Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by stormspotter, Apr 13, 2012.
The fix is in.
this doesnt sound good, but will it trump witness testimony?
What do you mean "fix"? You don't think that Z followed/profiled/confronted/killed the unarmed Trayvon (sp?) ??
Why is that?
Do you have issues with the truth?? The 911 recording says it all.
The 911 tape shows Zimmerman said "OK" when the dispatcher said not to follow Martin. Until an eye witness comes forward and says he did not stop following Martin, we will have to wait till everything comes out in court.
How many of these supposed witnesses saw the whole encounter beginning-to-end? This Z guy looks like he got himself into some hot water by pursuing some innocent civilian* and then fatally shooting him. That's what the police are supposed to do. They don't look kindly upon others filling their shoes.
I've been involved locally with neighborhood watch and the police want people to call if they see anything out of the ordinary. If an area has had an increase in crime, a lot of calls to the PD are not uncommon. Police have also asked that someone be followed, but not approached, and report their location. That MAY be why Zimmerman did not go directly to his vehicle, but was looking for an address to give to the dispatcher.
Did Zimmerman stop when dispatcher told him to. His reply of OK leads us to believe he did, but no one knows for sure except him.
If, and it's a big IF, Martin then followed Zimmerman and attacked him, because he felt disrespected or whatever, then Zimmerman MAY be justified in his shooting.
All that is sure right now is that Race Baiters and politicians are the ones pushing this case.
Hopefully he will get a fair trial, but only time will tell.
Just because there seems to be an acknowledgement by the killer (or shooter, if you're sensitive) that he would cease his pursuit, doesn't make it so. In fact, I would bet it is highly unlikely that this wanna-be-authoritarian stopped tracking his prey down. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Z already had his hand on his weapon through the entire process. He followed, and encountered this kid who is/was completely innocent of crime. The kid was just walking around. Until you* can prove he was involved/indulged in criminal activity, he was just some unarmed guy that found a killer all hopped up on adrenaline and tough-guy-authority.
I wonder how this would have gone down if Z had just shouted out to the guy "Hey! What are you doing? Are you lost?" when he felt there was need for investigation.
Hollering out to someone on public property is not a crime. Acting like you are judge/jury/executioner and killing some kid is. And that's why there are charges. Don't make this Z into a martyr just yet. So far he's only a weak pathetic murderer.
* is not applied directly to those replied to
Lots of assumptions here. You shouldn't ass-u-me.
Much of it is indeed fact. The rest may even come to light during the trial. Outside of some random post/confession on Facebook from the teen about how he was departing to burgle or rob on the night of his murder, what are you hoping to see come to light?
All the details don't matter one hoot.
Zimmerman sealed his doom when he got out of his vehicle.
His job was to observe and report.
After calling the police his job was finished.
I'll bet security companies all over the country are telling their
employees, "see, this is why you don't get involved".
Why don't you assume Zimmerman innocent until proven guilty? You've given Martin the benefit of the doubt.
Why others don't see it this way (rationally) is beyond a mystery to me. But maybe more than a few are similarly inclined to pursue otherwise innocent persons just based on stereotypes etc.
Z, indeed, pursued/tracked/entered conflict with the person he moments later shot and killed.
Suppose you were walking around on public property (or even someone else's property) and were guilty of nothing. You can even wear a hooded sweatshirt if you prefer. I won't judge you. Then, some guy decides he doesn't like the look of you (maybe some guy preconceived by opinions based on race, perhaps) and comes up starting to give you the business. You are unarmed and this guy starts getting violent (or at least antagonist towards you) with you. Are you going to defend yourself? Even if all you can do is punch him in the face when he grabs onto you (or maybe brandishes his weapon)? What if you are now in an encounter with a man you know to be hostile and armed? All you can do is win the physical battle to save your life. You try, really you do. Trying to end the encounter that was brought upon you. You didn't want it, but.....
Now your life culminates in a pool of your own blood (and maybe some of the blood you were able to exact from your murderer during you initial attempt to defend your life).
I don't really expect a poignant response.
You obviously have some special knowledge of what happened that the eye witness and responding officers are ignorant of. In addition to:
I also ask "How is it you were endowed with this special knowledge?"
No, you've managed to take what few details we are aware of, draw a conclusion using emotion and present it as fact. You're arguments, like many others, aren't rational.
I hope the truth, no matter what it may be, comes out. Then I'll proceed to make comments based on fact rather than emotion.
What was Martin guilty of? Darkness of skin? Like I said, if there's some incriminating evidence that the young man was out to commit crimes (Facebook posts have been used more than once to establish that sort of thing) then hopefully it will all come out in trial.
As for the eyewitnesses, what's their story? They saw the whole thing, or tuned their attention to the sight of Martin on top of Z? How did it get to that point? There was, before that part even happened, at least the pursuit of the teen by the armed Z. Even the authorities that Z was able to hail told him to cease his efforts. Yet, somehow, he still fatally wounded the person he was tailing.
You're using emotion again as an argument.
No special knowledge us required.
If Zimmerman would have followed the proper procedures, none of this would have happened. Period.
He had NO business getting out of his vehicle.
Observe and report, that's the extent of his involvement.
All the witnesses and all the details are a moot point.
The prosecutor is going to hang him out to dry all because he got out of his vehicle and got involved.
I'll even bet there's a piece of paper signed by him when he got that job instructing him not to get involved. Observe and report only.
And based on the amount of prior calls to police, there's probably more than a few police officers/dispatchers that told him not to do what he did.
I'll concede he really shouldn't have gotten out of his vehicle. However, getting out of his car isn't illegal nor is stupidity.
Maybe you're looking at it like getting out of your car at the market or the doctor's office or something. What if you were following someone you judged to look like enough of a delinquent to warrant your surveillance and possible detention. Even though they were engaged in no apparent crime. And even though the officers you called told you to disengage. Does that make it seem like a stupid (and probably illegal) thing to do?