walking home from the store.

 

I believe that if you watch enough TV and movies you may get a very distorted view of our world. That is the reality.

 

 

 

 

[Whip]

You folks are killing the sale of Hoodies.

 

 

..and I sell em.

 

 

 

[bobbybob]

SYG is not needed by Z. Or anyone else. If you are attacked anywhere and feel that your life is in danger, you have the right to use whatever force is necessary to stop that threat. You may have to convince investigators, a judge, or a jury of this, but it is your right.

 

I doubt Z will even invoke the SYG defense.

[upflying]

He was a young man in a hooded sweatshirt walking home from the store. I believe that if you watch enough TV and movies you may get a very distorted view of our world. That is the reality.

 

Kathy, this is the reality. No distortion here.

 

[beemerman2k]

You folks are killing the sale of Hoodies.

 

 

..and I sell em.

 

 

 

 

I do wear a Michigan Football hoodie routinely on the weekends during the winter months. I ain't gonna stop now.

[Kathy R]

He was a young man in a hooded sweatshirt walking home from the store. I believe that if you watch enough TV and movies you may get a very distorted view of our world. That is the reality.

 

Kathy, this is the reality. No distortion here.

 

 

That is an example of criminals committing a crime. It doesn't mean anything more than that to me.

 

How about posers who dress like 1%ers? Do we assume they are going to steal our bikes and rape our women? For that matter, aren't all people who ride motorcycles suspect in the publics mind? I know I put up with some rude comments from strangers many years ago when I first started riding my own bike. What was wrong was their reaction and their misperception of who I was simply because of my manner of dress and penchant for riding a motorcycle.

 

I have no problem with people dressing as they choose. What I have a problem with is folks saying that somehow this young man deserved to be considered dangerous simply because he was wearing a hoodie. I believe that is ridiculous and out of touch with reality. It's like the visual version of a sound bite. You can't live your life by that stuff.

 

(added "I believe" so as to not come off as knowing it all )

 

I'm going to show up in a hoodie. Whip, whatchagot?

[Dave McReynolds]

The Gangsta culture is a major reason why young blacks have a high unemployment rate, why young blacks are murder victims and why young blacks are incarcerated at a disproportionate rate.

 

Absolutely this is true. The understatement of the century as far as I'm concerned. I see this very thing at work with some of my young relatives, nieces and nephews, and I am dismayed, all the while their mothers baby them and protect them from the grueling, yet maturing, ordeal of real responsibilities.

 

If there is a social component that is to blame for what happened that night, it is not law enforcement, it is not "white racism", it is this very industry.

 

In the '50's when I was growing up, when all the white kids went around imitating Marlon Brando and James Dean, and nobody got all excited about it. Instead, they did what they have always done about white kids, which is to try to steer as many of them as possible in a positive direction, and not pay too much attention to how they looked or dressed at that moment in time.

 

I don't think we can really blame the media for setting a bad example, any more than we can blame prostitutes for setting a bad example: that's what they're paid to do. I think this goes all the way back to Eve and the apple. What we need to do about black kids or white kids is to pay less attention to how they dress and their transitory mannerisms of the day, and more attention to where we want them to end up 10 years from now and how we can help them to get there.

 

There is no reason to believe that a group of black kids enjoying themselves on the street are any more likely to cause you problems than a similar group of Marlon Brando white kid pretenders from the '50's, but of course we all know that the fear factor is greater, and that, in my opinion, is a greater problem than how they dress or the popular culture they imitate.

[beemerman2k]

What we need to do about black kids or white kids is to pay less attention to how they dress and their transitory mannerisms of the day, and more attention to where we want them to end up 10 years from now and how we can help them to get there.

 

No doubt that this is true, but there's just one vital question: who is going to help any of these kids, white or black, to get to where they need to be in 10 years time?

 

Back in the 50's, we also had white and black families. These families wouldn't let their children get too far afield, while they were minors living under their parents roofs. I'm no scholar on Marlon Brando and James Dean, but I wouldn't think you could really compare their messages, even their counter cultural ones, to what is displayed in these rap videos nowadays (guns and crime and drugs and killing cops and so on, their treatment of women and their language! OMG, the language ). In any case, it was the family, the parents, who ensured their children ended up where they needed to be in 10 years time. I'm sure all of us knew of other kids in the neighborhood who didn't have anyone to keep them in line, and they suffered in life because of it.

 

Today, we lack families. In the black community, children in households with families in them do not behave in a way that mirrors gansta culture. Even though Trayvon Martin's parents were not together, I get the sense that he was raised to be a responsible young man, and that he had to give an account to his parents with respect to his behavior and his decisions. I don't know that this is true, I am only speculating based upon what I have heard.

 

The disintegration of the family, for whatever reasons, is in my opinion what is killing us as a nation. Many black youths, and many white kids, too, are growing up without the basic tools necessary to compete and contribute in this society. To me, this is the other side of off-shoring. Companies are realizing that the kids in India and China are not going to mouth off about their work load, show up to work in baggy jeans and tattoos everywhere, and show disrespect to the management or the customers. American kids? Not so much.

 

Rap culture, with all it entails, is giving these neglected and misguided kids something to do, and that's not a good thing.

[Dave McReynolds]

What we need to do about black kids or white kids is to pay less attention to how they dress and their transitory mannerisms of the day, and more attention to where we want them to end up 10 years from now and how we can help them to get there.

 

No doubt that this is true, but there's just one vital question: who is going to help any of these kids, white or black, to get to where they need to be in 10 years time?

 

Back in the 50's, we also had white and black families. These families wouldn't let their children get too far afield, while they were minors living under their parents roofs. I'm no scholar on Marlon Brando and James Dean, but I wouldn't think you could really compare their messages, even their counter cultural ones, to what is displayed in these rap videos nowadays (guns and crime and drugs and killing cops and so on, their treatment of women and their language! OMG, the language ). In any case, it was the family, the parents, who ensured their children ended up where they needed to be in 10 years time. I'm sure all of us knew of other kids in the neighborhood who didn't have anyone to keep them in line, and they suffered in life because of it.

 

Today, we lack families. In the black community, children in households with families in them do not behave in a way that mirrors gansta culture. Even though Trayvon Martin's parents were not together, I get the sense that he was raised to be a responsible young man, and that he had to give an account to his parents with respect to his behavior and his decisions. I don't know that this is true, I am only speculating based upon what I have heard.

 

The disintegration of the family, for whatever reasons, is in my opinion what is killing us as a nation. Many black youths, and many white kids, too, are growing up without the basic tools necessary to compete and contribute in this society. To me, this is the other side of off-shoring. Companies are realizing that the kids in India and China are not going to mouth off about their work load, show up to work in baggy jeans and tattoos everywhere, and show disrespect to the management or the customers. American kids? Not so much.

 

Rap culture, with all it entails, is giving these neglected and misguided kids something to do, and that's not a good thing.

 

Of course, families are the answer. My family inspired me to achieve whatever it is that I might have achieved, and set limits on what experiences I was allowed to experience. While I was allowed to watch Rebel Without a Cause and The Wild One, there were definitely movies even back then that I was not allowed to watch. If people did not attend movies like the ones you note, they wouldn't be made.

 

The movies and other cultural influences you object to are symptoms of the breakdown of society and the family. The breakdown of society and the family is the root cause. The overriding question is whether anything can be done to strengthen the family structure of our society, or whether a strong family structure is simply the result of certain environmental forces that are outside our ability to influence.

 

I highlighted your reference to "tattoos" above because in my original draft you quoted above, I had inserted a clause that while our parents tried to ignore our transitory mannerisms, they did encourage us not to get visable tattoos unless we planned on making a carreer in the Navy. But then I thought, Naw, with all the tattoos around today, who could relate to that . But I did have the same thought you about it that you did.

[philbytx]

Kathy,

You've been very fortunate and, perhaps, away too long....Flash Gangs and just gangs are extremely problematic.

 

HERE, HERE and HERE!

 

Deb and I have both been accosted by aggressive panhandlers going to and from work in Chicago. One, who refused to get out of our way and blocked our path, I took out his knee with my briefcase.....

 

It's not just the dress (hoodie etc), its also the "attitude" that goes along with it.

 

To clear up any misconceptions, none of my comments are "racial" just "societal". And, perhaps, my radar is more finely tuned than yours.....

 

 

 

 

[pbharvey]

I find it sadly ironic that people are up in arms about Martin being profiled because he was black and wearing a hoodie yet apparently he fit the profile. Not that he was out robbing houses in the neighborhood that evening but there was a report that he was previously found at school with jewelry in his backpack that wasn't his.

 

It has nothing to do with what happened that night but as far as profiling, if Zimmerman did in fact profile Martin, I think he mostly got it right.

[moshe_levy]

It has nothing to do with what happened that night but as far as profiling, if Zimmerman did in fact profile Martin, I think he mostly got it right.

 

There is something so revolting and sick about some of the sentiments being expressed here, honestly. I'm 37 now, but I remember the way I dressed when I was a teenager in college. I had long hair, ripped jeans, a Slayer T-shirt, and workboots. I looked like a bum and a burnout. I was also near the top of my class. I tutored fellow students in economics who came to class in suits and couldn't figure it out, even though they looked the part. Haven't any of you learned not to judge a book by its cover? What the hell were all of you, Alex P. Keaton or something? Perfect little kids and teens? (I'm guessing from some of your ages you were young in the late 60s and early 70s - now super-judgemental? My, how times change!)

 

All of a sudden so bereft of life experience that someone wearing a damn hoodie is automatically a gangster? Ugh... I feel like I need a shower reading some of this.

 

-MKL

[Jaguar]

It has nothing to do with what happened that night but as far as profiling, if Zimmerman did in fact profile Martin, I think he mostly got it right.

 

There is something so revolting and sick about some of the sentiments being expressed here, honestly. I'm 37 now, but I remember the way I dressed when I was a teenager in college. I had long hair, ripped jeans, a Slayer T-shirt, and workboots. I looked like a bum and a burnout. I was also near the top of my class. I tutored fellow students in economics who came to class in suits and couldn't figure it out, even though they looked the part. Haven't any of you learned not to judge a book

by its cover? What the hell were all of you, Alex P. Keaton or something? Perfect little kids and teens? (I'm guessing from some of your ages you were young in the late 60s and early 70s - now super-judgemental? My, how times change!)

 

All of a sudden so bereft of life experience that someone wearing a damn hoodie is automatically a gangster? Ugh... I feel like I need a shower reading some of this.

 

-MKL

 

I know this neighborhood. It's the very Northern tip of the Orlando area. It borders a black neighborhood, what one would call the hood. A very high crime area. I'm not going to try to justify Z's shooting of TM, but Z claims he was patroling because of the recent rash of break-ins in this area. He sees a young kid in a hoodie, at night, wondering. Weather you agree with it or not, he's going to be profiled, stereotyped. That's life in the hood. This is not Perfect Town U.S.A. where everybody's lawn is manicured and everyone smiles and waves as you stroll by. This is the Hood.

[Tank]

 

All of a sudden so bereft of life experience that someone wearing a damn hoodie is automatically a gangster? Ugh... I feel like I need a shower reading some of this.

 

-MKL

 

 

 

 

+1 ..I'ma 61 Y/0 and I agree.

[beemerman2k]

It has nothing to do with what happened that night but as far as profiling, if Zimmerman did in fact profile Martin, I think he mostly got it right.

 

I'd have to side with Trayvon in this instance. Let's say for the sake of argument that he just got out of prison the day before Zimmerman profiled him. Zimmerman is still wrong in his profile. Zimmerman's job is not to stop anyone who he feels is morally below a certain standard, his job is to report criminal, or would be criminal intent going on in that neighborhood. Mr Martin was simply walking home from the store to catch the rest of the NCAA basketball tournament. There is no justification for harassing him.

 

All of a sudden so bereft of life experience that someone wearing a damn hoodie is automatically a gangster? Ugh... I feel like I need a shower reading some of this.

 

-MKL

 

I don't think anyone here said anything about "deserve". No one "deserves" any mistreatment whatsoever, unless they are involved in a crime. As Clint Eastwood said in the film, "Unforgiven", "Deserve has got nothing to do with it".

 

But let me tell you something. I am a black man. I have been so profiled. I have been stopped by the police on occasion so they can "check me out". It's infuriating, it's insulting, it's dehumanizing. I endure it, but I don't like it. So some wannabe cop had better not ever try to question me or I'll laugh in his face. And if he attempts to physically detain me, I'll knock him into next week. And if he then shoots me for doing so, I suppose folks can argue he was exercising the SYG law. So be it.

 

But I did not ever "deserve" to be profiled and stopped like I was. Neither did Trayvon Martin. So I have to look deeper and more broad.

 

I remember when I was at a Lord and Taylor clothing store in Boston. As I browsed the men's clothing, I noticed that a couple of men were following me around! "You have got to be kidding me", I think to myself. Fine, if that's how they feel about it, I'll take my dollars elsewhere. As I turned to walk out the store, I felt a push on my left. Next thing I knew, a young athletic black man, with an arm load of clothes, was running out the door with the store guards chasing him. Poor guards, they were too fat and old to do much running, and the thief taunted them by purposefully running slowly mocking their inability to catch him.

 

Another instance, I am driving home on the Mass Pike when I decide to pull into the Charlton rest stop to take a leak. As I walk to the restaurant, a Mass State police car pulls up next to me, lights ablaze. The cop gets out of the car and politely explains to me that a black male committed some sort of crime and they are looking for the perp, and apparently I fit the profile. OK, fine, I show him my license, and my business card. No doubt he figured, "hmmm, software engineer, probably not the guy", and he let's me go. I go into the mens room, and there, taking a leak, is a black man who even I have to agree, "fits the profile". As I flush and walk to the sink, I see that same State Trooper walking past me toward that man. I so wanted to say to the cop, "I think you're getting warm!", but my better judgement wouldn't let me.

 

My point is this: I didn't deserve any of that treatment! But the behavior of many of my fellow black men out there destroys the credibility of us all. As white men or Jewish men, all of society is aware of the great accomplishments your fellow men have performed. We are all aware of the great things you did in technology, governments, religion, philosophy, sports, entertainment, medicine, and on and on and on. For every person of your "profile" who is a criminal, there are probably 100 thousand who aren't -- maybe even more. What's the ratio among black men? Not so high, I would bet. Why not? Oh, who knows?! History, discrimination, internal pathologies in the black family (there are plenty, I assure you), in the black community (again, plenty!), or whatever. It is what it is. But because of that situation, ALL black men pay. ALL! Whether we deserve it or not! We all PAY! Poor Trayvon Martin paid with his life and he is far from being alone.

 

So I rail against that which makes men like me, and Trayvon, and others have to PAY a steep and undeserved price for all this "profiling". The gangsta rap and all the images therein significantly, seriously, palpably, incredibly, raises the price that we all, as black men, have to PAY. Whether we deserve it or not.

 

It's not right, it's not fair. It is, however, reality.

[MotorinLA]

But an unarmed man was killed on that night, and I don't see evidence that George Zimmerman did everything in his power to avoid that outcome.

 

You're trying and convicting based solely on what you heard on the news. What I heard was Z retreated and T.M. approached him aggressively. Attacked him and used his hands as a deadly weapon. "IF" that's is the case, then Z is justified to fight deadly force with deadly force.

 

I am not "trying and convicting" anyone! I am simply stating that this is the impression I have based upon what I heard, and furthermore, from what LEO have stated in this thread. Go back and read what upflying and motorinLA have posted in this thread and respond to them!

 

And yes, IF that's the case, then things aren't so clear cut are they? From a legal perspective, Zimmerman is on much more solid ground. From a trial perspective, it won't be over at that point as questions will arise that will ask what transpired before Martin attacked Zimmerman?

 

Why would Martin attack Zimmerman? Was Martin out looking for someone to mug and he saw an easy target in Zimmerman or was his action an act of attacking someone he felt was stalking him? This does not exonerate Martin, that's not what I'm suggesting, but it does beg the question as to what role Zimmerman might have played in provoking the attack. Maybe, it could be argued, Martin was himself exercising the SYG law?

 

My Sam Browne (duty) belt weighs in excess of 15 pounds. Why? Because I carry keys, two sets of handcuffs, a flashlight, a baton, a radio, a taser, pepper spray, a handgun, four magazines with 13 rounds of 45 ammo and two magazines with 20 rounds of .233 ammo on that belt. These are all tools of my trade. It allows me to select a number of force options, many of which are not accessible to a private person with a CCW. My training is also vastly different.

 

Consider a scenario where Trayvon Martin was was acting very suspicious and threatening as he was walking down the street. As a LEO responding to a call of "a suspicious subject" I would approach cautiously, contact Martin verbally, assess his compliance and attitude, and select the appropriate level of force to interact with him. If he was responsive to verbal commands and followed basic directions, it would remain at that level. If he was non-compliant, I would continue with a higher level of response, and ask for assistance from additional police units. If his response was openly and actively hostile, he'd be staring down the barrel of my gun, quickly followed by the threat or application of pepper spray or taser. Short of Martin's level of threat rising to a point of being considered deadly, firing my gun would not be a viable option. It was drawn simply to be ready, should he attempt to escalate the situation to a lethal level. In other words, the gun is not for intimidation, it is deployed to demonstrate a readiness to use deadly force, should Martin decide to go in that direction. The majority of police officers (at least in my personal experience) have an acute awareness of when they can, or cannot, fire their guns. It is a tool, to be used to control or overcome a threatening situation. It is, however, only one of the many tools a police officer has access to while dealing with a given situation.

 

Unfortunately there are many non-LEOs that don't understand the concept of when it is appropriate to deploy or use a gun.

 

As an on-duty LEO I have the option of deploying less-lethal devices like a baton or taser, after I deploy my gun. So, if the other person does not rise to a level of threat justifying the application of deadly force, I can still control them through less-lethal options. Zimmerman did not have these options. He may have pulled his gun to "intimidate" Martin, only to find that Martin was not intimidated. Zimmerman then had a problem. If Martin advanced and was clearly not armed, Zimmerman was not justified in shooting him. However, if Martin began to fight with Zimmerman over the gun, Zimmerman now had justification. The clear problem with this is that Zimmermen created the exigency that forced him to use deadly force. These types of scenarios are the very reason that LEOs prefer that "civilians" do not engage in LE type activities, and is also the reason why so many agencies strongly discourage LEOs from getting involved in off-duty law enforcement situations.

 

I can picture many scenarios where Zimmerman could have been the one to lose his life, as a result of this encounter.

 

The bottomline is that guns in the hands of untrained persons can often lead to more problems than solutions. They also escalate situations that may never have turned deadly, if the gun had not been present. I think the Martin/Zimmerman situation is probably a good example of this idea. I doubt Martin or Zimmerman would have died, had there been no gun involved in this incident.