Support NeoGAF

[Professor Beef]

If we don't speak on George's behalf, who will?

Certainly not that family's mean ol' lawyer.

 

[K.Jack]

Of course it matters. If the man initiated physical contact and wasn't justified in doing so he's a murderer. If the teen initiated unjustified physical contact and presented the threat of death or grievous bodily harm, the man acted in self defense.

Uh, no, you can't just go around punching people for making what you perceive to be threats. Well, you could I guess, but then you'd go to jail.

I don't think the possibility of it being deemed a threat is being argued, but whether it must always constitute a threat.

You constantly question Trayvon as the potential threat, when the man who followed him around then approached him with a gun was INFINITELY the more threatening party.

George. Approached. Trayvon. With a gun. After following him.

You can say "oh well that's within his rights", well is punching the fuck out of a dude who follows you then approaches you with a firearm within the kid's rights?

You are using the word PHYSICAL, when George's biggest threat was the GUN. At what point is a stranger with a gun permitted to be deemed a threat? After he pulls it? Aims it? Potential is a huge factor.

See you want the kid to assume that this is a nice guy coming toward him. You're on some cloud nine candy land bullshit where you don't know what it's like to meet a stranger with a gun.

I do. Ask me how it went.

 

[travisbickle]

It was late at night, correct? It's a kid walking alone (maybe even fast-walking to get home). If it were a city, then picking that one kid out would be odd, but it could be suspicious.

He wanted to justify his actions, or maybe even feel like a hero. Or maybe just to confirm his suspicions.

He's brash, ignorant. Maybe he just wanted to be a hero. Maybe he thought he could wrap things up easily. Maybe he could have even pretended to be one of those renegade cops on TV - the boss gets mad at them, but dammit if they didn't do their job.

To do the above.

Renegade cops on tv? I must have missed the shows where they kill teenage black kids walking down the street!

 

[J.W.Crazy]

Of course it matters. If the man initiated physical contact and wasn't justified in doing so he's a murderer. If the teen initiated unjustified physical contact and presented the threat of death or grievous bodily harm, the man acted in self defense.

There's the key word right there! Where is the justification? On the side of the grown man ignoring the advise of authority or the unsuspecting minor blindsided by the well meaning, but clearly misguided grown man?

Uh, no, you can't just go around shooting people for making what you perceive to be threats. Well, you could I guess, but then you'd go to jail.

See how that works? In one scenario I'm required to explain why I felt the need to punch a man in the face. In the other I have to explain why I killed him. Which one do you think requires a greater burden of proof?

 

[KHarvey16]

You constantly question Trayvon as the potential threat, when the man who followed him around then approached him with a gun was INFINITELY the more threatening party.

George. Approached. Trayvon. With a gun. After following him.

You can say "oh well that's within his rights", well is punching the fuck out of a dude who follows you then approaches you with a firearm within the kid's rights?

You are using the word PHYSICAL, when George's biggest threat was the GUN. At what point is a stranger with a gun permitted to be deemed a threat? After he pulls it? Aims it?

See you want the kid to assume that this is a nice guy coming toward him. You're on some cloud nine candy land bullshit where you don't know what it's like to meet a stranger with a gun.

To consider the gun in this discussion of if he presented a threat to the boy, we need to know what he was doing with the gun and where it was. We don't know that, though. If he had the thing in his hand and was coming toward the kid that is completely different than if he were carrying a concealed weapon and the kid was completely unaware.

I'm not assuming a damn thing. Don't put words in my mouth. I am criticized, simultaneously, for assuming and not assuming enough.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

If we don't speak on George's behalf, who will?

I'll get the collection plate. Can you play that organ over there?

 

[Log4Girlz]

You constantly question Trayvon as the potential threat, when the man who followed him around then approached him with a gun was INFINITELY the more threatening party.

George. Approached. Trayvon. With a gun. After following him.

You can say "oh well that's within his rights", well is punching the fuck out of a dude who follows you then approaches you with a firearm within the kid's rights?

You are using the word PHYSICAL, when George's biggest threat was the GUN. At what point is a stranger with a gun permitted to be deemed a threat? After he pulls it? Aims it? Potential is a huge factor.

See you want the kid to assume that this is a nice guy coming toward him. You're on some cloud nine candy land bullshit where you don't know what it's like to meet a stranger with a gun.

I do. Ask me how it went.

Bubububu who says the gun was visible?

 

[The Incarnation]

7:15pm is seen as late at night now?

 

[KHarvey16]

There's the key word right there! Where is the justification? On the side of the grown man ignoring the advise of authority or the unsuspecting minor blindsided by the well meaning, but clearly misguided grown man?


See how that works? In one scenario I'm required to explain why I felt the need to punch a man in the face. In the other I have to explain why I killed him. Which one do you think requires a greater burden of proof?

I do not understand your position at all. You seem to have jumped in here without reading enough.

 

[Devolution]

7:15pm is seen as late at night now?

After dark is late enough to assume black folks is up to no good.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Or maybe he saw him jump the wall? Who fucking knows.

Lets wait til we get some actual inforfuckingmation maybe?

Is jumping a wall an emergency that requires the call to 911?

 

[DY_nasty]

7:15pm is seen as late at night now?

Dark enough if you're black. No skittles after dark.

I'll get the collection plate. Can you play that organ over there?

As soon as I drop off this Arizona.

 

[echoshifting]

As soon as I drop off this Arizona.

Do you have a license to carry that thing

 

[Dreams-Visions]

7:15pm is seen as late at night now?

Here in FL? 7 is about 30 minutes past sunset.

I know you thought you were being witty, but different parts of the country get dark at different times. By 7:15pm, I'd be reasonably dark. For damn sure dark enough for you to worry as a pedestrian walking alone and being followed by someone in a car.

 

[KHarvey16]

Is jumping a wall an emergency that requires the call of 911?

Is this in reference to a case in which a man called the non emergency police number?

 

[zerokoolpsx]

Neighborhood watch captain carry guns? Wtf! Self defense excuse is beyond retarded. Skittles vs. a gun. How was the kid suspicious? He should be charged and arrested. No excuse for what he's done.

 

[Professor Beef]

As soon as I drop off this Arizona.

Careful now, don't jump no fence.

 

[The Incarnation]

Here in FL? 7 is about 30 minutes past sunset.

I know you thought you were being witty, but different parts of the country get dark at different times. By 7:15pm, I'd be reasonably dark. Dark enough for you to worry as a pedestrian walking alone and being followed by someone in a car.

Never thought I was being witty at all. I'm not even in your country or on your continent for that matter.

 

[akira28]

After dark is late enough to assume black folks is up to no good.

There's actually some depressingly ironic racist history behind the whole black people coming out after dark thing.

Starting with 'moon cricket' slurs merely because some black people in the old South liked to congregate during their free time at night. And ending with 'sundown' towns where it was actually against local statue, or sometimes just unofficially prohibited, for a person of color to be out on his own after dark, as recent as 20+ years ago.

As soon as I drop off this Arizona.

Combine that with a sock, and you have a lethal weapon.

 

[Cuban Legend]

Wow what the fuck is this racist shit? Of course, Florida.

As a Cuban-American Living in suburban Florida... it never stops surprising me how some people can be so racist around here sometimes, seriously.

If I go into the city things just get worse fyi.

 

[J.W.Crazy]

I do not understand your position at all. You seem to have jumped in here without reading enough.

I have read every word of it from page one. My position is simple. A threat does not have to be physical in nature to result in a justified physical response. In this particular case, given all the evidence at hand, the party more likely to be seen as a threat, from the start of the incident, is Mr. Zimmerman.

If Trayvon Martin, upon Mr. Zimmerman's exiting the car and engaging him (be that verbally or physically), responded by physically attacking, he would have been well within his rights with regard to defending himself.

The burden of proof for Mr. Zimmerman's claim of self defense does not begin when Martin physically reacted, but instead when Zimmerman created the conflict by following in his car, exiting his car, and engaging.

 

[Professor Beef]

Combine that with a sock, and you have a lethal weapon.

Lethal, but delicious.

 

[KHarvey16]

I have read every word of it from page one. My position is simple. A threat does not have to be physical in nature to result in a justified physical response. In this particular case, given all the evidence at hand, the party more likely to be seen as a threat, from the start of the incident, is Mr. Zimmerman.

If Trayvon Martin, upon Mr. Zimmerman's exiting the car and engaging him (be that verbally or physically), responded by physically attacking, he would have been well within his rights with regard to defending himself.

The burden of proof for Mr. Zimmerman's claim of self defense does not begin when Martin physically reacted, but instead when Zimmerman created the conflict by following in his car, exiting his car, and engaging.

And I completely disagree with you.

 

[J.W.Crazy]

And I completely disagree with you.

Then you perhaps are not using logic or legal means to come to that conclusion.

 

[KHarvey16]

Then you perhaps are not using logic or legal means to come to that conclusion.

Perhaps. You haven't shown that though.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I have read every word of it from page one. My position is simple. A threat does not have to be physical in nature to result in a justified physical response. In this particular case, given all the evidence at hand, the party more likely to be seen as a threat, from the start of the incident, is Mr. Zimmerman.

If Trayvon Martin, upon Mr. Zimmerman's exiting the car and engaging him (be that verbally or physically), responded by physically attacking, he would have been well within his rights with regard to defending himself.

The burden of proof for Mr. Zimmerman's claim of self defense does not begin when Martin physically reacted, but instead when Zimmerman created the conflict by following in his car, exiting his car, and engaging.

I completely agree with you.

 

[J.W.Crazy]

Perhaps. You haven't shown that though.

Would you agree that a person approaching you on the street and say,"I'm going to kill you!" poses a threat?

In this hypothetical that person then begins walking towards you. Would you not be LEGALLY justified in physical stopping them from further approaching you?

I do not believe that such a threat was made in this case, however I do believe the example illustrates a justified physical response to a non-physical threat.

If you do not believe that you are incorrect both logically and legally.

 

[KHarvey16]

Would you agree that a person approaching you on the street and say,"I'm going to kill you!" poses a threat?

In this hypothetical that person then begins walking towards you. Would you not be LEGALLY justified in physical stopping them from further approaching you?

I do not believe that such a threat was made in this case, however I do believe the example illustrates a justified physical response to a non-physical threat.

If you do not believe that you are incorrect both logically and legally.

To answer in order(as I'm now on my phone) yes and you may certainly be legally justified. Your position seems to be enforcing what I said to Dude previously.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Is this in reference to a case in which a man called the non emergency police number?

I thought 911 was called here? If we are to assume that the kid jumped the fence (as the guy I quoted is implying), and that is what this was all about, then the call to 911 is odd. If he called 911, I doubt it was due to fence jumping that kids from the neighborhood have been doing.

In other words, it is very unlikely that this is about fence/wall jumping since that does not usually warrant a call to 911

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Really? You never jumped a fence as a kid? I lived in a gated community and jumped the wall ALL the damn time.

Good thing you weren't living in Georgie's gated community.

 

[KHarvey16]

I thought 911 was called here? If we are to assume that the kid jumped the fence (as the guy I quoted is implying), and that is what this was all about, then the call to 911 is odd. If he called 911, I doubt it was due to fence jumping that kids from the neighborhood have been doing.

911 was not called by the man in question. Also I believe the fence jumping only came up as a way to provide context to something the man said in the recording. As far as I know the teen we're discussing was not seen jumping fences.

 

[Particle Physicist]

911 was not called by the man in question. Also I believe the fence jumping only came up as a way to provide context to something the man said in the recording. As far as I know the teen we're discussing was not seen jumping fences.

So what is your problem here? I'm refuting the notion that this is about wall jumping.

Also, the original article says that Zimmerman called 911.

As Trayvon returned to the townhome, Sanford police received a 911 call reporting a suspicious person.

Although names are blacked out on the police report, Crump and media reports at the time of the shooting identified the caller as George Zimmerman who is listed in the community's newsletter as the Neighborhood Watch captain.

Am I missing something?

 

[DY_nasty]

911 was not called by the man in question.

?

The updated Huffington Post link said that he did.

Edit: yeah -> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/family-of-trayvon-martin-_n_1332756.html

He said that Zimmerman did indeed call 911 and report a suspicious person, and that he was told not to follow him.

 

[KHarvey16]

He called the non emergency line, not 911. Others called 911 in response to the altercation and then in response to the gunshot. The distinction was made clear by the police, the various articles use it interchangeably.

 

[J.W.Crazy]

To answer in order(as I'm now on my phone) yes and you may certainly be legally justified. Your position seems to be enforcing what I said to Dude previously.

Okay. So given that and only the known facts of the case what is more likely?

That a 17 year old boy was approached by an unknown adult male who he believed had been following him for about 2 minutes without making any contact and reacted physically to a perceived threat.

Or that a 17 year old boy was approached by an unknown adult male who calmly stated his case at which point the boy physically assaulted the man.

I understand that there are many more possible scenarios and that you have stated your distaste for assumption. However, given that any opinion must rely only on conclusions drawn from the facts at hand which of those do you believe is most likely to have occurred?

 

[Particle Physicist]

He called the non emergency line, not 911. Others called 911 in response to the altercation and then in response to the gunshot. The distinction was made clear by the police, the various articles use it interchangeably.

Where does it say this? And who said 'they always get away?'

If this wasn't about wall jumping, then that phrase was very likely not referencing the wall jumping.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

Obviously, the victim was gonna grow up to be like him anyways:

Too bad the kid didn't have a library card on him. Might have stood a chance.

 

[Roger Danish]

However, given that any opinion must rely only on conclusions drawn from the facts at hand which of those do you believe is most likely to have occurred?

Most likely scenario is that the balloon boy's flight wasn't a hoax.

Edit: this was a joke please don't ban me I'm only a junior

 

[Dreams-Visions]

He called the non emergency line, not 911. Others called 911 in response to the altercation and then in response to the gunshot. The distinction was made clear by the police, the various articles use it interchangeably.

was he instructed by police to not follow?

YES. Does it fucking matter if it was the 9-1-1 dispatch or some other officer? NO.

Majoring in minors is so unbecoming.

 

[KHarvey16]

Okay. So given that and only the known facts of the case what is more likely?

That a 17 year old boy was approached by an unknown adult male who he believed had been following him for about 2 minutes without making any contact and reacted physically to a perceived threat.

Or that a 17 year old boy was approached by an unknown adult male who calmly stated his case at which point the boy physically assaulted the man.

I understand that there are many more possible scenarios and that you have stated your distaste for assumption. However, given that any opinion must rely only on conclusions drawn from the facts at hand which of those do you believe is most likely to have occurred?

Judging the likelihood of either requires details we don't have. You also assume a dichotomy.

 

[Laughing Banana]

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/family-teen-fatally-shot-neighborhood-watch-leader/nLNq9/



It seems that at least some of the recording has become available.

What do you think about this KHarvey?

Especially "they always get away" part?

 

[DY_nasty]

which of those do you believe is most likely to have occurred?

Watch as he provides no opinion.

 

[Kong Fisso]

This is fucked up beyond belief.

I'm speechless, there are no excuses good enough. I hope that racist bastard rots in jail.

 

[KHarvey16]

was he instructed by police to not follow?

YES. Does it fucking matter if it was the 9-1-1 dispatch or some other officer? NO.

Majoring in minors is so unbecoming.

Suggestion. Not following the suggestion, for what reason we don't know, doesn't cause him to forfeit his ability to defend himself given the proper circumstances. If this is the scenario that transpired his disobeying the suggestion doesn't change that aspect of the case.

 

[mavs]

In the recording, Zimmerman said "They always get away," which could prove the family's case that he was out to get their son that day.

Guess he was right, looks like he's going to get away.

 

[Devolution]

Suggestion. Not following the suggestion, for what reason we don't know, doesn't cause him to forfeit his ability to defend himself given the proper circumstances. If this is the scenario that transpired his disobeying the suggestion doesn't change that aspect of the case.

Suggestion?

The depths in which you're digging. When someone is told to stay inside or not interfere with a possible suspect, it's not a fucking suggestion. Are you fucking kidding me with your line of shit here.

 

[KHarvey16]

What do you think about this KHarvey?

Especially "they always get away" part?

Someone offered potential context. I would say he might mean black people, teenagers, people who jump fences or perhaps all three. Feel free to assume that which makes you feel best.

 

[Particle Physicist]

He called the non emergency line, not 911. Others called 911 in response to the altercation and then in response to the gunshot. The distinction was made clear by the police, the various articles use it interchangeably.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/03/08/family-of-trayvon-martin-_n_1332756.html

UPDATE:
Chief Bill Lee of the Sanford Police Department on Thursday evening said the account given by Martin’s family and attorney is correct, that Zimmerman saw the young man walking home from the store. He said that Zimmerman did indeed call 911 and report a suspicious person, and that he was told not to follow him.

Where are you getting your info from?

 

[Particle Physicist]

Someone offered potential context. I would say he might mean black people, teenagers, people who jump fences or perhaps all three. Feel free to assume that which makes you feel best.

There is a very low probability that his comment was about fence jumping considering this incident was not about fence jumping.

 

[KHarvey16]

Suggestion?

The depths in which you're digging. When someone is told to stay inside or not interfere with a possible suspect, it's not a fucking suggestion. Are you fucking kidding me with your line of shit here.

Suggestion isn't my word, it was the police chief's. For someone so interested in "living in the real world", maybe you'd like to look into what you're assuming here. Is that person he's talking to a police officer? Can they order a citizen to do or not do something?