PDA

View Full Version : seriously zimmerman?



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Sophia_Starina
04-20-2012, 08:56 AM
he's getting his due process.


And that is what it is all about....

Sophia_Starina
04-20-2012, 08:58 AM
And kudos to the hoodie links. OMG! Thank you!





Hoodies (http://ladydeals.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/paris-with-are-you-lamb-enough-fade-fleece-hoodie.jpg)are (http://copcop.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/fafckim-kardashian-300.jpg)worn (http://uploads.kidzworld.com/article/24856/a9321i0_gwen-185.gif)by (http://www.straw.com/cpy/patterns/baby-child/images/puffin-hoodie4.jpg)urban (http://www.sugarscape.com/userfiles/Olsen.jpg)youth (http://photosbyallison.com/images/categories/babies/toddler_blue_hoodie.jpg)to (http://www.celebitchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/angelina_jolie_02_wenn5459244.jpg) be (http://www.whudat.com/news/images/lenny-kravitz-thanks-teena-marie.jpg)intimidating (http://www.oddonion.com/wp-content/plugins/rss-poster/cache/ff00b_120327040258-mark-zuckerberg-famous-hoodies-horizontal-gallery.jpg).


*Hint to the uninitiated * Every word is a separate link!

bem401
04-20-2012, 09:04 AM
Vigilantism isn't appropriate. Especially when there was no threat posed to anyone in the community... nor to Zimmerman until he chose to confront an unarmed teenage boy just passing through a housing complex.

Zimmerman's preconceived notions about a young man in a hoodie don't grant Zimmerman the authority to kill him with impunity.

How is it vigilantism if Zimmerman called the cops before the confrontation?

You say Zimmerman chose to confront an unarmed teenage boy just passing through a housing complex. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch guy, says he observed and reported a suspicious-looking character in a gated community with a burglary problem and that the character confronted and assaulted him before he shot him in self-defense.

We don't know anything about Zimmerman's preconceived notions but wearing a hoodie at night in Central Florida will seem more suspicious than it does in a cold area and the argument here is whetther he was killed with impunity or not.

Melonie
04-20-2012, 09:30 AM
Again trying to circle back to the original issue of media coverage ...

it seems that ABC finally 'trotted out' this picture of Zimmerman ... since it was going to be presented at today's bail hearing in any case ...


http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wmain.jpg


This photo of Zimmerman's head was taken at the scene shortly after the shooting ... by the 'bystander' who Zimmerman had asked to call his wife. This is what the cops and EMT's saw the night of the shooting. This picture was obtained by ABC at that time, but NOT released publicly until today.

Sophia_Starina
04-20-2012, 09:32 AM
Since you are commenting on this again... allow me to clarify one more thing:


You are acting as judge, jury, and executioner when declaring Zimmerman guilty of acting as judge, jury, and executioner.

This statement could. not. be. any. more. WRONG! ^^^ :bomb:
No. I'm not judging this man. I feel that this discussion is far better suited for a court of law rather than a court of public opinion.

Zimmerman should be tried. The courtroom setting is exactly where this case belongs. Allow the evidence to speak for itself.


Also....

How is it vigilantism if Zimmerman called the cops before the confrontation?
:stop:

It is vigilantism. Zimmerman is not a police officer. No person nor property was in any clear and present danger. He disregarded 911 dispatchers' orders. He did not wait for the proper authorities to arrive and deal with the situation appropriately. If he had waited for the police, Impatient George wouldn't be in this position.


Zimmerman took it upon himself to exacerbate a tense situation.

It warrants further investigation and judicial consideration.


bem401, My opinion and your opinion count for very little, if anything at all. Let all of the facts come to light before you decide.

bem401
04-20-2012, 10:46 AM
Since you are commenting on this again... allow me to clarify one more thing:



This statement could. not. be. any. more. WRONG! ^^^ :bomb:
No. I'm not judging this man. I feel that this discussion is far better suited for a court of law rather than a court of public opinion.

Zimmerman should be tried. The courtroom setting is exactly where this case belongs. Allow the evidence to speak for itself.


Also....

:stop:

It is vigilantism. Zimmerman is not a police officer. No person nor property was in any clear and present danger. He disregarded 911 dispatchers' orders. He did not wait for the proper authorities to arrive and deal with the situation appropriately. If he had waited for the police, Impatient George wouldn't be in this position.


Zimmerman took it upon himself to exacerbate a tense situation.

It warrants further investigation and judicial consideration.


bem401, My opinion and your opinion count for very little, if anything at all. Let all of the facts come to light before you decide.


1. If the statement is wrong, please explain how claiming Zimmerman took it into his own hands to "kill him with impunity" contradicts what I said.

2. Vigilantism involves avoiding police involvement. No vigilante calls the cops, commits the act, and waits for them to show up.

And since the start of this thread, I've advocated waiting till the justice system had run its course to declare him guilty or not guilty. I've taken no position other than too many people are jumping to conclusions prematurely, largely because of media distortions of what may or may not have happened that night.

Melonie
04-22-2012, 10:27 AM
yet again circling back to the media coverage aspect ...


(snip)"What happened to being satisfied with George Zimmerman's arrest?

Now that Trayvon Martin's shooter has made a dramatic court appearance, Al Sharpton & Friends are angry over what they consider "low bail" and the ease at which that has now led to his temporary release from jail.

Sure, we could have seen this coming, but Sharpton is not at all willing to consider the prosecution's weak case or the now-ubiquitous photo of Zimmerman's bloody head that shoots down weeks of hysterical MSNBC zealotry.


GEORGE CURRY (HOUR TWO - 6:21): This Zimmerman stuff, it’s just crazy. 150,000 dollar bail?

SHARPTON: Even with the experts telling me well they get bail, that is low, I mean that’s 15,000 dollars.

CURRY: Yeah yeah I thought that they’d been higher than that.

SHARPTON: Yeah, I’m not shocked he got bond, though I clearly think that he certainly had a basis not to give him that. But, 150,000 dollars that was certainly what they should have been."(snip)

ArmySGT.
04-22-2012, 01:44 PM
GEORGE CURRY (HOUR TWO - 6:21): This Zimmerman stuff, it’s just crazy. 150,000 dollar bail?

SHARPTON: Even with the experts telling me well they get bail, that is low, I mean that’s 15,000 dollars.

CURRY: Yeah yeah I thought that they’d been higher than that.

SHARPTON: Yeah, I’m not shocked he got bond, though I clearly think that he certainly had a basis not to give him that. But, 150,000 dollars that was certainly what they should have been."(snip)

My reply to Al Sharpton is more than 230 years old.

VIII

Excessive bail, cruel punishment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Nina_
04-23-2012, 01:11 PM
All 5 parties mentioned in my post played the race card. Sharpton, Jackson, and Obama are in the positions they're in because they (and their people) eagerly play the race card whenever it benefits them. You yourself admit the NBP is racist and NBC is nothing but a liberal propaganda vehicle. If the men in question are so concerned about the welfare of black folks, why have they been so conspicuously quiet about the nearly 1000 young black men nationwide murdered overwhelmingly by other young black men since Trayvon was killed? The reason is they are all about turning this to their advantage.
Sharpton and Jackson are known to supposedly "play the race card." What you don't understand is that sometimes they may have a basis for saying that. It's hard for a lot of people to understand and appreciate the struggle blacks have gone through and still continue to go through. On average, blacks are extremely profiled and given harsher prison sentences than whites for the same crime, deprived of job opportunities, etc because they are back. I can provide plenty of studies and statistics to back this up as this is mentioned in every sociology class I've taken to date. Obama, on the other hand, did not come close to playing the race card; he was asked about a big public issue, like any president could've been questioned about as it shows your position on civil rights issues and gun laws, and happened to state that if he had a son, it would look like Trayvon, because that is true. How is that playing the race card? He was asked to comment on it and did so unbiasly, he only stated the fact about if he had a son as a way of letting people know he's not just bs-ing the people, IMO.


Nobody here has defended Zimmerman but we criticize those arrogant and foolish enough to think they're qualified to dictate justice themselves.
It's not that hard to dictate justice when they facts are sitting there right in front of you.


You need to learn what hearsay is. Hearsay means secondhand information and nothing else. Nothing Zimmerman says in this case is hearsay. BTW your response to item 10 in the list is amusing. You accuse me of putting words in your mouth and then turn around and say exactly what I said you said.
What first-hand information has the media gotten from Zimmerman? Isn't the vast majority of it secondhand? It is hearsay.


Oh, and wearing a hoodie in Central FL in a gated community with a recent rash of break-ins and acting suspiciously is different than wearing a hoodie in Detroit.
You obviously aren't well-traveled enough to know what you're talking about. I've lived in Detroit for the last year and a half, and before that I lived in the richest county in Michigan (Oakland) for years and never heard of it being probable cause just because you're wearing a hoodie. That's extremely foolish. I don't think something that Hollister markets is "thuggish" and kids wear those all the time without it being suspicious. Either way, I have absolutely no idea why the fact that Trayvon was wearing a hoodie has any relevance. Someone wearing a hoodie is not probable cause to pursue them, and that's what Zimmerman did. I fail to see how Zimmerman's actions can be jusitified.

You still haven't commented on the 911 forensic analysists and mortician's evidence that Trayvon was not the agressor in the case...?

Sophia_Starina
04-23-2012, 01:25 PM
Hopefully justice will prevail.

Nina_
04-23-2012, 01:29 PM
Nina would you please provide links to all of the statments you have made to prove that they are facts?

Tell me which statements of mine you want links to. I'll be glad to waste my time finding them for you (seriously though) if you really want to know that bad.

Nina_
04-23-2012, 01:34 PM
yea, uh Im not even sure among rational people how this could even be debate. Anywhere? I mean, I completely understand why it is sociologically which is fucking depressing.

A child was shot and killed. The circumstances should be reviewed in court but nothing was thoroughly investigated initially and the shooter was let go. The parents issued a call for it to be looked into again, which is the right of any victim's families. People are allowed to ask for second opinions, human error is real, that is why appeals exist. If you believe in the principles of democracy (aka populism) - the people spoke? The public responded by the tens of thousands calling for it to be investigated. So it is now being investigated. What is so threatening about that that people are scrambling to justify the shooters actions? Shouldnt uh it just be, ya know, investigated?

The question is rhetorical.

Focusing on groups like the Black Panther Party when white supremacists sites are saying incredibly shitty things (but with much less press attention) is a complete derail from the facts: someone was killed and the case was asked to be reviewed. So now it is being reviewed.

The total lack of selfawareness while being mad at people for even invoking racism (example: "urban" youth wear hoodies to appear intimidating) is incredible. Healthy skepticism is only healthy if youre not as hysterical as the people youre accusing of being hysterical. You cant accuse people of people 'judge, jury, and executioner'* when your very clearly having one.

(*someone was murdered? can we not forget that that this case has a fair amount to do with vigilantism - which is premised on someone making themselves judge, jury, and executioner to begin with)

Like I get tired of this debate before it even starts. People are incapable of having a conversation about hard conversations. You cant talk about the justice system without discussing sociology (which is why in academia and even in technical training schools, theyre often taught hand in hand) -- and conversations about systemic problems with our society cant happen on a large scale bc people dont know how to speak or listen to each other's broken hearts. I say broken hearts because that is what systemic oppressions are. Unfortunately even saying that raises ppl's heckles bc is how deeply and institutionally fractured our society is - so it needs to be reduced into the simplest terms: someone was murdered, there was a request for it to be investigated which is legally the family (and the state's) right, so it being done. George Z has the right to defend himself and probably due to the media attention and his own lack of funding he'd rather not go with a public defender, so he is appealing to the public for funding. He's allowed.

Which also goes to say that George Zimmerman will (and has?) receive a lot of financial backing, there are many many many people enraged about his case being investigated - to the point of even the Martin family and family associates receiving death threats (?!). He isnt this tarred and fathered victim with no resources and no one on his side. Like I get sometimes people like to be the "healthy skeptic" (see two paragraphs up as that doesnt really apply in how most conversations about this case goes) but it isnt edgy or contrarian to be in his corner. He just got bonded, he wasnt remanded. Like him being painted as a victim from one "side" is silly - he's getting his due process.


Hoodies (http://ladydeals.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/paris-with-are-you-lamb-enough-fade-fleece-hoodie.jpg)are (http://copcop.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/fafckim-kardashian-300.jpg)worn (http://uploads.kidzworld.com/article/24856/a9321i0_gwen-185.gif)by (http://www.straw.com/cpy/patterns/baby-child/images/puffin-hoodie4.jpg)urban (http://www.sugarscape.com/userfiles/Olsen.jpg)youth (http://photosbyallison.com/images/categories/babies/toddler_blue_hoodie.jpg)to (http://www.celebitchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/angelina_jolie_02_wenn5459244.jpg) be (http://www.whudat.com/news/images/lenny-kravitz-thanks-teena-marie.jpg)intimidating (http://www.oddonion.com/wp-content/plugins/rss-poster/cache/ff00b_120327040258-mark-zuckerberg-famous-hoodies-horizontal-gallery.jpg). fuck the weather and widespread fashion culture, amirite? hahaha. What a relevant ad totally self-aware comment by a deep thinker who is being very fair and balanced and detached from bias.

This case is stirring up emotions for everyone (even, or Id say especially, those calling for 'reason')- and there are important reasons for it that wont just... go away because conversations about racism, class, age, and location make you personally uncomfortable. Theyre coming up for reason. It wont just vanish.

However I hope that as much fact can be determined remains king in this case. For justice's sake. Which is kind of the point as someone was killed.

Great post. I love how you showed those "intimidating" hoodies. Lol.

bem401
04-24-2012, 05:53 AM
Sharpton and Jackson are known to supposedly "play the race card." What you don't understand is that sometimes they may have a basis for saying that. It's hard for a lot of people to understand and appreciate the struggle blacks have gone through and still continue to go through. On average, blacks are extremely profiled and given harsher prison sentences than whites for the same crime, deprived of job opportunities, etc because they are back. I can provide plenty of studies and statistics to back this up as this is mentioned in every sociology class I've taken to date. Obama, on the other hand, did not come close to playing the race card; he was asked about a big public issue, like any president could've been questioned about as it shows your position on civil rights issues and gun laws, and happened to state that if he had a son, it would look like Trayvon, because that is true. How is that playing the race card? He was asked to comment on it and did so unbiasly, he only stated the fact about if he had a son as a way of letting people know he's not just bs-ing the people, IMO.

Sharpton's and Jackson's total stock in trade comes from playing race cards and absolutely nothing else. Obama answered a clearly "planted' question at a press conference where he was supposedly not answering questions. He made the fact that Martin was black like him the center of his response. That's playing the race card.



It's not that hard to dictate justice when they facts are sitting there right in front of you.

How can you assume you have the "facts" when you have exactly what everyone else has...the stuff that has been in the media? And the media has been shown to have fabricated, cherry-picked, or concealed different aspects of this case to get certain subsets of the general public up in arms (almost literally) over this. None of what any of us have constitutes evidence. All I've said is wait till the evidence is presented somewhere other than in the MSM before dictating justice.



What first-hand information has the media gotten from Zimmerman? Isn't the vast majority of it secondhand? It is hearsay.

You need to learn the definition of the word "hearsay". Information is only considered hearsay when someone testifies what someone else told them. Zimmerman hasn't even talked to the media (nor should he) so where do you get "hearsay"? He spent 7 hours with the police the night of the shooting.

[
You obviously aren't well-traveled enough to know what you're talking about. I've lived in Detroit for the last year and a half, and before that I lived in the richest county in Michigan (Oakland) for years and never heard of it being probable cause just because you're wearing a hoodie. That's extremely foolish. I don't think something that Hollister markets is "thuggish" and kids wear those all the time without it being suspicious. Either way, I have absolutely no idea why the fact that Trayvon was wearing a hoodie has any relevance. Someone wearing a hoodie is not probable cause to pursue them, and that's what Zimmerman did. I fail to see how Zimmerman's actions can be jusitified.

You still haven't commented on the 911 forensic analysists and mortician's evidence that Trayvon was not the agressor in the case...?

Not well-traveled enough? I've lived nearly my whole life in the city, attended school there, and have taught in an inner-city school for 20 yrs. Not a single one of the handful of my students or former students with whom the topic has come up has denied that hoodies are worn to project a certain image. And they essentially are cut from the same mold as Trayvon, who at 6'2" 180 lbs was no "child", like the photos would have you believe. As far as who was the aggressor is concerned, I would think the cut on Zimmerman's head and his supposedly broken nose speak for themselves. If Zimmerman tracked him down, gun drawn, he wouldn't have suffered those injuries. Forensic analysts and morticians are only capable of offering opinions. EMT's would have been dealing with hard evidence.

The bottom line is we have to wait until evidence is actually presented in court.

ArmySGT.
04-24-2012, 05:54 PM
hearsay

n. 1) second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her. 2) a common objection made by the opposing lawyer to testimony when it appears the witness has violated the hearsay rule. 3) scuttlebutt or gossip.
See also: hearsay rule

hearsay rule

n. the basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible. Because the person who supposedly knew the facts is not in court to state his/her exact words, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand witness, and the other party's lawyer cannot cross-examine (ask questions of) him or her. However, as significant as the hearsay rule itself are the exceptions to the rule which allow hearsay testimony such as: a) a statement by the opposing party in the lawsuit which is inconsistent with what he/she has said in court (called an "admission against interest"); b) business entries made in the regular course of business, when a qualified witness can identify the records and tell how they were kept; c) official government records which can be shown to be properly kept; d) a writing about an event made close to the time it occurred, which may be used during trial to refresh a witness's memory about the event; e) a "learned treatise" which means historical works, scientific books, published art works, maps and charts; f) judgments in other cases; g) a spontaneous excited or startled utterance ("oh, God, the bus hit the little girl"); h) contemporaneous statement which explains the meaning of conduct if the conduct was ambiguous; i) a statement which explains a person's state of mind at the time of an event; j) a statement which explains a person's future intentions ("I plan to….") if that person's state of mind is in question; k) prior testimony, such as in deposition (taken under oath outside of court), or at a hearing, if the witness is not available (including being dead); l) a declaration by the opposing party in the lawsuit which was contrary to his/her best interest if the party is not available at trial (this differs from an admission against interest, which is admissible in trial if it differs from testimony at trial); m) a dying declaration by a person believing he/she is dying; n) a statement made about one's mental set, feeling, pain or health, if the person is not available-most often applied if the declarant is dead ("my back hurts horribly," and then dies); o) a statement about one's own will when the person is not available; p) other exceptions based on a judge's discretion that the hearsay testimony in the circumstances must be reliable.
See also: dying declaration hearsay admission against interest

Kellydancer
04-24-2012, 07:42 PM
Btw I just want to state that Bem is on the mark about the race card. I'm from Chicago and Jesse Jackson and now his son use the race card for EVERYTHING. His son wants to build an airport near me and because the neighbors don't want it he called them racists. That's how this group plays it, I call it the blame whitey game because whites are blamed for everything by this group.

Nina_
04-25-2012, 07:06 AM
Sharpton's and Jackson's total stock in trade comes from playing race cards and absolutely nothing else. Obama answered a clearly "planted' question at a press conference where he was supposedly not answering questions. He made the fact that Martin was black like him the center of his response. That's playing the race card.
Obama did not bring up the race card. Bringing up the race card involves blaming another race for something. Obama non-biasly answered the question he was asked. He did not even hint at whether or not he thinks Zimmerman is guilty. He said there is going to be a thourough investigation. Saying, "if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," is NOT playing the race card, it is stating a fact. Please understand terms before accusing someone of using them.





How can you assume you have the "facts" when you have exactly what everyone else has...the stuff that has been in the media? And the media has been shown to have fabricated, cherry-picked, or concealed different aspects of this case to get certain subsets of the general public up in arms (almost literally) over this. None of what any of us have constitutes evidence.
There are transcripts and 911 calls that present facts... one doesn't just have to watch the "news" to get facts.


All I've said is wait till the evidence is presented somewhere other than in the MSM before dictating justice.
LOL, no it isn't. You've said many lengthy paragraphs...? That is not the only thing you've said. You've talked about Obama and other public figures as if they have any involvement in the homicide.





You need to learn the definition of the word "hearsay". Information is only considered hearsay when someone testifies what someone else told them. Zimmerman hasn't even talked to the media (nor should he) so where do you get "hearsay"? He spent 7 hours with the police the night of the shooting.
How about this. You keep your definition of hear-say, and I'll keep my original statement where I mentioned hear-say. You are only going on and on about hear-say to stray away from the case at hand because your argument is clearly lacking.


Not well-traveled enough? I've lived nearly my whole life in the city, attended school there, and have taught in an inner-city school for 20 yrs. Not a single one of the handful of my students or former students with whom the topic has come up has denied that hoodies are worn to project a certain image. And they essentially are cut from the same mold as Trayvon, who at 6'2" 180 lbs was no "child", like the photos would have you believe. As far as who was the aggressor is concerned, I would think the cut on Zimmerman's head and his supposedly broken nose speak for themselves. If Zimmerman tracked him down, gun drawn, he wouldn't have suffered those injuries. Forensic analysts and morticians are only capable of offering opinions. EMT's would have been dealing with hard evidence.
If you've lived in "the city" nearly all your life, you are not well-traveled. You've only lived in "the city." Trayvon didn't live in "the city," (whatever city you're referring to). He wasn't walking around in an inner-city; he was walking in a suburb. It's a laughable fallacy to say that the reason kids wear hoodies is to be intimidating. I'm sure the comfort or warmth factor plays no role in your flawed thinking. So what are you asserting by failing to admit that it's normal for teenagers of almost every demographic background to wear hoodies? Are you saying that Trayvon wanted to look intimidating while walking to the store for Iced Tea and Skittles (I'm sure it had nothing to do with the weather)? Or are you saying that a 17 year old kid walking around wearing a hoodie SHOULD be stopped and questioned (because, god forbid, they may be carrying a whopping Iced Tea and Skittles!)?


The bottom line is we have to wait until evidence is actually presented in court.
Well, you are already defending Zimmerman (and ignoring facts) so stop trying to act like you're playing the non-bias role.

I don't understand why it's so hard for you to answer my question about the forensic voice experts analysis, which completely throws Zimmerman's defense claim away. What is your response to that? Do you have one?

Raider
04-25-2012, 08:44 AM
^^ Did not the same voice experts that stated they could only conclude to 48% certainty that it was Zimmerman and they needed 90% for a conclusive match make the statement they could not conclude from those results a certainty that it was Martin due to inability to compare samples?? Now, the reply obviously is if it wasn't Zimmerman then it had to be Martin..yet we don't know if voice analysis of Martin would have also resulted in a 48% match. is it possible that the conditions, the tape or the muffled cries for help tend to prevent determining with any certainty above 48% that it was either one or the other?? Personally, while it may add doubt to his version if and when linked to other reports or evidence, I don't think that the tape analysis completely throws away Zimmerman's defense claim due to this inability to prove with certainty that it was Martin.

There appears to be a lot of bias and selective, contradictory reporting by media as I mentioned in my previous somewhat rambling post. Nina...I think everyone has an opinion on the subject and allow that opinion to influence what they believe to be fact. You even mentioned providing you with a link and stated you would refute the transcript once you saw it indicating your mind was made up prior to even reading it. Also, I don't even know what the debate is about hear-say, how it relates and which one of you are on what side .....yet the definition of hear-say is clearly provided by Army and is clearly being ignored by someone.

Most of what is being presented can be interpreted one way or another to support a pre-determined opinion. Picture of injured head? Martin attacked him from behind....or did Martin inflict the injury while defending himself? Picture faked? Of course, this completely ignores the first aid rendered at the scene. Tape insufficient at 48% to tie screams to Zimmerman so must be Martin? Yet no ability to match Martin to see if only 48% match to him? 911 transcript indicates Zimmerman was heading back to car to meet police...nope, tape says call him and he will tell them where he is at. That means he will tell him where his car is in relation to the mailboxes...or does it mean he was going to go look for Martin? I read the same report from the morgue that said no bruising on Martin's fist from punch to Zimmerman. Also, read comment that there wouldn't have been bruising with the tragic death following so closely afterwards? If Martin didn't punch him....how did he get injury to his nose? EMS report from scene would be helpful in determining extent of any injury.

I will agree we have to wait until ALL evidence...both sides of the case are actually presented in court. The concern I have...is will the decision be accepted by either ''side'' regardless of what the verdict is??

bem401
04-25-2012, 08:55 AM
^^^^
1. Obama pointing out that the black victim would resemble any son of his is precisely playing the race card. Otherwise, what's the point of parsing it like that? Oh and BTW "non-biasly" is not a word. Try "in an unbiased manner" in the future.
2. Are you actually referring to the 911 calls as "facts" when NBC has already admitted they edited them to serve their needs?
3. My comment about waiting for evidence to be presented was aimed at the characters trying to exploit this case for their benefit, mainly Jackson and Sharpton, but also to a lesser extent, Obama.
4. Hearsay is hearsay. You seem to be the one with her own definition of what the word means.
5. I consider myself well-traveled because I have lived in a nicer section of my city and at a beach area to the south. I teach at an inner-city school after graduating from an Ivy League school I've been involved in ice hockey and country club golf as well as inner-city track and basketball. I'd give you some slack on your hoodie argument if this happened somewhere other than Florida. He was from Miami and this happened in Central Florida, hardly cold spots.
6. I'm not defending Zimmerman but I am defending his right to a fair trial. As far as forensics experts are concerned, I'll take anything released by the MSM with a grain of salt. You want the forensic experts' "best-guess" (my term) to overpower Zimmerman's cuts, broken nose, stained clothes, and personal response as evidence?

Frenchie
04-25-2012, 09:00 AM
Is he really asking people to help him pay for the bad decisions HE made?

Why should he be any different than the rest of this country?

Perception is reality, etc.

I bet most of us have made bad decisions of some type or other, then whined that we needed help.

Nina_
04-25-2012, 11:50 AM
^^^^
1. Obama pointing out that the black victim would resemble any son of his is precisely playing the race card. Otherwise, what's the point of parsing it like that? Oh and BTW "non-biasly" is not a word. Try "in an unbiased manner" in the future.
No, you do not understand what playing the race card is. Mentioning race does not mean a person is playing the race card. Playing the race card is when one person blames something on racism; example: "I didn't get hired because I'm black!" That would be playing the race card. Obama stating that his son would look like Trayvon is true. Perhaps he said it because he knew a lot of people were outraged and wanted those people to know he empathized; however, he said nothing indicating a judgment towards whether or not Zimmerman is guilty. And I'm not writing an essay, I don't care if you have a problem with my saying non-biased. There you go straying away from what this discussion is even about: Trayvon and Zimmerman. Obama does not have anything to do with the case.


2. Are you actually referring to the 911 calls as "facts" when NBC has already admitted they edited them to serve their needs?
I actually know the correct version of the 911 calls, and they do not discredit anything I said. All the facts I've stated are clear from the original 911 call. There are also transcripts.



3. My comment about waiting for evidence to be presented was aimed at the characters trying to exploit this case for their benefit, mainly Jackson and Sharpton, but also to a lesser extent, Obama.
Obama was not trying to exploit the case for his benefit. As president, it is important that you know what is going on in your nation and with your nations people. Many people were outraged about it, it became a public issue, and Obama addressed it when asked. I'm not going to get started on Jackson and Sharpton, really, but if you had been in their shoes and dealt with life being a black male, perhaps you'd be singing a different tune than you are now. I can't guarantee you'd be like Jackson and Sharpton, as they take things to public extreme, but you'd at least know why they feel entitled to be mad when race issues are brought up. And yes, this was a race-issue before they got involved.



4. Hearsay is hearsay. You seem to be the one with her own definition of what the word means.
I do not care. It really should've been dropped a long time ago, but it's another thing that has nothing to do with the Zimmerman/Martin issue, just to get away from the Zimmerman/Martin issue.


5. I consider myself well-traveled because I have lived in a nicer section of my city and at a beach area to the south. I teach at an inner-city school after graduating from an Ivy League school I've been involved in ice hockey and country club golf as well as inner-city track and basketball. I'd give you some slack on your hoodie argument if this happened somewhere other than Florida. He was from Miami and this happened in Central Florida, hardly cold spots.
Hmm... well, in the 911 call Zimmerman stated that it was raining. So it probably wasn't warm and sunny out.

I don't understand how you can pretend that it's not normal for a teenager to wear a hoodie. Florida is warm, but it's not unnatural for there to be days where it's windy, chilly (etc) and hoodie-wearing is appropriate. I've been to Florida, and when I was there, it wasn't always nice enough to wear a tanktop all the time.

I've lived in some of the wealthier cities in Michigan and in one of the wealthiest counties. I live in Detroit now (the actual city) and have several other times. I've lived in poor cities in Michigan and rich cities in Michigan. I see kids wearing hoodies at ALL of them. It has nothing to do with intimidation. I've done plenty of traveling, used to go out to California every year during spring break, and still needed a hoodie on most nights. So did my aunt & uncle, who live there (who advised us to bring hoodies as it gets chilly at night) who also wore hoodies; my aunt does casting for SciFi and my uncle is a screenwriter and co-producer of the TV show "House," so I don't think they wear hoodies to be intimidating.


6. I'm not defending Zimmerman but I am defending his right to a fair trial. As far as forensics experts are concerned, I'll take anything released by the MSM with a grain of salt. You want the forensic experts' "best-guess" (my term) to overpower Zimmerman's cuts, broken nose, stained clothes, and personal response as evidence?

I never said he didn't have a right to a fair trail. It's obvious that he's guilty, and because the Sanford police fail to do their job properly and do an investigation, Zimmerman may be found not guilty. Still can't wait for it to go to trial, since there is so much overwhelming evidence to prove Zimmerman was in the wrong.

It wasn't the forensic experts' "best guess," it was there scientific conclusion. You need higher than a 90 percent match to conclude that it is Zimmerman's voice. That means since Zimmerman scored a 48 percent, it is NOT his voice. One of them even stated, and I quote this, "As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," (Owen said as a result of the 48 percent match). There was no third party; the screams were Trayvon. I know it's science, but it's still not rocket science.

Nina_
04-25-2012, 11:55 AM
Why should he be any different than the rest of this country?

Perception is reality, etc.

I bet most of us have made bad decisions of some type or other, then whined that we needed help.

Well yeah but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that most of us haven't killed someone. That's not just "a mistake."

bem401
04-26-2012, 06:52 AM
No, you do not understand what playing the race card is. Mentioning race does not mean a person is playing the race card. Playing the race card is when one person blames something on racism; example: "I didn't get hired because I'm black!" That would be playing the race card. Obama stating that his son would look like Trayvon is true. Perhaps he said it because he knew a lot of people were outraged and wanted those people to know he empathized; however, he said nothing indicating a judgment towards whether or not Zimmerman is guilty. And I'm not writing an essay, I don't care if you have a problem with my saying non-biased. There you go straying away from what this discussion is even about: Trayvon and Zimmerman. Obama does not have anything to do with the case.

Funny, neither Obama, nor Jackson, nor Sharpton have spoken out about the white guy in Mobile AL who was jumped by a group of blacks who yelled "justice for trayvon" when they left his property. The guy is now in critical condition . has out President no empathy here? And you didn't say "non-biased", you said "non-biasly".



Obama was not trying to exploit the case for his benefit. As president, it is important that you know what is going on in your nation and with your nations people. Many people were outraged about it, it became a public issue, and Obama addressed it when asked. I'm not going to get started on Jackson and Sharpton, really, but if you had been in their shoes and dealt with life being a black male, perhaps you'd be singing a different tune than you are now. I can't guarantee you'd be like Jackson and Sharpton, as they take things to public extreme, but you'd at least know why they feel entitled to be mad when race issues are brought up. And yes, this was a race-issue before they got involved.

All three of these individuals care only about doing what they can for themselves, not Americans, and not African Americans. The extreme liberal policies they and their friends all advocate do nothing to enhance the long-term prospects for any of the people they claim to advocate for. Liberalism does nothing but create a dependency class the three of them depend on to maintain their lifestyles. The biggest difference between the three is Obama can speak well while the other two babble.


=I never said he didn't have a right to a fair trail. It's obvious that he's guilty, and because the Sanford police fail to do their job properly and do an investigation, Zimmerman may be found not guilty. Still can't wait for it to go to trial, since there is so much overwhelming evidence to prove Zimmerman was in the wrong.

It wasn't the forensic experts' "best guess," it was there scientific conclusion. You need higher than a 90 percent match to conclude that it is Zimmerman's voice. That means since Zimmerman scored a 48 percent, it is NOT his voice. One of them even stated, and I quote this, "As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," (Owen said as a result of the 48 percent match). There was no third party; the screams were Trayvon. I know it's science, but it's still not rocket science.

It's funny, no one has said Zimmerman is "obviously guilty" but you. Conclusive evidence has not been presented in court yet on either side and the prosecutors have been criticized for bringing charges not justified by the available evidence. Lawyer Alan Dershowitz (hardly a conservative) says the case has no chance (based on his analysis) in resulting in a conviction for Zimmerman.

One final observation....failing to PROVE the voice on the phone was Zimmerman's doesn't mean the voice wan't his and doesn't PROVE the voice was Martin's.

And back to the hoodies, urban youth wear the hoodies to project a certain image. While they may serve a purpose when its cold and rainy, that doesn't mean someone wearing one in a strange neighborhood recently the scene of crimes will go unnoticed.

Nina_
04-26-2012, 03:17 PM
Funny, neither Obama, nor Jackson, nor Sharpton have spoken out about the white guy in Mobile AL who was jumped by a group of blacks who yelled "justice for trayvon" when they left his property. The guy is now in critical condition . has out President no empathy here?
Obama is president of the most powerful country in the world - he doesn't have time to speak about every time someone gets beat up. What you can't grasp is that the reason this story is so huge is because, prior to the public outcry, NOTHING WAS BEING DONE ABOUT IT. Not even an investigation. I'm sure the boys who beat up the white kid are facing charges. Get it?


And you didn't say "non-biased", you said "non-biasly".
Thanks for pointing that out. My usage of "non-biasly" certainly is a crucial element in whether or not Zimmerman should be convicted. (I actually thought I said "non-bias" but I still don't see where the relevance is between that and the case.




All three of these individuals care only about doing what they can for themselves, not Americans, and not African Americans. The extreme liberal policies they and their friends all advocate do nothing to enhance the long-term prospects for any of the people they claim to advocate for. Liberalism does nothing but create a dependency class the three of them depend on to maintain their lifestyles. The biggest difference between the three is Obama can speak well while the other two babble.
The Zimmerman/Martin case has nothing at all to do with the character of any of these men. Please stop talking about the three of them as if there is any relevance. You are only doing it to distract from saying things about the actual case. I do not care whether or not you like them. I do not care whether or not you dislike Liberals. You are trying to turn this into a debate of conservatism vs liberalism or blacks vs whites. The issue is Zimmerman and Trayvon.




It's funny, no one has said Zimmerman is "obviously guilty" but you.
This is simply not true. There are plenty of people who think he is obviously guilty, probably including some of the tens of thousands of protestors. There are plenty of people who believe Zimmerman is guilty. It is very easy to come to that conclusion when you know the facts. This issue here isn't whether or not Zimmerman killed someone; he admitted to it. The issue is whether or not he can claim self-defense. Seeing as how he was the pursuer, and the only armed person of the two, and that Trayvon was walking back from the store with skittles and Ice Tea it can reasonably be concluded that he should go to prison. If you disagree, you have no regard for life at all.


Conclusive evidence has not been presented in court yet on either side and the prosecutors have been criticized for bringing charges not justified by the available evidence. Lawyer Alan Dershowitz (hardly a conservative) says the case has no chance (based on his analysis) in resulting in a conviction for Zimmerman.
The conclusive evidence hasn't been presented in court because the trial hasn't happened. However, there HAVE been forensic analysists done that conclude that Zimmerman was not the one screaming. I'm not the one convicting him, so I don't have to wait until after the trial to reach that conclusion; I've seen the evidence and I know the facts. It is really not fair at all that your argument holds no substance, yet when I proved perfectly accurate facts, you pretend to ignore them.


One final observation....failing to PROVE the voice on the phone was Zimmerman's doesn't mean the voice wan't his and doesn't PROVE the voice was Martin's.
There are two people fighting. One of them is screaming. It is not person A. If person A is not screaming, then the screaming voice is person B's (Trayvon's). It is a very simple point to understand. Screams do not come out of nowhere.

But let's go along with your biased assertion that just because it is definitely not Zimmerman's voice doesn't mean it was Trayvon's. It still contradicts Zimmerman's initial statement of self-defense because he said the voice that people heard screaming was HIS. Unfortunately, he got caught in his lie when the forensic expert revealed otherwise.


And back to the hoodies, urban youth wear the hoodies to project a certain image. While they may serve a purpose when its cold and rainy, that doesn't mean someone wearing one in a strange neighborhood recently the scene of crimes will go unnoticed.
So by your logic, if you spot someone wearing a hoodie, is it justified to follow them, then get out and approach them? Is that safe? Is it normal? If you were driving and you saw someone walking and minding their business, would you actually get out and approach them? No, I bet you wouldn't. Zimmerman did because he had a gun. He cannot claim that he was fearful for his life when he could have done a number of other things not to approach Trayvon. There is no excuse for him even leaving his car with a gun. It's is utterly laughable that you are trying to OK Zimmerman's crime by saying it's Trayvon's fault for wearing a hoodie. There is nothing wrong or suspicious about walking around in a hoodie.

bem401
04-26-2012, 03:40 PM
No one with any knowledge of the case has said Zimmerman is "obviously guilty". Feel free to provide links naming people without a personal agenda who have said that.

Obama is president, though he doesn't seem to work very hard at it, but he does find time to weigh in on any issue where he can play race, class, or gender cards.

If someone wearing a hoodie is walking through a crime-prone neighborhood where he is not known, he is going to get the attention of any neighborhood watchmen. It's not his fault for wearing a hoodie, but if he doubled back and confronted and assaulted Zimmerman, he bears responsibility for that.

And finally, I guess Dershowitz doesn't know what he's talking about either. There are certainly plenty of questions about whether he broke any laws. He was licensed for the gun, he called the police, reportedly returned to his car, reportedly was confronted by Martin, reportedly was assaulted by Martin, suffered bruises to his head and face, fired his gun reportedly in self defense, waited for the police to arrive and reportedly cooperated with them, If these aspects are true, where is the crime?

Raider
04-26-2012, 05:07 PM
However, there HAVE been forensic analysists done that conclude that Zimmerman was not the one screaming.


There are two people fighting. One of them is screaming. It is not person A. If person A is not screaming, then the screaming voice is person B's (Trayvon's). It is a very simple point to understand. Screams do not come out of nowhere.

But let's go along with your biased assertion that just because it is definitely not Zimmerman's voice doesn't mean it was Trayvon's. It still contradicts Zimmerman's initial statement of self-defense because he said the voice that people heard screaming was HIS. Unfortunately, he got caught in his lie when the forensic expert revealed otherwise.


So by your logic, if you spot someone wearing a hoodie, is it justified to follow them, then get out and approach them? Is that safe? Is it normal? If you were driving and you saw someone walking and minding their business, would you actually get out and approach them? No, I bet you wouldn't. Zimmerman did because he had a gun. He cannot claim that he was fearful for his life when he could have done a number of other things not to approach Trayvon. There is no excuse for him even leaving his car with a gun. It's is utterly laughable that you are trying to OK Zimmerman's crime by saying it's Trayvon's fault for wearing a hoodie. There is nothing wrong or suspicious about walking around in a hoodie.

As was pointed out to me....the forensic analysts stated it was only with 48% certainty that it was Zimmerman's voice and they needed 90% to say with any certainty that it was Zimmerman. This does not rule out the slight possiblity that it was him. Unfortunately, due to the tragic event...it is not possible to compare the young man's voice to prove it was his. There is nothing to say that it was Martin that was screaming other than his mom who could hardly be considered not to be biased. There is no way to know if any test would have also resulted in a similar ''48% match'' to Martin due to the conditions and circumstances the recording was made under. Yes, it is very easy to say that if not A...then it must be B yet it is not possible to reach the conclusion that a test of Martin would result in the 90% needed to verify with any certainty that it was him. A test of Martin might have revealed the same 48% match thus resulting in an inability to determine with any certainty that it was one individual or the other.

Ok to follow and then get out? Do we know if he followed Martin in his car and then got out or was parked near the entrance when he observed Martin and then got out to observe as Martin was leaving his sight? Very little difference with the end result..... yet assuming he followed while in his car is certainly more inflamatory and supportive of the ''stalking from safety'' theory. To my knowledge there is no evidence that Zimmerman did anything other than observe from a distance as indicated by his comment to 911 that he lost sight of him. There is not any evidence to indicate that Zimmerman ''approached'' Martin. 911 transcript indicates he did not have sight of Martin and was headed back to his car which was parked by the mail boxes and for police to call him when they got there and he would advise where he was in relation to the entrance and mailboxes. An assumption is being made that after hanging up the phone, he changed his mind.... found Martin and approached him?? There is no basis on which to come to this conclusion. Comment from Martin's girlfriend actually indicates differently with her saying the first she heard of actual face to face contact between the two was Martin asking ''why were you following me?" To me...as Martin does not seem to be answering a question from Zimmerman, it appears he is the one that actually approached Zimmerman.... initiated actual contact between the two and confronted Zimmerman.

Raider
04-26-2012, 05:14 PM
There is nothing that anyone can say on Stripperweb that will change the fact the kid is dead now. And nothing anyone can say that will magically reveal the guilt or innocence of zimmerman.

^^
This.....and there probably is nothing anyone can say to change the opinion of those who have already come to a conclusion based on conflicting reports from the media and comments from those closer to the case.

eagle2
04-26-2012, 08:30 PM
Ok to follow and then get out? Do we know if he followed Martin in his car and then got out or was parked near the entrance when he observed Martin and then got out to observe as Martin was leaving his sight? Very little difference with the end result..... yet assuming he followed while in his car is certainly more inflamatory and supportive of the ''stalking from safety'' theory. To my knowledge there is no evidence that Zimmerman did anything other than observe from a distance as indicated by his comment to 911 that he lost sight of him. There is not any evidence to indicate that Zimmerman ''approached'' Martin. 911 transcript indicates he did not have sight of Martin and was headed back to his car which was parked by the mail boxes and for police to call him when they got there and he would advise where he was in relation to the entrance and mailboxes. An assumption is being made that after hanging up the phone, he changed his mind.... found Martin and approached him?? There is no basis on which to come to this conclusion. Comment from Martin's girlfriend actually indicates differently with her saying the first she heard of actual face to face contact between the two was Martin asking ''why were you following me?" To me...as Martin does not seem to be answering a question from Zimmerman, it appears he is the one that actually approached Zimmerman.... initiated actual contact between the two and confronted Zimmerman.

911 transcripts do NOT indicate Zimmerman was heading back to his truck. The dispatcher asked him if he wanted the police to meet him by the mailbox and instead, Zimmerman told the dispatcher to have the police call him so he could tell them where he is. That indicates he was not waiting for the police. Here is the transcript again:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

eagle2
04-26-2012, 09:17 PM
Obama is president, though he doesn't seem to work very hard at it, but he does find time to weigh in on any issue where he can play race, class, or gender cards.


In case you haven't forgotten, although I'm sure you haven't, politics is off limits in this forum. That would include your obnoxious comments about the President.



If someone wearing a hoodie is walking through a crime-prone neighborhood where he is not known, he is going to get the attention of any neighborhood watchmen.

You're the one playing the race card, with your nonsense about hoodies. The neighborhood watchmen is NOT supposed to follow anyone, even someone wearing a hoodie.

Nina_
04-26-2012, 09:48 PM
As was pointed out to me....the forensic analysts stated it was only with 48% certainty that it was Zimmerman's voice and they needed 90% to say with any certainty that it was Zimmerman. This does not rule out the slight possiblity that it was him. Unfortunately, due to the tragic event...it is not possible to compare the young man's voice to prove it was his. There is nothing to say that it was Martin that was screaming other than his mom who could hardly be considered not to be biased. There is no way to know if any test would have also resulted in a similar ''48% match'' to Martin due to the conditions and circumstances the recording was made under. Yes, it is very easy to say that if not A...then it must be B yet it is not possible to reach the conclusion that a test of Martin would result in the 90% needed to verify with any certainty that it was him. A test of Martin might have revealed the same 48% match thus resulting in an inability to determine with any certainty that it was one individual or the other.
The forensic experts used their own knowledge of voice forensics to say it was obviously a teenager's voice on the tape. Then the analysis was conducted, it revealed a figure that is substantially less than what one would need to conclude that the voice was Zimmerman's. The analysis was conducted by extremely advanced voice/audio technology. For you to assert that there is a slight chance that it was Zimmerman's voice means you're suggesting that the technology used to determine this was broken. The forensic expert (Owens) stated, "As a result of that [48 percent match], you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman." There were two people involved. One was screaming. The screamer was not Zimmerman. Thus, the screamer was Trayvon. Zimmerman also stated, in his claim of self-defense, that it was his voice screaming. This was before the forensic evidence surfaced, which proved that Zimmerman was lying.


Ok to follow and then get out? Do we know if he followed Martin in his car and then got out or was parked near the entrance when he observed Martin and then got out to observe as Martin was leaving his sight? Very little difference with the end result..... yet assuming he followed while in his car is certainly more inflamatory and supportive of the ''stalking from safety'' theory. To my knowledge there is no evidence that Zimmerman did anything other than observe from a distance as indicated by his comment to 911 that he lost sight of him. There is not any evidence to indicate that Zimmerman ''approached'' Martin. 911 transcript indicates he did not have sight of Martin and was headed back to his car which was parked by the mail boxes and for police to call him when they got there and he would advise where he was in relation to the entrance and mailboxes. An assumption is being made that after hanging up the phone, he changed his mind.... found Martin and approached him?? There is no basis on which to come to this conclusion. Comment from Martin's girlfriend actually indicates differently with her saying the first she heard of actual face to face contact between the two was Martin asking ''why were you following me?" To me...as Martin does not seem to be answering a question from Zimmerman, it appears he is the one that actually approached Zimmerman.... initiated actual contact between the two and confronted Zimmerman.

No. In the 911 audio, you can very clearly and legibly hear the dispatcher ask Zimmerman, "are you following him?" to which Zimmerman responds, "yes." Zimmerman admitted to getting out of his car and following Trayvon, who he claimed was running away. So for Zimmerman's story to check out, he would have had to make the conscious decision to get out of his car and follow Trayvon, who started running away. Then, for Zimmerman's story to check-out, he would have had to have a sudden change of heart to turn his back on Trayvon and head to his car and Trayvon, who, mind you, was running away, would have had to have the sudden urge to attack Zimmerman instead of run away from him like he was initially doing.

I heard Zimmerman's defense also try to assert that he got out of his car to look for a street sign to meet up with police. Here are some problems I have with that claim: 1. Why would he have to go look at a street sign in an area that he patrols all the time? One would assume he would know the street he is one in an area that he patrols frequently and is familiar with. 2. It is documented that he admitted to following Trayvon. 3. If Zimmerman were returning to his car, it is hard to make sense of why the "scuffle" happened so far away from his car. His car was parked in the street; the scuffle took place in between two sets of townhouses, with one of the rows of townhouses separating the two men from Zimmerman's car; imagine it like this: you're looking at it from bird's-eye view. Zimmerman's car is parked on the street. To the right is one set of townhouses. To the right of those townhouses is another set of townhouses. The scuffle took place in between the townhouses. From the area that their scuffle took place, Zimmerman's car cannot even be seen. 4. If he were getting out of his car to look for the correct address, it is not plausible for the scuffle to have occured BEHIND the houses that Zimmerman alleges he was searching for the addresses for.

Eagle provided you with transcripts so I hope you take a look and then tell us your opinion.

Nina_
04-26-2012, 10:35 PM
No one with any knowledge of the case has said Zimmerman is "obviously guilty". Feel free to provide links naming people without a personal agenda who have said that.
I think some people on this thread acknowledge that this is clearly murder. I am not going to go out of my way to provide links naming random people who have said that. There have been thousands.


Obama is president, though he doesn't seem to work very hard at it, but he does find time to weigh in on any issue where he can play race, class, or gender cards.
Presidents should be aware of pressing societal issues. Obama does not play the race card. You are only saying he plays the race card because the fact that he is [half] black gives you the idea that you can claim he pulls the race card. He does not. He remains fair on racial issues. As far as playing the class or gender card, it has nothing to do with the case. Obama himself has nothing to do with the case, yet you've made him the center of your discussion. I guess to you the fact that, starting at his first year in office, he has been the most executively active president since Roosevelt has nothing to do with whether or not he's a hard-working president. If you want to keep bitching about Obama when he has no significance in the case, perhaps you should start your own thread about your hatred for him.


If someone wearing a hoodie is walking through a crime-prone neighborhood where he is not known, he is going to get the attention of any neighborhood watchmen. It's not his fault for wearing a hoodie, but if he doubled back and confronted and assaulted Zimmerman, he bears responsibility for that.
Neighborhood watchmen are supposed to watch. Not follow and pursue with gun, first off. Secondly, a hoodie does NOT justify being followed, nor does it mean the person wearing the hoodie is dangerous, which has been directly exemplified by the fact that Trayvon was unarmed and trying to simply go home.

As far as him doubling back and confronting Zimmerman, I fail to see why you make it sound as if such a happening is plausible. Given the fact that the "scuffle" happened in-between the two townhouse complexes, 150 feet away from Zimmerman's car (parked on the street on the OTHER SIDE of the complex of townhouses that Zimmermand and Trayvon's scuffle took place), it is not very likely that Trayvon sneaked over to Zimmerman and "sucker-punched" him from behind. To make this claim true, Zimmerman would also have to be telling the truth when he says that the reason he was out of his car was to find the address and tell police. Well, if he was looking for the address, how on earth did the scuffle end up happening behind the townhouses? Addresses are posted on the front of houses, not the back. Zimmerman also told the dispatcher to have police call him when they arrive so they could meet up instead of giving a specific location of where he would be, indicating that he planned to keep moving and was unsure where he'd be when police arrived.


And finally, I guess Dershowitz doesn't know what he's talking about either. There are certainly plenty of questions about whether he broke any laws. He was licensed for the gun, he called the police, reportedly returned to his car, reportedly was confronted by Martin, reportedly was assaulted by Martin, suffered bruises to his head and face, fired his gun reportedly in self defense, waited for the police to arrive and reportedly cooperated with them, If these aspects are true, where is the crime?
If he returned to his car, how did Martin confront him from behind the townhome complex, 150 feet away? His gun was not fired in self-defense if the victim was repeatedly screaming and begging for help. The forensic analysis that you opt not to regard is one piece of evidence that Trayvon was the one screaming. Another piece of evidence is the fact that the continous cries for help are cut off simultaneously with the gunshot. I also find it interesting how Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon was pounding his head into the sidewalk right before he shot him (and also pinning him down, as Zimmerman has asserted. It's interesting that Trayvon was allegedly pinning Zimmerman down and pounding his head at the same time). It can be assumed that when Trayvon was shot in the chest, his body crumpled up and he fell to wherever he was. If he was on the sidewalk "assaulting" Zimmerman, I find it odd that Trayvon was found on the grass, face-down, with his arms folded under him. There is no self-defense claim here that is plausible.

Raider
04-27-2012, 05:41 AM
911 transcripts do NOT indicate Zimmerman was heading back to his truck. The dispatcher asked him if he wanted the police to meet him by the mailbox and instead, Zimmerman told the dispatcher to have the police call him so he could tell them where he is. That indicates he was not waiting for the police. Here is the transcript again:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

Yep....I got it the first time. Some people interpret that it means he has decided is going to search ...follow .....approach...and assault after asking for police to meet him at his car. As indicated in the transcript there is obviously an issue as to where his car is parked and some people interpret 'have them call me when they get here and I will tell them where I am at '' to mean that Zimmerman doesn't know the exact address his car is at and wants the police to call so he can advise them where he is at in relation to the mailbox or that he didn't know if he could get there by the time the police arrived.

bem401
04-27-2012, 06:05 AM
In case you haven't forgotten, although I'm sure you haven't, politics is off limits in this forum. That would include your obnoxious comments about the President.



You're the one playing the race card, with your nonsense about hoodies. The neighborhood watchmen is NOT supposed to follow anyone, even someone wearing a hoodie.

1. No I haven't forgotten and he's only being mentioned because he injected himself into a situation for personal benefit that no respectable President would.

2. It is the job of a neighborhood watchman to observe, track, and report suspicious characters whether they are wearing a hoodie or not. And wearing a hoodie at night (thereby concealing your identity) in a neighborhood that's recently had a lot of break-ins only increases the level of suspicion a person draws to himself, regardless of his race.

3. And regarding the transcript, all it shows is he was told they didn't need him to follow Martin any longer. That's not quite the same as being told not to do it. And what crime does that constitute anyhow?

bem401
04-27-2012, 06:37 AM
I think some people on this thread acknowledge that this is clearly murder. I am not going to go out of my way to provide links naming random people who have said that. There have been thousands.

So you can't name anyone considered an expert in matters of this sort to support your contention.


Presidents should be aware of pressing societal issues. Obama does not play the race card. You are only saying he plays the race card because the fact that he is [half] black gives you the idea that you can claim he pulls the race card. He does not. He remains fair on racial issues. As far as playing the class or gender card, it has nothing to do with the case. Obama himself has nothing to do with the case, yet you've made him the center of your discussion. I guess to you the fact that, starting at his first year in office, he has been the most executively active president since Roosevelt has nothing to do with whether or not he's a hard-working president. If you want to keep bitching about Obama when he has no significance in the case, perhaps you should start your own thread about your hatred for him.

Funny, he comments here but remains silent regarding the white guy in Mobile AL attacked and hospitalized in critical condition by a group of blacks chanting "Justice for Trayvon" as they did it. He also fails to comment on the NBP bounty on Zimmerman's head and hasn't commented on the thousand or so other young black men murdered nationwide since Martin died. But he's not playing a race card by weighing in on this one? And "executively active"? Don't you mean "unconstitutionally active"?

http://www.westernjournalism.com/liberal-media-off-to-the-races-with-trayvon-martin-tragedy/


Neighborhood watchmen are supposed to watch. Not follow and pursue with gun, first off. Secondly, a hoodie does NOT justify being followed, nor does it mean the person wearing the hoodie is dangerous, which has been directly exemplified by the fact that Trayvon was unarmed and trying to simply go home.

As far as him doubling back and confronting Zimmerman, I fail to see why you make it sound as if such a happening is plausible. Given the fact that the "scuffle" happened in-between the two townhouse complexes, 150 feet away from Zimmerman's car (parked on the street on the OTHER SIDE of the complex of townhouses that Zimmermand and Trayvon's scuffle took place), it is not very likely that Trayvon sneaked over to Zimmerman and "sucker-punched" him from behind. To make this claim true, Zimmerman would also have to be telling the truth when he says that the reason he was out of his car was to find the address and tell police. Well, if he was looking for the address, how on earth did the scuffle end up happening behind the townhouses? Addresses are posted on the front of houses, not the back. Zimmerman also told the dispatcher to have police call him when they arrive so they could meet up instead of giving a specific location of where he would be, indicating that he planned to keep moving and was unsure where he'd be when police arrived.


If he returned to his car, how did Martin confront him from behind the townhome complex, 150 feet away? His gun was not fired in self-defense if the victim was repeatedly screaming and begging for help. The forensic analysis that you opt not to regard is one piece of evidence that Trayvon was the one screaming. Another piece of evidence is the fact that the continous cries for help are cut off simultaneously with the gunshot. I also find it interesting how Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon was pounding his head into the sidewalk right before he shot him (and also pinning him down, as Zimmerman has asserted. It's interesting that Trayvon was allegedly pinning Zimmerman down and pounding his head at the same time). It can be assumed that when Trayvon was shot in the chest, his body crumpled up and he fell to wherever he was. If he was on the sidewalk "assaulting" Zimmerman, I find it odd that Trayvon was found on the grass, face-down, with his arms folded under him. There is no self-defense claim here that is plausible.

Who says neighborhood watchmen aren't supposed to keep suspicious characters under surveillance? I have confronted characters in my neighborhood i deemed suspicious. I don't recall whether they wore hoodies or what their race was, but I found them suspicious and approached them.You obviously think you know what Zimmerman was thinking, what Martin was thinking, who confronted whom, who assaulted whom first, how Martin got shot, and how he fell.

If Zimmerman was really interested in confronting and shooting martin, why did he first call the cops and why did he allow Martin to get close enough to attack him?

Raider
04-27-2012, 07:38 AM
Once again, my point on the tape is that unfortunately due to the tragedy, there is not any way to determine if the voice on the tape was a better match to Martin than it was to Zimmerman. Could not the conditions the tape was made under (distance, muffled screams ...anything) also have resulted in a mere 48% match to Martin thus making impossible to say with REASONABLE SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY that you could link the screams to EITHER one of the two? Merely coming up with a 48% match to Zimmerman does NOT INDICATE HE WAS LYING. It indicates that the analyst could not support his claim as it would require a 90% match in order to verify that it was indeed Zimmerman. My indicating the POSSIBLITY that there is a slight chance it was Zimmerman does not mean I think the technology was broken...it means I believe the findings that indicate there is a 48% match. The 90% needed to conclude it was Zimmerman does not rule out that it was him if that level isn't reached. It means they can't verify his claim and confirm it was him as the 90% level wasn't met. There is a difference.


Yes, Zimmerman got out of his car and started following him as indicated on the transcript. Yes, he indicated Martin was running and yet said ''ok'' when told they didn't need for him to follow (see transcript) . At that point the conversation turns to meeting the officers at the mailbox as he also indicates he no longer knows where Martin is at (see transcript). THIS indicates his intention to meet the officers there after he stopped following. Why so easy to assume that Zimmerman decided to change his mind about meeting the officers by the mailbox and search for Martin yet so difficult to assume that Martin stopped running and approached Zimmerman once he realized that he wasn't being followed anymore?? Even the comment from Martin's girlfriend indicates that Martin initiated contact by her saying the first she heard of an exchange between the two was Martin saying ''why were you following me?" Note that the first comment heard from Martin was not a reply to a confrontation initiated by Zimmerman as in answering a question from Zimmerman or stating....''I'm not doing anything...I am staying here on vacation.''

The location of the confrontation does not prove anything ...one way or another. Yes, Zimmerman followed because he saw Martin looking at all the houses (see transcript) ....if that is as far as he got when he stopped and started to return to his car then it is entirely reasonable to assume that is where the confrontion took place. Dont think anyone said Zimmerman got out of his car merely to look for an address..it was obvious he got out to follow. Yet there is a tendency to change follow into approach and confront and there is no evidence that this was done
by Zimmerman. Martin runs....Zimmerman follows to between the townhouses...told by dispatch they don't need for him to follow so he says ''ok'' .,...stops following... and proceeds to talk about meeting the officers at the mailbox. Zimmerman is still between the townhouses when Martin approaches him. Certainly a reasonable scenario and this does not make it difficult to make sense as to why the incident took place where it did. Don't think it was claimed anywhere that Zimmerman actually had the time and had indeed returned to his car. Once again...two scenarios. Did Zimmerman change his mind after telling police to meet him at the mailbox and search for Martin....or did Martin change his mind about what to do and decide to approach Zimmerman as he walked away back to his car?? One scenario is as logical as the other yet ''return to car'' scenario is at least supported by the transcript. Zimmerman telling the officers to call when they got there does not indicate with any certainty that he changed his mind about looking for Martin as it could merely be that he didn't know if he would have time to reach his car or the mailbox before the officers arrived. Thus...have them call when they get here and I will tell them where I am at.

How could Martin be pounding his head into the sidewalk and pinning him down at the same time??? Could he not be straddling him...grabbing Zimmerman by the collar and slamming him up and down resulting in the injuries to Zimmerman. Is there a different reasonable explanation to the injuries Zimmermna received treatment for at the scene?? Is that not what was described by a witness?? Martin on top of Zimmerman? It is questioned how Martin could end up on the grass with the incident taking place on the sidewalk and why face down? No clue...not an expert but doesn't seem unreasonable to think he stumbled back and spun as he fell after being shot. Hardly think that the body on the grass and being face down eliminates the claim of self defense..

My only position in all of this is to point out there are reasonable scenarios on both sides of the incident. One should not assume one scenario is accurate using some of the facts and ignore other possibilities or scenarios that are also supported by some of the facts. I read something just the other day ......Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. ....but they are not entitled to their own selective set of facts to form said opinion.

eagle2
04-27-2012, 09:13 PM
2. It is the job of a neighborhood watchman to observe, track, and report suspicious characters whether they are wearing a hoodie or not. And wearing a hoodie at night (thereby concealing your identity) in a neighborhood that's recently had a lot of break-ins only increases the level of suspicion a person draws to himself, regardless of his race.


According to the guidelines for the Sanford Neighborhood Watch Program, the neighborhood watchman is not supposed to do anything more than report suspicious activity. He is not to get physically involved. That includes tracking someone who looks suspicious.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf

What you will
not do is get physically involved with
any activity you report or
apprehension of any suspicious
persons. This is the job of the law
enforcement agency.


Remember always that your
responsibility is to report crime. Do
not take any risks to prevent a
crime or try to make an arrest.
The responsibility for
apprehending criminals belongs
to the police department.

According to Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, he was not wearing a hoodie over his head when Zimmerman started following him, so you're wrong about that too.

bem401
04-28-2012, 04:24 AM
According to the guidelines for the Sanford Neighborhood Watch Program, the neighborhood watchman is not supposed to do anything more than report suspicious activity. He is not to get physically involved. That includes tracking someone who looks suspicious.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf

What you will
not do is get physically involved with
any activity you report or
apprehension of any suspicious
persons. This is the job of the law
enforcement agency.


Remember always that your
responsibility is to report crime. Do
not take any risks to prevent a
crime or try to make an arrest.
The responsibility for
apprehending criminals belongs
to the police department.

I used the word "track" to mean observe long enough to become suspicious of, not to track with the intent of arresting. Zimmerman's side of the story is that he was confronted and assaulted by Martin, not vice-versa. His bruises and the fact he called the police seem to support his version.


According to Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, he was not wearing a hoodie over his head when Zimmerman started following him, so you're wrong about that too.

Thank you very much for posting a perfect example of hearsay. The girlfriend was most likely 200 miles away in Martin's hometown of Miami, not an eyewitness. And why would they be discussing whether or not he was wearing his hoodie unless they understood it might make him look suspicious?

eagle2
04-28-2012, 09:58 AM
From his girlfriend:

http://gawker.com/5894832/trayvon-martins-girlfriend-i-told-him-to-run-seconds-before-he-was-shot

"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man...I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run."

According to her statement, he put his hoodie on after her saw Zimmerman watching him, which would mean he didn't have it on when Zimmerman first started watching him.

Why would she make that up, when at the time she said this, his hoodie wasn't even an issue?

bem401
04-28-2012, 11:06 AM
From his girlfriend:

http://gawker.com/5894832/trayvon-martins-girlfriend-i-told-him-to-run-seconds-before-he-was-shot

"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man...I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run."

According to her statement, he put his hoodie on after her saw Zimmerman watching him, which would mean he didn't have it on when Zimmerman first started watching him.

Why would she make that up, when at the time she said this, his hoodie wasn't even an issue?

SMH, you're making my case for me.

First, now you're effecxtively saying his girlfriend admits Zimmerman didn't start following Martin strictly because he had on a hoodie.

Second, he put on the hoodie to conceal his identity and elude a watchman.. If a hoodie is strictly a fashion statement, as others here would have us believe, why would he do that?

Third, it's still nothing but hearsay anyhow, She is (perhaps truthfully, perhaps not) stating what someone else told her.

Chgojoe
04-28-2012, 11:54 AM
Its incredible to me how some of the people in this thread insist on grabbing media reports and hearsay that support their cause and refusing to consider that they not may be facts. If it was cold and raining, why wasn't he wearing his hood. Why do you think that if the hood was up or down that it really has anything to do with Zimmermans guilt or if he should be charged

The issue that counts the most is what happened from the time Zimmerman reported that Treyvon ran away and was out of Zimmermans sight, until the trigger was pulled. If you believe that Zimmerman ran the kid down and started the physical struggle than he deserves to be charged. If Trevyon circled around him or ambushed him and started the physical struggle then under Florida law if Zimmerman feared for his life he had the right to shoot him. I linked the law earlier in the thread.

I linked another audio assesment that Zimmerman said cold, not coon. Pay 10 other audio guys and you may get 10 other words. The operator that said he didn't need to follow Trevyon was making a suggestion, not giving him a legal command.

Has anyone read this story about the events that led up to that night? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

eagle2
04-28-2012, 07:27 PM
SMH, you're making my case for me.

First, now you're effecxtively saying his girlfriend admits Zimmerman didn't start following Martin strictly because he had on a hoodie.

Second, he put on the hoodie to conceal his identity and elude a watchman.. If a hoodie is strictly a fashion statement, as others here would have us believe, why would he do that?

Third, it's still nothing but hearsay anyhow, She is (perhaps truthfully, perhaps not) stating what someone else told her.

SMH, Zimmerman started following Trayvon Martin before he put his hoodie on.

All you're doing is repeating racist nonsense. You're trying to justify the shooting of an innocent African-American teenager. As much as you hate this, African American teenage boys have the right to walk through gated communities without being harassed by some neighborhood watchman playing policeman. When African Americans are outraged that an innocent African-American teenager was killed and his killer was released without being charged, and exercise their First Amendment rights to protest what happened, you repeat the racist nonsense that by protesting, they're "playing the race card".

bem401
04-28-2012, 08:22 PM
SMH, Zimmerman started following Trayvon Martin before he put his hoodie on.

Then what was the point of the "Million Hoodie March" and is that not 'playing the race card? I'd be more than happy to remove hoodies from the entire debate.


All you're doing is repeating racist nonsense. You're trying to justify the shooting of an innocent African-American teenager. As much as you hate this, African American teenage boys have the right to walk through gated communities without being harassed by some neighborhood watchman playing policeman. When African Americans are outraged that an innocent African-American teenager was killed and his killer was released without being charged, and exercise their First Amendment rights to protest what happened, you repeat the racist nonsense that by protesting, they're "playing the race card".

There you go again, typical leftist strategy. Name-calling and race-card playing when you have little or no case to make. In the first place, I'd be willing to bet you I have dozens more African-American friends than do you. I'd estimate 100 or more on FB but this isn't about you and me and I'm not attacking African-Americans. What happened here was a tragedy but it is just plain stupid to declare Martin blameless in this and Zimmerman guilty when we don't have all the facts and the facts we do have seem to agree with Zimmerman.

Are you actually trying make the case that pointing out when the race card is being played is in fact racist nonsense? LMAO. I didn't accuse his family, friends, or the general public for that matter of "playing the race card", but when Sharpton, Jackson, Obama, the New Black Panthers, and the MSM seem to go out of their way to get African-Americans riled up over a case that appears to have very little to do with race other than the killer wasn't also black, that's "playing the race card".

I'd be happy to remove race from the whole discussion. A neighborhood watchman spotted an unfamiliar, suspicious-looking young man in his neighborhood, the young man tried to elude him, the watchman called 911, somehow or other a confrontation ensued, the watchman got injured, the suspect got shot and he died. Actually, I haven't deviated from those facts when discussing this case so where is the "racist nonsense"?

socialreject
04-28-2012, 09:41 PM
Then what was the point of the "Million Hoodie March" and is that not 'playing the race card? I'd be more than happy to remove hoodies from the entire debate.



There you go again, typical leftist strategy. Name-calling and race-card playing when you have little or no case to make. In the first place, I'd be willing to bet you I have dozens more African-American friends than do you. I'd estimate 100 or more on FB but this isn't about you and me and I'm not attacking African-Americans. What happened here was a tragedy but it is just plain stupid to declare Martin blameless in this and Zimmerman guilty when we don't have all the facts and the facts we do have seem to agree with Zimmerman.

Are you actually trying make the case that pointing out when the race card is being played is in fact racist nonsense? LMAO. I didn't accuse his family, friends, or the general public for that matter of "playing the race card", but when Sharpton, Jackson, Obama, the New Black Panthers, and the MSM seem to go out of their way to get African-Americans riled up over a case that appears to have very little to do with race other than the killer wasn't also black, that's "playing the race card".

I'd be happy to remove race from the whole discussion. A neighborhood watchman spotted an unfamiliar, suspicious-looking young man in his neighborhood, the young man tried to elude him, the watchman called 911, somehow or other a confrontation ensued, the watchman got injured, the suspect got shot and he died. Actually, I haven't deviated from those facts when discussing this case so where is the "racist nonsense"?

ZIMMERMAN was the one with the power (the gun). HE was the one who decided to watch Martin. HE knew the situation could result in a life being lost due to gunfire (HIS gunfire). HE knew the entire conflict could have been avoided if he had just put aside his ego and let the fucking cops do their jobs. There is NO race card being played here. A teenage boy is dead because of Zimmerman. Regardless of the details, he let it happen and has to take responsibility for it SOMEHOW, and that means making amends, whether by prison time, having his license to own a firearm permanently taken away, or something...

Dirty Ernie
04-28-2012, 10:00 PM
Accepting friend requests on FB doesn't make someone your friend. Lol

What was the determining factor for Zimmerman to consider Martin suspicious? Neighborhood crimes had been committed by black youths. That's it. Just his race. How can you term a kid walking back from a 7-11 as suspicious? He spotted Zimmerman and was concerned enough to mention it to his girlfriend he was being followed. You continue to refer to him as the suspect when in fact he was a victim.

Zimmerman had zero authority to determine why he (Martin) was there or who he was. He was only a citizen. An armed citizen. Armed with a handgun and the knowledge of Florida's intentionally vague Castle law. An armed citizen tired of "those hoods" always getting away. So he pursued. The subsequent events will have to be determined by a jury.

The_Adict
04-28-2012, 11:02 PM
ZIMMERMAN was the one with the power (the gun). HE was the one who decided to watch Martin. HE knew the situation could result in a life being lost due to gunfire (HIS gunfire). HE knew the entire conflict could have been avoided if he had just put aside his ego and let the fucking cops do their jobs.

By your post this is an open and shut case. You seem to think you know Zimmerman's mindset throughout the entire event even though many people throughout America are on both sides of the fence. I have no clue how people are so influenced or concluded (Both sides of the fence) into their opinions just yet without even a trial.


There is NO race card being played here.

Unfortunately that's not true.


A teenage boy is dead because of Zimmerman. Regardless of the details, he let it happen and has to take responsibility for it SOMEHOW, and that means making amends, whether by prison time, having his license to own a firearm permanently taken away, or something...

Yes Martin died. Yes. Zimmerman was likely overzealous. However evidence (Or details as you call it) is everything. Zimmerman doesn't need to take responsibility of anything till the court finds him guilty of the charges presented. The reality, thanks to couch lawyers, is that no matter what that evidence shows there is no good result with any verdict.

As this forum shows, people make a lot of assumptions about people they don't know. Us Americans live country were you can share your opinions and thank God court of public opinions means jack shit in the actual Court system (though not always true) Most of us would have been burnt at the stake without any legal representation years ago.

eagle2
04-29-2012, 12:30 AM
It's not an assumption that Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin and it's not an assumption that Trayvon Martin was doing nothing more than walking back from the convenience store.

The_Adict
04-29-2012, 01:07 AM
It's not an assumption that Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin and it's not an assumption that Trayvon Martin was doing nothing more than walking back from the convenience store.

Assumption is occurring what happened in between those two events. It's not as simple as Teen walking home, teen is shot. Hence, a trial.

But my assumption statement wasn't even about the trial. It's about concluding another's character or mind frame with no bases. That's happening against Zimmerman and Martin. Good and bad.

bem401
04-29-2012, 04:21 AM
Accepting friend requests on FB doesn't make someone your friend. Lol

What was the determining factor for Zimmerman to consider Martin suspicious? Neighborhood crimes had been committed by black youths. That's it. Just his race. How can you term a kid walking back from a 7-11 as suspicious? He spotted Zimmerman and was concerned enough to mention it to his girlfriend he was being followed. You continue to refer to him as the suspect when in fact he was a victim.

Zimmerman had zero authority to determine why he (Martin) was there or who he was. He was only a citizen. An armed citizen. Armed with a handgun and the knowledge of Florida's intentionally vague Castle law. An armed citizen tired of "those hoods" always getting away. So he pursued. The subsequent events will have to be determined by a jury.

First off, the FB friends are personal acquaintances, that was my point, though I didn't state it.

Secondly, Zimmerman wasn't even sure of his race when the operator asked him but if crimes being committed there by black youths is creating problems for other black youths, why isn't anyone putting some blame on the persons that created the atmosphere there? He's being referred to as a suspect by me because I'm assuming Zimmerman considered him suspicious. Zimmerman had undergone neighborhood watchman training and was a licensed gun carrier. His version of events, if found to be true, would mean he committed no crime under Florida law, but you're right, that will be for a jury to determine, which is all any of us defending Zimmerman are trying to say.

bem401
04-29-2012, 05:17 AM
ZIMMERMAN was the one with the power (the gun). HE was the one who decided to watch Martin. HE knew the situation could result in a life being lost due to gunfire (HIS gunfire). HE knew the entire conflict could have been avoided if he had just put aside his ego and let the fucking cops do their jobs. There is NO race card being played here. A teenage boy is dead because of Zimmerman. Regardless of the details, he let it happen and has to take responsibility for it SOMEHOW, and that means making amends, whether by prison time, having his license to own a firearm permanently taken away, or something...

Zimmerman was a trained watchman, licensed to carry a gun. For all we know, he spotted a suspicious character, began following him, called 911, and stood down when told he didn't need to pursue Martin. Maybe that teen-aged boy is dead because he then confronted and assaulted an armed man who might have done nothing more than defend himself in accordance with FL law.. The race card is being played by Sharpton and Jackson (its all they do) as well as Obama, the NBP, and the MSM. Its funny how none of them have mentioned other assaults apparently triggered by this event or any of the other thousand or so young black men killed since Martin.

kandie_kitten
04-29-2012, 06:06 AM
Wasn't there a thread a few days ago a girl posted about seeing some creepy guy in her window, and being ticked her boyfriend didnt go confront him? Everyone called him a pussy for not charging out there and confronting the guy.

That seems to be the hypocrisy of people at large. When crime goes on, we get mad at people who just sit idly by, and wish they would "do something" other than just wait for cops.

Then, when people do, we're outraged.

I live about 20 minutes away from where this happened. That neighborhood has been wrecked with crime. It's not uncommon to drive by that exact community and see 15 teenagers (of every race) selling drugs and breaking into houses. The cops simply have too much to do to get anywhere quickly. Waiting for the cops to come is essentially letting the crime happen, because they'll never make it in time.

Raider
04-29-2012, 07:13 AM
It's not an assumption that Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin and it's not an assumption that Trayvon Martin was doing nothing more than walking back from the convenience store.

The same 911 transcript you provided for me does not support that Martin was 'doing nothing more than walking back from the convenience store'. "It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about. He's just staring....looking at all the houses.'' So, you have a neighborhood watch person observe a young man allegedly not walking with a purpose ....merely walking around in the rain looking at all the houses where there had been recent burglaries. Zimmerman had every right to call 911...follow and observe....being the eyes and ears of the community as he had done in the past.