Trayvon Martin may not have done the textbook best job at protecting himself from harm. And whether he was a “child” or not may be open to debate since government agencies and websites differ on how somebody age 17 should be categorized. But considering the circumstances — rainy, getting dark, stranger following him with a gun — his actions were reasonable and well within his rights. They certainly didn’t warrant his death.
To summarize Zimmerman’s own defense, Zimmerman initiated a confrontation by chasing a youth, the youth defended himself, and Zimmerman shot him dead. Looks like grounds for an arrest. And if you ask me, it’s grounds for a conviction, too.
With a Stranger Stalking, What Were Trayvon Martin's Options?
What is the relationship between Zimmerman and the one eyewitness who allegedly corroborated his account? An eyewitness who has only been identified in media reports as John claims that he saw Zimmerman getting pounded by Trayvon Martin. A Florida Fox News affiliate interviewed the witness, but he refused to show his face on camera. It’s unclear where John was standing during the incident and whether he saw how it began, but he says that after he noticed it, he ran upstairs in his apartment to call 911 and heard a gun shot while he was running. Who is this witness on whom it appears Wolfinger hinged his belief in Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense? Is he a friend of Zimmerman’s?
Top 5 Unanswered Questions In the Trayvon Martin Case
Neither story "sheds more light" on the case. The first simply offers an unsubstantiated option and the second asks an rather pointless question we, as the public, rightly don't have the answer to.
ReplyDeleteDo me a favor, to over come your (massive, in my opinion) biases, do your next two posts defending Zimmerman.
"unsubstantiated option"? er....do you mean "opinion"? Did you even read the link? Guess not because the advice given about what to do when a stranger is following you is the same instructions I have heard from law enforcement my entire life! It is simply looking at the case from that point of view. Go back and read it.
ReplyDeleteAs for the second one, it's asking questions that a lot of people who would like to see Zimmerman defended are failing to ask. And in that some facts are brought up.Given that you didn't read it let me enumerated a couple of them.
a. Only one witness says he saw Trayvon beating up Zimmerman.
b. That witness did not see the shooting itself.
The article is full of other facts that you have missed. You should read it.
As for posts defending George Zimmerman, I haven't seen anything that helps him. Besides he is still around to defend himself and Trayvon Martin is not. I think Zimmerman has an edge.
"unsubstantiated option"? er....do you mean "opinion"?
ReplyDeleteNo, because opinions are typically based on some data.
I haven't seen anything that helps him.
Of course you haven't. You never see anything you don't want to.
No, because opinions are typically based on some data.
ReplyDeleteSo what do you mean then? You have yet to demonstrate how any of the videos or articles I have linked to at this blog has wrong information in it.
Of course you haven't. You never see anything you don't want to.
Provide some evidence that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in self defense. I'm waiting.
So here is something that actually "sheds light" as opposed to just offering opinion or asking pointless questions.
ReplyDeleteBut one has to ask if these two so called "voice experts" are actually friends of the Martin Family. No, wait, that would be stupid.
Hey wait. I think you missed the point. You were supposed to provide evidence that George Zimmerman is innocent of murder. The article does not contradict any of the other information I have posted on this blog. Thanks for the article. I'll make sure to post it where everyone can see it.
ReplyDeleteI think you missed the point. You were supposed to provide evidence that George Zimmerman is innocent of murder
ReplyDeleteThis statement really is stunning in how deeply it misunderstand how the US legal system works.
George Zimmerman has not been charge with a crime, the only person who is “supposed to” do anything here would be the district attorney to determine if there is enough evidence to charge him with a crime, at which point he’s presumed innocent.
But I am not surprised that yoou think like this given that it's completely consistent with your dangerously flawed epistemology.
This statement really is stunning in how deeply it misunderstand how the US legal system works.
DeleteI was referring to our conversation. You claimed that i was wrong because I haven't presented any evidence favoring Zimmerman and here you provide an article that agrees with everything I have posted.
George Zimmerman has not been charge with a crime, the only person who is “supposed to” do anything here would be the district attorney to determine if there is enough evidence to charge him with a crime, at which point he’s presumed innocent.
He's presumed legally innocent if the district attorney does not think there is enough evidence to charge Zimmerman - not that he is innocent of wrong doing. My contention is that based with the evidence I have seen, Zimmerman should be charged with a crime. The District Attorney had better explain why there isn't enough evidence if Zimmerman will not be charged.
But I am not surprised that yoou think like this given that it's completely consistent with your dangerously flawed epistemology.
I'm trying to figure out if you are indeed thinking, not comprehending, or trying to spin your comment as it I am the one at fault. Truly sad. It's not about me. It's about the fact that all the evidence available points out that Zimmerman should be charged and you don't have any evidence that shows he should not be charged.
My contention is that based with the evidence I have seen, Zimmerman should be charged with a crime.
ReplyDeleteCool, you have a law degree too?
...and you don't have any evidence that shows he should not be charged.
Just reflect for a moment on how silly that sentence is... This again goes to your horrible misunderstanding of how the legal system works.
So, I need a law degree to state my opinion? That's real stupid.
ReplyDeleteI do understand the legal system. I've had civics. Your opinion is just as valid as mine, if you can back it up. So far all you have done is say I'm wrong and not shown how or why I'm wrong. I haven't even started anything about convicting the man. All I've ever said is that I think the evidence shows Zimmerman committed a crime against Trayvon Martin and that it needs to be addressed. If he's not guilty than it needs to be proven that he didn't do anything wrong.
It appears that you are saying that you don't know what happened so I shouldn't be offering opinions based on the public evidence. Who are you? I can say what ever I want. If you don't like it, show how it's wrong.
This has nothing to do with what the legal system does right now. I have an opinion on what the legal system should do and on top of that I have not offered anything that shows I don't understand the legal system. That's just a lie you like to say to make yourself feel better. Truly sad.
So, I need a law degree to state my opinion?
ReplyDeleteNo, I suppose not, but your opinion on whether someone should be charge with a crime or not is next to worthless.
So far all you have done is say I'm wrong and not shown how or why I'm wrong.
I've actually shown where you don't have enough information to form a conclusion. That's just like being "wrong", and that's my entire point.
It appears that you are saying that you don't know what happened so I shouldn't be offering opinions based on the public evidence.
That's exactly right. You, with your (very) limited audience, it's not that big of a deal, but we can see what happens when someone like Spike Lee, or Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton subvert the process. Justice is not served for anyone.
You (the public) don't get to demand that someone be charged with a crime, just because you have an emotional reaction to a story.
Hmmmm....so no evidence consistent with a struggle between Zimmerman or Martin - directly contradicting Zimmerman's account of what happpened. Gee, I wonder why?
ReplyDeleteAlso, turns out you were wrong about the above comment.
No, I suppose not, but your opinion on whether someone should be charge with a crime or not is next to worthless.
ReplyDeleteSo Is yours.
I've actually shown where you don't have enough information to form a conclusion. That's just like being "wrong", and that's my entire point.
But claiming that I shouldn't be making a conclusion is itself stating an opinion because I think that there is enough evidence to state that Zimmerman should be investigated. Nothing wrong with that.
You, with your (very) limited audience, it's not that big of a deal, but we can see what happens when someone like Spike Lee, or Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton subvert the process. Justice is not served for anyone.
Who cares what Spike Lee or Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton think? I don't. Why do you think what they think matter? Because they are black? They don't speak for me. I disagree with them a lot.
You (the public) don't get to demand that someone be charged with a crime, just because you have an emotional reaction to a story
I really think the facts that we do have shows George Zimmerman should be arrested and investigated - not yet convicted. The public has every right to demand justice. If an investigation shows that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense and Trayvon Martin attacked him or acting illegally - provoking this - then we need to know that. Initially, nothing was done. That's what I have problem with.
Also, turns out you were wrong about the above comment.
We have contradicting reports - both cited by you. Which one is true? On top of that you still haven't explained where you saw the police report?
Waiting....