Trayvon Martin And The Right To Be Left Alone...

[paulitician]

Interesting take from Mark Judge.


I’ve never been able to get over the crucial minutes of George Zimmerman’s encounter with Trayvon Martin. I’m not talking about the initial struggle, or even the fatal shooting. That’s where most of the media coverage has been, and for good reason. A life has been lost and it’s important to figure out exactly what happened.

I just have never been able to answer a basic question: Why was Zimmerman bothering Martin to begin with?

For me, the Trayvon Martin case is about something that is fundamental to America: the ability to go out and take a walk or pick up some junk food without being hassled. I’m aware that “hassle” is a term straight out of 1973, and maybe that’s deliberate. When I was growing up in Maryland in the 1970s, my mom had a term for people in the neighborhood who made it their job to mind everything that went on there: the sidewalk superintendent.

Sidewalk superintendents were mostly decent people just trying to protect the neighborhood. Bill Bennett once noted that in the old days the neighborhood watch consisted of mothers on their front porches who could spring into action when they saw something amiss. Such people are an important part of creating a safe and thriving community. Indeed, George Zimmerman had foiled at least one robbery in Twin Lakes, the crime-ridden complex in Florida where the shooting took place.

Trayvon Martin was not one of these; he was a teenage kid. But he was exercising his right to take a nocturnal sojourn and enter a quiet space where the world did not intrude. It set my conservative (even libertarian-leaning) alarm off when I heard the 911 tape where Zimmerman tells police that Trayvon Martin looks like he “is up to no good.” It was just too reminiscent of some sidewalk superintendents I knew as a kid. They were the guys who appeared the second you lit some firecrackers or killed a tick with a magnifying glass...

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/16/trayvon-martin-and-the-right-to-be-left-alone/#ixzz1sPVENUUK

 

[dilloduck]

Are you suggesting an anti-hassle law ?

 

[paulitician]

Are you suggesting an anti-hassle law ?

No.

 

[Old Rocks]

A kid going out at 7 pm to get a can of tea and some candy. A man with a background that never should have allowed him to have a concealed carry permit. The man follows the kid. The kid becomes aware of it, and is worried. The police advise the man to not make contact with the kid. And a couple of minutes later, the kid is dead. And we have only Zimmerman's words for what happened in those couple of minutes.

So, had Zimmerman not had a gun, the kid would be alive. Error #1, that Zimmerman was given the permit.

Had Zimmerman not followed the kid, the kid would be alive. As the article stated, what right did Zimmerman have to follow the kid? Why did he not simply advise the police and cease and desist?
Error #2

The Police told Zimmerman not to contact the kid. But Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and looked for the kid anyway. Error #3 on Zimmerman's part.

The kid went to the store for some tea and candy. Error #1

The kid did not run as fast as possible once he realized that he was being followed. Error #2

Since we still do not know what really took place at the confrontation, so we do not know errors were there.

Seems to me that based on the errors noted, that Zimmerman's were of a much more serious nature than those of the kid's.

 

[nodoginnafight]

As bad as some of the media coverage has been with edited tapes and using what I feel are old and prejudicial pictures, I have some of the same questions. Neighborhood Watch folks aren't supposed to carry guns. Neighborhood Watch folks should follow instructions from real law enforcement (like stop following him)
Now a kid is dead. Sounds like manslaughter might have been a more resonable charge, but maybe they know a lot more than I do (God - I hope so).

 

[paulitician]

I'm not convicting Zimmerman before due process, and neither is the author of this article. But the article is very interesting.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I'm not convicting Zimmerman before due process, and neither is the author of this article. But the article is very interesting.

It is. It's a colorblind look at the right to just take a fucking walk, without being profiled. The only time I've ever been pulled over was when I had a bad tail light, forgot to pay a ticket, or was doing something dumb. I worked for a black person for a good bit of my career, who was a world class medical scientist. He'd be pulled over at least once a month without cause, because he drove a Lexus in a wealthier neighborhood, where he lived.

Profiling is far from where we want to be as a people. Being stopped for walking or driving while black is a sick indictment about our collective mindset.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm not convicting Zimmerman before due process, and neither is the author of this article. But the article is very interesting.

But the article is assuming he was just "walking"..

Now...I dont know what happened....and I have no presumptions...

But...

Maybe he was just walking
Maybe he was walking from car to car seeing if one was unlocked? That is very suspicious.
Maybe he was not actually walking on the sidewalk but closer to the front doors seeing which one may be ajar?
Maybe he was just walking
Maybe he would slow down near a front door and "look around" as if trying to see if someone sees him
Maybe he was just walking.

That article AGAIN did the wrong thing.

It assumes he did not ACT suspicious.

FYI...people usually dont LOOK suspicious...but many ACT suspicious.

There should be no more artilces on this. Let the facts come out first.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Spot on points. This is still the United States and we still have the right to walk, unmolested, down the street to buy something at the corner store.

Except if you're a black kid wearing a hoode against the child rain.

Zimmerman wll get away with his premeditated murder of Travon Martin.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm not convicting Zimmerman before due process, and neither is the author of this article. But the article is very interesting.

It is. It's a colorblind look at the right to just take a fucking walk, without being profiled. The only time I've ever been pulled over was when I had a bad tail light, forgot to pay a ticket, or was doing something dumb. I worked for a black person for a good bit of my career, who was a world class medical scientist. He'd be pulled over at least once a month without cause, because he drove a Lexus in a wealthier neighborhood, where he lived.

Profiling is far from where we want to be as a people. Being stopped for walking or driving while black is a sick indictment about our collective mindset.

And you know he was "just taking a walk"?
You know that as fact?

 

[Jarhead]

Spot on points. This is still the United States and we still have the right to walk, unmolested, down the street to buy something at the corner store.

Except if you're a black kid wearing a hoode against the child rain.

Zimmerman wll get away with his premeditated murder of Travon Martin.

Statemnents like this are what mkakes you an asshole.

Scumbag...you are bad for America.

 

[paulitician]

I'm not convicting Zimmerman before due process, and neither is the author of this article. But the article is very interesting.

It is. It's a colorblind look at the right to just take a fucking walk, without being profiled. The only time I've ever been pulled over was when I had a bad tail light, forgot to pay a ticket, or was doing something dumb. I worked for a black person for a good bit of my career, who was a world class medical scientist. He'd be pulled over at least once a month without cause, because he drove a Lexus in a wealthier neighborhood, where he lived.

Profiling is far from where we want to be as a people. Being stopped for walking or driving while black is a sick indictment about our collective mindset.

Well, i'm not sure race was the sole motivating factor for Zimmerman's actions. So i don't want to convict the man before his day in court.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I'm not convicting Zimmerman before due process, and neither is the author of this article. But the article is very interesting.

But the article is assuming he was just "walking"..

Now...I dont know what happened....and I have no presumptions...

But...

Maybe he was just walking
Maybe he was walking from car to car seeing if one was unlocked? That is very suspicious.
Maybe he was not actually walking on the sidewalk but closer to the front doors seeing which one may be ajar?
Maybe he was just walking
Maybe he would slow down near a front door and "look around" as if trying to see if someone sees him
Maybe he was just walking.

That article AGAIN did the wrong thing.

It assumes he did not ACT suspicious.

FYI...people usually dont LOOK suspicious...but many ACT suspicious.

There should be no more artilces on this. Let the facts come out first.

Except that Zimmerman did not observe a single crime being committed by Martin.

Most made wiseguys wear nice suits. If I see someone I don't recognize in my neighborhood taking a walk, while wearing a nice suit, should I be able to profile them, stalk them, chase them, and then murder them claiming a "stand your ground" defense?

 

[Bigfoot]

From what I have read Trayvon attacked Zimmerman before he was killed. If that account is accurate and I believe that it is, I would have also shot the guy.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm not convicting Zimmerman before due process, and neither is the author of this article. But the article is very interesting.

But the article is assuming he was just "walking"..

Now...I dont know what happened....and I have no presumptions...

But...

Maybe he was just walking
Maybe he was walking from car to car seeing if one was unlocked? That is very suspicious.
Maybe he was not actually walking on the sidewalk but closer to the front doors seeing which one may be ajar?
Maybe he was just walking
Maybe he would slow down near a front door and "look around" as if trying to see if someone sees him
Maybe he was just walking.

That article AGAIN did the wrong thing.

It assumes he did not ACT suspicious.

FYI...people usually dont LOOK suspicious...but many ACT suspicious.

There should be no more artilces on this. Let the facts come out first.

Except that Zimmerman did not observe a single crime being committed by Martin.

Most made wiseguys wear nice suits. If I see someone I don't recognize in my neighborhood taking a walk, while wearing a nice suit, should I be able to profile them, stalk them, chase them, and then murder them claiming a "stand your ground" defense?

you missed my point.
Not one thing I wrote was "breaking the law"

Let me ask you this.....

If you saw someone walking in yiour neighborhood that had lots of recent crime....and that operson would stop at a car and look in...then walk ot the next car and look in...never touching the car....just looking in each car....in other words...not breaking the law but acting suspiciously....

Would you not either "watch him" or call 911?

 

[bucs90]

Here is why, and this is from me, a former cop, who worked mostly black areas of South Atlanta area, as well as some in the Buckhead area:

- Car and home break-ins are extremely common and people get pissed when their shit gets stolen.
- People who like to break into shit......usually walk or ride a bike, because that leaves no license tag to trace, and they can RUN from cops easier.
- People who like to break into shit...who walk or bike....usually wear baggy clothing or a hoodie so they can conceal their identity, weight, apprx height, etc, if someone sees them.
- People who like to break into shit usually do it at night.
- They usually do it in suburban neighborhoods, often upper middle class areas, because PEOPLE DONT LOCK THEIR DOORS.
- They pick places with unlocked doors because.....breaking windows causes noise, which brings attention
- So they pick an area with many unlocked doors, and randomly enter unlocked cars and play a lottery/grab bag game until they get some good stuff

And finally, like it or not, deny it or not, a very large % of these crimes are committed by young black males. Does that mean all young black males are doing it? Of course not. Just like most Muslims aren't terrorists.

But....if you are in a suburb, at night, and see a young black male walking wearing a hooded shirt....in a neighborhood that has experienced a high number of recent break-ins, in which the cops arrested suspects for those crimes who happened to also be young black males.......you'd be a moron not to have your attention caught by it.

JUST LIKE how cops patrol mostly black areas of Atlanta or LA or NY, and when in an all black area they see a shaggy haired white kid driving a pickup with college stickers on it driving in an area where it's known that white kids from the colleges come to buy their weed, a cop would think "Hmmm, is that kid here to buy weed, because in the past, when you see a white college age kid in this mostly black area frequenting the corner where I know John Doe sells weed to college kids, this kid MIGHT be doing just that."


An absence of common sense in an effort to not offend anyone leads to pure stupidity.

Was Zimmerman wrong? Yes.

Do cops stop 50 innocent people in a shift, but in the process catch 5 guilty ones? Yes.

Criminals dont wear bright neon signs that say "LOOK HERE I'M THE BAD GUY".

Innocent people often get inconvenienced by well-intentioned folks trying to lessen crime.

Does that inconvenience give the innocent person the right to assault the inquirer? Does that assault give the original person who inquired the right to use lethal force if necessary in defense? Court will tell us.

 

[paulitician]

The author is actually addressing the issue in a wider overall sense. It's not just about this specific incident. It's more than that. I really hope people read the entire article.

 

[Dick Tuck]

From what I have read Trayvon attacked Zimmerman before he was killed. If that account is accurate and I believe that it is, I would have also shot the guy.

Would you have profiled him, stalked him, and then chased him without observing him committing a crime? Would you have ignored police advise to not do so?

What if you saw someone stalking you and then chasing you? What would you do if they finally came up to you in a threatening manner? Would you cold cock the person? Would that give them the right to murder you?

 

[Jarhead]

From what I have read Trayvon attacked Zimmerman before he was killed. If that account is accurate and I believe that it is, I would have also shot the guy.

Would you have profiled him, stalked him, and then chased him without observing him committing a crime? Would you have ignored police advise to not do so?

What if you saw someone stalking you and then chasing you? What would you do if they finally came up to you in a threatening manner? Would you cold cock the person? Would that give them the right to murder you?

fucking idiot...there is actually more evidence that he did NOT continue to chase him than evidence that he DID continue to chasde him.

Actually, there is NO evidence showing that he continued to chase him.

How is it that you feel you can debate topics you are not well informed on?

 

[Bigfoot]

From what I have read Trayvon attacked Zimmerman before he was killed. If that account is accurate and I believe that it is, I would have also shot the guy.

Would you have profiled him, stalked him, and then chased him without observing him committing a crime? Would you have ignored police advise to not do so?

What if you saw someone stalking you and then chasing you? What would you do if they finally came up to you in a threatening manner? Would you cold cock the person? Would that give them the right to murder you?

Heh, you are reaching there Pal. That isn't how the 911 call nor the eye witness testimony says the incident occurred. That is you're distorted version to make it fit what you want it to.