Posted on 03/23/2012 12:41:21 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich calls the shooting death of a black Florida teen "a tragedy" and describes the man responsible as "a guy who'd found a hobby that's very dangerous."
George Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch group.
(Excerpt) Read more at njherald.com ...
Thank you for full disclosure. Gun owners, and fans, I note, are all for Zimmerman.
If you’ve ever had to defend yourself or your family with a firearm, you would understand. I’ve been in a self-defense firearm situation twice in my life, and it is by far the most terrifying, life altering experience I’ve ever faced. I pray I never have to do it again. It changes your world view. You watch out behind you. You’re aware of everything. You’re overly cautious in many cases.
Unless you’ve worn the shoes, you can’t possibly know how this man felt at the time nor how he feels now.
>> You’re obviously a victim of the MSM’s convenient omission of facts... RESEARCH THE WHOLE STORY BEFORE DRAWING CONCLUSIONS!
I *have* been researching. Most of the MSM reports lately aren’t on the crime at all, but rather on the outrage around it.
Here are the facts I have managed to tease out of the information on the Interwebz. tell me which of these facts you dispute.
— Martin had no criminal record. Zimmermann had been charged with battery on a police officer, as well as a domestic violence charge.
— Martin was unarmed at the time of his death. Zimmermann was carrying a loaded handgun, which he used to kill Martin.
— Martin’s girlfriend was on the phone with him around the time of the attack. She said he had gone to the store for snacks.
— Martin was carrying snacks when he was killed.
— Martin was on foot and Zimmerman was in a car. At some point for some reason Zimmermann got out of the car in the proximity of Martin.
— If Zimmermann had not gotten out of his car, it was physically impossible for Martin to attack him or even to provoke an altercation — this is just common sense.
— Zimmermann was an enthusiastic neighborhood watch participant
— Zimmermann called 911 to report Martin as a suspicious person
Note that I have not included in the above ONE opinion, or ANY hearsay, or ANY MSM conclusion, or any of the questionable testimony — much of which ALSO implicates zimmermann, although some of it is conflicting or uncorroborated.
So: maybe YOU can roll all this up and conclude that Martin was in the wrong and Zimmermann was justified in killing him. I’d have to suspend a LOT of disbelief and ignore a LOT of simple explanations in favor of some tortured, convoluted ones to conclude the same thing.
>> There’s NO reason for someone to have on a hoodie. I sweat just wearing a tee-shirt.
Regardless of your own clothing tastes and comfort level:
Is it illegal to wear a hoodie?
Is there any evidence WHATSOEVER that Martin had committed a crime, or was about to, and that wearing the hoodie was relevant to that crime?
I’m only trying to figure out where the divide lies in these very ugly confrontations on this forum.
>> Gun owners, and fans, I note, are all for Zimmerman.
I’m a gun owner, gun fan, and strong believer in concealed and open carry and castle doctrine and stand your ground self defense.
I am for the TRUTH, not “for zimmermann” or “for martin”. But from what I have heard, I am having a hard time believing that Martin’s killing was justified.
I DO NOT WANT TO GIVE BACK any of the progress we have made in securing our constitutional 2nd amendment rights I wnat to secure them even FURTHER — and vigilantism threatens that.
FRegards
Well, as I said, I was trying to pinpoint the dividing line, and I thought it might have been between too enthusiastic gun owners (like presumably Zimmerman, who is no question an enthusiastic, if not very effective, crime preventer - 40 recent burglaries in the community he “patrolled” is his success record) and others. But I don’t know if that line can be easily determined.
I always chuckle when the priors come out. There's an 11 year difference in age here. The kid has no published criminal record, as he's a minor. We don't know what priors, if any, he might have had.
— Martin was unarmed at the time of his death. Zimmermann was carrying a loaded handgun, which he used to kill Martin.
My ONLY problem with this assertion is that the kid was "unarmed." He had no firearm. It is well-documented that Zimmerman was bloodied and had signs of defensive wounds on his body. He was also wet and had grass stains on his back from rolling around on the ground.
SOME TYPE OF ALTERCATION OCCURRED. This is documented in the police reports, it was reported by the local media on numerous occasions. Having had to defend myself with a firearm in the past, you do not have the convenience of time to think, "Hmm, I wonder if this kid who is beating me had a gun or a knife."
— Martin’s girlfriend was on the phone with him around the time of the attack. She said he had gone to the store for snacks.
That is the commonly understood scenario but really immaterial to the matter at hand.
— Martin was carrying snacks when he was killed.
Repeating facts already in evidence, still immaterial.
— Martin was on foot and Zimmerman was in a car. At some point for some reason Zimmermann got out of the car in the proximity of Martin.
I want to call immaterial again, but I'm curious why this matters. Police routinely stay in their patrol cars unless there's a reason to get out. Zimmerman got out of his car for some reason, but "why" isn't a matter toward his guilt or innocence. It happened, he got out. He can't go back and not get out of his car, the kid is dead.
— If Zimmermann had not gotten out of his car, it was physically impossible for Martin to attack him or even to provoke an altercation — this is just common sense.
It's common sense but it's also completely irrelevant. He DID get out of his car, why he got out is a mystery, but it doesn't matter how or why the altercation occurred... it did! Again, the kid is dead.
— Zimmermann was an enthusiastic neighborhood watch participant
By most accounts, he was the captain. Remember, this was a GATED COMMUNITY. Trayvon was a NOT a resident of the neighborhood where he was shot. Whether he hopped a fence as a shortcut or was staying with a friend, he was not in familiar territory. Why would a 17 year old black boy attack a neighborhood watch captain? The neighborhood watch captain had a reason to be there. Trayvon, for all intents and purposes, did not.
— Zimmermann called 911 to report Martin as a suspicious person
It's a fact, but doesn't really matter overall. He had a right and a duty to make the call.
It's not a crime to wear a hoodie on a humid 70 degree Florida night, but it's definitely suspicious. Our own government tells us "See something, say something" and one thing we're supposed to look out for is people wearing clothes that don't match the climate. Trayvon was guilty of that, IMO.
I've posted numerous links to local news outlets and the city of Sanford has released all relevant materials to the case here.
The MSM is twisting this to make it a public opinion issue, and they've done a damn good job at it!
>> Well, as I said, I was trying to pinpoint the dividing line
Understood. Good luck; let me know if you figure it out.
National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) of Florida: “The alleged action of a ‘self-appointed neighborhood watchman’ last month in Sanford, FL significantly contradicts the principles of the Neighborhood Watch Program,” NSA Executive Director Sheriff Aaron D. Kennard, said in the press statement. “NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program.”
When 28-year-old George Zimmerman was discovered by Sanford, Florida police standing over the body of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, they accepted Zimmerman’s claim that he killed in self-defense as a neighborhood watch captain. Now, through a statement released by the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) — the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch — it has been revealed that Zimmerman was not a member of any group recognized by the organization. Zimmerman violated the central tenets of Neighborhood Watch by following Martin, confronting him and carrying a concealed weapon.
“In no program that I have ever heard of does someone patrol with a gun in their pocket,” Carmen Caldwell, the Executive Director of Citizens’ Crime Watch of Miami-Dade, told theGrio. “Every city and municipality has their own policies. Here in Miami-Dade we train people only to be the eyes and ears of their communities. Not to follow and most definitely not to carry a weapon.”
Zimmerman admitted that he had fired a weapon on the night of the incident. In addition, the non-emergency call Zimmerman placed on February 26 before the shooting revealed he had been pursuing Martin by car before accosting the youth on foot — all direct violations of Neighborhood Watch policies. http://www.thegrio.com/specials/trayvon-martin/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization.php?page=1
My fiancée likes to say, “there are three sides to every story: side A, side B, and the truth.”
Trying to find a middle ground is likely impossible. As I’ve said, I’m not defending Zimmerman, but I’m not going to convict him if I’m in the jury. I’ve been in his shoes. I’ve had to fire my gun in self-defense. It’s terrifying. This guy is probably incapable of sleep and constantly rolling over the situation in my head.
I was on an alcohol bender for 4 months after my last incident. The realization that I could’ve died that night is still very fresh in my mind. It gives you a new way to look at life.
Not surprised at Obama mouthing off before all the facts are known.
Remember the beer summit?
But a little surprised at Santorum and Newt failing to keep their mouths shut when it would have been appropriate to do so.
Nobody knows all the facts yet and that’s all they needed to say.
I read you. I’ve been fortunate I guess living unarmed in high crime cities. (Knock on wood.) You’re right, based on the evidence available it would be difficult to convict him, although a grand jury (which doesn’t convict) might see enough reasons to send the case to trial. Bad judgment was involved, we know. Whether ill will was there as well, we don’t know.
livius, the exact thing said to Zimmerman was “you don’t need to follow him.”
It may be nit picking but that is a very different statement from “do not follow him.”
Will no prominent Republican defend an American’s right to shoot a Negro?
You didn’t really dispute any of the facts — you just provided YOUR opinion or conclusion, or ruled them irrelevant.
The question of the “snacks” is quite relevant. It establishes a NORMAL LEGAL reason for Martin to be in the area. In other words, he wasn’t there to commit burglary, he was there because he was returning from the store. He didn’t have burglar tools or dope on him, he had snacks he bought at the store.
The question of Zimmermann getting out of his car is quite relevant. Had he not done so, there COULD NOT have been an altercation.
You also supplied some innuendo-as-fact of your own, as you accuse the MSM of doing. There’s no mention or evidence ANYWHERE of Martin having breached a neighborhood barrier to get to where he was found, as you accuse; maybe the gate was open?
Anyway, I rest my case: I find the simplest explanation that fits the facts to be that Zimmermann, an overzealous neighborhood watch captain, accused an innocent teen of misbehavior, following him in his car and getting out of his car to confront him. The teen, perhaps in outrage at being falsely accused, perhaps in fear, perhaps in self defense, managed to get into a fight with Zimmermann who then shot him. But if Zimmermann had not provoked, or at least confronted him — and Zimmermann had not the authority to do so — Martin would be alive today.
Yes, there are other “possible” explanations (like Zimmermann got out of his car to read a street sign and Martin jumped him) but they’re pretty tough to swallow (i.e. got out to read a street sign in his own neighborhood?)
I can’t be willfully blind to facts and reason in order to support some conclusion that fits my politics and stereotypes. I welcome new facts that point us closer to the truth, but for now I’m sticking with my conclusion.
FRegards
There is also the question of Martin being judged by Zimmerman a “stranger” in that neighbourhood, which is I read 50% black, and where he most certainly had been before, if not before that day, than earlier in the day when he walked to and back from the convenience store. Certainly, the “captain” cannot be there 24/7, but a perceptive observer ought to be able to tell if a stranger is there for the first time or not. Martin seem to know where he was going. I know, living in a mixed race neighbourhood with a lot of pedestrian traffic, including young black men and seeing plenty of character I’d judge to be “suspicious”, but not suspicious enough to call 911, or confront them with my firearm. And there have been burglaries here, and most recently a car theft of a valuable Honda, but those I suspect were committed but characters who knew better than to look suspicious to a kind of overzealous watcher like Mr Zimmerman.
>> Do you remember the early politically correct film with Henry Fonda The Twelve Angry Men?
Didn’t see it. Don’t watch much tube; cuts into my neighborhood watch time.
>> So that’s what motivated me to search for that dividing line, which I now think has nothing to do with the few hard facts of the case, but with something more, something closer to the truth about us all.
Personally, I think the truth is half about which candidate dissed the vigilante... half subtle racial stereotyping... half gun lust, half righteous indignation about how the lowlifes are taking over the country, and half Charles Bronson.
And I’m not leaving myself out either, cause I have about half those issues myself. :-)
>> those I suspect were committed but characters who knew better than to look suspicious to a kind of overzealous watcher like Mr Zimmerman.
I can’t stand Whorealdo Rivera, but I concede he has given us food for thought on the hoodie issue. His point seemed to me to be that a culture modeling its dress after bad-boy heroes is a dead-end road and maybe should be rethought — for more than one reason, as you point out. The innocent become the target and the evil obtain camoflage thereby.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.