I guess that one who is on the internet almost every day shouldn't complain about media overload. But this Trayvon Martin case is impossible to avoid. I wasn't really all that interested in it. People are killed every day. Stories of little kids taking fire from scumbag gang-bangers should be generating a far greater outcry than what we have going on in Florida. By comparison, Martin's demise is insignificant against the lives of small children sitting on stoops eating ice-cream while bullets rip through their tiny bodies. Yet you don't hear idiotic race-baiters trying to assert that our little ones are being targeted by teens, which is far truer than white people targeting blacks. Indeed, the lamentations over the deaths of black youths are too often attributed by these hustlers to whites than to their more common threats---other black youths.
This case has stirred up all sorts of nastiness on the parts of people who have no clue as to the events that led to the shooting and killing (note: I have no evidence that "murder" is the appropriate term, so I don't make the assumption) of Martin. The latest "outrage" of which I am aware is the recent protest for "justice" for Martin, as if it is a settled fact that he is deserving of any. Don't get me wrong. He may indeed be so deserving. But like these idiots, I simply don't have that information. The only info that any of us have at this point is the absolute and uncompromising innocence of Zimmerman, the assumption of which he is absolutely and uncompromisingly entitled to until he can be proven otherwise.
There is far too much that is unknown here. Some of which I've heard conflicts with other things I've heard. How can anyone dare presume anything at this point? But this is what we have in vast amounts. Presumptions, and few of innocence on the part of Zimmerman.
Take for example, our own Geoffrey Kruse-Safford. He is absolutely convinced that the word "tragedy" does not apply here. How can this be? Geoffrey wasn't there. He doesn't live in Florida. He lives in northern Illinois, a distance far too great for most people to see, but apparently not for one who sees what he wants to see. Geoffrey wants to see racism so he can pontificate, I guess, on white oppression of blacks, or some such crap. To Geoffrey, "What happened that February day can be described as a cold-blooded killing, a hate crime, yet another contemporary lynching of a young black man for the singular perceived crime of walking where a white person felt he had no business walking." I suppose it can be. By the same token, Geoff's statement can be described as by one who is intent on taking it upon one's self to apologize for the white race as if so appointed for the task. But I've seen reports that state three things of note:
1) This took place is a gated community.
2) Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer for that community victimized by thefts.
3) Zimmerman is half-Hispanic.
What this means is that a Hispanic who belongs in the community knows who doesn't belong and was concerned about this stranger being there.
I have a friend who lived in a gated community. The guards at the gate are white. I'm white. If I strolled in from the side and was seen walking about by one of those guards, they would have approached me for the "crime" of walking where I had no business being.
Now, maybe Zimmerman overstepped his "authority" as a volunteer watchman. Maybe Martin overreacted to Zimmerman's scrutiny. Who knows? But certainly, if we concede the narrative of those playing the race card, like Geoffie is, then the result was certainly a tragedy for Martin as far as I'm concerned.
Then there is Al Sharpton. That this guy even gets the time of day is a wonder to me. He's out there, with fellow race-baiter, Jesse "Will There Be Cameras?" Jackson, decrying the injustice done to this obviously innocent victim of another evil white guy who isn't totally Anglo. Now, he's insisting there will be civil disobedience if Zimmerman isn't crucified for what Al knows is satanic murder of an angelic black boy. Oh, and sanctions, too!
We can't forget Spike Lee, who tried to give out Zimmerman's address and got the wrong Zimmerman, forcing a family totally unrelated to leave their home in fear. This asshole should be arrested on some charge for endangering the wrong Zimmerman and trying to endanger the "right" Zimmerman.
The New Black Panthers have offered a bounty on Zimmerman. Arrest them, too. How is that different than a contract killing?
All of this, and not one of these jackwagons knows what the hell even happened!
I mentioned it earlier and it has been mentioned by others reporting and commenting on this case, that most blacks in this country who are murdered are murdered by blacks. I've also read that whites are murdered by blacks much more than the other way around. Yet, the Sharptons, Jacksons, Lees, and Panthers do or say nothing about such things (unless they are doing so to say that whitey is somehow the root cause).
Oh. And how could I have overlooked the smartest man in the room, Barry Obama? He has once again stuck his nose into a case without knowledge of the facts, commenting in a manner inappropriate. The only appropriate comment he should have made, since he insists on saying something, is that he doesn't know the facts so he can't speak on it at all.
So now we must wonder what will happen if Zimmerman is not charged with a crime? It will be Rodney King East. And the Sharptons, Jacksons, Lees, Panthers AND Obama will have to take responsibility for stoking the anger, when they all should have been calling for calm, keeping in mind that Zimmerman is entitled to the presumption of innocence, especially since nobody knows exactly what the hell happened that night.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
What this means is that a Hispanic who belongs in the community knows who doesn't belong and was concerned about this stranger being there.
This is an important point. Treyvon Martin was staying with his father and his girlfriend at her home. Treyvon was where he was legitimately.
Therefore, the "Hispanic" DOESN'T know who belongs there and made his decision NOT based on what or who he knew but on what the person looked like.
The New Black Panthers
As Bill Maher says, "I'll be concerned about the New Black Panthers when there are more than three of them.
As far as who is committing crimes against black people, that part of the discussion is a red herring. The reason this became a big deal is that the police did not do a thorough investigation of the incident and enough people got interested in it to call them on it.
As far as the president is concerned, you are clearly NOT among the 85% of the country who think that his words were spot on.
Great points, Marshall. Sadly, Geoffrey is a poster boy for the dangers of the Leftist media. They feign omniscience over motives and are all too willing to be duped by faked and partial evidence. You'd think they'd learn from lessons like the Duke Lacrosse team, yet here we are. Ironically, they will probably cause more harm than they prevent.
Oh, and these loving charmers are the ones advocating not only legalized abortion that kills blacks at a rate 3x that of whites, but taxpayer-funded abortions which they know will increase that rate. Yet they think conservatives are the racists. Total depravity, they're doin' it right.
"This is an important point. Treyvon Martin was staying with his father and his girlfriend at her home. Treyvon was where he was legitimately."
Even if this is true, it doesn't mitigate the motivation of Zimmerman in scrutinizing the presence of one who is not a regular inhabitant of the gate community. That is the point. He recognized that Martin was not a resident, or at least questioned whether he was one, and elected to monitor Martin's actions in accordance with his duties as a neighborhood watch volunteer as he understood them. Apparently you are no more familiar with the concept of a gated community than was Martin. One does not walk about unescorted within a gate community if one is not a resident expecting the same freedom of movement as a typical neighborhood.
What is worse, is that you are engaging in the same type of mind-reading of which my post is criticizing. You don't know a damned thing about Zimmerman and don't know if his actions would have been different if Martin was a white kid in a hoodie. You assume he was suspicious solely because of Martin's skin color, which, with a hood on, might not have been initially obvious at night.
"As Bill Maher says, "I'll be concerned about the New Black Panthers when there are more than three of them."
The first problem here is the willingness to refer to Maher, as if the guy is a credible source of intelligent thought. Secondly, the extent of the NBPP's membership is inconsequential to the offering of the bounty.
"As far as who is committing crimes against black people, that part of the discussion is a red herring."
If it's the red herring you presume it to be, why is the "threat against black youth" spoken of by the race baiters? It is clearly stated as a case of racism. To bring up the source of the real threat to black youth is then merited.
I don't know what poll you are using to come up with that 85% figure, but it really doesn't matter. It could be 100% (minus myself) and his comments would still be inappropriate. He doesn't know what happened. He is speaking on a local matter that is still an ongoing investigation. His opinion isn't required or appropriate on every matter and certainly wasn't on this one.
Excellent summation of the media fumble thus far.
I'd also like to say that Al Sharpton is a complete joke. This man uses every single tragedy to ever befall the black community for his own personal gain. He is a dirtbag.
Welcome, Terrence. Stop by any time.
OOPS! Sorry. I misspelled your name. Should have been "Terrance". (Real nice welcome. Doh!)
Marshall,
It's just easier to jump to the conclusion that fits your preconceptions. That's what's driving this whole thing. It's the same as the "kidnappings" after that Haiti earthquake, despite the facts, too many just stuck to their version of what they thought things should be.
I didn't hear any of these folks get this worked up when Terrell Mayes was shot in North Minneapolis, almost certainly by a black male. No one comments when the cover picture of People is a 3 year old shot of Martin. Or the Facebook cut and post that asserted that Zimmerman had "gotten away" with something. Let's not wait for the facts before we form our opinions, that's inconvenient.
Maybe the thing to do is let the legal system take its course and see what happens. I realize that's a radical concept, but why not give it a try.
Maybe the thing to do is let the legal system take its course and see what happens.
And that's the point. The "legal system" HAD taken its course and NOTHING happened until enough attention was brought to the situation to make higher law enforcement agencies take notice.
I don't disagree that there are a lot "versions" and information (some wrong and some right) that are in the news. But some of that is spread by such comments as:
What this means is that a Hispanic who belongs in the community knows who doesn't belong and was concerned about this stranger being there. A statement that is provably false.
Terrell Mayes was hit by a stray bullet. To bring up things like that and other so-called "black on black" crimes is a red-herring and NOT relevant. It is a tactic perpetrated by the Sean Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs of the world and their minions.
He doesn't know what happened. He is speaking on a local matter that is still an ongoing investigation.
The president did nothing more than express empathy for the parents of Trayvon Martin.
So Jim thinks that the legal system had exhausted its course. I wonder how he would know such a thing. Perhaps by listening to only one side, the side that made a judgement based on the victim's skin color, and decided that nothing more was ongoing regarding the event's investigation. Nice.
There is nothing "provably false" about the statement I made. In fact, it is supported by those who know Zimmerman, including another neighborhood watchman. The community isn't that vast that a resident wouldn't recognize someone as foreign to the area.
Bringing up black on black crimes is an appropriate response to charges that black youth are under assault by racist whites, which is the story-line being put forth by the race baiters as a result of this incident and the perception that the investigation wasn't proceeding as the Sharptons of the world would like.
"The president did nothing more than express empathy for the parents of Trayvon Martin."
Without knowing anything more about the case than you do, which seems very little, his expressions of sympathy are quite subjective. What if events unfolded just as Zimmerman said, and he was getting beat in a manner that made him fear for his life? What if events unfolded in a manner that indicates Martin tried to use take the gun to use on Zimmerman? All we know for sure at this point is that Zimmerman shot Martin dead. Too many are suggesting that Zimmerman was looking for opportunity to do such a thing. This is wrong on so many levels and makes him worthy of sympathy as well, because we have no idea if he is guilty of a crime at this point.
At this point, all we have is the testimony of Zimmerman that he was being beaten. A witness testimony indicates this much is true and that the beating was going on when Zimmerman shot Martin. A recording indicates a struggle was indeed going on when a shot rang out. Enhanced videos show injury to Zimmerman's head, supporting his story.
The president should have deflected any questions regarding an event of which he knew nothing until more facts were released. His expression of sympathy towards Martin's parents suggest something unjust was done when there was little available info to make such an assessment. It suggests that Zimmerman did something wrong when there isn't enough info to prove that is true.
In the meantime, has he called the parents of victims of black on black crime to console them? Has he called the parents of the 13 yr old white boy set afire by two black kids about Martin's age to express sympathy to them? If not, why not? What makes this case more worthy of his input than any other?
Actually, given that the case has yet to be evaluated by a grand jury, it seems premature to posit that the legal system "HAD taken its course". The problem is that for anyone to hold that view (or the view expressed on facebook that Zimmerman "got away" with something), it cannot be based on the facts available. It is POSSIBLE that the publicity pushed the case further, but NO ONE KNOWS that.
It is completely relevant to bring up other instances of "innocent" black kids being killed, because the similarity is NOT in how they were killed, but in the reaction to those killings by those wishing to further a political agenda.
It would appear that the point has been missed here. The point is that it would be more prudent to wait before jumping to conclusions. Maybe to wait to issue what amounts to a fatwa, or to publish senor Zimmerman's address. Maybe it's concerning that innocent folks received threats because Spike Lee couldn't be bothered to get his facts straight.
The point is patience.
What makes this case more worthy of his input than any other?
He was asked about it by a reporter. He made no mention of guilt or innocence, no offer of facts or opinion. Here is a video of the full answer he gave.
What is it exactly that you object to? Which part?
There is nothing "provably false" about the statement I made. In fact, it is supported by those who know Zimmerman, including another neighborhood watchman. The community isn't that vast that a resident wouldn't recognize someone as foreign to the area.
It IS provably false. You said:
a Hispanic who belongs in the community knows who doesn't belong.
Trayvon Martin was legitimately in the community. You state that Zimmerman "knows who doesn't belong". Since he didn't know that Martin belonged in the community, your statement is false. Unless you want to say that Zimmerman knew that Martin DID belong but hunted him down for some other reason.
Jim,
Are you really that simple minded? To offer words of sympathy for only the family of Martin suggests that he was a victim. How does he know this? The killing could be righteous. Thus, he implies a verdict by this one-sided expression unmatched by any similar expression toward Zimmerman or his family. He is NOT obligated to answer every question put to him, nor offer anything more than, "I am not in possession of all the facts and details so I'd prefer to say nothing regarding a case still under investigation. Next question." This conforms with what I've already said, so hopefully my position is more clear for even you.
"Trayvon Martin was legitimately in the community. You state that Zimmerman "knows who doesn't belong". Since he didn't know that Martin belonged in the community, your statement is false."
Are you really going to play semantic games in order score points here? Martin didn't live in the community, thus, he didn't "belong" there. A guest doesn't belong, he is allowed to exist for a limited amount of time. The only people who "belong" within a gated community are residents. All others are temporary guests.
Clearly, my intention was to suggest that Zimmerman was familiar with those that live in the community. If you have to go to such lengths to pretend my position is flawed, you might want to review your own position.
What's more, there is a VAST difference between monitoring the movements of a stranger versus "hunting someone down". The latter is hyperbole intended to demonize Zimmerman and a detestable tactic for any honorable observer of the case. That leaves you out. Try that crap over at Geoffie's. He's all about pretending there was some evil motive behind Zimmerman's actions. He needs as little evidence to support that opinion as you do.
To offer words of sympathy for only the family of Martin suggests that he was a victim.
You heartless, simple=minded jerk! Martin is the person who is dead. Is the president supposed to offer sympathy to the parents of Zimmerman? He declined to make any statement about the facts or make any judgement as to guilt or anything else because the case was being investigated by the DOJ and Florida officials. Get real!
Martin didn't live in the community, thus, he didn't "belong" there.
Who is playing "semantics" here. He was legitimately in the community. He was walking down the sidewalk at 7:00 in the evening with skittles and a soda talking on his cell phone. He wasn't sneaking around behind houses until some guy with a gun started chasing him. Why was Zimmerman suspicious of him? Does he know every resident of the community on sight?
he is allowed to exist for a limited amount of time.
Apparently his time had expired, then. So he no longer exists.
my intention was to suggest that Zimmerman was familiar with those that live in the community.
You're suggesting that Zimmerman knew the residents of 263 homes by site? And if any of those families have guests, are they supposed to check in with George?
there is a VAST difference between monitoring the movements of a stranger versus "hunting someone down".
The Sanford Police volunteer program coordinator told the Miami news that she had instructed Zimmerman "If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out." Watchers were told to "observe from a safe location" and warned against vigilante behavior. The 911 dispatcher specifically told Zimmerman NOT to follow Martin.
Zimmerman ignored all of these explicit instructions. He hunted Martin down.
"The 911 dispatcher specifically told Zimmerman NOT to follow Martin."
No. He did not. He said, "We don't need you to do that." To which Zimmerman responds, "OK." This indicates he stopped any pursuit. Then, he loses the kid. Try listening to the 911 call. It's available through this link, which gives a good run-down of the events as far as that call is concerned. It illustrates how ignorant comments such as "hunted Martin down" are baseless and totally slanted.
What's more, for the period that he is clearly running after the kid, he has still not gone beyond "observing from a safe location" into vigilante behavior.
"You're suggesting that Zimmerman knew the residents of 263 homes by site?"
I'm suggesting that according to character references of people who know the guy, he was very involved and concerned about his community and had a great awareness of what was and wasn't normal for the neighborhood. Since the kid didn't live there, he wasn't wrong to identify him as someone not from there. The neighborhood was victimized repeatedly by burglaries and break-ins, including one where a young mother had to cower with her child in a bedroom after two punks broke in. Most of those were perpetrated by young black dudes. Wise people profile.
"He wasn't sneaking around behind houses until some guy with a gun started chasing him. Why was Zimmerman suspicious of him?"
Explained in the 911 call. Who are YOU to judge what is or isn't suspicious looking to a person living in a community plagued by burglaries? Did YOU see the manner in which the kid was walking? Did YOU observe his gait, speed, direction, etc? You, like Geoffrey, like Al Sharpton, like all the others, are talking completely out your ass.
"You heartless, simple=minded jerk! Martin is the person who is dead. Is the president supposed to offer sympathy to the parents of Zimmerman?"
Why not? Did he not get beat on? Did he not experience a tragic situation first hand? Oh no! That's Right! He INTENDED to shoot the first black kid that came along. Yeah! That's right! I should listen to freakin' mind reader like you. You're an idiot. It is as I said. Obama should have said NOTHING regarding the case, and if he was to extend sympathies, they should have been cast over all involved since he doesn't know any better than other idiots, like yourself, just what the circumstances were. There ARE reports of the kid having been in possession of stolen property. If these are true, what happens if the owners are from that gated community? How do you know he didn't use his father's residency as a means of casing other homes? The point here is that you don't know jack shit about what happened that night and as such have no right or cause to suggest anything untoward about Zimmerman. Indeed, you jackwagons are doing to him what you accuse him of doing to Martin---making biased assumptions. The irony and hypocrisy is astounding!
Why not? Did he not get beat on?
Let's see. Bloody nose or dead? Obama: "I'm really feeling sorry for the guy with the bloody nose (that wasn't known at the time I'm being asked about it). Oh, yeah, and the dead kid, too."
You're an idiot.
I know you are but what am I?
You seem to be incapable of grasping the point in your attempt to defend both this president's stupidity and the racist narrative of the media story. Let's try it again.
Obama didn't know anything about the story except the most sketchy of details regarding one person having shot dead another. That's it. On what basis does he show any positive emotion to one side and not the other with no knowledge of what led to the shooting? Simply that the one shot died? Again, if the one shot is the aggressor and the shooter was indeed acting in self-defense, it really doesn't matter the extent to which the defender was injured, he (Zimmerman in this case) becomes the righteous object of sympathy for having to have been put in a situation where he felt deadly force was necessary to preserve his own person. Without knowing the details of the case, to extend sympathy to both sides is therefor appropriate, and to do so in only one direction is to bias the opinions of others. He is (in the broadest definition imaginable) the leader of the nation and his words have impact the words of others don't. Plus, considering the already unjustified racial overtones of the case, the necessity of his treading lightly is elevated.
Put another way, as if it will make any difference to your ability to grasp the obvious, understanding that he knew little to nothing about the case, and the possibility existing, as it still does, that the shooting was justified, his extension of sympathy toward the parents of Martin would be akin to doing as much for every scumbag shot dead by cops during the commission of a crime.
You have no argument here. You are defending an arrogant fool who simply regards any question as a request by lessers to bathe in the glow of his brilliance.
He is (in the broadest definition imaginable) the leader of the nation and his words have impact the words of others don't.
And almost EVERYONE except the 15% of idiotic Obama haters in this country believes that his words had just the right impact.
You are defending an arrogant fool who simply regards any question as a request by lessers to bathe in the glow of his brilliance.
Oooh. I'm adding this one to my "Book of imbecilic Marshall Quotes".
"And almost EVERYONE except the 15% of idiotic Obama haters in this country believes that his words had just the right impact."
A few points here:
1) I've not found a poll that suggests this number is in any way true. Not saying such a poll doesn't exist, but only that I haven't found it.
2) I'm not so up any politician's butt to think that a poll of a couple of thousand people (if that) is indicative of the mood of the entire population.
3) There's no accounting for the intelligence of the people polled, or for how deeply they've thought on the point of the president commenting on something like this in the way he did.
4) If 100% of the people polled felt the same way, it wouldn't mean they were right in their opinion.
5) You haven't shown you are capable of determining if those who disagree with Obama are either idiots or hateful.
"Oooh. I'm adding this one to my "Book of imbecilic Marshall Quotes"."
I'm not a bit concerned with books compiled by imbeciles.
That evil, evil, murderous George Zimmerman. Why pity him?
Well, I'd be willing to bet he feels horrible about having to take the young man's life, but, during the altercation, felt it was a "my life or his" situation. He probably replays those few moments over and over in his mind, wondering if he should have or could have done anything different to avoid killing Martin. And, probably realizing, with great sorrow, that he may have made some ill-advised choices, but also knowing he can't turn back time no matter how he wishes he could.
But that's no reason to feel sorry for him, is it?
How about the fact that he has already been judged guilty by the Liberals, race baiters, and the media in this country, without benefit of a trial?
No?
How about the fact that his life has been ruined, probably forever? He lost his job. He certainly isn't going to be offered other jobs. He has become a pariah. He cannot escape the hate, the pointing fingers and wagging tongues. He cannot stay in his house. He will probably have to keep moving around the rest of his life to avoid being ambushed by racist killers or vicious "take-no-prisoners" media. There is no place where he can feel safe.
That's no reason to feel sorry for him?
OK. How about the fact that he knows his life can be snuffed out any minute and he will have to be looking over his shoulder the rest of his life, because "tolerant" Liberals have determined he must die, whether he is found guilty or not guilty. There will always be Liberals lurking around every corner waiting to attack him physically and emotionally. For the rest of his life.
All this because he defended himself against a relentless assault by a drugged up thug.
Oh, and yes, we should feel sorry for the thug who attacked him, too.
Uh, Art. If you have comment moderation enabled, there is no need for the word verification.
All this because he defended himself against a relentless assault by a drugged up thug.
Who said satire was dead?
Mark's statement, Jim, up to this point:
"All this because he defended himself against a relentless assault..."
has strong support from both witness testimony as well as by injuries sustained by Zimmerman that support his version of the events. As to whether or not Martin was "drugged up" or not, I have seen no toxicology reports. But, Zimmerman did state to the police dispatcher that he thought Martin might be "on something", due to his perception of Martin's behavior. With that in mind, from the perspective of Zimmerman, Mark's statement is far from "satire", and certainly farther from it than the narrative you likely support, that Zimmerman was a racist who was hunting down Martin with the intention of murdering him solely for being black.
"All this because he defended himself against a relentless assault..."
has strong support
Uh, not at all. You have to remember the difference between "assault" and "battery". Per Wikipedia:
In law, assault is a crime which involves causing a victim to apprehend violence. The term is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact.
Clearly, based on witness reports, Martin was concerned about the man following him. He indicated such on the phone to his friend. It is likely that the concern would constitute apprehension of violence. And if Zimmermann brandished a gun, there would be a clear reason to apprehend violence. The evidence indicates that it was Zimmerman who was "relentless" in his assault of Martin. There is NO evidence to suggest that Martin was "relentless" in anything other than to save his own life.
Zimmerman did state to the police dispatcher that he thought Martin might be "on something", due to his perception of Martin's behavior.
Pretty thin.
the narrative you likely support, that Zimmerman was a racist who was hunting down Martin with the intention of murdering him solely for being black.
This is a clearly hyperbolic description of the circumstances that nobody (besides your 5 NB Panthers) has ever posited.
The "narrative" I support is that a young man who was not involved in a criminal activity was shot and killed by someone who had no apparent authority to do so. When there was no inquest or investigation that satisfied the parents' desire for justice, they went to the media and community leaders to put pressure on authorities to do a complete investigation.
To me, the reason this case has gone as far as it has is due to the actions or lack thereof of the police authorities rather than of the motive of Zimmermann, or Martin for that matter.
"Clearly, based on witness reports...etc."
Clearly, you only see what you want to see. Clearly, you have not looked at one link that has been presented showing that there is no justification for believing Zimmerman stalked anyone or threatened anyone. The mere belief that one is following you does not give you justification for jumping on a guy and pounding on him as witnesses testify Martin did to Zimmerman...witnesses you choose to ignore. There is nothing to suggest that Zimmerman "brandished" his gun in any way. There is nothing to indicate that Zimmerman was out of line as a neighborhood watchman monitoring the movements of a stranger in an area plagued by burglaries. There IS evidence that Martin was relentless in pounding on Zimmerman while on top of him on the ground. Save his own life? Bullshit.
"Pretty thin."
Only because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of what went down. It is thin to you because without cause, without any knowledge of who Zimmerman is, you wish to believe he meant to kill someone, that he hoped to have a reason and chose some innocent and angelic kid because he was black.
"This is a clearly hyperbolic description of the circumstances that nobody (besides your 5 NB Panthers) has ever posited."
Nonsense. It is clearly what you believe because there is no other reason you make the statement that follows have validity...
"The "narrative" I support is that a young man who was not involved in a criminal activity was shot and killed by someone who had no apparent authority to do so."
The criminal activity was the beating he put on Zimmerman. This is how the story seems to have played out based on information available at the present time. If this version of events proves to be the case, then it is Zimmerman who's life was endangered. Have you ever had anyone sitting on your chest beating on you after having the back of your head bounced on the pavement?
As to the authorities and their actions and the speed thereof, this too is something into which you nor I have any insight. For that matter, neither does anyone else including Martin's parents. Which of them is a cop who knows how long a given investigation should take? If they were satisfied that Zimmerman acted in self-defense and did not pose a flight risk, they had no obligation to jail him. How do you know if their actions as a law enforcement agency were improper? What do you know of the steps they took and the procedures they followed or didn't follow? I'm guessing you don't know jack shit. The case has gotten to this point because some people weren't satisfied that Zimmerman wasn't automatically convicted of wrongdoing simply because Martin was shot dead, because they didn't want to hear that Martin was the one who acted improperly and it cost him his life, because they wanted someone to be guilty and made to pay. Not getting that led to the circus it has since become. Until we hear that the cops definitely dropped the ball, you are simply jumping to conclusions about that as you are regarding the incident itself.
Jim, It's high time for your knee to stop jerking.
Stop overreacting to things we say and use your head for a moment. (that's that lump about 3 feet above your ass)
You seem to either believe, or would have us believe, that George Zimmerman shot down a little innocent boy in cold blood simply because he was a black boy.
Do you really think that's logical?
You seem to think George Zimmerman, who may or may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, decided to murder a black boy in cold blood without regard to the consequences?
He knows in advance, that he will undoubtedly be arrested, sit through interrogation, be brought up on charges, and, be convicted in a court of law, and spend the rest of his life in prison or possibly even be executed, not to mention his life would be ruined even if he was somehow exonerated.
He would suffer the loss of his job, home, all of his possessions, most likely his wife and kids, and most importantly, his reputation. No one would ever trust him again. He would be a pariah.
And yet you want to believe there was no reason to shoot Trayvon Martin other than he wanted to kill a black boy.
A black boy, incidentally, who might have actually been one of the minority students Zimmerman tutored in his free time.
I've said this from the first moment I heard of the incident: THERE HAS TO BE A REASON.
You really want to believe he is a cold blooded racist murderer?
There may be no hope for you, Jim.
Marshall said:
Clearly, you have not looked at one link that has been presented showing that there is no justification for believing Zimmerman stalked anyone or threatened anyone.
Clearly no such link exists. Martin told his girlfriend he was being followed. Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that he was following Martin. If it was dark and someone was following me, I'd feel threatened.
jumping on a guy and pounding on him as witnesses testify Martin did to Zimmerman
Although there are witness who reportedly saw Martin atop Zimmerman and doing something to him, I have not seen ANY reports of anybody witnessing how that started, like who initiated the physical contact or that Martin did the "jumping" without provocation. Got any?
There is nothing to suggest that Zimmerman "brandished" his gun in any way.
Nor that he didn't. I'm wondering, though, how a man who was on his back having his head repeatedly bashed into the concrete to near unconsciousness had the wherewithal to reach into his jacket pocket, his pants, or his holster to extract his gun, remove the safety and kill his "attacker" with one shot to the chest.
without any knowledge of who Zimmerman is, you wish to believe he meant to kill someone, that he hoped to have a reason and chose some innocent and angelic kid because he was black.
I have never said this, and I don't know anybody who has.
Nonsense. It is clearly what you believe because there is no other reason you make the statement that follows have validity...
Martin was a young man. Check. Martin was not involved in any criminal activity. Check. He was shot. Check. He was shot by Zimmerman. Check. He was dead after being shot. Check. Zimmerman was not a law enforcement officer, therefore he had no authority to shoot someone. Check.
Any nonsense here?
The criminal activity was the beating he put on Zimmerman.
Martin was not engaged in any criminal activity at the time he was spotted by and being followed by Zimmerman. There is every bit as much evidence that the "beating" was self defense as there is that the shooting was self defense.
This is how the story seems to have played out based on information available at the present time.
I would disagree. I don't think there is any evidence to support Zimmerman's claim that he was jumped by Martin without provocation.
How do you know if their actions as a law enforcement agency were improper?
It doesn't matter what I know or think about the police conduct. The parents did not consult me. The parents are the ones who did not believe justice had been served in a timely manner.
they didn't want to hear that Martin was the one who acted improperly and it cost him his life,
There is no evidence that Martin acted improperly. You must be making conclusions without evidence.
Until we hear that the cops definitely dropped the ball, you are simply jumping to conclusions
I'd say the Governor appointing a special prosecutor might be a clue.
Mark said:
Stop overreacting to things we say and use your head for a moment.
Like what?
that's that lump about 3 feet above your ass
At least my head is above my ass and not up it.
You seem to either believe, or would have us believe, that George Zimmerman shot down a little innocent boy in cold blood simply because he was a black boy.
Seem to? I've never said or indicated any such thing. You're either making up shit or "overreacting" to something I've said.
You seem to think George Zimmerman, who may or may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, decided to murder a black boy in cold blood without regard to the consequences?
Seem to? I've never said any such thing or anything to indicate I believe that.
A black boy, incidentally, who might have actually been one of the minority students Zimmerman tutored in his free time.
Kind of a stretch. I'm thinking one of them might have recognized the other if that were the case. I'm going to put this one in the Zimmerman looks like Obama's son folder.
You really want to believe he is a cold blooded racist murderer?
Never, EVER said any such thing. Never thought it. Who has said that?
There may be no hope for you, Mark.
"Clearly no such link exists."
Well I guess you wouldn't know if you choose not to take the time to click on them. But they do indeed exist. They all point to reasons why the "Martin as victim" meme is premature. Go back to Mark's blog and click on the link that AOW offered featuring the former lawyers of Zimmerman, as merely one example of how rational people act.
"Martin told his girlfriend he was being followed." and "If it was dark and someone was following me, I'd feel threatened."
Do you ever drive on any public road or walk on any public sidewalk or move about in any crowded location? Are all the people behind you following you? Even if only you and another behind you are present, his position behind you does not mean he is "following" you. But, as we know that Zimmerman, who is concerned about his neighborhood and as a volunteer watchman has the right to question the presence of a stranger in his GATED community, his monitoring of Martin's movements is well within his rights to do so. I am not part of a neighborhood watch program and I am STILL within my rights to question a person acting in a manner I find suspicious.
"Although there are witness who reportedly saw Martin atop Zimmerman and doing something to him,..."
Not merely doing "something". He was seen punching Zimmerman.
"...I have not seen ANY reports of anybody witnessing how that started, like who initiated the physical contact or that Martin did the "jumping" without provocation. Got any?"
Yeah. Zimmerman. And his damaged face and head support his description of the events.
"Nor that he didn't. I'm wondering, though, how a man who was on his back having his head repeatedly bashed into the concrete to near unconsciousness had the wherewithal to reach into his jacket pocket, his pants, or his holster to extract his gun, remove the safety and kill his "attacker" with one shot to the chest."
Your first bit of stupidity here is presuming that Martin, the angelic child of the middle school pictures, is bad-ass enough to confront a guy with a drawn pistol, or even merely exposing the one in his belt or holster. Like THAT'S a likely possibility.
Your second bit of stupidity is describing Zimmerman as being close to unconcscious when no one here has made that assumption or offered a legitimate report that that was the case. Thus, to frame the incident in a manner that justifies your position is dishonest and supports my opinion of you as another who has condemned Zimmerman without cause.
At the same time, you only CHOOSE to find it hard to believe that a guy getting a beating couldn't easily produce his weapon and put the bullet into the chest of the guy sitting on top of him. This more of the same presumption designed to indict Zimmerman without cause. ANYTHING is possible in a life or death situation. Indeed, adrenaline alone makes the impossible possible.
"Martin was a young man. Check. Martin was not involved in any criminal activity. Check. He was shot. Check. He was shot by Zimmerman. Check. He was dead after being shot. Check. Zimmerman was not a law enforcement officer, therefore he had no authority to shoot someone. Check.
Any nonsense here?"
Oh, yeah! The last line for sure. Even in states that do not have concealed carry laws, lethal force when one's life is in danger is not illegal. Thus, even in states that unconstitutionally forbid concealed carry, one needn't ask permission to kill if necessary to save one's own life. In states with concealed carry AND stand your ground laws, authority for such action is assumed by virtue of one's right to defend one's self.
"Martin was not engaged in any criminal activity at the time he was spotted by and being followed by Zimmerman. There is every bit as much evidence that the "beating" was self defense as there is that the shooting was self defense."
Zimmerman, as both a resident of the GATED community and a volunteer watchman for that community, was well within his rights (and duties as a watchman), to monitor Martin's movements, especially after having reported his suspicions to the police. There is NO evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman did anything to provoke an attack by Martin, but Martin's witnessed physical assault upon Zimmerman is the evidence that Zimmerman had cause to act in self-defense. Following someone is no justification for attacking the follower.
"I would disagree. I don't think there is any evidence to support Zimmerman's claim that he was jumped by Martin without provocation."
Of course you disagree. You disagree that Zimmerman's claim in not evidence. Testimony IS evidence, at least to a degree, until it is countered or proven false by other testimony or physical evidence. But more than this, it's easy to disagree if you refuse to review the links offered that indicate what the chain of events seems to be.
"The parents are the ones who did not believe justice had been served in a timely manner."
What the parents think need to be supported by evidence as well. The fact that they didn't like that the shooter was let go does not in itself mean anything improper was done. And their opinion certainly gives no one justification for believing the cops DID do anything wrong.
"There is no evidence that Martin acted improperly. You must be making conclusions without evidence."
I wasn't saying Martin DID act improperly (though what we do know suggests that to be the case). I was saying that the parents didn't want to hear that possibility, nor do the race-baiters, and apparently the thought never occurred to the smartest man in the room.
"I'd say the Governor appointing a special prosecutor might be a clue."
Sure you would. But that would simply be more stupidity. It only means that the Governor reacted to the circus generated by those who want to believe the cops dropped the ball. So, in order to confirm or dismiss that possibility, what other options would there be?
Go back to Mark's blog and click on the link that AOW offered featuring the former lawyers of Zimmerman
I should place my faith in what Zimmerman's lawyers has to say?
his position behind you does not mean he is "following" you.
The police dispatcher ASKED Zimmerman if he was following Martin and Zimmerman said yes. He was following Martin. Martin told his girlfriend he was being followed. Why is there a question about whether of not Zimmerman was following Martin?
his monitoring of Martin's movements is well within his rights to do so.
So Zimmerman WAS following Martin, then?
And his damaged face and head support his description of the events.
Only that his nose was broken and his head was being slammed against pavement. There is nothing there to indicate who initiated the physical contact.
Your first bit of stupidity here is presuming that Martin... is bad-ass enough to confront a guy with a drawn pistol, or even merely exposing the one in his belt or holster.
No telling what a frightened, desperate person would do. As a matter of fact, someone here, oh yeah, it was you said, and I quote:
"ANYTHING is possible in a life or death situation. Indeed, adrenaline alone makes the impossible possible."
Your second bit of stupidity is describing Zimmerman as being close to unconcscious[sic]
But I thought Zimmerman was being savagely attacked and beaten to within an inch of his life. The head banging on the concrete must have pretty light, then, huh?
lethal force when one's life is in danger is not illegal.
There is a difference between "not illegal" and "authorized".
Zimmerman, as both a resident of the GATED community and a volunteer watchman for that community, was well within his rights (and duties as a watchman), to monitor Martin's movements
So, that doesn't mean Martin couldn't feel threatened, since he was well within his rights to be where he was.
Following someone is no justification for attacking the follower.
Is there any evidence or statements by Zimmerman that his weapon was holstered up until the time he used it to shoot Martin? I haven't read anything like that. Have you? So how do we know that Zimmerman did not have the pistol in his hand when Martin say him?
You disagree that Zimmerman's claim in not evidence.
I disagreed that there was evidence to support his claim.
links offered that indicate what the chain of events seems to be.
There's that word again: Seems. Seems according to Zimmerman's lawyer?
What the parents think need to be supported by evidence as well.
Their son was dead. Evidence one. There son was legally in the neighborhood. Evidence two. Some investigators did not believe Zimmerman's claims. Evidence 3.
And 4, the grieving parents of a dead boy don't need no stinkin' evidence to support what they think.
though what we do know suggests that to be the case
To you. Not to others.
apparently the thought never occurred to the smartest man in the room.
He had no reason to think that. It was irrelevant. He did not comment on details of the case, and only expressed sympathy to the grieving parents of a dead boy.
It only means that the Governor reacted to the circus
So now even the governor is stupid? If the governor was stupid, and the president was stupid, and the city council that voted no confidence in the police chief was stupid, how can we assume that the police weren't stupid or that Zimmerman wasn't stupid?
Jim,
You continue to be dishonest and deceitful by taking each line I say as if it is not in a context that makes a difference. I cannot continue to defend everything I say by putting it back into context only to have you again contradict a comment by once again pulling it out of context. For example, I was not disputing that Zimmerman was following Martin. I was disputing that Martin could not know with certainty that Zimmerman was doing so simply because Zimmerman was behind him. It makes a difference in supposing his motivations for acting as he did, however he did.
You want to follow a narrative that does not coincide with what is now known about the case and the people involved. Zimmerman's injuries support his side of the story. Two witnesses support his side of the story. Martin's girlfriend did not come forward immediately and there are questions to whether her version is comprehensive. Background into both parties provide info that also supports Zimmerman's side of the story, that is, info about him, Martin, the recent history of burglaries and attempted burglaries all support Zimmerman's actions as being reasonable and in good faith.
In the meantime, you won't look at any link offered, all of which indicate, suggest or support the notion that Zimmerman did no wrong (regardless of whether or not a trial proves otherwise).
So, you don't have to believe the lawyers, who called the press conference to announce they are removing themselves from the case. But if they are saying something that is not true or not likely or contradicted by other known facts, then you could provide something that provides some insight. But you don't. You just ignore it and continue with the belief that merely because Martin was shot dead that he was the victim of something nefarious.
Here's more crap from you: Even if we assume that Martin was indeed frightened and desperate, he was never in any position equal to being sat upon and beaten repeatedly. He was SECONDS away from the place at which he was staying. He was on the phone with his girlfriend and could have had her call the police if he thought a suspicious guy was following him. Instead, he appears to have done everything you and yours are saying Zimmerman was ordered NOT to do (though he was not so ordered at all). And I don't even have a problem with him demanding from Zimmerman if he has a problem! But if Zimmerman was brandishing his weapon, then Martin threw himself into a life/death struggle rather than finding himself in one which only makes him a victim of his own stupidity.
"There is a difference between "not illegal" and "authorized"."
One's constitutionally protected right to life is all the authorization one needs to use deadly force when one's life is in danger. This has been upheld countless times.
"Only that his nose was broken and his head was being slammed against pavement. There is nothing there to indicate who initiated the physical contact."
But it aligns with his version of the events. And if his weapon was exposed, especially if he had it in his hand, the likelihood that there would have been ANY struggle is almost zero.
"There's that word again: Seems. Seems according to Zimmerman's lawyer?"
To everyone who is willing to consider all the facts that are now known and use reason and rational thought in doing so. You, obviously, are not among that group trying to find truth.
"Some investigators did not believe Zimmerman's claims. Evidence 3."
I've seen nothing that supports this contention. Provide a link. I actually look at them. What I've read thus far indicate that Zimmerman was completely cooperative and that, together with his testimony, his injuries and the laws of the state of Florida regarding standing one's ground resulted in those with the authority to make the call deciding no charges were necessary at that time, which does not preclude charges being filed later.
"And 4, the grieving parents of a dead boy don't need no stinkin' evidence to support what they think."
Actually, they do. One's emotional state does not relieve one of this obligation. Nor does one's grief mean that an investigation must proceed without end until the one gets the results one wants.
"He had no reason to think that. It was irrelevant. He did not comment on details of the case, and only expressed sympathy to the grieving parents of a dead boy."
His expression of sympathy WAS commenting on the details of the case. Without knowing the facts, this is offering opinion. I'm not criticizing his intentions, though I would wager his intentions were to bolster his public image. I dispute the wisdom of saying anything more than "No comment. I don't have any details about the case."
"So now even the governor is stupid?"
Where did I say anything about "stupid" except as regards Barry's decision to talk too much and your position on the case? The call for a special investigator is not typical. It was compelled by the circus atmosphere due to the nonsense of race-baiters and the suggestion that the cops on the scene did not do their job. Please try, as hard as it might be for you, to pay attention.
I was disputing that Martin could not know with certainty that Zimmerman was doing so simply because Zimmerman was behind him.
I don't think "certainty" is of any consequence here. He told his girlfriend he was being followed, so he must have felt he was being followed. I don't think "behind him" bears any relevance to whether or not there was following going on. And of course, Zimmerman SAID he was following him.
Zimmerman's injuries support his side of the story.
Not necessarily. They support his claim that he was injured.
Two witnesses support his side of the story.
All of it or one particular part? They support that Martin was possibly on top of Zimmerman and possibly banging his head. Do the witnesses provide any statement as to how Martin got there, when or why?
In the meantime, you won't look at any link offered,
Untrue.
You just ignore it and continue with the belief that merely because Martin was shot dead that he was the victim of something nefarious.
I don't believe that I've ever said anything of the kind. The only thing I've ever said here (and right here and now I'll admit it was a poor choice of words) is that Zimmerman hunted Martin down. Given that we know Zimmerman was following Martin even after the cops said not to and was concerned that the "asshole" would "get away", I'd say hunted down is not inaccurate even if over stated.
he was never in any position equal to being sat upon and beaten repeatedly.
You have no proof of that. You don't even know if Zimmerman jumped Martin and Martin managed to reverse positions. There's no proof or witness either way.
Instead, he appears to have done everything you and yours are saying Zimmerman was ordered NOT to do
Appears? There's no evidence that Martin followed Zimmerman.
But if Zimmerman was brandishing his weapon, then Martin threw himself into a life/death struggle rather than finding himself in one which only makes him a victim of his own stupidity.
How do you know this? You don't know if they had words. You don't know if the gun was in Zimmerman's hand or holster or anything else. You don't know what a frightened teenager would do at night. You don't know if he felt desperate enough to do something you might think is stupid. You still don't know who initiated the physical contact.
if his weapon was exposed, especially if he had it in his hand, the likelihood that there would have been ANY struggle is almost zero.
And you don't know one way or another.
Look, unlike others on this thread, I have not slimed one of the participants. I have questioned narratives that haven't been proved. And of course I have disputed the silly crap about Obama.
Here is my take on the incident. Zimmerman put himself into a situation that he didn't need to. Why, I don't know. As a volunteer neighborhood watch person, his role should be to report to the police anything that he suspected might be or lead to criminal activity. Having done that, his job was done. Having followed Martin and then being told by the police not to, his job was done. Again. There was no need to get out of his truck in the first place.
Zimmerman wouldn't have gotten a broken nose if he hadn't gotten out of his truck. Zimmerman wouldn't have had his head bashed against pavement if he hadn't gotten out of his truck. There would have been no confrontation if Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his truck. And Martin would not have been shot to death if Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun, which was a violation of the neighborhood watch guidelines.
Notice, I haven't questioned his motives. I've only suggested that he erred in his actions and the result was tragic for Martin and for himself.
I've seen nothing that supports this contention. Provide a link.
Link.
One's emotional state does not relieve one of this obligation.
What obligation?
His expression of sympathy WAS commenting on the details of the case.
He made no comment on the details of the case. None.
this is offering opinion.
The only opinion he offered was that whatever happened was a tragedy and any parent would want to find out what actually happened. There is no opinion as to fact, motive or anything else in that.
I'm not criticizing his intentions, though I would wager his intentions were to bolster his public image.
In other words, you are not criticizing his intentions; you are only impugning his intentions.
I dispute the wisdom of saying anything more than "No comment. I don't have any details about the case."
Dispute away. I don't. In fact I think if he had said only that, he would have been criticized by you anyway for not standing up against black on white crime, or being too weak to take a stand on Florida law.
Where did I say anything about "stupid" except as regards Barry's decision to talk too much and your position on the case?
Who the HELL is Barry?
You said that if in fact Martin tried to jump a man he thought was going to kill him, we was being stupid.
Please try, as hard as it might be for you, to pay attention.
I thought of about 15 ways to respond to this dickish comment, but I'm just not going to stoop to your level.
"I don't think "certainty" is of any consequence here."
It is because you've made it so. Don't back-peddle now. If you would review the links people are providing, you know, actually look at everything that is out there, you'd likely see that the distance Martin was to travel wouldn't give too many people certainty about being followed. He had no way of knowing whether or not Zimmerman was following him, and GZ admitting it to the cops doesn't matter to what TM suspected.
"Zimmerman's injuries support his side of the story.
Not necessarily. They support his claim that he was injured."
This is stupid. His claim was not merely that he was injured, but that he was injured by TM attack upon him. Thus, the injuries support his side of the story.
"In the meantime, you won't look at any link offered,
Untrue."
Your constant dismissal of aspects now brought to light say otherwise. No, I won't list them as I'm spending too much time with your silliness as it is.
"Given that we know Zimmerman was following Martin even after the cops said not to and was concerned that the "asshole" would "get away", I'd say hunted down is not inaccurate even if over stated."
Here is evidence you aren't looking at links. If you had, you'd not make this statement because it has been shown that not only did the cops not order him to stand down, but GZ stopped following TM after the person from the police department (not necessarily a cop, but only a dispatcher with no authority to order a citizen to do anything) suggested that following TM was not necessary. Plus, GM eventually lost sight of TM and, having gone through similar experiences with suspicious people casing homes, it was then that he made the statement the assHOLES always get away. Not this particular asshole. Thus, there was nothing even similar to "hunting down" TM going on.
"You have no proof of that. You don't even know if Zimmerman jumped Martin and Martin managed to reverse positions. There's no proof or witness either way."
First of all, you can't discount GZ as a witness because he is one. His account matches that of the other witness(es) to the extent that what GZ claimed is verified to a great degree. His injuries further support both his story and the other witness testimony. The bottom line here is that I am dealing with what is known and you are making assumptions.
"Appears? There's no evidence that Martin followed Zimmerman."
GZ testified that TM confronted him. That's more like "hunting" another person than anything GZ did. And since GZ was going back to his truck in order to meet up with the police, it MORE THAN appears that TM was doing what he shouldn't have done. What he should have done was to simply head toward his nearby destination without confronting someone he thought was following him. Who was he to decide that he could dictate whether or not someone could travel in the same direction from behind?
"How do you know this? You don't know if they had words. You don't know if the gun was in Zimmerman's hand or holster or anything else."
The level of stupidity you're demonstrating is Parkie-like. GZ had just called the cops and agreed to meet with them. Who does that and then threatens another?
"Look, unlike others on this thread, I have not slimed one of the participants."
That's a hoot considering before your comment is finished you have gone a slimed GZ. What's more, you have NOT questioned the unproven narrative put out by the race-baiters and indeed have said a lot that shows you buy into it.
GZ had reason to get out of his truck and follow TM because he had a previous experience where he didn't keep track of a suspicious character who later was found with property stolen from a Twin Lakes resident. He didn't want that to happen again. The dispatcher asked him if he was following TM and he said "yes", to which the dispatcher said they didn't need him to do that, to which he said "OK" and began to return to his vehicle. You can hear his breathing relaxing after this indicating he was no longer "hunting down" TM. You are sliming him for caring about the welfare of his GATED community and acting on their behalf. As a resident AND neighborhood watchman, he has absolute freedom to drive or walk all over the area.
Neighborhood watch guidelines are not civil law. GZ had every right to carry his weapon if he so chose to and the watch committee might not even have objected had they known (he had been carrying a weapon since well before the watch group was formed). There is no evidence available to the public that shows he did ANYTHING wrong.
But TM would be alive if he had gone straight home, walking on the sidewalk (if there was one--if not, then on whatever pedestrian walkway is commonly used) instead of strolling in the rain between the buildings as GZ indicated he was. Walking straight home would not have been viewed as "suspicious" by a guy who is as familiar with the area and people as GZ is said to be.
"Notice, I haven't questioned his motives. I've only suggested that he erred in his actions and the result was tragic for Martin and for himself."
Everything about your "take on the incident" suggests you question his motives. MY take is based completely on what is known and has been made public. The only one of the two who "erred" was clearly TM by acting in a manner that attracted the attention of someone who has been dealing with the neighborhood's history of burglaries.
As to your link, it doesn't prove there was a push by any faction within the department to arrest GZ. It only shows that there was the usual discussion as to whether it should be done then or later. I would suppose it is typical. No big deal and it doesn't suggest anything more than that.
"One's emotional state does not relieve one of this obligation.
What obligation?"
Look. I have to go back and put together the pieces of the snippets you highlight in order to respond. Why can't you do this in a reciprocal manner so as to avoid stupid questions like this?
Barry offered sympathy to the parents of TM without any knowledge as to whether he was a victim of a tragedy or shot while committing a crime, which he was (beating up a guy for the mortal sin of traveling in the same direction as the kid, but from behind). This is an opinion because it assumes something the kid Barry didn't know.
"In other words, you are not criticizing his intentions; you are only impugning his intentions."
Not sure I follow. But, just as Barry didn't know anything about what led to TM's death or even if it was deserved, I don't know what Barry's intentions were in running off at the mouth. I can't possibly because I'm not a mind reader. That doesn't mean I can't wager on what I suspect his intention might be.
"In fact I think if he had said only that, he would have been criticized by you anyway for not standing up against black on white crime, or being too weak to take a stand on Florida law."
Nice try. But if he had said only that, there would have been nothing to criticize because he would then have said NOTHING about that which he knew nothing. I might not have given him kudos for finally displaying some of that vaunted wisdom I've only heard of but never seen, but I wouldn't have criticized.
"You said that if in fact Martin tried to jump a man he thought was going to kill him, we was being stupid."
OK, you got me there. Except that I said to suggest he'd attack someone brandishing a gun, or pointing one at him is stupid. Doing that would be stupid. You also assume by suggesting such a scenario that GZ acted in a manner that suggests he WAS intending on shooting Martin and if there is anything that lacks evidence to support it's a stupid suggestion like this.
"I thought of about 15 ways to respond to this dickish comment, but I'm just not going to stoop to your level."
Instead you stoop to a lower level by using the term "dickish". My comment was only provoked by your responses that indicate you aren't paying attention, to either the known facts of the case, the history of both parties presented in a variety of news outlets, or to my comments.
I'm getting bored. How 'bout you?
He had no way of knowing whether or not Zimmerman was following him
It doesn't MATTER what he knew. It matters what he THOUGHT. And clearly he THOUGHT he was being followed since he said as much to his girlfriend.
Thus, the injuries support his side of the story.
His injuries do not prove that Martin initiated physical contact or otherwise "attacked" Zimmerman or that Martin did not act in self defense.
Thus, there was nothing even similar to "hunting down" TM going on.
A matter of interpretation. As I said, "hunted down" is a poor choice of words. Once he got out of his truck, I would say he was pursuing Martin or at least following him.
His account matches that of the other witness(es) to the extent that what GZ claimed is verified to a great degree.
Only that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. I've read no witness statement as to how he got there.
I am not making assumptions. I'm proposing alternatives that can not be ruled out by witnesses or evidence. (I've watched "12 Angry Men".)
GZ testified that TM confronted him.
If someone was following me and I turned around to face them and ask "WTF?", I would call that confronting him.
Who does that and then threatens another?
I don't know. What neighborhood watch person carries a gun against community neighborhood watch guidelines?
you have gone a slimed GZ.
Not sure what you are saying, but you have not demonstrated that I have slimed Zimmerman.
you have NOT questioned the unproven narrative
This is a slime by me?
You are sliming him for caring about the welfare of his GATED community and acting on their behalf.
That's simply absurd.
he has absolute freedom to drive or walk all over the area.
And as a guest of a resident, Martin had the same freedom.
Neighborhood watch guidelines are not civil law.
So?
the watch committee might not even have objected had they known
Then why the guidelines?
he had been carrying a weapon since well before the watch group was formed)
So?
There is no evidence available to the public that shows he did ANYTHING wrong.
Except that some of the investigators didn't believe his story.
But TM would be alive if he had gone straight home,
You don't know that he wouldn't have done so had he not felt that someone was following him.
Walking straight home would not have been viewed as "suspicious" by a guy
What made Zimmerman suspicious?
suggests you question his motives.
No, I question his version of events, just as some of the investigators did.
Why can't you do this in a reciprocal manner so as to avoid stupid questions like this?
You were suggesting that grieving parents had some kind of obligation to "support what they think". I asked what that obligation was?
Barry offered sympathy to the parents of TM without any knowledge as to whether he was a victim of a tragedy or shot while committing a crime
Who is Barry?
It doesn't matter one bit how a child was lost to call it a tragedy for the parents.
which he was (beating up a guy for the mortal sin of traveling in the same direction as the kid, but from behind).
Not proved.
just as Barry didn't know anything about what led to TM's death or even if it was deserved
Who is Barry?
Irrelevant who deserved what. The boy was dead. The parents grieved.
I can't possibly because I'm not a mind reader. That doesn't mean I can't wager on what I suspect his intention might be.
Disingenuous of you.
He said NOTHING about anything he didn't know. He knew the boy was dead. He knew the parents grieved. He knew they wondered why?
suggesting such a scenario that GZ acted in a manner that suggests he WAS intending on shooting Martin
No, it only suggests that Martin thought he might.
I'm getting bored. How 'bout you?
Well we are certainly not getting anywhere. We're on the same thread on two different blogs so I at this point I can't remember what I said to whom on which blog. A lot of what I've said was in response to either you or Mark suggesting that Martin was a "drugged up thug" or words to that effect.
So, I'll say this one last time. I don't know if Zimmerman was a racist. In my opinion, if he thought someone was suspicious, he should have phoned it in and stayed in his truck to wait for police. That's my opinion.
I also don't like guns, especially carrying them around. You want one to protect your castle, be my guest.
Once you start carrying them around, you have a mind set that could very well lead you to do things you wouldn't have done otherwise. This doesn't make you bad. It just leaves the door open for things to happen that might not have without the gun, like putting yourself in a position to having to defend yourself.
I think both were victims of the circumstances they put and found themselves in.
I think the parents were not satisfied with the effort the police made to get to the bottom of what happened. That is their right and only natural. Their loss was a tragedy regardless of the circumstances.
I think Obama did nothing wrong, nothing unwise. You disagree. you hate Obama; I don't. We'll make no progress on that.
So that's it. I'm happy to leave it at that until the trial or public evidence provides more detail, although I don't think any new information will change my mind that the incident was unfortunate and avoidable, that the death was a tragedy for the parents, and the president did nothing unwise.
"It doesn't MATTER what he knew. It matters what he THOUGHT."
The problem here is that it apparently doesn't matter to you what GZ thought. Regardless of what GZ thought, you insist he should have acted in a particular manner. But TM's thoughts allow him to act in far less sensible manner. It is clear that he wasn't so far from his destination that the prudent thing was to continue on and, fearing he was being followed, used that cell phone of his to call the cops. GZ had already done that himself. But it wasn't GZ's first dance and he had a reason to do more than just call and sit there. You choose to dismiss the history of the neighborhood and GZ's experiences with young burglars active in the neighborhood. His decision to do a bit more and try to keep track of the kid was reasonable. Had TM walked straight to his destination, GZ likely would have called off the cops upon their arrival. TM would still be alive.
"His injuries do not prove that Martin initiated physical contact or otherwise "attacked" Zimmerman or that Martin did not act in self defense."
It is illogical to the point of mental disability to suggest that GZ would call the cops and THEN cause trouble. To say this is a stretch is to give new meaning to the term "a stretch".
"Once he got out of his truck, I would say he was pursuing Martin or at least following him."
"Pursuing" is also a bad choice. "Following in order to monitor the movements of a suspicious person" is the only choice available considering that's exactly what GZ was doing.
"I am not making assumptions. I'm proposing alternatives that can not be ruled out by witnesses or evidence. (I've watched "12 Angry Men".)"
You're definitely no Hank Fonda.
"What neighborhood watch person carries a gun against community neighborhood watch guidelines?"
You seem to think this scores points for you. The answer is "anyone who wants to". Guidelines are not laws by which anyone is forced into compliance. In addition, I don't think that GZ was doing anything more than driving back from the store himself. That is to say, I don't believe he was "on watch" at the time he saw TM acting suspicious. But even if he was "on watch", he was among the organizers of the watch group, AND "guidelines" are likely to deflect liability from the police department, the Twin Lakes management or whatever entity coordinates with the people volunteering. In addition, have you seen the guidelines and does it demand volunteers be unarmed, or does it just prefer it?
"...but you have not demonstrated that I have slimed Zimmerman."
Get real. Everything you've said puts GZ at fault.
"And as a guest of a resident, Martin had the same freedom."
Not arguing that. But YOU seem to think that GZ has to act in a particular manner, but TM, who isn't a resident, can walk about in any manner he pleases regardless of how it appears to residents.
"Except that some of the investigators didn't believe his story."
I don't recall anything in your link suggesting that, and I haven't heard anything to that effect (not saying it didn't happen). Discussing whether or not charges are appropriate does not indicate whether or not the cops believe the story. They could have arrested him and STILL believed him innocent, choosing to let a jury decide what the evidence says.
"You don't know that he wouldn't have done so had he not felt that someone was following him."
I'm saying the reasonable choice is to continue home and call the cops. You want George to just call the cops when he sees something suspicious and do nothing more, but you allow Trayvon far more latitude when HE suspects someone. Why is that? Police guidelines would recommend the kid just call them and not risk confronting a suspicious person.
"What made Zimmerman suspicious?"
Apparently you haven't looked at ANY links.
"You were suggesting that grieving parents had some kind of obligation to "support what they think". I asked what that obligation was?"
The same obligation anyone has who suggests wrongdoing or failure on the part of another. To prove it or support the allegation with something other than mere emotion and a discontent with the situation.
"It doesn't matter one bit how a child was lost to call it a tragedy for the parents."
But it does matter how a president addresses a situation about which he knows nothing. He didn't say anything special, nothing that needed to be said to reporters instead of privately to the parents if he really gave a damn. His comments hints at favoring one side (whether he meant to or not) in a case that was already brewing racial discord.
"Disingenuous of you."
I wasn't being disingenuous. I can't help it if you choose to read into my comments something I don't intend.
Your final comments still leave much to be desired.
Based on what is known at this time, Zimmerman did nothing wrong, unreasonable or irrational before the final moments that led to the shooting. Nothing.
Not so with Martin. If he thought someone was suspicious, he should have phoned it in and continued to his destination to wait for police. He obviously couldn't have felt threatened if he chose to confront Z. And he did, since the police tape definitely indicates Z was returning to his vehicle after having lost sight of Martin.
You don't like guns, that's your problem. Don't carry one. I have no fear of law abiding people carrying guns. I have no way of defending myself against assholes with guns, since my state has outlawed my constitutional right to carry a weapon. I carry a knife (that's smaller than I'd like but my state outlaws certain blades as well). I practice defending against knives and clubs, but not using them. Yet, I have a plan for accessing my knife if forced to. The idea that I'd feel compelled beyond conscious reason to pull it out at the drop of a hat is ridiculous. It suggests that cops and others lawfully carrying guns will immediately slap leather. Use your head. Just because I carry some kind of weapon and train in self-defense does not mean I put myself in situations I never used to before I started training (though I can't remember that far back). That's not what law-abiding people do when smarter legislators overturn fascistic gun laws the deprived them of their rights.
Both Z and M were indeed victims of circumstances, but clearly not in the same way. Z's intentions were clearly to protect his neighborhood. M's appears to have been to be a hard ass. Even with my years of training I would NOT have confronted someone I felt certain was following me if the situation was like this case. Why would I have to? I had my freakin' phone in my hand and I was mere minutes, if not seconds from my destination.
"I think the parents were not satisfied with the effort the police made to get to the bottom of what happened. That is their right and only natural."
It might be natural but it is no right to be unsatisfied without something to support the feeling. That is, something more than the fact that Zimmerman wasn't charged.
I don't hate Barry Obama. I don't hate anyone. Not even Parkie. But like Parkie, Barry's an idiot. (If I was going to hate anyone, it would be all those idiots who voted for Barry. But then, I'd have to hate two of my daughters, as well as other family members.) If he was the intelligent wonder his his lackeys like to say he is, he'd have said "no comment" and little else, instead of posturing himself as Mr. Compassionate, which is what I'd wager he was doing. He's demonstrated repeatedly his own disingenuous character.
Barry's an idiot.
Who is Barry?
He's demonstrated repeatedly his own disingenuous character.
I think you pretty much have to hate the president to say something so clearly untrue.
I'm sure you'd like to think so. But your need to have that be true won't make it so, and it doesn't.
As to my statement, I only need to provide evidence to show that it is indeed true. One could do a series of posts on such a thing, but two things pop immediately to mind: the lack of transparency in his administration that was promised during the campaign, and the number of lobbyists we were told wouldn't be a part of his administration.
But that's all off topic, so I will not elaborate further here. What's more important is that you suggest hate where none exists. It is not hate that compels the statement, but only objective analysis of his presidency.
only objective analysis of his presidency.
Pffft!
An objective analysis would simply compare what he has said with what he has done and come to a conclusion as to whether or not it suggests a disingenuous character. One's personal biases can't overcome a disparity between the two.
Post a Comment