"It's all in the touch."
Yet, wandering around downtown at 2AM was part of my job off and on for many years, and not just downtown, the part where they kept the main post office. And not just any downtown either, but the big city downtown districts.
Never once got attacked.
I recall this trip to Cleveland where I noticed the cops kept their windows up in their cars in the daytime to keep from getting attacked.
I didn't even get attacked there, and the armed Postal inspector who accompanied me didn't even get a shot off at anybody.
ZImmerman did everything he could possibly do to make someone else believe him to be a predator on the prowl. HIs quarry turned that on him.
I wouldn't have done that either, but Zimmerman would spend a year or two in court.
That's what William Raspberry called a 'white people's riot'.
It's all in the touch.
Oh, and for you, they'd still have you in jail ~ and your family would be living in a shelter.
Before you call that 'blaming the victim', Zimmerman had a pistol on him and imagined that made him safe.
Boy had an overactive imagination. Next time he'll see to his safety.
“Before you call that ‘blaming the victim’, Zimmerman had a pistol on him and imagined that made him safe.”
Ah, now you are demonizing him for carrying a gun, which is legal in Florida.
Against self defense, against vigilance in protecting a neighborhood, against carrying a gun, “for” the poor little black boy attacking Zimmerman and beating his bloody head into the pavement.
You are revealing quite about yourself, and it is all ugly.
I’m curious, what are you doing on a “conservative” forum?
Brilliant post! Let’s use your logic...
I’ve never been raped in my life, therefore rape never happens! Or, if it does, it is the fault of the person being raped because CLEARLY they put themselves in a bad situation.
Have you been drinking this morning? You are incoherent.
All Martin had to do was go home. He could filed a complain that night with management.
Never bring a fist to a gun fight.
Any evidence Zimmerman was looking for trouble? Also just because you never got attacked doesn’t prove anything. Some people are never in car accidents, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t wear a seatbelt.
Your ramblings indicate too much LDS in the 60s!
>>I didn’t even get attacked there, and the armed Postal inspector who accompanied me didn’t even get a shot off at anybody.<<
Hmmmmm, I worked in Downtown Cleveland and knew people who DID get attacked there. Did you ever think that because you had an Armed Postal inspector with you, thugs knew not to touch you? You’re not thinking while you are trying to prove a point? Do you think that if someone jumped you and was beating your head into the sidewalk the inspector should just walk away?
Where is the 911 tape from Martin?
I have been very very critical of Zimmerman on other threads. There is the first hand source of his 911 call that puts him in a very bad light as far as anger, frustration, hostility, adrenaline.
According to a UPI article, he told the police he had gotten out of his car to look at a street sign which is not credible - he would know where he was in that small familiar development. But as we know, there have been many inaccurate reports and he may or may not have said that. The first hand source of the police reports is needed.
So that to me is the negative side for Zimmerman.
In his favor, when he gave his account of the fight, he could have no idea what witnesses had seen or not seen and what they would tell police. It seems that his account is consistent with witnesses’ accounts. The problem is that the no witnesses saw the start of the fight.
Also in his favor, he did not pull his gun immediately in the fight. Maybe that is only because he couldn’t. But he is yelling repeatedly for help for quite a while, and then there is a changed yell - more anguished if you will and I am not sure whose voice it is. There is a loud bang that is not the shot. Then comes the shot. This is recorded on the witnesses’ 911 calls.
He should have never followed Martin in the explosive frame of mind he was in. He is morally culpable as far as that goes. But if it was Martin who started the fight then Zimmerman is not legally culpable. And again, no one knows if Martin perceived him as a threat or as an affront.
"It's all in the touch."
If everything you allege about Zim behavior is true, Zim can no use self defense as reason to shoot. It is like I agitated a person and he got mad and swung at me and pinned me to the ground in a fight. While losing and being pummeled, I pulled out my pistol and shot him. The issue is chain of events and when the chain of events were broken. If Zim decided to retreat to his SUV but before he parted and told Martin that the cops were coming and he plans to go back to his SUV and watch them kick his ass. He still has not broken the chain of events because his parting words escalated the situation and not lowered it. On the other hand he tells Martin, fine I don’t want any trouble and I will go back to may SUV and wait for the cops. If Martin felt Zim’s tone of voice was disrespectful and he decided to teach him a lesson, then Martin is now the aggressor and Zim is the defender. In other words depending on the facts, who ends up being the defender can flip between Martin and Zim when the two confronted each other before the fighting starts. My money is no matter what really happened, if Zim has a good lawyer he wil avoid any pitfalls in his statements.
I find it interesting that so many people are so willing to condemn Zimmerman without knowing the facts of the case. And the same people seem to be really desperate to hide the facts about Martin. They should correct it, otherwise it just looks like another excuse to riot.
Well, not everyone has your great luck of NOT being attacked in the wee hours of the morning.
Those who aren’t as fortunate are presented with a choice... fight or possibly die.
It did...It saved his life...