Here We Go Again (ie. Martin, Arbery)

[HomerJS]

So if they saw him do that, they clearly saw him in his FedEx uniform.

Yeah, a black guy in a FedEx uniform picking up a package is SUPER suspicious...

FTFY

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Read what I said again. Package thieves have been known to steal or copy delivery uniforms. The uniform alone is not proof of employment.

But a call to the PD for them to stop and verify employment is all that should have been done at the most.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Read what I said again. Package thieves have been known to steal or copy delivery uniforms. The uniform alone is not proof of employment.

But a call to the PD for them to stop and verify employment is all that should have been done at the most.

So anyone wearing a police uniform should be treated with suspicion? Firefighters? EMTs?

Any reasonable person would make the assumption that a person wearing a uniform is in fact employed in that manner indicated by the uniform

 

[purbeast0]

So anyone wearing a police uniform should be treated with suspicion? Firefighters? EMTs?

Any reasonable person would make the assumption that a person wearing a uniform is in fact employed in that manner indicated by the uniform

Please stop making sense. There is no place for that in here.

 

[hal2kilo]

"Gibson told The Associated Press on Friday that he was in uniform when the incident happened. He said he was in a van rented by FedEx but that it did not have a FedEx logo on it. He pulled into a driveway and dropped off a package sometime after 7 p.m. on Jan. 24. Before he turned his van around in the driveway to exit, he said, he noticed a white pickup truck pulling away from another house on the same large lot.

He said the pickup driver tried to cut him off as he exited the driveway. Gibson swerved around him and then encountered a second man.

“I drive down about two or three houses and there's another guy standing in the middle of the street, with a gun pointed at my vehicle,” said Gibson. The man motioned for him to stop. “I'm looking at him, like shaking my head, because why would I stop for somebody with a gun?” "

^^^ I can understand a driver not wanting to stop thinking it make be a robbery or other threat, but maybe, just maybe if he did and the turds saw the FedEx uniform ..... just maybe they would have realized their mistake and it would have been over.

Not saying they had a reason to do it in the first place.

But I can also see the turds trying to make a case that the driver tried to run him down. You know, the whole self-defense thing ....

I don't know, but I don't find this response appropriate:

"Police chief Kenny Collins did not return calls from the AP seeking more information.

Early this week, Collins, who is Black, pushed back against allegations on social media of racism in Brookhaven. “We’re not going to have outsiders coming in trying to stir that up,” he told The Daily Leader. “Brookhaven is not a racist, prejudiced town. You can’t judge a town by the actions of two individuals.”

“People need to be careful what they post on social media,” Collins said. “If somebody is killed or hurt because of what you post on social media, you will be charged, too.” "

Lawyers demand serious charges for gunfire at Black driver

Lawyers for a Black delivery van driver in Mississippi say they want more serious charges filed against two white men accused of chasing and shooting at the driver after he made a delivery last month

abcnews.go.com

Crime. Black person in white neighborhood he did not belong in.

 

[shortylickens]

What is Trayvon Martin's name doing in this topic?

Did the Fedex driver turn around and attack these men, did he have one by the head and slamming it into the ground, BEFORE shots were fired?
No. Nothing is the same or comparable to an actual victim (this topic) VS an assailant looking to grievously harm someone who crossed them (Martin).

Trayvon was minding his own business when he was attacked by a crazy gun-toting white man who thought coloreds should be murdered for walking down the street.
When a white person gets attacked, fights back, and kills someone literally tens of millions of patriots line up for a chance to defend him. When a black kid fights back he's a menace to society and needs to be put down like an animal.

And this is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy requires self-awareness, which you people lack.

 

[HomerJS]

Read what I said again. Package thieves have been known to steal or copy delivery uniforms. The uniform alone is not proof of employment.

But a call to the PD for them to stop and verify employment is all that should have been done at the most.

Why call the police when the good ole boys can just "shoot one"

 

[Paratus]

Re: Martin, there was a witness to the violence. It wasn't some made up story like you are pretending. Forensics also corroborated.
The main difference is the guy with the gun was not attacked by the unarmed person of color this time. The Fedex driver is an actual victim, not an assailant.

I read the witnesses account and I didn't see anywhere where he stated who started the fight? Can you point it out to me?

I agree that the witness corroborated Zimmerman's testimony that Martin was finishing the fight before being shot and that Zimmerman was going to be/was being harmed.

What I do not agree with is giving Zimmerman a pass for his responsibility in this. He was an armed adult who stalked a teen going home and then ended up in a physical confrontation that killed said teen. He could have stopped this chain of events multiple times. He was told to stop it by the 911 operator and didn't.

And just to spell it out clearly by the law:

776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.


The witness has no idea if Zimmerman initially provoked the use of force. If an angry Martin confronted Zimmerman and Zimmerman brandished his gun threatening Martin, he wasn't going to state that he was illegally brandishing in court. Martin is dead so no one can contradict him. He can just claim subsection 2(a) - Martin was the aggressor and he didn't shoot until Martin had him pinned.

If Zimmerman had provoked Martin by brandishing his firearm by that very same law Martin had every right to use deadly force on Zimmerman:

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.


Martin was in a place where he had a right to be. He was unarmed and Zimmerman was armed. Martin could have easily thought he would be shot in the back if tried to flee from the armed man who had been stalking him so his only choice was to close the distance and fight (using deadly force) which the law explicitly allows.


Because Martin is dead we'll never know exactly what transpired but it's not beyond reason to think it probable that a frightened angry Zimmerman brandished a gun and threatened Martin, especially considering he was reported to police for doing just that:

George Zimmerman's Girlfriend Wants to Drop Charges, 'Be With Him'

George Zimmerman girlfriend who accused him of breaking her stuff and brandishing a weapon wants to reconcile, claims police "intimidated" her into giving a statement.

abcnews.go.com

Dec. 9, 2013— -- George Zimmerman's girlfriend who called Florida police to say he was breaking her stuff and was brandishing a weapon no longer wants to press charges against him and instead wants to get back together with him.

 

[BUTCH1]

Re: Martin, there was a witness to the violence. It wasn't some made up story like you are pretending. Forensics also corroborated.
The main difference is the guy with the gun was not attacked by the unarmed person of color this time. The Fedex driver is an actual victim, not an assailant.

Are you serious?, dude was out jogging, gets hit with vehicle so he can't get away then two white guys tail him in an F-150. One jumps out with a loaded shotgun pointed at his face, hmm, maybe he's thinking these people are going to F-ING KILL ME ANYWAY so I might as well try and NOT DIE today. And thing is we still don't know exactly what happened since Aubury and asshole were in front of the truck.

 

[Paratus]

Are you serious?, dude was out jogging, gets hit with vehicle so he can't get away then two white guys tail him in an F-150. One jumps out with a loaded shotgun pointed at his face, hmm, maybe he's thinking these people are going to F-ING KILL ME ANYWAY so I might as well try and NOT DIE today. And thing is we still don't know exactly what happened since Aubury and asshole were in front of the truck.

Jasklas was comparing Travon Martin and George Zimmerman to this case with the FedEx truck driver not the Aubury case.

I

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Let's not derail the thread, K?

Stick to the Mississippi case.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Judge David Strong said he made the mistrial decision because of errors by a Brookhaven Police Department detective. On Wednesday, the judge ended the session early after Detective Vincent Fernando acknowledged under oath while the jury was out of the courtroom that he had not previously given prosecutors or defense attorneys a videotaped statement police had taken from Gibson.

The judge said the officer also improperly testified about guns found in the home of one of the men on trial and gun shell casings found outside the home. Defense attorneys requested the mistrial, and Strong said he had no choice but to grant it.

“In 17 years, I don’t think I’ve seen it,” the judge said of the errors.

Mississippi judge declares mistrial in case of 2 white men charged in attack on Black FedEx driver

A Mississippi judge has declared a mistrial in the trial of two white men charged in an attack on a Black FedEx employee who was making a delivery.

apnews.com

Probably better for the Judge to get the i's dotted and t's crossed before a verdict than risk it being overturned later.