Anger + Sadness = RAGE

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I think it's interesting that most of the media frenzy and public outcry about this case has relatively died down. To ME that clearly sends the message that people were mostly upset that the police weren't really looking into the case, and that they aren't as concerned with the final outcome as long as they believe justice is being served. Of course, there are exceptions--some people will be very upset if he's found innocent. Some people are upset that the prosecutor is even attempting to try this case. Somewhere in the middle, you have normal Americans who are offended by what happened and want the court system to do it's job. And most of those people will be mollified by the process even if they think the outcome wasn't the right one. (aka, Casey Anthony, O.J. Simpson)

It is quite possible that there will not be enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. Two things, though: 1. a lack of clear evidence doesn't mean someone is innocent; it means their guilt can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. No matter what comes out in court, I will always be suspicious of Zimmerman's motives because he was following an unarmed kid who wasn't doing anything wrong AND because he continued to follow after being asked not to by the dispatcher.

There was similar outcry in OK a few years ago because a pharmacist shot a kid who was burglarizing his store--after the kid had already been shot once and was lying on the ground incapacitated (and the threat was completely removed as illustrated by security video), he shot him again and killed him. He was convicted of murder. Rightfully so, IMO. Excessive force is not only illegal, it's immoral. It's illegal for policemen to use excessive force--why would it be okay for the average citizen to do that?

That said, at least this is being addressed and I feel better about it either way. It's important to note that I can be eternally suspicious of Zimmerman and still be satisfied that the police and court system are doing their jobs. I don't have to agree with the final outcome in order to be satisfied that justice is being served.

MB - you are making assumptions like everyone else in this case.

1. Zim did not know he was unarmed, as the 911 call shows he stated that he saw something in his hand.
2. Zim was following him and suddenly Trayvon started running away and Zim could not see him. If you are following someone and they start running away does that make you believe they are innocent or guilty?
3. You DO NOT KNOW that he continued to follow. Zim has stated that he returned to his truck.

I remember the OK case. I have a friend who has known Ersland (I think that is his name) for years. He has always been a little out there. With that in mind, I think his problem was that he went back to the counter and reloaded, then returned and killed the perpertrator. If he had shot him again on his way out the door, he probably would have walked.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

How do yo know he continued to follow after being asked not to?

That's my understanding of what happened, backed up by audio from the 911 call and the fact that Trayvon was shot between apartments--where Zimmerman's truck was NOT. Meaning, he had to have left his truck and followed him (let's say "wandered around" just for the sake of argument), and the shot occurred after he talked to the dispatcher who asked him not to follow Trayvon. How could he have reached the place of the altercation otherwise? We know that he got out of his truck AFTER the dispatcher's instruction (or at least, during the phone call), and we know that the shooting didn't happen near the truck. His legs took him SOMEWHERE, somewhere that ended up in a confrontation or fight with Trayvon, somewhere away from his vehicle, somewhere other than sitting tight, in his truck with the doors locked, waiting for law enforcement to show up and confirm that there was a kid walking around doing...nothing at all.

Here's an interesting map that shows the location of the shooting vs. the location of Zimmerman's truck:
http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2...all-timing.jpg

I don't have time to verify the accuracy of that map, so forgive me if it's bogus. However, I don't think anyone has tried to say that the shooting took place right next to the truck. I'm pretty sure that fact isn't up for dispute.

[Truthseeker]

I read 911 transcripts and don't remember any indication he kept following after being instruucted not. Maybe I need to look again. Also don't remember it indicated he received instructions while in truck. I could be wrong but will take another look at it.

I'm curious if even against the law to follow someone in public?

[Truthseeker]

According to map doesn't look like shooting happened that far from truck.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

MB - you are making assumptions like everyone else in this case.

No, I'm exploring the possibilities like everyone else in this case. A lot of people are assuming that Zimmerman was only protecting himself, but the truth is there aren't a lot of facts that back up that story--at least, not facts that can stand alone without matching assumptions.

The events have to support Zimmerman's actions in order for them to be justified, and IMO, based on what we DO know, his actions weren't justified.

1. Zim did not know he was unarmed, as the 911 call shows he stated that he saw something in his hand.

Where did I state or assume that Zim thought Trayvon was unarmed? And are we going to justify stand-your-ground shootings on the remote possibility that someone *could* have a gun in their hand--OR a bag of skittles?

2. Zim was following him and suddenly Trayvon started running away and Zim could not see him. If you are following someone and they start running away does that make you believe they are innocent or guilty?
3. You DO NOT KNOW that he continued to follow. Zim has stated that he returned to his truck.

Read your own statement. "If you are following someone and they start running away...." It's obvious on the 911 call that he got out of his truck and proceeded to follow Trayvon, or at least move away from his truck at THAT point. He was in his truck when he called 911. He left his truck during or after that call. This is just simple logic here. Listen to the full audio if you haven't yet. Not the clipped version.

I remember the OK case. I have a friend who has known Ersland (I think that is his name) for years. He has always been a little out there. With that in mind, I think his problem was that he went back to the counter and reloaded, then returned and killed the perpertrator. If he had shot him again on his way out the door, he probably would have walked.

My point about bringing up that case, which was also a tragedy for everyone involved, was that I think these stand-your-ground laws, while well-intentioned, set the stage for excessive violence. Not reasonable defense, but over-the-top aggression.

Have to run! I'll check back later.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

According to map doesn't look like shooting happened that far from truck.

Those are apartment buildings--not single-family homes. He had to leave his truck and walk between the buildings in order to reach the shooting location. If that's not "following", I don't know what is.

[aegsm76]

Arghhh

MB - sometimes when I post with you I feel like I am talking with my wife. Must be that Oklahoma gene...
Ok, here goes.
I thought you had made it sound like Zim knew he was unarmed.
I know Zim left his truck, he admits it. However, he says that he was returning to his truck when he was attacked.
I have listened to the entire call.
I believe both Zim and Tray would not handle things the same way, if they had it to do over. Sadly, some decisions are irrevocable.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Those are apartment buildings--not single-family homes. He had to leave his truck and walk between the buildings in order to reach the shooting location. If that's not "following", I don't know what is.

The dispatcher asked for an address, Zim said he walked to get the address and was returning to his truck when attacked.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Arghhh

MB - sometimes when I post with you I feel like I am talking with my wife. Must be that Oklahoma gene...

I'm sorry?

Ok, here goes.
I thought you had made it sound like Zim knew he was unarmed.

If I did, I don't remember it. Another question about that particular point--what if Trayvon was armed? How does that differ from Zimmerman being armed? Even if Zim thought Trayvon was armed, if the kid wasn't actually *doing* anything wrong, why would it matter? I can understand observing him from a distance, but I don't understand:

1. Calling 911 before the kid did anything. Why not wait until he actually committed a crime or trespassed?

2. Why he suspected him of anything wrong in the first place?

3. Leaving the truck for any reason. In the 911 call, Zim was in or at his truck while speaking to the 911 operator. He gave the operator the closest address in the very beginning of the call, so it doesn't make sense for him to say later that he left to go find another address (as an explanation for what he was doing other than following Trayvon). He tells the operator that Trayvon is going down to the "other entrance of the neighborhood" and you can hear Zim getting out of his truck at that point. The 911 operator says, "Are you following him?" Zim says, "Yep!" and the 911 operator tells him he doesn't need to do that. After THAT Zim says that "he ran." At no point after that does Zim volunteer to go find another address. He asks the 911 operator to have the police call HIM and he would then tell them where he was at. If he planned to remain in one spot, why not say, "I'll still be right here--parked at the clubhouse."?

I know Zim left his truck, he admits it. However, he says that he was returning to his truck when he was attacked.

That part is fuzzy--and possible. It's possible that he followed Trayvon, was spotted and that Trayvon chased him. However, that doesn't mesh well with the other part of the story in which we know that at least initially Trayvon started running away when he spotted Zimmerman. Two things bother me there: Why would Zimmerman chase down a kid who was running and/or why would Trayvon run if he wanted a confrontation or if he didn't perceive Zimmerman as a threat? It seems logical that Trayvon knew Zimmerman was following him and that's why he ran. Didn't his girlfriend say that he told her someone was following him? This goes back to the idea of shooting a burglar in the back when they're running away. It's unnecessary--and then you have the added complication that Trayvon was not a burglar--or criminal--as far as Zimmerman knew, so what was the justification in his mind for chasing this kid?

I have listened to the entire call.
I believe both Zim and Tray would not handle things the same way, if they had it to do over. Sadly, some decisions are irrevocable.

It is sad. Heart breaking. And lest anyone think I have no compassion for Zimmerman--I do. I think people can have irrational thoughts and in the heat of the moment do stupid things that they absolutely regret later--and not *just* because they were caught. You would have to be a sociopath to enjoy killing someone. Assuming Zimmerman isn't a sociopath, I imagine he is dealing with a large measure of mental and emotional turmoil over this event. I know I would--even if it was a justified act of self-defense. I still couldn't feel good about taking anyone's life.

None of this wringing of the hands is going to bring Trayvon back, that's for sure. I feel very, very sad for Trayvon's family and friends, and I feel sad for Zimmerman and his family, too. Their lives will never be the same.

[AreYouReady?]

Zim is being tried via speculation and media.

Don't know if he will get a fair trial.

Very sorry for Treyvon and his family.