<p>Patsmom, go back to posts 406 and 408, that will show you where some of the confusion comes from. Also, “ass cracker” has its own definition which ties into the idea that Trayvon could have thought a perv was following him. Finally, cracker isn’t a common term everywhere.</p>
<p>Creepy-ass cracker may mean creepy white guy.
Creepy ass cracker means something else. </p>
<p>In the transcript, it may not be clear which one the witness attributed to Mr. Martin.</p>
<p>Right. And creepy means pervert and it always has. Also the current use: creeper. As in “total creeper”. Always knew he was a creeper the teens around here said when a pedophile was arrested at the junior high</p>
<p>For those that did not read carefully I may have added to their confusion. When they were speaking about the phrase- creepy ass cracker, the atty asked if cracker was a common term in her culture. she answered yes sir. He then asked “what is her culture”, and she answered “pervert”. (my post 406)
So that atty’s particular question applied only to the part of the phrase “cracker”. Some here are <em>correcting</em> others about using the whole phrase, but they are mistakenly thinking of a different time of the questioning.</p>
<p>Here’s something to confuse the issue further-
[xkcd:</a> Hyphen](<a href=“http://xkcd.com/37/]xkcd:”>xkcd: Hyphen)</p>
<p>^ Please excuse me if I don’t read it. I’m confused enough already!</p>
<p>I think people are putting WAY too much emphasis on the nuances of Rachel Jeantel’s statements–as well as on what her testimony might mean for the outcome. Creepy-ass cracker, creepy ass-cracker, whatever. She is not the most impressive witness and she is describing a conversation that happened over a year ago. If she were all the prosecution had, I would be skeptical of the state winning a conviction. However, plenty of murder cases are decided without eyewitnesses and this might be one of them.</p>
<p>That’s exactly the point. If we are confused and parsing and debating, then conscientious jurors will do the same. It would be worse when reading or hearing from the transcript and could impact the weight given to this witness’ testimony.</p>
<p>I suppose it’s possible there are some bi-jargon kids in Florida that use ‘cracker’ for something other than what anyone native to the south understands it to mean, but it would only matter if every juror’s a transplant from north of the Mason-Dixon line.</p>
<p>It seems clear that TM likely viewed the world through a prism of race. Referring to GZ as cracker is a slur for white people. But TM also called GZ the n word even though he is hispanic and not black. If TM was a racist who viewed GZ as inferior because of his race, I doubt TM would have referred to GZ by the n word. In other words, I don’t think TM’s actions or comments arose out of dislike of GZ because of GZ’s race. TM’s actions arose out of his dislike of being followed.</p>
<p>I heard on a TV show the opinion of an expert who said that the way the gunshot wounds appear on TM’s shirt, the shirt and undershirt must have been hanging away from the skin. If true, the only way for this to happen would be if TM was leaning forward so that gravity pulled his shirts away from his skin. This is consistent with GZ saying TM was on top of him. To me the key to this case is who was on top when the gun was fired.</p>
<p>Or, Zimmerman could have been gripping Martin’s shirt as Martin attempted to get away when Zimmerman fired the gun. The shirt would have been pulled away from the body in that scenario.</p>
<p>Not sure I agree, zoosermom. The jury has strict parameters in which to evaluate the information presented at trial. We are here in the comfort of our homes looking up the definition of “cracker” and speculating on what the media reports to us.</p>
<p>It is so obvious that this case is primarily about fear. You can bring in every last detail about who did what/racism, who was on top of whom, and who was screaming. But it was about fear. Everyone was (rightfully) afraid. Certainly you shouldn’t have an untrained self appointed security guard walking around in the dark, that’s for sure. But this is all about fear, and it is purely tragic.</p>
<p>Or if TM saw GZ had a gun, he could have crunched down in a way that made his shirt hang away from his body…</p>
<p>So many scenarios.</p>
<p>“It seems clear that TM likely viewed the world through a prism of race.”</p>
<p>this seems clear to you based on what? his use of a word or two that remains unclear to begin with, in the context of being stalked by a scary white man? </p>
<p>It seems clear that GZ viewed the world through a prism of race.</p>
<p>You may be right in terms of law razor sharp. For me, the whole thing starts with GZ following the kid with a loaded weapon. Start to finish TM standing his ground, GZ following him with a gun. 4 minutes. Call to death. Murder. But then I believe in castle laws and not in laws where people can stalk you on the street and then claim self defense</p>
<p>It seems clear that GZ viewed the world through a prism of race. </p>
<p>Lindz, to be fair, how do you come to this conclusion? I’m not defending his actions, as a kid is dead and he’s responsible, but your statement is telling me that somehow you can see into his heart. Are there specific statements made by GZ that lead you to this conclusion?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry…did I miss something? Did Trayvon Martin come back from the dead so he can face trial this week? </p>
<p>It doesn’t matter how he viewed the world. Walking down the street minding their own business, people can view the world any way they want.</p>
<p>sschickens–why did you only question my characterization of GZ yet not question razorsharp’s exact same characterization of TM?</p>
<p>I was partly expressing irony by posting that, however the truth is I believe GZ profiled TM based on his race, as there was no identified behavior that was suspicious. He wasn’t looking in windows, he wasn’t using a flashlight, he had no weapons. He was walking home basically, with his candy. So why did GZ find him suspicious? really why??</p>
<p>I agree with poetgrl. Zimmerman left his car with a loaded, hot gun, to follow a kid who was only guilty of walking while wearing a hoodie… Not, at that point, running, not looking into windows, not jiggling doorknobs, not hiding behind a tree. At the time of his death, the bottle/can of tea had not been used as a weapon against Zimmerman. There was no skin, hair, or DNA of Zimmerman’s on any part of Martin. No skinned knuckles, no signs of a real struggle. Neither of them had so much as a torn shirt. Not much of a fight to be in fear of your life. </p>
<p>Heck, I remember watching a few schoolyard fights when there were torn and dirtied clothes, a bloody lip and a bloody nose… And that was in the minute or two it took for a teacher to break up the fight.</p>
<p>This was one clean fight that put Zimmerman in such fear that he felt the need to pull his weapon and fire it straight into Martin’s heart.</p>
<p>eastcoascrazy—we cross posted same message </p>
<p>If you believe GZ was simply protecting his community, and was a “good guy” what did he base his suspicions on, why did GZ think TM was suspicious, why did he pursue him?</p>