Zimmerman -Not Guilty – Trayvon Dead - How It Feels

Here's a second bingo. You don't circle back and physically attack people who are not currently posing a threat to you. 

Some here repeat ad nauseum that Zimmerman shouldn't have approached him, "period." Shouldn't have gotten out of his car, "period." Third bingo: we interact with others, willingly and unwillingly, each time we leave our homes. Martin clearly was not taught how to interact in a manner that wouldn't get him killed. His parents failed in that.

Zimmerman made the mistake of thinking Martin could be questioned without physically attacking him. Martin made the mistake of thinking Zimmerman wasn't armed. Sucked for both of them, huh?

As for the relevancy of Chicago's south side, I'm wondering where DT's book is about all the people killed there every day. Why is Martin so much more important?

One more thing -what is the relevancy of describing Martin as a "17 year old kid?" I'm sure in the dark Martin's 6'+ self really looked like a "kid." 14 yr old "kids" are killing and maiming others every day -google knock out king, polar bear hunting, flash mobs. The two that shot that baby were 14 and 16.

7/30/2013

                          LC said about Detroit, I wonder where her brains are ?

"Foreign aid and Detroit are two different things. I would send money to Hamas before sending it to Detroit"

                         A thread she answered I wrote about Foreign aide to Egypt verses sending
                         aide to Detroit, I said foreign aide should end period !

                                                            Joe...

Joe, you seem to be confused as usual. Your thread was about bailing out Detroit vs. (not "verses") foreign aid. Which has nothing to do with Zimmerman. Maybe you need a nap.

.............. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

                                                                      Napping .....

Here's another bingo. It was not presented as evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin after he was told not to, and a watchman would be a poor one indeed if he saw a person that he thought looked highly suspicious and didn't try to ask him a few questions. Just for giggle, do a google search on pictures of convenience store holdups or robberies and please note that the largest percent of the guys doing the robbing are black males wearing hoodies. That should be evidence enough of what Zimmerman was sure he saw that night. A black guy, wearing a hoodie, wandering around in the rain looking as if he might be casing the houses. It isn't profiling when it's true. Given the history of the robberies in the neighborhood, Zimmerman used some very good thinking in trying to ask Martin a few questions. Chances are that if Martin had taken it for what it was, and not just that some "creepy cracker" was trying to stop him, he might not have attacked Zimmerman, and he'd still be alive today. And BTW, if I ever decided to call anyone any names, you'll all know it. So far, I haven't done so, I've only made observations.

So, I'm walking from my mailbox in the rain wearing my raincoat with my hood on because I want to stay dry and I'm wandering around in the rain(translation: walking home), so some self appointed neighborhood Lone Ranger trails me in a car and the follows me and wants to ask me what I'm doing. Unless he's asking for directions, things will get interesting because I don't know who that person is and they have no legal authority to stop me and I have no obligation to comply with what they want. If he touches me then that could be considered assault, but who is going to allow a stranger that just got out of a car close in on you and get within touching distance. I would take it just like Trayvon did, some creepy guy is following me, whatever I call him after the word creepy is a side show. I'm not in a calm rational mode anymore because I'm feeling threatened by a stranger.

I'm a black guy wearing a hoodie in the rain, so by some logic expressed here, I should be stopped and agree to be questioned by some self-appointed neighborhood watch guy, because other black guys rob stores wearing hoodies. Sounds like an invitation to kill to me. It doesn't matter what some members of some group does, everyone is an individual. Why not stop a certain race of folks because they cook up more meth than others. Stop that guy in that Brooks Brothers suit, he's about to bring the economy down. Where would the profiling end.

Personally, I think any guy dressed like a thug, be he black, white, yellow, brown, or any shade of tan under the sun should be stopped if he is dressed like a thug and wandering around in the dark, in the rain, looking at houses as if he were trying to decide which one to rob. And if you are honest you will admit that is what Zimmerman thought that night.

If I am robbed or hurt in any way, it doesn't matter to me what color my assailant is. And if I am armed, and be sure that I am, I will not hesitate to fire upon anyone of any color who attacks me.

If you had a man in your neighborhood watch who failed to stop a person that he saw acting strangely and your wife was later raped and murdered by that person, I'm sure you'd want to know why the neighborhood watch guy did nothing. And yet, by some stretch of the imagination Zimmerman was supposed to know this thug dressed guy who was acting suspiciously was just an innocent kid. No way he could have known that.

I think that if Zimmerman had called it in and then did nothing, and the guy had killed an elderly family everyone would have wondered why Zimmerman did nothing.

Martin was away from Zimmerman, over 70 yards, and he went back. If he was a terrified young child as so many keep saying he would have run back to his dad's as fast as he could. Why didn't he do that?

For the record, let me say one more time that none of us here know what happened that night, or even why it happened. Some want to blame Zimmerman for it all, some say Martin has to bear his part of the blame. The shame is that a young man died, but we cannot assign the blame for we don't truly know. My personal opinion is that Zimmerman saw a man (not a child) who looked suspicious and acted suspicious in a neighborhood that had already had several robberies, and he decided to stop and ask him what was going on. I think Martin got very angry, and decided to teach the "creepy cracker" a lesson, and it didn't work. I think Martin came back around, attacked Zimmerman, and got himself shot. That is the way the evidence seems to point to me, and apparently that's the way the jury saw it.

And DT, I don't have any problem whatsoever for stopping white guys that look as if they're cooking meth in their trailer. Hell, in Panama City where we lived for a good while, you could see them all over the place. And you can bet I'd rather the police stopped them than to have them go back to cooking. That stuff is bad news on the street, and I just don't care if someone gets offended, so long as they don't keep cooking it. And if you knew anything about me at all you'd know I have no love for Brooks Brothers suit type people, no matter who is wearing them, simply because I know it was that type that brought the economy crashing down. And I don't have a problem with the police or a neighborhood watch guy stopping a white guy if he were wandering around in my neighborhood dressed like a thug and looking as if he was casing homes.

If you were a clerk in a convenience store working the graveyard shift and a little old blue haired lady came in for a lottery number and a pack of cigarettes, and at the same time a black guy with a hoodie pulled down half over his face came in, I'll bet you would be more careful of him that you would the old lady. Of course, with my luck, it would be the old lady that robbed and shot me. But the point is that all of us, me, you, all of us, look for types. We can't help it. We read the news, we watch the media, we see pictures on the internet and in the paper, and we categorize people when we see them. Is that profiling, or is it being careful? If I am walking down a street and I see a few boys dressed in a certain way, acting a certain way, coming toward me, I put my hand a little closer to my side, and that's way before I know what color they are. I've had three people try to break into my house in the last 47 years. The last one was a little over a year ago, and he was white. The two before that was more than 20 years ago, and they were both black. One I ran off with a pistol, one I stepped out on the porch with a large kitchen knife in my hand and he thought better of coming on the porch, and the other I chased into the street and fired a round from a .410 shotgun at him. To this day I don't know if I hit him or not. And I don't care.

I'm sorry, but when it comes to self protection and protecting my home and family, I just plain don't care what color the bad guy is, and neither does the weapon I happen to have close enough to pick up.

And I doubt you do either.

You have your opinion about what happened that night in Florida, and I have mine. I know what mine is based on, but I'm not sure what yours is.

I just saw this. Sorry, but I had to respond. You said.

"whatever I call him after the word creepy is a side show."

Does this mean that it's ok for me to call anyone whatever I want to, just so long as I use the word creepy before I say it? And if I do, will you consider it a side show, or racism?

I just want to see exactly where you're coming from on this one, because you can't have it both ways.

"For the record, let me say one more time that none of us here know what happened that night, or even why it happened. Some want to blame Zimmerman for it all, some say Martin has to bear his part of the blame. The shame is that a young man died, but we cannot assign the blame for we don't truly know. My personal opinion is that Zimmerman saw a man (not a child) who looked suspicious and acted suspicious in a neighborhood that had already had several robberies, and he decided to stop and ask him what was going on. I think Martin got very angry, and decided to teach the "creepy cracker" a lesson, and it didn't work. I think Martin came back around, attacked Zimmerman, and got himself shot. That is the way the evidence seems to point to me, and apparently that's the way the jury saw it."

The jury found that the evidence did not prove that Zimmerman had the "intent" to murder Trayvon. Period.  They followed the instructions they were given regarding the law.  They rendered a verdict that met the letter of the law.

Extending the situation beyond what actually happened accomplishes nothing.  Even the knowledge regarding the actual circumstances is not clear. Imagination and inserting "beliefs" that are founded on individual experience and bias do not make those imaginings correct.

Zimmerman said in the 911 tape that Trayvon looked like a teenager.  My sons were teenagers twenty years ago; my friend's grandsons are teenagers now.  I already explained how teenage behavior relates to this situation and our generation's expectations of their behavior.  There's a solid disconnect.

Well, that's not exactly what the transcript says. Let me refresh your memory. It starts out with this:

"
[b]Dispatcher[/b]
Sanford Police Department.
[b]Zimmerman[/b]
Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, it's Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
[b]Dispatcher[/b]
OK, and this guy is he white, black, or hispanic?
[b]Zimmerman[/b]
He looks black.
[b]Dispatcher[/b]
Did you see what he was wearing?
[b]Zimmerman[/b]
Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He's here now, he was just staring.
[b]Dispatcher[/b]
OK, he's just walking around the area…
[b]Zimmerman[/b]
looking at all the houses."

And then:

"
[b]Zimmerman[/b]
Yeah, now he's coming towards me.
[b]Dispatcher[/b]
OK.
[b]Zimmerman[/b]
He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male.
[b]Dispatcher[/b]
How old would you say he looks?
[b]Zimmerman[/b]
He's got button on his shirt, late teens.
[b]Dispatcher[/b]
Late teens. Ok.
[b]Zimmerman[/b]
Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.

And then:

[b]Dispatcher[/b]
Are you following him?
[b]Zimmerman[/b]
Yeah.
[b]Dispatcher[/b]
Ok, we don't need you to do that.
[b]Zimmerman[/b]
Ok.

And then:

[b]Dispatcher[/b]
Alright sir what is your name?
[b]Zimmerman[/b]
George…He ran.

And then:

[b]Dispatcher[/b]
What's your apartment number?
[b]Zimmerman[/b]
It's a home it's [house number removed], (knocking sound) oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is.

So, at this point in time what we know from the call is that Zimmerman is thinking about the other burglaries that have taken place in the neighborhood. He thinks the man might be on drugs because he's just walking around looking at the houses. He knows he's black and he's wearing a hooding, jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. And he repeats that he's just walking around looking at the houses. Zimmerman sees the man walking toward him, and he has his hand in his waistband so he probably thinks he has a weapon. He also says that from the button on  his shirts he seem to be in  his LATE TEENS. (He doesn't say he looks like a TEENAGER at all. Not sure where you got that.) Then Zimmerman says he's coming to check him out and he has something in his hands. (Do you read anywhere at all where Zimmerman says the man is carrying a drink and some candy? Anywhere?) After that we hear the dispatcher ask Zimmerman if he is following the person, Zimmerman says yes, the dispatcher says OK, we don't need you to do that and Zimmerman replies OK. There is absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after that exchange of with the dispatcher. In fact, he then says the person ran, and he doesn't know where he is. So how can you read into that anything other than what is said? And please tell us why if Martin ran and Zimmerman didn't know where he was, how could Zimmerman be following him at that point? And this is when, from the other evidence, we know that Martin was actually some 70 yards away from Zimmerman. A terrified young child would not have come back, but Martin did come back, and why do you think he did so? Doesn't it make more sense that he would have simply gone on home, without going back to confront Zimmerman if he were so afraid of him?

I have to say I don't understand how anyone can read into this transcript all the things they have said they believe. It's plain old English words, easy to understand, and easier to picture in your mind if you will only open it so the picture can get in. None of what you are saying makes sense. The jury found Zimmerman "Not Guilty." You can phrase it any way you want, but what they said was "Not Guilty." Now stick your period right there, because that is really where it should have ended.

7/31/2013

                      As I've said before only God, Martin and Zimmerman knows
                      what happened that tragic night.......Everyone else is guessing.

                                                      Cheers....Joe...

Transcript wrote:

Dispatcher
Are you following him?
Zimmerman
Yeah.
Dispatcher
Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman
Ok.

 If he didn't follow him, what was he doing out of his car?

Quote :

Zimmerman
He's got button on his shirt, late teens.
Dispatcher
Late teens. Ok.

E Don wrote:

So, at this point in time what we know from the call is that Zimmerman is thinking about the other burglaries that have taken place in the neighborhood. He thinks the man might be on drugs because he's just walking around looking at the houses. He knows he's black and he's wearing a hooding, jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. And he repeats that he's just walking around looking at the houses. Zimmerman sees the man walking toward him, and he has his hand in his waistband so he probably thinks he has a weapon. He also says that from the button on  his shirts he seem to be in  his LATE TEENS. ([b]He doesn't say he looks like a TEENAGER at all. Not sure where you got that[/b].) Then Zimmerman says he's coming to check him out and he has something in his hands. (Do you read anywhere at all where Zimmerman says the man is carrying a drink and some candy? Anywhere?) After that we hear the dispatcher ask Zimmerman if he is following the person, Zimmerman says yes, the dispatcher says OK, we don't need you to do that and Zimmerman replies OK. There is absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after that exchange of with the dispatcher. In fact, he then says the person ran, and he doesn't know where he is. So how can you read into that anything other than what is said? And please tell us why if Martin ran and Zimmerman didn't know where he was, how could Zimmerman be following him at that point? And this is when, from the other evidence, we know that Martin was actually some 70 yards away from Zimmerman. A terrified young child would not have come back, but Martin did come back, and why do you think he did so? Doesn't it make more sense that he would have simply gone on home, without going back to confront Zimmerman if he were so afraid of him?I have to say I don't understand how anyone can read into this transcript all the things they have said they believe. It's plain old English words, easy to understand, and easier to picture in your mind if you will only open it so the picture can get in. None of what you are saying makes sense.

1. E Don, your conclusions are speculation, just as everyone's conclusions, based on the transcript.
   
   The transcript was not the only evidence brought up in the courtroom.
   
   What is the difference between "late teen" and "teenager"?
   

The perspectives and speculations of other forum members and/or the general public are as valid as yours, and make every bit as much sense as yours do.

E Don wrote:

The jury found Zimmerman "Not Guilty." You can phrase it any way you want, but what they said was "Not Guilty." Now stick your period right there, because that is really where it should have ended.

It is true.  Zimmermann was found "Not guilty," so that is where the law ends and we must accept that.

For those of us who feel uncomfortable with the verdict, it is time to discuss changing the laws.  This case is closed, for better or worse.

Ann, your post is all that was needed for me to know that none of you have the slightest clue about real life in that kind of environment. Have I not said time and time again that none of us know what happened? Of course my opinion is speculation, as is everyone elses.

Thanks, you made my case.

We have many different cultures in the USA. Even though their IQ may be equal, they handle things in a different way.

A women from Japan once told me how they view blacks in Japan; “They are physical people.” More times than not, blacks will try to settle things in a physical manner.

The younger male generation, like those before them, follow what they see adult males doing. The problem here is the adult males lived in a time where mostly whites had it good. Blacks want to be equal with others, and like all races, they want to be proud of who they are.

Laws can not make people equal. Money can not make people equal. Force can not make people equal. This is a bad world. Those who say they trust blacks…well I don’t believe it. You can talk that talk all you want. Get on a dark city street, and come face to face with a black male under a hood…

To me there is only one race, the human race. The problem is this one race is divided by culture, not color.

The blacks are going to have to learn other ways other than physical means to gain a position they want.

I see others who are in a division of the human race, (culture) are also becoming physical. You can’t pass laws to fix problems. Each person must start with one person…their self.

Domenic Pappalardo wrote:

We have many different cultures in the USA. Even though their IQ may be equal, they handle things in a different way.

A women from Japan once told me how they view blacks in Japan; “They are physical people.” More times than not, blacks will try to settle things in a physical manner.

The younger male generation, like those before them, follow what they see adult males doing. The problem here is the adult males lived in a time where mostly whites had it good. Blacks want to be equal with others, and like all races, they want to be proud of who they are.

Laws can not make people equal. Money can not make people equal. Force can not make people equal. This is a bad world. Those who say they trust blacks…well I don’t believe it. You can talk that talk all you want. Get on a dark city street, and come face to face with a black male under a hood…

To me there is only one race, the human race. The problem is this one race is divided by culture, not color.

The blacks are going to have to learn other ways other than physical means to gain a position they want.

I see others who are in a division of the human race, (culture) are also becoming physical. You can’t pass laws to fix problems. Each person must start with one person…their self.

I have never heard such garbage in all of my life, "physical means" "the blacks" "blacks". African American people (Black People) are proud of who they are - just ask me or the President of the United States. As for using physical means, weren't physical means use to enslave black people, lynch black people and burn black communities to the ground like in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Tulsa Race Riot was a large-scale, racially motivated conflict on May 31 and June 1, 1921, in which whites attacked the black community of Tulsa, Oklahoma. It resulted in the Greenwood District, also known as 'the Black Wall Street' and the wealthiest black community in the United States, being burned to the ground.

That was a ridiculous post in light of guys walking into movie theaters and elementary schools killing scores of innocent people and they were not black men. Every so often I will read something that causes me to check my calender to see what year I'm living in and this was one of those times.

Yes, DT, you need to check your calendar, because again, you're waving 1920s-era photos. When was the last time a black community was burnt to the ground?

Have you looked at today's DOJ stats? Black on white crime is enormous ....white on black crime is miniscule. Young black men, ~6% of the population, are responsible for about ~60% of this country's violent crime. Instead of acknowledging that, you deflect and distract with history lessons. Or maybe your history lessons are an indirect way of justifying it? I've seen some blog pieces to this effect. I believe it's called "revenge politics."

I avoid Chicago's South Side, Houston's Fifth Ward, Miami ghettos, Detroit, etc., not because of Brooks Brothers-wearing thieves (I worry about them in a different way, mainly their economic terrorism) or the occasional school/theater shooter, but because of the relentless, every day criminality of young black men. Sorry if it's not "polite" to say that. I suspect YOU avoid those places for the same reason, tho.

Of course, if anyone prominent says that, they lose their jobs. Like Pat Buchanan. He still writes eloquently, tho.

 http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-the-color-of-crime-826

YK, I don't mean to give the impression that I'm not aware of how history has shaped today; I actually am sympathetic to you, Trayvon, and African-Americans in general (although I'm sure you'd disagree from my posts, lol). However, with the enormous amount of other-culture immigration we now have -immigrants from Central/South America, Asia,  the Middle East -less and less people are caring about Black History Month, so to speak. Amnesty for the ~20 million illegal aliens here is just a matter of time. Hispanics have already "ethnically cleansed" blacks from Compton and other traditionally black areas, and their sympathy is far less than anything I'm displaying here. So really, this whole thing is just an academic exercise and a way for our failing newspapers to get market share. We've all been played to that end.

Homeland Security has bought over 1 billion hollow point bullets. Police are increasingly militarized, cameras are all over the place, and drones are now flying over the big cities. To me, this all points to an acknowledgment of future civil unrest. We have bigger problems.

I hear what you are saying, DT. I wish I didn't, but I hear it, and it is all too valid a perspective.

We have said similar things before, as far back as the PAMB, but it may need to be said again.

I cannot pretend to identify with DT. We are of the same generation. or close. We are both native Texans.

Too much ends there.

I, too attended a segregated high school. I was told that it was necessary, for those children were different, and could never advance to the level of white children. This was told to me by my elders. I had no means to dispute it, even though the only "dark" person I knew was my mother's housekeeper - the wisest woman I have to this day ever known. That fact was apparently irrelevant. My elders told me what was "true."

Then I graduated and started college. Lamar University was only 30 miles from home, but, for the first time, I attended classes with "negro" students in them (just to clarify, the word I used was the polite word at the time. That other word, in the society I knew, was only used by those whites who were too ignorant to pronounce the word properly. There was little or no animosity involved in the community's attitude. There was just a "charitable" recognition of difference. Over the years since, I have come to believe that the insidious nature of that "Christian" concept was far more damaging to genuine progress than was the hatred implied by the "other" word. It led to apathy)

Back to those college classes: I soon learned that my darker-skinned colleagues were at least as intelligent as I was, if not more so. In my narcissistic selfishness I chose to believe that my own intelligence was not inferior. It was the beginning of an opening of the doors of perception to a completely different worldview from that of my elders.

It is still a process. The damage done by the old worldview was too extensive to be washed away overnight, or even after a half-century of legal changes.

I do not understand why the Supreme Court did not grasp that when they voted to rescind portions of the Voter's Rights Act.

The attitudes of people generally in the aftermath of the Zimmerman verdict are indicators of how far we still have to go.

Those of us who did not have to live through that past have no right to tell those who did live through it how to think or feel. It was their reality. It was, and too often still is, very real.

Quote :

I do not understand why the Supreme Court did not grasp that when they voted to rescind portions of the Voter's Rights Act.

The only portion they rescinded was the requirement for southern states to seek federal approval to change voting districts. What's wrong with that -why is it needed anymore? If it's needed anywhere, it's not in poor southern states, but in rich northern ones. Particularly Boston and Manhattan, those bastions of white liberalism where rich white liberals live in COMPLETELY WHITE NEIGHBORHOODS.

It is still needed in Texas, where the Republican legislature is trying to redistrict the state so that minority voters will be disenfranchised. If anything, it needs to be expanded. As a southerner, I have always realized that racism and prejudice were not limited to the South. That does not mean that it is okay to back up, simply because northern communities have the same prejudices.

What minority voters in Texas, white people? Another 10 years, maybe less, Texas will be "minority majority" to use the meaningless PC term (you're not a minority when you're a majority).

Before the Civil War, only about 30% of the population in Texas owned slaves. But the committee that voted for secession voted 192 to 8, because those sent to the committee were mostly from the areas with the most power - the wealthy slaveholders got their way in spite of the over-all population. It was a bit like that 1% to 99% pointed out a couple of summers ago. Numbers, in and of themselves, do not make the difference. Wealth does. When you can gerrymander the districts to favor the areas with wealthy, primarily white voters having control, the population numbers are of little value.

It was too soon to rescind that section of the act.

I am actually working on something that touches on the issues being discussed here in this thread. Well it's not on the issues being discussed but on why the same issue can have almost polar opposite responses and why that happens. This is a problem, because individualism is being discounted and grouping is the new norm. This color wearing these clothes equals a thug. Some other ethnic group equals this or that, so who is deciding the categories of bad everyone is fitting in. It is a arrest them all and sort them out late mentality. Think of World War II and the Japanese Americans placed into interment camps and you get the picture.

It's funny that it is mentioned that I avoid certain areas, I recall that when I was in sales they were certain territories that some reps were afraid to work. I knew where they were and the makeup of the areas. I had no problem going into those zip codes and they were minority areas. No one bothered me because I wasn't expecting to be bothered.

7/31/2013

                     LC...

                              Read this , it'll open your eyes, shocking and horrible !


                                     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot

                                                            Joe