GatewayRedbirds.com

Point of fact: The 911 operator never instructed him to NOT confront Trayvon. She kept saying "You don't have to do that," which could actually be perceived as permissive. In fact, had Trayvon been an actual burglar, the stand your ground law works, regardless of the operator's instructions.

The truth of all of this lies somewhere in between the two leaked accounts of the incident. I don't entirely believe Zimmerman, but I also don't entirely believe Trayvon's girlfriend. What I think happened was Zimmerman saw who he thought was a burglar, decided to confront him since the police would likely arrive too late. Upon confronting Trayvon a scuffle ensued (instigated by whom, we'll never truly know - Zimmerman because he followed him? Or Trayvon because of a perceived threat). The ensuing confrontation led Zimmerman, still under the impression that Trayvon was a burglar, to engage with a handgun. Now, here's where the mystery lies and here's where it gets real fuzzy...I think that what happened was an accidental shooting. Zimmerman had the safety off, there's a scuffle and Trayvon doesn't see the gun, and the gun fires and hits Trayvon. Of course many would disagree with that.

I also don't think that Zimmerman was a racist - garbled audio on 911 tape to the contrary - but was looking for anyone who fit the physical/attired description of a burglar. Race plaid a part in this only after the fact, really, and is more about the police's lack of response to the situation.

In the end, I think manslaughter would be easier to prosecute (which made me wonder why they're going murder 2 - can they go lower in Florida once the trial starts?), and would actually lead to a plea deal on this one.

Ultimately, I don't think the prosecution can prove murder 2 - see, OJ - and I think he'll walk.

_________________

BUTITISRACISMBECAUSEJESSIESHARPTONSAIDSOANDSPIKELEETWEETEDTHEVIGILANTEPOSSETOTHEWRONGADDRESS!!

_________________
Silence is golden.

But we also get the alternative

JUDGEPROSECUTERLADYWASPRESSUREDINTOTHESECHARGESANDISRUNNINGFORREELECTIONANDFOXNEWSSAIDSO!! ....ANDTHEYWANTTOTAKEOURGUNSAWAY!!!!!

I just don't know who you can listen to this and not conclude that Zimmerman is a racist.

911: If this guy does anything else.
Zimmerman: Okay. These assh*les, they always get away. Sh*t, he's running.
911 Operator: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance of the neighborhood.
911 Operator: Okay and which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance. *whispering* F*cking coons.
911 Operator: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
911 Operator: Okay, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Okay.

911 tape starts at 1:27. It's not cool. It's not goons. This isn't a ghost EVP. Clearly he said f*cking coons. I don't understand how this is so polarizing.

Maybe he is. Maybe he isn't.

But putting him on trial for murder is the best route to justice.

_________________
Silence is golden.

Actually, that sounds like a very polite "stop". But fair enough.

I'm also extremely confused where you get the SYG perspective on that? I have only heard that stand your ground only means if you feel threatened you do not have to retreat before using force to protect yourself. No where does it say "It's ok to confront and shoot a person cause he's a burglar." Can you source that?
This is what I was talking about earlier. In either of these cases, Zimmerman is at fault. If Zimmerman instigated, he has committed manslaughter, because no scuffle would have ensued had he remained in the safe harbor of his vehicle. Hell, if Trayvon had confronted him while he was still in his vehicle and shot him in cold blood he'd have a better case.

But if Trayvon instigated contact because he felt threatened, then Zimmerman is still at fault via Stand Your Ground. If Martin felt threatened by a man who was following him in his truck, who got out of a vehicle, after following, he could feel threatened enough to use force to defend himself. So if Zimmerman then shot him, after Trayvon was defending himself, he's again guilty of manslaughter (on my elementary knowledge of law).Again, if he approached Trayvon with a gun drawn, he was looking for a conflict and not attacked. If the gun goes off because of said conflict, I again, think he's guilty of manslaughter and not 100% innocent.

Also, Martin's mother and most agree, Zimmerman did not set out to shoot Martin and it was an accidental shooting. However accidental, though, that still makes Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter.

I'll make no comment to whether or not Zimmerman is a racist. I don't think he set out to shoot Martin simply because he was black, but I think to suggest his concern over Martin wasn't rooted in the fact he was black is naive. Had he been white and acting exactly the same, I sincerely doubt that boy is shot. If he's in a suit and not a hoody, I sincerely doubt he'd been shot. Had Zimmerman been black, I sincerely doubt Martin is shot. That doesn't make him racist, but it does raise some questions about societal projections of race, behavior and prejudices.

To the charges and and conviction, he has been charged with manslaughter as well as Murder 2. He can be convicted of manslaughter and not murder 2. However, we don't have all the facts and I believe that if Zimmerman set out to instigate an confrontation and ended up shooting Martin, intentionally or no, he could still be found guilty of murder 2.

This only compares to OJ because it's a matter that many in the black community have felt outrage over. Martin isn't on trial. OJ never admitted to actually killing someone. Zimmerman has freely, openly and repeatedly admitted that he shot Trayvon. This is not a doubt. How Martin was killed is the question.

The only single scenario I can come up with that exonerates Zimmerman is that he got out of his truck to knock on a neighbors door to make sure Martin didn't burglarize them. On his way back to his truck, Martin, who was hiding in bushes, sucker punches an unarmed Zimmerman from behind. Zimmerman, fearing this man will kill him, draws his gun and fires. The evidence, however, suggests at the very least Zimmerman was facing Martin (being on top of him slamming the back of his head to the concrete, per Zimmerman's statement) and was already concerned about Martin was dangerous - so why confront him? Especially close enough for Martin to enter an altercation? If you have a gun and fear someone is dangerous why aren't you 10-20+ yards away, gun drawn?

Again, manslaughter is on the table. If the court can raise reasonable doubt on Zimmerman's claim that he was attacked unprovoked and that ultimately Zimmerman initiated contact and a scuffle ensued he will be convicted of manslaughter, short of a racist jury member.

I'm so glad we have you here to point out every time someone you disagree with messes up. I mean, Zimmerman must be innocent because Jesse/Sharpton/Spike are ass hats and liberal commies amirite?

_________________

Show me where I argue that Zim is innocent. And show me where I clearly state he isn't a racist.

I honestly don't care if he's a racist or not.

The issue is the intense focus on his racist attitudes and the positioning of some to portray him as some type of racist monster, and thus more likely of committing the crime.

The case is about a murder of an unarmed man, not whether Zim is a racist pig, which he very well may be. The racism stuff is really just a sideshow, though you would not know it based on Jessie Sharpton's actions and Spike Lee's incredibly ignorant act (he's as much of a dumbass as Zim in the racial element).

I think racism is pretty pervasive, but not only in this country and not only affecting African descendants. But bleating about it constantly through the media and playing the well-worn race card does nothing to address the issue. In fact, it makes it worse (see Spike Lee and his reactionary nonsense).

Racism is a form of ignorance. As Dan Bernstein said, the battle against stupid may not be winnable. But for me it comes down to individual responsibility and trying really hard not to be stupid, ie making snap judgments about people's character based upon their appearance, and trying to get know people before you judge them.

But the media just beats this thing to death, with the Jessie Sharpton's of the world leading the way. And Zim's guilt or innocence has nothing to do with his racial language.

_________________
Silence is golden.

Show me where I called Zimmerman racist? So why keep bringing up Sharpton/Jackson/Spike? I don't see anyone here using that as a strike against the shooter.

No. The issue here is a 17 year old boy is dead and his shooter slept in his own bed that night. Notice how that sentence doesn't use a single word on race?

Yes. The media is playing the race baiting game. Why? It gets ratings. Period. It's the same reason no one covers Ron Paul. It's the same reason they do those stupid human interest 3 legged dog stories. Not because it's news or necessary, but because we invented cable tv and a 24 hour news cycle. Most of the people I've heard/talked to/read from suggest that the story here is a man shot a boy and admitted to it, then was set free with the gun that killed a kid that night. They don't listen to the race baiting ass hats.

The two categories I usually hear the race thing from over and over and over, are the loud mouths like Jackson/Sharpton/Spike and Zimmerman defenders who are trying to turn Martin in to a drug dealing thug decrying how the media is making this an issue of race. Most calling for justice are suggesting that race definitely played a role in Zimmerman's suspicions, but didn't set out to kill a kid simply for a being black. It seems the race card is played by race baiting media and those trying to defend Zimmerman. We don't need you to constantly point to every jerk off who is race baiting (we see it, we weren't born yesterday). I bolded the next part, and enlarged key words here for reference.

I'm not suggesting you're a Zimmerman defender.

_________________

You're a lot more sure than I am. What I've heard thoerized is either coons, punks, or cold and honestly it sounds like it could be any of those. If I were to phonetically transcribe what I hear, I'd say "cahnts" which makes no sense and it's still scratchy audio. There's not enough there to be conclusive IMO.

Whether or not he's a racist doesn't seem that relevant, especially since it can't be proven. Whatever the reason, he took things too far and he ended up shooting somebody and there's multiple points of failure along the way. He shouldn't really have called 911, he shouldn't have pursued Martin on foot, and should have made his firearm known before it came to a fistfight.

What strikes me about this is that if concealed carry is going to be allowed, there has to be some extra burden of responsibility on the gun owner/carrier to minimize conflict, and they have to be held more accountable somehow. That's only fair, otherwise the point about legalized "private murder" as someone here called it is valid. This kind of thing just can't be allowed to stand.

I'd like to read more of Zimmerman's account if it's available. As far as I know, he never identified himself to Martin or 911 as a neighborhood watch person. He says Martin asked him if he had a problem and he said "no?" That's another mistake once you've started following someone. That's time to say "hey i'm with neighborhood watch and i haven't seen you before, etc...by the way I'm carry a firearm...." Maybe that's a lot to expect, but again he's been allowed to carry a gun and serve on this watch.

Does it matter that there's no clear motive for Martin to attack Zimmerman unless he felt harassed? He was supposed to be in the neighborhood, he was out for a specific reason, and it's highly doubtful he was looking to burglarize a house at 9pm in his own father's neighborhood. It seems to me you have to believe Martin guilty of something before you let Zimmerman get off scot-free.

[/quote]
I did not accuse you of that. If you think I was referring to you, try again.



Glad we agree.

_________________
Silence is golden.