No. Thats the map. Not, reporting. The call to the PD, was reported. Whats not honest, is what happened, after the political climate forced the indictment. His call places him on that main road, bitching, that he "lost" Martin. For me, thats the end of the story.
When I said "you", I was referring to myself metaphorically. I can see how that would confuse. I wouldn't want to go on a public forum and predict a group of people will act like a bunch of fucking idiots and worse if they don't get what they want (and its nothing that benefits them in any way if Zim were convicted, which is multiples of stupid) because I don't want to be the blatant racist in the house. I hope better angels win out and reason trumps anarchy. But its not going to happen that way, and it makes no sense. A black president, equal rights, 50 years since blacks and whites alike gave their lives for civil rights, and we can still expect some decent percentage of blacks to riot over some perceived injustice. Like pavlovian dogs to a whistle. I guess I shouldn't have tried to expound on this, it bothers me to think somebody will read this and think I'm another rebel mike. I hope we're both wrong.
Will it disappoint you to find out that these details end up being irrelevant to the conclusion of the trial, even if they are key points on television?
I don't think it's a racial preference to riot. And I don't think that you are a racist, either. I think that this trial will be used methodically by a government-controlled media to create civil unrest. The government, and by extension the media, created the false sense of civil peace during the 90s, even while spreading the truth of lack of peace. This is media mind control. At it's best. The funny part about it is that people reading this, for the most part, will write me off as a fruit loop. The same people that will freely admit that they know that the media uses subliminal messaging in every aspect of television, and just brush it aside as something that doesn't apply to them. Because America has taught us that Americans are invulnerable, and able to choose. Our culture is built upon willful ignorance, disguised as free will.
"A kid gets shot to death..." may not be the entirety of the situation. How about you describe the case honestly. To answer your question, if a kid got shot to death because he was pissed some creepy ass cracker was following him, so he attacked the cracker and got shot in self defense, then no, there isn't anyone to hold responsible for it because the kid, himself, is responsible and he has already paid the price.
I think this kid, Martin, is guilty as fuck of causing the scuffle. I think Zimmerman approached him to see what he was doing and Martin took it as a racist view and attacked him or presented a problem. Fight happen and Zimmerman shot him in chest to protect himself. He then wasn't sure if he was dead, so he continued to subdue him by outstretching his arms on the floor until he realized Martin had been dead. I think the prosecution has NO physical evidence to put him away and this is a he said she said case. Not to mention the witness for Martin was such a MORON! Lied under oath. That's not going to go down well
New witness, neighbor, said he saw Zimmerman on bottom and Martin hitting him on top. Called police immediately.
It's pretty damn clear that the entire thing was precipitated by Zimmerman stalking Martin. If he wasn't chasing Martin around, there never would have been a confrontation in the first place. Martin wasn't doing anything wrong at the time of the incident. Zimmerman had no basis for assuming he was.
And you know this how? As far as anyone knows, Martin was suspiciously walking around looking at houses with his hand at his waistline. Zimmerman maybe should not have pursued him, but no one was there to witness what occurred. When someone seems suspicious, people call the police. Zimmerman did just that. He called the police, but made the mistake of pursuing when he shouldn't have. Approaching a suspicious person walking around in a neighborhood is stalking?
first of all, simply following someone isn't the same as "stalking" someone, so you continue to dishonestly portray the situation, which means you are either an idiot who doesn't grasp what has been reported to happen, or you are a liar with an agenda. if Zimmerman was stalking him, he wouldn't have been on the phone with the police at the same time. you would have to prove that Zimmerman's intent was to intimidate Trayvon, and not simply make sure he wasn't up to no good. Zimmerman was well within his right to follow Trayvon as he did. Trayvon was clearly offended by being followed, hence why he described Zimmerman derogatorily as a cracker. following Trayvon may no be what caused the attack. if Trayvon could have gotten away, but chose not to and instead chose to confront Zimmerman, as the evidence strongly suggests, than confronting Zimmerman is what caused the confrontation, and the person who instigated the confrontation, which is Trayvon, is who is responsible.
Martin may not have been in the wrong for walking around but Zimmerman was also not wrong for following him to make sure nothing was going on, as far as the law is concerned. The wrong doing came into play when someone came after the other with the intent of physical harm, what happened from that point, who was the aggressor (Zimmerman following Martin does not make him the aggressor) and if the jury feels Zimmerman felt his life was in danger are the key issues.
Spot on right here. Zimmerman followed because he felt Martin was up to something. What really makes me think Martin caused the scuffle is because Zimmerman clearly says on the phone to the police that Martin is running. If Martin was running, that means that he had plenty of time to take off and leave without Zimmerman coming near him. After he says he's running, Zimmerman stays on the phone with the dispatcher for at least another 5 minutes. Instead, a scuffle happened which leads me to believe Martin started it.
I didnt see that on TV. I followed the story, when it broke, before racial pressure resulted in revisiting the fact that he was not charged.
Thats why Zimmerman was initially mot charged. And the Florida prosecutors involved, are shady to begin with.
I dont think you're crazy. In fact, its the message they are giving you, in the red pill/blue pill conversation, in the Matrix, more or less. Though it more directly applies to consumerism. The Architect, in the second film, elaborates on the philosphy a little more(the program works, even if they are conscious of the choice only on a subliminal level). Unrest of any kind, only concentrates power. Thats why, we tame the majority, and inflame the minority. Racial unrest in Florida, will result in the outrage being excused, and self defense being prosecuted. Like this case. Ironic, no?
the media's target is the irrational and emotional unstable, which usually go hand in hand. and the media sold those imbeciles on the story that a 11 year old boy was skipping home and the big, bad "white hispanic" shot him because he hated blacks. the emotionally adolescent whipped themselves into a frenzy at that lie, and an equally dishonest prosecutor filed charges against Zimmerman just so she could be validate to the general public that she wasn't a racist. absent of the media's dishonest spin on this case, no charges would have been filed. the media has done everything they could to frame this situation under the light that Zimmerman was to blame, by attempting to make it a race issue (Zimmerman was guilty because he was a racist; ironically now Trayvon's own witness' testimony shows that Trayvon was the racist, so if racism is the cause of this death it was racism precipitated by the victim), by contradicting themselves (Trayvon ran away in fear, so he couldn't have been the aggressor, while arguing that he had every right to circle back and be outside; either he was afraid or he wasn't, and the circling back wasn't defending his right not to have to run home but to confront the creepy ass cracker who was following him). we were all 17 years old. there is nothing unusual about a 17 year old kid who thinks he is tough getting up in someone's face for some perceived disrespect. the narrative, and evidence, follows that premise far more logically than what the media has attempted to spin, so anyone who has bought into that premise either has a bias, agenda, or intellect problem. there simply is no evidence that Zimmerman is a racist, that he "stalked" Trayvon with the intent to instigate a confrontation, or attacked him. all that is left is the ridiculous argument that had he not followed him none of this would have happened. that is like saying that if a person is killed by a drunk driver, had they just stayed at home they would not have been killed, so their death is their fault.
Although I empathize with both sides at this point, "if a kid got shot to death because he was pissed some creepy ass cracker was following him, so he attacked the cracker and got shot in self defense..." may not be the entirety of the situation. How about you describe the case honestly. Zimmerman, by the legal definition, stalked Martin. A confrontation followed and the "attacker" (more accurately, the person who threw the first punch) is unclear. Under the vagueness of Florida's SYG law, Zimmerman is able to argue that he was "standing his ground" in self-defense against Martin. While I do see that as a likely conclusion adjoining a not guilty verdict, I don't agree that in broader legal terms Zimmerman was acting in self-defense even if he did not initiate the attack. To argue that Zimmerman was "standing his ground", is, in my opinion, almost as ridiculous as arguing that an attack against an unarmed home intruder doesn't constitute self-defense merely because he was "standing his ground". An absurd example, yes, but to what extent am I allowed to stalk another individual who is not suspected of committing a crime or engaging in illegal activity until I become the instigator? One could argue that Zimmerman's actions constituted stalking and intimidation which would make him the instigator by default regardless of who is a better fighter and who threw the first punch.
By Florida statute there must be malicious intent and it must be repeated for it to be considered stalking. There was one incident so "repeated" is right out the window meaning there was no stalking. You would be very hard pressed to show malicious intent also so there is one of the other needed criteria for it to be considered stalking. This was in no way stalking under Florida statute.
