<p>NewHope33-- the so far “uncorroborated” position is that Trayvon went for Z’s gun. Like it or not, if a jury believes that Z’s gun was holstered at the time Trayvon tried to get to it, they can find Z not guilty under SYG.</p>
<p>poetgrl–is there some indication the NRA and/or their attorneys are handling anything for Z at this time?</p>
<p>Come on, poetgrl, this is more inflammatory rhetoric. If the investigators, DA or a future jury believed that Z killed Trayvon because “he didn’t like the look of him,” SYG would not apply and Z would be charged with murder. Based upon Z’s statement, the interviews of 6 witnesses, the 911 calls, and a video-taped walk through with Z the next day at the scene, it was determined that Z’s self-defense belief was reasonable.</p>
<p>part of the problem of Z “perceiving” his life was “at stake” is that before he even saw Trayvon up close, he also initally “perceived” that T was up to no good, looked like he was on drugs, looked like there was something wrong with him, etc. My point is he had already perceived danger, based on his perceptions that Trayvon was suspicious. </p>
<p>I’ve asked on this thread previously, if you don’t think Z was racially profiling T, then what did he base his initial suspicions on???</p>
<p>myturnnow–a lone 6 foot plus male on foot in a residential area, meandering, its a school night (Sunday), its after dark, raining and “cool” under Florida standards. Not walking a dog. Not in reflective jogging clothes. </p>
<p>What, pray tell, else is required? It is all “easy” to criticize after the fact.</p>
<p>^thanks for your reply 07 — all I can say is that I am amazed at how differently people look at this situation. I do think this was racial profiling. It was 7 p.m. in the evening, and it was 63 degrees. In Florida we treat the non summer months as our time to be outdoors, as it’s not so hot. We walk places, we take strolls, not everyone has a car. I am saddened by this…I don’t think anything he did was suspicious…even 17 yr olds are allowed to simply walk to the convenience store for a snack</p>
<p>"…even 17 yr olds are allowed to simply walk to the convenience store for a snack"</p>
<p>Precedent argues otherwise. </p>
<p>“When walking to the store keep both hands in clear sight. If followed, turn around and raise both hands over your head, palms out. Be sure you are holding nothing in either hand. If wearing overclothes, keep them open … or if the person challenging you seems concerned you might be carrying a weapon, keep them closed. If you have a head covering, remove it … but not before stating in a loud clear voice ‘I am going to remove my hoodie … is that alright?’ Do nothing that might agitate an insecure person, as they are most likely to over-react and end up harming you.” </p>
<p>Remember, the person following you has the legal right to shoot you if he feels his life is in danger.</p>
<p>But, this was a gated mid-middle class residential area; this was not a public park or commercial area. The photos indicate that this was not the sleepy mature bedroom community with folks going for a nightly stroll. I have noticed that there has never been any report that during all the time this was unfolding, anyone else saw Trayvon, much less that they passed him while out for a stroll. It was early February–7 pm is dark.</p>
<p>And, there had been a spate of recent property crime in the community. Moreover, Trayvon wasn’t a “local” kid who Z might have seen before. </p>
<p>As sad as it is, I would not suggest to my 17 year old that he be out after dark walking in our residential neighborhood alone in the rain with his head covered by a hoodie. I live in a neighborhood where people walk for pleasure and exercise and walk their dogs. Yes, they do it after dark. But, they carry lights and wear reflective tape.</p>
<p>This was a perfect storm of bad gun laws, bad self-defense laws and bad judgment. I feel for the girlfriend who suggested Trayvon run.</p>
<p>myturnnow, your comment above exemplifies what’s wrong with all the public commentary on this case–you “think” it was racial profiling, with no evidence to support or oppose that view. I say maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t–we don’t know. You don’t “think” anything Martin did was suspicious, but you weren’t there and have no idea what he was doing or how he appeared. I say maybe he was acting suspiciously or maybe he wasn’t–we don’t know. Before calling racial profiling or declaring Martin’s behavior to be of no concern, I’d certainly like to know some information that might offer insight into Zimmerman’s state of mind, i.e., Zimmerman’s own explanation of exactly why he felt suspicious of Martin, and some hard facts, such as a timeline of how long Martin had been out on his errand to the store, which may shed light on whether he was merely walking back or was loitering, and the circumstances of recent burglaries in the neighborhood–description of perpetrators, time of day they occurred, etc. I can easily formulate a scenario where Zimmerman had good reason to be suspicious of Martin, just as easily as so many have formulated a scenario where he was a racist enraged at seeing a black teen walking in his neighborhood. We…don’t… know.</p>
<p>^^^ except we do have evidence (at least what’s being reported) to lead us to conclude racial profiling. Every time Z called police to report a suspicious person that person turned out to be black. </p>
<p>He was also recorded as saying racial epithets while running after TM, despite being told not to by police.</p>
<p>katliamom–you are wrong on both counts. Go to the City of Sanford website. They have every 911 report Z ever made posted there. Z reported whites, hispanics, blacks, couples.</p>
<p>The racial epitahs did not happen. The tape has been enhanced and he said “punks.”</p>
<p>Well, it seems that concealed carry may not be a constitutionally protected right (at least not yet). Exposed carry may actually be such a right, but it hasn’t been tested yet.</p>
<p>I’m against carry and let local pols know of my opinion and vote that way. However, so long as a state votes in carry and votes in SYG, the citizens get what they (and the NRA) “asked for.” That may well mean Z walks.</p>
<p>poetgrl–did you find any support for the NRA actually providing Z attorneys? I’d think the NRA would have decided to low profile this as it got hotter.</p>
<p>with all due respect Mommaj—I am permitted to have my thoughts. As I indicated in earlier posts, I don’t know if Z was racist. But I believe his perception that this young man was suspicious was based on the fact that Trayvon fit the profile of young men reported to have burglarized that community. That is racial profiling. </p>
<p>Z also made presumptions about T based on this perception. He said he looked like he was on drugs, like there was something wrong with him, like he was up to no good. Can you presume all that because he was walking alone at 7 p.m. on a 63 degree evening. I don’t believe so. He presumed things based on something else. I’m open to hearing what those other things might have been. We have no evidence that T was up to no good. We do know that he belonged in the community, as his father lived with his girlfriend in her home, and his intention was to get a snack and return home. He had no weapon. </p>
<p>07Dad—it was not early February, it was in fact February 26th. Sunset on that day was 6:24 p.m. </p>
<p>I live in a gated middle class residential neighborhood in Florida and it is NOT a no trespassing type arrangement. you seem to imply that if you don’t live there that you are not allowed on premises. Communities are permitted to have guests, visitors, and kids’ friends can come knock on a door to see their friends and do all the time to go out and throw a ball, and hang out together. yes even in the evening…my teen son goes out all the time with friends, and yes he visits other middle class gated communities to visit friends. Never would he be seen as suspicious.</p>
<p>Although what exactly took place between Martin and Mr. Zimmerman that rainy night remains hazy, the authors of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law say it shouldn’t apply in this case and therefore doesn’t need to be changed or repealed.</p>
<p>“When [Zimmerman] said ‘I’m following him,’ he lost his defense,” former Sen. Durell Peaden told the Miami Herald. “They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid. He has no protection under my law. There’s nothing in the Florida law that allows him to follow someone with a gun.”</p>
<p>Yes, the above quote is why so many of us are outraged that Zimmerman was not arrested. No, we are not trying him in the press, we simply want him arrested so that that a trial, if appropriate, can take place.</p>
<p>^^Exactly! I posted that same quote on here by the law’s author days ago…</p>
<p>And please, noone is convicting or executing anyone! He should simply be arrested and let our legal process unfold as it is designed to do. There was too much that didn’t fit the traditional SYG from the get go to simply take the perpetrator’s word for what happened.</p>
<p>“This was a perfect storm of bad gun laws, bad self-defense laws and bad judgment.”</p>
<p>My point exactly. The Sanford PD simply fueled the fire with it’s quick (and unfortunate) “Hey, it’s OK!” A lot of people wanted to why it was OK for an unarmed 17-year-old to be pursued and gunned down.</p>
<p>"The call sheets show that five of seven phone calls Zimmerman had made since last August involved what he viewed as suspicious activity by young men identified as “black males.”</p>
<p>MSNBC says that two of those calls did not involve people at all (other issues.) So since August, according to msnbc, Zimmerman called in about suspicious activity of five people, all of them black.</p>
<p>My understanding of the times on the 911 tapes is that it was at least over 5 minutes after 7 when Z saw Trayvon. According to the science concerning sun angle etc. that this website uses, it was DARK the whole time.</p>
<p>I suggest that you read the 911 reports yourself at the Sanford website. Z reported on everything and all colors.</p>
<p>sunset on 2/26 was 6:24p.m. Believe the shooting occured at 7. so Trayvon would have left the house before dark. do you really think a 17 yr old walking to a corner store in the evening is a suspicious activity?</p>