thoughts on the Trayvon murder

homeagain wrote:

homeagain wrote: I do NOT believe that Z. had racial motivation, I DO BELIEVE,
he was acting as a "police officer" (wanta be) and THAT motivation and the STAND YOUR GROUND law created a death that was
UNNECESSARY and tragic.......the combination of all the above facts have NOW created a fire-storm and with the NEW prosecutor,
the facts WILL come out......better later than NEVER........and that is the point of all this debate.....WHY was the investigation NOT
brought forward AT THE TIME of the incident. THAT is what the family's question is,THAT is what this debate is about, and THAT
is why there is such a massive outcry...justice was NOT done for this 17 yr old......END OF STORY. JMO

AHEM, PS........I would say,truly spoken like the "WHITE bread" person that you are.......your perspective of America,justice,equality
is slanted......as a WHITE person. JMO

If you truly believe that there was NOT a racial motivation, then neither my skin color, nor that of any of the principle participants or any of those engaged in the discussion, is worthy of noting. If a color blind society is desirous, then we need to proceed in a color blind fashion. I don't happen to believe that Zimmerman would have been treated any differently by the police if his father had been a former judge with black skin than he was because his father was white skinned, but I promise you that the collection of usual suspects on the left would have treated it differently under that set of circumstances than they are at the moment. I would have the same view of the situation that I do now if Zimmerman was black and Martin was a white Hispanic because my views are formed by a reasoned look at the information that I have available instead of an emotional view tinted by lenses of different colors.

"Stand Your Ground" laws have no bearing on this incident whatsoever. What those laws say is that you are not required to retreat before using lethal force even if you have the opportunity to do so. Never has anyone been required to retreat before using lethal force when they did not have the opportunity to retreat in complete safety. You have never been required to turn you back on someone with a knife in their hand, or attempt to back away from such a person, before drawing a handgun and shooting them. Disengaging entirely has always had a "reset" effect in terms of being able to claim self defense. If you and I were engaged in an exchange of words, or even a fight, and I walk away leaving the scene and you follow me and reconstitute the earlier exchange I can rightly claim to be defending myself. The second encounter has never been viewed as a continuation of the first with regards to the law. Regarding motive certainly, but not actions.

I agree with you on a couple of points, the outcome was both tragic and unnecessary and Zimmerman leaving his vehicle to pursue Martin on foot was the beginning of the cascade of events that led to that outcome. Zimmerman's account to the police officers questioning him, backed up by the recording of his call to the police that night, tells us that there was complete disengagement of contact between himself and Martin prior to the final conflict which led ultimately to Martin being shot that night. Before all doubt that can be sustained by reason that Zimmerman was acting in self defense can be eliminated, it would have to be conclusively shown that it was Zimmerman and not Martin who once again initiated contact between the two of them because of the existence of that disengagement. Since Martin is not able to challenge that portion of Zimmerman's account, the proof that Zimmerman initiated the final contact between them must come from someplace else. Anyone stepping forward to provide that proof a month after the original incident, in the wake of the intentional fanning of racial motivations, would have to be able to establish that they were not themselves seeking to see the incident resolved to coincide with an outcome preferred by those that are protesting how the whole situation was handled.

All of this is reasoned thought home. It comes from taking a step back and looking dispassionately at what has thus far been offered for examination. It doesn't mean that the SPD doesn't have an issue of mistrust to deal with in the community that they serve. It doesn't mean that they handled the investigation properly. It doesn't mean that Martin didn't lose his life unnecessarily, or that the loss of his life wasn't a tragic occurrence. What it does mean, however, is that it is going to be nearly, if not entirely, impossible for any prosecutor to meet their burden of proof and prove beyond any doubt that can be sustained by reason that Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin in self defense.

LadyJazzer wrote: "Stand down" was my interpretation of "We don't need you to do that."

And it not the only flawed "interpretation" you continue to repeat over and over again in the ever dimming hope that by repeating it over and over again your "interpretations" will be fundamentally transformed into something other than your flawed interpretations.

But then you already know that, don't you.

The FACTS that I stated are not open to interpretation... The FACTS I stated are provable, beyond a reasonable doubt, and the proof has been given. The only one trying to spin them is you. But then, you already knew that too.

However, as soon as Zimmerman got out of his he was the pursuer. He started an altercation, he may, or may not, have instigated a confrontation in which he may, or may not, have gotten his ass whipped. But he was the only one carrying a gun.

The man is dead meat.

And it is also established, by virtue of the recording between Zimmerman and the dispatcher, that there was a complete disengagement between Zimmerman and Martin after Zimmerman had exited his vehicle and after Zimmerman was advised that they didn't need him to follow Martin. That disengagement put an end to any altercation his earlier actions may have started and any subsequent altercation is not a continuation of the initial one. That you don't like this relevant fact has nothing at all to do with the existence of it.

It doesn't matter when they told him "they didn't need for him to do that." He KNEW, by virtue of the Police Department Training Course, that he was not supposed to exit his car and pursue, and that he wasn't supposed to be carrying a weapon. (And it doesn't matter whether he would like to use the excuse of being "on" or "off-duty"...) As soon as he exited his car with a weapon to pursue, he f**ked up.

It's not about whether I like or don't like your irrelevant assertions. ("Facts" remain to be seen.)

If you doubt me, you can listen to the entire tape here:
http://102jamzorlando.radio.com/2012/03 ... -released/

At roughly the 3:35 mark Zimmerman remarks, "Oh crap, I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is" after supplying the dispatcher with his address.

As for not exiting the vehicle, not pursuing and not carrying a gun - those are recommendations made by the police to the people who want to establish a patrol. One of the reasons they recommend that is that it is very possible that those on patrol will be placing themselves into very a dangerous situation if they attempt to follow someone and that someone turns out to be a very street wise individual who knows how to disappear - the tables could quickly turn on the original pursuer such that they are no longer the hunter, but the hunted.

I've never disagreed with anyone who said that Zimmerman erred in leaving his vehicle to pursue Martin, but his making that error does not establish that he acted in a criminal manner or that he initiated the final altercation between the two of them. And it has been established, by virtue of the audio recording linked to above, that there was a complete disengagement of the two principles involved after he made that error - which would act as a "reset" and reestablish his ability to claim that he was acting in self defense when he shot Martin even if his earlier actions were actionable under the law, which they are not.

In your opinion... :Snooze

LadyJazzer wrote: In your opinion... :Snooze

Given your marching orders and no new info will get you to change your opinion?

Closed minds and parachutes right?

New information from a TRIAL will change my mind. I can hardly wait. The ever-flowing bullcrap from the right-wing regurgitation-stations will not.

So... what facts do we know so far... from public record, from police reports, from some witnesses and from the media

1) He described Martin as black because the 911 dispatcher as him what color he was, white, hispanic or black. NBC admits to making an "error" in broadcasting an audio that was modified to sound like Zimmerman was profiling.
2) His head was certainly injured, collaborated by the police car bay video
3) The was some sort of injury to his nose as per the police report
4) He was licensed to carry his gun
5) Some witnesses says Martin was on top of him (some say they didn't see that)
6) There is a 48 percent chance that the scream on the 911 tape was Zimmerman's. We don't know if the other voice Martin. No one tired to compare a vicue print of Martin to the tape.
7) Zimmerman did not use the words "f*king coon" on the 911 tape as first reported by CNN. CNN has retracted that report and claims that he was probably saying "f*king cold."
8) He was never order not to leave his car.
9) The police report cover confirms most of what Zimmerman has stated publicly.