George Zimmerman acquitted of murder in Trayvon Martin shooting death

[Orion VII 4 Life]

This is the perfect summation of the case. The wannabe "lawman" caused the confrontation to occur. Period. He would not have been in a position to defend himself if he followed the MYOB rule. Mind your own business. The SYG law, as written, is a poorly thought out abomination from a legal standpoint. Let's say that instead of Trayvon walking his father was being followed. Mr. Martin, a legal resident of the community, had a legal right to blow Georgie boys keister into a hundred pieces by claiming he felt threatened. Those who defend the law obviously never thought the whole thing through, IMO. As I said before I find no fault with the verdict as such. The problem is the law itself. This is the 21st century and Wyatt Earp, Dodge City, the OK Corral, are supposed to be history. Carry on.

Well George was essentially private security for the private gated community, not necessarily a "wannabe cop". If he sees something suspicious, he has the right to investigate. It's not a public street where a person has the right to walk around freely with no questions from private security guards or neighborhood watch volunteers. Even though he lived there, George as neighborhood watch could not know that for sure and had the right to confront/follow the potential trespasser or criminal as it was private property. The rules and terms of the HOA that Trayvon Martin's family agreed to when moving in should be very clear that all streets and common areas within the HOA are private property patrolled by private security guards and/or neighborhood watch. It would be a very different situation if they were on public property.

 

Think of it as your local mall. You can walk in, and Paul Blart can follow you around as he pleases for whatever reason he wants because it's private property, and especially if he thinks you're up to no good or have a criminal past there. Doesn't make him racist, a stalker or anything like that because it's private property.

 

As for him being armed, I actually know people who live in gated HOAs down in FL with armed security. It is a common thing for security/neighborhood watch to be armed down there, and of course they will defend the community, the residents and themselves with the necessary force when necessary.

[realizm]

That comment of his is disgraceful...

Can you elaborate on that? Just speak your mind.

[Orion VII 4 Life]

Can you elaborate on that? Just speak your mind.

It just feels so disrespectful... same with the "if I had a son he'd be Trayvon" one. Speak your opinion about the incident, feel sorry, absolutely, but to say things like that is, IMHO, disrespectful to him and his family.

[realizm]

It just feels so disrespectful... same with the "if I had a son he'd be Trayvon" one. Speak your opinion about the incident, feel sorry, absolutely, but to say things like that is, IMHO, disrespectful to him and his family.

Now on this one it will be hard for me to comment on, as I am by nature as a 2nd generation American citizen very distrustful of politicians and that includes former president George Bush and our current president Obama Barack for the games they play with the American public with their failed promises. Such as the controversy with Bin Laden's death, the actual truth regarding why the DoD and the CIA could not stop the 9/11 attacks and other screwy tactics and controversies as far as foriegn diplomatic policy making and actions on the part of the Pentagon, Department of State, and the White House is concerned.

 

However I will have to assume that Obama isn't exactly playing the race card here. He doesn't need to. A man of his stature does not necessarily have to be this condescending in his comments regarding this verdict with how it turned out, but he did. Perhaps it could be because he actually spoke out of honesty on the issue given his background.

 

However again, we both know how politics plays in American government. Note I am neither a registered Democrat -or- Republican even as I am registered to vote, as you read this post. And yes it is understood we do have reverse racists in this country. I would never deny that either.

[Tokkemon]

Obama's right (for once). White folks (or anyone else) forget how black folks view actions and events in a lens of affliction and/or oppression. I'm sure some of you African-American brothers can expand on it, but it does matter. It happens between other races too, sometimes, but that's not relevant right now.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I was reading the NY Daily News an hour ago (hard copy) and noticed the headlines regading the Zimmerman case. According to the article, the president made his comments on this overall verdict involving Zimmerman and Martin according to Business Insider:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-verdict-2013-7

 

I don't see the point in this. I mean you can put all of the laws in place that you want but if people have a dislike of other people they will find a way to do as they please.  The other thing that annoys me is this constant crap about things being tilted against Blacks due to racism.  The problem I have with that is people of ALL colors are racist, so I wish gubment would stop with this BS about how things are so terrible SOLELY for Black people.  Call a spade a spade and level the playing field for everyone and not just one group.  

 

You've got racism going on AMONGST minority groups (Latinos not like Blacks, Blacks not liking Latinos, Blacks not liking other Blacks, Asians not liking Blacks, minorities not liking Whites, Whites not liking minorities and the list goes on and on).  What irks me is the notion that media creates that ONLY Whites are racist due to slavery which is total BS.  

[realizm]

Obama's right (for once). White folks (or anyone else) forget how black folks view actions and events in a lens of affliction and/or oppression. I'm sure some of you African-American brothers can expand on it, but it does matter. It happens between other races too, sometimes, but that's not relevant right now.

 

Well I said my piece as an Asian American regarding Obama's comments, so I will have to second that, we need to hear from more of the Afro-American posters on the president's response to the verdict in the Zimmerman case.

[Turbo19]

I was reading the NY Daily News an hour ago (hard copy) and noticed the headlines regading the Zimmerman case. According to the article, the president made his comments on this overall verdict involving Zimmerman and Martin according to Business Insider:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-verdict-2013-7

 

 

 

Now the significance of this is the fact that it is rare for Obama to make comments in regards to race relations. So fo him to make statements such as this to me speaks volumes regardless of who agrees or disagrees with his policies as president in general, involving foreign or domestic policies. Because regardless of whose parties we support, apparently this issue hits home all the way to the White House. 

 

Thoughts on this?

In regard to the comments that President Obama made, I personally feel that he was essentially trying to captivate a specific segment of the country, but at the same his words could apply to anyone. With all the criticism surrounding his remarks I can't help but respect the man for speaking out in regards to something as personal as this.

 

If anything I'd try to keep politics out of this as it's shown be the actions of the president that this is a completely separate issue and is to be treated as such.

[Grand Concourse]

Not taking sides here, but I think Obama could've just said that he doesn't like the outcome, but respect the verdict and let the trial fade away. To keep bringing up 'he could've been my son or me' just adds to the flames and now the protesters have more motivation to continue  their marches or even riots. This is a mistake on Obama's part to continue commenting and putting himself in the situation, just tell people to remain calm or don't add fuel to the fire.

 

The way Holder has been saying he'd take up the case makes it seem like the government is going to try to find some way to convict Zimmerman and use him like some sacrifice to appease the mobs. Is this justice? I don't like outcomes of some trials, but what's the point of them if some people aren't satisfied till they get the verdict they want? We do not live in some tyranny where if a person has been cleared, he should still be hounded because the masses don't like the verdict, that's not how it works.

[Phantom909]

the jury was correct in this case too   

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/tim-mcnabb/black-man-shoots-white-teen-jury-says-self-defense-and-nobody-cares/

 

 

joe

[MHV9218]

That comment of his is disgraceful...

 

 

It just feels so disrespectful... same with the "if I had a son he'd be Trayvon" one. Speak your opinion about the incident, feel sorry, absolutely, but to say things like that is, IMHO, disrespectful to him and his family.

 

How? In what way is that completely true and rather touching statement at all disrespectful? You're amazing: first you side with this racist murderer who even members of the jury thought was guilty but were forced to acquit as a result of the legal system, and then you try to act like Mr. Sensitivity and search for things to get angry about...

[Turbo19]

the jury was correct in this case too   

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/tim-mcnabb/black-man-shoots-white-teen-jury-says-self-defense-and-nobody-cares/

 

 

joe

The difference in that case was that there was substantial evidence to prove that Cervini committed a crime. In contrast there was little evidence that ever suggested that Martin committed a crime.

 

To me this case is just as outrageous to me, but I won't diverge in that discussion.

 

Quite honestly I think you're purposely perpetuating conflict, but I digress.

[MHV9218]

the jury was correct in this case too   

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/tim-mcnabb/black-man-shoots-white-teen-jury-says-self-defense-and-nobody-cares/

 

 

joe

 

Oh great, now we get you on this too.

 

Here's the big difference here, and I'll say it simply so we can all understand. Trayvon Martin did not instigate conflict with George Zimmerman. He was followed, harassed, and when he eventually used his hands to get his pursuer off of him, he was shot to death. For some bizarre reason, you seem to think that's the same thing as a man shooting a criminal who was trying to attack him after already committing crimes by breaking into cars. It is not the same thing: if I follow you and harass you on the street and then you punch me, that is different from you attacking me out of nowhere. I'm not saying Scott acted appropriately, but don't even try for a minute to claim that's the same situation.

[realizm]

Not taking sides here, but I think Obama could've just said that he doesn't like the outcome, 

 

I guess that would have been the most politically correct thing to do, if he wants to appeal to the entire American audience of all races and national backgrounds, and he knows that, and so does his White House advisers. However again as I was initially thinking, he did not, therefore giving the signal that he is expressing personal feelings here on the verdict for the obvious reasons cited. 

[DaTransitMan4608]

Back on what Obama said:

 

I don't think he meant blacks in particular because we ain't the only race that's been stared down by cops. There have been times where I've seen cops looking at a group of hispanic people like they were up to no good. The thing here is, it's not just blacks who are getting profiled. Muslims get profiled too, I've seen people look uneasy when a man with a turban boards a bus at PABT.

 

That's my two cents for now.

[realizm]

the jury was correct in this case too   

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/tim-mcnabb/black-man-shoots-white-teen-jury-says-self-defense-and-nobody-cares/

 

 

joe

 

From your source provided to quote:

 

 

How heavily did stories of gangs of rednecks beating the life out of a black man hang upon the mind of Mr. Scott in the split second before he pulled the trigger? Who cares?

 

 

Interesting take on the editorial. Apparently the fact that historically Blacks were mistreated from the days of slavery up to the days of black apartheid, to the struggle during the civil rights movement, to start, was not considered by the writer Tim McNabb. I have something to say about the author: The truth hurts doesn't it? Is he writing in a state of denial? Not surprising.

[Orion VII 4 Life]

Oh great, now we get you on this too.

 

Here's the big difference here, and I'll say it simply so we can all understand. Trayvon Martin did not instigate conflict with George Zimmerman. He was followed, harassed, and when he eventually used his hands to get his pursuer off of him, he was shot to death. For some bizarre reason, you seem to think that's the same thing as a man shooting a criminal who was trying to attack him after already committing crimes by breaking into cars. It is not the same thing: if I follow you and harass you on the street and then you punch me, that is different from you attacking me out of nowhere. I'm not saying Scott acted appropriately, but don't even try for a minute to claim that's the same situation.

Again, on private property you can expect to be followed by private security guards or neighborhood watch working or volunteering for the HOA/security contractor. This would have been a very different story if it was on a truly public sidewalk.

[Turbo19]

Again, on private property you can expect to be followed by private security guards or neighborhood watch working or volunteering for the HOA/security contractor. This would have been a very different story if it was on a truly public sidewalk.

So because some dumbass neighborhood watch member personally determined Martin as a threat and personally deemed it necessary to "stand his ground" it's okay as it occurred on private property?

 

That's ridiculous. Private property or not there are still ramifications to follow if you decide to take it upon yourself and blast someone with a firearm.

[Orion VII 4 Life]

So because some dumbass neighborhood watch member personally determined Martin as a threat and personally deemed it necessary to "stand his ground" it's okay as it occurred on private property?

 

That's ridiculous. Private property or not there are still ramifications to follow if you decide to take it upon yourself and blast someone with a firearm.

Well now we're bringing up the fact that he used the gun, when we were just arguing about why he decided to follow Trayvon against the orders of the "police" (911 operator who you have no obligation to take orders from and is not even there).

 

When it's on private property, private security and other employees/volunteers have the authority to keep trespassers and criminals off the property. When George saw someone that looked suspicious, it was his obligation to make sure it was OK for him to be there and that he wasn't up to no good. Following him does not make him racist or a criminal, and when Trayvon began attacking him and reaching for George's firearm that's when he had to defend himself.

[Turbo19]

Well now we're bringing up the fact that he used the gun, when we were just arguing about why he decided to follow Trayvon against the orders of the "police" (911 operator who you have no obligation to take orders from and is not even there).

 

When it's on private property, private security and other employees/volunteers have the authority to keep trespassers and criminals off the property. When George saw someone that looked suspicious, it was his obligation to make sure it was OK for him to be there and that he wasn't up to no good. Following him does not make him racist or a criminal, and when Trayvon began attacking him and reaching for George's firearm that's when he had to defend himself.

Sure, because Zimmerman had to "defend himself" from the "threat" that Martin posed.

 

This is really beating a dead horse. I'm sick of discussing this stupid crap.

 

Hey, you're sixteen, roughly the same age as Martin. What would you have done in this situation. Fill all of us in on that before providing anymore useless ad hominems.

[Trainmaster5]

Well now we're bringing up the fact that he used the gun, when we were just arguing about why he decided to follow Trayvon against the orders of the "police" (911 operator who you have no obligation to take orders from and is not even there).

 

When it's on private property, private security and other employees/volunteers have the authority to keep trespassers and criminals off the property. When George saw someone that looked suspicious, it was his obligation to make sure it was OK for him to be there and that he wasn't up to no good. Following him does not make him racist or a criminal, and when Trayvon began attacking him and reaching for George's firearm that's when he had to defend himself.

In most of the US private security, hired by the property owner, has the authority to check a visitor's status. They represent the owners and usually have peace officer status. Other employees and volunteers don't have the same legal status. Unless I've missed something George had no legal status. If he did the property owner would automatically become part of the legal proceedings. BTW I am part of a neighborhood watch here in NC. We all have firearm permits but we watch and/or report. We are volunteers and have no legal authority to confront anyone. Only the state trooper has that right. My next door neighbor. The rest of us wouldn't be stupid enough to pull a George.

[Orion VII 4 Life]

In most of the US private security, hired by the property owner, has the authority to check a visitor's status. They represent the owners and usually have peace officer status. Other employees and volunteers don't have the same legal status. Unless I've missed something George had no legal status. If he did the property owner would automatically become part of the legal proceedings. BTW I am part of a neighborhood watch here in NC. We all have firearm permits but we watch and/or report. We are volunteers and have no legal authority to confront anyone. Only the state trooper has that right. My next door neighbor. The rest of us wouldn't be stupid enough to pull a George.

Private security and neighborhood watch is all the same, private citizens, they generally aren't police/peace officers unless they're in a strict gun control state where getting a gun as a private citizen is difficult and the property owner demands armed guards, or they're off duty cops. All are authorized to, on behalf of the property owner, make sure everyone on the property is authorized to be there and not committing crime, have the authority to ask violators to leave and have the same authority as you and I to perform a citizen's arrest, not to mention the right to defend themselves and their community.

[Orion VII 4 Life]

Sure, because Zimmerman had to "defend himself" from the "threat" that Martin posed.

 

This is really beating a dead horse. I'm sick of discussing this stupid crap.

 

Hey, you're sixteen, roughly the same age as Martin. What would you have done in this situation. Fill all of us in on that before providing anymore useless ad hominems.

You know I do not trust the police or private security period, but If I did live in that community and I was followed by security/watch volunteers I'd let them follow me back to my home and watch me be welcomed inside. If they had anything to ask, being that I'm on a private property I would nicely state the name and address of the people I live with and continue on my way. If the guy wanted to be a dick and try to hold me there while he called them up, I would probably go along with it and allow him to confirm it was OK for me to be there being that again, it is private property and not even open to the public, hell I might call them myself.

 

And before anyone compares this to my run in with the Port Authority Police and the way I feel about that, remember that PA properties are public facilities run by what is technically a public authority of NY & NJ except restricted areas. Being in a facility such as an airline terminal (not trespassing through security into the restricted areas without a ticket) without "valid reason" is not a crime. And in a public facility I have no obligation to provide law encorcement or security a reason for me being there or taking a photo there, nor should I be held on hours on end then interrogated and treated like a terrorist just for walking into a public building and taking a picture. We're talking about private property here. The property owner can set guidelines you have to abide by while there. You provide an explanation for you being there, or they can give you the boot/call the cops/citizen's arrest if you don't or they feel that by their guidelines, you're not supposed to be there. Similar but a bit different situation in a public-private facility like a mall, I don't really need a reason to walk inside but if I do something management does not like, they can give me the boot or ban me from the property. Even if say PANYNJ was completely private, it does not excuse the way I was treated and does not mean I should have acted any differently when the most they legally can do is eject or ban/traspass bar you from the property, so long as you're not breaking the law, and I'm still under no obligation to explain me being in a place open to the public, so before anyone brings that up, don't.

[Turbo19]

You know I do not trust the police or private security period, but If I did live in that community and I was followed by security/watch volunteers I'd let them follow me back to my home and watch me be welcomed inside. If they had anything to ask, being that I'm on a private property I would nicely state the name and address of the people I live with and continue on my way. If the guy wanted to be a dick and try to hold me there while he called them up, I would probably go along with it and allow him to confirm it was OK for me to be there being that again, it is private property and not even open to the public, hell I might call them myself.

Before you could even contemplate that thought you'd be knocked out cold, a few days away from being buried six feet under.

 

 

And before anyone compares this to my run in with the Port Authority Police and the way I feel about that, remember that PA properties are public facilities run by what is technically a public authority of NY & NJ except restricted areas. Being in a facility such as an airline terminal (not trespassing through security into the restricted areas without a ticket) without "valid reason" is not a crime. And in a public facility I have no obligation to provide law encorcement or security a reason for me being there or taking a photo there, nor should I be held on hours on end then interrogated and treated like a terrorist just for walking into a public building and taking a picture. We're talking about private property here. The property owner can set guidelines you have to abide by while there. You provide an explanation for you being there, or they can give you the boot/call the cops/citizen's arrest if you don't or they feel that by their guidelines, you're not supposed to be there. Similar but a bit different situation in a public-private facility like a mall, I don't really need a reason to walk inside but if I do something management does not like, they can give me the boot or ban me from the property. Even if say PANYNJ was completely private, it does not excuse the way I was treated when the most they legally can do is eject or ban/traspass bar you from the property, so long as you're not breaking the law, so before anyone brings that up, don't.

In reality the property you were on was private, but open to the public. Regardless if you want to use it as an argument they had every right to throw you out as it's their property.

 

At this point I don't even think you're a hypocrite. Simply you're self patronizing, which is even worse.

[Trainmaster5]

Private security and neighborhood watch is all the same, private citizens, they generally aren't police/peace officers unless they're in a strict gun control state where getting a gun as a private citizen is difficult and the property owner demands armed guards, or they're off duty cops. All are authorized to, on behalf of the property owner, make sure everyone on the property is authorized to be there and not committing crime, have the authority to ask violators to leave and have the same authority as you and I to perform a citizen's arrest, not to mention the right to defend themselves and their community.

 

Private security and neighborhood watch is all the same, private citizens, they generally aren't police/peace officers unless they're in a strict gun control state where getting a gun as a private citizen is difficult and the property owner demands armed guards, or they're off duty cops. All are authorized to, on behalf of the property owner, make sure everyone on the property is authorized to be there and not committing crime, have the authority to ask violators to leave and have the same authority as you and I to perform a citizen's arrest, not to mention the right to defend themselves and their community.

I'm trying to be as nice as I can to you but let me tell you something about myself. I own three homes in two different state, NY and NC. I also happen to be( I think) four times your age and have spent time across the USA. Where I come from neighborhood" watch" means just that, watch. There is no neighborhood "watch", that I'm aware of, that has any enforcement powers above that of any private citizen. Private security, as in a mall, or other public place is another thing all together. When one applies for a firearm license in NC, including pistol licenses, you are told in no uncertain terms that you have the right to use said weapon for the protection of your property or your business. It was made quite clear to the licensee that private security was not covered by said license. That falls under the purview of licensed security firms, not me, my in-laws, or any potential Zimmermans in NC. I can also state that in my dealings in NY state, Brooklyn and Suffolk county there is a distinction between private security and regular neighborhood watches. There's no neighborhood watch that I've run across that has the power to detain me but private security doesn't carry that restriction. You did mention "citizen's arrest". Coming from a family with law enforcement background in NY state that is a rare event in NY and is frowned upon by law enforcement and the courts. That's something best saved for the movies because the legal system will not lift a finger on your behalf. You have your opinions and I stand on my experience. Carry on.