Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

[Princess Marzipan]

The harshest possible accusation I've made against you is that you are both tactless and lack a full understanding of how racism applies to and amplifies this tragedy. Since you read my last post and concluded that I called you a racist, you've given some weight to the latter half of that.

Now if you want to manipulate my statements into thinking that I want Zimmerman to be "treated specially" in this situation, then fine. Call me racist and send the personal insults towards me. This discussion would no longer be worth my time however.

I don't how to more politely tell you that your beliefs about punishment have no place in this discussion. Polite is parsed as insulting, so I feel I may as well be blunt: I find it ignorant and offensive. I hope you have an interest in understanding why, and I believe I've been discussing the issue with civility and without insult. But if pointing out flaws in your understanding is itself impolite and insulting, then indeed there is no room for discussion to proceed.

If I thought you were just some racist scumbag, I wouldn't be being polite. I'd be using a lot of fuck-words, and you'd probably have been called an asshole or douchetruck or something at some point.

Edit: I believe we're actually in agreement on how the justice system should function overall. The problem is that that's a fantasy with no relevance to how we approach Trayvon's murder. It's definitely a fantasy worth having and working toward, but...it's just. not. relevant.

Justice should be fair all the time, period.

Cheers.

Spoiler:

[Falling]

Do you have references? Despite this topic being about Zimmerman, the original post doesn't seem to have a lot of details about the case.

So many
Almost every story I've read brings up that fact. I like this story especially since it highlights just what a nut he is. Whether he was self-appointed or not really shouldn't matter, but it does poke a hole in your argument.

This guy was absolutely not someone concerned with the good of the community. It looks like he was just obsessed with busting people.This was not an isolated incident; it was his MO.

[KnightExemplar]

Well, I'd rather not touch the peace between me and Marzipan at the moment. So I'd just like to publicly state that I'm pulling out as well. Good luck yo.

[nitePhyyre]

As a side note... I think I'm connecting with Zimmerman's perspective because I have a close friend who probably would make the same mistake as Zimmerman. At least, he would have a few years ago... My friend registered for the Marines, and then signed up for Infantry at the height of the Iraq / Afghanistan war. Apparently, he wanted to go out and personally kill himself some terrorists. Four years later, the war changed him, and he has clearly matured from combat. (and he has his fair share of war horror stories that he told me about). But if he didn't mature in combat... or if he never went out there... I think he'd still be the type who'd probably go out and pick fights thinking he was helping people. I mean, essentially, that is what he did, and why he decided to go fight in the War. Its a maturity and training thing IMO... these people aren't monsters... they just haven't grown up yet. They'll make the wrong choice and hurt people out of ignorance. Bharrata strikes the nail on the head when he describes them as carrying a gun in hopes to use it... as opposed to carrying a gun with the hope to never use it.

The average human does not want to commit murder. Murder isn't something you have to have to teach people not to do. It isn't a question maturity. It isn't something you grow out of. I'm sorry to break it to you, but, yes, these people are monsters. If you are carrying a gun in hopes to use it, You. Are. A. Monster.

Caveats: There is a difference between "I want to kill some terrorists" and "I want to kill some terrorists to defend my home, family and country."
If you friend "matured" he may no longer be a dangerous monster, but one none the less.
Monster really isn't the right word, I'm just going with the terminology already in the thread.

[Bharrata]

The average human does not want to commit murder. Murder isn't something you have to have to teach people not to do. It isn't a question maturity. It isn't something you grow out of. I'm sorry to break it to you, but, yes, these people are monsters.

Which comes back to my point that the justice system could reduce significant burdens on itself by having more proactive rather than reactive policies.

Want less taxes on prisons, lower recidivism rates and less homeless individuals? Have more psychologists and social workers in poor neighborhoods and I dunno, bring back the mental hospitals that Reagan got rid of.

[IcedT]

As a side note... I think I'm connecting with Zimmerman's perspective because I have a close friend who probably would make the same mistake as Zimmerman. At least, he would have a few years ago... My friend registered for the Marines, and then signed up for Infantry at the height of the Iraq / Afghanistan war. Apparently, he wanted to go out and personally kill himself some terrorists. Four years later, the war changed him, and he has clearly matured from combat. (and he has his fair share of war horror stories that he told me about). But if he didn't mature in combat... or if he never went out there... I think he'd still be the type who'd probably go out and pick fights thinking he was helping people. I mean, essentially, that is what he did, and why he decided to go fight in the War. Its a maturity and training thing IMO... these people aren't monsters... they just haven't grown up yet. They'll make the wrong choice and hurt people out of ignorance. Bharrata strikes the nail on the head when he describes them as carrying a gun in hopes to use it... as opposed to carrying a gun with the hope to never use it.

The average human does not want to commit murder. Murder isn't something you have to have to teach people not to do. It isn't a question maturity. It isn't something you grow out of. I'm sorry to break it to you, but, yes, these people are monsters. If you are carrying a gun in hopes to use it, You. Are. A. Monster.

Caveats: There is a difference between "I want to kill some terrorists" and "I want to kill some terrorists to defend my home, family and country."
If you friend "matured" he may no longer be a dangerous monster, but one none the less.
Monster really isn't the right word, I'm just going with the terminology already in the thread.

Basically the ingredient there is acting on rage, which is a response to a narcissistic injury. I.e., "those terrorists shattered my beliefs about American invulnerability and represent an affront to my values, I feel a need to go kill someone loosely affiliated with them or at least similar to them to vent my anger and hurt." The suffering of war probably humbled Knight's friend and taught him to think of these things in human terms instead. Zimmerman, on the other hand, seems to have had a pattern of this kind of behavior that's only gotten worse with time, culminating with him shooting a teenager for daring to look like a hoodrat in Zimmerman's gated utopia.

So when we call people like this "monsters," we run the risk of being guilty of the same thing that motivates them to be shitty people, namely reducing other people down to identities so we don't have to treat them like real human beings.

[Jonesthe Spy]

Could you fix those quote tags. That quote is not from me.

Sorry. Fixed.

[Nordic Einar]

As a side note... I think I'm connecting with Zimmerman's perspective because I have a close friend who probably would make the same mistake as Zimmerman. At least, he would have a few years ago... My friend registered for the Marines, and then signed up for Infantry at the height of the Iraq / Afghanistan war. Apparently, he wanted to go out and personally kill himself some terrorists. Four years later, the war changed him, and he has clearly matured from combat. (and he has his fair share of war horror stories that he told me about). But if he didn't mature in combat... or if he never went out there... I think he'd still be the type who'd probably go out and pick fights thinking he was helping people. I mean, essentially, that is what he did, and why he decided to go fight in the War. Its a maturity and training thing IMO... these people aren't monsters... they just haven't grown up yet. They'll make the wrong choice and hurt people out of ignorance. Bharrata strikes the nail on the head when he describes them as carrying a gun in hopes to use it... as opposed to carrying a gun with the hope to never use it.

The average human does not want to commit murder. Murder isn't something you have to have to teach people not to do. It isn't a question maturity. It isn't something you grow out of. I'm sorry to break it to you, but, yes, these people are monsters. If you are carrying a gun in hopes to use it, You. Are. A. Monster.

Caveats: There is a difference between "I want to kill some terrorists" and "I want to kill some terrorists to defend my home, family and country."
If you friend "matured" he may no longer be a dangerous monster, but one none the less.
Monster really isn't the right word, I'm just going with the terminology already in the thread.

Basically the ingredient there is acting on rage, which is a response to a narcissistic injury. I.e., "those terrorists shattered my beliefs about American invulnerability and represent an affront to my values, I feel a need to go kill someone loosely affiliated with them or at least similar to them to vent my anger and hurt." The suffering of war probably humbled Knight's friend and taught him to think of these things in human terms instead. Zimmerman, on the other hand, seems to have had a pattern of this kind of behavior that's only gotten worse with time, culminating with him shooting a teenager for daring to look like a hoodrat in Zimmerman's gated utopia.

So when we call people like this "monsters," we run the risk of being guilty of the same thing that motivates them to be shitty people, namely reducing other people down to identities so we don't have to treat them like real human beings.

Very much this. The idea that only "monsters" murder other people is the kind of idea that leads to making no effort to pro-actively prevent murder. It's about as useful as the belief that only monsters rape, and leads to the same result - we're constantly shocked when a "normal" person rapes or murders someone. The truth of the matter is that murder is a surprisingly human activity, and othering those who commit murders is ultimately a selfish act to make us feel better about ourselves or those we interact with.

Zimmerman is a human being, and even if we find what he did deplorable and evil we cannot fall into the simplistic thinking that defines him as anything but. An evil human being, perhaps, but a human being none the less.

[sourmìlk]

I don't see why viewing a person as monstrous means that nothing can be done to help the situation. I think that people who rape and murder are necessarily monsters because, if I had to define what a monster was in terms of human behaviour, I'd say "somebody who does things like rape or murder." That doesn't mean I think that these things are unpreventable.

[Bharrata]

Apparently Al Sharpton is calling for a national summit on race this week due to this case. While I can see the argument against it, I think that overall it would be positive if it were to happen. A lot of race issues which went back below the surface after the crime rates receded in the mid 90s and the shift from black/hispanic as the ultimate Other for white "mainstream" America to Arab during the 00s have been bubbling back up since Obama was elected - just as evidence for that, besides this case, last week a supporter at a Santorum rally shouted "pretend it's Obama" while Santorum was shooting a gun...the rally was at a firing range obviously.

[Nordic Einar]

The average human does not want to commit murder. Murder isn't something you have to have to teach people not to do. It isn't a question maturity. It isn't something you grow out of. I'm sorry to break it to you, but, yes, these people are monsters. If you are carrying a gun in hopes to use it, You. Are. A. Monster.

Caveats: There is a difference between "I want to kill some terrorists" and "I want to kill some terrorists to defend my home, family and country."
If you friend "matured" he may no longer be a dangerous monster, but one none the less.
Monster really isn't the right word, I'm just going with the terminology already in the thread.

This quote, in particular discussing how "not wanting to murder isn't something you grow out of" or "Someone who may have been capable of murder in the past, but no longer is, is still a monster" kind of implies that People Who Are Gonna Murder Have Some Inherent Flaw That Makes Them Murder.

It's an incredibly privileged view point. I know lots of folks back where I grew up who, under the right circumstances, would've killed someone if it meant their family would survive a little longer. Their economic situation has improved and they no longer are forced to participate in a life of crime to survive, drastically decreasing the likelihood they'll ever be in a situation where taking a life is necessary to feed their family.

They're not monsters. They're human beings, and making them out to be "monsters" means "normal" people don't do monstrous things. It's absolutely untrue, and Milgrim's experiments as well as the Stanford Prison Experiment both demonstrate this extremely well. Also, y'know, countless atrocities committed across the ages by human beings who may as well have been your neighbor.

[sourmìlk]

At least Santorum had the surprising decency to say that the person's comment was entirely and, without qualification, unacceptable. Although I don't know if that was a race thing and not just a political thing. Probably both.

I don't know that a race summit is really necessary. I mean, nobody really thinks that it's okay to shoot people because they're black, right? I can't imagine that "let's not shoot people because of their skin color" is such a contentious issue that it really needs to be discussed that much.

[lutzj]

The knee-jerk labeling of this incident a hate crime seems to have led to this situation:

Spoiler:

The new Black Panther Party offered a bounty of $10,000 Saturday for the “capture” of a Florida neighborhood watch captain who killed unarmed teen Trayvon Martin.

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” leader Mikhail Muhammad said after announcing the reward for George Zimmerman at a protest in Sanford, Fla.

Muhammad called on 5,000 black men to mobilize and capture the neighborhood watch volunteer.

“If the government won’t do the job, we’ll do it,” Muhammad said, leading chants that included “freedom or death” and “justice for Trayvon.”

Muhammad said New Black Panther’s chairman, Malik Zulu Shabaz of Washington, was taking donations from black entertainers and athletes...

Because it's definitely the loose-cannon neighborhood watchmen who increase the visibility of race, foment racial tension, and put hysteria ahead of the judicial process nowadays.

[Bharrata]

I mean, nobody really thinks that it's okay to shoot people because they're black, right? I can't imagine that "let's not shoot people because of their skin color" is such a contentious issue that it really needs to be discussed that much.

If that were the case this thread wouldn't exist, would it?

The average human does not want to commit murder. Murder isn't something you have to have to teach people not to do. It isn't a question maturity. It isn't something you grow out of. I'm sorry to break it to you, but, yes, these people are monsters. If you are carrying a gun in hopes to use it, You. Are. A. Monster.

Caveats: There is a difference between "I want to kill some terrorists" and "I want to kill some terrorists to defend my home, family and country."
If you friend "matured" he may no longer be a dangerous monster, but one none the less.
Monster really isn't the right word, I'm just going with the terminology already in the thread.

This quote, in particular discussing how "not wanting to murder isn't something you grow out of" or "Someone who may have been capable of murder in the past, but no longer is, is still a monster" kind of implies that People Who Are Gonna Murder Have Some Inherent Flaw That Makes Them Murder.

It's an incredibly privileged view point. I know lots of folks back where I grew up who, under the right circumstances, would've killed someone if it meant their family would survive a little longer. Their economic situation has improved and they no longer are forced to participate in a life of crime to survive, drastically decreasing the likelihood they'll ever be in a situation where taking a life is necessary to feed their family.

They're not monsters. They're human beings, and making them out to be "monsters" means "normal" people don't do monstrous things. It's absolutely untrue, and Milgrim's experiments as well as the Stanford Prison Experiment both demonstrate this extremely well. Also, y'know, countless atrocities committed across the ages by human beings who may as well have been your neighbor.

Thank you for this. Most people with a good roof over their heads forget how hard it is for the "underclass" to get by.

"There's hunger in the street that is hard to defeat
Many steal for sport, but more steal to eat
...
There is universal law, whether rich or poor
Some say life's a game, to more, life is war"

Mos Def - "Got"

“Into this wild-beast tangle these men had been born without their consent, they had taken part in it because they could not help it; that they were in jail was no disgrace to them, for the game had never been fair, the dice were loaded. They were swindlers and thieves of pennies and dimes, and they had been trapped and put out of the way by the swindlers and thieves of millions of dollars.”
― Upton Sinclair, The Jungle

Now someone call me a bleeding heart.


But seriously, this is again why this case has become national, Trayvon's parents were not living in a bad neighborhood and they've had to deal with the injustices that are typical of living in a bad neighborhood, and yes that injustice is more typical in poor neighborhoods is a problem in itself but it definitely shouldn't follow a family who makes it out of that situation because of the color of their skin.



@ lutz: I don't think you'll find anyone trying to justify the Black Panther's statement, they're about as fringe as the KKK, though yeah, they get a little more slack and that's unfortunate in and of itself.

[sourmìlk]

I mean, nobody really thinks that it's okay to shoot people because they're black, right? I can't imagine that "let's not shoot people because of their skin color" is such a contentious issue that it really needs to be discussed that much.

If that were the case this thread wouldn't exist, would it?

It still would. I mean, nobody here is really questioning the truth ofthe statement that it's not okay to kill people because of their skin color.

[Princess Marzipan]

I don't know that a race summit is really necessary. I mean, nobody really thinks that it's okay to shoot people because they're black, right? I can't imagine that "let's not shoot people because of their skin color" is such a contentious issue that it really needs to be discussed that much.

Um, at least one person thinks it's perfectly okay, and he just came pretty close to getting away with it.

[sourmìlk]

I don't think his single opinion warrants a summit. Horrible racist people are going to exist regardless of summits. And unless you really think that the summit is going to reduce that number (and, considering that this doesn't happen too often and that the people who hold these views are extremists, I don't think it will), there's not much of a point.

[Princess Marzipan]

Communication and understanding is the only way the problem will go away. Do you better ideas than a summit that generates fodder for a national dialogue?

[ameretrifle]

The knee-jerk labeling of this incident a hate crime seems to have led to this situation:

Spoiler:

The new Black Panther Party offered a bounty of $10,000 Saturday for the “capture” of a Florida neighborhood watch captain who killed unarmed teen Trayvon Martin.

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” leader Mikhail Muhammad said after announcing the reward for George Zimmerman at a protest in Sanford, Fla.

Muhammad called on 5,000 black men to mobilize and capture the neighborhood watch volunteer.

“If the government won’t do the job, we’ll do it,” Muhammad said, leading chants that included “freedom or death” and “justice for Trayvon.”

Muhammad said New Black Panther’s chairman, Malik Zulu Shabaz of Washington, was taking donations from black entertainers and athletes...

Because it's definitely the loose-cannon neighborhood watchmen who increase the visibility of race, foment racial tension, and put hysteria ahead of the judicial process nowadays.

So if someone comes in here and says "That lutzj guy is right, clearly we should nuke all urban areas and live off the land", do I get to dismiss both of you as crazy extremists?

I mean, you wouldn't know that guy, and your arguments don't really necessarily logically follow from each other, but, your knee-jerk post would seem to have provoked him into suggesting we attack all cities with nuclear weapons. If you just hadn't said what you thought of the situation, that guy wouldn't have said anything at all. Because it's definitely the people who start discussions who are responsible when people in them make arguments that no one likes.

Or: If you'd said that it was "not ONLY the loose-cannon neighborhood watchmen....", I might have taken your post in good faith. As it is, the existence of the Black Panther party does not make people who give themselves authority, carry a gun, and attack and murder black teenagers for no valid reason any less racist, nor does it make their contribution to the "fomenting of racial tension" somehow trivial. If you think shootings like this don't scare people just as much or more than rhetoric like this presumably scares you (I say "rhetoric" because no one seems to have taken them up on it yet...), then you haven't put a whole lot of thought into the situation.

[Bharrata]

I mean, nobody really thinks that it's okay to shoot people because they're black, right? I can't imagine that "let's not shoot people because of their skin color" is such a contentious issue that it really needs to be discussed that much.

If that were the case this thread wouldn't exist, would it?

It still would. I mean, nobody here is really questioning the truth ofthe statement that it's not okay to kill people because of their skin color.

I invite you to cast a wider net for your polling sample. While there may not be many who would describe themselves as OK with murdering based on skin color, there are more who are prejudiced against other individuals based on their skin color, white black or purple. Whether that prejudice is hostile or indifferent it's still harmful. I see it receding with the younger generation coming up but by no means is it gone.

[sourmìlk]

I get that lethal racism isn't entirely gone, but is it really prevalent enough that a national dialogue will change it?

[Nordic Einar]

I get that lethal racism isn't entirely gone, but is it really prevalent enough that a national dialogue will change it?

Who says the summit is going to be able lethal racism and not about, say, police who look the other way when lethal racists murder PoC? Or any of the fucking thousands of instances of institutional racism that lead to things like this happening?

[Bharrata]

I get that lethal racism isn't entirely gone, but is it really prevalent enough that a national dialogue will change it?

My family was ran out of my hometown because my father punched out the town constable at a town meeting when that constable called our neighbor a "n***er". (yes he probably shouldn't have hit the constable, it was a much more complicated situation that had been brewing beforehand.) My father was also called a ginny and a wop on a daily basis only 40 years ago - and I do not live anywhere near south of the Mason-Dixon. What's more screwed up is I've watched my father become more and more latently racist since the economic crash and the election of Obama. It's a cycle, and a shitty one at that, give it 50 years and "normalized" outsiders/immigrants will probably (hopefully we'll be past it by then) be racist/prejudiced against the new outsiders.

The problem with racism and prejudice in this country is that more people *allow* racism and prejudice to stick around by not calling it out as unwanted ignorance and bigotry by staying silent about it when it's voiced, than there are actual straight up vocal racists.

So yeah, I think a national forum about it would be productive, even if it seems unnecessary to those who don't have to deal with it.


edit: if anything, this case has already sparked a national conversation, but I don't think it would be going overboard to have national figures engage in an official summit about it.

[IcedT]

The knee-jerk labeling of this incident a hate crime seems to have led to this situation:

Knee-jerk? When a guy says "fucking coons" on a 911 call just before shooting a black 17-year-old for no apparent reason I think it's pretty reasonable to assume it's a hate crime.

[lutzj]

The knee-jerk labeling of this incident a hate crime seems to have led to this situation:

Knee-jerk? When a guy says "fucking coons" on a 911 call just before shooting a black 17-year-old for no apparent reason I think it's pretty reasonable to assume it's a hate crime.

It is "pretty reasonable." It would also be reasonable to assume that he legitimately acted in self-defense, as is the contention of Zimmerman, at least one witness, and the police who responded to the incident. It would also be reasonable to assume that his use of a firearm against an apparent attacker had more to do with his established past as an overzealous vigilante than racism. We simply cannot assume Zimmerman's motives.

[Lucrece]

I thought all normal, i.e. obnoxiously naive, teenagers wore hoodies. His hoodie wasn't even oversized like the usual ghetto style, so I don't get where he's referencing a "gangsta" image other than "black kid wearing white hoodie = gangsta" nonsense.

Why must some people be so cringeworthily WASP-y?

[Princess Marzipan]

White folk have a tendency to get uppity when their supremacy is challenged.

[Bharrata]

To be fair, he is "white" Hispanic.

[Falling]

To be fair, he is "white" Hispanic.

I didn't think she was referring to Zimmerman... but does that matter either way?

[yoni45]

It is "pretty reasonable." It would also be reasonable to assume that he legitimately acted in self-defense, as is the contention of Zimmerman, at least one witness, and the police who responded to the incident. It would also be reasonable to assume that his use of a firearm against an apparent attacker had more to do with his established past as an overzealous vigilante than racism. We simply cannot assume Zimmerman's motives.

I don't how how 'reasonable' it is to assume this guy had to use a firearm in self defense against a teenager almost half his weight *and* taller than him to boot.

[Falling]

It is "pretty reasonable." It would also be reasonable to assume that he legitimately acted in self-defense, as is the contention of Zimmerman, at least one witness, and the police who responded to the incident. It would also be reasonable to assume that his use of a firearm against an apparent attacker had more to do with his established past as an overzealous vigilante than racism. We simply cannot assume Zimmerman's motives.

I don't how how 'reasonable' it is to assume this guy had to use a firearm in self defense against a teenager almost half his weight *and* taller than him to boot.

Also to say that attacking an innocent teen with no provocation is just overzealous vigilantism is also not very reasonable.

[KnightExemplar]

besides this case, last week a supporter at a Santorum rally shouted "pretend it's Obama" while Santorum was shooting a gun...the rally was at a firing range obviously.

I don't think it has anything to do with race actually. Lets not forget Sarah Palin's famous advertisement.



If you don't remember why this was controversial... here's an arrow to help jog your memory.


Just... painting Democrats as targets... black OR white... is standard for Republicans. I think the Gabby Giffords thing has slowed down the Republicans politicians from last year at least. I hope that the politicians will try to keep it clean this year... but the general elections haven't started yet.

Of course, the Zimmerman thing totally feels like a race issue to me. And while I'm not African American, I definitely think that racial tensions have heated up in the past decade. So I'm not necessarily saying Al Sharpton's national race summit is a bad idea. I just... unfortunately think that the "gun / target" analogy for removing Democrats from office is standard language for Republicans.

[IcedT]

The knee-jerk labeling of this incident a hate crime seems to have led to this situation:

Knee-jerk? When a guy says "fucking coons" on a 911 call just before shooting a black 17-year-old for no apparent reason I think it's pretty reasonable to assume it's a hate crime.

It is "pretty reasonable." It would also be reasonable to assume that he legitimately acted in self-defense, as is the contention of Zimmerman, at least one witness, and the police who responded to the incident. It would also be reasonable to assume that his use of a firearm against an apparent attacker had more to do with his established past as an overzealous vigilante than racism. We simply cannot assume Zimmerman's motives.

We can't assume with certainty, but we can look at what we know about the situation and make educated guesses. And even if it did have more to do with his overzealousness than racism, it's likely it had at least something to do with racism, which puts it in hate-crime territory if the police do decide to bring charges against him.

Does anyone know off the top of their heads what Florida law says about use of deadly force in situations like this? To my knowledge the Stand Your Ground law only applies on your own personal property, as in home invasions and the like. This happened after a conflict that Zimmerman himself initiated, against the direct advice of the 911 responder. Even if Trayvon did throw the first punch it seems insane to me that Zimmerman would be allowed to kill him. There seems to be a real danger here of setting a "start argument, provoke violent response, open fire, claim self-defense" precedent that I'm sure Florida's many hicks and tough guys would be happy to take advantage of.

I thought all normal, i.e. obnoxiously naive, teenagers wore hoodies. His hoodie wasn't even oversized like the usual ghetto style, so I don't get where he's referencing a "gangsta" image other than "black kid wearing white hoodie = gangsta" nonsense.

Hoodies aren't even for teenagers anymore, they're the most common kind of jacket for most people under 30 these days. This seems to be the case for every economic or ethnic group I've spent much time around.

[Falling]

Hoodies aren't even for teenagers anymore, they're the most common kind of jacket for most people under 30 these days. This seems to be the case for every economic or ethnic group I've spent much time around.

Also, a really good point. My mother (middle-aged, petite white woman) wears a hoodie. My wife (25-year-old) wears a hoodie. My boss (middle-aged, balding, chubby) wears a hoodie. I wear hoodies. No one I know other than grandparents and older relatives don't. There may have been a time when they were a reasonable indicator of people being troublesome, but it's sure as shit not the case now.

[Bharrata]

Does anyone know off the top of their heads what Florida law says about use of deadly force in situations like this? To my knowledge the Stand Your Ground law only applies on your own personal property, as in home invasions and the like. This happened after a conflict that Zimmerman himself initiated, against the direct advice of the 911 responder. Even if Trayvon did throw the first punch it seems insane to me that Zimmerman would be allowed to kill him. There seems to be a real danger here of setting a "start argument, provoke violent response, open fire, claim self-defense" precedent that I'm sure Florida's many hicks and tough guys would be happy to take advantage of.

One of the legislators who introduced the bill has stated it does not apply in this case. From what I know of most self-defense laws, it's either you need to prove you could not flee (which is a problem that I think is a legitimate argument *for* Stand Your Ground) or you can only defend yourself in kind to the type of weapon, as in if they attack you with fists you cannot defend yourself legally with a knife, or if you're attacked with a knife you cannot shoot your attacker. That last one may not be quite right, but when I was younger I knew someone who was sent to jail for firing a gun when he was being beaten in the head with a hammer.

[Falling]

One of the legislators who introduced the bill has stated it does not apply in this case. From what I know of most self-defense laws, it's either you need to prove you could not flee (which is a problem that I think is a legitimate argument *for* Stand Your Ground) or you can only defend yourself in kind to the type of weapon, as in if they attack you with fists you cannot defend yourself legally with a knife, or if you're attacked with a knife you cannot shoot your attacker. That last one may not be quite right, but when I was younger I knew someone who was sent to jail for firing a gun when he was being beaten in the head with a hammer.

That last part definitely doesn't sound right... Not that anyone ever said laws or judgments in this country made any sense.

[lutzj]

Does anyone know off the top of their heads what Florida law says about use of deadly force in situations like this? To my knowledge the Stand Your Ground law only applies on your own personal property, as in home invasions and the like. This happened after a conflict that Zimmerman himself initiated, against the direct advice of the 911 responder. Even if Trayvon did throw the first punch it seems insane to me that Zimmerman would be allowed to kill him. There seems to be a real danger here of setting a "start argument, provoke violent response, open fire, claim self-defense" precedent that I'm sure Florida's many hicks and tough guys would be happy to take advantage of.

Agreed, and on the surface of things I can't fathom why Zimmerman isn't being charged with at least manslaughter, or a civil suit for wrongful death, especially if, as other posters have suggested, that he isn't under the protection of Florida's Stand Your Ground statutes. It's obvious that he handled the situation improperly and (probably needlessly) destroyed a human life. I'm just not convinced he committed murder that night, or that Martin's race was a significant motive.

[Diadem]

I think all the focus on what Zimmerman did or didn't do, and if he was or wasn't right to do it, is ultimately missing the point. It doesn't matter if he is entirely guilty or entirely innocent, in both cases he should have been investigated. In both cases the police should have arrested him and initiated a thorough investigation of what happened.

It's the police conduct that is the big story here. The way they handled this situation. Not just the officers on the scene, but also all their superiors, all the way up the food chain, who protected them and are still defending what happened. And the fact that this kind of blatant abuse and corruption by the police is worryingly common.

Fighting crime is a good idea, I'm not against that. But you can't fight crime without a good police force. So the first priority should be fighting police corruption.

[Ghostbear]

I think all the focus on what Zimmerman did or didn't do, and if he was or wasn't right to do it, is ultimately missing the point. It doesn't matter if he is entirely guilty or entirely innocent, in both cases he should have been investigated. In both cases the police should have arrested him and initiated a thorough investigation of what happened.

It's the police conduct that is the big story here. The way they handled this situation. Not just the officers on the scene, but also all their superiors, all the way up the food chain, who protected them and are still defending what happened. And the fact that this kind of blatant abuse and corruption by the police is worryingly common.

Fighting crime is a good idea, I'm not against that. But you can't fight crime without a good police force. So the first priority should be fighting police corruption.

I 100% agree with the above statement. Murder, manslaughter, and all those horrible things happen. Sometimes they're racially motivated, sometimes they aren't. The outrage isn't (or at least shouldn't) be that another one happened, it's that one happened and the police didn't think anything needed to be done about it. That the situation wasn't worth investigating or arresting. That (as far as I know) none of the officers involved have been or are likely to be punished for such. A police force that tolerates such actions without any proper investigation is one that is failing at its duty and encourages more of the same.

[Chen]

I think all the focus on what Zimmerman did or didn't do, and if he was or wasn't right to do it, is ultimately missing the point. It doesn't matter if he is entirely guilty or entirely innocent, in both cases he should have been investigated. In both cases the police should have arrested him and initiated a thorough investigation of what happened.

Actually they could not have arrested him and then investigated because of the way the law is formulated.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

So they'd have to investigate and once they had probably cause that what he did was illegal, they could arrest him. Note that it should have been pretty damn easy to do that though considering the next part of the law was:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Seems to me that (2) was definitely the case here. He provoked any use of force in this situation and considering the kid was unarmed the force was very likely not have sufficient to qualify the exceptions in (a). Of course he's saying he didn't provoke the fight and there doesn't seem to be actual evidence against that. From what I've read the phone call indicate he said he was going to stop pursuing and wait for the cops. Whether that's true or not is not clear. As long as the police are actually investigating I imagine he'll eventually get arrested if the story is true that he provoked this fight.