Thanks for the clarification. I also found his reluctance to call 911 odd. He’s supposed to be looking at the guy who he thinks might be involved with his best buddy nearly getting burgled the week before, so you’d have thought he’d really want to catch this guy, wouldn’t you? Or at least make sure he didn’t get out of sight. Which might entail getting out of his vehicle and even giving chase if the guy went off road.
That’s true. But, if someone’s affirmative defence says they were doing x when y happened, it’d be nice to be convinced that he was actually doing x. I’m sure I read somewhere though that he went home in his clothes and all they kept was his gun, flashlight, etc. Perhaps the reason he normally did his Sunday shopping with Shellie was exactly because he is forgetful? Either way, if you’ve got a guy with a previous disposition for memory lapses, how can you take anything he says on face value?
There’s a lot of things I wonder about Z and his mini crime-fighting army. I’d love to have been the fly on the wall for Z’s conversation with Taafe when Z was telling him how he’d saved Frank from a burgling by a Goon.
Most of the time they are blowing smoke, it is just an act - and when alone, or without an audience, the likelihood of it going from an act into a peer pressure moment where they must prove themselves, is reduced.
However on the whole, this type of behavior is increased and by extension the odds of this resulting physical or even violent acts is also on the rise.
*
“I’m supposed to be being led to believe that Trayvon was one of these exceptions, and I’m just not buying it.”*
Depends on who you ask. There’s people who are looking at evidence of the crime scene, and don’t bother to discuss this.
Then there’s persons or groups whom are using the backgrounds of both Zimmerman and Martin as ‘evidence’ or to paint some picture they want others to believe.
Throughout this thread it has been mainly the former. Curiously, in the majority of situations where personalities or backgrounds have been raised, it’s by those against Zimmerman, not against Martin (and not even necessarily FOR Martin).
I agree there’s an increasingly messed-up mentality in a lot of under 20’s males, and I’m aware of just how brutal some young men in this age bracket can be, but I’ve no doubt Z was aware of this too, so his bumbling actions in response to a potentially dangerous person strike me as a little staged.
With all the information currently available, if you was deciding which of the 2 had the most motivation to want the other person dead, I can’t see how any sane person could choose Trayvon Martin. I’m aware that convicting him depends on a lot more than that, but I’ve got to the stage where I’m less interested in the outcome of the court case than I am in the psychology of those supporting Z.
If they are doing it to be some kind of Devil’s Advocate, in the interests of impartiality, I think “Meh! Why bother?” There’s plenty more worthy causes on the internet to devote your smarts to than this dumbass wannabe-cop, wannabe-bouncer, wannabe-judge, gonna-be jailed pos.
Imagine if Zimmerman actually did think like that though, and events turned out differently. Can you see him telling the world this information? They’d be all over him for racism or at least bias.
One of the effects of an aggressive society, is that people shy away from interaction. We’ve become both morally and physically apathetic towards one another.
Zimmerman knowing this as you suggested, could have decided to shy away from finding out what Martin was doing.
It goes both ways.
Actually, if I had to wager, the idea of Martin being a young ‘frontin’ black male going back to show old whitey (Zimmerman) what’s up, is the most likely socio-personality scenario - it even beats out Zimmerman as ‘hostile redneck with a gun’
Doesn’t mean anything in court though - not in this case.
Do you accept that Z, a man who was familiar with gun culture, was well aware of the “21 foot” rule, and thought he was close enough to a potential Goon that he didn’t want to give out his home address to the dispatcher, should have been cautious enough not to let somebody sneak up on him in the way TM is alleged to have done?
I wish I could praise Chris Serino’s gut instincts about the flakiness of this case, but it’s so obvious Z’s tale doesn’t add up, just based on his interviews and his reenactment, I’d have been disgusted by his incompetence if he hadn’t picked up on it.
I think Z’s work on club security indicates that Z is not a guy who is shy about confronting troublecausers. Either that, or his employer did no vetting of his staff and Z’s fellow doormen didn’t care a jot for his capability because he talked a good fight, or something.
Also, his willingness to lay hands on a much larger person who he thought was doing wrong, and who if his dad didn’t have some clout, he’d likely have been jailed for, adds to that impression. The guy even kicked his ex’s dog in the stomach because it nipped him, so what he’d do to a frightened teenager who had the audacity to resist him, is anybody’s guess.
I can see TM as the indignant youth gobbing off to Z just as clearly as I can see Z making a grab for TM if he got anywhere within reach.
I am familiar with gun culture, I am also very discreet and cautionary. Most people would think I never slip up or make mistakes - clearly this is untrue and even Navy SEALs get snuck up on.
And wouldn’t it be awful if Serino’s ‘gut instinct’ was that here’s a barn burner racial sensation to ride the wings of.
The difference is that if Zimmerman makes a grab for Martin, the discussion then turns to why he grabbed him, and whether it was justified.
If Martin mouths off to Zimmerman, there can’t be anything positive about that. Whether it turns into things getting violent would then require there was evidence of an physical altercation and we work from that.
If they are being outwitted by 17yr old dopeheads, I hope they are getting demoted mighty quickly.
There was no way this could ever have avoided becoming a political football, unless it had all been captured on cctv and the events fitted Z’s explanation beyond reasonable criticism.
Maybe he grabbed him because he felt he was going to bolt again, or maybe he just wanted to let the punk know that he didn’t appreciate people trying to burgle his friends and neighbours, and just generally get a few things off his chest? Z knew that he only had to not be seen grabbing him when the cops finally turned up and any accusations TM made would be his word against Z’s, and if he thought TM was a Goon, he’d know his word was shit in a law-abiding citizen’s eyes.
However this altercation started, it wasn’t after 3 spoken sentences, as is obvious by the neighbours accounts of the sound of a dispute moving closer over a period of time far longer than what Z was describing.
Z says he didn’t begin screaming for help until he hit the floor and TM jumped on him and started pounding him, so what were the neighbours hearing? Those immediately next to the location of the struggle on the ground should have heard nothing until Z started shouting right outside their homes, and we know that didn’t happen.
Plus, pretending Trayvon was overly-aggressive and threatening with his initial remarks to Z, witnesses up closer to the T - whether they had open or closed windows/doors - could only have heard 2 sentences shouted with menace and then nothing until the screams for help began after the action had moved south, if Z’s testimony is to be believed.
Then you’ve got to wonder why the excessively vocal thug attacker is never heard again throughout the encounter.
Rather I meant he’s not a SEAL, and things do happen…
Zimmerman could be manipulating ..he might not be. The worse thing we could do is assume that Zimmerman not only unlawfully shot Martin, then even worse, covered it up.
In court rooms where these speculations MIGHT be heard to solidify some transcending point, it could cost someone their life.
Jesus, Shodan. That sentence I bolded above? Obviously, you’re unfamiliar with the basic facts of the case, and yet you still have so many opinions you must continue to share. Why are you so invested if you can’t be bothered to read an overview?
[/QUOTE]
There is nothing wrong with my understanding of the facts of the case. dimmy derko asked if we wanted to
The one who can’t be bothered to read seems to be you.
I agree. Shit happens and when it does, someone is always left cleaning up the mess. The most we can learn sometimes is which disinfectant works best.
No, the worse thing we could is not follow every lead, however slight, to satisfactorily account for the death of a 17yr old heading back from a trip to the 7-11 and within a 100 yds of his own home. Do you think if a neighbour had come out that night and said he knew Trayvon and his parents had been immediately aware of his death, Z would have walked out of that station within 5 hours, after being treated more like royalty than a potential suspect in a homicide?
If a potential juror can hear them so can defence and prosecution workers and if that means they have to do the extra work it takes to dispel these rumours and explain to jurors the difference between bullshit and facts, then so be it. Social media isn’t going away in the foreseeable future, so it has to be incorporated into the investigative and judicial process.
I notice you didn’t respond to these points in my earlier posts.
Are those inconsequential observations, or are they an indication that Z isn’t telling the truth about the moments leading up to when he was seen on the ground with TM above him?
People are defending Zimmerman’s right to a fair trial, something you and others do not want him to have. For that matter, we are also defending people’s rights to know what’s happening in their neighbourhood, especially when it’s a private neighbourhood that they are a watchman for, their right to follow someone and ask them what they are doing, their right (indeed duty) to report suspicious behaviour to the police, their right not to be punched in the face for doing so, and their right to defend themselves against attack. All rights you don’t want Zimmerman to have.
I don’t think anyone’s suggesting Zimmerman’s actions were wise, and there’s some that think they were probably illegal, but he may only be considered guilty if there’s sufficient evidence. Those are all valid positions.
What is not valid is to presume him guilty without evidence, and to attack people for calling you out on that.
Now, let’s assume Zimmerman did murder Martin, and examine what would happen in various situations.
Scenario 1 - there is enough evidence to convict Zimmerman beyond reasonable doubt. He is convicted, and everyone is happy with the result - although questions would need to be asked about the failure of the discovery process to reveal that evidence, that is a minor detail.
Scenario 2 - there is not enough evidence to convict him, and he is found not guilty. This upsets quite a lot of people, but is still the right decision. Absolute worst case scenario - it turns out he’s a psychopath, and goes on a killing spree, killing tens of people. That’s almost beyond plausibility, but it’s the worst I can think of.
Scenario 3 - there is not enough evidence, but he’s convicted anyway. This is where the real danger is. If we allow the courts to convict without evidence, for political reasons, every single person is in danger. Your good behaviour, your following of the law, counts for nothing if you upset the wrong person. The worst case scenario, if you are fine with courts acting as they please in defiance of evidence - is Guantanamo Bay throughout the US. That’s equally implausible as Zimmerman being a spree killer, but infinitely more dangerous.
That’s why I’m defending Zimmerman, and that’s why all defendants deserve defence, and the benefit of the doubt. Because next time, it could be you, or someone you love, who is the defendant.
No, so by rights, nobody should have heard anything until he started screaming on the ground. But that clearly isn’t what happened.
If TM’s comments were only spoken and unthreatening enough to allow Z to let him get as close as he supposedly did, NOBODY would have heard anything of the conversation. They certainly shouldn’t have been able to hear any commotion prior to the screams, because Z says there was none.
I agree about defendants deserving defense. Otherwise the justice system would fall apart.
However, Zimmerman is MOST DEFINITELY getting defense.
Also, I have a severe problem with you talking about “political reasons”…If he is convicted, it is because of the evidence, NOT IN SPITE OF IT.
How do you know this will be decided based on “political reasons”?
This is the problem I have with some of you…on one hand they talk about faith in the justice system here but when a decision that might be reached COUNTER to what they want, than they start claiming “politics” and other stuff.
God forbid if people disagree: it must mean they are “not looking at the evidence”.