On Saturday night, July 13th, 2013...after deliberating for 16 hours and 20 minutes...a jury of 6 women - 5 of which were caucasion...and one that was described as being either African-American or Hispanic...found George Zimmerman to be "not guilty" in the 2nd degree murder trial of the Sanford, Florida, neighborhood watch leader. The jury also declined to convict Zimmerman on a lesser charge of manslaughter. And now...after sixteen and a half months since the February 26th, 2012 shooting...George Zimmerman is free. But is he?Following his acquittal...Zimmerman is now receiving death threats. Thousands and thousands of "likes" have been posted on a "Kill Zimmerman" Facebook page...and the hashtag "#killzimmerman" has been tweeted by many users on Twitter.
Twelve days of emotional testimony has now led to Zimmerman fearing for his own life. "He has always feared for his safety...and we have always feared for his safety and our safety as a family. Clearly, he is a free man in the eyes of the court, but he's going to be looking around his shoulder for the rest of his life," Zimmerman's brother, Robert Zimmerman, Jr. told CNN.
Whether a person agrees or disagrees with the verdict, threatening the acquitted Zimmerman is not how he should be treated. We, as Americans, must accept this jury's decision. We may not believe it to be the right decision...we may not agree with it...but our system of justice has ruled. Sometimes a jury is correct. Sometimes it is wrong. But sitting in a jury box is not an easy task. An old friend of mine - who has been a member of a jury that heard testimony in another murder trial - recently informed me that "That experience was the most heart wrenching and emotional two weeks of my life. Jurors do take this obligation very seriously." I'm sure they do.
For whatever reason...the jury in the George Zimmerman trial believed that Zimmerman's actions were necessary as a means of self-defense. I, however...do not agree.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg wrote, "Shoot First Laws like those in Florida can inspire dangerous vigilantism and protect those who act recklessly with guns. Such laws (enable) people to shoot first and argue justifiable homicide later." The Stand Your Ground Law in Florida states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat. Trayvon Martin was an unarmed, 17-year old kid...who was shot and killed. What was the unlawful threat? How was killing him...a justifiable use of force?
Reverend Al Sharpton said it best on the Sunday, July 14th, 2013 edition of NBC's Meet The Press with David Gregory. "An unarmed teenager...who committed no crime...can be killed...and the killer can say...'self-defense.' That is dangerous. That is an atrocity. I think every American ought to be afraid that (their) child can do nothing wrong...and can be killed...and (the killer) can use self-defense."
Why did the jury not consider - at the very least - the lesser charge of manslaughter? They had that option. Well, one of the jurors...who has only been identified as Juror B37...spoke earlier this week... exclusively with CNN's Anderson Cooper on his Anderson Cooper 360 program. In that interview...the juror stated that she wanted to find George Zimmerman guilty of "not using his senses" but realistically "you can't charge him with anything because he didn't do anything unlawful. He was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin." Juror B37 released a statement to CNN on Wednesday, July 17th indicating that the jury had "no verdict option other than NOT GUILTY...in order to remain within the instructions" by the court...which were based on the laws in Florida. That is why she is hoping that such laws will be "modified"...because "no other family should be forced to endure what the Martin family has endured." Many feel the same way...and protestors are wanting the Stand Your Ground Law to be repealed in Florida. But for now...if you carefully examine the Florida law...the jury did what they were supposed to do. It's unfortunate...but as President Obama said... in a written statement following the verdict..."We are a nation of laws...and a jury has spoken."
Be that as it may...how is it possible...that an unarmed teenager...who was walking home...minding his own business...is shot and killed...but the person who kills him...is not being held accountable? Juror B37 told Anderson Cooper that she believes that George Zimmerman really felt his life was in danger. "I do. I really do. I have no doubt George feared for his life," she said. But how, I ask? How can Juror B37...or any of the jurors, for that matter, feel that way? As I questioned at the outset of this commentary... what did Trayvon Martin do wrong? What did he do to lead George Zimmerman to believe that his life was in danger?In Florida...if there is reasonable doubt of self-defense...the jury did what they needed to do. Do I agree? I certainly do not. The Stand Your Ground Law needs to be changed.
Trayvon Martin's rights were obviously violated. He was followed...even when the police dispatcher in Sanford, Florida told him not to continue. Zimmerman was advised to stay in his car. But no...he wouldn't listen. George Zimmerman presumed that Martin was suspicious. But why? Because he was a young, black male...walking in a suburban neighborhood...through the darkness of night...while wearing a hoodie? If Trayvon Martin was white...not black...would George Zimmerman have stalked him? If Trayvon Martin was white...not black...would George Zimmerman have waited for the police...and not gotten out of his car? If Trayvon Martin was white...not black...would George Zimmerman have done nothing at all?
Did George Zimmerman profile Trayvon Martin because of his African-American race? There was no evidence in the murder trial to prove such action...but a federal hate crime trial...or even a civil lawsuit...may provide us answers...that to this point...have not been given. After all...in a civil lawsuit...Zimmerman may be forced to testify. There is certainly a tremendous amount of explaining that I...and millions of other Americans... want to hear from George Zimmerman. There have been too many inconsistencies...regarding the night Trayvon Martin was killed. America... Sanford, Florida...and most importantly...Trayvon Martin's family...are entitled to know exactly what happened. But even on the witness stand...will George Zimmerman tell the truth...the whole truth...and nothing but the truth? He's already been found "not guilty" in the murder trial. In a civil suit...going to prison is not a possibility...but George Zimmerman would have to pay money damages. That won't bring back Trayvon Martin...but at least some justice would be served in some small way. As for a hate crime trial...if one becomes a reality...does anyone really think that George Zimmerman would incriminate himself? Another jury, however, may come to a conclusion that is different from that of the jury in the murder trial.
Meanwhile...demonstrations throughout America...which began as peaceful protests - from New York to California - following the Zimmerman verdict... became violent in Los Angeles on Monday night, July 15th...which resulted in several incidents of assaults and more than a dozen arrests.
From the average citizen to civil rights groups to some Members of Congress...there's pressure on the Department of Justice to charge George Zimmerman under federal civil rights laws...and Attorney General Eric Holder says an investigation is underway to determine whether such a charge can stick...if it is made. Federal prosecutors would have to prove that George Zimmerman was motivated by racial animosity when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Racial hatred was not evident in the murder trial, but that doesn't mean the feds can't prove differently. Juror B37 told Anderson Cooper that race was not a factor when deliberating whether Zimmerman should be found guilty or not guilty...and double jeopardy does not apply if the Justice Department moves forward with a hate crime case.
You may recall that in 1992...a jury in California acquitted four Los Angeles police officers, who were accused of beating Rodney King. However, under federal law...two of the cops were convicted for violating King's civil rights.Why did George Zimmerman get out of his car? Why did he go after Trayvon Martin when he was told by a law enforcement official to wait for police and to do nothing else? Four times throughout this commentary...I have referenced the fact that Trayvon Martin was "unarmed." With the "not guilty" verdict of George Zimmerman...how can any young person of the African-American race...believe they are safe...and that the United States' system of justice will protect them? Think about this? Suppose Trayvon Martin was able to get the gun out of George Zimmerman's hand...and it accidentally went off...killing George Zimmerman? Would a jury have found Trayvon Martin to be not guilty? I wonder.
Why must the issue of race...be an issue...in the 21st century? Why is there still so much hatred towards blacks in this country? Another old friend of mine remarked this week that, "If there is one thing that I've realized in the days since the Trayvon Martin trial...is that racism is not only still part of the U.S....it is raging and flourishing. All you have to do is read the comments on any news story on the trial and...I can guarantee you...your stomach will flip." Obviously, The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "dream" has not fully been realized...despite the fact...that as a nation...we have twice elected...an African-American to be President of the United States. 
"You know...if I had a son... he'd look like Trayvon," said President Obama on March 23rd, 2012...about a month after Trayvon Martin was killed.
The death of Trayvon Martin was tragic and unnecessary. I cannot believe that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense. But in these United States of America...we must have faith in our system of justice. And faith in the reasons we have certain laws. And that includes our civil rights laws. Remember what I have said now...five times...Trayvon Martin was a black, "unarmed" teenager. The jury may have found Zimmerman to be "not guilty"...but how can George Zimmerman be innocent of a crime...when Trayvon Martin...is dead? This case is far from over. A jury did not find George Zimmerman to be guilty of murder or manslaughter...but either in a federal, hate crime trial...or a civil lawsuit...George Zimmerman will be held responsible...for the wrongful death...of Trayvon Martin. And hopefully...the law that allowed George Zimmerman to kill Trayvon Martin...will be changed... so that no other mother...no other father...no other brother, sister, family or friend...of any other person...no matter what color their skin is...will have to suffer and grieve...as the families and friends of Trayvon Martin have been doing...and will continue to do...for the rest of their lives.
And that's The Controversy for today.
I'm Gary B. Duglin.
"We'll talk again."
The Controversy will make an effort to publish a new commentary every Sunday and Wednesday. Unscheduled essays may appear, from time to time, on other days as well.
Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net. All Rights Reserved.
Please express your opinions in the comment box below. You do not have to register your name and you can remain anonymous if you prefer. The Controversy wants to know your views on the essay above and on any other commentaries written on this blog. Just click on the word "Comments" below and write your thoughts in the box that appears. Make sure please that when you finish your statement that you click on the word "Publish." Thank you.
Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net. All Rights Reserved.
Let me start by saying you have a right to your opinion but not to your own facts. You have many “FACTS” wrong. Let’s start with “stand your ground”, stand your ground had nothing to do with this case. Zimmerman claimed self-defense not stand your ground. For stand your ground to be used he (Zimmerman) would have had at the time he pulled the trigger the opportunity to retreat. He did not being Trayvon was sitting on top of him, as the eye witness stated “MMA” style “ground and pound. Once again at the time he pulled the trigger, not five minutes before not five second before, at that moment he shot could he have retreated, if not stand your ground is NOT applicable. Your blog states that Zimmerman “ stalked” Trayvon , he did not stalk he followed to see what he was doing, there is a difference. You have the facts wrong again when you stated Zimmerman was told by a “law enforcement official” to wait for the police” under Florida law a 911 dispatcher is not a law enforcement official. Now for the race issue, Zimmerman did not profile Trayvon, there had been many burglaries in the area and from the police, the descriptions given of the possible perpetrators were young African-American males in dark clothing (a dark hoodie). Next you bring up a Federal crime case against Zimmerman using Rodney King as an example once again you have your facts wrong, the police in the King case were found guilty under the use of “color of law” . Color of law only pertains to a local, state or Federal law enforcement official, Zimmerman was never a local, state or federal law official. As for the hate crime statute, you would need to show some sort of link to Zimmerman being a racist, all facts show him to be anything but a racist. His girlfriend he took to his prom was African –American, he mentors young black students, he went to bat against the Sanford Police for an African-American homeless man, where is the racism? The FBI documents after they investigated said Zimmerman was not a racist and that he did not profile. The report dated April 5 2012 stated that the Sanford police had reported the community gangs were “Goons” typically dressed in black wearing “Hoodies”. Those are the facts. The only question in this case is at the time he pulled the trigger (as long as George Zimmerman had not committed a crime) did he feel he was in danger of great bodily harm or death if so it is self-defense under Florida law. Please get your facts correct before in-sighting people about racism that did not exist. Do not be like NBC news that edits tapes to carry out an agenda when the facts don’t back it up. Don’t be an Al Sharpton who is just a hate monger looking to keep his face on the news.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all...let me thank you for your remarks. I welcome all opinions, thoughts and views. That's why this blog is called THE CONTROVERSY. However, that being said...I do have the facts. The Stand Your Ground Law clearly states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat. Trayvon Martin was a threat to no one...and there was no reason for George Zimmerman to believe that an unlawful threat was imminent. The kid was walking home...and as I stated 5 times in my commentary...TRAYVON MARTIN WAS UNARMED. Furthermore, George Zimmerman did indeed stalk Trayvon Martin. Read your dictionary. Stalk means "to walk or go stealthily along, to follow or approach, to proceed in a steady, deliberate or sinister manner." George Zimmerman had a gun...and was ready to use it. Anybody who carries a gun...by virtue of just carrying it...is ready to use it in a sinister manner. Look up the word "sinister" if you don't believe me. Also...a 911 dispatcher is definitely a law enforcement official due to the fact that he or she works in an official capacity for a law enforcement agency. As for racism...you nor anybody else cannot be certain whether George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin. That never came out in the murder trial. Perhaps it will in a civil lawsuit or, if the Justice Department can obtain enough evidence to move forward with a hate crime charge, there will then be another trial. As for my experienced and professional colleagues at NBC News...I won't even dignify a response to your ridiculous notion. And finally, if George Zimmerman thought there was any possibility...any possibility whatsoever...that the person he saw FROM HIS CAR...was a threat of any kind...because he appeared to be a black male wearing a hoodie...all George Zimmerman needed to do was listen to the police dispatcher...AND WAIT IN HIS CAR. Those are the facts. They cannot be disputed. GBD
ReplyDeleteSorry, but you are misstating the facts of the case. Zimmerman was already out of his car when the dispatcher told him he didn't need to try to locate Martin. Zimmerman could not have stalked Martin on foot as he told the dispatcher he had lost sight of Martin as he was getting out of his truck. Further, it is clear for prosecution witness Racheal Jeantel that Martin initiated the confrontation.
DeleteOnce again you are in error, the stand your ground law in Florida was not used as a defense by Zimmerman. Per Websters dictionary to stalk is "to pursue obsessively and to the point of harassment" he followed, he did not stalk him. For your statement about carrying a gun"Anybody who carries a gun...by virtue of just carrying it...is ready to use it in a sinister manner" just shows your stupidity. Everyone who carries a gun is not ready to use it in a "sinister manner", most are ready to use it in lawful manner and hopes never to need it. You keep bring up that he should have stayed in his car, whether he stayed in his car or not has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence, when Trayvon was on top of him did he believe that he was in danger of great bodily harm or death if so he had the right to use deadly force, that is a FACT in FLORIDA! As for NBC they fired 2 people and are now being sued for editing the 911 tape, real professional!
ReplyDelete"Stupidity?" Why do you resort to name calling? The Stand Your Ground Law is what allowed George Zimmerman to shoot his gun in what he believed was a matter of self-defense. The 2013 edition of Random House Dictionary defines "stalked" precisely as I stated in my previous response to you. If a person is a cop and he or she is carrying a gun, then they hope not to use it, but have it for a lawful reason. GEORGE ZIMMERMAN IS NOT AND WAS NOT A COP! We could go back and forth, but obviously you and I are not going to agree on anything. Your opinions are noted. However, one more thing...and I come back to it over and over again...but if George Zimmerman stayed in his car and listened to the police dispatcher...you and I would not be having this discussion today...AND TRAYVON MARTIN WOULD BE ALIVE!!! GBD
ReplyDeleteThis is a different commenter, although I agree with the first person.
ReplyDeleteThe author of this article has obviously done NO research and has simply written an opinion piece. That's fine, but don't claim that your opinions are "facts" and that they can't be disputed.
Here are some facts that you are clearly choosing to ignore:
1. The "stand your ground" law was NOT USED in this case at all. Despite what you may like to believe from the continuous media mention of this law. This case was determined based solely on standard self-defense law. If this same situation happened in most other states the outcome would be the same. Somebody who was being attacked defended themselves. Period. That is what the case was decided on.
2. Despite what you may THINK, 911 dispatchers are most certainly not "law enforcement" personnel. A 911 dispatcher is as much of a law enforcement person as is the janitor at the police station. 911 dispatchers are not sworn officers and have no training on the law. Their job is to field incoming calls and dispatch the proper people to the caller. If they can assist in any way while the caller is waiting on the police, EMS, fire, etc. to show up then they try to, but the are not law enforcement personnel and anything they say is purely their own opinion.
3. You say Trayvon did nothing wrong. Were you there? The case was decided based on the account of Trayvon assaulting George. It does not matter that Trayvon didn't have a traditional weapon. Self-defense does not mandate that the attacker has to be using a weapon. What you are saying is that if I am standing in a parking lot with my gun holstered under my shirt and somebody comes and starts punching me to death I am not allowed to take out my gun and shoot the attacker because he doesn't also have a gun or knife? Listen to yourself. You sound ridiculous.
You keep going back to Zimmerman staying in his car. As the other person noted, THAT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. Of course Trayvon would still be alive if Zimmerman stayed in the car, but that's like saying that if somebody happens to go out and gets run over it's their fault for getting run over because they should have stayed at home. Zimmerman's job in the community was to be the neighborhood watch person. He didn't do anything illegal. He was checking out somebody who he didn't know. THAT WAS HIS JOB. Following somebody you don't know is not a crime.
Your comment about people carrying guns shows that you will never understand anything relating to this case. It is obvious that you contend that only cops should have guns, so just by George Zimmerman OWNING a gun you have already condemned him. The whole purpose of people carrying guns is for self-defense. You are going to argue that everybody who carries a gun does so for "sinister" purposes. You are living in your own little world. People who carry guns don't want to shoot people. They carry them in case they HAVE to shoot people. "I'd rather have a gun and never need it, than to need a gun and not have it" pretty much sums it up.
It is laughable that you get upset when people say your comments show your stupidity. If you did REAL research instead of just repeating what you see on TV you might find that you are able to write more informative articles. I have to agree with the other person on this as well. I can't believe that you don't see the stupidity in your comment that all gun owners only have guns because they are sinister. That is downright insulting and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I won't comment on everything the reader has written because I would be repeating myself. I stand by my original commentary and my additional remarks. I take pride in the amount of research I do and I believe I am correct with all that I have written. Regarding your comment about guns...if it was up to me...nobody would have them. They cause more problems than they're worth. You can say that is "laughable" or "stupid" - so be it. There is no reason for anybody to own a gun. That, of course, is my opinion. That being said, I respect the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution and those who lawfully own a gun, they have the right to do so. But our founding fathers lived in a different world than we do today. In those days - and in the days a hundred years later during the so-called "wild west" - nearly everyone carried a gun. If our forefathers knew then, what we know today, I believe the 2nd Amendment would have been written quite differently. As for my "sinister" comment. A person who owns a gun for sport or for going to a target range because that is something they feel they want to do - so be it. Again, I respect their right to own a gun. There is no reason for anybody to be walking around the streets of America, as if they were Wyatt Earp or Sergeant Joe Friday - unless of course they "carry a badge" too. George Zimmerman does not live in the "old west" and he is not a cop. If in fact George Zimmerman believed his life was in danger, how so? Trayvon Martin was unarmed. There had to be another way for Zimmerman to defend himself - if in fact, he needed to do so - than to shoot and kill Trayvon Martin. And regarding your comment and others about 911 dispatchers. None of you know what you're talking about. Despite what any of you think, I can tell you with absolutely certainty, that as a journalist for nearly 40 years, I have worked with law enforcement agencies throughout the country - including some in Florida. A 911 dispatcher is in fact an official representative of a police department. They can provide OFFICIAL information to the press and for the reader to say that "a 911 dispatcher is as much a law enforcement person as is the janitor at the police station" is clearly untrue, insulting and utterly ridiculous. No, a dispatcher is not an officer. He or she is not a cop - at least not usually. But a police dispatcher can be an official spokesperson for the police department. And George Zimmerman was told to stay in his car. For George Zimmerman to defend himself by using a gun was not a necessary means of action. To say "Somebody who was being attacked defended themselves. Period." makes no sense to me at all. A young boy is dead. And a country is in turmoil because of it. There was no reason for either. A neighborhood watch patrol is great when it means people calling the police when they suspect danger is looming or there is a problem in their community. But for an everyday citizen to carry a gun and to be able to use it when they don't have the proper training that a police officer has - then they shouldn't own a gun for the purposes discussed. Police Departments all over the country train their officers to use their guns ONLY in the most extreme circumstances. Cops don't shoot their guns - as one may think - by the way cops do on a television show or in the movies. Dirty Harry doesn't exist in real life - except as I say, in extreme circumstances. But thank you, Clint Eastwood for the wonderful entertainment. I have a friend who was a police officer for 30 years - rising to the rank of chief. He shot his gun in the line of duty only one time in three decades. No, I was not there the night, Trayvon Martin was killed - and nobody, but George Zimmerman really knows what truly happened for him to use his gun. But the facts still remain the same. Trayvon Martin is dead...and without a gun in George Zimmerman's hand...Trayvon would still be alive. GBD
Deletewriter of this article is clearly nothing thinking things through. you say he shouldn't have got out of the car if he thought trayvon was a threat... but that's the whole point! he didn't think he was a threat until trayvon was beating his head on the ground at which point zimmerman had the right to defend himself. pretty simple stuff here. you are making it way more complicated than it really is.
ReplyDeleteif you think something else happened, like zimmerman just got out of his car and attacked and then shot trayvon then that's your opinion, but the fact here is that if EITHER trayvon or zimmerman feared for their life then EITHER of them had the right to use deadly force. that's the law. neither of us can say exactly what happened, but just because trayvon wasn't armed doesn't mean he didn't initiate the attack and thus force zimmerman to defend himself.
trayvon was not a "kid". I bet you wouldn't want to be fighting a 17 year old muscular high school student if one attacked you on your way to your car one day. then you'd be wishing you had a gun or some other means of defense.
Every child has the right to walk home, feel safe and not be followed, stalked or pursued by another person - especially one who is carrying a gun. Why is that so hard for you and the other readers to understand? It makes no sense for me to continue this back and forth as my thoughts are clearly stated in my column. But I welcome and encourage any readers to continue their remarks and to post them. I will reply accordingly. As for the law in Florida...as I noted in my commentary...hopefully it will be changed. GBD
ReplyDeleteSo if Trayvon was 1 year older you would feel differently about this? As you stated in your other article once somebody is 18 they are an adult, period. So if Trayvon was 18 and an adult he would no longer be a "child walking home". Does that really matter in this case? If the same thing happened between two people of the same age you would think that the jury was right? It sounds like you are just anti-gun so whoever has the gun must be the guilty one. I think your complaint about age and "kids" is just your way of covering up that you don't like people who own guns.
DeleteYou are saying that the whole purpose of neighborhood watch is pointless. If teenagers, who tend to be the ones causing a lot of problems in neighborhoods, shouldn't be followed then we might as well just let crime run amok and hope that the police just happen to be there to spot it sometime. Give me a break.
Martin was not simply walking home. He was wandering on the lawns of the apartments, looking into windows. In short, his behavior was suspicious. Zimmerman's calling of the non-emergency operator about a suspicious individual seems non-controversial. He never stereotyped or denigrated Martin's race in the conversation with the dispatcher.
DeleteThe "other article" you refer to was pertaining to a completely different subject - a teacher having sex with an 18-year old student - which if you recall, I said I didn't agree with and stated that such a teacher should be disciplined, if not fired. My point in that commentary was that the teacher should not have been sentenced to 5 years in prison since the male student she was having sex with was a legal, consenting adult. Apples and oranges - nothing to do with what I wrote regarding Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. Neighborhood watch, as I stated in an earlier reply, is great, but the everyday citizen should not carry a gun. In an emergency, police can respond in seconds. Let the trained officers do their jobs - not a self-proclaimed "watch commander." If a neighborhood watch patrol person spots a problem - get on your cell and call police. Many neighborhood watch patrols actually have direct radio contact with their local police department. An officer could respond very quickly. That is what George Zimmerman should have done. I'm being repetitive here, but I'll say it over and over and over again - if George Zimmerman had stayed in his car when he was told to do so - Trayvon Martin would be alive today. To those readers who disagree - what if Trayvon was your son? Or your loved one or friend? I'll bet you'd have a different opinion. GBD
ReplyDeleteOk, here's indisputable evidence you cannot push aside and serves to prove you are twisting and distorting the facts to falsely prop up your position. I would call you a liar but the difference is knowing you are putting forth false information. For now, I'll assume your are just ignorant of it.
ReplyDeleteThe dispatcher never told Zimmerman to stay in his car. Zimmerman had already exited his car and was following Martin on foot. The dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that”. You can look up the transcript online and see that I'm right and you're wrong. No matter how many times you claim (or think) to be right will not change the facts sir. Repeating a lie over and over again does not turn it into truth.
Second, when the dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that”, Zimmerman complied and stopped following Martin. Zimmerman did proceed to the closest street sign to be able to tell the dispatcher his exact location. Zimmerman had lost visual contact with Martin and in a possible time line, Martin could have easily already gone back to the apartment where he was staying and stayed there if he had truly been afraid of Zimmerman following him. As Zimmerman was returning back to his vehicle Martin came back and approached him. Who is stalking whom now sir?
Now try to wrap your mind around this. What were Zimmerman's intentions and motives? Do you really think that if Zimmerman was "stalking" or "profiling" with ill intentions toward Martin he would have called 911 to report Martin's activities? Further, if Martin had a cell phone, which he did, why wouldn't he have called 911 to report someone following (or "stalking") instead of an old girlfriend? Why didn't he call his Mom or Dad for advice? The logical conclusion is because Zimmerman was not threatening him and possibly that Martin was up to no good as Zimmerman suspected.
Now, let's play the race card. Did Zimmerman call Martin anything racial? I think he said "black" when the dispatched asked if he could identify his (Martin's) race. What did Martin say to his girlfriend on the phone when he was describing Zimmerman? I think he said "Creeping Ass Cracker" or something near that, you can look up the transcript and correct me if I'm wrong. Who appeared to be the racist by their remarks?
end part 1
Part 2 cotinued…
ReplyDeleteFinally sir, I doubt I or anyone else will be able to change your convictions in this matter no matter how much factual evidence is presented to you. I'm afraid the only way you'll ever understand this is when you or one of your loved ones has been knocked to the ground having their head bashed onto the concrete by someone who has just called you a "creep ass cracker". One thing is for sure, judging by your picture, you are obviously not in any physical condition to protect yourself from a 13 year old girl from the neighborhood Catholic school much less a tall, street wise, fight club enthused, young 17 year old male. Sir at that moment you or a loved one is being assaulted, I am convinced you will wish you had a gun. Now with that said, to test this notion, at 11 pm this coming Friday or Saturday night I'd like for you to be as peaceful as you possibly can, go into the roughest neighbor in your nearest city and walk those streets for 2 or 3 hours alone as a neighborhood watch captain and report back to this blob on your experience. You won't and anyone reading this will know why you won't sir. Your are all talk and you hide behind a computer keyboard because it's is safe. Zimmerman was at least trying to be proactive and make a positive different in his neighborhood and was trying to get the police involved in this situation. I suspect you view Zimmerman as a coward but sir, I think we know who the cowards are....
This was and is a bad situation for everyone involved but if you look at the intentions of everyone involved objectively and not subjectively, take the emotions out of the equation, justice and the law prevailed in this case. I consider myself extremely liberal but in this matter, I have to defend Zimmerman's case.
Part 1 of 2 - in response to your comment. To debate this issue any further, I am sure will be an effort in futility. However, I will once again speak my mind. Whether George Zimmerman was told to not get out of his car - which is of course what every media outlet from the local newspapers, radio and TV stations to the cable and broadcast networks and major print publications have stated since day one - or if Zimmerman was told by the police dispatcher that "We don't need you to do that"...you're splitting hairs. The fact of the matter is that George Zimmerman was told by an official representative of the Sanford, Florida Police Department not to pursue Trayvon Martin. Now you can refer to court transcripts and the 911 tape for an exact quote - and perhaps you are correct on the precise wording - but the fact of the matter is that George Zimmerman was told NOT to follow the black male wearing the hoodie. By the police dispatcher saying "We don't need you to do that" is the same as if he was told to stay in his car...or go back to his car...or simply wait and let the police arrive to do the job they get paid to do. In other words - the dispatcher was telling George Zimmerman that he's not a cop, so therefore he should let the guys who are wearing the badges investigate. As I have said over and over and over again...in my original commentary and in replies to other readers - if George Zimmerman had done that - Trayvon Martin would be alive today. It's as simple and as straight forward as that. Now...Trayvon Martin cannot defend himself to prove or not prove what he may or may not have said to describe George Zimmerman, but the phrase "creepy ass cracker" was a phrase that a witness said she heard. We certainly don't know for sure whether Trayvon actually uttered those words. There is no definitive proof. As for your comment to me - I'm always amazed when readers of The Controversy such as yourself respond to my commentaries by making personal statements about me. Why must you be so shallow to resort to personal attacks and name calling? You're going to assume by looking at a photograph that I am not in any physical condition to protect myself from - what did you say - "a 13-year old girl from the neighborhood Catholic school, much less a tall, street-wise, fight club enthused, young 17-year old male?" Making such a statement goes to show how ill-informed you are about how well-conditioned a person may or may not be. The fact of the matter is that I could look like Muhammad Ali in his boxing prime or Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was a body builder and I wouldn't fight anyone. And I certainly would NEVER carry a gun. Therefore, to suggest that I walk through "the roughest neighborhood in (my) nearest city and walk those streets for 2 or 3 hours alone as a neighborhood watch captain and report back to this blog on (my) experience," makes no sense for me considering that I don't suggest anybody do that. As I replied to another reader - a neighborhood watch patrol is great, but only to advise the police, not to become an active participant. I don't "hide" - as you say behind a computer keyboard. I'm very open with the opinions and views that I express as a columnist, journalist and commentator. I am in no way a coward and again you resort to name calling. I don't want anyone, George Zimmerman or anyone else being "proactive" - to use your word - when it comes to approaching people who may or may not be endangering the community - which Trayvon Martin was not doing. Remember...Trayvon was unarmed. I don't want people such as George Zimmerman trying to make a "positive difference in his neighborhood" when it means that he's carrying a gun - and being allowed to use it. (Continued in next box) GBD
ReplyDeletePart 2 of 2 from GBD - You have the right to feel as you do - as I have the right to believe as I do, but my maturity prevails as I respect your opinions - although I disagree with them. For some reason, you simply want to insult me. But it makes for interesting reading for others who log on to The Controversy - thus the reason my blog is titled as such. For that...I thank you. GBD
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGeorge showed what kind of character he was once again by coming to the rescue of those people in the car accident..did George Film the accident like Trayvon did the ass kicking That was on his cell phone.. No the difference in characters is obvious
ReplyDelete.
Let me get this right. I'm walking down the street and some guy decides to confront me. We get into a an argument and then fight. He fears for his life because of my fists and decides that shooting me is his only option, and that is ok? I don't see that being a volunteer neighborhood watch person or any other regular citizen gives him the right to confront me. Otherwise we have road rage types jumping out of their cars, confroting perceived offenders and when they are losing the fight, shoot you you dead in self defense.
DeleteThere is no evidence Zimmerman confronted Martin. You are simply making up a scenario to support you feelings of outrage. Prosecution witness testified she heard Martin initiate the confrontation on the phone. Zimmerman told the dispatcher he had lost sight of Martin. How do you "stalk" and "confront" someone of whom you have lost visual contact.
Delete