R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
That is entirely irrelevant to the case. Would it make a difference if he had been an altar boy who served at a Pope’s Mass?
Our opinions don’t mean “jack” unless we’re on the Grand Jury.
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
His history is totally irrelevant to this case. It amazes me how much junk keeps getting brought up that has nothing to do with this killing, as if it in some bizarre set of scales balances a loss of life.
At the end of the day, Zimmerman will be toast. There can be no denying in a civil case that if he had obeyed the officer on the phone and not chased this young man down, Martin would still be alive. If he had not carried a gun on a neighborhood watch, as is proper practice for neighborhood watch, Martin would be alive. It is his careless and reckless actions that directly led this death.
L
L_piperatus
Guest
Yes, a good point, and I also agree with pnewton’s observation that “Perhaps here we see the flaw of this law. If both parties stand their ground, it becomes a fight to the death.”
I have been approached/followed at least three times on the street by people after dark, in a way that was potentially threatening, and I retreated every single time. I felt retreating could better defuse the tension and de-escalate the situation. One of these folks was a really aggressive panhandler in New Orleans’s French Quarter. When I said I couldn’t help him and walked away, he started following me and yelling at me “What, are you afraid of me because I’m black?” It was really spooky how he followed me and yelled at me trying to pick a racial confrontation, but at least it was in a really high traffic area of downtown, so I had a hope he would not get physically aggressive.
My next case was potentially more dangerous - an irate guy following me and yelling at me on an empty street at night. It started when I was sitting at Wendy’s having dinner and this guy knocked on the window from the outside, signalling that he was hungry. I gave him $5, after which he got some food, sat down at my table, and soon said to me, “I want to touch you!” I freaked out and started yelling “Get out of here or I call the police!” and he got out, however he was waiting for me outside on the dark and empty street when I left some 15 minutes later…
In the third case, I also chose to retreat. I was in front of an apartment complex on the public side-walk when the security guard approached me and asked what was I doing there. My first thought was “It’s none of your business” but my second thought was, “hey, it’s a dangerous job to be a security guard and he is just trying to do his job as best as he can”. Although the guard’s question was uttered in a tone that I found confrontational and less than fully respectful, I just let it go - why get involved in a verbal altercation with a security guard?
Based on my own experience, I see how things can feel threatening in an encounter, especially after dark and in low-traffic areas. I believe it’s good for everybody to learn some skills of de-escalating and avoiding confrontation whenever possible.
G
gilliam
Guest
G
Ghosty
Guest
The neighbor’s words really aren’t relevant at all; perhaps all the burglaries were carried out by young Black males. How would that change the case one way or another? It certainly wouldn’t make Zimmerman more nor less racist if every single crime in that neighborhood were indeed committed by Black people. This is irrelevant to the question of whether Zimmerman was targeting Trayvon because of the color of his skin.
As for the other 911 calls all they show is that Zimmerman was particularly zealous as a neighborhood watchman. They don’t automatically demonstrate racism because he’s not displaying a particular hatred for Blacks. Again, if he has said that he dislikes Blacks, distrusts them, wants them gone, wants to hurt them, or anything else like that then we have more to work with. I for one wouldn’t be surprised if he is a malicious racist (and if he did utter a racist term while pursuing Trayvon then that would be demonstration enough for me), but I’m not ready to throw the book at him for a “hate crime” when the evidence isn’t there.
I don’t have a particularly high standard for determining racism, and I have a very low tolerance for it coming from a mixed family as I do, but I try to be very careful in my judgements of people’s motivations because it’s too easy to snap to judgement wrongly. In the case of “hate crime” laws it’s not only easy to snap to judgement, it’s very dangerous because it can have serious implications for the person’s life.
Peace and God bless!
L
LovePatience
Guest
I’m really curious as to what your standard is for determining racism. Also, how do you weigh the impact on someone’s life for experiencing racism versus committing an act of racism?
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
He used racial slur while on the phone with a 911 operator. I’d consider that convincing evidence.
N
Nicko
Guest
It seems that the Sanford Police may have had a basis for not arresting Zimmerman on the spot.
So they may have not had enough information to arrest Zimmerman at the time. As soon as they were aware, however, that this was a case of pursuit rather than “Stand Your Ground” - which should have taken a couple of hours at most - there’s your probable cause.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
:sad_yes::sad_yes::sad_yes:
S
Seamus_L
Guest
The more time that passes without Zimmerman being arrested, the more I suspect that there may be more to this incident then we know about.
L
Lujack
Guest
And the more I feel certain that everything is exactly what it seemed to be at first glance.
G
Ghosty
Guest
My standard has been expressed in this thread several times now. Basically the person must use racial slurs, or make statements against a group, or show a clear and indisputable bias against a group. None of these apply to Zimmerman as of yet.
He did make a comment under his breath on the phone call with 911, but it’s not clear and people come away with a lot of different things that they hear. Some say they hear “goons”, some say “coons”, and others say “punks”; I can hear all three. If it’s determined by a voice analysis that he did say “coons” that would pretty much clinch it for me, as that’s not a term that’s clearly a derogatory term.
The fact that several of the dozens of 911 calls that Zimmerman has made have involved Black people doesn’t indicate racism, nor does it necessarily even indicate racial profiling. It is quite possible that every burglary in the neighborhood was committed by Black people, just as it’s possible that they were all committed by White people or Latinos. I just don’t have enough information at this point to say that Zimmerman was wrong about the crimes being committed by Black people**; **if it turns out that most of the crimes were committed by Whites, but he consistently only targeted, or mostly targeted, Blacks then that would indicate to me that he was racist.
EmperorNapoleon:
You speak as if this is very clear and undisputed, but it’s not. I can’t say that I definitely hear any racial slur in what he says, and neither can many others.
Peace and God bless!
G
Ghosty
Guest
This is what bothers me. The moment they learned that Zimmerman pursued the victim they would have had probable cause. It’s a stretch, but possible, that no one they talked to that night indicated that Zimmerman chased Trayvon down, but it’s certainly not true that in the month since the incident that they didn’t know he started the incident.
I believe, but can’t prove, that there was racial bias in the police ignoring the obvious probable cause in this case. Had it been a White kid shot I doubt this would have been overlooked, but I wouldn’t stake anyone’s career just on my suspicion.
Peace and God bless!
S
Sabda
Guest
This is my thinking. Zimmerman, in my book, is already in hot water for disobeying the dispatcher. The dispatcher clearly said don’t confront Martin, Zimmerman did it anyway.
Also, Martin apparently called one of his friends while all this was going on and notified them that he was being followed. Roughly five minutes later the police showed up and Martin is dead. I can’t find the article right now but it was on Yahoo news earlier.
Oh, It’s also now being reported that Zimmerman has a record, at least one count of domestic violence and becoming physical with a police officer in another incident.
George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin’s killer, had prior brushes with the law
The more that comes out about this the more interesting it becomes. I seriously doubt it was as cut and dried as a case of self-defense on the part of Zimmerman.
L
L_piperatus
Guest
I think one obscure detail is, how did Trayvon Martin end up on top of George Zimmerman, punching him in the face? We know from eyewitness testimony that before Zimmerman shot Martin, Martin was beating Zimmerman and Zimmerman was crying for help, but how did they get to that point?
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
We don’t know that. What we do know is that a witness reported to the police that she heard Martin crying for help and was promptly “corrected” by that officer and told that she heard Zimmerman not Martin. What we do know is that we’re dealing with a police department that is not only reluctant to investigate this case but has been trying to sweep every bit of evidence implicating a crime under the rug from day one.
P
pnewton
Guest
Time is not relevant any more. The police have already said it would be turned over to the Grand Jury. Everyone will have to cool their jets without prejudice because things will move at the speed of the legal system, no faster.
P
pnewton
Guest
Al Sharpton not withstanding, April 10th is when the Grand Jury will next convene. He can be impatient or not, but that is who will determing whether this will move forward. Even then, Zimmerman may be in and out of jail on bond, demanding more patience until the trial. Usually efforts like his do little nothing but slow the process down. It is possible that all the media attention is what prompted police to go the route of the Grand Jury and take their time with the investigation.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
It will certainly be interesting to hear his defense attorneys explain how a Stand Your Ground law is a license to chase someone down the street and accost them with a loaded gun. Zimmerman initiated a confrontation so he cannot claim self-defense. The prosecution can, and probably will, argue that it was in fact Martin who had the right to defend himself from a loose cannon stalking him in the night and chasing after him with a deadly weapon. It is Martin to whom the Stand Your Ground law applies not Zimmerman.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Trayvon Martin was legitimately “standing his ground”, as per the law. This of course assumes that Trayvon was indeed beating on Zimmerman.
That’s the sad thing about this whole thing: Trayvon should have been the one protected by this law, but instead he became the victim.
Peace and God bless!
- Status