<p>hmmm…they were victims?</p>
<p>I’m keeping an open mind as to whether Geeps is an ax murderer. He could be. We don’t know he isn’t. Some people are ax murderers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think there’s quite a lot wrong with it. A private citizen in a public space does not have the right to demand an accounting from another private citizen in a public space. Trayvon had a perfect right to be where he was, and a perfect right to refuse to provide Z with an explanation.</p>
<p>Geeps is NOT an ax murderer. But I don’t think he can vouch for his children…</p>
<p>Geeps can’t be an axe murderer, he wears polo shirts. C’mon you guys, that should be obvious.</p>
<p>Sent from my MB860 using CC</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And what “other potential circumstances” might have prevailed to justify Zimmerman’s stalking Trayvon Martin that night?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know because I wasn’t there. Were you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Excellent post, New Hope. Why is it that so many posters believe it was incumbent upon Trayvon Martin to exercise restraint in response to being stalked by a strange man whom he might reasonably believe was an imminent threat to his safety, but that that same level of restraint was not incumbent upon Zimmerman in response to a “suspicious person” walking down the street, who clearly was not an imminent threat to his safety?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Great question.</p>
<p>Also, why do so many on this thread believe we should give Z the benefit of the doubt, when we aren’t even holding a gun, when they do not believe Trayvon deserved the same? </p>
<p>Why so concerned with Z’s innocence in the face of a known killing and so little concerned with Trayvon’s innocence and right to defend himself? </p>
<p>Who here would actually serve as executioner? Or even want to sit on this jury? None of us. The same cannot be said for Z in Trayvon’s case, which is why he had absolutely no business carrying a gun around with him.</p>
<p>Poetsheart–beautifully stated. I have been befuddled by this on this thread and asking that as well. </p>
<p>Days ago a poster actually replied to my calling Trayvon a victim and sharply called him an “alleged” victim, implying that had he done something to provoke the shooting he wouldn’t be a real victim. How is this kind of worldview even possible?</p>
<p>Poetgrl–agreed. I am afraid to answer the question of why so many on here but in the country are so defensive of Z. </p>
<p>Sent from my MB860 using CC</p>
<p>A person claiming to be an eyewitness to the shooting speaks on CNN:</p>
<p>[Eyewitness</a> to the Trayvon Martin shooting speaks out – Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs](<a href=“http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/video-eyewitness-to-the-trayvon-martin-shooting-speaks-out/]Eyewitness”>http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/video-eyewitness-to-the-trayvon-martin-shooting-speaks-out/)</p>
<p>This woman says afterwards, she spoke to police investigators. She offered to take them over to where (she says) she saw the two men fighting, which (she says) was on the grass, not on the sidewalk. </p>
<p>She also says that she believed that the screaming came from Trayvon Martin, but the police assured her it came from Zimmerman. How could the police know?</p>
<p>I’m skeptical of all eyewitness testimony, as I’ve said. But I’m inclined to believe this witness about her interaction with the police.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No I wasn’t. I can only go by the fact that G. Zimmerman openly claimed to have perceived Martin as “suspicious,” and thereby chose to stalk him, even though the police, whom he’d alerted in response to this person were on their way. Zimmerman undoubtedly was aware of official Neighborhood Watch protocol. Nevertheless, he chose to openly violate the two most important of that organization’s guidelines, appointing himself as someone Trayvon Martin might logically assume was vested with the legal authority to challenge the validity of his presence, and not someone who might be intent on harming him. </p>
<p>I can think of no “potential circumstances” which would have justified Zimmerman’s stalking and confronting Trayvon Martin that night, especially in light of the fact that the police were on their way. At the time he made the decision to follow this young man, Martin posed no imminent threat, either to Zimmerman or any other person. Zimmerman had been admonished not to follow the supposed “suspicious person.” So why did he ignore this admonition? Why did he put himself in the position to possibly shoot this person out of “fear for his own life”? Why is it acceptable under such circumstances to then claim self-defense? Why was it more likely that he, and not Trayvon Martin, was acting in self-defense? These are all questions a logical person might ask and expect to have answered in a court of law. If it had been your own 17 yr. old son whom George Zimmerman had shot that night, would you be satisfied with the way the police handled things in the immediate aftermath? Would you be satisfied with the scant information you had been provided to explain why your child was now dead, and the person who killed him was completely free to continue life as usual, gun permit and all? I know I wouldn’t be. I highly suspect you wouldn’t be, either.</p>
<p>Just read same article Cardinal. Why would the police disavow the witness’ account. As other witnesses reported the cries stopped immediately after the gunshot. Why did police instantly believe Z’s alibi of self defense? Imho its bc the dead teen was black and the PD
made their own assumptions about what happened. </p>
<p>Sent from my MB860 using CC</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because Zimmerman said so. Under SYG, that’s case closed.</p>
<p>did someone forget their meds last night?.</p>
<p>I guess some have to turn to personal attacks when someone doesn’t agree with their line or thinking…sad</p>
<p>Again…If Martin happened to be white kid, would you be posting here with such voracity?</p>
<p>Peoetheart…I get it, Z should not have followed Martin…but what actually happened when they met will determine if Z is guilty or innocent. I don’t undertand why some don’t understand this point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because the mob has already convicted Z. He’s white (enough) and Martin was black. Therefore it had to be racial and there’s no other possible explanation.</p>
<p>I think the concern is that someone with a gun followed an innocent kid and can now claim stand your ground or self defense. There is something not right about being able to do that. If he left the kid alone the kid would be alive. It has nothing to do with color. To me if you carry a gun and initiate contact stand your ground is gone, I would even think a self defense claim would be in doubt.</p>
<p>I’d suggest that my red headed white S not drive a truck in Tulsa in the area of all the shootings this weekend. Might stick his hand out the window to give a hand turn signal and get shot. Reality is quite different than CC threads.</p>
<p>I’m always cautious about conventional wisdom after Mayor Bloomberg mocked, ridiculed and chastised the citizens of New York for worrying that the Times Square bomber might be an Islamic terrorist when, clearly, he was a disgruntled white guy, his training in Pakistan notwithstanding. (I work in Times Square.)</p>
<p>That said, if Zimmerman had stayed in his house that night and made him some popcorn and watched tv, Trayvon would likely be alive. I’m not in a rush to judge him in the legal sense because I don’t know what happened. But, as I always tell my kids, there are some situations that can never have a good outcome and they should be avoided at all costs. Going out cruising for trouble with a gun is one of those situations.</p>