<p>The same way we can “possibly know” that your son/daughter, or Bristol Palin, or Justin Bieber, or the kids who populate the forums of College Confidential has never killed anyone—because they have never so much as been under suspicion of murder.</p>
<p>Honestly, that statement literally took my breath away. Are there really people so invested in vilifying this dead boy in their minds, that they won’t even admit that, whatever else he might have been, he was not a murdering thug? My experience of America has long been that lurking just below the surface of the words, “black boy/man”, is the label “potential social predator.” This idea of ever present “potential” is what makes it possible for someone to reserve in his mind the idea that Trayvon Martin may have killed someone, but somehow got away with it—without so much as ever even having been suspected of the crime. I realize, too, that this is the reason many people give such leeway in their minds to the actions George Zimmerman took that night: Maybe this boy might not have been doing anything illegal “at the time”, but the potential for criminality is ever present in black men/boys, especially if they’re wearing a hoodie. After all, why would he be wearing a hoodie unless he was wanting to hide his identity? And why would he be wanting to hide his identity unless he were on his way to commit a crime? I’ve actually read comments on more web pages than I care to admit, that George Zimmerman actually did society a favor that night.:(</p>
<p>Poetsheart–it is indeed breathtaking, and tragically sad. Under an article where the voice expert said that Zimmerman’s voice only matched 48% with the cries for help on the phone tape, and he looked for 90% before he could say it had a chance of being a match, a commentor actually said that Trayvon’s voice only had a “0%” match, so that means it was twice as likely it was Zimmerman. Of course, it’s harder to match Trayvon’s voice (and no one has) because he is dead. I wanted to weep at the callousness (and lack of basic critical thinking) of that remark, but yes, what you feel when you hear the comment you reference above, I can’t begin to imagine.</p>
<p>Is anyone else wondering why no warrant has been issued for Z’s arrest yet?</p>
<p>If it is so cut-and-dried that SYG doesn’t apply, the only thing the new prosecutor needs to arrest Z for manslaughter/negligent homicide/murder is probable cause. Z admitted that he killed Trayvon. What is the hold up?</p>
<p>February in Florida is barely cool enough for a jacket, and my 16 yr old son also wears a sweatshirt (aka hoodie) on those “cold” nights. He walks to the convenience store to buy Skittles and Arizona iced tea with his Iphone glued to his head, while talking to his girlfriend. My son however has what is known in sociology as white privilege, he is exempt from being seen as suspicious. It would be assumed that he belonged in the gated community, he would be smiled at by a community watch person, (not that we have one) </p>
<p>Geeps’ scenario starts with “Z sees a suspicious guy in a hoodie, follows him and confronts him”. Please explain more specifically what made the “guy” suspicious? because in my world that is utterly ludicrous. My blonde haired blue eyed white son in a sweatshirt with those same skittles would never raise suspicion. And I am ashamed to see how much hostility there is towards this young man. We do know he belonged in the community, he was there because his father lived there, we do know he was unarmed. We even now know he was most likely the one who was screaming, but yet you are choosing to imagine that he really was a potential threat, ready to case houses etc. and instead to believe the ALIBI of the shooter even while it is unraveling. </p>
<p>if you truly and simply believed, let’s not rush to judgment you would simply stop there and express that reasonable mindset. </p>
<p>You wouldn’t be so heartless as to then also say Trayvon Martin was NOT a victim, NOT a cherub, state how could we possibly know Trayvon didn’t kill anyone and go on to list his alleged history of unsavory behavior. That is what boggles my mind!</p>
<p>^^ the hold up, as I understand it, is that a Florida grand jury will be looking into the case; FBI and the Justice Department are also conducting a joint investigation. My hunch is that the stakes here are so high, everyone involved will want to make sure all the i’s are dotted and all the t’s are crossed before the next official step is taken. </p>
<p>Zimmerman must be truly ***** in his pants right now. Somehow, I can’t muster any sympathy.</p>
<p>what hostility? what the heck are you talking about?</p>
<p>…and I’m not believing anything, just raised a possibility of what MIGHT have happened to counter just about everyone elses posts of he is definitely guilty.</p>
<p>What IF Martin slugged Z and then jumped on top and starting banging his head into the ground…what is Z supposed to do at that point?..and again, don’t come back with Z should have never followed or confronted Martin to begin with…I get that</p>
<p>And speaking of Zimmerman – funny, how his family and friends have stopped talking to the media now that evidence contradicting their story is coming out.</p>
<p>Geeps–to put your hypothetical question more generally–if a person follows another person to the point that the second one feels threatened, turns around to confront the follower, and in that position of heightened threat, attacks the source of the threat, and gains the upper hand, does it follow that the first person, the initial threatener, has the right to use deadly force, if he happens to be carrying it, to kill the person he’d started following?</p>
<p>Do we want to live in a world where a person can provoke through his own actions retaliative acts in others, knowing he possesses the ultimate comeback (death by gunshot)?</p>
<p>I’m going to say no, and no–all these hypotheticals being just that, I do not believe a person has the right to carry and use deadly force, knowing that it’s possession is a fallback position if the quarry should become confrontative. (and again, we do not know that Trayvon did; we only know the initial scenario and the outcome.)</p>
<p>That may be the party line, but it doesn’t make sense. The DA doesn’t need the grand jury to look at the case; she can seek a warrant on her own at anytime. The federal investigations are parallel, not joint. Neither is dependent upon the other.</p>
<p>Why is it okay for the investigation to take so long now, when it is so obvious to so many people that the lack of arrest was a simple travesty of justice? There must be more going on.</p>
<p>Geeps, I listed actual comments from posters on this thread in my previous post that I see as hostile towards the victim in this case. if you truly don’t see them as hostile I don’t think I could ever convince you otherwise.</p>
<p>Bay, what do you think is going on? not sure, you may seem to be implying something else. I think Z will be arrested and charged, and I don’t think I’d have the patience of these parents.</p>
<p>garland…it’s not an easy answer, especially for the law. Suppose I saw someone near my house that I thought looked suspicious, never saw him around the area before. Suppose I went to ask this person what he was doing and the person got irritated to the point that he hit me first, knocking me to the ground, jumped on top of me in a rage and starting banging my head into the ground. Suppose I couldn’t get him off me, felt that my life was in serious danger…and I pulled a gun and shot him? I’m I guilty of murder, especially in a SYG state?</p>
<p>Again…I’m not saying this is what I think happened in the Martin case…JUST A HYPOTHETICAL PEOPLE.</p>
<p>“what IF Martin slugged Z and then jumped on top and started banging his head into the ground… What is Z supposed to do at that point?”</p>
<p>Well in that scenario, unless Z already had his gun out, with the safety off, I imagine he would have fought back with his fists, knees, elbows, feet and teeth hard enough to give himself a chance to break away long enough to get his gun out of his tangled up jacket pocket, or somewhat tight pants pockets, shout a warning, take off the safety, and then shoot. All the while, continuing to fight off Martin’s continued attack.</p>
<p>I don’t think it would be easy to pull a gun and shoot when you are in the middle of a fight, unless you went into the fight with the gun already cocked and ready to fire.</p>
<p>Zimmerman’s reasons for considering Martin to be “suspicious” are truly irrelevant. Even if he was engaged in blatant racist behavior when he made the 911 call and followed Martin, it doesn’t tell us a thing about what happened next. A nasty vicious racist can be innocent of a crime. And yes, if Zimmerman had disengaged when the police told him they didn’t need his help, Martin would be alive. If he hadn’t left the house that night, or never volunteered to be a neighborhood watch person in the first place, or never owned a gun, Martin would also still be alive. It’s all irrelevant. The only thing that matters in determining Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence is what happened between the two of them. There appears to be much evidence to be reviewed to make that determination. I don’t understand why so many here are insistent on bluster and outrage, insistent on holding beliefs based on partial information, unwilling to stand back and wait for the facts to come out.</p>
<p>I agree about the patience; Trayvon’s parents ought to be outraged again. </p>
<p>I don’t know what is going on, I’m not implying anything. My hunch is that the delay now is driven by politics. Whatever the DA decides has the potential to be a political bombshell. If she leaves it to the grand jury, I think that is an indication that she doesn’t want the decision on her hands, for whatever reason.</p>
<p>"The same way we can “possibly know” that your son/daughter, or Bristol Palin, or Justin Bieber, or the kids who populate the forums of College Confidential has never killed anyone—because they have never so much as been under suspicion of murder.</p>
<p>Honestly, that statement literally took my breath away. Are there really people so invested in vilifying this dead boy in their minds, that they won’t even admit that, whatever else he might have been, he was not a murdering thug?"</p>
<p>Oh come on, poetsheart, you’re too smart for that response. Honestly, you are one of the most rational, reasoned posters on cc and elsewhere, that I often agree with. But when there is any hint of a possibility that something could be taken as racist, you always seem to jump to that conclusion.</p>
<p>You have no idea if me, my children, Bristol Palin or Justin Bieber, the kids of cc or Trayvon have committed a murder. You have no idea how close I came to killing someone at 17. Just because someone has never been under suspicion makes them innocent? If someone has been under suspicion makes them guilty? Now it is very unlikely that any of us in that list have committed a murder, but you certainly can’t declare that you KNOW. The only person you KNOW about is yourself. Perhaps an extreme example, but I was trying to make a point about assumptions. You took the leap to decide I was declaring the victim a murdering thug. You can’t have rational discussions like that.</p>
<p>I do not have the slightest idea, either in the case of Z, or in the case of the shooter in the link that Razorsharp posted this morning, how you can claim to be standing your ground when you are the stalker and the one with a gun ready to fire.</p>
<p>If he really was in as much danger for his life during the fisticuffs as his surrogates would have us believe, he never would have been able to get the gun out, the safety off, and to fire.</p>
<p>If, on the other hand, he went into the confrontation with his gun drawn and safety off? He is the instigator, and I do not see HOW he can claim self-defense, unless we now want to grant self-defense to all who would wander around shooting people they started a fight with. It boggles the mind.</p>