Unbaweavable: Black Man Murders Unarmed White 17 Yr Old Boy

[Suicide King]

Then isn't it pretty easy to see how the neighborhood watchman would want to keep an eye on the person he didn't know? I'll say again, FOLLOWING TM wasn't wrong. GZ was "doing his job" on that part. Getting out the car, and trying to play cop was GZ's bad. Had he stayed in his car the boy would most likely be alive.

But no, i don't agree that someone trying to lookout for their neighborhood by keeping an eye on someone is wrong.

I'm only concerned about the rules of engagement that governs a confrontation or argument.

The laws for using deadly force can be different depending on the State.

 

[Brown_Pride]

I'm only concerned about the rules of engagement that governs a confrontation or argument, and the laws for using deadly force can be different depending on the State.

what rules of engagement do citizens have to adhere to?

 

[Suicide King]

what rules of engagement do citizens have to adhere to?

When using deadly force?

 

[Beegio]

How dare you compare me to a black person. I hate them with all my heart, I've been keeping this racism tucked up inside of me and it's time to unleash its fury upon you all.

Purge, rebuke, cast that racist demon persona out breh!!

 

[Kuro]

I don't think following Trayvon was wrong...or illegal. It was a situation handled entirely incorrectly, which is why GZ should be held liable for manslaughter.

I think people are still to emotionally invested in this to look at it from a reasonable perspective.

I know most people in my neighborhood, there are black people, white people, brown people. I see who jogs daily, I know more or less what times based on when I'm outside, i make it a point to know who lives in my area so that I know when someone who isn't supposed to be there IS THERE. I call the cops at the drop of a hat. I don't follow people. If I was neighborhood captain I might follow but never get out my car. THAT, IMHO is where he fuked up.

But following TM was not wrong, GZ WAS just watching out for his home/area. IF you think calling the cops on a suspicious person YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN is wrong then yeah you probably don't agree with me. IF you do then can you agree that GZ calling the cops on TM was ok? Can you agree that as neighborhood watch trying to keep an eye on the guy was his responsibility, it's called neighborhood watch right? Not my own shyt watch?

That's where I end my support of GZ, everything following that was GZ's fault.

yeah i dont agree...i think it is ridiculous you would call the cops on someone just because you dont know who they are...and now it has gone from zimmerman following trayvon at his own discretion to zimmerman following trayvon was his duty as neighborhood watch--...zimmerman wasnt watching the neighborhood..he was watching tray...

 

[Brown_Pride]

yeah i dont agree...i think it is ridiculous you would call the cops on someone just because you dont know who they are...and now it has gone from zimmerman following trayvon at his own discretion to zimmerman following trayvon was his duty as neighborhood watch--...zimmerman wasnt watching the neighborhood..he was watching tray...

then yeah you can't/wont relate. If there have been break ins in my area and all of a sudden I see someone walking around i'd call.

GZ was the neighborhood watch guy right? That's what i remember, that's what I know NHW to do. They watch the neighborhood and when something looks out of place they call the police to investigate. That's their purpose. So yeah, calling the cops; I agree. Following TM; I agree...but only up to the point where he's in his car. The moment GZ got out and decided to confront/place himself in a situation where he would confront TM is where GZ was wrong. Because of his choice to get out that car TM is dead. Manslaughter.

 

[Brown_Pride]

When using deadly force?

OIC. Well in florida those rules are fukin stupid.

 

[No_bammer_weed]

Gray area. Was his "legitimate purpose" there was a series of robberies in the area and as neighborhood watch captain he was watching his neighborhood? No way to tell.


I still disagree with this and as you said the law is ambiguous at best. By your reading of the law we could "however short" walking behind someone at a store because you're both going to get milk at the back of the store. Today I got off the train and had to cross the street with a group of 15 people. If ONE of them considered me a threat for whatever reason by this wording I was engaging in a course of conduct conducive with harassment. Hell even as defined in law " Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests." Isn't walking down the street a constitutionally protected right?


I don't think TM overreacted, he was scared, I would be too. GZ made a serious wrong choices, none of them malicious (IMHO).

WE DO NOT KNOW what happened after fear & misguided efforts met, we do know that ultimately a child died.

Everything in between is speculation isn't it?

Why are you raising hypotheticals that hold no relevancy to the the known activity of GZ? GZ wasnt engaging in harmless behavior that Trayvon somehow irrationally misinterpreted. GZ was actively stalking and harassing TM, which raised "reasonable fear" within Trayvon, demanding that he respond to the threat to his person. GZ was not retrieving milk, or harmlessly walking home. GZ was causing so much distress to TM, that TM was running from him --- how is that relatable to your posed scenarios?

Im confused as to what your disconnect is here..Based on legal language, GZ's behavior that night certainly rises outside the bounds of legal activity. Thats clear. Thats something you even admitted earlier, by claiming that police would warn GZ to stop following Martin. Why would police tell someone to stop what you deem " constitutionally protected activity"?

Following someone with a gun at night for blocks and blocks, causing the victim to run in fear is not constitutionally protected behavior. Based on what Ive read from you since Ive been here, Im really surprised you're taking such an intellectually bankrupt, and irrational, position.

 

[Nefflum nigga]

exactly....its inspired from Jim Crow laws, where white citizens were within their legal rights to arm themselves and question blacks about their business. If a black citizen didnt respond with subservience and deference, the armed white in question was justified in murdering him. Thats the unwritten environment that the Zimmerman tragedy is drawing its strength from.

Powerful post

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

when did all of these racist white people start posting here?

isnt this a hiphop/sports forum

 

[Brown_Pride]

Why are you raising hypotheticals that hold no relevancy to the the known activity of GZ? GZ wasnt engaging in harmless behavior that Trayvon somehow irrationally misinterpreted. GZ was actively stalking and harassing TM, which raised "reasonable fear" within Trayvon, demanding that he respond to the threat to his person. GZ was not retrieving milk, or harmlessly walking home. GZ was causing so much distress to TM, that TM was running from him --- how is that relatable to your posed scenarios?

Well there are two issues really. 1. What GZ did 2. Is following someone illegal.(no)

GZ following TM up until the point where he got out the car was ok in my eye. Also most likely in the eyes of the law. GZ following trayvon AFTER the car is what's suspect, we could argue either way based on the law we both agree to that.

We don't know what ACTUALLY happened. You keep saying TM irrationally responded as if I ever made that claim, i didn't, whoever it is you're arguing that point with it's not me. I've said TM's response was both rational and expected and one I would have had. What we don't know FOR SURE is how things escalated from a scared kid being followed to a dead kid. The law is set up to protect the most viscous, something I find both irrational and irresponsible. I think we'd agree on that point as well. Where we are in disagreement is in "following". Following is not stalking. We also don't know that GZ "harassed" TM. Again, Following <> Harassing.

What should have happened was GZ call the cops to report a suspicious looking person walking around. He should have monitored TM and waited for the police per the dispatchers instructions. COps would have shown up, TM would have seen a cop coming, probably slow the cop down to say some guy was follwing him...nvm it's florida the cop would have most likely shot TM or something.

Im confused as to what your disconnect is here..Based on legal language, GZ's behavior that night certainly rises outside the bounds of legal activity.

again no it doesn't or don't you think he would have been charged with stalking?...at least up until the point where he got out his car.

Thats clear. Thats something you even admitted earlier, by claiming that police would warn GZ to stop following Martin. Why would police tell someone to stop what you deem " constitutionally protected activity"?

And they started that when they told him to stay in his vehicle. Initially they asked him for cross streets and the such and he provided them...sorta...it's when he said he was gonna get out the car and follow him that the dispatch told him not to, but never said anything like, "sir it's against the law to do that"

Following someone with a gun at night for blocks and blocks, causing the victim to run in fear is not constitutionally protected behavior.

Following/walking WITH or WITHOUT a gun is constitutionally protected behavior actually. The gun is inconsequential in the matter of following.

Based on what Ive read from you since Ive been here, Im really surprised you're taking such an intellectually bankrupt, and irrational, position.

I'm not i'm just trying to point out the nuance in what happened, what we know happened and at what point things went wrong.
To summarize those thoughts...
1. Following is not illegal.
2. Following AND THEN confronting someone IMHO constitutes harassment/stalking.

GZ did #1 initially (which i'm ok with) then ventured into #2, which IMHO is why he should be found guilty of manslaught.

3. We DO NOT KNOW who through the first punch
4. We know TM was scared
5. We know GZ disregarded police instruction to not exist his vehicle.
6. We know GZ shot and killed TM

outside of that we don't really know what happened.

 

[Brown_Pride]

when did all of these racist white people start posting here?

isnt this a hiphop/sports forum

you do know non-brown people play sports and listen to hip hop right?

 

[intilectual recipricol]

I know I feel safer with ol buddy off the streets, my grands live near Rochester, my uncle lives IN Rochester, now I know I can leave my car unattended and not worry about someone stealing my All Eyez On Me out the deck when I sleep. justice

 

[Benjamin Sisko]

I didn't quote the rest of your message, because I don't want to get distracted from the more general point I was making

you seem to think there's no way that this guy could have been 'guilty' and walked out the courtroom. but if there's not enough evidence to convict (I really don't know a lot about this case), how could you tell the difference? it seems the rigged white supremacy shytstem would just make up some evidence, but apparently that didn't happen

If this man was GUILTY he would've been in jail, point blank.

 

[Gravity]

There goes that so-called white privilege so many here complain about. And look at that, no media coverage or race baiting. Bu-bu-but white devils...oh noez brehs - get guns because it's black genocide after Zimmerman got off.How interesting.

This man was arrested and charged. He wasn't allowed to go free on his word. Those are clear differences from the Zimmerman case. Had Zimmerman beeen initially arrested and charged, you necer wouldve heard of the case. Not too mention the white boy was actually committing a crime. You crackas aren't too smart.