Posted on 03/23/2012 2:08:00 PM PDT by vikingrinn
“It appears to be that he was shot by a racist”
"the guy looks like he just killed this kid, maybe because he’s a racist”
“It looks like this kid was killed in cold blood"
(Excerpt) Read more at glennbeck.com ...
Or Joseph Smith.
I tried posting this last night as a vanity but it didn’t get through so I’ll try posting in an existing thread. I’m not trying to start anything or troll. Basically, I’m pretty baffled by many FReepers’ reactions to the Zimmerman/Martin case so I wanted to hear people’s opinions on the following entirely hypothetical scenario that has absolutely nothing to do with recent events:
This is a circumstantial case that basically comes down to whom FReepers are most willing to give the benefit of the doubt to:
Character A: Violent criminal record; history of overreacting; armed
Character Z (by which of course I mean zed): No criminal record; suspended for tardiness; Skittles
A is “patrolling” the neighborhood in his car. Z is returning to his father’s house (in which he does not usually reside) from the local gas station because he wanted candy during the NBA All Star Game half time break (yeah, I know, who watches the NBA All Star game, or any All Star game for that matter? but still...).
A follows Z in his car because he suspects him of wrongdoing. The only reasons that A suspects Z of wrongdoing is that Z is wearing a hoodie. A, subsequently exits his car and proceeds to follow Z on foot, despite the 911 operator’s instruction that A “doesn’t need to do that”.
Police officers arrive on the scene to find that Z is dead of a bullet wound to the chest caused by A’s weapon. A has grass stains on his back and a bloody nose which he claims he received in a fight initiated by Z. A claims that he shot Z in self defense.
Putting aside any considerations of race/politics for a minute,
1) Who, if anyone, is morally responsible for Z’s death?
2) Who, if anyone, is legally responsible for Z’s death?
3) What is the obligation of the local police force in investigating this incident?
Who is the racist?
The poor hispanic bastard or his white sounding name?
You could easily get a job over at MSNBC.
I hope the rank-n-file are getting a good eyefull of the MSM and our so called conservative leadership.
Witch hunts are us. No trial necessary.
While Geraldo blames the tragic death of Trayvon Martin on his mode of dress, I believe there is another element that the MSM will studiously ignore.
Barack Obama has done more to divide this nation along racial lines than anything I can remember. “African Americans for Obama”, “Hispanics for Obama,” “Martians for Obama”, etc., etc... are just part of it. This guy’s efforts to take us the rest of the way to communism have angered many of those who may already harbor latent or outright racist tendencies.
While Obama’s anti-American behavior has little to do with his race, there are unbalanced folks out here who DO read race into that behavior. Once they cross that threshold, their warped minds can justify nearly any act, up to and including the killing of an unarmed black boy walking through his neighborhood. I fear there is more — and worse — to come.
Barack, some of Trayvon Martin’s blood — and the blood of future black and white victims of your racism — is on YOUR hands.
The problems with your scenario begin right away. First, has "Character A" ever been convicted of a violent crime? What official history of "overreacting" do you refer to? Is there something wrong with being armed? Then why is it pertinent?
Character Z (by which of course I mean zed): No criminal record; suspended for tardiness; Skittles
If Character Z is a juvenile, then you have no idea if he has a record. Your statement that he is "suspended for tardiness" and "skittles" is trying to be cutesy and influence the perception of the reader with meaningless information.
The only reasons that A suspects Z of wrongdoing is that Z is wearing a hoodie.
Not true.
A, subsequently exits his car and proceeds to follow Z on foot, despite the 911 operator’s instruction that A “doesn’t need to do that”.
There was no "instruction" not to follow.
1) Who, if anyone, is morally responsible for Z’s death?
Well, we don't in this country have a formal mechanism for determining such a thing. Moral responsibility would be up to the reader to decide, based on facts rather than weasel phrases like "skittles".
2) Who, if anyone, is legally responsible for Z’s death?
You haven't provided enough information here to make a determination, unless you expect us to find Character A criminally liable because the other guy was just a kid skipping and whistling with skittles in his pocket.
3) What is the obligation of the local police force in investigating this incident?
To conduct a thorough investigation, WHICH THEY HAVE DONE.
My little innocuous bullsh!t meter jpg got nuked in a heartbeat a couple days ago.
It’s unfortunate that this case has become so politically charged and my goal in posting this was to strip this case down to nuts and bolts. I tried to state the facts that are not in dispute as objectively as possible. If you disagree with any aspect of this scenario please let me know which one.
That would have been a full blown coffee spew had I seen this 12 hours ago!
Character A has been arrested for assaulting a police officer. Even if he hasn’t been convicted he is the only one of the two, at least as far as we know, with any kind of criminal history. You’re right that there’s no way to know whether character B has any juvenile record but there’s no reason to suspect that he does.
The reason that A being armed is important is quite simply that Z was not. When an unarmed Z ends up dead after being followed by an armed A, it’s very difficult for A to claim self defense.
And I was just trying to be funny with the Skittles comment. As for the “tardiness”, I’m sure I’ve seen several FReepers mention that that’s what he was suspended for. It’s the only disciplinary problem he’s had that we know of.
Bwahahahaha!!! So appropriate. Glenn the oracle knows all sees all.
So true.
Then it is completely irrelevant. Being arrested and not convicted says nothing about one's history.
You’re right that there’s no way to know whether character B has any juvenile record but there’s no reason to suspect that he does.
If it is unknowable, then how does it inform us?
The reason that A being armed is important is quite simply that Z was not. When an unarmed Z ends up dead after being followed by an armed A, it’s very difficult for A to claim self defense.
Not if A was beaten to a pulp by Z.
And I was just trying to be funny with the Skittles comment.
But this is the problem. Your emotional bias was apparent from the get-go. I was a police officer for 20 years and investigated many homicide scenes. It must be done without emotion, as a surgeon cuts his patient. You made it impersonal on the surface with your "Character A" and "Character Z" monikers, but then immediately fell right back into the trap.
In criminal law, for purposes of guilt in an instant case, criminal history is entirely irrelevant.
In criminal law, skittles are entirely irrelevant.
“but we have evidence that shows this is not the case.”
Really?
We have a FR thread going on with about 500 posts:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2862676/posts
Present your evidence...
The paranoid busybody, complete with a pierced ear was stalking the teen, first in a vehicle and then on foot - possibly brandishing a weapon. The teen was aware of the fact he was been followed and probably believed he was about to have his asshole violated in a secluded yard by an armed homosexual.
When the busybody attempted to detain the teen, he fought back resulting in his eventual shooting.
Certainly not a premeditated murder, but I would like to see this paranoid aspiring rent-a-cop out of circulation for a good long time. I think most men and boys confronted by a situation where they perceived a queer to be stalking them would administer a beat down.
Nice weasel words.
“Stalking.”
“possibly brandishing”.
“paranoid aspiring rent-a-cop”.
There’s a job waiting for you at HuffPo.
I’ll say the same to you, Walter.
There’s an ongoing thread where people are debating the merits of this case. There’s about 500 posts.
It’s here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2862995/posts
Present your theory and see if it rises or falls.
What seems to be obvious is you’re an idiot.
I think I am pretty comfortable with my description of this crackpot that some people want to elevate into the next Bernie Goetz.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.