I think both GZ and TM made rash decisions. In fact, TM was probably first. I say this because:
-He entered this Retreat view complex which clearly had signs stating it was a neighborhood watch community (tells a person its likely residents maybe "looking out" for each other)
- he was wandering around on the lawns of these townhouses during a rainy/windy evening (possibly staring at houses) with his hand in his waistband ..instead of walking down the sidewalk or street
-even though he had every right to be there as he was invited to stay at Brandi Greens place, TM should have known he would be viewed as a stranger to the residents there and this type of behavior would be viewed as suspicious.
I don't think those are things are prudent person does.
While in hindsight (especially to grown up white people) those were not wise things to do, to a teenager none of that would seem suspicious. When you're talking to someone on the phone, you naturally look around without necessarily paying any attention to what's around you; this might look like casing houses, but in hindsight doesn't seem particularly suspicious, nor would it have seemed so to Martin. Wearing a hoodie with the hood up seems suspicious to us, but it's practically a uniform to urban teenagers, especially black teenagers, who want that gangsta look. That doesn't necessarily correlate with being a thug, it's just the look that is currently cool, and in any case if one is outside in drizzling rain then wearing your hood up only makes sense. I'd bet the whitest old man (which might well be me LOL) puts his hood up in the rain or cold, if he has one. And from Martin's point of view, the Neighborhood Watch is there to protect him, not to hassle him. (That's assuming he's not a criminal obviously, but given that there seems to be no available hard evidence otherwise and the kid is unable to defend himself due to being dead, basic human decency argues for giving him the benefit of the doubt.)
Yes, you decided to add a phrase that is not corroborated. And you decided to give that compression more meaning. If that is what you decide to then than fine. But it isn't fact that that's a key phrase.
That Martin was attacking Zimmerman at the time he was shot seems amply corroborated to me. One can certain argue the severity of the beating, or whether Martin's actions were unreasonable given what he knew at the time, or whether Zimmerman should have shot him, but that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and attacking him in some fashion at the moment of the shooting seems pretty well established. Given that the shot occurs during the screaming and is consistent with a near-contact shot at an angle consistent with the shot person above a prone shooter at an angle, I'm not sure how anyone could come to any other conclusion. And there is certainly no evidence to support any other conclusion. At most, one could argue that there is a lack of evidence for a sustained, brutal beating, but given that Zimmerman's statement was that Martin was beating Zimmerman's head against the ground there wouldn't have to be other significant facial damage to support that claim.
Problem with this is that you still don't know how the physical altercation started. We KNOW Zimmerman was going after Trayvon. We don't KNOW that trayvon waited, hid, ambushed, etc... that's speculation at this point.
We do however KNOW for a fact that Zimmerman initiated all of the events.
We KNOW he KNEW better than to leave the safety of his car to chase after somebody w\ police en route. We KNOW he didn't return to his car when the operator told him they didn't need him to follow.
And I assume since you pretend this John charactor had some kind of world shaking authority that surely the liason with the police force must then have much greater authority than john.
This is the problem w\ all of the pro zimmerman talk.
You're saying all of this stuff about trayvon... he should have stopped when JOHN OMFG IT"S FUCKING JOHN!!! when JOHN pokes his head out and says he's going to call police.
Well that's nice and all...> But maybe, just maybe George Zimmerman should have gone back to his FUCKING car when the operator made it clear they didn't need him to be doing what he was doing.
You show me one bit of solid evidence Trayvon was going after Zimmerman... please. I'll be waiting for you to produce that.
While we wait, just realize we already have documented proof that Zimmerman was going after Trayvon. Period. End of discussion....
One key thing here: Zimmerman was doing something perfectly legal and (he thought) helpful for his community. We know his profile of Martin was wrong, but everything Zimmerman did up until the part we can't see was perfectly legal and even sensible, if one cares about one's community. By contrast, Martin's assault, no matter how reasonable a response given what we know or surmise he knew, is not something allowed by law or society. Everything other than the assault, on both parts, is perfectly legal. Martin had no legal obligation to flee back into his home; Zimmerman had no legal obligation to flee back into his truck. We simply cannot as a society abandon the freedom of outdoors to predators - and given what each knew at the time, that applies equally to Martin and to Zimmerman. Martin saw a suspicious adult man following him around; Zimmerman was acting reasonably as a concerned citizen, but as Martin knew he'd done nothing wrong he had no way to know that. Zimmerman saw a young man dressed and behaving exactly like those young men who repeatedly robbed his neighbors; Martin was an innocent teenager just walking around to have some privacy for a phone call, but Zimmerman had no way to know that. Both made some foolish decisions, but neither had any legal or moral responsibility to flee to safety.
And while I can GUESS a way in which Zimmerman might have initiated the physical confrontation (by attempting to detain Martin, which to Martin certainly would have not have seemed like a reasonable action), I have no EVIDENCE that this happened. See the difference? And I'm not at all sure it has any bearing on the prosecution in any event. There is (and should be) no requirement to take a violent beating.
Facebook
Twitter