So if Trayvon had been armed, the cuffs would not have been required? You keep repeating the UNARMED mantra... My point was that so many of you made it sound like they took George to Dunkin' Donuts, grabbed a both and got their story straight. In fact, he was put into cuffs and taken to the police station. They lady interviewed on the national news tonight said that the officer told her they thought it was not self-defense and now they needed to prove it. Maybe there just wasn't enough evidence and, then again, maybe it was self-defense. Time will tell.
They did hold him though. He couldn't leave. It is starting to look like all of this talk of a lazy/stupid PD (by me in this thread) or corruption was unfounded.
The white and latino people were actually doing suspicious things. The black people were walking. You can racial profile, and still report on other races.
Yeah, if Tayvon was armed, I think it would be much much more likely that it was self defense. He may or may not have needed cuffs. It just depends on police protocol. I never saw anyone infer that they took George for donuts or anything that soft. The only objection I've seen is that they didn't arrest the man.
Definitely better than we originally thought. They've made mistakes, but have shown they weren't completely incompetent.
I'd like to know what the protocol is. What situation has to be extant for them to slap cuffs on YOU or ME and haul us down to the police station? What is that called? Under suspicion? Brought in for questioning? My point was that it seems like a pretty serious intervention that seems to have ended up losing steam and so GZ goes free. I wonder what the "frustrated" lead detective is saying now? If GZ killed this kid in cold blood, he deserves the full extent of the law but people are innocent until proven guilty and not to be convicted via Twitter, FaceBook or bounties offered (now that's some folks who should be under arrest)....
detained, they can do it for anything they want. When you get a traffic stop you are being detained, they can slap cuffs on you if they feel unsafe.
Some of you are so emotionally tied to this story. It leads me to ask who yall are trying to convince. Yourselves or us?
Here's an discussion on the BS Report about an ESPN Ombudsman email about journalists who use Trayvon-related avatars on twitter: http://espn.go.com/espnradio/grantland/player?id=7749140
Your supposed to look for trouble not make a situation worse but confronting the person that you think is a trouble maker just call the police .
I agree and I think he should be punished for it. When you carry a gun it should be understood that it comes with an extra level of responsibility. Chasing Treyvon regardless of intentions is what swayed my oppinion that Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter. He was careless and it created a volitile situation when one did not exhist. I think he had every right to follow and report what he saw but he should have never chased him. I beleave that can be seen as an act of aggression by thy person being chased.
How do you know he "chased" rather than "followed" Trayvon? Isn't the only account that Trayvon seems to have come up behind Zimmerman as he was returning to his car?
What's the difference? If you're walking down the street and some guy "followed" you, is he any less creepy and less hostile than if he "chased" you? I don't carry a gun. But if I did and had the capacity to kill someone, I just might pull the trigger in Martin's position, regardless of whether Zimmerman was "following" or "chasing" me.
Doing so though you might escalate the situation. For someone who has a suspicion about you they might interpret running away as almost an admission that you were up to no good. Also you have to consider whether they are armed also.
Literally and colloquially once Zimmerman left his car he was looking for trouble. We can only speculate what was in his mind, was he planning on apprehending Martin, was he planning on using Ninja skills to observe Martin without Martin knowing? The excuse that he was looking to see what street he was on doesn't hold up considering that the incident took place on a walkway behind houses and away from the street.
If someone is following you around in their car then approaches you and you are armed, do you wait and see what they have to say before putting your hand on your piece or running?
THis is where self-defense particularly things like Stand Your Ground is very difficult. I generally focus on de-escalation while being ready for the worse. You have to keep in mind what the other guy is thinking. He might be also be thinking that you are planning to shoot him and if he is armed you end up in what is basically an old west quick draw situation if both of you are reaching for your guns. My advice is to try to stay calm and verbally defuse the situation. We teach something called "non-confrontational ready posture" which is where you take an open hand stance. Open hands generally imply that you are not going to be a threat but with proper training you can still react quickly. Just to add those these rules aren't hard and fast and the biggest challenge is how to read a situation. Sometimes running away is warranted, sometimes fighting back is.
