The Trayvon Martin shooting was the beginning of the end for the left (interview, activist)

[MyNameIsBellaMia]

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

Haha maybe burglars stayed away considering a crazy guy (GZ) shot to death a teen who lived there who was determined later to have been doing nothing wrong.

Miss the trial, did you?


Poor little TrayTray did everything wrong. Circling back to start something when you're steps away from your house is always going to be the wrong and stupid thing to do, especially when armed with nothing but a bag of Skittles.


Since you apparently missed it, George was found Not Guilty.


To answer the OP's question, the moment 0bama announced that TrayTray could have been his son, public opinion solidified. So yes.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

I have said this multiple times, so yes I agree that no one knows what actually happened. That's part of my larger point here. It's interesting how so many are willing to believe the self-defense story of the only living witness to the entire event - GZ himself. Obviously GZ had injuries and was fighting with Martin but we truly don't know what led to the fight, so the whole self-defense theory may be a bit flawed, and he really could be lying all together; he may have been the aggressor. The issue is the lack of evidence to disprove it, because one of the guys involved is dead and can't talk.

Otherwise I completely agree with everything else you said.

Oh, for Pete's Sake! There were witnesses who testified at the trial.


As far as I know, they aren't dead.


I'll bet if you searched, you could find the entire trial video and learn from it.

[ChiGeekGuest]

Originally Posted by fellow26

Exactly my point about the media spinning things, resulting in a divisiveness, where to simply undo the spin makes one sound like a racist.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Young black male(12 to 24 y/o) describes 6 million individuals in this country. SO yes, thanks for proving my point.

Further more, Martin did not commit those crimes. He was innocent, and yet still stereotyped.

This also succeeds in correcting the direction of the OP's spin as well.

[jazzarama]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Because Zimmerman testified that Martin fit the description of the individuals who had previously broken into homes and cars in the area. The description was "young black males".


i have never understood the conservative idea behind the photo, seems to be me you are trying to argue that Martin as an older kid looked more menacing or something. Which means you are playing the exact same optics game you are against.

First, since GZ never 'testified,' you must mean he told the police or someone else that he followed or targeted TM because he was a young black male. Any chance you can support that claim ?


That angelic child-like photo of TM was clearly intended to convey the message he couldn't possibly be a threat to the dastardly armed mug-shot vigilante photo used for GZ.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by scatman

Did you listen to the part about him talking about 'these punks', even though he was the one following Travon? And did you hear his demeanor? Dude sounded like he should've been nowhere near a gun, let alone having one!

A dude like him, armed, patrols a gated community and follows cats. And y'all think that's alright, and think any criticism of that is a left wing propaganda.....!

He was upset that his neighborhood was being constantly targeted for crime. Anybody would be.

He patrolled that neighborhood quite some time,probably armed, and it was never shown that he pulled a weapon on anyone.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Young black male(12 to 24 y/o) describes 6 million individuals in this country. SO yes, thanks for proving my point.

Further more, Martin did not commit those crimes. He was innocent, and yet still stereotyped.

Criminals tend to return to places where they are successful. Other residents reported to the police that it was young black males committing crimes in the neighborhood. It was most likely the same individuals returning; therefore, it makes sense that when you see a young black male looking suspicious that he might be someone to watch. Logic.

[Salmonburgher]

Originally Posted by ABQConvict

Zimmerman created the situation. ... he instigated the confrontation by all accounts.

There is not a single account of GZ instigating the confrontation.

Why do people post/opine on subjects on which they are completely ignorant?

[Indentured Servant]

I think whats obvious here is the assumption of black criminality. People who see what GZ did as ok....thinks blacks are criminals. I mean...TM HAD to be a criminal.....he just HAD to be.

People say that blacks disproportionately commit violent crimes......even if that is true the percentage of blacks committing violent crime is about the same as the percentage of blacks with an IQ over 140. Yet, why consider us criminal and not geniuses?

[scatman]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsBellaMia

Miss the trial, did you?


Poor little TrayTray did everything wrong. Circling back to start something when you're steps away from your house is always going to be the wrong and stupid thing to do, especially when armed with nothing but a bag of Skittles.


Since you apparently missed it, George was found Not Guilty.


To answer the OP's question, the moment 0bama announced that TrayTray could have been his son, public opinion solidified. So yes.

Oh, for Pete's Sake! There were witnesses who testified at the trial.


As far as I know, they aren't dead.


I'll bet if you searched, you could find the entire trial video and learn from it.

'Circling back to start something' is a typical teen reaction to being followed. (teens get hyper when something like that happens to them!). Yes, a wise thing to do, which people like myself will teach my son, is to keep it moving, unless ordered to stop by a law enforcement official, which Zimmerman was not!

However, a grown *** man, Zimmerman, following that teen on unqualified armed patrol......!

[Salmonburgher]

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

LOL Whoa relax. Why so hostile?

I'm not hostile. I am just fed up with ignorance of the facts at this stage in time. The trial was covered extensively. The facts are open for anyone to inspect. Yet, you remain woefully ignorant.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

My "ignorance sickens you"? Ignorance about what, exactly?

Let's take a look.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

Zimmerman WAS told not to follow Martin. This is in the record.

No. The record of the telephone call shows that GZ was NOT told not to follow TM. Moreover, at trial, the police non-emergency dispatcher testified that they (non-emergency dispatchers) are not permitted to give orders/instructions to people who call in suspicious behavior.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

He did not listen. He was told to WAIT for the police. Zimmerman had no business doing what he did given the context and facts.

No. The record of the telephone call shows that GZ did NOT follow TM. The recording demonstrated, at trial, that GZ exited his car ONLY AFTER 1) TM took off running and 2) the dispatcher asked which way/where TM had run off. On the recording of the call, at trial the dispatcher testified that she/he heard the sound of GZ running and heard GZ breathing heavily. At that point, he/she asked if GZ was following TM and told GZ that the police "did not need him to do so". At that point, the sound of GZ running stopped and his breathing began to return to normal.

The fight took place at the T area of the sidewalk that went behind the apartment buildings. TM had told the girl he was speaking with that he had reached his father's girlfriend's house, which was some 100 yards away from the T area. The fight started at the T and ended about 40 feet away. At trial, evidence and testimony showed that GZ had dropped several personal items at the T area, where GZ advised the coppers the fight began.

Context and facts are important. But, I don't know what context or facts you are looking at?

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

And FL's law that allows you to just shoot and kill people for the premise that Zimmerman did SHOULD NOT EXIST.

There should be no affirmative defense for self defense? The right to defend one's self should not exist? The law of self defense is one of mankind's oldest laws, and as I have posted previously, has been codified since at least Roman times.

Do you imagine that there is something unique about Florida law with respect to self defense? I assure you there is nothing unique about Florida's self defense statute.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

Martin did nothing wrong at that moment.

He was pounding GZ's face and smashing GZ's head against the concrete walk. I assure you, in any society at virtually any time in history, that behavior would be considered "wrong".

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

He was minding his own business walking in the neighborhood where he lived...

He did not live there long. Had he lived there long, GZ likely would have known or recognized him. In fact, TM was sent to live with his father because TM was getting into trouble and his mother could not control him. He'd been suspended from school for having tools used by burglars in his locker and items of jewelry and weed.

If he was minding his own business, then he would have gone inside his father's girlfriend's apartment when he reached there rather than double back to where GZ was waiting for the cops about 100 yards away.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

...and he was shot close to the home he was residing in.

No. He was shot about 100 yards away from the place he was staying, several minutes after he had already reached that place.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

There was some type of confrontation that began after Zimmerman refused to just wait for police...

GZ was awaiting the police at the T about 100 yards away from TM's father's girlfriend's apartment, and TM had minutes before already reached his father's girlfriend's apartment. Obviously, as the fight started at the T, where GZ was waiting for the cops, TM went back to look for GZ.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

and after Martin told a friend on the phone that a man was following him.

And yet, TM doubled back to confront GZ at the T about 100 yards away from TM's father's girlfriend's apartment.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

Zimmerman should have left action to the police.

GZ was waiting for the cops at the T area.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

Zimmerman initiated the whole incident by playing cops and robbers.

There is absolutely no evidence to support your opinion in this regard, and there is lots of evidence to refute your opinion.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

Zimmerman wouldn't have had to resort to self-defense in whatever fight occurred if he had listened to the dispatcher.

GZ did in fact listen to the dispatcher.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

I'm fine with self-defense laws when the situation is proper.

TM was pounding GZ's face and smashing GZ's head against the concrete walk. That is a textbook example of a proper time to use self defense.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

I'm not fine when some vigilante stalks a teen just because he seems suspicious...

Irrelevant, because GZ did not stalk TM.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

then ignores advice to wait for police

GZ did take the advice and was awaiting the cops when TM returned to confront GZ.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

and winds up in an altercation with the kid.

TM was 17 years old. I believe young men of 17 are old enough to join the military and kill enemy soldiers. Let's not pretend that TM was a child.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

This is an abuse of the intent of the law.

Even if GZ did what you in error accuse him of doing, GZ would still have been justified in killing TM. That is indeed the intent of the law.

Ignorance of the law can be very dangerous, as TM learned the hard way.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

Zimmerman had other options in the whole situation and he resorted to what ultimately happened.

GZ did none of what you accuse him. In fact, TM had other options that had he resorted to taking, he likely would still be alive today.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

In reality, we only have one story to go off of - Zimmerman's.

No. We have witness testimony and evidence and forensic evidence. Essentially all of the evidence, testimony, and forensics supported GZ'd telling of the tale.

In fact, the cops who originally questioned GZ, lied to him in an attempt to trip him up. The cops told GZ that there was video footage of the incident. At trial, one cop testified that GZ's reaction to being told that video footage of the incident existed was one of utter relief. People who have lied about an incident do not typically show relief when told that video footage of the incident exists.

The cops also testified at trial that GZ's explanation of the incident remained fairly consistent over the many times they made him repeat it. One cop testified that had GZ told the EXACT same tale repeatedly, suspicions would have been aroused, as people telling lies practice the lie and typically do not veer from it, at all. GZ's repeated explanations were judged as truthful and fairly consistent, and essentially all of the evidence supported GZ's explanation of the incident.

So, yes, TM was not there to tell his side of the story. But, we know that he had already reached the safety of his father's girlfriend's apartment, yet doubled back 100 yards to where GZ was waiting for the cops. Other evidence also tells the story.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

Zimmerman was facing a murder charge, that he could beat by claiming self-defense... so he claimed self-defense. Whatever he claims happened, however it went down, is just his side of the story.

Again, the evidence supported GZ' version of the incident. Humans may lie. But, evidence does not.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

You can't be this naive.

Do you know what the word "irony" means?

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

What they did also have in evidence was statements by a friend Martin had been on the phone with just prior to the shooting who testified that Martin told her some creepy guy was following and watching him.

TM had already reached a safe distance from GZ. If TM was scared of the creepy guy, why did he double back to where GZ was waiting?

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

From the arrest warrant: "the encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and waited the arrival of law enforcement or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern.... There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter."

Ultimately, had GZ never been born, TM might still be alive.

Impeccable logic!

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

I'm not ignorant of facts or law.

You are ignorant of both.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

I'm a law student. What the hell are you?

I have 27 years experience as a licensed attorney.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

I had you on ignore then removed you. Thanks for reminding me why I had you on ignore.

You can remain ignorant. But, I don't know why you would want to do so.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

Criminals tend to return to places where they are successful. Other residents reported to the police that it was young black males committing crimes in the neighborhood. It was most likely the same individuals returning; therefore, it makes sense that when you see a young black male looking suspicious that he might be someone to watch. Logic.

Again, Trayvon Martin did not break into anyone's home in that neigborhood. We know he was innocent of those accusations.

you continuing to bring up that Zimmerman was after any young black man only further proves my point.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by jazzarama

First, since GZ never 'testified,' you must mean he told the police or someone else that he followed or targeted TM because he was a young black male. Any chance you can support that claim ?

Since their is an audio tape of his call to police officers, I think my "claim" is well supported.

That angelic child-like photo of TM was clearly intended to convey the message he couldn't possibly be a threat to the dastardly armed mug-shot vigilante photo used for GZ.

You are proving my point. You are perfectly conveying the "black men are scary" argument.

This is supposedly the most recent photo he took, based on his social media uploads.

This is also one of the photos conservative sites posted saying this is the "real" trayvon Martin, and that this individual pictured is more menacing.