To buy Zimmerman's story, that he disengaged and that Tevor approached and attacked him, you have to believe that an unarmed teenager, lawfully going about his business, who is being followed by an adult stranger in an area where Trevor is a visitor, after talking to his girlfriend on a cellphone, decides to turn and pursue and attack the stranger in the stranger's own neighborhood by himself.
Announcement Announcement Module
No announcement yet.
Trayvon Martin Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
Well Beav, that's great subjective interpretation.
Of the fourteen facts I listed, which do yeh believe is somehow my personal opinion? Each is independently verifiable as close as I can tell.
I did conclude with my own interpretation of course. Are yeh gettin' the two halves mixed up?
- Mar 2009
You can stop arguing about the severity of the head wound. Any abrasion on the back of Zimmerman's head supports his contention that he was on his back as the result of Martin's actions. Ergo: Self-Defense.
Of course there are a still plenty of people who would prefer to believe that Zimmerman got a scratch on his head when he tripped on the body doing a victory dance...
Nah, it just supports the notion there may have been a scuffle, JoeBob. That could just as easily have been Trayvon Martin who was defending himself.
Generally speakin' in most jurisdictions that haven't adopted some cockamamie newfangled legal malarkey, if yeh pursue someone that's not self defense. But if yeh were being pursued by someone, that may well be.
Again, there's no escapin' the fact that anybody being pursued for no reason by an armed man who hasn't identified himself as a law enforcement officer has a right to defend himself. Trayvon Martin was within his rights under Florida's law to pummel Zimmmerman, and to kill him if Zimmerman drew his weapon.
And sadly, I reckon if he was older and a different color we'd have been supportin' the fellow for doin' just that.
(This message has been edited by Beavah)
The eyewitness accounts corroborate Zimmerman's story better than the accounts of dispatchers or girlfriends on the phone could corroborate some story that Trayvon was hunted down and executed.
This is why Zimmerman is still a free man today, which means that the law enforcement at the very least believes there isn't a preponderance of evidence to disprove his story. Start talking about proving he did it maliciously beyond a reasonable doubt, and there's no question that this man could never get anything more than manslaughter if Stand your Ground is found not to apply.
If there can be something more tragic than the death of a young man, it's that people are trying to extort this tragedy for political capitol and incite racial tension. The media circus, speculators, and clowns on both sides of the issue are making an awful situation worse by presenting facts in such a way that only inflames their own side. Never have I seen more confirmation bias by obviously prejudiced purveyors of news in any other criminal case.
Anybody here who claims to know the facts of this case better than the law enforcement in Florida is quite simply being ridiculous.
The eyewitness accounts corroborate the fact there was a scuffle. There is no corroboration of Zimmerman's account that he returned to his vehicle, then got out again and that Trevor attacked him. The eyewitness accounts don't start until after the scuffle begins and someone starts yelling for help. And there are cell phone records corrobating the fact Trevor was talking to his girlfriend 5 minutes before the police arrived. We don't know the specifics of that conversation other than what a teenage black girl has to say.
Like I said to believe Zimmerman you have to believe an unarmed teenager in a strange neighborhood walking back from a convienience store would choose to turn and attack an adult that had been following him by himself. And you have to totally discount the story of a teenage black girl.
Yah, BS-87, "preponderance of the evidence" is the legal test for civil trials, eh? That's not what we're talkin' about here.
There can be all kinds of reasons for someone not to be charged, includin' politics and the prosecutor's workload and priorities. This is goin' to a grand jury now that other authorities have intervened, and I expect that you will see that a jury of citizens will return an indictment based on the facts obtained in a more thorough investigation than occurred shortly after Trayvon's death.
People usin' the tale for political purposes are despicable, I think most of us would agree. That includes the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and also the bizarre political fringe bloggers and sites that you seem so fond of quoting. What they're doin' is the same as Sharpton and Jackson.
I don't think anybody here (or, really, anywhere) has suggested that Zimmerman was out hunting black kids that evening. That sort of nonsense is like what I said about mixing up the meaning of prejudice for racist. Zimmerman has been seen as being prejudiced, but it's only the despicable political folks who turn that into being the same thing as racist, to suit their own agenda.
So you should stop that, eh?
I've seen nothing that supports these claims:
"Trayvon Martin was an innocent, unarmed kid with no record goin' about his own lawful business."
- While its true that he has no police record he apparently has multiple interactions with school authorities including the one that had him on an out of school suspension for drug related activity, which occasioned his visit to his father.
"Zimmerman did not attend Police Academy, but rather a citizens education program that was substantially shorter than police academy training and did not provide certification."
- This may be the truth but is not the way it has been presented in any media I have read.
"George Zimmerman, based solely on "appearance" called in a report that incorrectly accused Trayvon of being on drugs and an ***hole who always gets away, along with perhaps other names. "
- Where do you get solely on appearance? Or perhaps other names, unless referring to the Goon vs. Coon controversy, which has been called both ways by partisans of either side and as unidentifiable by neutral listeners. Even in the transcripts of the non-emergency call it's his activity walking between the houses looking around them that gets him noticed.
" George Zimmerman ignored the clear recommendation and direction of the police dispatcher, and pursued Trayvon by vehicle and on foot."
"Trayvon attempted to run away from his pursuer."
Neither allegation supported by the details of the investigation that have been released.
First of these two, refuted by the evidence that he did cease to follow and had returned from being on foot to the truck prior to the fatal encounter.
"In the end, based on the testimony of his girlfriend there were words between the two."
- The girlfriend as far as I know cannot be shown to be on the phone with him at the time and is reported to have remembered her conversation with him 3 weeks after the event.
"There may have been a scuffle in which Zimmerman may have suffered some relatively minor injuries."
- There was a scuffle and it lasted long enough that there were witnesses, listed on the police report. Many injuries are minor after the fact - they don't feel that way when they occur - ever been punched in the nose? Whether it breaks or not it's going to get your attention.
For the rest of it, count me on records as agreeing the Police handled the Investigation poorly.
Why do I have to discount the story of a teenage black girl?
Can't I just discount the story of a teenage girl who's been through an emotionally trying period of time trying to come to terms with the loss of her boyfriend whose personality and character have been under attack? People have manipulate the truth for much much less.
Edit: Also, Beavah, I think there's value in reading up on new media of both political persuasions. In this case, the folks on the right seem to be doing a better job of remaining objective than sources like AP, ABC, or HuffPo. There are exceptions like the perpetually disgusting Michelle Malkin, but overall the "conservative" media seems to be calling for more facts and less condemnation.(This message has been edited by BS-87)
Clearly no one has to discount anything... many are sticking with their preconceived notions based on their individual biases and not even trying to see if there is an "other" or "more" truth.
I have changed views and at this point still see myself as in the middle - but looking at a virtual lynch mob.
I am still willing to follow the truth and would agree that if the facts finally did show an overzealous and violent short man with an overblown sense of self senselessly killing an innocent child who wandered into his path that he should be publicly strung up on the town square - after a trial.
But the facts aren't clearly supporting that interpretation.
People have manipulate the truth for much much less.
Yah, like tryin' to stay out of jail, eh? But yeh don't seem to be questioning Zimmerman's story, which unlike the young lady's has been remarkably self-serving and seems to have changed/developed with time. The girl's statement, by contrast, was simple and did not cast either party in a poor light. Martin said "Why are you following me?" and Zimmerman said "What are you doing here?" .
* While its true that he has no police record he apparently has multiple interactions with school authorities
Doesn't change that he has no record, and assumes facts not in evidence. It would of course be illegal for school authorities to comment or release such records. You have bought into non-factual innuendo.
* This may be the truth but is not the way it has been presented in any media I have read
Then like BS-87 I'd suggest yeh read better media. Or, in this case, just look up the program online directly on the Sheriff's office website.
* Whether it's "goon" or "coon" or "balloon" it's still another name, eh?
I think yeh get the trend here. Yeh seem to be gettin' your information from some weird and unreliable media sources and need to cast your net a bit more widely and with a touch more skepticism. What you're takin' as "fact" is comin' from agenda-driven media, and it's messin' with your judgment.
Edited to add: "lynch mob" is awfully loaded language, eh? I don't think a single soul here has advocated lynching. We have advocated investigation and prosecution.
But I'll agree that folks biases and choice of information sources make me discouraged and sad. I'd like to believe that among scouters in America, the starting presumption would be in favor of the unarmed kid buyin' a snack and talkin' to his girlfriend.
(This message has been edited by Beavah)
"But I'll agree that folks biases and choice of information sources make me discouraged and sad. I'd like to believe that among scouters in America, the starting presumption would be in favor of the unarmed kid buyin' a snack and talkin' to his girlfriend."
But as shown in my early posts in this thread, I did start there - with everyone else - on the junk news everyone was working off of.
I am being skeptical, it seems everyone else is just continuing down one path and making other assumptions. Because we don't have the facts because of at the very least a poor investigation and the things we can never KNOW anyway, there seems that there is room for both points of view.
No one is looking for a lynching. But as a parent and citizen I have a concern that when one private citizen guns down another one, it takes a media outcry for a thorough investigation to be done. Heck a traffic accident involving a fatality gets more of an investigation than was initially done. Thankfully, due to the media attention, one is underway, but it shouldn't take that.
I think the one thing you'll find consensus on is that the initial investigation was ridiculous. That's why everyone's ridiculing it.
- Apr 2010
Wow he has to be a overzealous person on a rampage to kill, or he is innocent???
What about something in the middle, like involuntary manslaughter.. His reckless actions cause the death of another, although that was not his intent.. Clearly he must have known that following people around could be dangerous, if not, he would have felt no need to pack a weapon..