The whole thing is faux outrage

 

An unarmed kid getting stalked and then killed for no good reason is now considered faux outrage? Wow. What the hell happened to this country? I'm sure if this was your kid you'd dismiss it just as easily.

Okay, being shot and being killed are 2 different things. Furthermore if you read the Chicago tribune, it is littered with stories about children being killed, etc. Today alone there are more than 3 stories involving violence (not including Martin.)

 

What is the difference? Why do some get more coverage than others?

 

Well, I thought it was obvious, but I guess I will explain. It is because in Chicago, Zimmerman would have been charged with a crime and it would be going to trial/plea wherever. I would be interested to know how many people in Chicago carrying a weapon who kill an unarmed man are not charged with a crime? My guess 0.

 

So that is why it is a sensational story, because most people cant imagine that this can happen. Not that Zimmerman is guilty, not that he wont be found innocent, just that he wasnt even charged with a crime.

 

Thats why it is on the front page, because its bizarre. No one cares about the mundane, I guarantee people have been killed in Miami, etc since then, but it doenst have the strange facts as this case.

 

Furthermore, Zimmerman is latino, so youd think that Obama wouldnt want to come down on him.

 

So, no, its not for exploitative purposes, unless you are arguing that it is trying to exploit gun control laws, and then yes I agree that part of the purpose of these articles is to attack gun rights in general, but all articles about gun violence are that way.

Edited March 25, 201214 yr by Soxbadger

Okay, being shot and being killed are 2 different things. Furthermore if you read the Chicago tribune, it is littered with stories about children being killed, etc. Today alone there are more than 3 stories involving violence (not including Martin.)

 

What is the difference? Why do some get more coverage than others?

 

Well, I thought it was obvious, but I guess I will explain. It is because in Chicago, Zimmerman would have been charged with a crime and it would be going to trial/plea wherever. I would be interested to know how many people in Chicago carrying a weapon who kill an unarmed man are not charged with a crime? My guess 0.

 

So that is why it is a sensational story, because most people cant imagine that this can happen. Not that Zimmerman is guilty, not that he wont be found innocent, just that he wasnt even charged with a crime.

 

Thats why it is on the front page, because its bizarre. No one cares about the mundane, I guarantee people have been killed in Miami, etc since then, but it doenst have the strange facts as this case.

 

Furthermore, Zimmerman is latino, so youd think that Obama wouldnt want to come down on him.

 

So, no, its not for exploitative purposes, that argument doesnt even make sense.

 

If Zimmerman had a latino last name, this story would not be getting this type of national coverage. It's the 'racists GOP and NRA are out to get you' narrative. Race has been brought up in every story I've seen so far. Plenty people are killed each year, in which the killer is known yet no charges are pressed for a variety of reasons. This story is necessary to exploit minority communities to fear they are being hunted down on a daily basis, in every neighborhood, and the Republican party is assisting these evil killers. Better vote Obama.

Edited March 25, 201214 yr by mr_genius

And the cases where no charges are pressed generally get considerably more press, most of them dont involve a confession though.

 

If you believe that, its okay, but I personally dont care if it was 2 martians (although that would get considerably more press coverage and I doubt you can argue its because of some Obama narrative), I think that the Florida law is stupid and that in general, c&c, is unnecessary. I have a vested interest because I dont want those type of laws in Illinois.

 

Has nothing to do with race in my opinion.

Would the president have commented if this was a white kid with a hoodie that got shot and killed? I think we all know the answer to that one.

Would he have been asked? No.

Race has been brought up in every story I've seen so far.

Would this kid have been dead if he was a white kid walking through a gated community at night with a pack of skittles?

And the cases where no charges are pressed generally get considerably more press

 

Nothing like this, unless there are reasons the media is pressing the story (celebrity involved or something). In this case, political exploitation is the reason.

Edited March 25, 201214 yr by mr_genius

Would this kid have been dead if he was a white kid walking through a gated community at night with a pack of skittles?

 

Impossible to tell.

Impossible to tell.

But you know darn well you have the same gut reaction the rest of us do.

I guess if this happened while Bush was President he wouldn't have made any statements. You know white Presidents comment about white things and black President comments about black things.

Would he have been killed if he was wearing a sweater tied around his neck and carrying a snickers bar?

Would he have been killed if he was wearing a sweater tied around his neck and carrying a snickers bar?

He'd still have been "Suspicious".

Okay, being shot and being killed are 2 different things. Furthermore if you read the Chicago tribune, it is littered with stories about children being killed, etc. Today alone there are more than 3 stories involving violence (not including Martin.)

 

What is the difference? Why do some get more coverage than others?

 

Well, I thought it was obvious, but I guess I will explain. It is because in Chicago, Zimmerman would have been charged with a crime and it would be going to trial/plea wherever. I would be interested to know how many people in Chicago carrying a weapon who kill an unarmed man are not charged with a crime? My guess 0.

 

So that is why it is a sensational story, because most people cant imagine that this can happen. Not that Zimmerman is guilty, not that he wont be found innocent, just that he wasnt even charged with a crime.

 

Thats why it is on the front page, because its bizarre. No one cares about the mundane, I guarantee people have been killed in Miami, etc since then, but it doenst have the strange facts as this case.

 

Furthermore, Zimmerman is latino, so youd think that Obama wouldnt want to come down on him.

 

So, no, its not for exploitative purposes, unless you are arguing that it is trying to exploit gun control laws, and then yes I agree that part of the purpose of these articles is to attack gun rights in general, but all articles about gun violence are that way.

 

Only something like 20% of homicides in Chicago result in a charge. Or something like that, I heard it.

 

Would he have been asked? No.

 

 

And that's kind of the point.

Impossible to tell.

 

Please.

not going to work. i'm not voting obama, no matter how much ridiculous name calling goes on.

Kkkeep it up mr. stormfront

But the law itself says you can't arrest unless you're absolutely certain you can prove your case. The law is pretty clear that arrest is only appropriate in extreme circumstances.

 

I wanted to follow up on this. This is similar to Eugene Volokh's (UCLA law professor, libertarian/conservative blog host and occasional NPR commentator) take:

 

To arrest someone for a crime, the police need probable cause to believe that he committed the crime. But what if it’s clear that the person committed the act (e.g., intentionally killed someone), but it seems likely that he has a good affirmative defense (e.g., self-defense)? My view is that probable cause should be probable cause to believe that the conduct was indeed criminal, and if the self-defense case is strong enough, that negates probable cause to believe that a crime (as opposed to a justifiable homicide) was committed. But when I looked into this several years ago, I saw that the few courts that had discussed the matter were split.

 

Florida law, though, clearly resolves this: “A law enforcement agency … may not arrest [a] person for using force [in a self-defense situation] unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.”

 

So in Florida, the police must have probable cause to believe that the defendant wasn’t acting in lawful self-defense in order to arrest the defendant. It’s not enough to say, “we have probable cause to believe that you killed the victim, so we’ll arrest you and then sort out later how strong your self-defense case is.”

 

I can’t speak with confidence to whether in the Martin/Zimmerman case the police indeed have such probable cause (which, as you may recall, is a not very clearly defined standard that is well below proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and probably somewhat below preponderance of the evidence).

He also has a pretty thorough post going through the legal issues around lethal self-defense laws:

 

http://volokh.com/2012/03/24/lethal-self-d...ssor-exception/

 

It's a long read but interesting.

In April of last year, Zimmerman called 911 to report a "suspicious looking 7 to 9 year old black male" in his neighborhood.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012...-abuse-911.html

He also called him numerous other times for people who were NOT 'suspicious looking 7 to 9 year old black males' and other things. Considering the apparent wannabe cop nature of Zimmerman, I would venture that black or white, he would have followed the kid.

 

Also, people seem to be assuming that he had his gun out when he confronted Treyvon. Nobody was there but those two so we don't know. When the confrontation happened, the gun COULD have been in his hand, or in a holster, or in his wasteband for all we know. Perhaps Treyvon felt he could take Zimmerman since he didn't see a gun, until it was too late? ANd why is it every picture I see of him is at least 4 years younger than he actually was? And lastly, with the New Black panthers outright posting a bounty on his head and calling for his kidnapping, WHY is Eric Holder not saying/doing something about THAT? It's almost as if the NBP think they can get away with it without penalty because of a precedent or something. Whole case stinks for all involved, and got worse when the race hustlers got their hooks into it.

He also called him numerous other times for people who were NOT 'suspicious looking 7 to 9 year old black males' and other things. Considering the apparent wannabe cop nature of Zimmerman, I would venture that black or white, he would have followed the kid.

 

Also, people seem to be assuming that he had his gun out when he confronted Treyvon. Nobody was there but those two so we don't know. When the confrontation happened, the gun COULD have been in his hand, or in a holster, or in his wasteband for all we know. Perhaps Treyvon felt he could take Zimmerman since he didn't see a gun, until it was too late? ANd why is it every picture I see of him is at least 4 years younger than he actually was? And lastly, with the New Black panthers outright posting a bounty on his head and calling for his kidnapping, WHY is Eric Holder not saying/doing something about THAT? It's almost as if the NBP think they can get away with it without penalty because of a precedent or something. Whole case stinks for all involved, and got worse when the race hustlers got their hooks into it.

Why is anyone assuming that this guy had his gun out? No one's assuming that. We're assuming he saw a scary black kid, muttered to the 911 number that they always get away with this, wandered out to confront him, scared the kid to the point that he was telling people on the phone that some one was chasing him, and then at some point they wound up close enough that the kid struck the guy hard enough to hurt him, and then the guy responded by shooting him.

 

Ideally, this should be a crime. In Florida, it isn't.

lostfan needs to get in here and post his terrifying picture.

This one?

 

I was wearing a suit and tie 20 minutes prior to that... what about this picture says "dangerous"?

Now I'm going to have nightmares again

It's not that bad if you look to the left of the Skittles and notice which hoodie I'm actually wearing...

Well, you were in the military...and currently remain black

ding ding ding

 

except no matter how I look, I'm about as threatening as Carlton Banks

ding ding ding

 

except no matter how I look, I'm about as threatening as Carlton Banks

 

I could only believe that if you danced like him too.