jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (68 posts)

The Zimmerman Trial - An apology is offered

  1. Credence2 profile image83
    Credence2posted 3 years ago

    Being caught up in the debate, I slept on it and upon awakening realized that I, too, have allowed myself to caught in the hysteria. When I or anyone allows this to overwhelm it  shortcircuits one's reasoning ability.

    1. We are all guilty of prejudice and pre-conceived attitudes. We get them from our peers and the media to just mention a few sources. We all have to work on it, yours truly included.  Zimmerman was probably no worse or no better than others in regards to the prevailing attitudes about race. While I have been through North and central Florida and acknowledge its history of racial tensions, there is a black police chief in Sanford. So there are indications here and there of progress and it is not fair to ignore these things.

    2. Zimmerman was operating at night and may not have been paying attention to the race of who he was stalking, afterall Treyvon was wearing a hoodie and his ethnicity and race could not have been determined by Zimmerman at a distance.

    3. We have allowed the media to cherry pick a controversy, when as many of my conservatives friends say that there are many instances of black on black crime that never seem to rise to national prominence in the news. Much like the Benet-Ramsey case in the mid nighties or the high profile missing persons cases that are constantly reported on the news ad naseum, while there are thousands of less glamorous girls that go missing without a peep.

    4. If we are going survive as a society and a nation, we have to learn to get along, and not focus on one incident among thousands. And as many in the conversation have noted, we have enough problems in our inner cities with mayhem, are we as zealous about correcting these crimes? So the wheels of justice has completed its turn in this case and it is time to move on.

    5, Yes, I accept the verdict, while I will always believe that Zimmerman's poor judgement contributed to the tragic outcome, his judgement was not on trial. In the heat of a conflict, Zimmerman did fear for his life and acted properly. That was the jury's only obligation and it ruled based on that.

    6. There are plenty of good people who express their concern and grieve with the Martin family although we may not see the particulars of the case in just the same way. I apologize for intimidating these individuals, when their hearts were in the right place.

    To all of you who I have misjudged regarding the aforementioned, I apologize.

    Where I stand my ground

    1. It is wrong to assume that Trayvon was a thug just because he was a black kid in a hoodie.

    2. Zimmerman showed poor judgement, not becoming of a police officer that he aspires to be. Who does not remember being just 17 and knowing it all? I am right to put the weight of the error associated with this fatal confrontation on Zimmerman, as the adult in a responsible position. 

    3. In the future, regarding the neighborhood watch jobs and as a condition of their employment, the requirement to call the police on suspcious persons and activities shall be required and that direction given by the police to those individuals are mandatory and not a mere suggestion. I don't want creepy people following me around that do not identify themselves. A police officer would allay those fears for anyone who is not engaged in wrongdoing. The confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin could have been avoided.

    Thanks folks, your thoughts please.

    1. FitnezzJim profile image88
      FitnezzJimposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This one is easy, it is a well summarized analysis of the events  Concur with Credence2.

  2. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    Your point of view is your point of view and I will not judge whether or not it is right or wrong.

    Whether we want to admit it or not that racism has been and still is thoroughly ingrained in American society. Pretending like African-Americans is not looked upon differently is a fantasy. There are inner-city crimes with in the minority community and within the rest of society it doesn't appear that society as a whole is racing to intervene. There are a number of reasons why these conditions exist among African-Americans which I find too many to mention here but maybe the portrayal of African-Americans and I movies as thugs might be a contributing factor, maybe the idea of walking in the store and seeing all eyes focus on you might be a contributing factor, maybe businesses profiting off a gangsta raps could be at conjuring factor.

    As much as we talk about equality we never seem to quite get there as it is reflected in how we respect this Black president. I just finished reading a similar incident to the Trayvon Martin, just walking down the street minding his own business and having the police be called on him. Only to find the police guns pointed at him for something he doesn't even know is going on in that neighborhood. The article has a lot to say but if you want check it out here is the website:

    http://candidobservation.wordpress.com/ … servation/

    1. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Span, thanks for your comment.

      Yes racism is a never ending component to the American story. I don't deny that. But it is not insurmountable, this 'racist' society elected a Black President and reelected him. Talk to me about that possibility just 20 years ago and I would have said that you were nuts. The tendency of each of us to put our tribe over the other is part of the human condition, that has to be consciously resisted at all times. I have been to Europe and Central America, where do I not see a stratification of ethnicities and race? We are inundated with messages that are subconsciously anti-black at its core, even when on the surface they appear quite innocent. The media and culture promotes it, but we are a strong people and need not allow ourselves to be led along by malevolent forces. What choice do we have except to avoid continuing to be in a position as victims all the time, rather than taking the offensive? Yes, it is bad, while affluence helps soften the blow, all blacks are profiled to a certain extent. So what do we do except circle the wagons as I cannot make people change their hearts and attitudes?

      In spite of the fact that so much vitrol is spewed toward our current president, he was still elected and reelected. So how much credibility do you give those verbalise their hatred. They still lost.

      I would rather not have seen Trayvon involved with law enforcement at any level because he was doing nothing wrong. However, in Zimmerman's pea brain, Trayvon's very presense was a threat. I would rather have him call the police than do what he ended up doing, costing Trayvon his life.

      Your link contains an excellent thread of pertinent articles, thanks for providing them.

  3. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 3 years ago

    I can and do agree with everything you've said with the single exception that Zimmerman bears the entire weight of error.

    While he does bear over half of it (IMO) he does not bear it all.  We have developed a habit of treating older teens as if they have a "get out of jail" card pasted on their forehead; the result is seen in the gangs killing each other and others, the huge shoplifting rates by teens, the graffiti painted all over our cities, the immense vandalism problem we have.

    At 17 Martin is completely responsible for his actions.  He was not a 5 year old child, he knew that what he was doing carried a risk.  He knew he had other options and chose not to use them - to deny Martin the maturity and understanding he had accumulated over his 17 years does a disservice to both him and his family.  As well as the rest of society; people that old have borne complete responsibility for their entire families for centuries until society suddenly decided they were too stupid to do so.

    To some degree, Martin payed the ultimate price for his stupidity not because of Zimmerman's stupidity but because of a society that let him down.  A school system that allowed his shenanigans with no comment.  Parents that did not care what he was doing.  A justice system that we have instructed to let people his age off for anything they do. 

    Zimmerman certainly played his part in the tragedy, but society has a whole played at least as big a part.  What's OUR excuse for teaching our young people there are no consequences for their actions - to the point that they die from thinking that they can get away with whatever they want?

    1. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for your comment.

      We all know that kids today sometimes are not very smart, but he did not deserve to die for it.  At 17, how many times did I avoid getting into trouble that was narrowly averted by sheer luck, I would not want to count.

      But, I will compromise and  give Zimmerman 75 percent of the blame regardless.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        smile I certainly agree about skipping out of trouble as a teen!  We all do stupid things as youngsters; the difference today is there are no consequences to those decisions.

        You want numbers?  I assign Zimmerman 50%, Martin 25% and society the remaining 25%.  Zimmerman simply and plainly went far too far in his zeal.  Martin was clearly smart enough to know that his chosen plan was dangerous - he could, after all, put one foot in front of another even while eating skittles and It doesn't take much more than that.  The remainder goes to society and I think I've made my stance clear there - we encourage lack of responsibility in our teens today and the result is all too often that they end up getting badly hurt.

        1. Credence2 profile image83
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I will call you and raise you one....

          Let us say that you were Trayvon, you were walking in a neighborhood, not doing anything wrong. There was no reason to suspect that you were up to no good by anybody, just a kid with candy and drink coming back from a local market. Then you have this person following you around, would that not give you reason to fear? As an adult, I would be concerned, but how could you reason through that at 17? Who is he, he is unidentified, why would you assume that someone slinking around you like that was benevolent and meant you no harm? What are your instincts, running? Standing and confronting? Why is it the boy's fault? You were just walking and munching, how are you to be responsible for anything?

          1. profile image60
            Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            He could have called the police.

            Why is that never one of the choices he could have made?

            1. Credence2 profile image83
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Lie Detector, if someone is following in that circumstance you are you going to wait for the police to arrive and risk being caught by whoever is following you with undertemined motives? How about thinking a little bit, huh?

              1. profile image60
                Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Oh yeah, think, ok I'll confront the guy I'm so scared of and he'll kill me!

                Brilliant.

                1. Credence2 profile image83
                  Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So, why not, why should he not fear for his life. How much running can he do and what are his rights to defend himself under the circumstances, you seem to just gloss over all that while giving Zimmerman a wide berth....

                  1. profile image60
                    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Why not? What if the guy you're confronting has a gun? Oh yeah, HE DID HAVE A GUN!

                    Are you even trying to think this through? He called his girlfriend why not the police? Do you know anything about this case or are you just making stuff up as you go?

              2. HowardBThiname profile image88
                HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Something slightly similar happened to me as a kid walking home from band practice. A car followed slowly behind me and then pulled alongside. Two older guys were in the car and the passenger yelled, "Hey boy! Come here."

                I ran about halfway down the block on the sidewalk and then, as the car was still keeping pace with me, I turned and ran up to a doorstep and rang the bell repeatedly. As soon as the homeowner opened the door the car drove away.

                It never crossed my mind to approach the car or its occupants. And, I could have swung my bugle case with some force if I tried. I just wanted out of the situation. I guess I'm a chicken. But, I'm a live chicken.

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You can start with the statement that there was no reason to suspect anything.  Martin was a stranger, it was dark and raining and he was cruising private property looking at houses.  Add in the reported rash of break-ins and there is plenty of reason to be suspicious.  Heck, I kept an eye on a couple of strange kids in my own cul-de-sac the other night until they went out of sight and that was on a public street!

            Which really has nothing to do with Martin's actions except to shift unwarranted blame to Zimmerman.

            But Martin's actions were quite reasonable - right up to where he ran away and disappeared, then suddenly reappeared and threw a punch.  My instincts, whether 17 or 60 would be to call the cops, run or knock on a neighbors door.  The last thing on my mind would be to start punching a stranger - I want no contact at all with him, only distance.

            Why is it the young man's fault?  Zimmerman didn't start the fight - he did.  Nobody else took his arm and flung it in Zimmerman's face - Martin did all by himself.  Yeah, it's called responsibility for your actions, so give that responsibility to the person that did it.

            And after he knocked Zimmerman down he jumped on him and began beating his head on the concrete rather than leaving.  Nobody pushed him onto Zimmerman - he did that all by himself.  Nobody else smashed Z's head down - Martin did it all alone.  Again, it's called responsibility for his actions and you can't take that away from him.  He owns his actions just as you and I do, and with the ownership of those actions comes responsibility for them and blame for the results of them.

            I'll give Martin some slack for being young and scared, even though "scared" hardly applies to someone on the stalk and attack.  Slack or not, scared or not, he still has a responsibility for his actions.

  4. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago

    This case proves that the jury system works.  The evidence was presented, examined, and a verdict was reached.  Of all parts of the government, the jury system is the only aspect that retains my faith.  It is tragic that a young man lost his life.  The defendant was probably overly zealous, but IMO, justice was served.

  5. Alphadogg16 profile image88
    Alphadogg16posted 3 years ago

    I agree with Wilderness, they are both at fault.....However Zimmerman chose to follow this kid, get out of his car with a loaded weapon and confronted him, Even if the kid was the aggressor, Zimmerman made a choice and that choice took a kids life. At the very least he should have been charged with manslaughter.

    1. profile image60
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "Even if the kid was the aggressor"

      Yeah, thats what happened and the kid got himself killed, its called self defense.

      He was found not guilty of 2nd degree murder AND manslaughter!

    2. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That is sort of how I am seeing things, Alpha, and I put the lions share of the blame on Zimmerman

  6. Alphadogg16 profile image88
    Alphadogg16posted 3 years ago

    Lie Detector your a quite a character......How could the kid confront him if he was in his car??

    1. profile image60
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      By walking up to it?

      It isn't that hard to do.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image83
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Dramatic reenactment:

        http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll145/Zelkiiro/SeijiPANCH.gif

  7. Alphadogg16 profile image88
    Alphadogg16posted 3 years ago

    @Wilderness, I can agree with all of that, if it actually happened that way, no one really knows except Zimmerman and the kid, unfortunately the kid cant talk. However none of this would have happened if he was in his car. He is not in law enforcement/police officer etc, so there was no reason for him to get out of his car. He was judge, jury, and executioner. I understand that he may have been defending himself, for his life, but he put himself in that position, by choice, in my opinion he is still culpable for the kids life.

    1. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, Wilderness, that is how I see it as well. People do not always have time to reason things thru when being chased, as a 17 year old kid is that what you would have done?  so who is going to open a door to a black kid in a hoodie in this neighborhood? Like you said he was a stranger. I know that I would not be welcome under such circumstances as a black person. That is how it is. There is no proof who actually started it, but Zimmerman by his actions forced things to the point of no return. Where is the arrogance of confronting without identifying yourself, who does this guy think he is. There are many us that would have done what Trayvon Martin did and react in the same way.

      We may have to agree to disagree on this one, but it certainly is a reason why there are protests, and this opinion is shared by many concerned people.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, we will have to disagree.  Because Zimmerman in no way forced things to the point of no return; he did not force Martin to turn and chase Zimmerman.  Martin have every chance to escape, even losing his "stalker" at one point completely.

        But he didn't do so.  Instead he returned and confronted Zimmerman.  And that was the first of Martin's deadly errors - throwing a punch was the second and the third was jumping on Zimmerman and beginning a "ground and pound" with his head.  Reasoned or unreasoned those are all major lapses in judgement, lapses that Zimmerman had no control over and lapses that cost Martin his life.  Indeed, Zimmerman was in the process of returning to his car when Martin confronted him - he had given up the immediate "chase" so claiming that Zimmerman pushed it to the point of no return makes no sense. 

        Not, at least, unless you attribute to Martin the "punk thug" that some have portrayed him.  I don't, but see Martin as just mad at that point and making poor decisions as a result.

        1. Mighty Mom profile image88
          Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          This may, in fact, be true.
          But more than likely it is a carefully crafted defence.
          I'ts Zimmerman's defense attorney's version of events. We have no possible way of knowing
          if this is really how it went down or not.
          The sequence described does not really make all that much sense, does it?
          What made Martin, who had gotten some distance between him and Zimmerman, turn on his heels and come charging back at Zimmerman?
          Could it possibly have been something that Zimmerman said to him to invoke his wrath?

          Was Zimmerman really getting back in his car?
          Or did he just say that to make it sound like Martin was the aggressor???

          Yes, there is plenty of doubt here to go around.

          Call me cynical. But I vividly remember the OJ trial.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't see it that far out of line.  Give Martin just a small portion of the thug he's been made out to be and I find it quite likely.  I also find it likely that Zimmerman likely grasped an arm or shoulder before Martin broke his nose, too, and that again changes things but whether he did or not Martin's anger is likely what made him turn around.  That and, maybe, a good look at how much smaller and older Zimmerman was.

            No one but Zimmerman will ever know exactly what happened that night - all we can do is accept the verdict.  Our justice system is badly broken IMO, but it's what we have - we used it and it's up to us to accept it.  Zimmerman is found innocent of the charges and deserves the same treatment everyone else gets, not a continual barrage of "He's guilty anyway!  I just know it!".

            1. Mighty Mom profile image88
              Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Good points, Wilderness.

              A friend posted this on Facebook. It's from Bloomberg. I think we've all rehashed numbers one and two quite enough. But numbers three and four are still fair game for discussion...
              gmwilliams has a new thread about the cries for a federal civil rights prosecution...

              George Zimmerman's Acquittal: Four Blunt Observations
              By Paul M. Barrett
              July 15, 2013 6:00 AM EDT

              1. George Zimmerman was at fault for killing Trayvon Martin.
              Ignore the pious post-verdict declarations by Zimmerman’s (skilled) defense lawyers. The police dispatcher told Zimmerman to stay in his car. If the wannabe cop had followed reasonable instructions and/or had decent training as a neighborhood watchman, he would have remained in his vehicle. Zimmerman deserves heavy blame.

              2. The “system” sometimes works in mysterious ways.
              The American justice system bends to public opinion, politics, institutional bias, and sometimes even flat-out corruption. In this case, prosecutors came under understandable public pressure to punish Zimmerman for his foolhardy behavior. The prosecutors brought severe criminal charges and put forward the best case they could. Still, the ambiguity surrounding the last minutes of Martin’s life left plenty of room for reasonable doubt. The jury could have convicted on manslaughter but made a plausible choice not to. The defense lawyers brayed afterward about Zimmerman suffering grave injustice. Baloney. He endured 16 months of intense suspicion and court supervision. He’ll never escape the moral legacy of a needless killing. Sounds like rough justice to me.

              3. The next step should be a private wrongful-death suit, not a federal civil rights prosecution.
              Civil rights activists are calling for the U.S. Justice Department to prosecute Zimmerman for violating Martin’s civil rights. While one can sympathize with the demand, especially in the emotional aftermath of the state-court acquittal, federal civil rights charges would require the government to prove that Zimmerman is an old-fashioned racist. That would not be easy to do. NAACP President Ben Jealous has compared Zimmerman’s acquittal to one six decades ago of two white men accused of kidnapping and murdering black Mississippi teenager Emmett Till. But that kind of hyperbole won’t hold up in court. Zimmerman’s defense would again be able to engender reasonable doubt, leading to more heartache. Much better to give Martin’s parents an opportunity to prove by the much lower civil legal standard (“preponderance of the evidence”) that Zimmerman acted irresponsibly. A wrongful-death action might lead to the best possible outcome: a swift settlement, including some kind of money payment to compensate the victim’s family and a public apology from Zimmerman.

              4. Liberal gun-control advocates are already overplaying their hand.
              “Murder has now been legalized in half the states,” proclaimed Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Washington (D.C.)-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. This loopy statement echoes many less-extreme attempts to associate Zimmerman’s defense with Florida’s controversial “stand your ground” law. That statute eliminates the traditional obligation to retreat in the face of life-threatening violence. Such statutes may be problematic (personally, I think they are), but the Zimmerman case isn’t a good example to make the argument against stand your ground. In fact, the defense team waived the opportunity to invoke the statute to preempt the prosecution. Instead, Zimmerman’s lawyers made a more conventional self-defense argument. Their contention was that Zimmerman never had an opportunity to retreat because Martin had him pinned to the ground. Stand your ground just wasn’t relevant to this defense. In the end, what got Zimmerman off was the most basic of all criminal-law concepts: reasonable doubt.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Zimmerman made a terrible error when he got out of his car.  No question there.

      That does not, however, make him culpable for the errors that Martin made.  Zimmerman's error was the first of a string of stupid errors and actions on the part of both men and had either one of them chosen a sensible course to follow anywhere along the line Martin would be relaxing in front of a TV somewhere now.

      The key is "either one" of them - you can't assign Zimmerman the blame for Martin's errors simply because Zimmerman made the first one. 

      Question, though, for you - should it be legal for neighborhood watch on patrol to be armed at all?  I doubt very much if Zimmerman would have ever left his car had he not been armed and thus "safe" from whatever happened if he DID proceed on foot.

  8. Alphadogg16 profile image88
    Alphadogg16posted 3 years ago

    At Lie detector.....the point was......the kid would have been unable to punch, beat, bash his head, maim him, if he remained in his car.

    1. profile image60
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "How could the kid confront him if he was in his car??"

      That was your question, it was answered. Sorry you fail to understand that Zimmerman was found not guilty. Changing the case to suit you won't work.

      1. FitnezzJim profile image88
        FitnezzJimposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The 'what ifs' are irrelevant with respect to the question that was brought to the jury.
        If Florida had thought they had a provable crime associated with Mr. Zimmerman getting out of his car, they would have put him on trial for that.

        1. Credence2 profile image83
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How you doing FJ, thanks for participating. I donot complain about how the verdict came down, but extenuating circumstances are what has people upset and that anger is only going away with time.

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, I don't think the prosecutors ever thought they had a provable crime.  It looks far more to me as if the entire trial was a direct response to an angry mob demanding "justice".

          I just haven't heard or seen of any evidence at all that would indicate that Zimmerman was guilty of anything illegal and that most certainly is a requirement for a guilty verdict.

          1. Credence2 profile image83
            Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "Actually, I don't think the prosecutors ever thought they had a provable crime"

            That would presume accepting Zimmerman's account of events based solely on what he says, and that was a non-starter

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well, that's the problem - there IS no other evidence.  That's what made it so unprovable. 

              Circumstantial evidence and assumptions can only take a criminal case so far and are seldom if ever the only thing used to get a conviction.  It just isn't enough to cross that "reasonable doubt" line, or even "preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case.

  9. Alphadogg16 profile image88
    Alphadogg16posted 3 years ago

    There was another case, in Florida as well, where a woman got 20 years in prison for discharging a fire arm, she fired warning shots up in the air, in her own house,at an abusive husband/boyfriend who she already had a protective order against. 20 Years......but yet Zimmerman can put himself in a compromising situation and take some ones life.....and walk away???

    1. profile image60
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm aware of that case, it was brought up by the same state attorney that prosecuted Zimmerman.

      That is a bullshit case as well.

  10. Alphadogg16 profile image88
    Alphadogg16posted 3 years ago

    I completely agree with that Credence2....I grew up in Chicago......and in my neighborhood.....someone following you is never a good thing.......I don't think that Zimmerman is the big bad wolf....nor is the kid an angel just going to the store.....but obviously the environment was aggressive or else Zimmerman wouldn't have had the need to carry a gun.

  11. Alphadogg16 profile image88
    Alphadogg16posted 3 years ago

    @wilderness.....In my opinion....no neighbor hood watch should not carry guns. I'm all for having a gun/personal safety/protecting what's yours in your own home....but you get people walking around protecting the neighbor hood with guns......too many variables, people think differently and will have different interpretations of certain situations. Cases like this will become all to common. Thats what the Police are for, let them do their job.

    1. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Again, I am with you Alpha, Wilderness, the point is that Zimmerman would never have been so brazen to get out of his car and pursue, if he did not have a gun. There was little or no threat to Zimmerman's person if he just did as was directed by the dispatcher. The matter goes far beyond just being overzealous.. Take a look at the link that Span provided earlier....

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think he would have either.  He doesn't strike me as a particularly brave man although I DO give him credit for trying to improve the neighborhood.  I think he would have sat right in his car without that big, bad gun in the holster.

        1. rebekahELLE profile image91
          rebekahELLEposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          He broke cardinal rules of Neighborhood watch duty. First he followed a stranger he suspected of wrongdoing (for simply walking on a sidewalk in this particular neighborhood) after reporting him.
          Secondly, he carried a used a weapon. If he truly wanted to follow the rules and do his duty, he would have left it up to the police to handle a situation of which the stranger had not broken any law.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            He pretty plainly did not want to follow the rules.  The "rules" had failed him and let suspects escape - partially because he cried wolf too often and the cops didn't listen much any more.

            Although the suspicion wasn't for "simply walking on a sidewalk".  It was for being an unknown stranger, at night and in the rain, cruising private property and scoping out houses.  The suspicion was quite reasonable; the actions resulting from that suspicion were definitely not.

            1. Credence2 profile image83
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              There should be a penalty for not following the rules. I could live with your assessment on the second paragraph.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I strongly suspect Zimmerman has made his last patrol as a neighborhood watchman, but that's the only penalty a private organization can really apply.  I suppose they could make you sign a contract with a monetary penalty but enforcing it would be impossible.

                That's the way I see it, Credence.  Zimmerman was not a monster, out to kill a black boy (or anyone else) he was conscientiously defending his neighborhood.  Being a good neighbor.

                His suspicion was very reasonable (don't forget it was a gated community where strangers only get in by climbing a fence or something); it was just his actions that were so grossly at fault.  His judgement; hell, he didn't have any judgement but that doesn't make him a monster.

                I don't know Zimmerman at all, obviously, but judging from his work and time with neighborhood kids and the watch he's going to suffer mentally for this the rest of his life.  I pity him even as I hate the lack of judgement and care that he exhibited.  It's pretty obvious, I think, why he could never be a cop in spite of his success with law classes.  Maybe he should become a DA.

                1. Credence2 profile image83
                  Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  He may not have been looking to be a villian in all this, but incompetence and poor judgement will be how he is seen andwill be evaluated for some time. With the road ahead being rocky, he may very well be better off trading places with Trayvon.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    In a way you're right.  It IS going to be a very rocky road for a long time, and Z's actions since that night aren't going to help.  Hiding the money, for a start, even though I'm not sure I wouldn't have done the same thing.

                    And to some degree I don't have a problem with that.  Z's failures cost a man his life - he does owe for that and beyond what he has already paid.  He just doesn't owe his entire future for what really were mistakes and that's what will likely be taken from him in the name of justice.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      (It would be easier if you would use the "reply" button under a post rather than the "post a reply" button at the bottom right of the screen - look at the thread in "threaded" version rather than "chronological" and you'll see why.)

      That's my feeling.  I have no idea as the constitutionality of such a law, but don't see it as unconstitutional myself.  It should keep people like Zimmerman from crossing the intended boundaries of neighborhood watch.  It also might make hundreds of impromptu and unofficial "watch" programs spring up with guns, though, and you can't take the right to carry away from such groups.

      When I lived in a gated community we had security guards, including one patrolling.  The question came up occasionally of arming our guards but the overwhelming sentiment was a resounding "NO".  The guards didn't want them, the populace didn't want them and the board of directors didn't want them armed.  Their purpose was to get the cops if something was wrong, not apprehend criminals.  Yeah, they lost some suspects (all they had to do was run into the woods) but better that than a body, whether suspect or homeowner.

      1. Credence2 profile image83
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Now, that is the kind of reasoning that we need......

        If does not have to be constittitonal, it is simply a condition of your employment that you remain unarmed and call the police, stay in your vehicle not stalking the suspect as that creates danger for the guard or end up costing the life of a person who is otherwise innocence

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think they're employed - strictly volunteer.  But from my little knowledge it would not seem to violate the constitution to make "no weapons" a requirement to be on a bona fide neighborhood watch.

          Of course, it could become a watch rule, but without teeth and punishment from the law that won't mean any more than "stay in the car" did and I'm sure such a law would be challenged as unconstitutional.

          1. Credence2 profile image83
            Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            As far as the law enforcement, probably not, but you can be terminated if you are getting paid for the service and that is a start.

  12. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    It seems to me that being suspected of something isn't legal justification for someone to grab their gun and create a life and death crisis.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I don't quite think that "suspected" quite describes bleeding from both front and back of the head, coupled with the associated pain.  That goes just a wee bit beyond "suspicion".

      1. SpanStar profile image61
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Once again, if you are fighting for your life what would you do?

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What in the world does that have to do with Zimmerman grabbing a gun because he was suspicious of something?

          Or are you claiming that Martin had no justification for trying to grab the gun?  Somehow I'm not following what you're saying...

          1. SpanStar profile image61
            SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It's really very simple, would you do what ever you could to stop this man from trying to kill you?

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Preferably kill him.  Anything I thought might stop him, regardless of damage to him. 

              Still don't understand what that has to do with Zimmerman pulling a gun based only on suspicion.

              1. HowardBThiname profile image88
                HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It was a bit more than "suspicion," Zimmerman pulled the gun only when Trayvon was sitting on him - smacking him.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That is according to Zimmerman.  We have no witnesses to the start of the altercation, only Zimmerman's word.  It is entirely possible he had already pulled the gun when he and Trayvon physically intersected (however that might have occurred).  In fact, it makes more sense given Zimmerman's claims.  Zimmerman says Trayvon did all of the following:

                  initiated the fight by punchng him in the nose
                  covered his nose and mouth so he couldn't breathe
                  pounded his head into the pavement repeatedly
                  straddled him with his knees up near George's elbows
                  reached for and grabbed the gun

                  Supposedly, George was not able to stop Trayvon pounding his head into the pavement but he could wrestle his gun away from Trayvon after Trayvon supposedly pulled it from Zimmerman's behind-the-waistand holster which Zimmerman himself said was located behind his back on the right side?  All while Trayvon was on top and George was on his back?  Does that sound plausible to you?

                  I've already mentioned all of the above and more in great detail in previous posts.  I'm truly AMAZED that obviously intelligent people take Zimmerman's word for it that he only pulled the gun when Trayvon was on top.

                  1. profile image60
                    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you have evidence to the contrary?

                    Not guilty!

  13. Wayne Brown profile image87
    Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago

    In the eyes of justice, the burden is on the accuser to prove the accused is guilty of the actions. If the evidence does not accomplish that task, then the "assumed inoccence of the accused" is the default position and outcome.  That does not mean that the accused's explanation of the event is embraced so much as it means there is little or no proof otherwise.  If one is a rabid Trayvon Martin proponent, then that bias alone blinds them to any and all evidence with regard to Zimmerman.  If the evidence were weighed in that manner, then why hold court, just hand the accused over to the lynch mob and let emotion rule the day.

 
working