<p>@jshain - Remember this case isn’t supposed to be about race. Except that’s what the media and and Obama made it all about.</p>
<p>Zimmerman could have reasonably listed himself as black or Hispanic on college applications. I haven’t seen any indication that he self identifies as white.</p>
<p>MichiganGeorgia, seriously??</p>
<p>Sally - Yes. I believe that if TM had been white or hispanic or GZ had been black, President Obama would not have made any statement about the case.</p>
<p>If Martin had been white and Zimmerman had been black, Zimmerman would have been arrested and charged immediately, and none of us would be following the case because it wouldn’t have made the national news.</p>
<p>eastcoast- You are probably right however the media and Obama made it all about race in the beginning. I don’t believe it should be about race. The problem with this case is that because it’s been about race if GZ is not convicted there may be backlash ie. riots. </p>
<p>You can’t have the media saying it’s about race for months and then expect people to just forget that’s what they’ve been told just because the family lawyer comes out in the middle of the trial and says it’s not about race.</p>
<p>“If Martin had been white and Zimmerman had been black, Zimmerman would have been arrested and charged immediately, and none of us would be following the case because it wouldn’t have made the national news.”</p>
<p>This case is a tragedy for all concerned. GZ will be punished by society, whether he deserves it or not. He’d have been better off if the Sanford Police had simply arrested him that night … if the arresting officer had said “Mr. Zimmerman I believe your story, and I think you’d be acquitted at trial if it comes to that. But you shot an unarmed kid who was simply walking in his neighborhood, so I have to arrest you.”</p>
<p>Wasn’t he handcuffed and arrested? Someone here wrote that he got out of the police car without the use of his hands because they were handcuffed.</p>
<p>He was not arrested the night of the killing. He was interviewed, he was photographed, but the level of scrutiny to which he could be subjected was relatively small, and that is about all that happened.</p>
<p>As an aside, I do not think that any verdict will settle this completely - ultimately, there is comparatively little evidence of what really happened with regards to the self-defense charge, so it will come down not to the evidence but to which legal team does a better job of swaying the jury. I think the likely “not guilty” result will be accompanied by jurors telling the press “it was probably murder but the state could not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt”, which will satisfy no one. A “guilty” finding will be taken a bit better, but there will still be a lot of people who disagree given the circumstances.</p>
<p>How long was the interview? I recall reading about a five-hour session. If he did not go along voluntarily, would he have been arrested and taken in?</p>
<p>The thing is that even if he is not guilty under the law of Florida, he took a life because of choices that he made and to me, such a person can’t be innocent. I bet other people feel the same way. I think what Zimmerman did was grotesque. I am fine with self defense, but I don’t feel a lot of sympathy for someone who created the situation from which he needed to defend himself.</p>
<p>Zoosermom really sums it up for me. This is a completely avoidable killing, in my opinion. Regardless of whether Zimmerman believed he was in mortal danger, or not, he put himself in this situation and then HE pulled the trigger. Nobody asked him to do this. To me, that’s the definition of murder. </p>
<p>But, as I said, I wouldn’t have been allowed on that jury.</p>
<p>I’d also like to say, for me, while I agree with Eastcoast’s assessment that if Z had been African American and TM had been white, the bail would have been very high and the investigation intense and thorough, and no assumption of SYG made by the police, I still do not consider this a case about race. I consider it a case about a very, very bad and muddy law which allows shooting and killing in a way I find to be lawless and random and ill-conceived.</p>
<p>No matter what, a 17 year old boy was needlessly killed. How can this be all right?</p>
<p>She sums it up for me too.</p>
<p>
His initial interrogation was 5 hours long, but did not (to the best of my knowledge) constitute an arrest. I do not believe that he could be forcibly interrogated without an arrest, but I suspect that his refusal to cooperate would have all but required that they do so.</p>
<p>
I can agree with this. There are a lot of unknowns, and the unlikely is still the possible, but based on what I have seen so far, Zimmerman’s moral (and legal) guilt is rooted in four issues:</p>
<p>1) He initiated the encounter. While Martin may have at some point confronted the guy who was obviously pursuing him, Zimmerman initiated the pursuit.</p>
<p>2) He was the “responsible” one. Martin was a minor, Zimmerman was an adult and a member of a neighborhood watch. The onus was on Zimmerman to choose the correct course of action. Prior to Zimmerman’s intervention Martin had committed no crime, and subsequent to that intervention he was dead. </p>
<p>3) He was armed. As a gun owner I would not ever get into a fight while armed - simply having a gun on your person during a fistfight makes that fight far more dangerous. Consider all the occasions where a cop (or guard) will disarm themselves before getting close to someone dangerous - they knew what Zimmerman should have.</p>
<p>4) He exceeded his authority. A vigilante is someone who pursues the punishment of a perceived criminal beyond their legally authority, and that is what he did. As a neighborhood watchman, he had no place doing what he did.</p>
<p>I think, too, cosmicfish, that even the word vigilante is misapplied. He wasn’t even seeking a particular criminal for a particular crime, just a kid on the street who made him nervous.</p>
<p>Do we have a word for that? I mean, I would use coward, personally, but that’s just me.</p>
<p>I can totally understand responsible gun ownership. In my mind, though, it really does seem like Zimmerman went out with the intention of finding a bad guy to bring down. If you start from the position of looking for trouble, you will almost always find it. I just can’t understand what he could possibly have been thinking, but the only neighborhood watch I am familiar with is the Guardian Angels and they are not inconspicuous.</p>
<p>
No, I think vigilante is exactly correct. By his own accounts he thought he was pursuing someone responsible for specific past crimes who was out to commit more. That he was wrong is indicative of the problems with vigilantism, the very reason he should have left it to the police.</p>
<p>
I would also call him a coward, but for different reasons. His self-defense claim is mandated on the idea that he was in fear of his life, but his documented injuries were comparatively slight. In other words, his actual damage and danger seem to be substantially less than his perceived damage and danger, and when you act on such a misperception then you are acting cowardly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can I agree with both of these statements? Or perhaps rephrase to say, “he thought he was pursuing THE TYPE OF PERSON responsible for past crimes who might have been out to commit more, and that made him nervous.”</p>
<p>Either way, he was wrong. I’d say he is worse than a coward…he is a misguided, pathetic loser.</p>
<p>Yes. I agree with that.</p>
<p>Fear and weapons are just not a good mix. The gun owners I know are very responsible. If anything, they are even more critical of Zimmerman’s actions than I am. They believe anybody with a weapon has an absolute obligation to behave with even more restraint than somebody without a weapon. It’s a heavy responsibility to have the right to bear arms, and it needs to be taken very seriously.</p>
<p>As we always told our kids, “With rights come responsibilities.”</p>
<p>JMO</p>