Florida, Florida, Florida

[Eldon]

Took it, got an A.   I think you guys missed a key lesson in logic class  about series of events that happen and the many forks in the road at each subsequent event.

For you to say Trayvon was not looking for a fight...how do you know?  It's amazing the leaps of faith you take.  According to GZ, he was looking for a fight.   Does that testimony benefit GZ, it sure does.  Are you discounting it simply because it doesn't fit your idea of events?  What if what GZ says is absolutely true, that TM said you are going to pay tonight.  If that is true, he most certainly was looking for a fight.

I'll remind you for the 10th time, the cops told GZ the whole thing was on video tape and GZ said THANK GOD because he thought it was going to exonerate him.  This was not a man worried because he thought a video, if it existed, would back him up 100%.

Chicos, serious question.

What if (if) it's true that GZ physically started the altercation by trying to restrain TM.  Would this alter your opinion at all?

[forgetful]

Took it, got an A.   I think you guys missed a key lesson in logic class  about series of events that happen and the many forks in the road at each subsequent event.

For you to say Trayvon was not looking for a fight...how do you know?  It's amazing the leaps of faith you take.  According to GZ, he was looking for a fight.   Does that testimony benefit GZ, it sure does.  Are you discounting it simply because it doesn't fit your idea of events?  What if what GZ says is absolutely true, that TM said you are going to pay tonight.  If that is true, he most certainly was looking for a fight.

I'll remind you for the 10th time, the cops told GZ the whole thing was on video tape and GZ said THANK GOD because he thought it was going to exonerate him.  This was not a man worried because he thought a video, if it existed, would back him up 100%.

We know, because he ran from GZ and had thought he had gotten away, only GZ apparently chased him down.  Not an amazing leap of faith to think that a guy running away from a pursuer is not looking for a fight.

And to your more recent post.  TM did run away, see above.  The jurors didn't necessarily believe GZ, just that it was possible GZ was telling the truth (the whole reasonable doubt thing).  That is why a lot of us, including myself have said that we don't know if he was legally guilty of murder (reasonable doubt), but at the very least morally culpable.  

As one of the jurors has already commented (who though GZ was guilty), he has to answer to a far higher power for that.

You seem to be more than willing to attack TM, drag him through the mud and paint him in the worst possible lights, but I have not seen you even for a second turn any attention to GZ.  

I don't discount any of GZ's testimony as to me it doesn't matter (I think there are a lot of issues with it and personally believe that he is lying...as his story doesn't match up with the timelines or locations that can be confirmed).

Simple facts.  GZ got out of his car, pursued TM while armed.  TM ran to try to get away.  GZ caught back up to him.  At this point TM legitimately can fear for his own life (strange man chasing him through an apartment complex), he tried to run once and failed.  Regardless of what transpired after that, GZ had engaged himself in a situation he should not have been involved in.  Because of that reason at the very least he is morally culpable for TMs death.  

Even if we assume the worst possible scenario for TM (GZs account), TM still had reasonable concern for his own safety (strange man chasing him through an apartment complex).  Because of that no stories matter.  GZ pursued TM, TM died, GZ morally or legally culpable for the death.  That simple.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos, serious question.

What if (if) it's true that GZ physically started the altercation by trying to restrain TM.  Would this alter your opinion at all?

Potentially.  Totally depends on what manner we are talking about.  If he said, I called the cops 10 minutes ago and they are on their way, stay here...does that count as restraining him?  If that's what happened and TM said pound sand and attacked him, then it doesn't change my opinion one iota.

If, on the other hand, he had his gun drawn and said wait here until the cops come and TM felt his life was in danger, then yes that would change my POV.  Of course if that was the case, you have to wonder why GZ would let himself get his nose broken and his head mashed in while having it drawn.

Lots of ifs and buts in this case. 

Don't go out at night to get your ingredients for your purple drank \ lean, you are still alive.
Don't get into a fight with GZ, you're still alive.
Etc, etc   Many things had to happen.  The mere act of GZ following him was not the ultimate action point that led to his death, and that was what Alan Dershowitz said, that's what the jury said.  That's why he is a free man.

[ChicosBailBonds]

We know, because he ran from GZ and had thought he had gotten away, only GZ apparently chased him down.  Not an amazing leap of faith to think that a guy running away from a pursuer is not looking for a fight.

And to your more recent post.  TM did run away, see above.  The jurors didn't necessarily believe GZ, just that it was possible GZ was telling the truth (the whole reasonable doubt thing).  That is why a lot of us, including myself have said that we don't know if he was legally guilty of murder (reasonable doubt), but at the very least morally culpable.  

As one of the jurors has already commented (who though GZ was guilty), he has to answer to a far higher power for that.

You seem to be more than willing to attack TM, drag him through the mud and paint him in the worst possible lights, but I have not seen you even for a second turn any attention to GZ.  

I don't discount any of GZ's testimony as to me it doesn't matter (I think there are a lot of issues with it and personally believe that he is lying...as his story doesn't match up with the timelines or locations that can be confirmed).

Simple facts.  GZ got out of his car, pursued TM while armed.  TM ran to try to get away.  GZ caught back up to him.  At this point TM legitimately can fear for his own life (strange man chasing him through an apartment complex), he tried to run once and failed.  Regardless of what transpired after that, GZ had engaged himself in a situation he should not have been involved in.  Because of that reason at the very least he is morally culpable for TMs death.  

Even if we assume the worst possible scenario for TM (GZs account), TM still had reasonable concern for his own safety (strange man chasing him through an apartment complex).  Because of that no stories matter.  GZ pursued TM, TM died, GZ morally or legally culpable for the death.  That simple.  

Yes, one of the 6 said this...the only one that said this.  She was the lone holdout.  Or as she labeled herself, "I was going to be the hung jury".  

GZ not legally culpable, that's already over unless this administration is going to continue to disembowel the constitution and now go for double jeopardy.  Nothing would surprise me.

Morally culpable, I'll let God answer that.  That simple.

We don't know if Martin ran from Zimmerman.  His girlfriend on the phone said he did, but since she wasn't there we don't know.  See how fun this game is?  We can call her into question just like we call the others into question.  Of course this same woman has had a few changes to her story since last year.  

What about his story doesn't match with the timelines?  He said TM was on top, a witness confirms this. He said he was punched in the nose, he was.  He said his head got slammed into the ground repeatedly, it did.  He called the cops and stayed on the phone with them.  He also said once he shot him, he got on top of TM to secure him, which jives with the woman witness who claimed this after she came to the porch after the shot.  Everything lines up with what he said.  I'm curious what differences you see.

In the meantime, here's what a cop (who questioned GZ)  said (does this for a living, trying to discern what is truthful and what is false).  He was trying to determine whether the statements were true or not from GZ when questioning him.

At one point during his interview with Zimmerman, Serino bluffed that he may have video of the incident shot on Martin’s cellphone.

"I believe [Zimmerman’s] words were, 'Thank God, I was hoping somebody would videotape it,'" said Serino. "Either he was telling the truth or he was a complete pathological liar. One of the two."

Serino says nothing indicated to him that Zimmerman was a liar.

"You think he was telling the truth?" asked O'Mara.

"Yes," said Serino.

[ATWizJr]

Instead of unproductive name calling, would you care to address the comment.  All the items I posted are fact (with the exception of the recent hero case as that is too new).  Granted, GZ did agree to a plea deal of resisting arrest, instead of assault on an officer. Personally I think they are irrelevant as the key issue to me is:

He got out of the car and chased a kid.  Everything thereafter hinges upon that event, which was a rash, ill-advised act that led to the loss of a life.

I address

you don't like unproductive name calling, then ask if those who disagree with you ever took logic.  You state that GZ chased after Martin with no way to really know if he did.  You bring up Zimmerman's arrest record and plea deal while also stating that they are irrelevant.  You wrongly state that all downstream events hinge on an event that is unprovable and even if it was would not not necessarily constitute cause and effect.  I will say this about your obliviousness, though, you are persistent and I am impressed. 

[Henry Sugar]

Florida Man arrested for kidnapping neighbor's dog. Having sex with it in his trailer.

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-07-26/story/st-johns-sex-predator-charged-having-sex-neighbors-dog

[MU B2002]

Florida Man arrested for kidnapping neighbor's dog. Having sex with it in his trailer.

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-07-26/story/st-johns-sex-predator-charged-having-sex-neighbors-dog

Now that is a Florida story.

[Lennys Tap]

Don't go out at night to get your ingredients for your purple drank \ lean, you are still alive.
Don't get into a fight with GZ, you're still alive.
Etc, etc   Many things had to happen.  The mere act of GZ following him was not the ultimate action point that led to his death, and that was what Alan Dershowitz said, that's what the jury said.  That's why he is a free man.

Don't be "suspicious" and unknown to George Zimmerman, you are still alive.

Guess you're right.All TM's fault.

I agree with you (and Dershowitz) that given Florida law acquittal was the only logical verdict for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, but your blame the victim mantra is ridiculous. I think that a person in this country ought to be able to assume that going to a convenience store for soda and candy shouldn't result in being profiled and pursued by an armed fellow citizen. I further think that when an armed fellow citizen decides (contrary to police instructions) to pursue a fellow citizen who has done nothing wrong other than being black and a stranger, the armed fellow citizen bears the responsibility for and is the primary cause if the other guy ends up shot dead.

[Pakuni]

Florida.

http://www.pnj.com/article/20130728/NEWS11/307280027/Deputies-shoot-at-man-in-his-yard?nclick_check=1

[ATL MU Warrior]

Don't be "suspicious" and unknown to George Zimmerman, you are still alive.

Guess you're right.All TM's fault.

I agree with you (and Dershowitz) that given Florida law acquittal was the only logical verdict for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, but your blame the victim mantra is ridiculous. I think that a person in this country ought to be able to assume that going to a convenience store for soda and candy shouldn't result in being profiled and pursued by an armed fellow citizen. I further think that when an armed fellow citizen decides (contrary to police instructions) to pursue a fellow citizen who has done nothing wrong other than being black and a stranger, the armed fellow citizen bears the responsibility for and is the primary cause if the other guy ends up shot dead.

Thank you.  TM is to blame for his own death because he had the temerity to leave his house at night?  Jesus H...that's a great line of reasoning.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Florida.

http://www.pnj.com/article/20130728/NEWS11/307280027/Deputies-shoot-at-man-in-his-yard?nclick_check=1

Now that's a story that Chicos can get behind.  Job well done, right CBB?  After all, he was out of his house at night...

[Pakuni]

Now that's a story that Chicos can get behind.  Job well done, right CBB?  After all, he was out of his house at night...

He claims he was getting cigarettes out of his car, but I read somewhere on the Internets that some people hollow those out and fill them with weed. Guy clearly was a drug dealer who deserves whatever he got.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I think that a person in this country ought to be able to assume that going to a convenience store for soda and candy shouldn't result in being profiled and pursued by an armed fellow citizen. I further think that when an armed fellow citizen decides (contrary to police instructions) to pursue a fellow citizen who has done nothing wrong other than being black and a stranger, the armed fellow citizen bears the responsibility for and is the primary cause if the other guy ends up shot dead.

Nicely stated.

Let's not get distracted by a bunch of speculative details (facebook posts by TM, calls to the cops by GZ, Liberal media, conservative media, etc.)

Look at the BIG picture of what happened, and ask yourself if you are comfortable with that happening in your neighborhood.

[Henry Sugar]

Florida Man Crashes Car Three Times In One Night Of Drunk Driving

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/troopers-drunk-driver-flees-after-crashing-three-t/nY6P6/

[Pakuni]

Florida Man Crashes Car Three Times In One Night Of Drunk Driving

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/troopers-drunk-driver-flees-after-crashing-three-t/nY6P6/

I see I'm not the only one who follows @FloridaMan.

[lab_warrior]

Florida.

http://www.pnj.com/article/20130728/NEWS11/307280027/Deputies-shoot-at-man-in-his-yard?nclick_check=1

GUHHHhhhhhh, seriously, ladies and gentlemen, FLORIDA! 

Don't be "suspicious" and unknown to George Zimmerman, you are still alive.

Guess you're right.All TM's fault.

I agree with you (and Dershowitz) that given Florida law acquittal was the only logical verdict for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, but your blame the victim mantra is ridiculous. I think that a person in this country ought to be able to assume that going to a convenience store for soda and candy shouldn't result in being profiled and pursued by an armed fellow citizen. I further think that when an armed fellow citizen decides (contrary to police instructions) to pursue a fellow citizen who has done nothing wrong other than being black and a stranger, the armed fellow citizen bears the responsibility for and is the primary cause if the other guy ends up shot dead.

Yeah, I don't think this paragraph can possibly be be written better. 

All that's missing is the mike dropping.

(I'm still not going to feel empathy for George Zimmerman, though.)

I see I'm not the only one who follows @FloridaMan.

The scary thing about that twitter handle, is that it is a pretty active account. 
There's always something f***ed up, disgusting, or soul crushing occurring in
that state.  It's like the collective awfulness of America has been funneled
southward into one giant colostomy bag. 

[Pakuni]

Yeah, I don't think this paragraph can possibly be be written better. 

All that's missing is the mike dropping.

[MerrittsMustache]

I agree with you (and Dershowitz) that given Florida law acquittal was the only logical verdict for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, but your blame the victim mantra is ridiculous. I think that a person in this country ought to be able to assume that going to a convenience store for soda and candy shouldn't result in being profiled and pursued by an armed fellow citizen. I further think that when an armed fellow citizen decides (contrary to police instructions) to pursue a fellow citizen who has done nothing wrong other than being black and a stranger, the armed fellow citizen bears the responsibility for and is the primary cause if the other guy ends up shot dead.

The problem with your paragraph is that it's incredibly oversimplified and factually incorrect.

Martin wasn't profiled only because he was "black and a stranger." He was profiled because he fit the description of the person/people responsible for break-ins in the area and because he was walking through yards at a slow pace in the rain while looking into houses. It's very reasonable that a neighborhood watch volunteer would contact the authorities and try to keep an eye on that person. Did GZ eventually go too far? Maybe, maybe not. However, in terms of profiling, he did nothing wrong.

Also, the police did not instruct GZ to stay in his car and refrain from following Martin. The police dispatcher told him that they didn't need him to follow Martin and even testified that when he asked where TM was going, GZ may have interpreted that as a request to get out of his car and see where he went. Whatever the case, police dispatchers do NOT give orders.

Does this absolve GZ from all blame? Of course not. He still made his fair share of mistakes. I'm just pointing out that the case is not nearly as cut and dry as you made it out to be.

Playing devil's advocate, what would you think if someone were to post...

In a neighborhood that has recently experienced a series of break-ins, I think that a person ought to be able to assume that notifying the police of suspicious activity should not result in having his life put in danger.


Would you agree with that? If not, why?

[Lennys Tap]

The problem with your paragraph is that it's incredibly oversimplified and factually incorrect.

Martin wasn't profiled only because he was "black and a stranger." He was profiled because he fit the description of the person/people responsible for break-ins in the area

Wasn't black and stranger the description he fit? I guess I left out young.

[Lennys Tap]

and because he was walking through yards at a slow pace in the rain while looking into houses. It's very reasonable that a neighborhood watch volunteer would contact the authorities and try to keep an eye on that person. Did GZ eventually go too far? Maybe, maybe not. However, in terms of profiling, he did nothing wrong.

Also, the police did not instruct GZ to stay in his car and refrain from following Martin. The police dispatcher told him that they didn't need him to follow Martin and even testified that when he asked where TM was going, GZ may have interpreted that as a request to get out of his car and see where he went. Whatever the case, police dispatchers do NOT give orders.

Does this absolve GZ from all blame? Of course not. He still made his fair share of mistakes. I'm just pointing out that the case is not nearly as cut and dry as you made it out to be.

You may be right that GZ had reasons to be suspicious, but I'm unaware that TM walking slowly and looking into houses are "established facts". Rather, I think they are part of GZ's statement, which may or may not be factual.

What should he have done? Called the police, listened to the dispatcher and let the cops do what they do. Arming yourself and pursuing someone who has done nothing but arouse your suspicion is a bad idea. Period. In this case it was lethal.

[lab_warrior]

The problem with your paragraph is that it's incredibly oversimplified and factually incorrect.

Martin wasn't profiled only because he was "black and a stranger." He was profiled because he fit the description of the person/people responsible for break-ins in the area and because he was walking through yards at a slow pace in the rain while looking into houses. It's very reasonable that a neighborhood watch volunteer would contact the authorities and try to keep an eye on that person. Did GZ eventually go too far? Maybe, maybe not. However, in terms of profiling, he did nothing wrong.

Also, the police did not instruct GZ to stay in his car and refrain from following Martin. The police dispatcher told him that they didn't need him to follow Martin and even testified that when he asked where TM was going, GZ may have interpreted that as a request to get out of his car and see where he went. Whatever the case, police dispatchers do NOT give orders.

Does this absolve GZ from all blame? Of course not. He still made his fair share of mistakes. I'm just pointing out that the case is not nearly as cut and dry as you made it out to be.

Playing devil's advocate, what would you think if someone were to post...

In a neighborhood that has recently experienced a series of break-ins, I think that a person ought to be able to assume that notifying the police of suspicious activity should not result in having his life put in danger.


Would you agree with that? If not, why?

What the hell does it matter...police vs. dispatcher?  He was advised to not follow.  Period.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

You may be right that GZ had reasons to be suspicious, but I'm unaware that TM walking slowly and looking into houses are "established facts". Rather, I think they are part of GZ's statement, which may or may not be factual.

What should he have done? Called the police, listened to the dispatcher and let the cops do what they do. Arming yourself and pursuing someone who has done nothing but arouse your suspicion is a bad idea. Period. In this case it was lethal.

Bingo again.

We can avoid the whole race issue all together.

Citizen's shouldn't arm themselves and trail "suspects" because they aren't trained to do so. Doesn't matter what description the "suspect" matches.

Crime fighting isn't a good DIY project*. Leave it to the professionals.


*EDIT: Crime prevention is a great DIY project, but leave apprehension/fighting to the pros.

[Lennys Tap]

Playing devil's advocate, what would you think if someone were to post...

In a neighborhood that has recently experienced a series of break-ins, I think that a person ought to be able to assume that notifying the police of suspicious activity should not result in having his life put in danger.


Would you agree with that? If not, why?

I would agree with that. And of course merely notifying the police wouldn't have put GZ in any danger. Lot's of "what ifs" but the sine qua non of the whole situation is Zimmerman's pursuit. Unnecessary, unwarranted, it set off a chain of events that ended in death.

[Pakuni]

Just so we're clear about the whole rash of break-ins by young black men business .... three over 14 months by known black offenders. Five others with no clear suspect.

City officials posted police reports to the city website detailing eight burglary reports in the neighborhood in the 14 months prior to Martin's February 26 death.

In three of those incidents, black males were implicated by witnesses or arrests. A fourth incident was less clear.

A homeowner who reported that someone had broken into her home and had stolen a video game console referred police to a black man who had previously visited her home asking for her son.

Police do not list that man as a suspect in their report.

In the other four incidents, there were no witnesses or suspects, according to police reports.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/justice/florida-teen-shooting-burglaries

[Henry Sugar]

I see I'm not the only one who follows @FloridaMan.

Everyone needs to follow @_FloridaMan.

Florida Man Left 6-Year-Old Son In Crashed Car Because He Thought His Driver's License Was Suspended. It Wasn't

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/man-arrested-after-crashing-car-with-son-in-back-s/nY4bB/

The scary thing about that twitter handle, is that it is a pretty active account. 
There's always something f***ed up, disgusting, or soul crushing occurring in
that state.  It's like the collective awfulness of America has been funneled
southward into one giant colostomy bag. 

Florida is the worst state in America. Florida Man is the proof.