And that is what it is all about....
Printable View
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.
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_g...0419_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.
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.
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)
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.
It's not that hard to dictate justice when they facts are sitting there right in front of you.Quote:
Nobody here has defended Zimmerman but we criticize those arrogant and foolish enough to think they're qualified to dictate justice themselves.
What first-hand information has the media gotten from Zimmerman? Isn't the vast majority of it secondhand? It is hearsay.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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 still haven't commented on the 911 forensic analysists and mortician's evidence that Trayvon was not the agressor in the case...?
Hopefully justice will prevail.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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
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.
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.
There are transcripts and 911 calls that present facts... one doesn't just have to watch the "news" to get facts.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
All I've said is wait till the evidence is presented somewhere other than in the MSM before dictating justice.
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.Quote:
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.
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!)?Quote:
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.
Well, you are already defending Zimmerman (and ignoring facts) so stop trying to act like you're playing the non-bias role.Quote:
The bottom line is we have to wait until evidence is actually presented in court.
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?
^^ 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??
^^^^
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?
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.
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.Quote:
2. Are you actually referring to the 911 calls as "facts" when NBC has already admitted they edited them to serve their needs?
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
4. Hearsay is hearsay. You seem to be the one with her own definition of what the word means.
Hmm... well, in the 911 call Zimmerman stated that it was raining. So it probably wasn't warm and sunny out.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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?
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.
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".
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.
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.
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?
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.Quote:
And you didn't say "non-biased", you said "non-biasly".
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
It's funny, no one has said Zimmerman is "obviously guilty" but you.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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?
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.