Despite whatever he posted, it would be very hard (impossible even) to show in court that he followed/targeted Martin simply because Martin was black.
The Sanford Police Dept. did a thorough investigation and found no grounds to arrest him. At the trial, we saw why, the prosecution had no case and he was found innocent. The initial decision by the Sanford PD was the correct one, and always was.
That's true, but JJ asserted there is no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman is racist. He believes he is a hero. I'm merely pointing out that there does exist evidence to the contrary. Do I think he set out that night to kill a black man? No. But I do think a lot would have been handled differently had Martin been white.
Punks is not racist. He was reffering to the young kids that have been burglarizing his neighborhood, which is race neutral. Just stop, you're making youself look bad. He is not racist and this had ZERO to do with race.
Pretty close, but I'm also saying that JJ's point of view is just as legitimate as anyone else's as well, and that even "relatively affluent, privileged, and white" is a misnomer when trying to understand someone's rationale for reasoning, because every person brings about their own very specific grid of understanding. There is no way to get into that rationale and understand it unless you specifically agree to a language game with him whereby you are both operating on very, very similar sets of rules. And even then, it will be somewhat skewed.
Some final notes worth saying: Trayvon had committed minor offenses (graffiti, truancy, pot smoking, maybe petty theft, he had an image of a gun and a video of two homeless guys fighting on his cell phone). Zimmerman had a gun, not just a picture. I fail to see how Trayvon's picture trumps an actual gun. Zimmerman carried his gun with a chambered bullet on a regular basis. Zimmerman called police 46 times in eight years. Did Trayvon Shooter Abuse 911? They cite 3 calls in addition to the Trayvon call where black men were suspicious to Zimmerman. I can't see that any of the suspicious persons GZ called about were ever found to be involved in an actual crime. The neighborhood was 20% black according to The Daily Beast One person apparently guilty of one burglary was a black teen that lived in the neighborhood, and the burglary with the woman and baby home at the time was by two black men. So of the 8 breakins, the suspects were black in 2 of them. I can't see anyone was arrested or seen in the other cases but I could have missed something. For whatever reason, people either see an overzealous vigilante determined this black guy would not get away, or, they see a "thug" as TM has been described, who beat up a guy who simply followed him. I realize it does no good to tell people that if you assume either of these scenarios could equally be true, the evidence still convicts GZ. GZ wrongly profiled TM. GZ followed TM and made the comment, they always get away, on the recorded call. GZ's story about looking for an address was refuted by the evidence. There were no bushes for TM to jump out of and the location of the body was not where GZ said he was ambushed. TM asked, "why are you following me" before any punches were thrown which rules out a sneak attack. The gun had to be out before GZ claims his head was being bashed in, it's not possible GZ pulled it out given the circumstances he described. Even the defense admitted GZ embellished the threat and exaggerated the injuries. They went on to claim it didn't matter because GZ says he feared for his life. And while the jury may not be allowed to consider the fact GZ would not take the stand, that doesn't preclude the rest of us from using that refusal when evaluating the facts in the case. The way I see people's view of this case, they are defending the right of GZ to shoot someone who punched him. That fits with the gun culture that permeates people siding with GZ. Does that mean it's OK to defend yourself with a gun, but if you fear for your life it's not OK to defend yourself with your fist? If you hit someone who is following you thinking you are a criminal, that is not self defense, but if you pull out a gun that is? TM was not allowed to fear GZ? Why, because being chased by a guy in the dark shouldn't scare you? Because GZ getting out of his car was OK but GZ not running to hide in his house was not?
This actually helps the defense because it shows that Zimmerman didn't confront every suspicious black man he saw.
Six grown women looked at the evidence and all agreed to a different conclusion than you. You can twist the evidence and stamp your feet and continue to try and paint Zimmerman as a racist but in the end the truth was told. Both the defense and the prosecution could have been correct, but our laws say he's innocent. The Justice Dept. can't and won't file charges and the civil trial will turn out just like the criminal one. Regardless, the trials over and everyone should move on. If black people are upset that blacks are getting killed due to 'stand your ground' laws, then maybe they should stop committing more crimes than white people.
I don't follow you. I don't think he reported a single suspicious person that wasn't black, but he reported several that apparently weren't doing anything. But that wasn't my point. I was trying to show that if you want to see a thug, you can. I don't agree that petty crime and being black makes you a thug, but other people do. And, if you want to see Zimmerman as an overzealous vigilante who often saw young black men as potential criminals you can. I do, but other people don't. At this point it's a wash, whichever stereotype you want to accept you can support your assumptions. But if you see GZ as not guilty, you have to not just take the side of one stereotype, you have to ignore the evidence. But there's no point arguing the evidence, we've stated our cases and I'm not going to suddenly draw a different conclusion, nor is anyone else. The point of my thread was not to re-argue the case. It was to ask the questions: Why was it OK for GZ to fear TM, but not for TM to fear GZ? Why was it OK for GZ to get out of his truck? (He wasn't looking for an address.) But it was not OK for TM to not run home? Why was it OK to shoot an unarmed kid you feared, but not OK to punch a stranger following you that you feared? GZ exaggerated and embellished his fear. We know that. Pretending that's not true takes some serious denial of the evidence. Why couldn't TM have equally feared the white man following him in the dark? The argument keeps being made that he could have run home, while excusing GZ's not staying in his vehicle. I ask why TM had to be afraid and run home while GZ was allowed to not run away? The man left standing gets to stand his ground, the dead guy had no right to? Is the gun the difference? You can't hit someone you are afraid of, but you can shoot someone you are afraid of? Those were the things I was reopening the thread to discuss. I'm not going to re-argue the case.
Again with the non-sequitur. Would you prefer I start a new thread? Is my discussion off topic for you in this one?
It's interesting how many assumptions you have now cemented into facts. I guess the longer you do the mental gymnastics, the more you believe the things you used to call possibilities as truth.
This is more off topic than what I posted and really does need a new thread. It's such an incredibly anemic view of a very complex world as if blacks in the justice system were some simple thing, unrelated to poverty, unrelated to biased sentencing and unequal access to competent defense.
Ah of course. Didn't see the victim card coming at all! The whole 'it's not their fault' argument is old and tired.
Because he reported them instead of confronting them, it shows that he isn't looking for a fight. So it can be argued that what happened with Martin was not a result of aggression on Zimmerman's part. I agree with a lot of your other points. Martin had a right to defend himself using punches if Zimmerman was going to attack him. But following someone isn't the same as attacking them. The problem with this case is that only Zimmerman really knows what happened that night. For everyone else, there's a lot of interpretation involved.
Thanks, I get it now. It doesn't negate the "they always get away" comment though, so it doesn't really add to the defense. If anything it suggests GZ was more frustrated, none of his other reports got anyone caught. While no one was there, and unfortunately the jury didn't see things the way a lot of people saw the same evidence, the issue now isn't the trial. It's the biases that lead one to see a thug when all one has is is evidence of black skin and some petty crimes. As for following not being the same as attacking, it can be if you believe the guy is after you and you don't know why. GZ's injuries were not life threatening but the argument is he believed they were. Following may not be an attack but if you were TM you could have easily believed it was going to be.
He was a thug, or at least an up-and-coming thug. His text messages, racist comments, gang signs, drugs, suspensions, fights... Maybe I'm a little tired, but I'd call that a thug, or a miscreant, or a troublemaker, or a hoodlum. One man wanted to be a police officer, and one man wanted to be a gangsta. One man was protecting his neighbors and the other man assaulted a creepy ass cracka for walking too close to him. Hmmmm...
That lots of people hold the same point of view as this has been addressed. These are the questions that have not: Does that mean it's OK to defend yourself with a gun, but if you fear for your life it's not OK to defend yourself with your fist? If you hit someone who is following you thinking you are a criminal, that is not self defense, but if you pull out a gun that is? TM was not allowed to fear GZ? Why, because being chased by a guy in the dark shouldn't scare you? Because GZ getting out of his car was OK but GZ not running to hide in his house was not?
*sigh* Okay, one at a time. These are non-sequiturs. Yes, you have just as much right to defend yourself with your fists as you do with a gun, however, the evidence shows only one person was physically assaulted and there is no way to prove that Zimmerman non-physically caused him to fear for his life enough to beginning to assault him. It would be conjecture not based on evidence. Legally, you cannot physically assault someone merely because they are following you, especially if t is in a public area. It is however, perfectly legal to defend yourself if you get attacked and assaulted. I don't think anyone said Martin wasn't 'allowed' to fear Z, but the evidence doesn't support that theory. He was not cornered and had every opportunity to run away if he was scared. Frightened children don't tend to confront their fears, they run. Also, fear by itself isn't grounds for self defense, it has to be reasonable fear for your life. But again, Martin is dead and there's no evidence to support fear. Zimmerman getting out of his car and Martin not running home are irrelevant, because neither of those events directly relate to why Martin assaulted Zimmerman in the first place. You are making a lot of non-sequitur arguments that don't relate to what actually happened.
Non sequitur cannot apply to the person who starts a conversation or asks the original questions. I think what you meant to say was straw man, you don't think I asked questions that have anything to do with the reason you find GZ innocent. But they do, they apply directly to your rationale. You've chosen a stereotype that contains the conclusion, TM could not have felt threatened. That was my point. He most certainly could have felt threatened. If you don't at least consider the possibility, then your position reflects bias not supported by the evidence. This ignores the "felt threatened" aspect. Being physically assaulted is not required for the stand your ground law to apply. Only feeling an eminent threat is required. You are more than welcome to find the wording in FL law that requires physical assault, I just looked and it isn't there. It leaves it up to the jury. But the jury did not decide if TM felt an imminent threat, they were not asked to decide if that was possible. So you are saying stand your ground applies to GZ but not TM. That's exactly what I asked, thank you for answering. Now explain why GZ was allowed to fear TM but TM was not allowed to fear GZ but use a legal argument rather than an argument based on your biases. GZ wasn't cornered. The police were on their way. He had a dozen opportunities to run away. Even if you believe he was having his head bashed at the time of the shot, according to GZ's own testimony the altercation began 30 feet away from where the shot was fired. It's not possible TM was bashing GZ's head all that distance. The only way you can find no evidence for TM's fear for his life is to believe a black teen has no reason to fear for his life when being followed down a dark walkway by a man he doesn't know for a reason he doesn't know. Frankly, without a bigoted stereotype about black teens, I find that rather implausible. But you have admitted time and time again no one knows what happened. How do you know this then? I ask my question again, on what basis can you say or know that TM could not have also feared for his life? Again, you might want to look up the difference between a non sequitur and a straw man, but I digress.
George Zimmerman rescues family from car crash Well, looks like even when hiding for his life, Zimmerman does the right thing. He has the mentality of 'protect and serve'. He is a rare breed. Now, back to you desperately trying to hang him... Your premise is that Martin could have felt threatened and could have fear for his own life, right? Well, because neither of us could possibly know that we must admit that it is within the realm of possibility. However, does the evidence suggest that was the case? I don't think it does. We know that Martin was the only physical aggressor. Martin had no defensive marks on his body besides the bullet wound. So if Zimmerman never physically attacked Martin, then he either verbally threatened him or threatened him by his mere presence. We can assume that Martin was not aware of Zimmermans gun before the physical altercation so that can be ruled out as a theory of perceived threat. So then the question is, were Zimmermans actions, whether verbal or otherwise, enough that a reasonable person would fear for their lives? If we conclude that an individual has a right to assault someone for perceived following on a public sidewalk, then there would be a lot more assaults. No, any reasonable person walking down a sidewalk, who notices someone following them does not have the right to turn around and assault them. The issue is that there's no evidence of Zimmerman being an assailant as defined in the law. Someone following you does not allow you to claim self-defense for assaulting them. Again, you would have to have evidence that a reasonable person would fear for their life, then and only then would they be able to 'stand their ground.' But understand that Martin had no marks on him, so even if Martin felt threatened, turned around and stood his ground against a perceived aggressor, Zimmerman would still have to actually be some type of aggressor for Martin to begin assaulting him. As stated above, Martin had the right to stand his ground, but there is no evidence that he needed to defend himself or that he feared for his life. You are coming to a conclusion that is opposite of what the evidence says. The distance traveled between the beginning and the end of the altercation is irrelevant. There is still no evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor, but there is evidence that Martin was. This has nothing to do with race and I have already explained why the evidence doesn't suggest Martin felt threatened. No one will ever know for sure what happened, but the evidence suggests certain possibilities are more probable. Because the evidence doesn't support that conclusion and frankly, it's irrelevant. Martin wasn't on trial, Zimmerman was but in my opinion if Martin had lived and put on trial, he probably would have been found guilty of aggravated assault or attempted murder, based on the evidence.
