Why not Trayvon?
I continually find myself pondering the Martin-Zimmerman tragedy.
I have been studying self-defense law for some time. I have read cases from across the nation spanning the last half century.
Many hubbers have recently written articles about how Zimmerman's physical injuries prove his innocence, and justify Trayvon's death.
Even if I agree that Zimmerman is protected vis a vis lawful self-defense, why would Martin be denied this same protection?It is a real thin line. Trayvon confronted the proclaimed town watch member who was following him, and then physically attacked him. Zimmerman shot the boy only after being attacked, thus it was self defense. That being said I have mentioned on other hubs that as a teenager I would have responded in the same manner as Trayvon. I lived in a tough neighborhood and any man following me around would have had to defend himself because I was an angry young man to begin with. So, would that man then have proper cause to shoot me in self defense? If he was in fear for his life, sure.
Still, Zimmerman was told to stop following him and he disobeyed. Because of that fact he should not get off without a charge, but I do not believe he deserves 1st degree.Under the Stand your Ground Law, wasn't Trayvon legal in confronting the guy who harassed him? Zimmerman claimed self-defense, but Trayvon only "attacked" him after an earlier confrontation, right?
Barnsey, it was my understanding Zimmerman is now claiming he did stop following Martin when told to and was attacked by Martin on his way back to his car.
Is this correct?
Deleted
How is it self-defense to chase somebody down with a gun?
Martin had every right to defend himself from being murdered. It's a tragedy that he couldn't do it.
Zimmerman deserves no sympathy, and the only reason he gets any is because Martin is black.
Had he killed a white kid for no reason like that---he'd be on death row by now.
AS a black man IS in Georgia, for shooting and killing a white man who entered his home with a knife.--no stand your ground for him.Following Trayvon around was not as you call it, chasing somebody down with a gun! He was however told to stop following the boy and he should have. That is why he should be charged. Also, I would like to hear what you think. It is my opinion that town watch members should not be carrying around guns. This sort of thing was bound to happen when you have a bunch of angry, fed up citizens patroling the streets in search of a wrong doer. It only makes sense that the first person they see who they deem suspicious is going to be wrongfully endangered.
Did Zimmerman grab his gun then go after the kid with the gun in his hand? Or was he carrying it in a holster on his hip or under his shirt like many of us do daily? This is America, we are allowed to own and carry firearms. There is nothing wrong with that. Saying that he "chased somebody down with a gun" is just an ignorant statement. If I concealed carry a gun every day and I chase someone down that I believe has committed a crime, did I just "chase them down with a gun"?
And I think race should be completely left out of this. Zimmerman was part Hispanic. This isn't a case of white man shoots black man. This is a case of a man who shot another man that he was following because he thought the other guy has committed a crime and was attacked by the guy after confronting him. Huh, doesn't sound so sensational when I put it like that, does it?"There is nothing wrong with that."
Everything is wrong with that in my opinion.
Race should not be left out either. He said "they always get away"....Who is they? And then the coon statement, was changed to what?
Then,of course, it's the hoodie's fault. Cause you know when black men wear them they are thuggin,
AND-- had he killed a white kid....game over.While you may not approve of citizens owning guns (and the government thanks you very much for that), I sleep better at night knowing Mr Smith and Mr Wesson are ready to keep my family and myself safe at a moments notice.
Now if you want to keep race in it, do you approve of all the black people attacking white people over this case? White man done shot a black man. Better attack every white person 'cause we're all the same. (it's funny how racism against whites isn't considered racism)
Self defense is a tricky thing, especially in law. It's come to the point now where you can justify a murder by saying you've been suffering emotional battery due to someone over a period of years. Finally, this person made you snap. Then the person who's being tried can earn sympathy from the jury, and even if he/she's technically "guilty" of murder (even if all the evidence supports it!), if you can twist the emotions in a case, then it's possible to get off with nothing more than a warning. It's happened before, and it certainly can happen again.
People will continue to be biased for a looooong time, and so long as that is true, you can know that juries won't always make the most sense in their decisions. In this case, however, chasing someone down with a gun is a little more than self defense. Perhaps it's retaliation, but it's still wrong.Following Trayvon, however, would cause Trayvon to feel intimidated.... No?
If someone you didn't know was watching and following you, how would you feel? What would you do?
Is Martin entitled to defend himself, even preemptively, against someone he presumes to be preparing to do something to him?
We can discuss whether Zimmerman was lawfully or unlawfully acting in his actions, but what was Martin to think? Was he in any position to figure out if Zimmerman was behaving lawfully?
If you or someone you know was walking and a stranger came up to them saying they were "neighborhood watch" and wanted you to wait there until police arrived, what would you do?
Of course, that is not what Zimmerman did.... So, what defense would you be entitled to if you were Martin?
Then ask yourself, why isn't Martin given the same consideration you would?
This is why people talk about racism... When this denial is then tied to articles focused on demonizing Martin, then there is appearance of racism.. When these same people then point hypocritically to the images of Martin flipping of a camera and turn the "hoody" into a gangbanger identifier and justification for aggression, then there is concern that racism, actual or colorblind, is running amok..
To deny Martin his own defense is to deny his humanity. To focus on Zimmerman's innocence while promoting Martin's "bad"-ness or denying his right to defense is communicating that it is okay to attack and kill another as long as you can fit them into a stereotype...
Again, anyone who does this is saying that "Martin does not count/his life was unimportant"...it matters not if the person/people saying this even realize it themselves (they are then in denial)... It only matters how the message is being received..Another issue with cases like this is the fact that African Americans act as if noone should ever have cause to accuse a black person of a crime. They act with indignation when all you have to do is watch the news to see why they are viewed the way they are. It isn't so much racism as it is common perception. It is racist to claim racism every time someone points the finger at someone who is the same skin color as you.
Lets be adults and look at both sides of the coin folks.Martin could feel intimidated if he was a normal kid walking in a normal neighborhood on a normal night.
What everybody keeps ignoring and blowing off is the fact that Martin lives in Miami, not Sanford. They was a reason he was in Sanford, he was laying low from the authorities in Miami. When Martin saw Zimmerman, I would bet you anything what Martin thought was is that a cop checking me out. I know people say is Zimmerman would've walked away Martin would be alive today. But the police were on route, and what if when they reached the scene Martin would've attacked them as he did Zimmerman the results could have been the same. This is why I say all the time there's way more to this case than meets the eye. Is the totality of all events that contributed to this sad event. It was not racism, it is not a maniac with a gun chasing down, it was not Martin just jumping Zimmerman.What does "normal" mean American View?
Where does "normal" exist?
That is a gross generalization....
I have seen no evidence of anything you have said regarding Trayvon "laying low" in Sanford. If you have links, please share them. That is quite a claim....
This is your credibility on the line, it pays to cite sources.
However, I did find this doozy:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities … 7SGccX0_1k
And the plot thickens....not good for Zimmerman.Mike,
I am not going to dignify your sources since they are just guessing as you are, not to mention the agenda those papers are serving.
If you have not seen any evidence of Martin laying low, then you are either not getting all the information, which I doubt, or you just ignore it to further your point of view over everyone elses.
So I guess Martin does not live in Miami, I guess his parents do not live in Miami. And if you conceed to the truth that they do live in Miami, then why do you think Martin was in Sanford. Enlighten us and show us real evidence, as you say, it pays to cite sources
One point in the self-defense doctrine that is being ignored here is Proximity.
Martin had no need for self-defense because Zimmerman was not physically close enough to him to cause death or bodily injury. (and yes I know Zimmerman had a gun, however it was not displayed so how could Martin know the gun was in his possession or a threat) Just being suspicious of someone’s attentions especially from a distance does not constitute the invocation of self-defense doctrine.
The doctrine does however come into effect after Martin turned, approached and attacked Zimmerman which now according to released medical documents seems to prove Martin inflicted bodily injury upon Zimmerman before the shooting, which now as it appears is definitely a self-defensive action and clearly within the doctrine.Are you sure the "gun was not displayed?" Regardless, it appears to me that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Also, based on Martin's girlfriend's testimony wrt her cell phone conversation with him, he believed he was being stalked by Zimmerman. Martin was walking back from the grocery store; Zimmerman was following him, contrary to instructions from the dispatcher, with a gun in his pocket. Case closed.
Martins girlfriends testimony is suspect at this point. We need to wait for trial for it all come out.
If you read/listen to the entire 911 call, in context and not media cuts, you'll see that he stopped following Trayvon shortly after being told to...
That's not my understanding. Zimmerman was following Martin, not vice versa. He got out of his car and approached Martin.
Here's a link to a full transcript of Zimmerman's 911 call. It indicates that Martin is running away from Zimmerman and, of course, that Zimmerman was asked not to follow Martin. He apparently didn't stop or Martin would have made it back to the house where he was a guest and there would have been no physical contact betwee the two.
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ … erman.html
That's quite a generalization you are making....
I cannot support it at all.who are you addressing? I think my comment was very specific
Ready to Escape, for some reason your post was not visible when I made my response. I was speaking to the guy before you.
Concerning your post,
There is zero evidence that Martin turned and attacked Zimmerman. If you can cite a source please do so. Unsubstantiated claims are baseless.
It is clear from the phone messages that Trayvon acknowledged "stranger danger" and fled. He then stopped and hid. He made a phone call, he explained what he was doing and the situation he was in.
Intimidation....
All the evidence has thus far shown a distancing Martin and a pursuing Zimmerman. Once Zimmerman had come into range....it is now for Martin to quickly assess what kind of danger he is in. He provoked nothing.... He initiated nothing.... He tried to avoid Zimmerman, but Zimmerman wasn't going to back down...
"An attempt to strike another, when sufficiently near
so that there is danger, the person assailed may strike first,
and is not required to wait until he has been struck."
– 16th Century English Self Defense Law -
Again, unless you have some evidence to back your claim you have nothing more than baseless speculation.
Don't point to Zimmerman's medical report....there is no evidence there for you to use.Your own quote demonstrates proximity as a major factor in application of self-defense.
Since you refuse to acknowledge the medical report citing two black eyes, a broken nose and contusions cuts and abrasions to the rear of Zimmerman’s head, injuries claimed in statements to have been inflicted by Martin, do you also refute the Martin autopsy report that notes in addition to a gunshot wound Martin had injuries in the form of broken skin on his knuckles? Evidence which supports the claim above that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
Real evidence, not hearsay as in your description.
I’m not aware of any evidence to back your claim that Martin was “distancing” during the confrontation. There is also no evidence to support the assertion that Zimmerman in anyway physically threatened Martin with bodily injury or death during the confrontation, (requirements for the self-defense doctrine) only to delay him until the police arrived.
And as I recall both Zimmerman and Martin were found in close proximity to Zimmerman’s vehicle, another factor that belies the distancing theory.Mike,
Your comment cuts both ways.As you say there is zero evidence, that we know of, that Martin attack Zimmerman first, on the other hand, we have no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin first. Is so cite your source.All I had to show what that Zimmerman was not required to hit Martin first for Martin to use justifiable self-defense.
I never made an assertion otherwise.
Do you disagree with my assessment?Absolutely. Again, it cuts both ways yet you refuse to acknowledge that. One can say Martin was not required to hit Zimmerman for Zimmerman to use justifiable self-defense.
"2:08 – Shit, he’s running." Zimmerman on the phone with 911 operators.
There has been no crime committed.
He witnesses a person he deems "suspicious" (which is based on his own thinking, which may itself be flawed for a variety of reasons). He does the right thing, and calls law enforcement.
(I have done this type of thing before, and when I was instructed to back off, I did. I thought about "what if this guy gets away", but realized that if I did anything I might end up as a criminal as well... Of course, in my cases I witnessed crimes taking place....no "suspicion"...if I called the cops every time I felt uncomfortable with someone I would have been cited as an abuser of the system, and I guarantee many of my "suspicions" would have been unfounded.. I'm willing to admit that I have flaws too.... We all do.)
But, Zimmerman decides to give chase...even when told not to.
Looking at an overhead view of the area where this all transpired doesn't do the terrain justice.
But Zimmerman decides to give chase... We can say that he was completely foolish, and ran after Martin with no plan in terms of what he would do once he came upon him...
(Maybe he was that poor in terms of his cognitive abilities...but that is no excuse for the risks he took. He, however, is definitely not showing such inabilities now.)
Unless he witnessed a crime, Zimmerman had no legal authority to do anything except talk to Martin.
Martin has no clue who Zimmerman is, what he wants, or what he is capable of doing...
Is it reasonable to assume that Martin would feel threatened by having a stranger pay close attention to him, talk to people on the phone while checking him out, and pursuing him?
Is this a reasonable conclusion?
If not, please state why.
Now, if we agree on this, that Martin already felt the twinge of fear...that he was intimidated..then we can move forward to his responses, which phone records share with us.
There is no way for him to know that Zimmerman is acting alone...and of course, he wasn't being that he was talking to public services..but for all I, you, or Martin would know, there could be other "buddies" out there getting ready to pounce. Is this not reasonable?
We do live in that kind of world, don't we? Or shall we forget reality?
Again, if Martin was your son, what would you be saying? Even if your son charged Zimmerman, in court you would point out your son's state of mind...the threat he was under... You might even argue that he was trying to protect his family... Instead of leading the threats home where they can now do all kinds of things...or just come back later...he tries to sneak around, hide, maybe even try to find out more about who is coming after him...
If this was your son, what would you say? What would you say when they go through your son's phone records and find texts that are inappropriate...or online for any image or snippet of information to demonize him?
What if Martin was your son? Would you say the same things about him? So quickly?
Maybe you'd let him become the next guy who just deserved what he got.... He just had it coming...that's all..
Is that how you would respond?
I've been through enough legal drama in my life to know how all of this works... If you profess knowledge about these topics I expect that you would have some real life experience to back it up...
With all of this said, I think evidence will show that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, and it went downhill from there. If the prosecution is on the ball, they will show the legal line limiting Zimmerman's ability to act, and precisely where he crossed it.Do not confuse my response as being in support of Zimmerman’s actions. Personally I think the guy is an idiot. I also think Martin was a thug-wanna-be creation of the culture. Further the interaction of these two was an inevitable explosion of poor judgment by both.
My comments are directed squarely at the use of the self-defense doctrine, the original post. Which as it appears only apply in this case to Zimmerman since there is no evidence to support the theory that Martin was ever under a threat of bodily injury or death.
But answer a few questions,
When Martin was first approached how did he react? Calmly and responsibly or with hostility and attitude?
Why, if he thought he was in danger, was not Martin’s first phone call to the police?
Why when Zimmerman supposedly informed Martin the police were on the phone did he not ask to speak to them?
Why when Martin was told the police were coming did he not just wait for them to arrive?
My Sons, all five of them, would have done all the above, and saved the kickass for last, only if required, as they were taught.
Why did Martin feel in necessary to attack instead of flee?
Too many questions and too many poor decisions.
Your last paragraph seems to be correct, however I’m not too sure there will be any evidence to show Zimmerman broke any law. I think the prosecution may even have a problem with reckless endangerment.
There is no law that says you have to adhere to the instructions of the police dispatcher, who in all probability is a civilian and not a sworn officer. There is also no law that says you have to adhere to the instructions of the police unless you are engaged with them or in the process of arrest. And unfortunately it is not against the law to be stupid. If it were we’d need a lot more jails.
In terms of racism...this is the type of garbage I am talking about...careless assumptions...baseless allegations using the unsaid imagery of the "black ghetto thug" to get the reader to agree..
http://peopleagainstshittycop.wordpress … shittycop/the only racism in this case appears to have been inserted after the fact and mostly by the black activists using the press to further their cause
As for the Wordpress article, I go to various convenience stores and they rarely give receipts. In fact, you often have to ask for it if you want one. And I am a law abiding citizen. Neither Trayvon or George were squeaky clean, that is the most clear fact of all. All of this could have been avoided had the adult acted as a level headed adult and immediately heeded the recommendation of the dispatcher.
By the way Mike, as a Military Father, and more as a Grateful American. Thank You for your service as a Marine.
You need to read up on your case law. The perception of being threatened is very broad. Key word here PERCEPTION.
Martin did not have to be touched...he just had to feel that he was in danger of harm.
"When Martin was first approached how did he react? Calmly and responsibly or with hostility and attitude? "
This is the wrong question to ask. It is groundless for several reasons.
1) "Attitude" is something that we cannot quantify from anything we know.
2) "Attitude" in terms of what you are implying denotes a response to a known authority figure...which Zimmerman was not. In his mind he may have been, but to Martin he was some random person. The testimony from the person Martin was on the phone with mentions the rapidity of the altercation. Zimmerman never identified himself before violence broke out...no name, no "I'm from the neighborhood watch" or anything else....which leads to point 3..
3) If you are questioning attitude, how about Zimmermans? How did he talk to Trayvon? Or can Zimmerman do whatever he wants?
Verbal intimidation has the equal outcome to physical intimidation...and the defender is fully justified to act preemptively... If you can find evidence to the contrary, please do.
Again, this is where you have to look to yourself, and this is what a juror would have to do.
Was Martin's adrenaline pumping? Was fight or flight mode triggered....how do humans respond to being threatened?
Again, I look to my own experiences...for the gratefulness you show me now, I was a gang-member wannabe... I have behaved stupidly in my life...but that never would have justified my death if I had replaced Martin in this scenario..
A lot of Marines are thugs... During bootcamp they had all the gangmembers raise their hands, and our instructors identified the Marine Corps as the biggest and baddest gang on the planet.... We can be quite thuggish...
With that said,
"Why did Martin feel in necessary to attack instead of flee?"
He did... He said so himself. He said "I won't run, but I will walk fast".. He was afraid, but didn't want to show intimidation.
He had been followed for some time, noticed he was being followed, stopped to try to figure out who was following him, and then tried to get away.. The phone conversation exerpts, and the phone clattering to the ground very quickly thereafter, shows that there was little time for "attitude", as you put it.
Again, pretend that you were Martin, that your son, or even daughter, was Martin.....(if you can do it...maybe it is impossible for some people to do so), and see if you think differently.
You write about your sons, but I can write about myself and my brothers and what we went through. Based on Zimmerman's track record of reckless and aggressive behavior, for all we know (and from Trayvon's phone falling to the ground) it may very well be that Martin had no time.
I reiterate, even if Martin attacked first, he is justified if he believed that he was defending himself from bodily harm. He was chasing no one...he was moving away...talking on the phone at the time, discussing how he was walking away...attempting to get away from the suspicious person following and watching him.
Remember, suspicion is going both ways....ZImmerman has no monopoly on it..
Why did Martin not call the police?
I don't know. It isn't relevant. What is relevant...who was yelling "help!" On the recordings... If it is Martin, Zimmerman is done.
"Why when Zimmerman supposedly informed Martin the police were on the phone did he not ask to speak to them?"
When did this take place?
You refer to what I write as hearsay and then you bring up "supposed" information with no substantiation?
Really?
I've looked, and found nothing to back up your claim.
"I’m not too sure there will be any evidence to show Zimmerman broke any law. I think the prosecution may even have a problem with reckless endangerment."
I predict manslaughter. I predict that he will have been found to overstep his legal authority as a private citizen. He may not have intended to kill anyone, but he did.
In terms of racism....there is still the" F-n Coon" remark that few people, especially Zimmerman supporters, are mentioning.... That will come back to haunt him... To single out "black activists" is to deny the non-black, like myself who are just as aggressive, and it also falsely makes this a black rights issue, and not universal civil rights....
Wake up people...
I've read Florida state statutes on this issue and cases where they have been applied. If the prosecutor does his/her job, Zimmerman will be behind bars.Just one comment here, advanced audio testing showed the " F-n Coon" comment did not occur. He was commenting on the weather.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/06/en … cial-slur/
Mike,
We can agree that Zimmerman witnessed a suspicious person and called authorities. We can also agree that despite being told to stand down, when Martin took off Zimmerman pursued him. At this point in my opinion no matter what happens Zimmerman shares the burden of responsibility for not backing down.
You state that Zimmerman was completely foolish for he had no plan on what to do with Martin when he came upon him. How can you assume that Zimmerman's pursuit was to come upon Martin? One could reasonably ascertain that Zimmerman's actions were strictly surveillance, he just wanted to keep an eye on where Martin was going until the police arrived.
I agree that want to think that Martin had no clue what Zimmerman was doing or wanting. However I disagree with you where you say it's reasonable to assume that Martin felt threatened. I believe that Martin was just acting like anybody he was in fear of being caught by the police while on the lamb. And let's be honest that's exactly what Martin was.
You seem concerned about them going through his phone records and texts as you say possibly looking for an appropriate information. But was it not his girlfriend who said she was on the phone speaking with them at the time of the incident? Would you not reasonably than check Martin's phone records to see if that is true? Just one thing on the phone that has bothered me from the beginning. I listened to the tape where Zimmerman was talking to neighborhood watch. Zimmerman was very descriptive of everything from clothes to every movements of the suspect. Missing from that discussion was the facts he never said Martin was on the phone. Based on the interview on MS NBC out Sharpton's show. The girlfriend was very descriptive about the timeframe of the phone call. She was very insistent that she was accurate. If she was, that would mean when Zimmerman saw Martin, he was on the phone yet is no mention of it. Also when they discuss Martin they say all he had on him was ice tea and skittles, no mention of a cell phone. That is why all the speculation that occurs in these chat rooms means nothing. Until all the evidence comes out at trial all everybody is doing is guessing.
You are right, it's a tragedy that did not need to occur
"You state that Zimmerman was completely foolish for he had no plan on what to do with Martin when he came upon him. How can you assume that Zimmerman's pursuit was to come upon Martin?"
No, I stated that me might have been foolish enough to go after Martin with no plan.
I believe he felt that he'd be able to intimidate Martin....and that he'd be able to "control" the situation. There is equally zero evidence that he was "only going out for surveillance." If you can find where that is mentioned anywhere let me know...
I'm waiting for several links from you now.
"I agree that want to think that Martin had no clue what Zimmerman was doing or wanting. However I disagree with you where you say it's reasonable to assume that Martin felt threatened."
That is quite an assertion..which goes completely against human nature. Reasonable people will disagree with you. Again, I want to put you in Martin's shoes, and see how you would feel, and how you would respond. Something tells me you would sing a different tune.
You criticize my "assertions" but then make huge whoppers of your own.... I cite sources..and I at least have a degree in Psychology...and several years of working with at-risk youth Trayvon's age. How about you? No sources....and....what?
"I believe that Martin was just acting like anybody he was in fear of being caught by the police while on the lamb. And let's be honest that's exactly what Martin was."
On the lamb from what? Cite a source. Realize that if you are wrong, your entire logic falls to the ground worthlessly... You are pinning a lot of assertions on a thin peg.
"You seem concerned about them going through his phone records and texts as you say possibly looking for an appropriate information. But was it not his girlfriend who said she was on the phone speaking with them at the time of the incident? Would you not reasonably than check Martin's phone records to see if that is true?"
Will her testimony be in evidence?
Yes.
It isn't only Trayvon's phone, but the girlfriend's as well that would have the record. If you have something that says this call never took place, please, again, cite a source..
Simply saying whatever you want and claiming "reasonableness" does not make it so...
It's a tragedy that need not occur.....and, again, unless you have evidence to support your claims, you are making it worse.
How can someone reasonably give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt, and not do the same for Martin?
There is ultimately one explanation, and it comes down to the engrained imagery that has been put into some peoples' minds concerning the "thug"...."black crime"....and being okay with black people dying...
You do a good job of showing exactly what I am talking about American View... I hope you can reflect on all of this objectively and see what you are actually doing...
Or cite some sources please...First of all, Zimmerman had a former restraining order on him, he was not supposed to be carrying a gun.
Second--he initiated the aggression....all claims of self defense are therefore MOOT. He goes after a kid with a gun in his hand...END OF STORY.
Kid ends up dead....MURDER.
Mike is right. Stand your ground in this case applies to Martin.
But, just like the black man in Georgia, who was protecting his home, YET sits in prison.....it will not apply to Martin because he is black.
Sometimes a duck is a duck.LMC,
Again do you have evidence Zimmerman was running down the road in hot pursuit with his gun drawn? I think not.
Your quote" he was not supposed to be carrying a gun", in fact he was allowed to carry a gun and had the permit that allowed. We can all question whether or not he should've had permit in the first place and that is a very legitimate argument. Based on what I have read of the restraining order, being arrested for assault on a police officer, and several other issues regarding temper truly makes one wonder how the hell he got approved for concealed weapons permit in the first place.
LMC, send me some information on the black man in Georgia sitting in prison for protecting his home. Not aware of the story and like to learn more. Thanks.Here you go AV:
http://www.politicususa.com/whites-only … round.html
We shall see when it all comes out. I've listened to the recording many, many, many times...
I also used to live in Florida....
Cold? There? I've never felt it.I lived there too. Ocala FL. It gets cold there.
I am curious, if it does not get cold there then why do the orange growers worry about a deep freeze to hurt their crops, yet they need a good frost to help make the oranges sweet?
Zimmerman claims he said "F-ing Punks"....which is nonsense....and which also moves away from saying "f-ing cold".
Surely, had he said that latter remark, he would have said so....and not pointed to "punks"...which has a very unique sound signature. "P" never sounds like a hard "c".
Looking at evidence, it was chilly in Sanford that night (though those going after Trayvon over his "hoody" choose to ignore this...pointing to "thug identity" over practicality....another mark against their credibility..Mike,
So you now have changed your story from he said a racial slur to he said Punk, despite the tapes that clearly show he said "cold" And to that end, you changed your story from it never gets cold in Florida to no one considered that is why Martin had the hoody on.
You criticize those who say a hoody is a thug mentality, yet you refuse to even consider that it actually does have that reflection. As long as you continue to just spout one side to promote your argument,you will never see take in all the information and realize the actual accounts of what happened.
Not at all. I can't hear "punk" at all. That is simply what the affidavit says. I put that there to debunk the "cold" comment...if he said cold, he definitely would not tell the investigator he said "punk". That makes no rational sense...does it?
I do admit, between "cold" and "coon" it is hard to tell based off that recording. This would then come down to context....we can speculate one way or another...was he cold? Was he being racist?
I had never heard the "cold" explanation until earlier today. I changed my story because, after doing independent research beyond newspaper articles, I say that it was colder than usual that day.
Yet, the issue stands....if he said "cold", why didn't he stick with it? He was far better off there than trying to pass off "punk."
When people jump on the "hoody"="troubled youth"/"thug-wanna be" imagery they are just as bad as those who turned Zimmerman into an instant racist.... We shall know more when this recorded comment is finally clarified on his end.
My arguments focus on one key issue....Trayvon's justification in terms of using force against someone he viewed as a personal threat either to himself, or even his family.
The PERCEPTION of threat that you don't seem to answer to...Mike,
You have presented many arguments, cited many stories, so it comes off that you're well informed. I find it difficult for somebody who is well-informed to have not heard what you call" the cold explanation". It is not an explanation is a fact.CNN was the first to enhance the audio followed by Fox, followed by the Sanford please department. All three independently concur that the word was cold. It was reported in the news, the cable stations, and it made all the Sunday shows.
Your arguments do focus on one key issue, your pursuit to say Martin was justified in using force against someone that he view the threat, and now you say even his family. I don't know why you said that since his family was in Miami.
You claim I did not address the perception of threat, I did, I think he chose to ignore it. I also mentioned by wrote an article about and you are free to go read. I don't know if you did or you didn't that's up to you. But to leave out all the factors that led up to the incident and try to paint Martin as his poor little innocent boy is disingenuous.
- screamingposted 12 years ago
0My problem with Zimmerman,was he was not a certified police office. He had no training, yet "Thought" he could determine who a suspicious character is. Then add in a gun, with no training, followed by pursuing this young man, created this scene of disaster. Could Trayvon turned on Zimmerman? Sure, if he was scared he had two choices,fight or flight. If he chose fight, he was within his "stand your ground rule" to try and defend himself. Unfortunately in defending himself, the pursuer used a gun and shot him dead. Had Trayvon not been followed and labeled suspicious, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Screaming,
It's true that Zimmerman was not a certified police officer. However he did take the sheriffs course training required of all citizen watch groups and all citizen patrol officers. He was also in college to get his certification because he wanted to be a police officer.
You have a point when you say had Martin not been followed we wouldn't be having this conversation, at least as it pertains to Zimmerman, but why does everybody ignore the fact that if Martin was not where he was we would not be having this conversationAmerican View,
Unless I'm missing something Martin was walking home and wasn't in a location he wasn't supposed to be in. He was visiting at his dad's girlfriends house and I would bet un familiar with the area for the most part.
As for his training, it was weak at best. And citizen watch groups always say never pursue, contact law enforcement.Scream,
Bingo, he was i an area he was not familiar with. He had no clue where he was. It was cold, dark and raining. He looked at every house as he walked down the street. If you were a law enforcement officer or even a neighborhood watch person and see someone checking out all the houses while walking down the street draws suspicion, plain and simple. Factor in Martin is looking over his shoulder from law enforcement, enter a cop wanna be, and we have the beginning ingredients of a disaster and we all saw that play out.I believe he was suspicious because he was black and wearing a hoodie.--"they always get away" Zim said...who's "they"?
He saw the hoodie, got suspicious, saw he was black, and that nailed it for him: trouble-maker! Get my gun!
That's my speculation.
Crazy with a gun + Laws that support it = License to kill. i m o
ps: how do you know he wasn't familiar with the area? Maybe he had been there hundreds of times?LMC,
I agree with the hoodie part of your comment, but lets face it, where there is smoke there is fire. Remember the dispatcher call, Zimmerman was asked what race the perp was and he hesitated as if he was checking then came back and said black. So I agree the hoodie may have been part of Zimmerman's thoughts, but I disagree about race being an issue.
As for you PS, I cannot swear exactly where I read it or heard it in an interview, but it was the first time he was there. That is why I maintain the fact that Zimmerman could have interpreted Martin's actions as casing the neighborhood. I'm sure as Martin was walking down the street returning from the convenience store, all he was doing was trying to find the home of the father's fiancée. It was dark, it was cold, it was raining, I am sure he was having a difficult time trying to figure which house was which, he was looking for the familiar one. But to an outsider, a law enforcement official or a neighborhood watch person it might appear that somebody was casing the neighborhood."Remember, where there is smoke there is fire."
Smoke being a black kid with a hoodie?Ralph,
If you listen to the tapes it was quite clear until Zimmerman was asked by the dispatcher he did not realize the race of the person he had under surveillance.
And yes hoodie is associated with gangs. To not acknowledge so is to be disingenuous. Does that mean every person who wears a hoodie is a gang member, of course not. Hoodies in gangs is nothing new, they go back to the 70s
Let me ask you this, it is dark, you're walking down Canal Street in New York City. Suddenly you notice on your side of the street in front of you several kids, all wearing hoodies. Then you notice across the street are several more kids all wearing hoodies. Race color or ethnicity does not matter you cannot tell who they are. Are you not going to question the fact is possible they could be gang members? I do believe you would."And yes hoodie is associated with gangs."
And with billionaires like Zuckerberg.
Martin was by himself, not with a gang, and he pulled his hood up because it was raining.And just because he was not with his gang means he would not wear his hoodie.
While it did rain that day, I believe you will hear at trial that it was not raining at the time of the incident, the ground was wet though.
I notice you did not answer the other question.
According to sources, the members of that community granted Zimmerman the authority to serve as a "neighborhood watchman"...but I don't think they intended on him driving around with a gun. The Neighborhood Watch, itself, of course, sanctions its members to remain unarmed, follow official instructions, and to back off.
Official training should definitely be required now, if it hadn't been on some level already.Mike,
I wonder, do you actually read the comments that are left or do you just skim over them and write your response?
I get a kick out of your according to sources, to shame you didn't read my article like I asked you to for you would've found out one of my friends lives in Sanford Texas in that neighborhood and sits on the homeowners association board. The board was unaware that Zimmerman had a concealed handgun permit. When the homeowners Association decided to create the neighborhood watch, Zimmerman was the only person who volunteered to do it. So he was appointed neighborhood watch Capt. He did have to go and take a course from the Sheriff 's Department which I let you know earlier. So the official training that you want to be required already exists.American View,
It was Sandford Florida, not Sanford, Texas just for the record. Neighborhood watch Sheriff's Department training is a far cry from that of a police officer. The key word here is "Watch". He was watching, saw something he "thought" was out of place. Was told by Police (trained police officers) not to pursue. He did, and unfortunately we all know the outcome of his not "Just Watching and Reporting".Thank GOD somebody else understands that you should do as you are asked or told by police and dispatchers.
Sream,
I apologize for my typo, I put Texas but I meant Florida.and for the record it is Sanford Florida, there is no D.
The neighborhood watch training in Florida is conducted by the sheriffs department. While it is far cry from that of a police officer, it is not a walk in the park. When all this was being talked about I had called the Sanford PD and interviewed Wendy Dorival who is charge of their neighborhood watch program. She sent me literature and walked me through what it takes to become accepted in neighborhood watch and the training before they allow someone on the street.Should you choose to follow deeper, send me an e-mail and I will give you her phone number at her office.
The key word is definitely watch. He was observed what he said on the tapes as someone with erratic behavior. He did protocol number one which is call it in. I want to point out what may or may not be the obvious, 911 operators and the majority of personnel who answer the phone such as dispatchers are not trained police officers and are in fact civilians. See here in lies one of the problems at people tried to become homemade detectives will not understanding or willing to look at all the facts and underlying circumstances. Now it is true that person said not to pursue, the officer would be there shortly. But when Martin ran he followed, one could argue to simply keep Martin in sight and make sure he did not enter someone's home. See one can come up with many hypotheticals on this. It's better for everyone to sit back and just let the facts come out in court. I think in the end it will come out that they will share equal blame in the incident. I think it the end of the day Zimmerman will walk, not that I agree with that.
By the way, American View....I'm still waiting for the sources to those whoppers you spread out last night.
Mike,
We're still waiting for PROPER sources for the stuff you are talking about. All the links that you send and use are just blobs news stories and other peoples opinions. I am not interested in people's opinions, nor would I send you to a site that's an opinion. User out of hypothetical situation and get pissed off when somebody disagrees with you and then challenge that person's opinion as if it's a fact. I have given you my opinion based on the facts and underlying circumstances.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 … many-teens
Where are the proofs concerning "Martin was laying low from authorities in Miami"? How can you claim that I am uninformed otherwise?Mike,
Really, NPR is your source? That Story in that link so far was the best Peter Pan story about Martin yet. The best part is will he said typical teenager.
Conveniently they left out the part about Martin being part of a gang, they made light of the marijuana in the bag as a trace, not quite true there was some substance in the bag and was currently being tested, the spray painting incident was not minor, he was spray painting gang symbols and other smut, funny how the left that out, it also left out the part of all the jewelry that was found in his backpack, the jewelry that his family members said was not there is an Martin said he didn't know whose they were. Miami PD confiscated the jewelry and it was being checked out. Also found in his possession were burglary tools, also left out of the article. So let's put the proper timeline here for you. Martin was caught red-handed defacing the school property, the subsequent search of him revealed the marijuana bag, the jewelry and tools. The school has suspended him for 10 days as Miami PD was investigating. If the bag tested positive more than likely due to the small amount inside he would've gotten a very minor possession charge and paid a small fine. Defacing school property on the other hand is a misdemeanor unless the dollar amount of the damage reaches a plateau it would then become a felony. And of course if it was determined where the jewelry came from, he would've been charged with felony burglary and theft, breaking and entering at a minimum. Now you can continue to ignore the facts of the underlying reasons Martin was in Sanford, but you can change that those are the facts.
I find it hard for you to claimant that" you are uninformed" about those facts. There were all over the news, although the print media, although over the cable shows. Even Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were downplaying those incidents as he was just a typical teenager.
Have you listened to them Mike? Heart-Crushing. Sounds so scared sooo scared!
F that Zimmerman! daddy'll get him off...and mommy. Lucky for him he's "in da club"
Again...the cold explanation is irrelevant when Zimmerman stated that he used the word "punk"...
How can you reconcile this difference?
Is the affidavit false?
In terms of protecting himself and family it is very simple...
1) He can act, even preemptively, if he views himself under threat...
But, there is also the issue of having some stranger follow you home... If Trayvon perceived that having a stranger posing a threat follow him home posed a threat to those at the home (meaning the home in that complex), then he is also protecting them... It all comes down to perception...and everything I have said is found in Florida State law regarding self defense...
Concerning the quote your wrote....I don't see anything..and if you wrote an article out, you should always cite a source...
Regarding this comment you made:
"So I guess Martin does not live in Miami, I guess his parents do not live in Miami. And if you conceed to the truth that they do live in Miami, then why do you think Martin was in Sanford. Enlighten us and show us real evidence, as you say, it pays to cite sources"
It is not my burden to cite a source....you made a claim about Martin being in hiding from Miami law enforcement...
Where did you find that info...cite it..don't just tell me about it. I've looked, and it is nowhere to be found.
It does pay to cite sources...so practice what you preach please...
And to reiterate.....was Martin entitled to defend himself against someone he perceived to be an aggressor?
Yes or No?
This is the question that needs to be answered....if he felt threatened was he justified to respond... I know what my answer is, as do you American View... You keep dancing around with irrelevant information....Martin was entitled to be there, American View.
"but why does everybody ignore the fact that if Martin was not where he was we would not be having this conversation"<-----what the heck is this sentence supposed to mean?
Irrelevant info again....and still no sources backing your "Martin in hiding" claim...
If Zimmerman had training, American View, he definitely would have known better, and his actions would be even more up for questioning.
The Sanford Police have stated that all this would have been avoided if Zimmerman had just followed directions...
His training should have covered that before anything else....and if one is incapable of following directions, then one should definitely not be doing what Zimmerman was doing...
Keep dancing around American View.... Trayvon is entitled to his own defense....except in your book.....troubling..Mike,
Keep on dancing around, both sides are entitled to their defense except in your book extremely troubling. Is this was the wild West you would've already had Zimmerman strung up by his neck. Your mob mentality of ignoring facts is amazing. You continue to say show me show me show me and yet you show nothing except spout off opinion.
"Unless I'm missing something Martin was walking home and wasn't in a location he wasn't supposed to be in"
Really Scream? How do you come up with such a conclusion? Of course, American View (the one with no view....and no sources) would jump to agree with you... Flawed logic thinks alike...
You would "bet" unfamiliar area? Based on your latest call to the Lady Cleo Psychic network?
Nonsense.
Google the area, and look at where the 7-11 is in relation to the community....look at the community itself....
(additional comment: Sorry Scream, how I misread your statement is beyond me!)
A.V., who was "checking out all the houses"?
Looking over his shoulder from law enforcement? Sources anyone?
I agree with the rest, but the speculation here is astounding.....But you know he is always right don't you?
Mike,
The only person speculating here is you. You toss out your theories and refuse to listen anyone else. Unbelievably close minded, and then you attack everyone who disagrees with you.
Before I ask my question I'm gonna say that I DONT think it was motivated by race... I think it was a "Paul Blart... Mall Cop" thing. I think Zimmerman was one of those neighborhood watch guys who think they are Navy Seals somehow... but I digress...
It is an interesting question of why Treyvon didn't get the benefit of stand your ground. I'm going to tell you that if I am being followed by someone I'm going to confront them. If they appear hostile in any way after that it is entirely possible that I will either run or attempt to beat the crap out of them. Not because of any aggression or anger... just fear of someone doing me harm. I think it would be a justified fear as well.All up to date facts support the scenerio that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and not the other way around...IF that's the case then there is no self-defense case for Trayvon...
Why not? Self-defense just means that you have a reasonable fear that you are in imminent danger... If I was being followed by a person that i didn't know then I would feel that i was in imminent danger.
I fully agree and would definitely feel that I was in imminent danger if someone was following me.
Me, too. And if he approached me too close, I might well be inclined to strike the first blow, unless the individual identified himself and stated his purpose, convincing me he meant no harm.
Melissa, Express, Ralph
You guys are all correct, as upstanding citizens if you are followed you would protect yourself. It would not be normal for you to be followed.
Having said that, what if you or somebody who is being investigated by the police. The types of crimes don't matter, which are being investigated. You leave town, or your parents take you out of town and drop you off somewhere else, so you are in an unfamiliar place. You are trying to lay low, trying to not draw any attention. You go to a convenience store and are heading home. You have your hoodie up because you don't want to be noticed, you're walking back to home in an neighborhood that you're unfamiliar with and it's dark. As you walk down the street you're looking over the homes, looking for that familiar one that you are staying at. Suddenly you notice somebody on the phone in a vehicle is watching you.Is he a cop. Is he here to arrest me. I don't want to be arrested. So you turn, you leave possibly run. But the dude is still walking after you, but you're not going to be arrested. He ducked around the corner out of sight, and the guy gets close enough, you jump him.
Does that not sound plausible?Well it depends... WAS Treyvon facing arrest? If not then your entire argument is moot. If he was facing arrest then it is logical. I have not heard that he was facing arrest or had any reason to be... so I doubt the thought "I'm going to be arrested" entered his mind. More likely really was "Who is this crazy ass man following me?"
Melissa,
An arrest of Martin was not imminent, but he could not know that. He knew, along with his parents, that the Miami PD was investigating him. Martin's actions for which they were investigating him also resulted in him being suspended from high school for 10 days.Miami PD was running tests on the bag that contains miniscule amount of marijuana, the jewelry that was in his possession that his family said was not theirs, the burglar tools that were in his backpack. Also remember Martin was caught red-handed in the act defacing school property. If the damage was not a lot you will be charged with misdemeanor, however if the repairs to the damage is high enough, that drive would turn to a felony.
Why does nobody question the fact why was Martin in Sanford Florida when he lives in Miami Florida. His parents both still live in Miami Florida and were there when the incident occurred. These are important underlying circumstances that contributed to the incident. Please do not get me wrong, Zimmerman needs to face trial. I don't believe the charge of murder to was just, but a manslaughter charge which truly in line with the incident.
Zimmerman went after him with a gun...what would you do?
Defending yourself from a gun is self-defense in any way you look at it.
BTW:
roland s martin:
"Folks, geraldo rivera is telling the Fox viewers that if u see a Black man dressed a certain way, consider them a thug so go ahead & shoot"
uh ohhhh: load, aim, andddddd
http://images.wjla.com/politics/geraldo … lr_606.jpg
Stop and Frisk.....any black man?? Come on.There has been no proof that Zimmerman "went after him" with a gun...The reports show that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman...It's a tragic either way, but I like dealing with fact and evidence and not media hype.
But i think it's fairly well established that Zimmerman was following him... that in and of itself is enough to make a reasonable person feel that they are in danger.
Not if you listen to the WHOLE 911 call...He stopped following him...but, the media likes to distort things for sensationalism.
I guess the question we must ask ourselves is, If someone is following us, what do we do? Should we run? Or fight? And if we fight, is there a chance we may get shot by the follower under the stand your ground law?
Stand your ground laws are in effect in a few states. You can run and you can fight but you cannot always control whether or not the pursuer/stalker continues stalking, nor can you always control the outcome of their actions.
The reality is that if you are being followed, what you do might change the situation for the better, may change it for the worse, or may change absolutely nothing of what the person following you has playing out in their minds. This is an unfortunate reality of life these days no matter where you are.
If someone followed me I would definitely feel that I'm in imminent danger and take action to protect myself and we all have the right to defend ourselves. This is a very basic choice that most people would try to act on at any age or physical ability if they felt threatened.
Tell us what it said. Your hub "The Right to Discriminate" provides a pretty good clue to where you're coming from. Are you a neighborhood watch captain with a concealed carry permit by any chance? Remind me to stay out of your neighborhood.
WHAT?
Martin was walking home, and Zimmerman stalked him!
Zimmerman initiated the aggression....WITH a gun. Murder in the first degree, IMO.Good thing the justice system doesnt rely on people's opinions.
Oh, but it does. That, people's predjudice, and who you know.
oh and of course, the green stuff in your pocket.Luckily juries tend to weed out hysterical drama queens early in the selection process
But not the racists. I have seen it first hand.
"like the deep south". Here, in vaca-land. Lily-white Cape Crud.
Where did Geraldo say this...provide a link...if true, and in context, then he is an idiot.
I was quoting Roland Martin.....I don't have a link. You can go look it up if you so desire.
Nonsense.
One does not have to wait to be struck before striking.
I don't think it's what do you do,, but what can you do? What does the law allow?
I don't know why it is so hard to deny the very real possibility that Trayvon Martin was just as protected legally as Zimmerman. The ongoing use of character assassination against Martin is another way of dehumanizing him. I know that there was manipulation against Zimmerman, but two wrongs surely don't make any right in this tragedy.
The phone call to his girlfriend will be a crucial piece of evidence, as well as Zimmerman's alteration of his directions to the 911 operator, from the mailboxes to "where I'm at."
That second one clearly shows the "I'm going to track this guy down in contrary to everything I have been told to do, and what likely most reasonable people, especially neighborhood watchmen, would do" mentality.
We have two guys who both perceive the other as a threat.... In Zimmerman's mind, he may or may not have been a "serious" threat...he's a guy walking through the neighborhood.. There may be a heightened curiosity/concern, but perhaps not a whole lot more. We shall see when everything comes forward...
But we have another....who's perceived threat would cause much more alarm than the former.. From the phone call it is clear that he knows someone has targeted him, in what he interprets to be a threatening way....using aggression...though no physical contact had yet been made. American View, have you ever been chased in the dark by a stranger? I haven't, but I don't think I should have to be to reflect on the amount of stress and distress that can cause.
A recipe for disaster......which would all have been avoided if Zimmerman had acted differently.
In my own opinion, if he hadn't been carrying the gun, I don't think he would have chased after Martin. Had the 911 operator known Zimmerman was carrying a gun, I think the directives would have been much different.
Some have written that Zimmerman was within his rights to get out with his cellphone and follow at a respectful distance... But I ask how does one do that when running around in the dark? What happens, even by accident, if you (in this case Zimmerman) end up cornering the person you were chasing? These are strangers........there is fear on both sides, that is sure, but also perhaps a false sense of security on behalf of Zimmerman.
Zimmerman is also claiming that Trayvon was reaching for his gun, which is what led him to shoot him.
Without commenting further on this for now, and being purely speculative... If some stranger comes after me, and I see he/she has a gun, I'm going for it at some point too...... That is perfectly reasonable....However, some of Zimmerman's testimony is not...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/alleged … or-my-gun/Mike,
I see that you appear to now at least be listening to both sides of the argument.
Nobody here has questions at all whether or not Martin had the ability or the right to defend himself.I think you perceive some of the underlying facts that are brought out as character assassinations against Martin. That is not the case. When this thread first started, and you may still feel this way now, he would dead set against Zimmerman and were willing to throw the rope over the tree branch and hang him. And then when I pointed out other issues contrary to yours you were not pleased. I have said and maintained all along there are two sides to every story. The evidence in this case that we have so far heard is all speculation, secondhand, or people's opinions. All the true evidence will not be heard until trial. Even the recent medical examiner's report has not fully been released, yet certain aspects have made its way to the media. And of course depending on your side of the argument some of the leaks would back you are side, and some of the leaks would back the other side. When the entire actual medical report is released then and only then will we know the truth
.
The one thing that you keep going back to his the girlfriend phone call. I wanted to take notice of one thing, the only people who talk about this phone call are the girlfriend, the media, and of course Sharpton and Jackson. Do you realize not once has the Sanford Police Department or any other investigator make mention or talk about the phone call. Even if you listen to the tapes when Zimmerman is discussing the physical characteristics of the person he is watching to the dispatcher, he documents the moves that Martin was making, right down to when he says he has something in his hand but I can't quite make it out. We know what he had in his hands was an ice tea and bag of skittles. Never has there been a mention of a cell phone in his hands were in his possession. And in Zimmerman's description of the actions of Martin, never once did he say that he saw Martin on a cell phone. If you truly recall back to when everything first broke it was at a press conference when Al Sharpton first revealed about the girlfriend being on the phone. He claimed that the phone records showed she was on the phone at that time. Those phone records have never been released nor has any media person seen them. If you take Sharpton at his word that she was on the phone up until Martin's death, she would have heard the gunshot, she would have heard the struggle, she would've heard Martin punching Zimmerman, which in my mind asks the question how could he be punching Zimmerman while holding a cell phone? If you back off the minutes they claim she was on the phone, it puts you at the time frame when Martin was standing in front of Zimmerman. Which of course takes a back to my original question, Zimmerman was so detailed about Martins moves including things in his hands, then why did he make no mention of a phone or make a mention that Martin was talking on the cell phone?
Your question wanting to know if I was ever confronted by a stranger is an interesting one. I guess you missed part where I said I was a gang kid in my youth on the streets of New York. So the answer is yes, on more than one occasion. I also know firsthand what is like to be looking over your shoulder while trying to lay low.
I cannot answer if Zimmerman had the right to continue follow Martin, but I see no fault in trying to keep Martin is his site until the police arrive. What happens if one corners the other, well I think it's obvious to say we have seen what can happen.
There is no question that there is fear on both sides, and there should be no question that we had to extremes that met up. One was a cop wannabe, the other a criminal wannabe, and unfortunately their paths collided. To extremes like that will result in something bad happening as we see.
And finally your point about the gun is well taken. One of the questions I've had and will never know the answer to is at what point did Martin realize Zimmerman had a gun? And the other question about the gun that I have which is also important, is where did Zimmerman keep it, shoulder holster, ankle holster, holster on his belt, in his pocket, or was it just wedged in his belt?
Trayvon-Zimmerman. Let's look at this circumstance just slightly differently. Let's say You are walking down the street in my neighborhood, since You are a stranger then You are suspicious to me that's right just walking down the street You are suspicious to me, now having established that premise I go in the house get my revolver and proceed to follow You. According to some comments on this website apparently my actions are justifiable. There is nothing I can say to the law that You did however for me to follow You just because You looks suspicious to me!
If this is truly justifiable actions then we need to throw the law out because this means all men are not created equal and we are free intrude upon others lives based on our suspicions, can anyone say ignorance.Span,
Zimmerman did not follow Martin, think he was suspicious, go home and get his gun. If that was what had happened, we all would be having a different conversation. Lets stick with what we know or what has been leaked out.SpanStar,
How about looking at it through the prism of known fact rather than playing "what if"...According to the FULL 911 call he stopped following Trayvon approximately 13 seconds after police told him to. Don't listen to sound bites and be dumbed down, on this or anything else, by a media that is about sensationalism and not news. RESEARCH...None of us know all the facts yet...they will come out in the trial...
There's nothing on the transcript of the 911 call indicating that Zimmerman stopped hollowing Martin after he was instructed to do so.
Amen. We can agree on that. The law was written by the NRA which wasn't satisfied with the English common law castle doctrine which has served well for several hundred years.
Mitch, American view did you not hear the Zimmerman conversation with the 911 officer we are talking facts and that is exactly the premise that was used in this situation Zimmerman decided that Trayvon was suspicious-out of his own mouth he decided For what ever reason that Trayvon was suspicious-he was suspicious for looking around-(how dare he look around) clearly that is a suspicious behavior. He has something in his hands-(don't know what he is but it's suspicious).
the facts are there staring us in the face if we refuse to look at them then we are not seeing the truth.Span,
I did hear it, did you? Here is what you said:
"You are suspicious to me, now having established that premise I go in the house get my revolver and proceed to follow You."
For $100, show me where on the audio tape where Zimmerman said He saw Martin, determined he was suspicious and went back home to get his gun.
The facts are their yet you seem to want to ignore the ones that do not support your theory. Look at them, see the truthAmerican View,
This was too easy I'm guessing you really didn't hear the tape, I'm also guessing I won't get that hundred dollars.
Towards the beginning of the tape he tells a police officer that a real suspicious guy I've the recording at the link below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8
I'm not sure what reality you're looking at but as I said before the truth is staring us in the face.Span,
You are right , this is way to easy. The proof we are looking for here to get the $100 is not proving he said there was a suspicious person he was watching, but to prove what you said. Again, prove the entire statement you put out there, prove Zimmerman said on the tape he went home to get his revolver.
"You are suspicious to me, now having established that premise I go in the house get my revolver and proceed to follow You."
I will save you the time, HE NEVER SAID THAT despite your claim he did on the dispatcher tape. So again, stay on the facts or what we have been told.America View,
It would be helpful if you go back and read what I actually said. I altered the situation between Zimmerman & Martin to make an illustrated point. To simulate the circumstance of that night.
Lovemychris presents the point I was making in my scenario. My example wasn't design to be exactly like that event of the night but a clear-cut simulation can be drawn from both events. Their actions were based on some sort of unknown reasoning, illogical and irrational.
Walking down the street being a. stranger to someone does not in and of itself make you suspicious!Span,
You now admit your example wasn't designed to be exactly like that event of that night. So why bring up a hypothetical situation that is totally irrelevant to the conversation and then try to pass it off as if that's how it happened.When I called you on your statement about going home for the gun, your reply was:
" did you not hear the Zimmerman conversation with the 911 officer we are talking facts and that is exactly the premise that was used in this situation"
You implied in that statement that in the course of the conversation the 911 officer Zimmerman talks about going home to get his gun, nothing is further from what actually happened.
I may be the odd man out here but in my experience trials usually have very little to do with facts.
Well, hopefully they will all come out in the trial.
He might not have said it, but that's what he did. He got his gun, followed this kid, and shot him. Whatever Martin did has no bearing in my view.
Zim was the aggressor. Zim had the deadly weapon. Zim was sticking his nose were it didn't belong, and his actions got a person killed.
He has no defense whatsoever in my view.
I know the law doesn't see it that way, but I do.He HAD his gun...He didn't go get it after the fact.
And, are we not a nation of laws? If you want to change the law, then get involved on that side of the government...That's what makes America great is that it is "We the people..." And, all the facts (that we have so far) show that Zimmerman was attacked by Martin. If this ends up not being the case after the trial brings out ALL the facts, then I would say Zimmerman, if found guilty of attacking and killing Martin outside of the current law about defense, be punished according to the law.My scenario when not to make the event exactly the same as it was with Zimmerman but what I can understand what is this is enormous big deal about getting a gun and having a gun?? Even if they were the same scenario what difference would it have made?
Span,
You cannot understand the difference between someone getting a gun and having a gun. Are you freaking kidding me. There is no point having any discussion with you if you cannot see the difference.Having guns is the down-fall of any decent society.
Any screwball with a chip on his shoulder becomes judge, jury, and executioner.
Your America...not mine.I'm pretty sure it won't bother any of us if you decide to leave
Oh here we go...can't take a different pov, so here come the "you don't like it, leave" school-yard crappola.
Hey GOP: Grow up. You all do not own the world. Sorry to tell ya.Has the GOP weighed in on this or is this another fantasy?
Pretty sure where all the "he had a right to kill him" opinions are coming from.
If the scenerio went down, as the evidence we DO have suggests, according to Zimmerman, then he had the legal right to use deadly force to protect himself. Again, If it didn't happen that way and was not a scenerio that the law covers, then Zimmerman should be prosecuted.
All I'm saying is we need to follow the evidence and not conjecture.You are telling me a man with a gun is the victim in a scenario with a 17 year old and skittles?
And the last I checked the GOP is an organization and has not posted here...
yeah, but we're not allowed to get personal...so I just lump you in.
*rolls eyes*
Zimmerman isn't an inkblot test either. Just because someone is hyperviligent doesn't make them a racist. To say that Zimmerman must have been suspicious of Trayvon just because he was black requires quite a jump in logic. Just as ridiculous is to say that Trayvon must have attacked Zimmerman because he was Hispanic and if he would have been a black guy following him there would have been no confrontation.
Sometimes an idiot is just an idiot... no racism required.Would Zimmerman have called the police or followed me? How about you?
If there is any doubt in your mind, then explain why.I don't know. And you don't either.
You want to tell me why you think he wouldn't have? Do YOU think that being black is the only thing that makes one look suspicious?
What if he was paranoid about strangers in the neighborhood? You don't have to be black to be a stranger. What if he was paranoid about people in hoodies? Again don't have to be black to wear a hoodie. What if he was just paranoid in general and would have followed anyone that happened to cross his path?
All of those what ifs are just as valid as it being because someone was black. Why is it automatically assumed to be racism?
"Nobody here has questions at all whether or not Martin had the ability or the right to defend himself."
Actually, I did....this thread is an example of this. I only asked this question (the original posting) because YOU, and many others like you have bent over backwards to deny Martin his own defense.
"I think you perceive some of the underlying facts that are brought out as character assassinations against Martin."
This is not just my perception. And when irrelevant information is brought in to justify Martin's death (as you have done so well), it points only in the character assassination direction.
Boogedy Boodegy Marijuana residue baggy....?
You and others like you spend your time writing about issues that are beyond the crucial few minutes in which this tragedy unfolded.
"When this thread first started, and you may still feel this way now, he would dead set against Zimmerman and were willing to throw the rope over the tree branch and hang him."
I don't believe in lynch mob justice. However, I did want to see the process of justice unfold. I was simply the counterbalance to people like you, who wanted to see Zimmerman walk away without any real investigation/legal proceeding to evaluate what happened. I didn't want a lynch mob, but I definitely didn't want to see a killer walk away without real scrutiny. I didn't want to see Martin's life swept away under the weight of irrelevant facts....like the ones I mentioned already....that have no bearing on what happened that night.
"The one thing that you keep going back to his the girlfriend phone call. I wanted to take notice of one thing, the only people who talk about this phone call are the girlfriend, the media, and of course Sharpton and Jackson. Do you realize not once has the Sanford Police Department or any other investigator make mention or talk about the phone call."
Nonsense. I posted the link to an affidavit that documents the very phone call I was mentioning. Investigators have already conducted the interviews...although I am sure more will be done. Will her testimony be ruled inadmissible? I don't know. But the phone call is there nonetheless.
Your comments about what Zimmerman saw or didn't see are purely speculation on your part. We have no idea what Zimmerman may or may not have seen. I don't even know how good his vision is, or how good visibility was that evening....and neither do you. (This is all coming down to the irrelevant information that I mentioned before. What Zimmerman saw has no bearing on the steps he decided to take. He is not a law enforcement officer....he has zero ability/authority to take matters into his own hands...
"If you take Sharpton at his word that she was on the phone up until Martin's death, she would have heard the gunshot, she would have heard the struggle, she would've heard Martin punching Zimmerman, which in my mind asks the question how could he be punching Zimmerman while holding a cell phone?"
Sharpton's word? He was simply relaying the information given to him by the family and the lawyer they brought in when their son's death was being swept under the rug. Now, she said that the phone dropped to the ground. Where did it fall? How far from the struggle? I don't know...and neither do you. Would you have heard sounds of punching specifically? Having been in many fights, the sounds you are referring to are not loud. Maybe in Hollywood films the punching is loud...but not in reality.. She definitely heard the gunshot...she said she heard the confrontation begin, and she relayed that it didn't last very long.
"Your question wanting to know if I was ever confronted by a stranger is an interesting one. I guess you missed part where I said I was a gang kid in my youth on the streets of New York. So the answer is yes, on more than one occasion. I also know firsthand what is like to be looking over your shoulder while trying to lay low."
I have my own gang experiences as well, and our gang issues here in Los Angeles are notorious. It is nice that you bring this up, but you still have avoided answering my concern about Martin's reasonableness in terms of feeling threatened...of feeling far more threatened than Zimmerman would have been. It is, again, one thing to see a potential trespasser, but it is another to be pursued by someone you don't know.
Your last points are well taken. I have even more questions...was Zimmerman wearing his gun when he was driving around? (before seeing Martin)...or was it somewhere else, perhaps in the glove compartment, or in a bag? When did he decide to arm himself....before he saw Martin, or after?
In the best case scenario, again, I see both guys being protected in terms of legal self-defense. However, there is a lot of inconsistency and vagueness that Zimmerman will have to clarify. He has a huge amount of explaining to do.
In terms of Martin being a criminal-wanna be...I used to be one too.... So what? Much of America's iconography is tied to criminals. Heck, our nation was founded by criminals, technically speaking, and American commerce was founded on a legacy of criminality (we Americans love our smuggling!!).
Was Zimmerman ever a criminal wanna-be too? What was he up to at Martin's age? With that said, even if he never wanted to be a criminal, he sure found a way to chalk up a criminal record. So, he may have been a cop-wanna be, but he definitely had a track record of criminal behavior.
The real problem here is in the law. From this point on, I hope all citizens who decide to become neighborhood watchmen are required to be trained and sign forms verifying that they know, understand, and will comply with the rules. I hope potential Zimmerman's in the future will think twice before deciding to think themselves vigilantes. And I hope that racism will be ongoingly addressed. I say racism because I firmly believe that if I had been Martin walking home Zimmerman would have never seen me as "suspicious". This is another example of "profiling gone wrong". It is a wreckless behavior that has little actual/beneficial use.Mike,
You should have wrote a hub on this as I have,: spoke to the people I have prior to writing it, perhaps your view would be different. But since not and your last response as long as a hub let's go with that.
You continue to miss the point when you say people like me bend over backwards to deny Martin a defense. But it is you that that denies by not looking at all the facts. You continue to refuse to do knowledge the fact why was Martin in Sanford. Does that mean Martin should have been attacked, of course not. But the underlying factors are contributors.
You can continue to write them off calling them" issues that are beyond the crucial few minutes in which this tragedy unfolded."
Also you continue cannot read comments that are left for you. For if you had you would've seen were I wrote that Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter, not second-degree murder, but I guess that goes against your view see you ignore it.
As for the phone call, which you read was the statement from the girlfriend,I'm sure it will be admitted and the defense will tear it up. We did not address in your comments the fact that Zimmerman never mentioned the phone, and at the time that the girlfriend said she was on the phone was the same time was when Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher. She claims she heard the scuffling and pushing. Would you not agree that is a little difficult for Martin to punch Zimmerman with the phone in his hand?you may consider that a minor detail, but again it's an underlying one that was not address. Not to mention she claims she heard a gunshot, and hello I don't think I am speaking out of turn here, but which she not hang up the phone and call 911? Was it not a week later before the father brought the girlfriend's phone call to light? Again love those pesky underlying as you say unimportant things. But then again I get some just Martin bashing according to you.
So now you're trying to downplay when Zimmerman saw Martin holding or not holding. He kidding right? What Martin was holding it could've been totally relevant. Zimmerman was cool and calm on a conversation with the dispatcher but I promise you he would not have been so calm and cool if he determined Martin was holding a weapon.
I am glad you liked that I brought up about the gangs,and somehow I seriously doubt you have the same gang experiences I do. You can't possibly have the perspective of what it is like to be looking over your shoulder when you need to be.
The difference between someone like you who was a criminal want to be and Martin is he was one. As for Zimmerman and his criminal record, it is important from the standpoint of how in the world did he even qualify for a concealed handgun permit. Based on his temper, a restraining order, and his clash with a police officer, he never should've been approved.
The problem isn't the law, the problems the people. It was just two people to extremes collided. Again you go back to wanting neighborhood watchman to be trained when they already are, perfect example of the training was the fact Zimmerman called the neighborhood watch dispatcher as is required. Also Zimmerman was not a vigilante, do you understand what a vigilante is? As far as your racism comment, I sort of think if it was you acting erratic as it is revealed on the tape, he would have called the dispatcher on you as well. You you seem to keep thinking that Martin was just calmly walking down the street, but on the call he clearly said he was checking out all the houses. Anybody who does that is suspicious
This argument is getting very old. Those with a liberal view will never see the concept that Zimmerman left his home legally armed for his own protection. He left his home to perform a service for his community, one that had already fallen victim to burglary and other crimes.
Not only had crimes been perpetrated in this neighborhood, one of the suspected perpetrators of a burglary, a black male, had been identified by police, however the police as of that date had not been able to find him and place him under arrest.
Not that arrest was Zimmerman’s purpose, but he was aware of it. Now you have a man that is out helping protect his neighbors, who is legally armed to protect himself in an area that is not one of the best in Central Florida, I know I live here. And I don’t go near Sanford unarmed.
He spots a suspicious person, one that he thinks may be casing houses looking for an opportunity, he calls the Police. As he is tracking him he sees the suspicious person duck between homes to avoid being tracked and/or apprehended, Zimmerman follows to keep an eye on the suspect for the police.
Now confrontation ensues, whether it was an ambush or an argument gone out of control and it becomes violent, apparently started by the suspect. Witness statements say Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him and it was Zimmerman identified on the telephone calling for help. During the beating, while lying under Martin, Zimmerman draws his weapon and fires in self-defense.
The only question here is which one, Zimmerman or Martin, was the aggressor? The police documents, all 183 pages of them appear to demonstrate the aggressor was Martin.
Read all the police and witness statements, the newsletters and the police to crime watch emails.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/interactive/2 … rman-case/Let me JUST get this right....
I can be walking anywhere USA. If you see me and don't like what you see, you have the right to follow me armed with a gun?
And if a confrontation occurs, and you shoot---it's MY fault?
WOW......I knew right and left were worlds apart, but this is ridicky.If you attack someone as Trayvon Martin did then the answer is yes. One should always bring a gun to a gunfight.
yeah...those skittles can be deadly.....S N A R K.
He didn't die over skittles, he died because he was a thug and attacked the wrong man. You need to keep your eye on the facts not the little fictional stories you libs love to create.
I completely reject your view on the situation.
As far as I'm concerned--that could not be more wrong. Wrong a 1,000 times over. Wrong heated up and re-heated again. Wrong as wrong can be.
This should not even go to trial...as the other witness to the even has a little problem....he's dead.Really, the little boy witness died LMC?
Won't you look silly if this is proven to be untrue?
Not anymore than you will look silly when it is proven true.
I haven't taken a stand. I said the court will decide.
As we used to say in grade school "It takes one to know one." A thug, that is.
No it doesn't, and we ain't in grade school.
Yes Ralph, it does. Someone in Martin shoes knows what Martin would be thinking. Problem is many refute hearing it
"Bring a gun to a gunfight"
That makes a lot of sense. The only thing that made it a gunfight was the fact that Zimmerman had a gun.You are very astute.
In this day and age anyone may be carrying a pistol, the moral is don't attack people and you probably wont get shot.And for Zimmerman, it would be "don't pursue people you don't know...you may get your ass kicked."
Your "gun fight" analogy is ludicrous....and it has nothing to do with my "liberal" mentality...
Zimmerman has proven to us that everyone who gets involved in community protection needs training and education in terms of what they can and cannot do.
A Perfect demonstration of my second sentence, and a typical liberal skew of the subject.
And your take is a typical right-wing take.
Blame the Victim.Again another skew, Martin may not be a victim. You are automatically assuming, in typical liberal fashion, that because Martin was the one shot he is the victim.
Police documents appear to demonstrate Martin was the aggressor, thereby the perpetrator of a crime. The crime of, at a minimum, assault and battery.So-Martin did not have a right to defend himself against Zimmerman...that is what you are saying!
UN Believable!!
Paranoid?
If he suffers from paranoia:
1) He by no means should be anywhere near the "neighborhood watch" and
2) He shouldn't have a firearm.
Paranoia is no excuse.
The issue here is that an assumption was made that Martin was guilty....that Martin deserved what he got. Repair Guy here is just one example of this mentality.
There is a legacy of "black aggression" (false, at that) in this nation. To deny this is lunacy. I don't know if Zimmerman would have called me in as suspicious, but Zimmerman's track record regarding who he called in as suspicious to 911 (how many times???) speaks volumes. How many non-black "suspicious persons" did Zimmerman call in on in 2012?No arguments here.
No... it isn't. But it's a reason... and just as fair of a reason as racism.
I'm not making that assumption so don't lump me in there. What I'm saying is your assumption of racism is just as groundless as Repair Guys assumption of guilt. Instead of making assumptions about Treyvon you are making them about Zimmerman. Does that mean you have something against Hispanics?
There is also "white guilt". Which is just as racist as the fallacy of "black aggression". Assuming that someone is innocent because they are black is stupid. Assuming that any confrontation between a black and a member of another race is racially motivated is also stupid.
I also don't know and neither do you. How many of them were male? Was he sexist too? How many were over 25? Did young people scare him?Mike,
Funny you should ask, the answer is 46Seriously? He reported 46 NON-Black suspicious people to 911 in ONE year?
This man needs to take up gardening or painting or something.
Tell me this, what would have happened if Martin just said, “okay George let’s just wait until the police arrive and we can straighten this all out.”
I’m pretty sure we never would have known either of their names.Tell me this, if some guy you didn't know came up to you and said they wanted you to stay put until the police came to question you, what would you do?
Of course, this line of questioning all stems from your flawed and unfounded assumption that Zimmerman properly identified himself as a neighborhood watchman and that everything already established was calm and tranquil....which was not the case.
The police record has already reported that Zimmerman did not identify himself, and that there was nothing calm about any of the altercation, from when they first saw each other, to the bitter end.
Again, why do so many deny that Martin was within his grounds to defend himself from what he most definitely perceived as a threat..."Stranger Danger!!" ?
If Zimmerman had been black, and Martin been white....I think we'd also be in a much different situation....and white Martin would not have faced anywhere near the scrutiny he has...and everything black Zimmerman had ever done would have been major news...
That is my hypothesis, but there is a mountain of evidence from past tragedies that back up this claim.We’ve had this discussion. And yes just like my five sons, I would have waited for the police to arrive to settle the issue. I would have called the police myself to confirm they were coming. But then again I have no reason to need to avoid the police.
The problem with the liberal side of the argument is that each one starts with a prejudice of Zimmerman’s guilt and Martin as a victim refusing to even acknowledge the possibility that Martin could have been the aggressor, manufacturing any possible scenario, like “stranger danger” to absolve him of fault.
There is no evidence that has come to light yet to demonstrate Zimmerman even broke the law. That is the reason he was not charged by the Sanford Police department. He was not charged until after all the racially stirred, media driven, political pressure got to the District Attorney’s office. The same liberal race baiting rhetoric you are postulating.You said:
Tell me this, if some guy you didn't know came up to you and said they wanted you to stay put until the police came to question you, what would you do
If you are innocent and have nothing to worry about, nothing, if you are guilty of something, you take off.Or... you realize that he has absolutely no authority whatsoever to make such a demand and smack him upside the head when he tries to stop you from leaving. Whether you are guilty of something or not.
I don't know about you....but if some lunatic with a gun is in front of me....all bets are off as to how I would act.
The aggressor with the gun is to blame...not the victim of a stalking murderer.
Please Answer One question for me:
Zimmerman said that Trayvon Martin looked suspicious-what one illegal thing did Zimmerman see Martin do to make Martin suspicious?
*It is not illegal to look around.
*It is not illegal to have food or a cell phone in your hands
JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE THINKS SOMEONE ELSE LOOKS SUSPICIOUS DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE!
I look forward to your answer.I can't speak for Zimmerman, of course, but you don't seem to understand what "suspicious" means.
It does not mean guilty of a crime, so Trayvon need not have committed a crime to appear suspicious to Zimmerman.
Except in rare and very obvious cases (running out of a store while watching over your shoulder and packing a new TV set while alarms are going off, maybe) what one person finds suspicious behavior another will not. Your assessment of Trayvons actions might not make you suspicious of him, but it seems to have made Zimmerman suspicious.Casing homes is suspicious behavior. I do not know where you come from, but it is almost anywhere.
Martin wasn't "casing homes." He was walking back from the convenience store. Casing was no more than an opinion stated by Zimmerman to justify his 911 call.
Wilderness,
Being suspicious looking does not give someone the right to to intervene in that person's life simply because they think they're suspicious.
Years ago on-the-job there was a diversity training program. Among a number of videos they had several were a white man running down the street was considered jogging when they showed the black man moving down the street he was considered to be running from someone once they played the entire clip it was in fact the white man who was running away and the black man jogging. Looking suspicious can be just as wrong in the mind of the person looking.
That is the reason we don't act on suspicion until we have sufficient reason to do so-meaning some degree of evidence.Which means Zimmerman had the mentality of your stereotypical security guard or rent-a-cop... It does not mean he was a racist.
Racism in America is as prominent as Apple Pie. Dismissing racism as or does not exist is foolish at best.
Zimmerman was looking for Black assailants and the reason for his trial was labeled as profiling. Black Americans have been subjected to profiling for a very long time.There is a difference between dismissing racism and not seeing it everywhere one looks. This case was labeled profiling because the media was profiling... not necessarily because Zimmerman was.
I don't think your assessment of racism in America being as prominent as apple pie shows anything but your own prejudices.You're right - racism is still common in the US. Not apple pie common, but still too common. Assigning racism as a motive without evidence is, however, as foolish as dismissing it without evidence.
There is no evidence whatsoever (outside of the media manipulation of evidence) that Zimmerman was looking for a black man. Or that he wanted to hurt or kill a black man. Indeed, he never even mentioned it until asked. He is known to help other-race children. His past complaints of other suspicious persons show no indication that he "picks" on blacks - in only a small handful is race ever mentioned and blacks are not disproportionally reported.
Black Americans have indeed been subjected to profiling and inequitable treatment for a very long time and by many different people (although it is definitely improving) but not by Zimmerman. So why is that racist claim being made at all? Because racist people can see only racism in any mixed race interaction?
If you see someone sneaking around your neighbor's home while they are away, will you call the cops (ie "intervene" in their life)? If they test the door will you call then? If they play with the lock for 5 minutes and then enter will you call then? Or will you wait until they come out with a TV set, jump in a car and speed away before calling?
Think carefully - your neighbor may have sold that TV to their nephew but forgot to give him a key. You have only a suspicion that you watched a theft occur - maybe you should just mind your own business and not call at all.
Plus, most of the country seems to think that way. Don't get involved. It's not my business. Let the cops handle it (after the fact and usually with no results). They're insured, so it won't matter.
I hear and understand what you're saying about the joggers, but it does not seem particularly applicable here - racism does not seem to have played any part in it, outside of the rantings of the media and those racists that assume everyone else is the same way.I to understand what you're saying wilderness about getting involved and dealing with what appears to be suspicious circumstances.
Situations can be suspicious however let us understand that just because they're suspicious doesn't necessarily mean we are right.
True Case:
A neighbor across the street saw a young man trying to get in through the window of their neighbors home. Concerned he called the police the young man did again access into the home by way of the window. Be advised all family members were in the house. Once the police arrived they discovered that the man climbing in the window was the boyfriend of the girl who lived there.My point is that it is almost our "duty" to report behavior we find to be suspicious, just as Zimmerman did. It is then up to the police to investigate our complaint, and that of course is where it began to go so terribly wrong that night - Zimmerman went way too far in his zeal.
Suspicion of illegal activity is usually a reason to intervene in someone's life - far better that a crime never happen than the cops try to solve it after the fact.
Of course we won't always be right - mostly we'll be wrong, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't question activity we find suspicious. You seem to be making the point (several times, in fact) that if we don't witness an actual crime we should simply mind our own business and not intervene, just as Zimmerman didn't see a crime and thus should have just gone home without any action at all (including reporting his suspicions) but that is not the case.
The cops can't be everywhere (and we don't want them on every street corner 24-7); it is thus up to the populace to help out by reporting suspicious activity.
In your true case, if it were my home the boyfriend was "breaking" into I would thank my neighbor for reporting it (and the cops for their prompt action). Never would I complain that it wasn't his business or that he should have just remained quiet. The next time it might not be the boyfriend, and my family could be injured or killed.Wilderness,
You are correct on a number of points. We are free to intervene on what we consider suspicious activity but let's keep in mind being suspicious of someone does not make us right. Let's reverse the roles for a moment, let's say that you are walking down a predominantly black neighborhood and a neighbor called the police on you because clearly you seems suspicious in their neighborhood. The police check you out and lets you go you travel 5 or 10 blocks and different neighbor calsl the police because you look suspicious in their neighborhood when does this routine gets old for you knowing that you have done nothing wrong?
Let's go a little further Wilderness let's say you walk into a department store and now all of a sudden clerks and cameras focus on you-you've done nothing wrong but to them you look suspicious. Store after store sees you as suspicious so when you go to pay for your merchandise your ID is scrutinized, credit card is double checked time and time again even though you have done nothing wrong you undergo this daily routine of being suspicious.
Someone you don't know approaches you and wants to know who you are and where you're going because you look suspicious to them-other Americans on treated like this but since they are suspicious then it's OK for them to treat you like this?It's really horrible that things like that happen... but they don't always happen and there is absolutely no hard indication that they happened this time.
Don't blame Zimmerman for societies problems unless it is proven that he was part of them...so far no one but the media has said he was.I'm afraid Zimmerman is one of society's problems. The Black guy pretending to be a Zimmerman's friend and represent Zimmerman publicly was exposed by the news media as someone who barely knew Zimmerman. It could be just me but personally I haven't seen that many minorities rallying around Zimmerman.
I do... but then again I think the crowd I run with might be a bit different than yours. The minorities in my circle don't seem to see racism nearly as much as most far left white people do.
Regardless... public opinion isn't always the truth and the news that exposed zimmerman's friend is likely a big part of that problem.
"You continue to refuse to do knowledge the fact why was Martin in Sanford. Does that mean Martin should have been attacked, of course not. But the underlying factors are contributors."
Sources please. I've said this from the beginning, and you continue to balk. I have read the official report..
http://www.foxnews.com/us/interactive/2 … ge-7-case/
They say nothing of Martin's being "under investigation" by the Miami police. I have looked through Miami publications, and none that I have come across say anything of the kind.
"I am glad you liked that I brought up about the gangs,and somehow I seriously doubt you have the same gang experiences I do. You can't possibly have the perspective of what it is like to be looking over your shoulder when you need to be."
Really? So now it becomes a pissing contest for you? You show, again, a tendency to assume and generalize about things you have no way of quantifying.
Do some research into Varrio San Fernando Trece and Pacas Trece. San Fer (pronounced San Fed) was my life for two years. We beat people down, and sometimes I got beat down (I mentioned a fight I had been in where I got kicked in the face). We carried weapons to school every day. Some packed guns and blades, but I had a baton fashioned in wood shop. We had gang members from outside the school jump the fence during lunch and create brawls. We had the San Fernando Police Station and Court House directly across the street, and police officers on campus with dogs. In two years I was suspended once...for three days, but was in 5 individual fights, and several more group combats. Most of my friends, over time, were expelled from school altogether...not suspended. I turned away from all of this after a close friend of mine, a fellow 9th grader, was shot and killed in a car to car shooting not far from our school. I transferred to a high school out of the area for two reasons:
1) I knew the path I was on was leading nowhere except my own destruction
2) I was tired of having to fight all the time. I don't naturally like hurting other people, and I didn't see the "gang" as being something I wanted to hurt people over.
However, at my new school, there were also cliques from the same opposing gang (Pacas Trece is huge), and there was even a member who looked exactly like a guy I fought against back at my previous school. I was the epitome of "laying low".
Regardless, looking at me I doubt you would call me threatening....and I doubt very much that Zimmerman would have given me the time of day.
In the aforementioned report, Page 26 indicates that there was one particular type of person that Zimmerman found to be more worthy of "suspicion" than others.
When it comes to the fight/flight response, we all act differently. Impulse is an incredible thing. Responsibility then comes down to who initiated the impulse...who set the stage... There is only one person on that regard, and the same police report that I have cited here also lists George Zimmerman as being the catalyst in all of this.
"Also you continue cannot read comments that are left for you. For if you had you would've seen were I wrote that Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter, not second-degree murder, but I guess that goes against your view see you ignore it."
I can say the same conversely, for you would have read where I said that I see this as an issue of manslaughter. Ultimately, however, perhaps there is other evidence that we are unaware of. Also, with my multiple experiences with the criminal justice system, I can also witness that prosecutors tend to start out steep, in terms of charging, and then whittle it down to size over the course of an investigation. They are pushing high, and probably anticipating something lesser. I don't see anything unusual there.
"We did not address in your comments the fact that Zimmerman never mentioned the phone,"
It is irrelevant. Zimmerman never saw the iced tea or skittles either. It was in the police report. The phone was collected as evidence. The female has been interviewed. Her testimony is on a sworn affidavit. What comes of it I don't know, and neither do you.
Again, you are simply showing the tendency to minimize evidence (the same thing you claim I do)...yet I cite sources.
"Would you not agree that is a little difficult for Martin to punch Zimmerman with the phone in his hand?"
I'll lump this quote and the previous one together now.. For a person claiming to be on top of this story, American View, you are showing that not to be the case. If you have been following along, the testimony is that the phone was dropped right after the first verbal contact. No one knows how it was dropped, but Zimmerman asked "What are you doing here", and the phone sounded like it was dropped to the ground.
It has been how long and you have missed these details? Why?
"Not to mention she claims she heard a gunshot, and hello I don't think I am speaking out of turn here, but which she not hang up the phone and call 911?"
She was listening the whole time. A gunshot is loud...and would have easily been picked up by the phone's microphone. Why didn't she hang up? I don't know. You don't know. It doesn't take away from anything. People respond to shocking situations differently. Many people, I am sure, would continue listening to try to figure out what was going on and make sure their friend/loved one was alright.
"What Martin was holding it could've been totally relevant. Zimmerman was cool and calm on a conversation with the dispatcher but I promise you he would not have been so calm and cool if he determined Martin was holding a weapon."
Calm? No... I don't know what "calm" Zimmerman is...and neither do you. You have no idea how fast his heart was beating. Now, I will point to the numerous other calls he made to the police about "suspicious black males" (they were ALWAYS black), and perhaps felt no imminent harm. He himself calls Martin a "kid".... But all this is moot. Zimmerman upped his ante far beyond his means.
I guarantee having his gun made him far more secure feeling than 1) he actually was and 2) than he normally would experience.
Again, my simple point is this......Martin was entitled to his own defense. If he perceived Zimmerman to be a threat to his safety he was within his means to beat the living crap out of Zimmerman. This is not "you don't bring your fists to a gun show"...but rather, "you don't bring a gun to neighborhood watch". If I feel threatened and the other person has a gun, I'm either going to deprive them from using it, or find a way to use it myself. I'm sure you would do the same thing.
My question is simply this: Why not Trayvon?
Why is Zimmerman entitled to self defense, while Martin is minimized as a "criminal in the making"...from much of what I read from people backing Zimmerman, it is almost like Zimmerman did him a favor, or was simply "what was coming" to him. Don't worry American View, you don't always fit into this category....but there are times you inch awfully close...Mike,
You continue to show links of bloggers and people's opinions, that is not evidence to back your opinion. As far as your claim of not being informed of Martin's gang affiliation, the fact that he was under investigation for marijuana possession, stolen property, burglary tools, and defacing public property which by the way he was caught red-handed doing which led to his 10 day suspension from school which led to his parents getting him out of town. You are probably the only person on the planet that has not heard about that.
As for your boasting about a gang, please, do you really want to go there? You claim to be a member of Varrio San Fernando Trece, I looked at your profile picture, either that picture is a fake and is not of you or you could not have been a member. Your skin color is not correct. But I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, it does not matter what gang you belong to nationwide, there is only one way to become a member. Tell me yours otherwise you're wasting our time.
What you cite about Zimmerman being the catalyst again is nothing more that other people's opinions. None of it was based in actual fact.
Now once again you make another statement and a completely inaccurate to the facts. Do you not read anything. Your own police report that you cited earlier completely gives a different version of the girlfriend's phone call.When I asked why she didn't hang up your response was I don't know but it was immaterial. Actually it is very material because as in fact by her statement she claims the phone went dead. So I guess as Martin was shot he hung up the phone, you know the phone you said that fell on the ground he must've reached out to hang it up. This of course is quite a feat since the corner said the shot went through his heart. You completely ignored the fact that the phone call was not even brought up for more than a week afterwards.
Do I know what ,calm is, you bet I do. 15 years as a New York firefighter I know exactly what calm is. Zimmerman on that phone was calm, you could hear it in his voice, there is no loud inhales, no shortness of words, all clear signs of somebody who is not calm.
Your question of why he is Zimmerman entitled to self-defense while Martin is minimized is a baseless argument. You ignore everybody's view as to how they see this. You have your view of Zimmerman and nothing else matters. When somebody makes a comment other than that you go off. You cannot see everything that is involved in this, you're not seeing the whole picture and that is fine. You are entitled to your opinion, but so are we.Has anyone heard he was high on drugs at the time he was shot?
What nonsense.
You based my life experiences based on my skin color?
Let's see....what is that called?
If that is the type of logic you use to make decisions, we should be concerned.
You look at a generalization about "Latino" (a fictional term) gangs and then look to skin color to apply reality?
Really? I don't make judgements based on profile pictures, nor do I judge books by their covers...but maybe you never learned to do this...
I showed a link from Fox news that shares every single page of the official report...
I'll post it again here:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/interactive/2 … ge-7-case/
However, since you missed it the first time, and it was so close to the top of my post, I don't know if you'll actually read long enough to see it this second time.
You still post nothing.
"What you cite about Zimmerman being the catalyst again is nothing more that other people's opinions. None of it was based in actual fact."
The Sanford Police share my opinion. Its in their report (cited above).
I know all about the 10 day suspension...and I love how a screwdriver becomes specifically a "burglary tool". I've seen them used as shanks. But, this is neither here nor there. Was he carrying a screwdriver the night he was killed? Did he have any suspicious items?
No.
Again, character assassination.
Regarding Martin's phone, the police report claims that it was damaged by water. A couple of years ago, during the LA Marathon, I dropped my phone. It was raining, and my phone was damaged due to the water it came into contact with. I've also had phones drop and turn off. There are many reasonable explanations why the phone turned off rather than Martin physically pressing "hang up".
In terms of the timing of the report about the girlfriend's phone:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin … 7srbMX0_1k
It happened. That is all I can say. I can try to speculate why information has come out in the piecemeal, haphazard way that it has, but that is all I can do. As you showed when you speculated about me personally by viewing my profile picture, it doesn't always work out very well. The phone call exists. An affidavit documenting what has been said/what occurred has been filed. The rest is for the judicial process to sort out.
Your comments about my views are irrelevant. The question I've asked has nothing to do with my views personally. It was simply based on the concepts of self-defense found specifically in Florida State Law.
I've looked up Florida's laws on self-defense and have read several cases in which they were utilized. I've come to my initial conclusion based on what I've found.
The question is objective.............my response to the question, as with yours, are not.
"Do I know what ,calm is, you bet I do. 15 years as a New York firefighter I know exactly what calm is. Zimmerman on that phone was calm, you could hear it in his voice, there is no loud inhales, no shortness of words, all clear signs of somebody who is not calm."
In general. The burden of proof if this goes to trial is on the prosecution, and I am sure they will put Zimmerman on the stand if they have the chance. I will be following along closely. I am willing to believe that he felt confident (although falsely) when the altercation began but, evidently somewhere along the way, he realized he didn't have what it took. But, this is why we have police in the first place.
On another note:
"These assholes. They always get away." <---Zimmerman
Interesting comment. He talks as if he commonly chases people. Where did he come up with this statement...what imagery was going through his mind when he was saying it? Who are "these assholes" he's referring to? If his words here don't reflect his reality (meaning that he does not commonly go confront people, and that he had no real picture on who "these assholes" are, then why did he say these words?) Definitely odd....Mike,
I am not the one who made the claim he was a part of Varrio San Fernando Trece, not me, YOU MADE THAT CLAIM!! I called you on it and now you backed off by spinning it trying to blame me, typical left move. You know nothing about gangs especially Trece. I also noticed you did not address in any way how you became" member". I did not make any generalizations about a Latino gang, but now that you brought it up and if you were educated on gangs in any way, you would know that Latino gangs will never, and I do mean never, let a non-Latino be a member, not even someone who is half Latino.
Again, I guess you don't understand the difference between a blogger, the media, and an editorial. They all give their opinions just as you are. You have nothing that you have presented it is an actual fact. I told you earlier I do not present other people's opinions nor would I link to one. Credibility, is the only source possible. And the only credible source for this story will be the ones that come out at the trial. Everything else to this point is speculation and opinion.
I love how you try to blow off the burglary tools is just a mere screwdriver. Unbelievable. You truly do not get all the available information do you. I guess the prybar and lock pick tools were just along for the ride.
Do you read the links you provide. The statement in the article only backs what I have said and you ignore. Here is one of the girlfriends statements:
"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man,"
SO HE PUT HIS HOODIE ON, So it appears Zimmerman was watching a person, the hoodie was not even up yet. She then said:
""Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon"
WOW, she could see over the phone somebody pushing Martin, what a talent. She then said the phone went dead. But in her later statement she heard the shot, again, double talk and a normal person who says she heard her boyfriend get pushed and shot would have called the police, not wait a week to tell anyone.
The article also states the call occured 5 minutes before the police arrival. As I told you earlier, that puts the call at the time when Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher and again, no mention of a phone but a mention of Martin holding something.
You Said:
"In general. The burden of proof if this goes to trial is on the prosecution, and I am sure they will put Zimmerman on the stand if they have the chance."
First the obvious, nothing general about it, the prosecution has the burden of proof, Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty, except here on HP forums. Next, prosecution cannot call a defendent to the stand.
"Your comments about my views are irrelevant" An interesting comment from someone who considers everyone who does not agree with him as irrelevant.
"the fact that he was under investigation for marijuana possession, stolen property, burglary tools, and defacing public property which by the way he was caught red-handed doing which led to his 10 day suspension from school which led to his parents getting him out of town."
This has absolutely nothing to do with the incident that resulted in Martin's death.Then I guess since it has no effect, the incident occured in Miami, since that is where Martin lives.
Cause and effect, every cause has an effect, so we know the effect was Martin was in Sanford, so what was the cause?
I believe it quite probably that Zimmerman knew Martin was black before he made the phone call.
It is hard to say, and we won't know until trial....if ever. In pushing for Murder in the 2nd, I am sure the D.A. is looking for at least a manslaughter plea bargain. I really hope it gets to trial stage so that actual evidence can be separated from the chaff.
Media manipulation is done by more than one group..... It took overarching effort to build enough pressure for due process to even occur. According to the documents I submitted previously, Zimmerman was recommended for arrest.
They found probable cause on his part. But someone higher decided otherwise.
It took a huge amount of work and effort on behalf of Martin's family over several weeks for the story to start emerging anywhere. Sensationalism is part of humanity, and it is a tactic used openly and inadvertently for purposed good, bad, and neither.
War in Iraq, simply for one recent example of it use.
In terms of "picking on blacks", I based my statement on what the police investigator said. In every case it was a suspicious black male being reported.
But perhaps it is something other, or added to race:
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/04/30/s … ighborhoodIn response to a question from the dispatcher at the beginning of the 911 call Zimmerman replied "He looks black." Here's a link to a typed transcript of Zimmerman's 911 call:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ … erman.html
Being that Martin was relatively new to the community, it is also possible that Zimmerman was unaccustomed to Martin's presence. They are a small community, but Zimmerman's "out of normal" trigger was flipped. We know nothing of his state of mind leading up to that fateful crossing.
One of the neighbors in the official report noted that Zimmerman confronting a suspected stranger is something she would expect. He has a track record of being aggressive when it is something that he believes in. This is an admirable trait when directed in the right direction and honed. But it is another thing when the individual/group is untrained and unsupervised.
More and more I can see the Stanford Experiment playing into this, at least in Zimmerman's case. It comes down to how he defines his identity, and everyone around him will be a character witness for the good and the bad alike. In terms of Martin's overall identity, it was then compounded by potentially threatening behavior.
Had Zimmerman previously known Martin, even if he didn't immediately recognize him and was aggressive, Martin could have said, "Hey, it's just me coming back from 7-11." Had he been there longer maybe he'd at least know OF Zimmerman, and be prepared for any confrontation with something other than fear.
But this was not the case.
"Stranger Danger"....
There are enough problems with people committing crimes while falsely passing themselves off as police officers. There are sickos and psychos out there. I would not train my child to stop and submit to a stranger..
Would you?- PrettyPantherposted 12 years ago0
I am appalled at the incredible rationalizations people will make to justify killing an unarmed man. Remember the case of the unarmed mentally ill man who was beaten to death by police? The defenders came out on the forums then, too.
It's sickening.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/ … 68x286.jpg
I intentionally did not post the image of this beaten man, since it is so disturbing. You can click on the url to see it.
Some of the same people who defended police brutality are also defending Zimmerman. Yuck.Prettypanther,
I agree with your assessment regarding ignoring issues which could clearly be a factor in the Zimmerman-Martin situation specifically when it comes to racism. This approach is not new we saw it in the Rodney King beating. The country split down the middle watching the same video. Some of the comments were this can't be racist it is probably what he deserved since we didn't see the beginning of the video.
Before Martin Luther King received the Nobel Peace Prize he was considered a troublemaker, the one who is stirring up racial trouble and let's forget that racism was here since Americans began battling the American Indians.
Racial epithets are being displayed on the roadway about Trayvon Martin as well as a sign depicting the United States president as a racial slur on a sign in front of a barroom. But we are going to continue to pretend that race can't possibly be a factor in the Zimmerman-Martin tragedy.Then there are those who aren't defending Zimmerman but don't see race as the only possible motivator.
It seems that they are being tactically called racists.People are free to make their own decisions regarding the Zimmerman-Martin incident. However throwing out the possibility of racism is not something I'm willing to consider.
For years certain people in America have been told we are not denying you a job opportunity because of your race, we are not denying you an opportunity to eat at the lunch counter because of your race, we are not denying you the opportunity to advance on-the-job because of your race etc. we may not welcome US the first Black president but somehow you made it into office.
Personally am tired of hearing the lies.I am not throwing out the possibility of racism but it's not the first conclusion that jumped to my mind.
I am well aware of racism and particularly sensitive to it... however I remember personally being so sensitive to it that I started seeing it where it didn't exist. I know the history of racism in the U.S... quite well actually. I also have come to realize that seeing it everywhere is just as bad for blacks as ignoring it completely. It creates a hostile environment in places where it simply doesn't exist. It also... and I'm sorry for saying this but it's true... creates a scapegoat for black youth. It's so much easier to say that something happened because of their race rather than because of their own actions.
Now I'm not saying Trayvon deserved to be shot or even to be followed. I think the opposite as a matter of fact. However I see a myriad of reasons for why it could happen. Race is one of them... however it is hardly the only one.I think I understand another person's experience but the reality is if I have not having walked in that person's shoes I truly do not understand the problems they are dealing with.
I know what it's like to be shot at but I do not at this point know what it's like to be shot.
I do not know what it's like not to be able to give up illegal drugs although many of us think we do.
When racism is dead in this country then and only then can we say it no longer exist so you need not be able to think that way. But just like we pretend it doesn't exist, all it takes is another racial conflict to see it once again rise to the surface out in the open like it does time and time again.I'm not sure if you are implying that I have no experience with racism... if so then I have to assume that you are making assumptions based on my picture... If you are making a general statement then it also applies to Zimmerman... you have no idea of the problems he is dealing with are either.
Once again... I'm getting the opinion that you think I have no experience with racism based on my picture. Please let me know if I am wrong.
I never said it didn't exist... just that it's not ALL that exists. Assuming that everytime someone has a conflict that is based on race is just as racist as burning a cross... it's just framed in a different way.The implications that you make at least from where I stand tends to make me think you're living in a world of denial.
A number of people think they understand the situation of other people my position is until you've walked in that person's shoes how can one arrogantly think they know as much as the person who are experiencing these circumstances.
These accusatory remarks that you constantly put out-then you must be as racist as the Ku Klux Klan-as an example causes me to wonder if you fully understand what it is you're really addressing.
Whether you like it or not, whether I like it or not racism in America has been in America since landing on these shores and at what point in history after all this time have we ever eradicated racism?And you don't see how I could feel the same way about you... based on your implications?
Once again isn't that what you are doing? You are assuming that you are aware of the experiences of all of black America while at the same time assuming that I personally have no experience. You are assuming that because I am white that I have no experience of racism. You don't know me well enough to make that claim.
It's entirely possible that I understand it better than you do. What is your reason for assuming that I don't?
And whether you like it or not... some people aren't racist.It is not skin color that convinces me you have some distorted delusions about racism is your comments.
Since you always using word assumption to tell me what I'm thinking that it is clear the only one making assumptions here are you.
As always your arrogance is showing you understand racism better than I do What a Laugh!
Your assumptions about me is what racism is about!Whatever... you win. Everyone is racist except those who assume that everyone is.
You are starting to enter personal insults territory and any hope of intelligent conversation is now gone.
Racism is alive and well in Michigan. At lunch today a longtime friend described a phone conversation he had several years ago with a customs agent. He related what the agent said, using an exaggerated imitation black accent. I had heard the story several times before, each time with an exaggerated imitation of an inner city black accent. This time I called him on it, pointing out that I'd heard the story and his racist imitation of a black accent several times before and was offended by it. About ten minutes later he came up with another story from his racist repertoire, telling it again in his impression of a black accent. This time I lost it and told him I was tired of his little racist vignettes. He denied that his remark was directed toward blacks but rather the story was about an Arab and his black wife with 6 kids as if racism against Arabs was not offensive. At this I really lost it and came close to a physical confrontation, (at least I did). I got up from the table, flipping him the bird. I don't recall exactly what I said, but it wasn't polite. (I may have used the F... you word.)
"Mike,
I am not the one who made the claim he was a part of Varrio San Fernando Trece, not me, YOU MADE THAT CLAIM!!"
Please highlight where I made this claim. I'm wondering how well you can read. How can Martin, in Florida and never having stepped foot in the San Fernando Valley, be a member of San Fer?
That is ludicrous....
"I called you on it and now you backed off by spinning it trying to blame me, typical left move. You know nothing about gangs especially Trece."
Really?
Keep going with the nonsensical generalizations.... You have no clue what I know, and your prejudice only shows how little you know.
"I also noticed you did not address in any way how you became" member". I did not make any generalizations about a Latino gang, but now that you brought it up and if you were educated on gangs in any way, you would know that Latino gangs will never, and I do mean never, let a non-Latino be a member, not even someone who is half Latino."
Nonsense.
Do some basic homework... I lived it, I know what the reality is. You are clueless on this and are only embarrassing yourself, whether you realize it or not.
Again, if this is the type of critical thinking skills you possess, you have a whole lot of work to do.
"Again, I guess you don't understand the difference between a blogger, the media, and an editorial."
And evidently you cannot read nor click on a link that I repeated twice.
How ridiculous.
"They all give their opinions just as you are. You have nothing that you have presented it is an actual fact. I told you earlier I do not present other people's opinions nor would I link to one. Credibility, is the only source possible. And the only credible source for this story will be the ones that come out at the trial. Everything else to this point is speculation and opinion."
Read the official report I've already linked twice, for I shall not link it thrice.
"I love how you try to blow off the burglary tools is just a mere screwdriver. Unbelievable. You truly do not get all the available information do you. I guess the prybar and lock pick tools were just along for the ride."
Again, I have seen screwdrivers used for many, many things. If Martin had been found on the night of his killing with a screwdriver, perhaps you would have something to go with...but he wasn't, so you have nothing...
As usual, I have come to see...
"Do you read the links you provide. The statement in the article only backs what I have said and you ignore. Here is one of the girlfriends statements:
"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man,"
SO HE PUT HIS HOODIE ON, So it appears Zimmerman was watching a person, the hoodie was not even up yet. She then said:
""Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon"
Who said that she didn't figure someone was pushed? I've read her report many times.
Your point? Surely you must have a REAL point, for I have already made clear that preemptive attack can also be justifiable defense. If you can find caselaw that shows otherwise, please let me know. This tradition goes back to our English Common Law roots, and is stamped in state and federal law. We have also used the same idea internationally.
Please, look at the official report that I cited. Then let us see what you have to say.
"In general. The burden of proof if this goes to trial is on the prosecution, and I am sure they will put Zimmerman on the stand if they have the chance."<--My words
"First the obvious, nothing general about it"
Yes, you made a generalization about how peoples' voices denote stress levels. And, as I said, that is a generalization, but it does not apply to all people. I also followed it up with the suspicion that Zimmerman was not in "fight or flight" mode..at least until he realized that he was in over his head.....but you decide to continue excluding Martin and what he was experiencing personally.
Why?
"The prosecution has the burden of proof, Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty, except here on HP forums. Next, prosecution cannot call a defendent to the stand."
The prosecution does have the burden of proof, and he is PRESUMED innocent before proven guilty in terms of the courts, but we are all entitled to our own views. My view was that (and the Sanford investigators agreed...read the report) that Zimmerman needed to be arrested and charged. Jurisprudence needed to take place. You don't think so, and that is your issue.
I agree that the prosecution cannot call Zimmerman to the stand. I did my homework on this after my statement. So I agree with you on this. But, a good prosecutor won't need that to happen. We shall see how it goes.
But, all this leads back to the main question....why is Martin being denied his own justifiable defense?Mike,
You truly have issues, you make a claim about a gang, then you spin it about skin color, then you spin it again about Martin(which was never mentioned), then you come back to " you lived it". Sorry, but it is you that is embarrassing yourself.
Here is your first comment:
"Do some research into Varrio San Fernando Trece and Pacas Trece. San Fer (pronounced San Fed) was my life for two years. We beat people down, and sometimes I got beat down"
So here you claim to be a member, but we all know that is not possible. Than you take a step back:
"What nonsense.
You based my life experiences based on my skin color?
Let's see....what is that called?
If that is the type of logic you use to make decisions, we should be concerned.
You look at a generalization about "Latino" (a fictional term) gangs and then look to skin color to apply reality?
Really? I don't make judgements based on profile pictures, nor do I judge books by their covers...but maybe you never learned to do this.."
But then your back in
"Really?
Keep going with the nonsensical generalizations.... You have no clue what I know, and your prejudice only shows how little you know.
Do some basic homework... I lived it, I know what the reality is. You are clueless on this and are only embarrassing yourself, whether you realize it or not."
As I said before, you have no clue about Trece and that is not driven by prejudice. Your "nonsense" comment proved that See, you embarrass yourself because YOU make assumptions and each time you have been wrong. You were in a gang about as much as Mister Rodgers was.
You shall not link it thrice. You are upset I called you on the opinion pieces you cited that you believe are not opinions. Well lets see:
usatoday.com- Media Print
peopleagainstshittycorp.wordpress- Blogger, opinion
Thegrio.com- Blogger, opinion
NPR.org-radical left wing opinion
dailymail.co.uk- blogsite
The blaze.com-Blogsite
timwise.org- blogger, opinion
abcnews.go.org-news media- this one contradicted what you cited
hereandnow.wbur.org- media blog
Yea, no opinions there, all facts.
I was not aware that Martin had a screwdriver in his pocket on the night of his death, it was never mentioned. Now if you are trying to attack me on the burglar tools, you are well aware they were found on him in Miami when the stolen jewels were discovered in his possession along with the trace Marijuana, when he was caught red handed vandalizing school property. You know the things you refuse to admit to despite everyone else knows about it. I wonder why you would say Martin had a screwdriver on him when he did not?
As for what Martin was experiencing, it is you that is narrowly stating what you believe Martin was feeling when you have no clue. When someone like me gives a different scenario, you go off the reservation.
I said
"First the obvious, nothing general about it, the prosecution has the burden of proof, Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty:
You took a small part of this sentence and turn it into an argument about Zimmermans voice. Does that sentence have anything to do with Zimmermans voice? So why try to make it into something it is not?
You said:
"The prosecution does have the burden of proof, and he is PRESUMED innocent before proven guilty in terms of the courts, but we are all entitled to our own views."
Except for those of us who disagree with some of your points, we do not get to have a view.
As for the girlfreind, you are missing the point to all of it. Do you realize her ABC interview you linked, is different than what you cite as her official statement? have you done what I said and backed the time back, add in the length of her call and see the timeline does not add up? You ABC inteview says the phone went dead, she did not hear the gunshot. Later she claims she heard the gunshot. But she did not report anything for over a week after the incident.
"Jurisprudence needed to take place. You don't think so, and that is your issue. "
No, that is not my issue and have said so several times and you ignored it. I even told you to read my article which you did not and would have seen that to be true. I said from the beginning, he should have been charged with manslaughter. Now he has been charged with murder two, a higher threshold to prove, and he will walk because of it.
"You truly have issues, you make a claim about a gang, then you spin it about skin color, then you spin it again about Martin(which was never mentioned), then you come back to " you lived it". Sorry, but it is you that is embarrassing yourself."
Whatever you say. Your comments are right there for everyone to see. You put words in my mouth and spin however you wish.
Everything you say is a duck and a dodge away from the question at hand...the purpose for this entire thread.
Keep making your generalizations....but to let you know, San Fer, Pacoima, and most every other "Latin" gang that I am aware of in Los Angeles has black, white, and Asian members. If you are "down" for the family, you are more than welcome. It is your loyalty and productivity that count.
You can make whatever claims you wish....but that doesn't make them true.
Come to Los Angeles and I can show you how wrong you are.
In terms of the charges against Zimmerman, I already told you that I agreed with manslaughter many, many postings ago. And, more recently, I pointed to how D.A.'s will push the charges as high as they can with, if nothing else, the ability to amend their charges to something lesser in the long run, either through a plea deal or over the course of the trial.
"I said
First the obvious, nothing general about it, the prosecution has the burden of proof, Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty:
You took a small part of this sentence and turn it into an argument about Zimmermans voice. Does that sentence have anything to do with Zimmermans voice? So why try to make it into something it is not."
American View, you misinterpreted my response then, which I don't find surprising at all.
You made a generalization about peoples' voices...you brought it up. I then pointed out your generalization. There is nothing flawed or strange about this observation. I don't see your issue.
I then went on to reiterate something I had already said in a previous post, that I doubted Zimmerman, at the time of the call itself, felt that he was in danger. I pointed out (in the post I was reiterating) that Zimmerman clearly know he was dealing with a youth. He used the word "kid" himself. I also mentioned the false sense of security that comes with carrying a firearm or other weapon.
I don't see your confusion with this.
I then pointed out that your entire line of focusing only on the defense of Zimmerman, that you intentionally leave out Martin.
You write that you think Zimmerman should be pursued for manslaughter, but then you do everything you can to demonize Martin, including bringing up completely unrelated issues.
That is what leaves me puzzled.
I am glad that we can both agree that Zimmerman was in the wrong.
Hopefully, in time, you can also see how Martin quite possibly was in the right in terms of his personal defense.Mike,
"Come to Los Angeles and I can show you how wrong you are."
I don't think you really want me to come to Los Angeles, despite the fact that due to health reasons I couldn't, and educate you on gangs.as a former gang member from the streets of New York, namely the Bronx, I understand gangs intimately much better than you. I know I did not mention it earlier because I was enjoying you going on acting like you were one. I was a member, not a prospect, at the age of eight years old and was in for nine years.us And now in your last post it appears your backing off that you were not a member.do you truly understand the names of these gangs? Trece is a Hispanic gang that is in many of the larger cities in the US.
Not only my comments there for all to see, so are yours. You have flip-flopped, or should I say evolved,more times than Obama.
Just so you know, prosecutors can not amend an indictment downwards, or a lesser charge, they can only amend up to a stronger charge. That is why it is important at the time of an indictment in a case like this to offer multiple levels of offense. That way when it goes to the jury they could choose between manslaughter or murder two. But when you indictment for murder two and cannot make your case, the jury doesn't have the option of convicting for lesser offense. Honestly, I was surprised the prosecutor went that route.
I am finding it interesting that you keep saying that I take small part of a sentence and turn it into something, but all I am doing is responding to what you say. When you take something I say out of context and change it, such as when you took "first the obvious", and then you go on talking about Zimmerman's voice I responded. I didn't change anything, I answered your comment had you posted it. If you don't understand what you wrote is not my problem or perhaps you should write it. Here is the cut-and-paste of once you posted originally:
""First the obvious, nothing general about it"
Yes, you made a generalization about how peoples' voices denote stress levels. And, as I said, that is a generalization, but it does not apply to all people. I also followed it up with the suspicion that Zimmerman was not in "fight or flight" mode..at least until he realized that he was in over his head.....but you decide to continue excluding Martin and what he was experiencing personally. "
You copied my statement "first the obvious" without the rest of the statement, you took it out of context.You then went on to speak about generalizations of people's voices. So then I responded to what you wrote, no twisting,no misrepresenting.
You claim you don't understand the confusion, while there is none on my part, and that you're puzzled. It's no wonder. The problem here is that you are very close minded if it does not fit your parameters or reach the outcome that you want. You portray Martin as this total angel who was just out for a wonderful stroll. Yet you refuse why he was there. So much so that you did not answer my question, so I ask it again. Martin's parents live in Miami, so does Martin, he goes to school in Miami, So why was he in Sanford? Oh I know you will say it does not matter because you refuse to acknowledge they why even happened. But it is important, because it shows why he was there and sets his frame of mind that night. Zimmerman's frame of mind was that of a cop wannabe, and that is important to the discussion. But those two does not equal racism and it never should have been introduced into the conversation.
You say I am focusing on defending Zimmerman, nothing is further from the truth. ZImmerman has responsibility to answer for here and I have said so from the start. But when I point out things about Martin, you do not want to believe them so you say I am defending Zimmerman. If you read all the comments, you will see that.
The difference between you and me is you believe Martin was in the right, I do not believe he was. If it was not Zimmerman that walked around the corner before Martin jumped him, and it was a cop, Martin would have done the same thing. Of course we will never know that for sure and it could be a subject of a debate. But I believe they are both wrong and both of their actions is what contributed to this tragedy.
Related Discussions
- 397
Was it George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin screaming for help?
by VC L Veasey 11 years ago
If Martin's hand was covering Zimmerman's mouth as he claims, wouldn't the screams have sounded muffled? Zimmerman's DNA wasn't found on Martin's hands so was it Zimmerman or Martin screaming?
- 37
Why did NBC edit Zimmerman's 911 call?
by Holle Abee 12 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_NewsThis is really hard to believe. A major news network would do something like this? Does anyone know if it's true that NBC did this?
- 68
The Zimmerman Trial - An apology is offered
by Credence2 11 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...
- 114
Robert Zimmerman Stirs the Issue of Racism
by SpanStar 11 years ago
Robert Zimmerman brother of George Zimmerman has stirred the issue of racism.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/2 … 79949.htmlClearly listening to Robert Zimmerman he appears to be a educated young man and one can understand a sibling being protective of a family member yet and still...
- 26
Stand Your Ground
by Sooner28 11 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law"In the United States of America, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first."So, let's recall the...
- 30
Why Did Some people See George Zimmerman As The Victim And Trayvon Martin As The
by VC L Veasey 10 years ago
Why Did Some people See George Zimmerman As The Victim And Trayvon Martin As The Aggressor?Why did they believe and not question his account of how their confrontation started?