I started off pretty militantly against Zimmerman. It was pretty clear to me what happened and why: White guy profiles black kid, white guy follows black kid, black kid freaks out and runs, white guy pursues, black kid reacts to a perceived threat, white guy shoots black kid. Legally, probably, not guilty of any crime. Morally, completely responsible.
……..
Then I read into this case. I do not say that I read the news reports. I read the statements. I read the testimony. I looked at the maps. I read the raw data. And, I really do hate to say it, but I think that I may have been wrong in my initial assessment. Remember, I am a white-guilt anti-gun liberal:
1. Z profiles T.
2. Z follows T.
3. T runs. (and then this is where I got it wrong).
4. T escapes.
5. Z reports to the police on the phone that he lost T.
6. Z says that he’s heading back to his car and will meet with police on scene later on.
7. Z hangs up.
8. THEN there’s a fight
9. Z shoots T.
See, that’s a slightly different story. In my initial understanding (and the one supported by almost all news coverage), it seems like T was chased until scared enough to lash out. This makes it an act of self-defense on the part of T. But… and I really hate being wrong, but it’s pretty convincing… T got away, Z turned around, then they got in a fight. The only way this makes sense to me is that T came back to get in this fight. He was away, clear, safe, yet he somehow wound up back where Z was. So, yea, Z’s testimony holds up for me – T probably jumped him, they fought, and Z shot him in self defense. ::sigh:: Another idiot punk teenager (aren’t all teens idiot punks?).
This doesn’t absolve Z from being a potential racist for profiling. Nor does it mean that T wasn’t up to no good. I can’t speak to these as they are not really supported one way or the other by any evidence I could find. But it does seem like T started the fight, and not out of self-defense. And that means Z was (probably) acting on his own self-defense and therefore legally “justified” in shooting an unarmed black teenager in broad daylight. And I just can’t find it in my head to say that he’s morally responsible for the death of a kid when he was attacked while walking back to his car.
Mathius, never fear you are safe here…….my thought is it was a trial like it or not it is done….and no amount of analysis will change the outcome….chuq
It will never be over. Because of the horribly botched job of the media on this one, we’re going to be hearing about Trayvon on the 50th anniversary of the shooting, complete with a video montage and reenactments and tear-jerker testimonials.
Every year, they’ll trot out the footage of a dead child on the sidewalk and try to stoke up the outrage.
But then, someday, I will die and the world will turn to dust and the sun will burn out and we can all finally stop hearing about this trial. So there is hope.
Loading...
LOL…..the trial and the birth of a royal larva……
Loading...
” Z says that he’s heading back to his car and will meet with police on scene later on.”
You seemed to have skipped that part of the report that has Z getting out of his vehicle to pursue Z after being told by the police dispatcher not to. If you’re a frightened young black man who thinks he’s being stalked by a racist “cracker” you make you own defensive move to defend your life. T doesn’t know Z is part of the neighborhood watch because nothing in any of the reports indicates that Z informed T of this. Or did I miss something?
I do not believe you missed anything….of course I am sure that it does not read that way if you are on the Right side of the issue….
Loading...
All true.
But again, play it in your head.
T was being stalked. Agreed. T was scared and had a right to last out in self-defense. Agreed.
Dispatcher told Z not to follow T… well, close enough, the dispatcher said “we don’t need you to do that,” but I’ll give you credit for the point. Z did disregard the not-so-subtle suggestion. But that is still a far-cry from disobeying a police instruction.
If you’re a frightened young black man who thinks he’s being stalked by a racist “cracker” you make you own defensive move to defend your life.
True
T doesn’t know Z is part of the neighborhood watch because nothing in any of the reports indicates that Z informed T of this.
True
Or did I miss something?
Yes. And it was hard for me to accept after I was so entrentched in the same opinion you have now.
Z lost T.
He lost him.
T got away.
Nobody was stalking T at this point anymore. T was gone, he was free. So he could not be acting in self-defense to fight at this point.
Z turned around and headed back to his car.
THEN they got in a fight. How?
The only way I can rationalize that this happened is if T returned in order to get into a fight. He had been provoked, sure, but he was not currently in any danger. His stalker had turned around and gone back the way he came. T brought the fight to Z. There’s just no way to square T acting in self defense with him returning to the stalker he had escaped from.
Loading...
“But that is still a far-cry from disobeying a police instruction.”</i.
Pardon me??? Is this how your read that? Interesting. Dispatchers are members of the police department. So when one of them discovers that you are taking inappropriate action and tells you "We don't need you to do that", how do you not see this as disobeying what you loosely refer as a "police instruction". Why is this not a police command?
“Z lost T. He lost him. T got away”
Perhaps but the only one who can tell us for sure if this is an accurate account is dead. All we have is Zimmerman’s account and we know it is instinctive to embellish accounts to make yourself look better than perhaps you were. Martin isn’t here to give his side of it so be careful about feeling confident that you have all the facts.
Keep this thought in mind too. If you’re heading home and you think a racist thug is following you, do you want to lead him to where you live? Martin’s decision to confront his adversary could have been an attempt to stop him from assaulting him as well as preventing him from finding out where he lived. Was he intent on killing Zimmerman? We’ll never know. Zimmerman’s fear and thoughtless actions killed the one person who could have given a different view of events.
Loading...
lbwoodgate,
“Z lost T. He lost him. T got away”
Perhaps but the only one who can tell us for sure if this is an accurate account is dead. All we have is Zimmerman’s account and we know it is instinctive to embellish accounts
True. however this is on the police recording.
Zimmerman: […] I don’t know where this kid is.
Dispatcher: Okay do you want to just meet with [officers] right near the mailboxes then?
Zimmerman: Yeah that’s fine. Source, page 3.
The call goes on for another minute, they agree to have the police call him when they’re in the area so he can meet up and give a report.
This isn’t something Z made up after the fact. This was before it happened. T was free and clear of the overzealous vigilante cracker cowboy. He was alive and safe. Why not go home and play some x-box? Instead, for some reason, they wound up in a fight with Z back near his car. How did that happen?
Loading...
“T was free and clear of the overzealous vigilante cracker cowboy. He was alive and safe. Why not go home and play some x-box?”
Your leaving out one critical factor here Mathius. Does Martin know he’s free and clear? Did he really feel safe? And I think I already mentioned why he thought it a bad idea, right or wrong, to go home. You’re interpreting events based on the phone conversation but we don’t know what Martin was actually thinking of at this time.
Did he circle around to get behind his pursuer in the hopes of catching him off guard. Some of the testimony and overheard phone conversations indicate this. If he did strike first – and it is not clear who took the first blow – did he do so only after he saw Zimmerman go for his gun? If so, he had grounds to defend himself and even try to kill the stranger he thought was going to kill him. Is Zimmerman’s testimony about being pinned down by Martin at first so he couldn’t get to his gun accurate or was this an embellishment to make him look good?
There has to be some critical thinking here to replace what we don’t know of Martin’s thoughts. Remember, Zimmerman took Martin’s account of events away when he aimed his gun at Martin’s heart and pulled the trigger. I’m taking some liberties here but the same can be said with your assumptions, no?
Loading...
lbwoodgate,
There’s an awful lot of speculation in there. What if, what if, what if… this could have happened, that could have happened, this other thing could have happened.
Everything you mention is completely plausible.
The most likely scenario, in my head, is that T got upset and went back to fight: “who does this cracker think he is?” But I can’t prove that or back it up any more than your alternatives.
But I sure as hell can’t say Zimmerman is a murderer based on this dearth of evidence either.
Maybe T was a hoodlum. Maybe Z is colorblind. Maybe Z is a murderer who fully intended to kill T. Maybe T was a 100% innocent victim in all this. I don’t know. But there really just isn’t enough here to throw Z under the bus, I don’t think.
My gut says Z is a cowboy who profiled T, and T was a budding hoodlum who needlessly started the physical altercation after the ‘danger’ dissipated. This is the opinion I came to very reluctantly after a great deal of looking at this case. Even so, it is entirely possible I’m completely wrong.
Will you admit the possibility that you, too, are wrong?
Loading...
“But I sure as hell can’t say Zimmerman is a murderer based on this dearth of evidence either.”
I neither accused you of making this claim nor did I assert such. Why would make that comment?
My gut feeling is much like yours, that Zimmerman was not a racists murderer but that doesn’t remove the racist element that can be found here. “These people always get away”
” Even so, it is entirely possible I’m completely wrong. Will you admit the possibility that you, too, are wrong?”
I thought I implied that at the end of my last response. There are no absolutes here. That leaves this case open for debate for years to come. Anyone who thinks they can draw an absolute final conclusion is a fool, IMO.
Loading...
You do realize that George Zimmerman is Hispanic, right?
Hispanic people can’t be (possible) racists? Or overzealous cowboys?
Loading...
They sure can, just like blacks can be racists and Asians can also. I was only clarifying you knowledge of the event since you mislabel him several times in your statement.
example: It was pretty clear to me what happened and why: White guy profiles black kid,…
Loading...
Ah.. yes.. sorry.. still haven’t shaken the very first initial new reports where they said he was white (weird how first impressions stay with you).
Yes, I know he’s Hispanic, though I don’t think this changes anything in the narrative as I understand it. White, Black, Hispanic, Albino, Hasidim, it doesn’t change the facts of the case.
Loading...
Also not widely reported:
*Zimmerman mentored young blacks; he also publicly protested what he considered to be the maltreatment of a black man at the hands of the police. There is not only no evidence that Zimmerman bore race-hatred toward blacks, there is much evidence to the contrary. The vile Al Sharpton – a person who should have been excommunicated from civil society 20 years ago – knew all this before he began his vicious campaign of race-baiting against Zimmerman.
*Zimmerman led a protest against the police after a homeless black man was the object of excessive use of force by police.
Trayvon was caught with women’s rings, necklaces and other jewelry in his backpack in school.
From the Miami-Herald : October 2011, when Martin was caught with a horde of women’s jewelry and the aforementioned screwdriver. According to a report issued by Trayvon’s school district, on October 21, security camera footage showed Trayvon Martin and two other students writing “W.T.F.” on a hallway locker. A security guard saw the footage, detained Trayvon and searched his bag for the offending marker. In the process of the search, the guard uncovered 12 pieces of women’s jewelry, a watch and the screwdriver.
Does anyone find it amusing that on last Thursday, Zimmerman and another person pull a husband and wife and their 2 children from an burning car and it isn’t reported for another 4 days? Perhaps that would interfere with the media hyped rallies to lynch Zimmerman?
Don’t forget, the law now “entitles” such fanatics to be more aggressive.
That is something to look forward to in the near future, huh?
In Texas, you’re now allowed to murder a prostitute if you pay her and she won’t have sex with you.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php
That is way sick….,but then it is Texas and little surprises me about it…..
Shouldn’t he be wearing a sombrero?
Nope and beret, black in color with an insignia…..
God, I’m going to kick myself for writing this..
I started off pretty militantly against Zimmerman. It was pretty clear to me what happened and why: White guy profiles black kid, white guy follows black kid, black kid freaks out and runs, white guy pursues, black kid reacts to a perceived threat, white guy shoots black kid. Legally, probably, not guilty of any crime. Morally, completely responsible.
……..
Then I read into this case. I do not say that I read the news reports. I read the statements. I read the testimony. I looked at the maps. I read the raw data. And, I really do hate to say it, but I think that I may have been wrong in my initial assessment. Remember, I am a white-guilt anti-gun liberal:
1. Z profiles T.
2. Z follows T.
3. T runs. (and then this is where I got it wrong).
4. T escapes.
5. Z reports to the police on the phone that he lost T.
6. Z says that he’s heading back to his car and will meet with police on scene later on.
7. Z hangs up.
8. THEN there’s a fight
9. Z shoots T.
See, that’s a slightly different story. In my initial understanding (and the one supported by almost all news coverage), it seems like T was chased until scared enough to lash out. This makes it an act of self-defense on the part of T. But… and I really hate being wrong, but it’s pretty convincing… T got away, Z turned around, then they got in a fight. The only way this makes sense to me is that T came back to get in this fight. He was away, clear, safe, yet he somehow wound up back where Z was. So, yea, Z’s testimony holds up for me – T probably jumped him, they fought, and Z shot him in self defense. ::sigh:: Another idiot punk teenager (aren’t all teens idiot punks?).
This doesn’t absolve Z from being a potential racist for profiling. Nor does it mean that T wasn’t up to no good. I can’t speak to these as they are not really supported one way or the other by any evidence I could find. But it does seem like T started the fight, and not out of self-defense. And that means Z was (probably) acting on his own self-defense and therefore legally “justified” in shooting an unarmed black teenager in broad daylight. And I just can’t find it in my head to say that he’s morally responsible for the death of a kid when he was attacked while walking back to his car.
Sad, but there you have it.
Mathius, never fear you are safe here…….my thought is it was a trial like it or not it is done….and no amount of analysis will change the outcome….chuq
It will never be over. Because of the horribly botched job of the media on this one, we’re going to be hearing about Trayvon on the 50th anniversary of the shooting, complete with a video montage and reenactments and tear-jerker testimonials.
Every year, they’ll trot out the footage of a dead child on the sidewalk and try to stoke up the outrage.
But then, someday, I will die and the world will turn to dust and the sun will burn out and we can all finally stop hearing about this trial. So there is hope.
LOL…..the trial and the birth of a royal larva……
” Z says that he’s heading back to his car and will meet with police on scene later on.”
You seemed to have skipped that part of the report that has Z getting out of his vehicle to pursue Z after being told by the police dispatcher not to. If you’re a frightened young black man who thinks he’s being stalked by a racist “cracker” you make you own defensive move to defend your life. T doesn’t know Z is part of the neighborhood watch because nothing in any of the reports indicates that Z informed T of this. Or did I miss something?
I do not believe you missed anything….of course I am sure that it does not read that way if you are on the Right side of the issue….
All true.
But again, play it in your head.
T was being stalked. Agreed. T was scared and had a right to last out in self-defense. Agreed.
Dispatcher told Z not to follow T… well, close enough, the dispatcher said “we don’t need you to do that,” but I’ll give you credit for the point. Z did disregard the not-so-subtle suggestion. But that is still a far-cry from disobeying a police instruction.
If you’re a frightened young black man who thinks he’s being stalked by a racist “cracker” you make you own defensive move to defend your life.
True
T doesn’t know Z is part of the neighborhood watch because nothing in any of the reports indicates that Z informed T of this.
True
Or did I miss something?
Yes. And it was hard for me to accept after I was so entrentched in the same opinion you have now.
Z lost T.
He lost him.
T got away.
Nobody was stalking T at this point anymore. T was gone, he was free. So he could not be acting in self-defense to fight at this point.
Z turned around and headed back to his car.
THEN they got in a fight. How?
The only way I can rationalize that this happened is if T returned in order to get into a fight. He had been provoked, sure, but he was not currently in any danger. His stalker had turned around and gone back the way he came. T brought the fight to Z. There’s just no way to square T acting in self defense with him returning to the stalker he had escaped from.
“But that is still a far-cry from disobeying a police instruction.”</i.
Pardon me??? Is this how your read that? Interesting. Dispatchers are members of the police department. So when one of them discovers that you are taking inappropriate action and tells you "We don't need you to do that", how do you not see this as disobeying what you loosely refer as a "police instruction". Why is this not a police command?
“Z lost T. He lost him. T got away”
Perhaps but the only one who can tell us for sure if this is an accurate account is dead. All we have is Zimmerman’s account and we know it is instinctive to embellish accounts to make yourself look better than perhaps you were. Martin isn’t here to give his side of it so be careful about feeling confident that you have all the facts.
Keep this thought in mind too. If you’re heading home and you think a racist thug is following you, do you want to lead him to where you live? Martin’s decision to confront his adversary could have been an attempt to stop him from assaulting him as well as preventing him from finding out where he lived. Was he intent on killing Zimmerman? We’ll never know. Zimmerman’s fear and thoughtless actions killed the one person who could have given a different view of events.
lbwoodgate,
“Z lost T. He lost him. T got away”
Perhaps but the only one who can tell us for sure if this is an accurate account is dead. All we have is Zimmerman’s account and we know it is instinctive to embellish accounts
True. however this is on the police recording.
Zimmerman: […] I don’t know where this kid is.
Dispatcher: Okay do you want to just meet with [officers] right near the mailboxes then?
Zimmerman: Yeah that’s fine.
Source, page 3.
The call goes on for another minute, they agree to have the police call him when they’re in the area so he can meet up and give a report.
This isn’t something Z made up after the fact. This was before it happened. T was free and clear of the overzealous vigilante cracker cowboy. He was alive and safe. Why not go home and play some x-box? Instead, for some reason, they wound up in a fight with Z back near his car. How did that happen?
“T was free and clear of the overzealous vigilante cracker cowboy. He was alive and safe. Why not go home and play some x-box?”
Your leaving out one critical factor here Mathius. Does Martin know he’s free and clear? Did he really feel safe? And I think I already mentioned why he thought it a bad idea, right or wrong, to go home. You’re interpreting events based on the phone conversation but we don’t know what Martin was actually thinking of at this time.
Did he circle around to get behind his pursuer in the hopes of catching him off guard. Some of the testimony and overheard phone conversations indicate this. If he did strike first – and it is not clear who took the first blow – did he do so only after he saw Zimmerman go for his gun? If so, he had grounds to defend himself and even try to kill the stranger he thought was going to kill him. Is Zimmerman’s testimony about being pinned down by Martin at first so he couldn’t get to his gun accurate or was this an embellishment to make him look good?
There has to be some critical thinking here to replace what we don’t know of Martin’s thoughts. Remember, Zimmerman took Martin’s account of events away when he aimed his gun at Martin’s heart and pulled the trigger. I’m taking some liberties here but the same can be said with your assumptions, no?
lbwoodgate,
There’s an awful lot of speculation in there. What if, what if, what if… this could have happened, that could have happened, this other thing could have happened.
Everything you mention is completely plausible.
The most likely scenario, in my head, is that T got upset and went back to fight: “who does this cracker think he is?” But I can’t prove that or back it up any more than your alternatives.
But I sure as hell can’t say Zimmerman is a murderer based on this dearth of evidence either.
Maybe T was a hoodlum. Maybe Z is colorblind. Maybe Z is a murderer who fully intended to kill T. Maybe T was a 100% innocent victim in all this. I don’t know. But there really just isn’t enough here to throw Z under the bus, I don’t think.
My gut says Z is a cowboy who profiled T, and T was a budding hoodlum who needlessly started the physical altercation after the ‘danger’ dissipated. This is the opinion I came to very reluctantly after a great deal of looking at this case. Even so, it is entirely possible I’m completely wrong.
Will you admit the possibility that you, too, are wrong?
“But I sure as hell can’t say Zimmerman is a murderer based on this dearth of evidence either.”
I neither accused you of making this claim nor did I assert such. Why would make that comment?
My gut feeling is much like yours, that Zimmerman was not a racists murderer but that doesn’t remove the racist element that can be found here. “These people always get away”
” Even so, it is entirely possible I’m completely wrong. Will you admit the possibility that you, too, are wrong?”
I thought I implied that at the end of my last response. There are no absolutes here. That leaves this case open for debate for years to come. Anyone who thinks they can draw an absolute final conclusion is a fool, IMO.
You do realize that George Zimmerman is Hispanic, right?
Hispanic people can’t be (possible) racists? Or overzealous cowboys?
They sure can, just like blacks can be racists and Asians can also. I was only clarifying you knowledge of the event since you mislabel him several times in your statement.
example: It was pretty clear to me what happened and why: White guy profiles black kid,…
Ah.. yes.. sorry.. still haven’t shaken the very first initial new reports where they said he was white (weird how first impressions stay with you).
Yes, I know he’s Hispanic, though I don’t think this changes anything in the narrative as I understand it. White, Black, Hispanic, Albino, Hasidim, it doesn’t change the facts of the case.
Also not widely reported:
*Zimmerman mentored young blacks; he also publicly protested what he considered to be the maltreatment of a black man at the hands of the police. There is not only no evidence that Zimmerman bore race-hatred toward blacks, there is much evidence to the contrary. The vile Al Sharpton – a person who should have been excommunicated from civil society 20 years ago – knew all this before he began his vicious campaign of race-baiting against Zimmerman.
*Zimmerman led a protest against the police after a homeless black man was the object of excessive use of force by police.
Trayvon was caught with women’s rings, necklaces and other jewelry in his backpack in school.
From the Miami-Herald : October 2011, when Martin was caught with a horde of women’s jewelry and the aforementioned screwdriver. According to a report issued by Trayvon’s school district, on October 21, security camera footage showed Trayvon Martin and two other students writing “W.T.F.” on a hallway locker. A security guard saw the footage, detained Trayvon and searched his bag for the offending marker. In the process of the search, the guard uncovered 12 pieces of women’s jewelry, a watch and the screwdriver.
Does anyone find it amusing that on last Thursday, Zimmerman and another person pull a husband and wife and their 2 children from an burning car and it isn’t reported for another 4 days? Perhaps that would interfere with the media hyped rallies to lynch Zimmerman?
lbwoodgate,
Zimmerman was not a racists murderer but that doesn’t remove the racist element that can be found here. “These people always get away”
Well now, THAT, looks like a good place to wrap this up.
Kudos to you, sir!