<p>Oh my God, Bay. I’m not an Al Sharpton apologist. I’m just chatting.</p>
<p>So am I. My cynical reaction was not directed at you, but at the way the article quoted Sharpton as though he was the authority on the federal case.</p>
<p>yeah, you asked for a source. I don’t know why, though? </p>
<p>Seems at this point, all the sources are pretty tainted, anyway. We are citing sources, but we don’t even believe the sources are reporting this story well. The media served a purpose, the social media, and got the investigation. Now, I personally think we just need to let the investigation take it’s course. But, that’s just me.</p>
<p>It’s hard to see how we’re ever going to know what led up to that gun being fired. The only sources we have are Zimmerman, Zimmerman’s lawyer, Zimmerman’s father, and Zimmerman’s brother. Maybe it’s me, but I have a hard time just accepting their stories, especially since those stories seem to shift, evolve and expand as time goes by. </p>
<p>And the stories don’t really seem to fit with the concrete facts that we DO have. For example, how does “He lunged at me so I shot him” jive with the fact that Trayvon was screaming for help at the very time he was supposed to be attacking?</p>
<p>Here’s the CNN report on the enhanced audio, with the new analysis coming up about halfway through:
[Breaking:</a> Zimmerman’s 911 Call Enhanced Audio…“ITS ■■■■■■■ COLD” - YouTube](<a href=“- YouTube”>- YouTube)</p>
<p>One of the commentators (not on this video) did say that without the racial slur, the feds have no reason to be in the case.</p>
<p>Without being prompted ahead of time to believe that with enhancement it now sounds like “cold”, I wouldn’t have identified it as a complete word at all. Having read that the word is “cold”, my brain tries to fill in the garbled part with the word “cold”.</p>
<p>It doesn’t sound like the racial slur at all, but it also doesn’t sound like “cold”. Frankly, I think it sounds like “coat”.</p>
<p>Cold or coat: still makes a strong case pointing toward him eagerly, dispite some personal discomfort, following Martin. Following, despite the cold. Or following while struggling to get his gun out of his jacket (coat) pocket.</p>
<p>It was 63 degrees that evening, cool enough to wear a sweater/sweatshirt, and those of us who live here in Florida are what I call 'weather wusses" but honestly I have lived here 14 yrs and I can’t imagine someone commenting that it was “f----ing cold” at 63 degrees. Seriously. especially from a 28 yr old ;)</p>
<p>here’s one of my, this doesn’t jive. We know Z followed Trayvon, but he claims he walked away and was back at his car, when Trayvon attacked him from behind.<br>
- if Z followed him why did Z then walk away from T and leave? what was his reason for retreating?
- given Z’s hypervigilance,(remember Z perceived Trayvon as up to no good, stated “now he’s coming towards me, he’s got his hand in his waistband” how did Trayvon “sneak up” on him.<br>
- given what Trayvon’s friend on the phone reports,
T said “why are you following me?” and Z reportedly replies, “what are you doing here” when did that happen, when Trayvon snuck up on Z and lunged at hiim? If it occurred immediately before the altercation it doesn’t jive with Z’s claim that Trayvon came up on him from behind.</p>
<p>Z’s story doesn’t make a lot of sense. That’s why we need to hear Trayvon’s side of this wrestling match. </p>
<p>“He brings a knife, you bring a gun. He hurts one of yours, you put one of his in the morgue. That’s the Neighborhood Watch way.” </p>
<p>(Apologies to Sean Connery.)</p>
<p>Just watched/listened to the new enhanced voice video. The words struck me as “f**ing code.” Was Z at his car when he was talking to the dispatcher? I don’t have one of those cars with the punch-code locks, so I’m not sure how they work. Might he have been trying to unlock or lock his car door with the “code” at the time?</p>
<p>" why in heaven’s name didn’t the police issue a full [and transparent] report earlier? "</p>
<p>-Extremely nive question…you know exactly why…why bother asking…is question a joke?</p>
<p>As many posters have stated, police rarely give a full report with “all the details” when there is an investigation. Since there was a decision not to press charges because the shooting was viewed as in self-defense, the case was closed and I don’t think it is any police department’s procedure to do much more than literally close the file. My ex BIL recently retired off a police force after 30 years. He says there was nothing unusual about this once the decision that there would not be any charges was made. </p>
<p>This case seems to fit the “trial by media” mold of OJ and Casey Anthony. I doubt that anyone on the grand jury is going to not be aware of all the media expose’ of “facts” that did not hold up under later scrutiney. It may get lost that it wasn’t shoddy police work, it was shoddy media hype. </p>
<p>Media attention may have caused there to be a police investigation, but it is possible that it is going to influence the grand jurors in determining “probable cause” (and maybe the jurors in determining no self-defense “beyond a reasonable doubt”) to be skeptical of the prosecution’s case–“didn’t I hear that at one time they were telling us x, y, and z??? Now they say it was a, b and c.”</p>
<p>Keep in mind that neither the 911 tape with Z nor the girlfriend’s story indicates that Z had his gun out. If the jurors believes Trayvon went for Z’s holstered gun and got shot in the struggle, that may be all she wrote on this. </p>
<p>Has anyone seen any credible report that Z ever pulled his gun before? More inference that this time he didn’t but Trayvon did. Not saying that’s what happened. Just saying that the prosecution probably isn’t going to be able to prove that it didn’t happen that way under the SYG burden.</p>
<p>I agree with 07Dad that his has become a trial by media. However, I wouldn’t compare it to OJ or Casey Anthony. </p>
<p>OJ and CA were pure rubber-necking media sensations people tuned into for the spectacle of it. </p>
<p>In the Trayvon case, people are tuning in because of what this incident says about our society: we live in a world where an armed vigilante can chase, shoot and kill an unarmed black boy for – for no reason at all. </p>
<p>And that’s pretty appalling. What’s even more appalling is that he might get away with it. And to many of us, white and (for obvious reasons) black, this is terrifying.</p>
<p>Amen, Katliamom.</p>
<p>The thought of it is terrifying. I’m praying that this situation is unique to Florida.</p>
<p>If Z’s account holds, the killing was not for “no reason at all.” It was because Z believed his own life was at stake.</p>
<p>“It was because Z believed his own life was at stake.”</p>
<p>All right, let’s settle this perception issue once and for all. Who’s got the mind-reading machine? Nobody? Well who had it last?</p>
<p>“Keep in mind that neither the 911 tape with Z nor the girlfriend’s story indicates that Z had his gun out.”</p>
<p>I was there Officer I saw it all. As Red Jacket approached, the kid in the hoodie went for his Skittles. But Jacket pulled his piece and got a shot off just in time. It was a fair fight … the kid pulled first.</p>
<p>[Sorry 07DAD. Your observation is correct … it’s also incredibly sad.]</p>
<p>Yes, it is terrifying. And, this talk of reciprocity for gun carry permits is also frightening. It seems we are going back to the wild west–everywhere.</p>
<p>NewHope,
Z did provide a statement to police, and he does have the option to testify if his case goes to trial. So no one needs to “read his mind,” he can explain why he did it himself. Of course, you do not have to believe him.</p>
<p>^ Yes he did provide as statement … an uncorroborated statement … a statement that left much of the country in disbelief … but yes, he did provide one. </p>
<p>I have been puzzled by one thing. Is this the first incident in which the killer’s defense was “He was holding Skittles, I had to shoot him.”</p>
<p>I understand the Skittles defense has been used before. However, in that case, skittles was a nickname.</p>
<p>I don’t care if he isn’t arrested or if he never goes to jail, or if a jury of his peers find him “not guilty.” If he had been going about his business instead of following a kid carrying a gun, nobody would be dead. </p>
<p>Isn’t it strange how we have “no tolerance” laws for our children and then excuse the adults because they put themselves in what they considered to be 'danger." The guy should have just kept driving to target.</p>
<p>This is not a legal opinion. But, I don’t care. There is a man being sentenced to mandatory prison time somewhere right this minute because he stole in order to feed his family, and this guy has a battallion of NRA sponsored attorney’s defending his right to follow you and me down the street and shoot us if he doesn’t like the look of us.</p>