Can you prove any of that?
You may be offended because you don’t understand me or because you wish to inject your opinion that black=suspicious. either way, I believe it’s your personal problem. It’s been established that Twin Oaks is a mixed race neighborhood and there has been no suggestion that the neighbors didn’t get along with each other because of the color of their skin.
The SPD representative told the neighborhood watch members to call the police if they saw ANYTHING suspicious. Twin Oaks had a documented history of burglery and theft so seeing an open garage door at a time when the owners would normally be at work or sleeping would be considered suspicious. Noticing a person in the neighborhood who appears to be on drugs or something would warrant a call to the police. One female resident reported that a burgler had walked into her home during daylight hours while she was upstairs with her child. That’s a pretty scary scenerio and would warrant creating a neighborhood watch.
Your neighborhood is probably very different than Twin Oaks. Mine is but I’m not talking about my neighborhood. We’re talking about Twin Oaks. You probably don’t have a serious burglery and theft problem. Your neighbors probably aren’t calling the police an average of once a day. I assume you’re not daily scanning your neighborhood for burglars, thieves, rapists, druggies, etc.
In Twin Oaks, and that’s what we’re talking about, it’s reasonable to assume that TM could have been considered a “suspicious person” simply for acting “suspiciously”.
No, but if I dismiss Zimmerman’s account as lies then I’m left with the testimony of Jeantel and the phone call of Zimmerman to 911. Those two bits of evidence make it look pretty gloomy for Mr. Zimmerman. Zimmerman sounds like the aggressor pursuing Trayvon while on the phone. Jeantel says Trayvon yelled “get off”. That is evidence presented in court.
Zimmerman’s account(s) are tainted by extreme self interest. His initial view of Trayvon was clearly tainted by his own irrational fears.
I do concede that it may not add up to enough to convict, but Zimmerman is totally guilty in my eyes. His actions warranted a good old fashioned ass kicking by Trayvon who was just “standing his ground” (with non-lethal force to subdue his attacker, mind you).
Zimmerman shouldn’t have brought his gun to a fist fight.
I always wonder why Trayvonistas insist on exaggerating evidence. Jeantel never said Trayvon yelled “get off”. She said (and I quote) that she heard “get off, get off” “a little bit”.
Can I assume that you don’t live in The Retreat in Twin Oaks, Sanford FLA? You probably wouldn’t have any resaon to believe TM was suspicious if he was in your neighborhood.
Neither TM or GZ did anything illegal up until the time someone started manhandling the other one. Then you have a case of battery. Did the situation escalated to one of serious bodily harm or death? Did GZ believe that his life was in danger? Could GZ believe that he was facing imminent death? There is no doubt that GZ shot TM. GZ says TM was on top of him when he fired the shot. GZ also says he was later on top of TM “after” he had fired a shot.
Di Maio testified that the evidence shows that TM was on top of GZ when the shot was fired.
Not so much, as Terr already covered.
“Clearly”, eh? Which witness testified about Martin’s behavior before running away, again, and how non-suspicious it was? No one but Zimmerman saw Martin’s behavior, so you have no idea how suspicious it was or wasn’t.
Which actions, exactly? All Ms. Jeantel testified to was Zimmerman replying to a question from Martin. Is that enough for an ass kicking? Does that make Zimmerman an “attacker”?
Or, Zimmerman had no intention to be in a fist fight, but Martin decided to start one. How can we know?
I grew up in good old Warren, MI. Had two houses broken into, my parents car stolen, a couple cases of vandalism, and plenty of other stuff. And yes, I do see a young black guy dressed like a thug as a thug. Let me make this clear as well, in this case I’d see Trayvon as a thug, but I’d see any person dressed like he was as a thug. I don’t want to be accused of racism. 
I now live in a nicer area, but still have some crime (just had a break in during the winter). I definitely make sure people know I’m there and I see them when I see a slow car roaming around a neighborhood, or a “thug” walking down the street. I would definitely say hello to them if they are walking and I was outside my house. I certainly won’t call the cops on them if they haven’t broken any laws, and I certainly wouldn’t leave my car or property to pursue them.
Doirhinge, the one thing I agree with you on, is there are certain people who wouldve felt trayvon looked suspicious because he was walking, and he was black. If he had been walking while white, those type of people including gz wouldnt suspect he was off to rob a liquor store. In other words, to certain ahem, types of people, being born black and walking means they are probably going to steal a stereo or rob a liquor store, and a white kid walking is provably just you know, a nice kid who is on his way to a friends house. So…I agree certain types of people would assume tm was gonna go steal a stereo
I disagree.
The only evidence is Jeantel who had a lengthy conversation with TM prior to the begining of Zimmerman (I’ll use the word) hounding him. Oh, and a convenience store camera that shows Martin paying for candy without incident.
No, but if some old man follows me in the dark he better not come close to me. Perhaps Trayvon was just protecting his community from perverts and shady people? Did you ever think of that?
The only thing we know for sure is Zimmerman ended it.
Legalities aside, the notion that some of the posters in this thread would be just fine and dandy with, say, a 17-year-old black male in a hoodie sprinting after them in the dark for no stated reason, is kind of ludicrous.
So noted.
Right, so we agree that there’s no evidence external to Zimmerman that Martin’s behavior while walking through the neighbor either was or was not suspicious. Stating that it was factually one or the other is thus impossible.
28 is old now? Now I feel old.
Either way, I don’t know how free you think you can be to let punches fly at people for coming close to you, but I’ll tell you the truth: not very.
No, but if his method was beating them unprovoked, he was rather wrongheaded about it.
Which is only a crime if he didn’t do so in reasonable fear of losing his life or suffering great bodily harm.
You “disagree”? Please cite Jeantel’s testimony that Martin “yelled” “get off”.
False dilemma. There are a number of possible reactions between “just fine” and a physical assault.
I might well call the police if I felt as though someone was following me in a threatening way, for example.
So you stand by your statement that Jeantel testified Trayvon YELLED “get off?”
Wait, I thought everyone has a God-given right to follow anyone they please and this can never, ever be construed as a threat?
Ludicrous statement.
“No reason”. Zimmerman was an angel. laughs.
The only evidence of Trayvon running is away.
No Your Honor, but I will stand by her testimony that Zimmerman was acting like a creepy azz cracker.
It’s legal, yes. But legal behaviors can be construed as a threat. Calling the police (rather than lashing out in a physical attack) is the prudent response.
“Hearing a little bit” is a far cry from “yelling,” isn’t it?
That’s my point…people are clinging to this tenuous claim that because it is always legal in the abstract to chase after people (which is a debatable claim at best), the fact that Zimmerman did so (and he did, unless you believe in magic) means absolutely nothing in trying to figure out the factual or legal circumstances of the fight. The whole thing is a chain of bad logic and category errors; there are any number of otherwise legal things that are evidence of a person’s mental state or suggestive of what may have happened.
I am trying to show that the statement that Zimmerman chasing Martin is irrelevant is laughable by positing a role-reversal: the posters in question are walking home tonight, after dark, in a neighborhood they were invited to be in, when suddenly someone (anyone at all, but just to drive the point home, let’s say someone who embodies everything they fear about Trayvon Martin’s physical appearance) begins, very obviously, to follow them.
Their argument is:
- this is, unambiguously, legal, regardless of any circumstances or motives whatsoever
- because it is legal, they are not justified in feeling threatened by it
- if the situation ends in a physical confrontation, the fact that the person who followed them was the one who caused a confrontational relationship between the two parties is completely irrelevant to any aspect of the confrontation whatsoever, including figuring out who was more likely to have thrown the first punch or who is legally in the wrong for anything that occurred
As usual, the argument, when spelled out, looks as ridiculous as it is.