<p>yes LasMa, this…</p>
<p>“we should be fighting that kind of prejudice, not excusing it.”</p>
<p>this is what I mean by a breath of fresh air. </p>
<p>to be focused on Trayvon’s clothing is like focusing on a rape victim’s attire. I thought we were beyond such things. shame on me for having that expectation.</p>
<p>To my knowledge, there has been no evidence released that Z killed Trayvon because he was wearing a hoodie. None. </p>
<p>The victim’s attire is relevant because it might have entered into Z’s decision to follow him, which is what led to the shot being fired. I have to believe that you would think Trayvon’s attire was relevant, and would be trumpeting it in fact, if he had been wearing a coat and tie, or an official military uniform, or even a Mickey Mouse t-shirt, swim trunks and flip flops. Similarly, if Trayvon had been wearing a black ski mask and carrying a tool box, that would be pretty interesting and relevant information, too, don’t you think?</p>
<p>The image conveyed by hoodies worn up by teenage boys is mixed, obviously. That is why it is noted and discussed.</p>
<p>Even if Trayvon had been skulking around the townhouses and trying to jimmy windows, Z would still not have been justified in gunning him down.</p>
<p>^No, and no one is asserting that either.</p>
<p>^ would certainly be justified in gunning him down if Martin attacked him and was pounding his head into the ground…it’s called self defense…but I guess some will keep posting such things even though the don’t know the facts yet.</p>
<p>Hey geeps why dont your statements like "its called self defense " have to wait til “all the facts are in”</p>
<p>Sent from my MB860 using CC</p>
<p>" if Martin attacked him and was pounding his head into the ground …"</p>
<p>IF these things were true, and IF they were life threatening, and IF there was no non-lethal alternative available, and IF Martin had chased Z down (instead of the other way around) … THEN Zimmerman MAY have been justified in drawing his weapon, and perhaps even firing it. Shooting to kill at point-blank range? Was Z a bad shot in addition to having bad judgement?</p>
<p>SYG doesn’t mean “The other guy’s dead. Why are you looking at me like I’m responsible?”</p>
<p>"Hey geeps why dont your statements like "its called self defense " have to wait til “all the facts are in”</p>
<p>Because he can’t prove that it wasn’t his own kids who killed Treyvon.</p>
<p>mini, I enjoy your posts so much that I am going to have to start CC-stalking you!</p>
<p>just trying to have some balance here…the CC mob is so sure they know it wasn’t self defense…maybe you guys are wrong…I’m waiting for all the facts to emerge. You folks are so quick to jump on any post that doesn’t go along with your thinking…maybe you should chill a bit.</p>
<p>mini…I have no idea what you are talking about</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Martin did not have to chase Z down for it to be self defense…some of you would make horrible attorneys.</p>
<p>“mini…I have no idea what you are talking about”</p>
<p>Oh, don’t give me that. You’re just covering up.</p>
<p>Unfortunately (or fortunately probably) the CC mob has been found wrong in at least two major cases in the recent past…</p>
<p>Z comes clean:
<p>I guess many wrongs do make a right.</p>
<p>jeeps has called Sandusky to baby sit his small children next week too…since he has not been found guilty yet.</p>
<p>newhope…just wondering if the voracity of your postings would be the same if Martin was a white kid…there appears to be some agenda here. </p>
<p>Nothing wrong with a “what are you doing here”…I would like to know what happened next…apparently some here must believe that Z shot and killed Martin for the heck of it…saw a black kid and set out to kill him?</p>
<p>Or perhaps:</p>
<p>The path to ‘right’ is paved with bad decisions?</p>
<p>vlines…give it a rest, not funny…I guess the Duke Lacross players were guilty to?</p>
<p>geeps20, don’t forget Casey Anthony!</p>
<p>"… if Martin was a white kid …"</p>
<p>My feeling is that Lyle and Erik Menendez were simply defending themselves. Betty Broderick too. How could anyone doubt these fine Americans? Didn’t they say they were simply defending themselves. Surely we can take them at their word … right?</p>