fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2370 ]

[ SECRET POST #2370 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2370 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 105 secrets from Secret Submission Post #339.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't know. Hasn't the media been showing pictures of him as a little kid, when in reality he was a few years shy of twenty, and doing drugs?

I thought he was 17? But that hardly matters. He was an unarmed minor walking home and being followed by an armed adult who then got out of his car and assaulted him. I honestly can't figure out how this isn't a quick case.

The story that appears to have transpired so far is that Zimmerman in a gated community recognised he wasn't from there, followed and challenged him because he was paranoid/a walt (good term op), Trayton attacked Zimmerman using a serious amount of force, and Zimmerman shot him in self defence. Because he had a genuinely held belief he could be killed.

Zimmerman probably shouldn't have acted as he did in the lead up to the situation, but if things played out as they did what people are suggesting is that the non-crime of tailing someone and calling the police because you might be a bit racist (which IIRC isn't a criminal offence), should be punishable by death.

Trayvon, not Trayton.

Otherwise, yes this completely.

Yep, all of this. He'll get off because he isn't guilty of murder. His actions in the lead-up were questionable but legal. The shooting was clearly self defense as the evidence has always said and now witnesses are saying too. Hell, even the prosecution witnesses have given testimony to back that up. The DA made a huge mistake prosecuting for murder.

Yeah, 17, which is a few years shy of 20.

He called the guy a cracker and then attacked him. My point is that his actions weren't justified, just because he was being followed. He attacked first, which means it's self defense. If he was an innocent and child-like as they media would have you believe, he wouldn't have assaulted Zimmerman. He would have told him he was visiting family.

Some strange man starts following you at night. Are you going to stand there and politely tell him where you're going?

We don't know who attacked who first, and it's reasonable to think that Trayvon felt his life was in danger, given that some random stranger (who turned out to be armed) was shadowing him for no good reason.

DA

Honestly? No - but I also wouldn't stop to shout insults at them either. I'd hurry up to get the fuck away from them. However, what your suggesting [that Trayvon attacked because he felt his life was in danger] wouldn't change anything since it'd be just as reasonable to assume that Zimmerman *also* responded the way he did because he felt his life was in danger. It was just be both of them attacking from self-defense...and, sadly, Trayvon would probably still be considered to be in the wrong since he actually attacked first.*

*This is all assuming things went how it's being told, of course.

This, remember that Stand Your Ground laws don't apply to darkies.

...You do realize that what Zimmerman did, while questionable at best, and really fucking racist at worst, were technically legal right?

You do realize that Stand Your Ground applies to a kid being stalked by a vigilante with a gun, and not just the vigilante with a gun when the kid he's stalking *gasp* defends himself? That was the point of my comment that Stand Your Ground laws clearly don't apply to darkies.

That you want to water down a law in a state you don't live in to skin color says a lot more about your views on race than anyone else in this thread. Legally speaking, Zimmerman wasn't a vigilante. Legally speaking, the law didn't apply to Martin because he didn't live there. Legally, Zimmerman was in the right. Morally, he was obviously very wrong and it resulted in Martin's death. The law sucks and should go away. But for real reasons instead of outsiders' wrongful claims about it.

Legally speaking, Trayvon Martin has just as much of a claim to self-defense under Stand Your Ground, which just boils down to "you don't have to be in your home to defend yourself with deadly force." Maybe I'm weird, but I think if you're going to have a law like that on the books, it should be applied to the person being stalked by someone with a gun, not the person with a gun when the person he's stalking understandably defends himself.

It didn't apply to him because he wasn't a resident of the closed community. The law has provisions specifically dealing with those kinds of neighborhoods because they're so common in Florida. He wasn't breaking any laws, but he wasn't protected under the Stand Your Ground law, either. If this had happened outside of a closed community, then the law would have applied to him, too.

Ah, I see. Then I concede that Zimmerman may have been acting within the law, but that it is a shitty, short-sighted law that allows someone to stalk and shoot someone for visiting a place they do not themselves reside at simply because they look "out of place."

The one on trial is Zimmerman, not Trayvon. Frankly, he didn't know Zimmerman was armed. He slammed the guys head against the pavement over and over. That is excessive force for someone just following you. Given that there's pictures out there he took himself of him holding a weapon, I'd say Trayvon wasn't an innocent little eleven year old just out to play some baseball and eat candy, like some media outlets are showing. (Seriously. They keep plastering a picture that is six years old)

Re: Zimmerman and Trayton

(Anonymous) - 2013-06-30 09:38 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Zimmerman and Trayton

(Anonymous) - 2013-06-30 10:50 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Zimmerman and Trayton

(Anonymous) - 2013-06-30 08:35 (UTC) - Expand

If Trayvon was such a big, hulking, violent thug, why didn't Zimmerman stay in the safety his truck, the way he was told to? It seems like common sense to not approach someone you think you'd need a gun AND martial arts to defend yourself against, especially when they clearly want nothing to do with you.

And I don't know why Trayvon (not "Trayton", people) owed an explanation of why he was in the neighborhood to a phony "neighborhood watch captain" who didn't even live there.

This is what I'm trying to figure out. Why would you even confront some stranger like that, who isn't committing any visible trespass or crime that requires emergency intervention, unless you're looking for trouble? Take all the racial implications away, even, and this case still reeks of a guy with a gun who leaped at a chance to prove what a big man he was, and got more than he bargained for.

Because he thought he was being a good samaritan, monitoring and ready to act as an effective witness for any future action and to discourage a crime then and there, as well as being able to provide criminal intelligence.

I mean he called the police, so he obviously thought that something was up.

So why not just follow the guy in his car? He didn't have to approach what was potentially a dangerous criminal to act as a witness. By Zimmerman's own statement, Martin started running away, and there was no one in danger on the street, so any crime Zimmerman had been on the watch for had already been averted. The police were already on their way. They told him to stay put. He disobeyed.

"I thought something was up" is not actually a good excuse for chasing down an unarmed person and they somehow end up dead at your hand. At least, not unless you're a cop.

Because if he turns off the road, you can't follow him?

The police didn't tell him anything.

A CAD operator told him 'we don't need you to do that'.

He was probably working under the assumption he could track him so the police could do a stop and account, get more information to prevent future crimes and etc. And yeah, what he did was ill thought out, which means what? Doing something stupid and shortsighted means it's acceptable that someone should try to crack your skull on concrete?

Uh, then that means you stop following.

Cracking someone's skull on the concrete means it's acceptable to kill them? Last I checked, the guy who brings a knife to a fistfight is in larger error no matter who throws the first punch. Especially if that person was already running away. Even if you assume the very worst of Trayvon's intentions, he didn't approach anybody, he didn't have a weapon on him, and he didn't kill anybody. Even if you assume the very best of Zimmerman's intentions, he approached somebody, he had a weapon on him, and he killed that person. He took action against somebody who he had not witnessed commit a crime. That is not just stupid, it's actually just plain wrong.

And even if it was only stupidity and not malice, that doesn't mean Zimmerman didn't commit a crime. It's stupid and shortsighted to text while driving, but we still prosecute the driver if they kill someone, because there's consequences to being stupid when in possession of a lethal weapon.

Edited (edited for typos) 2013-06-30 15:10 (UTC)

Assuming the worst of Trayvons intentions he tried to kill a man for the crime of asking him what he was doing in the neighbourhood.

It's not a legal or hell even moral obligation to stop following, you have to make a judgement call, one which was clearly wrong, but how much training do you think CAD operators actually get?

And no, person who throws the first punch is pretty massive in assigning responsibility when the question is whether Zimmerman had a valid case for self defence or not. The fact he had a gun on him is fairly irrelevant to that assigning of guilt, unless you think he was criminally negligent in his actions (you would find it extremely difficult to argue this)?

Your comparison is fairly silly. Texting whilst driving has clear links to losing control of your vehicle and killing someone. Merely possessing a weapon and following/talking to someone does not. It's in no way equivocal.

And assuming the best of Zimmerman's intentions, he took that gun with the intent of possibly using it, because that's what guns are for. Assuming the best of Martin's intentions, he was out for a walk. It is far easier to argue that Zimmerman meant ill going after Martin, than Martin did when he went in the opposite direction.

I said the person with the knife was more culpable in a fistfight, not that the person without the knife wasn't responsible at all. Self-defense is called into question because why was the weapon even involved? And how is Zimmerman being armed irrelevant? In regards to his intent, he had a gun to use it, whether as defense or not. In regards to his actions, he did use it. It wasn't like he stabbed Martin in the eyes with his keys. A gun only has one purpose, and it makes the user's intentions suspect unless they can prove lack of premeditation.

The purpose of that comparison was to point out that being really stupid - as you called Zimmerman - with innocent intentions is no excuse for getting someone killed. I'm not calling Zimmerman a cold-blooded murderer any more than I would the careless driver, but because of their unnecessary foolishness, someone is still dead. That warrants a lot more than a slap on the wrist and an "oh I'm so sorry".

Edited (more typos and corrections, i'm too tired for this shit) 2013-06-30 17:45 (UTC)

Re: Zimmerman and Trayvon

ill_omened - 2013-06-30 18:54 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Zimmerman and Trayvon

darkmanifest - 2013-07-01 01:56 (UTC) - Expand

As I understand, some (probably racist) conservatives found a picture of a big hulking black guy giving the camera the bird with the same name on Facebook, and claimed that the media was lying and how dare they try to create sympathy for a murder victim.

But in reality, yeah, different person and the original picture of him is accurate.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only