Huh? I don’t follow.
That and $6 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. The whole point isn’t that you guys have nothing to base your conclusions on, it’s that the people who are saying Zimmerman **or **Martin clearly acted in any specific way are going on incomplete, filtered information, often times from biased sources, introduced in an unprofessional manner totally divorced from how it would be presented or allowed in a court of law. So the whole point is your conclusions are worthless. It’s fine to base your conclusions on whatever, the point of the “rationalists” in this thread is that the only really rational conclusion is “wait and see.” But that doesn’t satisfy a primal, animalistic urge to condemn and bitch, so that’s a gravely unpopular position.
This is just crazy.
Do you think Zimmerman is any different than any other person who commits a crime? Most people who end up breaking the law don’t wake up that morning with going to prison on their mind. They just make a series of stupid mistakes. Like giving a friend a ride home–the friend who’s always carrying a joint on him–and then getting pulled over for speeding. Or popping a benzo to calm the nerves before driving to work. Or leaving an ex-girlfriend an angry voice mail that contains a threat–which of course they didn’t mean, but the cops disagree. People can do dumb-assed things when they AREN’T pumped up with adrenaline. Dumbassery skyrockets when there’s adrenaline and a gun involved.
I don’t think Zimmerman is teh evil. I actually do think he is the type of person who has a diverse group of friends–including black people. I believe he thought he was being a good guy by going after Martin. But he is not immune to the same stupidity that infects others every single day. If he had only left his gun in his truck, we wouldn’t be having the conversation. He didn’t break any laws by carrying it, but it sure was a stupid thing to do.
I can’t find anything wrong with what Martin did. Nothing screams “stupid” to me, if I assume that Zimmerman didn’t merely follow him from a safe distance, but came up on him in an aggressive, frightening way. Zimmerman would deny this happened, but of course he would. He has every reason to lie. I don’t know why I should give his word any more weight than I would someone who begins a statement with, “See what had happened was…” There’s a lot of “see what had happened was” in Zimmerman’s story. There’s only so much a person can take before they say, “WTF.”
Zimmerman’s attitude toward blacks may be irrelevant in determining whether he committed a crime, but may no be irrelevant to determining a penalty for that crime.
And it may be more relevant to a possible Federal prosecution than a state prosecution. I have heard reports that the FBI is closely examining all of Zimmerman’s past interactions with police, with an eye toward determining whether Zimmerman had a pre-existing racial bias that led to his actions on the fatal night. It may be, if they can’t establish this, that they will be unable to press Federal charges on him regardless of the outcome of state proceedings. It may also be, that if they CAN establish such a bias, they may be able to bring Federal charges against him even if the state decides it can’t.
Man, you are sounding really desperate. All of your objections are in direct contradiction to that witness in question.
“Pay no attention to the cite I just posted!” is not the best argument you could present.
Buy all means, pay attention to it. Just don’t make things up.
I was referring to the Florida law that makes pointing a gun at somebody a three year mandatory minimum sentence. If you actually threaten them, then it get much worse.
I just read something in Reuters that actually seems to contain new information and contradict the previous assumptions I was using.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403
I’d assumed Tracy Martin actually lived in Sanford with his girlfriend. I also assumed that they were at home when Trayvon went out for Skittles. This explains why Trayvon didn’t call his father instead of his girlfriend and why his father didn’t notice all the police cars outside and wasn’t concerned when Trayvon didn’t come home when it started raining. He wasn’t there.
He was in a strange house in a strange town alone. He goes out to buy snacks and it starts raining and then some guy shoots him. That’s really awful way to die on so many levels.
The interview with the police officer the next day, sounds the same as the Washington Post interview, but I don’t recall them identifying the officer as Serino.
The witness said, "“After the larger man got off there was a boy, obviously now dead, on the ground facing down.”
What did the larger man get off of?
Like monstro said, the fact that an action is illegal means jack shit in determining whether or not Zimmerman stupidly decided to whip out his gun to accomplish his primary goal of securing Martin.
It’s against the law to kill someone for reasons other than self defense, and the penalty for doing that is a lot stiffer than 3 years in the pen. Guess that’s a wrap then, huh? Zimmerman didn’t break the law because we must assume he wouldn’t have broken the law. Is that right?
Why do we extend this insane benefit of the doubt to Zimmerman but not to the victim of his bullet?
He did say that the larger man was on top. I put it in bold just for you.
FWIW I think the fact the Feds emphasized the very high intent barriers to convictions on Federal civil rights violations was done so that people do not expect any of the above to happen. I think the Feds feel there is very little chance of sustaining such a case against Zimmerman.
Off the ground? The witness explicitly tells you he has no idea who was on top and he explicitly tells you he didn’t see Zimmerman get up. Want me to quote it to you in bold? Yet you decide to make up facts to fit your biases.
No he doesn’t. In fact he explicitly says he doesn’t know who was on top. Want me to quote it to you in bold? Can you read English?
Specifically for the reading-comprehension-suffering you with the face: (I’ll even bold it for you since you seem to think that’s important)
And then the next time I looked out the window, there’s the same thing: two men on the grass, one on top of each other.
But the witness recalled not having been able to see clearly which man was on top because it was dark.
It was dark. I can’t say I watched him get up, but in a couple of seconds or so he was walking towards where I was watching and I could see him a little bit clearer.
Yes please indulge me. According to my interpretation of the English language, the witness says the larger man was on top and a dead boy was on the bottom after the shot was fired.
Just did. See one post up above yours. What does it say, according to your “interpretation of the English language”?
And it goes to an explanation for the behavior that Martin witnessed. He hadn’t been there before, probably a nicer neighborhood than he was used to. He was walking around staring, checking things out.
Could he have been a little lost? Turned around? Are a lot of the structures in the development similar? Like townhouses or that? Dark, light rain, unfamiliar neighborhood, not much of a stretch to believe he might have been wandering around trying to find his street.
Wow, you are desperate. To prove I can’t read, you go hunting for an entirely different article than the one me and Fear were addressing.
It’s plainly obvious in the Guardian piece that the witness is quoted as saying he saw the larger man on top. If you can’t wrap your mind around that, okay. But don’t act like the words aren’t there.
It’s the same witness and the same interview. He explicitly says he couldn’t see which man was on top. He explicitly says he didn’t see Zimmerman get up after the shooting. I even bolded it for you, like you requested. You are yet to address exactly how that translates in your fantasies to “he saw the larger man on top”.