GREAT post!!! Spot on!! The race hustlers are out in force (Sharpton, NAACP
etc...). Obama made some very puzzling and disturbing comments over the past
week as well suggesting that had the races been reversed the black guy would
have been convicted which is baseless ignorance but predictably Obama. How we
all seem to forget the OJ verdict where a black murderer was allowed to walk
free ...because he was black!!
I don't know who was screaming or who was on top of the fight. I do know
that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car or have been carrying mace instead
of a gun.
Lane MyerSalt Lake City, UTWhen your nose is broken and your head is
being pounded into the pavement, one may not have the composure to think about
an arm or leg shot.
@Moderate "My original post never mentioned Zimmerman."In
the case under discussion, there was only one person who pulled a trigger and
claimed self-defense. You know who it was, and everyone reading your post knows
who it was."...Stand Your Ground..."The
Zimmerman defense didn't invoke Stand Your Ground. Their assertion is that
Zimmerman was pinned to the ground and had no opportunity for retreat. In this
circumstance, Stand Your Ground doesn't come into play. Their claim is that
he acted in straightforward self defense."I am worried about
copycat-Zimmermans...."Then tell everyone to avoid being
provoked. If someone merely approaches them, they should not respond by pounding
What if had been your son or your daughter who was being beaten to death by
Martin - for whatever reason? What if your son or your daughter used deadly
force to stop the attack? What if a jury said that your son or your daughter was
"not guilty"? Would you still demand that your son or your
daughter be "investigated"?Would you still demand that
justice had not been served?
wrz said, "Zim got shot while Martin was on top of him." On what planet
were you living when this trial was going on? Zimmerman got shot? Where were
his wounds? If you think you're funny making up this nonsense then think
again.So, back to the original argument. "Martin did the
tracking. All Zim was doing was keeping Martin in sight to better inform the
police re his location when they arrived."Can you explain this
logic? Martin was doing the tracking but Zimmerman was just keeping him in
sight? Martin's job must have been easy then if Zimmerman was staying
close enough to keep him in sight.Here's the bottom line.
Martin was walking through a neighborhood with no proveable ill intent. His
only sin was being a black teenager. I could use the slur that George Zimmerman
used but the monitor would go crazy. An armed neighborhood watchman tracked his
actions and in the end, shot him dead. And somehow a large portion of our
population wants to make Martin the bad guy.
@Lane Myer:"I just keep thinking about the parents. Their son went to
7-11 for a drink and skittles. He never came home."True. He
stopped to smash someone's nose and bang his head on cement. Bad choice."... how would I tell my son to act..."Tell him not
to start fights... especially with someone who might have a gun."Treyvon was not doing anything wrong when he was followed by
Zimmerman."Trouble is, he did something wrong when he beat Zim
up. Not a good idea."He just did not know that the
'creepy' man following him."I think he said not only
'creepy' but added something about derriere and another name for a
saltine. A racist term."... why didn't George Z. just
wound Martin?"Zim had no chance to aim since he was getting his
face pummeled.@Moderate:"Why didn't Martin have the
right of self defense?"He did, but apparently his fists (and a
cement sidewalk) are no match to a gun.@atl134:"...
Jeantel said that the last words she heard over the phone was Martin yelling
'Get off!'"She also said Martin started the fight.
@LaneThe physical evidence is clear that Martin was on top of
Zimmerman when he was shot. I would love to hear from you how you
aim to only injure someone who is on top of you and hitting you. In that state
of being dominated and panicked, I think he was lucky to get a shot off at
all.But if you can explain how that works, I will try to put that in
my bag of tricks the next time I have to defend myself from being pummeled,
while on my back, getting beat into the ground.With regard to
racism, we need to address each act that is racist. But the blanket
generalizations about any of this, are inherently racist, and accomplish
nothing. So far, the only non-generalization act of racism in this
case was Martin calling Zimmerman a cracker. The push to call
Zimmerman racist is totally based on racism against him. This isn't a case
for the DOJ, or the NAACP, or activist Sharpton, because it was not about race.
They just happened to be different colors.Moderate - FYI Criminal
courts don't put laws on trial.
Let's roll things back. Let's assume that Martin had succeeded in
killing Zimmerman. Testimony was given that Martin was pounding
Zimmerman's head against the cement. Evidence showed that Zimmerman had
been beaten. So, let's assume that Martin had succeeded. Let's
assume that the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on Martin.How
many posters would be demanding that Martin be brought to justice for killing a
"white Latino"?How many posters would be telling us that
race motivated the killing of Zimmerman?How many protesters would be
marching in the streets?Would Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton be
demanding that Martin be punished?Would Eric Holder be demanding
laws be changed and that Martin be investigated?Would Obama tell us
that if he had a son that he would be just like Zimmerman? Would he tell us
that as a youth how he feared for his life in Hawaii?There is a
double standard in America. Racism is clearly evident, but that racism is not
coming from the Latino or caucasian communities.
2 people hike up a mountain.1 person comes down.The other is
dead at the bottom of a cliff.The one claims the other one
"fell".The victim has no say-so at all.This is the
dilemma of this case.
@Edgar:"So how did they come together in a scuffle that resulted in
Zimmerman killing Martin?"Martin did the tracking. All Zim was
doing was keeping Martin in sight to better inform the police re his location
when they arrived."I'm assuming you acknowledge there was a
scuffle...Yes, according to the evidence... (1) eye witness and (2)
Zim's bloody nose and scalp. Who did that? Zim did it to himself?"... because if Martin was shot from a distance, by someone just
observing and reporting, then that definitely is a case of murder, or at least
manslaughter."Zim got shot while Martin was on top of him. Did
you not see the evidence presented in the trial?@Moderate:"Zimmerman got out of the car and approached Martin. That is
aggression."That's not aggression. That's
observation. He was the neighborhood watchman. I guess he was supposed to only
watch so long as the watchee was in plain sight... then stop watching when he
rounded a corner out of sight.
"Zimmerman got out of the car and approached Martin. That is
aggression."What terror when one exits the local Walmart. All
those hundreds of aggressive people that get out of their cars and approach you.
Such massive aggression. Approaching another person is not an act
Nate / Alter Nate "You want a man sent to prison over a bunch of stuff you
don't know"My original post never mentioned Zimmerman. You
interjected that. My original post is about the law, not the man. I believe
the current law is a perversion of the original intent of Stand Your Ground. I
am worried about copycat-Zimmermans who will think they can get away with murder
by provoking a response, killing, and then claiming self-defense. That law
needs to be fixed. It does not make Florida safer.
@redshirt1701"lots of criminals are killed as homeowners are defending
themselves. Should all people who defend themselves against agressors be
arrested too?"There's a difference between killing someone
who invaded your home and killing someone you chose to pursue after the
dispatcher told you it wasn't necessary.@Nate"Yes,
after hearing a bump and some "wet grass" noises. And by this you are
able to divine who the aggressor was?"You asked for evidence and
I gave what there was. It's not like Zimmerman would say he was so
there's not much left to use. It can still be that Martin threw the first
punch, perhaps after grappling (which would explain the "get off" thing
since that would suggest some continued contact from Zimmerman rather than a
punch).@jsf"and the police could not arrest him until they
investigated."That can't be true, otherwise police would
never arrest say... a suspect involved in a domestic dispute on scene.
@Lane Myer "If you were planning on attacking someone, would you still be
talking on the phone? Would you still be listening to music (his ear buds were
still in, btw)?"Would you leave your earbuds in while talking on
the phone?But what we're talking about here is a bunch of
maybe's. You want to send a man to prison because of maybe? The
prosecutor's job was to present evidence.
"...If you had a black, teenage son, how would you have him act, walk,
dress, etc?...".Like a missionary...Even that might
not work in some communities.One thing seldom addressed, in a
discussion about this tragedy, is the inevitable use of mental filters we all
use to make sense of our daily life.We KNOW George Zimmerman's
mental filter.George Zimmerman is convinced that whatever happened
that night was justified...made perfect sense.Trayvon Martin is
dead. We will never hear his side of the story. We will never KNOW what mental
filter he used.So we are left with both sides claiming the high
road...both sides claiming moral superiority...both sides claiming some insight
as to exactly what happened...both sides claiming why it happened.With only one side able to report, the other side continues to have serious
doubts as to the veracity of that report.One last question...Do ALL families, give their children, especially their MALE children,
the same basic set of survival instructions, as those children go out into the
Last August, Wendy Dorival got a call about setting up a local neighborhood
watch. As the volunteer coordinator for the Police Department here, she gets
such calls regularly, and the city already had at least 10 active watch groups.
So she thought nothing of this call, from George Zimmerman.She set
up a visit at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community that had been dealing
with a string of burglaries. She then gave a PowerPoint presentation and
distributed a handbook. As she always does, she emphasized what a neighborhood
watch is — and what it is not.In every presentation, “I
go through what the rules and responsibilities are,” she said Thursday.
The volunteers’ role, she said, is “being the eyes and ears”
for the police, “not the vigilante.” Members of a neighborhood watch
“are not supposed to confront anyone,” she said. “We get paid
to get into harm’s way. You don’t do that. You just call them from
the safety of your home or your vehicle.”Mr. Zimmerman was
there, she recalled, and the local group appointed him their coordinator.
@Moderate "Zimmerman got out of the car and approached Martin."You don't know who approached whom."That is
aggression."That is the sound of your argument falling in
pieces."Martin chose fight instead of flight."You don't know that, either. You want a man sent to prison over a bunch
of stuff you don't know.
Having a strong opinion based on what you see or read in the media is a
dangerous thing. None of us were at the scene or on the jury. If you have a
strong opinion than you have fallen into the trap of prejudice. Not necessarily
racial prejudice but it is based on having no real knowledge.Both
sides need to lighten up and stop perpetuating ignorance.
@silo "Zimmerman wasn't found 'innocent' he was found
'not guilty' due to a lack of evidence."Then why is
everyone around here pretending they know what happened?
NatePleasant Grove, UT@atl34 "Martin's friend
Jeantel said that the last words she heard over the phone was Martin yelling
'Get off!'."Yes, after hearing a bump and some
"wet grass" noises. And by this you are able to divine who the aggressor
was?----------If you were planning on attacking someone,
would you still be talking on the phone? Would you still be listening to music
(his ear buds were still in, btw)?Just questions that we will never
have answers to - If you had a black, teenage son, how would you
have him act, walk, dress, etc?
To "Truthseeker" wrong. You don't have to be in your home for self
defense. Under the Utah conceal carry laws, you only have to feel threatened or
have cause for concern for your life or people around you.If you
read the Utah Criminal Code 76-2-402, nowhere does it say that to defend
yourself you have to be in your own home.Nice try, but the Utah laws
do not agree with you, and I doubt most state laws would agree with you.
NatePleasant Grove, UT@Moderate "Why didn't Martin have the
right of self defense?"He did. Where is your evidence that Zimmerman
was the aggressor?Right here --> Zimmerman got out of the car
and approached Martin. That is aggression.While you proclaim that
is an innocent harmless act, your body would not react that way. A car
following you would be suspicious. It would raise your tension level. When you
see that person get out of the car, your body is going through "fight or
flight" decision making. Its not normal for a car to follow a pedestrian.
Its not normal for the driver of that car to stop and make his way towards you.
My gut instinct - your gut instinct - would be that person might mean you harm.
There are no positive signs to tell you "oh this person is friendly".
Martin chose fight instead of flight. Zimmerman was the aggressor. Its not
about who threw the first punch.
@atl34 "Martin's friend Jeantel said that the last words she heard over
the phone was Martin yelling 'Get off!'."Yes, after
hearing a bump and some "wet grass" noises. And by this you are able to
divine who the aggressor was?
"until they did an investigation the police couldn't have been totally
sure he acted in accordance with (or outside of) the law." Zimmermon did
not flee, he stayed in contact with the police, and the police could not arrest
him until they investigated. I guess from a lot of these comments arrests
should be made based on the feelings of the mob on any one day.Jeantel has subsequently said, that Zimmermon must have been a gay, and she
was sure Travon was the first to attack Zimmermon. Get the feeling her
testimony about facts is not quite solid.
Re:RedshirtMost/many states recognize the right to defend oneself
WITHIN one's home."Stand your ground" laws go
further--to include use of deadly force anywhere outside one's home."A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is
attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to
retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force,
including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so
to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to
prevent the commission of a forcible felony."(Jury instructions page
12)Furthermore,The National Sheriffs’ Association, which
sponsors the Neighborhood Watch program nationwide, is absolutely clear on one
point: guns have no place in a watch group. Manuals distributed by the
association repeatedly underscores the point: “Patrol members do not carry
weapons.”Wendy Dorival, the Neighborhood Watch volunteer
coordinator for the Sanford Police Dept said in an interview, "Using a gun
in the neighborhood watch role would be out of the question."
wrz said, "He wasn't 'followed and tracked.' He was observed
and reported by a neighborhood watch ..."So how did they come
together in a scuffle that resulted in Zimmerman killing Martin? I'm
assuming you acknowledge there was a scuffle because if Martin was shot from a
distance, by someone just observing and reporting, then that definitely is a
case of murder, or at least manslaughter.
@Nate"What evidence do you have that Zimmerman started the fight?
"What evidence do you have that Martin started the fight? Answer: The guy who pursued and shot him said Martin started itWhat evidence do you have that Zimmerman only used the gun when Martin reached
for it?Answer: The guy who pursued and shot him said Martin reached for
the gunWhat evidence do you have that Martin pursued Zimmerman back
to his truck?Answer: The guy who pursued and shot him said soWhat evidence do you have that Martin looked suspicious?Answer: The guy
who pursued and shot him said he looked suspiciousZimmerman could
have had his weapon drawn when he approached Martin. Zimmerman could have
thrown multiple blows to start the whole scuffle. Martin may well have been
defending himself and getting the upper hand on an aggressive adult that
attacked.All we have is the testimony from the shooter, he has every
reason to fabricate the details and no evidence can substantiate those
claims.Zimmerman wasn't found 'innocent' he was found
'not guilty' due to a lack of evidence.
"and a predetermined chip on his shoulder,and was activity looking for
a reason to support his motivation."No the courts said not so.
That was the intent of the prosecution, they didn't prove it.
LDS Liberal The real question was not "Did this need to happen".Obviously it didn't "need" to happen. But turning that
question into "was this murder"... just didn't work (for the
jury).We can ramp up the partisan rhetoric all we want in these
comments... but it's not productive. We all just need to think about how
we would handle this situation if it ever happened to us... and go on from
there. If we do that... we will all learn something from this.If
we just keep bickering about whether Zimmerman could have prevented this or
not... or if he had racism in his heart or not... or if he called Martin names
or not... gets us nowhere. We need to learn something from this. What will
it be?I intend to learn something that will prevent something like
this from happening to me. Not just try to vilify Zimmerman or anyone who
@Moderate:"That law allowed a bully to pick a fight, pull a trigger
when he started to lose, and then claim it was all in self-defense."No, no. The law allows for someone to defend themselves with a lethal
weapon if someone, without cause or provocation, smashes them in the face and
beats their head on a cement sidewalk."The jurors wanted to
convict, but couldn't get around that law. It's a horrible
law."It's a horrible law unless you're the one getting
beat up by a teen punk... then it suddenly turns into a good law.@Midvaliean:"The outrage lies in the fact that Treyvon was killed,
and no one was arrested for 40 days."Tell us about the arrests
re the 9 thousand murders in Chicago since the Martin/Zimmerman incident.
Apparently, the Black deaths in Chicago don't concern the Black community
since it was mostly Black on Black.@Edgar:"... an armed
citizen who followed and tracked an unarmed teenager..."He
wasn't 'followed and tracked.' He was observed and reported by a
neighborhood watch in an area were robberies were a common event.
To "LDS Liberal" since when is wanting to protect your neighborhood from
an unusually high number of breakins "a predetermined chip on his
shoulder". If your neighborhood was suffering from high crime, would you
start a neighborhood watch program? If you were on that watch program
wouldn't you stop some of the unknown people roaming around your
neighborhood just to make sure they were not going to cause any problems?Had you followed the court case, you would have seen that it was in fact
Trevon that had the chip on his shoulder and did not require much of anything to
provoke a violent response. Remember, Zimmerman didn't pull out the gun
until AFTER being attacked.To "atl134" lots of criminals are
killed as homeowners are defending themselves. Should all people who defend
themselves against agressors be arrested too? According to the laws and jury in
Florida, Zimmerman acted in self defense. So again, no laws were broken, so why
arrest him? The state never believed it had a case and only arrested him
because of mob pressure.
There seems to be confusion regarding news reports concerning the heigth and
weight of Martin and Zimmerman. Accoding to wikipeadia, Martin was
5'11" 158 lbs. Zimmerman was 5'7" 200 lbs.
@Redshirt1701"why should somebody be arrested? Zimmerman was acting in
accordance with Flordia law. "He killed a guy, and until they
did an investigation the police couldn't have been totally sure he acted in
accordance with the law. They seem to have just accepted whatever the killer was
saying and went with that. It might have worked out in the end in this case, but
that seems like an incredibly dangerous standard of practice to use.
@Nate"What evidence do you have that Zimmerman started the fight?
"Martin's friend Jeantel said that the last words she heard
over the phone was Martin yelling "Get off!".
The only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner.
Moderate I think I explained that. He does have the right to self defense...
if Zimmerman threatened his life. But I don't think Zimmerman walked up
to him and said, "I'm going to kill you".Martin did
have the right to defend himself if Zimmerman threatened him. I think the jury
believed that Martin was not acting Defensively. That's key.I
don't think Zimmerman came up to him and said I'm going to kill you.
He may have asked what he's doing, or said wait for police, or something
like that. But none of these trigger the Stand Your Ground law (which requires
reasonable fear for your life).So yes Martin had the same rights
Zimmerman had. He just didn't have the reasonable fear for his life
Zimmerman had.And before we go there... yes, it's
Zimmerman's fault that the altercation occurred. He could have prevented
it. But that doesn't make it Murder.You can go back in
history in every tragedy and find a place where a different decision by anybody
could have prevented what happened. Bad decisions before the incident
doesn't make intent to Murder.
@Moderate "Why didn't Martin have the right of self defense?"He did. Where is your evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor?Right here -->
The real question remains -- Did this need to happen?If George
Zimmerman was in his house, and heard an intruder, and the intruder
attacked - I would support him.If George Zimmerman was at Trolley
Square or a Mall or School, and heard gun shots, and took action and
out a lunatic - I would support him.BUT --George Zimmerman
went out his home that night, with a gun, and a predetermined chip
on his shoulder, and was activity looking for a reason to support his
motivation.He didn't find one, so he created one.And the ONLY other witness to what really happened was dead.
Edgar, I find it fascinating how much consternation is coming from those that
DON'T agree with the verdict. They keep trying and trying and trying to
make this a race issue when there is nothing in the evidence of the case or
Zimmerman's background to suggest that race was a factor. Yet, people with
an agenda to make race an issue whenever they can won't leave it along. I
personally believe both parties were at fault. Zimmerman was overly zealous in
being a neighborhood watchdog and probably should never have been carrying a
weapon that night. And, I believe Martin violently attacked him. So what do you
do with that situation? Send a man to jail for 30 years who clearly had no ill
intentions and isn't a criminal? Especially, when there was AMPLE doubt in
the case of his guilt? The verdict was correct. Was it entirely just? Maybe not
but definitely correct.
To "Midvaliean" why should somebody be arrested? Zimmerman was acting
in accordance with Flordia law. He broke no laws. The only laws that were
broken were broken by Trevon, and you really can't arrest a dead person.
Had Trevon not died, he would have been arrested for assault or worse.To "Steve C. Warren" if it wasn't for the "Stand your
Ground" laws, then a criminal can enter your home or come up to you on the
street with the intent to hurt or kill you, and if you defend yourself, you can
be put in jail for not fleeing. So tell us, which way is better, legally
telling people they can stand their ground to defend themselves, or tell them
that they must run and hide if threatened?
Holder' concept of defense: Someone just broke into your home, shot a
family member, then you are duty bound to escape before returning fire. Under
Holder's concept if you returned fire you would be charged with murder or
attempted murder and have to prove escape was not possible. The prior shooting
of a family member is irrelevant. Think it not so, just read all the postings
that lack facts about this case. The new call for a new judiciary system,
courts that convict on public sentiments not facts. And remember Obama is as
white as Zimmermon.
2 bits "I tend to agree with the person who said, "Self defense is a
right". I think our right to self defense it inalienable (not subject to
political approval)."Why didn't Martin have the right of self
Kayser,The Florida law does not say what you said.The law is
776.013. Google it. Read it. It doesn't say what you said (even if
somebody on MSMBC said that's in there). You can read it for yourself.It's important to note that Martin also had the right to stand his
ground and defend himself. He is protected by the same law if... Zimmerman
threatened his life.But just asking you to wait for police is not
threatening your life. From all evidence and witnesses accounts... the gun
didn't come out till the beating started. Martin didn't have the
right to start the beating just because Zimmerman asked some questions (no
matter how inappropriate he found the questions). He would only have the right
to jump on Zimmerman if Zimmerman was threatening his life. I don't think
anybody's claiming Zimmerman walked up to Martin with a gun and threatened
to kill him.Martin should have told Zimmerman to leave him alone and
call 911. Zimmerman should have stayed in the car. Leaving the car isn't
Truthseeker and Moderate, you are absolutely right about the application of the
"stand your ground" law in this case, and Counter Intelligence, you are
absolutely wrong.Hopefully, the Justice Department can persuade
courts to overturn these laws. Such laws provide an open invitation for someone
with a chip on his shoulder to provoke an unarmed person. Then, when a fight
breaks out and he's getting whipped, he can pull out his concealed weapon
and open fire.
Moderate,This may have had nothing to do with race for you, but if you
think it has nothing to do with race for Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the
protests they are organizing and the riots.... you have another think coming.
I think we can all admit that it has something to do with race.I tend to agree with the person who said, "Self defense is a
right". I think our right to self defense it inalienable (not subject to
political approval). I think it's part of human nature, and something we
are born with (not something the government gives to us).That
includes monitoring your neighborhood to keep threats away, as well as defending
our life when you are convinced your life will be over if you don't.Zimmerman made huge mistakes. He shouldn't have bothered Martin.
Martin was doing nothing wrong. But I don't believe the only reason he
watched Martin was race. I think he had other reason to watch Martin (the way
he was dressed, the way he was acting, the smell of weed around him, etc).Race may have been one factor, but it wasn't the only factor.
@ModerateWhat evidence do you have that Zimmerman started the fight?
Post it right here -->
Re:CounterIntellWrong In the mind of at least one Juror,
"Stand your ground" laws did require they find Zimmerman not guilty.
According to the judge's instructions to the jury, Zimmerman
had "no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force
with force" if he reasonably feared for his life or great bodily harm.The jury instructions DID include the definition of the "stand your
ground" law, specifically on page 12.
Counter Intelligence - Of course there has been outrage expressed by those who
disagree with the verdict, In their mind a murderer has been set free. But
just as passionate and even more continuous is the need to justify the verdict
by those who agree with it. Why so much passion about a decision they agree
with? Why do they feel it necessary to make statement they have no way of
proving. Stating that George Zimmerman's story is, in fact, the facts is
nonsense. It is simply his side of the story and the jury decided to believe
it. So the case is over. And finally, instead of accepting the
verdict as a victory, their need to justify it has turned them into name
callers. Trying to use Martin Luther King's words to then call the
advocates of black rights racist is just nonsense. When OJ Simpson
was set free you didn't see the same thing from those who agreed with the
verdict. Although I disagreed with that verdict I can't say I heard those
who disagreed with me continuing the argument for weeks after. They won. Just
Florida law actually states that if you start a fight, you cannot claim
self-defense as an excuse. For some reason the jury was never informed of this
part of the law.
I just keep thinking about the parents. Their son went to 7-11 for a drink and
skittles. He never came home.Was it because of his color of skin?
Was it his age? Was it because he was male? Was it a combination of all of
them? Probably.Now I ask myself, how would I tell my son to act if
he had all of those traits so that they come home every night? Treyvon was not
doing anything wrong when he was followed by Zimmerman.Was it
because a seventeen year old boy wanted to be a man and not just run home? Did
he turn around to "stand his ground" for the right to walk home without
being stalked, followed and feel afraid? I can understand this too. He just
did not know that the "creepy" man following him was armed and would use
that weapon to kill him.And I ask myself, why didn't George Z.
just wound Martin? Did he have to shoot to kill? Wouldn't a shot in the
shoulder, arm, or leg accomplished the feat of allowing him to escape
Treyvon's grasp? What a waste of life, time, and resources.
The only proof of racism in this story is when treyvon used a derogatory and
racist term to describe Zimmerman Shame on treyvon and others like
him who think using racist terms is acceptable.
Moderateyou are completely wrong self defense laws exist in all
states in some formthe prosecution didn't even make an issue of
Florida's stand you ground lawsAl Sharpton and Eric Holder
didn't make it a cause because they thought it was a bad lawThe New
York Times did not make up silly terms like "white Hispanic" because it
was a bad lawNBC did not racially edit tapes because it was a bad lawit was only about race
I find it fascinating how much consternation is coming from those who agree with
the decision in the George Zimmerman trial. It seems that a verdict of not
guilty is not enough to make them happy. They continue to go on and on about
the virtues of the justice system that has decided that an armed citizen who
followed and tracked an unarmed teenager to the point that an altercation
occurred leaving the unarmed teenager dead. And now it seems they want to put
the unarmed teenager and those who are speaking out on his behalf are the
racists, not the armed citizen who was recorded yelling a racial slur just
before he shot and killed the unarmed teenager.A trial was held and
a jury decided. What's wroing with just leaving it at that? Some of us
will continue to have our opinions - like would I be safe visiting the state of
Florida if I happen to be wearing a hoody and look a stranger in a neighborhood
- but people have opinions about every issue. What's done is done.
Let's leave it at that.
The outrage lies in the fact that Treyvon was killed, and no one was arrested
for 40 days. To the black community it seemed like another dead black man that
the USA doesn't care about enough to even prosecute. Zimmerman is
almost a side story, the real racism here is the Florida police department not
caring enough about a dead black boy to even TRY to find out what happened until
someone twisted their arm.
I wonder why some cases are beat to death, Natalie Holloway, Laci Peterson
particularly by Greta Van Susteren while others are mere footnotes on fox or
only local news stories like they should be. Tragic but what makes them more
newsworthy than others.
"The reason is pure and simple — and racist. It is because of skin
color." -- Ryan PhillipsThis case wasn't about race at all.
Its about a bad law. That law allowed a bully to pick a fight, pull a trigger
when he started to lose, and then claim it was all in self-defense. For the
bully, its a win-win. Either he picks a fight and wins, or he loses the fight
and kills a man for free.Americans didn't tune in because of
race. They tuned in because they hoped to see a bad law fail in court. The
jurors wanted to convict, but couldn't get around that law. It's a