**Official** Trayvon Martin thread

[specsaregood]

I didn't know there was a racial component to the crime on that one, but I do recall hearing about it.

Yeah, I wasn't discussing the possible racial components; just saying the media with a story is like a dog with a new squeak toy. When they get a good squeaky one they are gonna play with it nonstop until the squeaker breaks, then onto the next one. it is what it is. This story is just the squeak toy of the week. They'll keep on squeaking it until the audience gets bored with it. Just watching the attention its getting here on rpfs indicates to me that the public is still enthralled with it.

 

[AuH20]

Right on cue. Government media complex going for the throat on this.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...ich Santorum Rhetoric For Trevon Martin Death

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...Finney-Links-To-Trayvon-Shooting-To-Kochs-NRA

Now folks understand why many of us are so angry about how this has been presented? Apparently, the conservative, more libertarian segment of society is now responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin as opposed to one man. LOL Go figure. And no one here is defending Zimmerman if he did use excessive force. But this is how the establishment plays.

 

[pcosmar]

I'm gonna guess the numbers are about equal to those who think the kid was innocent.

It does not matter if the kid was innocent.
He had a RIGHT to BE there.

Zimmerman had NO right to assault him.

If Zimmerman had not gotten OUT of his Vehicle and Confronted (assaulted) Travon there would have been no fight.

How is that so hard to understand.

 

[specsaregood]

here is the worlds most notorious criminal. being kissed on the cheek by his father must be some kind gang ritual.

And here is a picture of Jeffrey Dahmer loving his dog.

 

[AuH20]

It does not matter if the kid was innocent.
He had a RIGHT to BE there.

Zimmerman had NO right to assault him.

If Zimmerman had not gotten OUT of his Vehicle and Confronted (assaulted) Travon there would have been no fight.

How is that so hard to understand.

With that said, we have no idea who escalated it after first contact was made. It takes two to tango.

 

[MelissaWV]

someone explain why the trayvon story is getting so much more media attention than the two white tourists that got killed in Florida because they walked into the wrong neighbouhood a while back? The black kid who killed those two white guys was jailed recently , hardly any coverage.

I posted a different story in one of these threads, which seems ready-made for the media to feign outrage, but didn't get the same flurry of interest.

A Baltimore prosecutor offered jurors in a murder trial a painful and troubling portrait Wednesday of the victim's final moments, describing how a killer "suffocated and butchered" the boy, whose screams for help she said went unheard by a relative who had passed out from heroin...

"He went from place to place to keep a roof over his head," Hastings said in court. He felt welcome at the house owned by his great-aunt on Llewellyn Avenue, but the prosecutor said there was little adult supervision, many occupants spent the days shooting heroin, drinking and playing cards, and keeping the front door open to random visitors.

Maybe we just didn't need a "heartbreaking" story that week.

 

[ctiger2]

Clearly this is relevant as to why he was unarmed and shot dead in cold blood.

What about the police reports where it states Zimmerman had blood running from his nose and the back of his head? Still no reason to kill someone IMHO. But at least we understand motive now.

 

[pcosmar]

With that said, we have no idea who escalated it after first contact was made. It takes two to tango.

It does not matter. Zimmerman had no business confronting the kid in the first place.

If the kid had shot him outright he would have been 100% justified.
Zimmerman was the attacker. ( he stalked him, exited his vehicle and confronted him) And he was armed.

First contact? There should have been NO contact.
Zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle and Minded his own business.

 

[coastie]

It does not matter if the kid was innocent.
He had a RIGHT to BE there.

Zimmerman had NO right to assault him.

If Zimmerman had not gotten OUT of his Vehicle and Confronted (assaulted) Travon there would have been no fight.

How is that so hard to understand.

Seems only a few of us here are capable of thinking without our emotions, Pete, even some here I thought were better than that.

 

[AuH20]

It does not matter. Zimmerman had no business confronting the kid in the first place.

If the kid had shot him outright he would have been 100% justified.
Zimmerman was the attacker. ( he stalked him, exited his vehicle and confronted him) And he was armed.

First contact? There should have been NO contact.
Zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle and Minded his own business.

This is where I disagree. Cops roughly prevent 20% of the crimes committed and minding your own business could prove dire in the long term. And given what we know about Zimmerman's neighborhood, it was ravaged by home burglaries and the like. The neighborhood watch was formed of necessity not of bragaddoccio. With that said, Zimmerman reacted poorly when the conflict escalated. Zimmerman's personal judgement should be questioned as opposed to the everlasting principle of defending one's neighborhood.

 

[Danke]

It does not matter. Zimmerman had no business confronting the kid in the first place.

If the kid had shot him outright he would have been 100% justified.
Zimmerman was the attacker. ( he stalked him, exited his vehicle and confronted him) And he was armed.

First contact? There should have been NO contact.
Zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle and Minded his own business.

Well, if it is private property and the owners agreed on Zimmerman patrolling said properties, I don't see why not.

 

[coastie]

This is where I disagree. Cops roughly prevent 20% of the crimes committed and minding your own business could prove dire in the long term. And given what we know about Zimmerman's neighborhood, it was ravaged by home burglaries and the like. The neighborhood watch was formed of necessity not of bragaddaccio. With that said, Zimmerman reacted poorly when the conflict escalated. Zimmerman's personal judgement should be questioned as opposed to the everlasting principle of defending one's neighborhood.

Which is exactly what Pete was getting at. Holy shit you guys are giving me a headache with this....

 

[AuH20]

Which is exactly what Pete was getting at. Holy shit you guys are giving me a headache with this....

Which was pulling the trigger. Not accosting Martin. Martin was a stranger in his neighborhood.

 

[pcosmar]

. The neighborhood watch was formed of necessity not of bragaddaccio.

That is entirely possible and completely irrelevant.
If It was so,, he was responsible to protect Travon (who was living in that neighborhood) and should have observed (from his vehicle) that Travon was not assaulted on his way home.

If that was so he should have observed (from his vehicle) any attempts to break in to anything.

Neighborhood watch does not equal neighborhood assault.

 

[coastie]

That is entirely possible and completely irrelevant.
If It was so,, he was responsible to protect Travon (who was living in that neighborhood) and should have observed (from his vehicle) that Travon was not assaulted on his way home.

If that was so he should have observed (from his vehicle) any attempts to break in to anything.

Neighborhood watch does not equal neighborhood assault.

Be careful with your logic here....your making way too much sense for some in here.

 

[pcosmar]

Which was pulling the trigger. Not accosting Martin. Martin was a stranger in his neighborhood.

NO HE WAS NOT.
His father lived there. He was staying with his father.
Zimmerman's ignorance of this fact is not a valid excuse.

 

[coastie]

Which was pulling the trigger. Not accosting Martin. Martin was a stranger in his neighborhood.

Yes-to the vigilante wannabe....he was not a stranger to the neighborhood in reality-he was a guest.

So is that a valid excuse for Zimmerman now?

 

[AuH20]

That is entirely possible and completely irrelevant.
If It was so,, he was responsible to protect Travon (who was living in that neighborhood) and should have observed (from his vehicle) that Travon was not assaulted on his way home.

If that was so he should have observed (from his vehicle) any attempts to break in to anything.

Neighborhood watch does not equal neighborhood assault.

No, it's not. First, you're laying out the situation in such a manner to lead one to believe that Zimmerman ALREADY had those facts in hand, when he confronted Martin. At the time, Martin was a stranger to the neighborhood in his estimation. I have no problem with Zimmerman accosting Martin on principle. For hundreds of years going to back to the Middle Ages, there were night watchmen assigned to street duty in a given village to make certain no one got their throat slit or had their valuables stolen. Rather, I'm questioning why Zimmerman took it upon himself to fire his weapon at Martin. That's the issue.

 

[TheeJoeGlass]

The media attention is needed because Zimmerman can't be charged by the local authorities so the feds have to get baited into making this a federal hate crime and thus sending Zimmerman to jail. People should stop complaining about the media's role because thats just what they do.

 

[coastie]

No, it's not. First, you're laying out the situation in such a manner to lead one to believe that Zimmerman ALREADY had those facts in hand, when he confronted Martin. At the time, Martin was a stranger to the neighborhood in his estimation. I have no problem with Zimmerman accosting Martin on principle. For hundreds of years going to back to the Middle Ages, there were night watchmen assigned to street duty in a given village to make certain no one got their throat slit or valuables stolen. Rather, I'm questioning why Zimmerman took it upon himself to fire his weapon at Martin. That's the issue.

So you agree, this all could've been solved with a simple "hey how are you, do you live here?" then?