I hope this post works. Fourth time’s a charm!
But uh… those “Trayvon” photos are fake. The ones that are actually a “Trayvon” are a different one, from Georgia. You might want to go tell whitepower.com or whatever site you got them from of their mistake.
Regardless, what do the previous lifestyle choices Trayvon (even if he was a seasoned gangster) have to do with this specific case? Would you buy it if I said “Obama can’t possibly be a bad politician because I seen him help an old lady cross the street?” Or “Ron Paul is a terrible politician because I once seen him take a picture with a white supremacist.” Plain and simply, Zimmerman was told not to follow the kid. The first thing you are taught in your Conceal and Carry permit process is to not seek confrontation. Period, end of story. The only one “standing his ground” was Trayvon.
I agree that the media are being biased on both sides, for and against. It’s ridiculous really, to politicize the death of some poor young kid like this.
Say what zimmerman did was illegal, that means there will be no neighborhood watch. Neighborhood watch is the first and last line of defense people has against burglars. We know you can’t count on the state.
I think I saw another case where a black man saw his car stolen. The blackman pursued the car thieves. The car thieves shot him and the black man shot back, killing the thieves.
Cops arrested the black man, claiming that he shouldn’t have followed his stolen cars.
Can anyone tell me what the laws actually say? If somebody look suspicious, it’s natural to follow him. Yes, race counts. Again, I don’t know why martin attacked.
This whole case is tricky. Here’s my understanding of what happened:
- Zimmerman notices Martin and begins observing/following him. (I’m betting race was a factor at this stage, although as neighborhood watch I can’t fault Zimmerman for wanting to observe/follow a person he deemed suspicious, even if that judgement was racist)
- Zimmerman calls the police. While Zimmerman was on the phone with the police, Martin began to run, at which point the dispatcher tells him not to follow Martin, although that instruction wasn’t exactly direct.
- (Here’s where things get fuzzy) A confrontation occured. According to Zimmerman, Martin confronted him and attacked. According to Martin’s girlfriend, who was (corroborated by phone records) on the phone with Martin, he also turned and confronted Zimmerman, but the words said were reported differently. Zimmerman’s account was that Martin attacked him, Martin’s girlfriend reported that she heard “sounds of pushing” after Zimmerman said "what are you doing here. Unfortunately nothing conclusive.
- Different witnesses report different events. One witness says she saw Zimmerman straddling Martin on the ground after the gun shots. Other witnesses say they saw a struggle, and reported that one person was slamming the other’s head into the ground.
- Police reports, video, and other accounts state that Zimmerman was bloodied, with wounds to the back of his head.
So, based from this, Zimmerman was the one to intially escalate the situation by following and potentially confronting Martin. I think who-attacked-who first would determine whether this is manslaughter or not. Certainly it is not murder, as I doubt the shooting was premeditated. However if Martin was bashing Zimmerman’s head into the ground, that’s potentially lethal force. The question is whether or not that was in self defense.
Ultimately, I really doubt we’ll ever get enough evidence to either convict or fully vindicate Zimmerman. He was apparently going to be charged with manslaughter, but that lack of evidence caused the state to drop the case. At this point, there’s not much more one can do. Unfortunately, the mob on both sides have formed thier own opinions and seem to be making judgements and accusations about both Martin and Zimmerman.
The bottom line is though, we don’t know precisely what happened, there is not enough evidence to convict or vindicate, and we must leave it at that unless something new comes to light. The only thing one can do is to draw personal insights from the tragedy, about racial prejudices, about the dangers of escalating situations, and rushing to judgements.
You’ve probably heard about this by now, but here’s a comprehensive overview:
Manufactured Racism? How NBC Edited Racism Into the George Zimmerman 911 Call
The producer of Today who was held responsible for this (not sure if he had a role in it, or if it was just on his watch), was fired yesterday. Check out how the dumbass Atlantic tries to make excuses and actually likens it to the ESPN “chink in the armor” thing: “didn’t mean anything by it, but that’s beside the point”. Bullshit.
I’m assuming here that the picture of Zimmerman in his suit is a photo of him in his professional environment.
If so, what doesn’t click for me is why this successful guy would randomly follow a black teen and kill him (possibly understanding the problems it might cause) and then not be reluctant to turn himself in once an arrest order is called. Especially while he was on the phone with the police. He would have to lack a serious amount of grey matter to do that.
You’re right. I was hoping to post it first!
That looks to me like the Atlantic giving kudos to NBC for the firing and certainly not making excuses.
“It’s very similar to the Jeremy Lin situation “Chink In The Armor” situation at ESPN. That you didn’t mean any offense is beside the point. I’m sure Vinny Testaverde didn’t mean to throw any of those interceptions either.”
They’re comparing actively editing the call to make it sound like Zimmerman volunteered the info about Martin’s race to some moron showing a lack of judgement and using a racial slur as part of a mixed metaphor in a newspaper headline.
You cannot be serious.
I am serious, and don’t call me Shirley. Oh wait, you didn’t.
The author is obviously for firing someone in both cases. Even if we accept NBC’s story that there was no intent, the producer failed “spectacularly… at a key element of their job.” This guy thinks it was a good move. He even starts out with, “Accepting NBC’s rationale.” You know, like “For the sake of argument, if we believe NBC…”
The rest, paraphrased, is: Even if he didn’t mean to do anything wrong, the guy fucked up and firing him was the right thing to do. The ESPN thing was of course a horrible comparison, but it’s still about a guy who fucked up at his job (intentionally or not) and was fired.
Now it sounds like you’re the one making excuses. Yes, I’m aware he agreed the producer should have been fired. That’s not the point. My entire point is he literally says “It’s very similar to the Jeremy Lin situation ‘Chink In The Armor’ situation at ESPN. That you didn’t mean any offense is beside the point.”
Of course it’s beside the point. That doesn’t mean it’s even remotely possible that that was the case. And it certainly doesn’t make it “similar to the Jeremy Lin situation”, in which some moron just used poor judgement and created a tactless headline. That is in no way similar to actively editing a clip to manufacture racism.
And this is not the first time this company has done this:
John James, we seem to be in agreement. The Atlantic author wrote that the producer should have been fired. I described this as giving kudos to NBC for the firing, not making excuses. I also agreed (and still agree) that the Lin comparison was stupid. Yay us.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into the Atlantic article. My take is that the author implies he does not believe NBC’s story that it was just an innocent accident. Instead, he writes the even if we accept their story, the producer still should have been fired. And if ( and only if) we believe their story, then it is similar to the Chink in the armor incident. He is correct. However, I don’t believe NBC’s story. Just like you. Just like the Atlantic author. And so we we see no similarity.
Everone get ready for O.J. 2.0!
OJ? As in Simpson? What in the hell does this case have similar with the OJ case?
“OJ? As in Simpson? What in the hell does this case have similar with the OJ case?”
Yes, Simpson. I was thinking it’s a similar case in that not only has it grabbed the nation’s attention, but it’s also going to be a heavily racial case, or at least, the media will probably treat it as such.
So basically his lawyers have to prove Zimmerman was using justifiable force.
"Under the Stand Your Ground Law, a person who is attacked has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand their ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if it is reasonably believed necessary to to prevent death or great bodily harm or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Also, the Stand Your Ground Law now allows a person to raise the issue of Self Defense both at a Pretrial Hearing and at trial. As a result, if a judge finds that your actions were justified, the Judge is required to dismiss the charges and no trial is required. If the judge does not find your actions were justified, the defense can still be presented to a jury and they can make their own independent determination of whether your actions were justified."
Interesting to know that Zimmerman has a hispanic background. I have read little on this case but the news report this morning about the charge of 2nd degree murder on Zimmerman was interesting in that it says he shot a black teenager. I wonder if a black man had shot a white youth it would be reported that the deceased was white or it would just be reported as a shooting? On second thoughts I don’t wonder I’m pretty darn certain what would happen.
