Most guys don’t run, hide, and avoid all roads because some guy is looking at them. Even when they’re nervous.
When you were 17 with a girlfriend, did you have a cell phone? Can you conceive of a reason why a teenage boy might want to chat with his girl away from his folks? Also, Martin had this newfangled thing called bluetooth, maybe google it? Might explain a bit to you.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to really think anything at all of a person walking down the street. What sort of person would be suspicious of a guy walking down the street for anything? A paranoid lunatic, perhaps.
I see guys walking down the street all the time. I don’t need to know what they’re all doing and I don’t call the cops every time I see one. I’d hardly ever be off the phone.
Right, of course. I’m the one with the warped interpretation of the facts. Never mind the fact that you see nothing weird about taking as gospel the words of a man who shot his way of a fight with an unarmed teenager, but I’m the one who has the problem.
Since you’re so much objective than me with your unwarped view of the facts, can you tell me how you interpret these 911 statements from Zimmerman? If its wrong to say he thought the kid was about to brandish a weapon, tell me what Zimmerman could have been alluding to.
You think he was talking about candy and tea?
Some people are the suspicious types, and some aren’t. I don’t see the big deal here. His neighborhood has been burgled a few times, so he took it upon himself to call the cops when he sees someone suspicious. He saw someone suspicious run away, so he followed him to see where he went. I’m missing what in this should make me think he is a paranoid racist that decided this was the time he was gonna bag him a darky.
Uh, yeah you have a pretty fucking warped view about this. I think this pretty much clears up our disagreement. Not only are you just making shit up, you think I have a problem because I’m not making the same shit up you are.
You called her a liar, she showed you the 911 transcript to show you the basis of her interpretation, and you can’t just say, “Oops, my bad.”
That is not right. This thread is so not right.
Gotta love when I get responses like this. Tells me all that I need about your worth as a poster in this thread.
Making something up isn’t interpretation.
And, I never said “Oops, my bad.” It’s not my bad. She pulled that particular fact out of her ass.
This kinda is the deal. Which people are the suspicious types. What…trait… might a certain type of person interpret as suspicious.
Dozens of times. For open windows. Open garage doors. Black kids. Suspicious things like that.
I’m missing what should make me think Treyvon Marin is a violent criminal who assaults random people in the street.
And he’s half white. Which, apparently, is enough to make it a slam dunk case that he is racist.
The fact that he was slamming some dude’s head on the sidewalk?
True. But many of us had this question on our minds- "Why the hell would Martin attack this dude for no reason? Make no sense. " But now some will be thing “Ah the kid was out looking for house to break into, all hopped up on drugs, then this Law-abding pillar of the community spoiled his little criminal plan so the kid attacked him!” And, if the ME’s report comes back with Martin testing positive…* game over man, game over. *
Legally? True- Not so much. But in the minds of a Grand Juror? I mean, before, if I was sitting on that GJ, I would have thought I could dissuade my fellow jurors from thinking about Martin that way. But now, even tho I’d try- I wouldn’t expect to get very far, at least with some. And, I mean honest men, men who want to do right, but subconsiously will jump on this as a excuse.
Again, you’re adding things that are not confirmed.
As of six hours ago, per MSNBC:
Why did you announce that the drugged out thing turned out not to be true? I have no idea if it’s true or not; I am waiting for the tox screen. What source of information did you rely on to state categorically it was untrue?
Zimmerman did not say that Martin had a weapon:
That’s all he said. Was it a lie? I have no idea. Neither do you. But we know to a reasonable certainty that Martin was unarmed, so when you quote Zimmerman as saying Martin had a weapon in his waistband, you can make him out to be a liar.
Is that why you said it?
What did she make up?!
No, Zimmerman did not say “HE HAS A GUN!!” But if he didn’t think the kid had a gun, why would he say he’s got his hand in his waistband? Why would he mention that he’s got something in his hand in that scared, pissing-his-pants kind of way?
It is the only REASONABLE interpretation of what he said. Only someone who is arguing for the sake of arguing would accuse someone of making shit up when they’re only using common sense. We’re eleventy thousand posts deep with this thing, chewing and stewing over a million permutations of the same scenario, and yet you are the only one breaking your back on this point.
The ME report has not yet been released. How do you know Martin didn;t test positive?
Nor has the CSI report, there could have been a “large screwdriver”.
And, altho I don;t think Martin was casing the houses, this new report doesn’t make that crazy sounding.
Nor did Martin apparently see the gun until too late.
I also will point out that if Martin was afraid of Zimmerman and truly minding his own business, why didn’t he call the Police?
You criterion in this matter is lacking quality.
But she did not say her interpretation was that Zimmerman had a weapon. She said, flat out, that Zimmerman said Martin had a weapon. That is not true, though, is it?
Saying that Zimmerman reported a weapon, and that Martin was unarmed, makes Zimmerman a liar.
Saying that Zimmerman reported hands near a waistband doesn’t accomplish the same thing, does it?
Are you actually pointing something out?
Cause I don’t see it?
Asking me if I know why Martin did or did not do something doesn’t seem to point out much of anything.
So, I must be missing something.
Big difference, though: Zimmerman might well have thought Martin had a weapon, but been mistaken.
If Zimmerman SAID Martin had a weapon, he’s a liar.
See? Zimmerman could have telling the absolute truth about where Martin’s hands were. Right?
In saying definitively that Zimmerman reported a weapon, she goes to say, explicitly, that Zimmerman’s claim turned out not to be true.
But Zimmerman’s actual claim could well be true. Right?
OK. She was wrong. Zimmerman did not say Martin had a gun.
But can we at least all agree that this is what he was intimating? Why must everything be an occasion to score points?
I’m apparently not worked up about this enough to continue.
He spent a lot of his time being suspicious of black kids. Link. And hispanics can be plenty racist! Hope this helps.
Yet the guy who was paranoid about black kids shooting a black kid to death seems perfectly reasonable?