The Killing of Treyvon Martin

**Black Roman** · 04-26-2012, 08:31 AM

Because people value their rights more than they value the lives of others.

**Ray G.** · 04-26-2012, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by BriRedfern

It is amazing how people can take away totally different ideas from the same basic facts. This guy shot a kid IN THE BACK. He shot someone that was running away from him. How is this better than any number of scenarios in the Martin case? How is this case LESS clear than the Martin case? There are multiple surviving witnesses in this story. I just don't understand.

Because it happened right after the kid assaulted him in his own home. That's a pretty big difference. We know that Zimmerman pursued Trayvon with no just cause, and that's how the conflict began.

If the shove didn't happen, it would be much more clear-cut.

**Fourthman** · 04-26-2012, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by Ray G.

Because it happened right after the kid assaulted him in his own home. That's a pretty big difference. We know that Zimmerman pursued Trayvon with no just cause, and that's how the conflict began.

If the shove didn't happen, it would be much more clear-cut.

What about the yelling at gunpoint that precipitated the shove?

**dasNdanger** · 04-26-2012, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Fourthman

I think again, that's a separate issue from the justice system not punishing killers to the fullest extent it can.

I guess my point is that the community doesn't even give the justice system the chance, which does nothing to help the situation of black men, especially young ones. If the black community (with an emotional connection) doesn't value the life of a black man enough to help bring his killer to justice, then how is the justice system (with no emotional connection) going to put any value on that life? In today's world it DOES start with the community, as the Martin case has shown. However, the outcry only seems to come when it's a white man killing a black man. If the same community outcry came when a black man killed a black man, then it would force the justice system to take note, just as it has in the Martin case.

With so many voices in the world today, you often have to be the loudest to see that justice gets done. That should go for all killings, not just those that seem racially motivated.

EDIT: I think that's why Bill Cosby, with his Philly connections, was concerned about focusing on the gun issues instead of the racial issues in the Martin case. He well knows the battlezone Philly has become.

I don't see how what you're saying is relevant to dealing with someone who's already in your house and how they got there. Ownership might dictate what steps can be taken to remove someone from your home, but once it's understood that there's been no illegal entry, the desire to have that person removed shouldn't, IMHO, magically protect you from any action you decide to take against them.

If the article info is correct, then he told the men to leave, but one of them pushed him (which would be assault), in which case the homeowner does have a right to defend himself. That's the part that makes this case seem hard to prosecute.

das

**Black Roman** · 04-26-2012, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Ray G.

Because it happened right after the kid assaulted him in his own home. That's a pretty big difference. We know that Zimmerman pursued Trayvon with no just cause, and that's how the conflict began.

If the shove didn't happen, it would be much more clear-cut.

I still don't see how a shove equals "chase two dudes down with a gun and shoot them."

But again, not for me to decide.

**Ray G.** · 04-26-2012, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Fourthman

What about the yelling at gunpoint that precipitated the shove?

He just found two people in his home who he didn't recognize, possibly engaging in illegal activity. Seems like having a gun on hand is an appropriate response at that point.

I guess the victim panicked and lashed out to try to get away when he saw the gun. I can't blame him. It's tragic.

**Black Roman** · 04-26-2012, 08:40 AM

If this guy was a cop, and these dudes were suspects, and the cops ended up killing one of them, it would be considered excessive force.

Why should it be any different for a civilian?

**Black Roman** · 04-26-2012, 08:42 AM

Heh, this is going to become the go-to thread for all racially but maybe not really racially motivated crimes, isn't it?

**Kedd** · 04-26-2012, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Ray G.

He just found two people in his home who he didn't recognize, possibly engaging in illegal activity. Seems like having a gun on hand is an appropriate response at that point.

I guess the victim panicked and lashed out to try to get away when he saw the gun. I can't blame him. It's tragic.

Ii'm wondering what the girls said/did during this and what his "ranting was about". Either way, I find difficult to say he did not initiate the confrontation.

**Fourthman** · 04-26-2012, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by dasNdanger

I guess my point is that the community doesn't even give the justice system the chance, which does nothing to help the situation of black men, especially young ones. If the black community (with an emotional connection) doesn't value the life of a black man enough to help bring his killer to justice, then how is the justice system (with no emotional connection) going to put any value on that life? In today's world it DOES start with the community, as the Martin case has shown. However, the outcry only seems to come when it's a white man killing a black man. If the same community outcry came when a black man killed a black man, then it would force the justice system to take note, just as it has in the Martin case.

With so many voices in the world today, you often have to be the loudest to see that justice gets done. That should go for all killings, not just those that seem racially motivated.

I don't agree that it starts with the community and ends with the justice system. I think that kind of conflation is dangerous and kind of leads towards thinking that a person should get the justice their community has earned and not the justice that the law dictates. These are two wholly separate issues that both need examination and solutions, but one needn't be dependent on the other.

Originally Posted by dasNdanger

If the article info is correct, then he told the men to leave, but one of them pushed him (which would be assault), in which case the homeowner does have a right to defend himself. That's the part that makes this case seem hard to prosecute.

This info isn't in the article I posted. The DA charged him with false imprisonment, which suggests that everyone is in agreement that they weren't being permitted to leave.