The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin


George H. Smith

Recommended Posts

Well, we know now that it's mostly about stupidity.

--Brant

Exactly...it certainly is not murder two (2)...everyone should sit down and negotiate a plea to justifiable manslaughter and let the civil suit assess damages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

  • Replies 899
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Another shooting down here in the Wild Wild Southeast! Check out them hoodies!! They must be innocent...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18/florida-customer-shoots-suspects-during-internet-cafe-robbery/?test=latestnews

Damn, can't get the video to embed. Follow the link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I liked that. Not only did he shoot but he ran at them.

Considering how that played out I think I'd do better to have a 7mm semi-auto than a .357 revolver. More volume of fire and less recoil. Easier to shoot while moving too. I'm also thinking of a 16 gauge pump action shotgun. Also more volume of fire and less recoil than a 12 gauge but almost as deadly. A woman in your life would be more likely to use these lighter weapons though I still recommend a .38 Special snub-nose for their purses or fanny packs. No safety, just point and shoot. I love women with guns. (So does Dean Koontz.)

--Brant

too bad they aren't dead

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

SANFORD – George Zimmerman will return to court this afternoon for a hearing about what to do with Trayvon Martin's school records — just as parents of the slain teen ramp up their efforts to keep those documents private.

Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson must decide whether to order Miami-Dade school officials to turn them over to Zimmerman's attorneys.

They want to find out about Trayvon's history of suspensions, his grades, attendance record and other things.

Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda says they're not relevant and has accused defense attorneys of going on a fishing expedition.

Trayvon's parents have denounced the effort, describing it as an attempt to further victimize their son.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-trayvon-records-hearing-20121019,0,7396929.story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What difference could this make? The principle is enshrined in law already, that an American has the right to kill anybody on his property, or in his neighbourhood, that he feels suspicious of. H e has only to say that he felt threatened, even by his own son in disguise as in Connecticut, and go free. The dead of course, remain free to be dead, however mourned or vilified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is neither a case which hinges on gun crontrol or on racial profiling. I've followed this case from February 26, 2012 until today, and have listened to the audio interviews with Det's Singleton and Serino, watched all three bond hearings and belong to a group who is diligent in their research.

George Zimmerman's bond was revoked at the 2nd hearing because he blatantly and deliberately lied to the court about his finances.

GZ by his own admission patroled his neighborhood 3-4 hours per night, when Twin Lakes Retreat, where he lived had but only three streets. He was close to a point of being dismissed from Seminole College due to low grades. His employment history is sporadic with his parents paying his monthly rent at TLR.

GZ as a member of Neighborhood Watch was well informed as to his position, Wendy Dorival, Sanford PD, instructed him as such.

His responsiblity, just as those of any other US citizen was to, "observe and report," only. Once he left his truck, he was in pursuit.

One of the key elements of this case is Zimmerman offering up 6 interviews continually contradicting previous statements.

Example:

Det Serino: Were you following him?

GZ: Yes.

Det Serino: Were you following him?

GZ: No

Det Serino: Were you following him?

GZ: We were going in the same direction.

Det Serino: Were you following him?

GZ: We were in the same area.

For those interested I'd suggest watching GZ's reenactment video with LE, where he describes he shot Trayvon was 47 feet from where the body was found. And as to his injuries, more than a possiblity he slipped on wet grass and hit his head on one of the metal signs at TLR. Important note, "No DNA found of George Zimmerman on Trayvon Martin's hands."

Not only a schmuck, but one who suffers from mental illness, and whose family supports him in his dysfunction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What difference could this make? The principle is enshrined in law already, that an American has the right to kill anybody on his property, or in his neighbourhood, that he feels suspicious of. H e has only to say that he felt threatened, even by his own son in disguise as in Connecticut, and go free. The dead of course, remain free to be dead, however mourned or vilified.

So don't break into someone's house? Problem solved. You take an example to support your side of the argument, but on the other side there is an example of a Canadian who has no gun and is beaten to death in their own home... Why not let's drop the examples to support our arguments when it's clearly about morals.

According to you, nobody has the right to shoot someone even if they feel threatened. The fact that the deceased had broken into the killer's house does not matter to you either...

People can die by jumping off cliffs, or worse, unintentionally falling! Do we need a gravity control law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before we abandon the examples (which I am happy to do) let's get them straight. Trayvon Martin did not break into anyone's house. I don't know what bludgeoned dead Canadian you are referring to , so I can't see how the two examples balance out.

You are right that it is about morals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only a schmuck, but one who suffers from mental illness, and whose family supports him in his dysfunction.

AnnaLisa:

Do you have the original links to the sources for your asertions?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before we abandon the examples (which I am happy to do) let's get them straight. Trayvon Martin did not break into anyone's house. I don't know what bludgeoned dead Canadian you are referring to , so I can't see how the two examples balance out.

You are right that it is about morals.

I'm just saying that both sides have their examples, and no example has any meaningful effect on the debate. I'm sure there's tons of contradicting statistics out there, too... but none of this is relevant. We're talking about right and wrong...

Is it right for someone to be able to defend themselves? Yes, obviously.

Is it right for someone to use a gun to defend themselves? You say never.

If someone breaks into your house, they are forcing you into a dangerous situation you did not want to be in... You have the right to exit this situation however you can.

If killing someone is what it takes to avoid an innocent person getting a broken bone, then that's justice... You have no right to tell an innocent person, "Just let them do whatever they want to you. They don't deserve to die because they don't intend to kill you. You don't know that, but statistically..."

You can't empathize with both parties... you can choose either the victim or the criminal... You choose the criminal because you think life is more important than money or injuries. I empathize with the innocent; they should not have to deal with danger they did not ask for, and if 1000 criminals died in defensive shootings during home invasions, that's completely justified to save even one innocent person's life.

Do I misunderstand your side of the debate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before we abandon the examples (which I am happy to do) let's get them straight. Trayvon Martin did not break into anyone's house. I don't know what bludgeoned dead Canadian you are referring to , so I can't see how the two examples balance out.

You are right that it is about morals.

I'm just saying that both sides have their examples, and no example has any meaningful effect on the debate. I'm sure there's tons of contradicting statistics out there, too... but none of this is relevant. We're talking about right and wrong...

Is it right for someone to be able to defend themselves? Yes, obviously.

Is it right for someone to use a gun to defend themselves? You say never.

If someone breaks into your house, they are forcing you into a dangerous situation you did not want to be in... You have the right to exit this situation however you can.

If killing someone is what it takes to avoid an innocent person getting a broken bone, then that's justice... You have no right to tell an innocent person, "Just let them do whatever they want to you. They don't deserve to die because they don't intend to kill you. You don't know that, but statistically..."

You can't empathize with both parties... you can choose either the victim or the criminal... You choose the criminal because you think life is more important than money or injuries. I empathize with the innocent; they should not have to deal with danger they did not ask for, and if 1000 criminals died in defensive shootings during home invasions, that's completely justified to save even one innocent person's life.

Do I misunderstand your side of the debate?

No, you don't misunderstand me, in the main. I hold the standard of morality to be individual human life, the highest value. Your position is that one individual's property is more valuable than another individual's life, when each may be threatened. You uphold a standard of 'criminal" and "innocent" which is entirely subjective in each individual circumstance. You have said explicitly that some human lives are of more value than others, a very traditional viewpoint which obtained throughout most of the "barbaric" and even civilised ages in our human history.

I don't believe in capital punishment or an armed citizenry, following on my core beliefs, and my views are derived from pragmatic and , yes, statistical evidence, that fewer lives are lost through accident or insanity or carelessness, when guns are unavailable, than when they are. It's the stoplight and speed limit argument, really: until all the roads are private, I'd rather travel them on less peril than more.

You may think I misunderstand the American welding of guns and liberty, but I actually don't. I just deplore it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you are the one facing an intruder, statistics are meaningless. Perhaps you'll

be the one in a thousand or whatever...that's the only objective consideration.

An intruder has forfeited his rights and all moral treatment, by his potential to

end your life or injure you.

Respect for human life doesn't justify subjective egalitarianism between criminal and victim.

Life is the standard, one's own life is the purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Tony , it is you who inflicts "subjective egalitarianism" on "intruders", in that they equally forfeit all rights, whenever their killers subjectively determine them to be intruders.

We are straying somewhat from the particular case in point. Martin intruded into no one's home, nor was he armed. As I understand you however, because Zimmerman thought him a threat and followed him, he deserved to die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carol:

Your children are 4 and 6 respectively, and, you are going about nurturing them, educating them and loving them.

You hear a tinkle of broken glass at the door of the rear of the residence and it is 8 PM.

Your children rush to your side, and, hide behind you.

You grab the shotgun from the wall by the bookcase, quickly you check to see if it is fully loaded and you escort the children upstairs.

You make the phone call to the police.

You hear the heavy footfalls of the intruder coming up the stairs.

You see the intruder's head appear at the top of the steps.

You clearly tell the intruder to retreat, the police are on their way.

He laughs and rushes the door you are protecting, knowing that you are the only defense against the intruder and your two children.

Do you pull the trigger on the shotgun or not?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Tony , it is you who inflicts "subjective egalitarianism" on "intruders", in that they equally forfeit all rights, whenever their killers subjectively determine them to be intruders.

Smart move, but not going to convince, Carol. "Intruder" has a definition -

something like an "unwanted person on one's property" (I'm guessing). His purpose is

inimical to your's, by implication. To carry out his purpose he'd have to

be ready and willing to use force, by implication. Using force, or its threat, places him

outside civilized, moral behavior. This is all objective.

Under the moral system I cater to, I must take whatever action to protect life and

property, I choose - and under the system of rights I cater to, this would have total

backing of the law.

That is the base(bass?)-line. Context is important. If one judges the intruder

to be a harmless, ranting mad person (e.g.) I think it would be immoral to use max force

on him. That someone has forfeited his right to morality, does not ALWAYS indicate the exact

same retaliation.

Given that - we are not omniscient, can't know others' intent, or read the future.

One's own life is the supreme value.

And one thing's for sure: we know, objectively, what is an "intruder."

(Yes, this is not relating to the Martin/Zimmerman case.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carol:

Your children are 4 and 6 respectively, and, you are going about nurturing them, educating them and loving them.

You hear a tinkle of broken glass at the door of the rear of the residence and it is 8 PM.

Your children rush to your side, and, hide behind you.

You grab the shotgun from the wall by the bookcase, quickly you check to see if it is fully loaded and you escort the children upstairs.

You make the phone call to the police.

You hear the heavy footfalls of the intruder coming up the stairs.

You see the intruder's head appear at the top of the steps.

You clearly tell the intruder to retreat, the police are on their way.

He laughs and rushes the door you are protecting, knowing that you are the only defense against the intruder and your two children.

Do you pull the trigger on the shotgun or not?

A...

Carol doesn't have a shotgun.

--Brant

I do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may think I misunderstand the American welding of guns and liberty, but I actually don't. I just deplore it.

I think you misunderstand or simply don't know. It's both an American thing and a male thing. You need to be part of that. When I cut a guy who wanted to rape me in college, my brother-in-law poured me a drink while my sister deplored it.

-Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have said explicitly that some human lives are of more value than others, a very traditional viewpoint which obtained throughout most of the "barbaric" and even civilised ages in our human history.

I didn't say this explicitly or implicitly. Human lives cannot have value, in that way, because value comes from human life. There is no objective standard to measure the value of human beings, but I consider the value an innocent person has for his/her own life before I will consider what the criminal values.

The fact that you even bring up the "value" of human life suggests a contradiction on your part, doesn't it? Of value to whom?

How would you like being told that your life is not important because it's a statistical anomaly?

If it turns out Zimmerman did not have reason to think his life was in danger, that does not mean that gun control is right. That just means Zimmerman was in fact the criminal.

Murdering someone is already a crime, you don't need to make carrying a gun a crime because it might lead to murdering someone... Murdering someone is the crime.

The reason it's different than speed limits etc. is because the faster someone drives the more likely they are to get in an accident. That's the equivalent of making it illegal to point a gun at someone without the intent of shooting them... because an accident could happen. The equivalent to gun control laws would be to ban automobiles because speeding and getting in accidents is a crime... Should automobiles be banned to prevent accidents?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should police carry guns?

Not if the citizenry isn't, no, as previously they did not when firearms were not distributed to the public as in the UK for example, police were not armed. However where private firearms are legal, or where illegal firearms are known to be owned, it is necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Tony , it is you who inflicts "subjective egalitarianism" on "intruders", in that they equally forfeit all rights, whenever their killers subjectively determine them to be intruders.

This as well as your last post suggest to me that you believe that police are the only ones capable of identifying criminals.

When does someone objectively become a threat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now