Odd and emotional response to a pretty straightforward question based on your own comment "If they had charged GZ with a lesser crime something like reckless endangerment, I would have had no problem with this." One has to wonder why you wrote what appeared to the the first reasonable statement you've made the last few days? Nevertheless... Again, who attacked who wasn't my question. Folks have and will continue to argue that since the only other person who knows for sure was killed that night. And I am not protesting the jury's decision, because I, like the President, have heard the jury's decision. This case is over. But very curious... do you believe that OJ Simpson was guilty of killing Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman? I think he was... which means I think that jury made a mistake. So... juries can make mistakes. Lastly, I have no idea what spurred the comment about civil rights? At what point did I write anything about civil rights? Though I do believe the way many conservatives are continuing to rail against the President's speech, the way many are trying to focus blame on the 17 year kid that was killed, and extend that to the black community will not change the perceptions many have about conservatives.
I am probably not the only person who saw the irony in your post, especially with all the "there isn't a crime against following someone" and "there isn't a crime against pursuing someone". Even more ironic... the right to free speech and the right to free assembly are both two of our most basic and important constitutional rights.
Also he is simply wrong. Yelling in general may not be a crime (could be disturbing the peace), but yelling in people's face constitutes harassment any many cases.
My comments weren't really aimed only to you but to everyone who is emotionally riled up over thie side of a case which has facts against them staring them in the face. The OJ jury got it wrong. I didn't join protests over that one or Casey Anthony or Robert Blake where the facts were also on the Prosecution's side. I just think it's unfair for people to make this case in to something it wasn't which is a race case. If I have you in the wrong camp, sorry. If not, you can get over it too.
I didnt look up the standard for reckless endangerment, was just trying to think of something off the top of my head that would penalize GZ for poor choices but not for defending himself for viloent assault.
Zimmerman deciding to go against his neighborhood watch training in arming himself and going in pursuit was at the very least reckless. That his recklessness led to the confrontation which caused death may make it manslaughter or it may make it someone else. The fact is that he should, at the very least, have his CHL revoked. This incident, in addition to his domestic violence and assault of a cop, show that he lacks the requisite judgment necessary to be licensed to carry a firearm.
I met you halfway... You can't admit that TM handled things poorly that night too. The very worst thing he could have done was to wind up fighting someone he was supposedly in fear of. I know why you won't because that leads directly to proving self defense. But you're not interested in the truth. Some speculate that Jeantel was egging on TM to fight while they were on the phone and that's why she didn't want to talk to the Martins.
You misrepresent the truth. Zimmerman wasn't pursuing, he was keeping eyesight on Martin. Also his recklessness didn't lead to the confrontation. Martin confronted him.
Like all the countless posts accusing Zimmerman of "accosting" or "attacking" Martin? Or being racist? Or even the ones claiming he continued to following after he said he stopped?
When Jeantel goes on TV telling people that bashing someone's head in the ground is Whoop Ass where she and Trayvon come from, it kinda leads to people thinking she thought GZ had an Ass Whoopin coming. That lawyer who is sitting next to Jeantel in thse interviews is a fool for not reigning her in.
I haven't said Zimmerman was a racist. There was some evidence that he initiated a confrontation with Martin. There is evidence he continued to follow Martin after being that wasn't needed. The very place where the conflict happened wouldn't have happened there had he stopped following when he was told. The fact that he was where he was shows he continued. So there is evidence. You can say that evidence doesn't prove those things conclusively but there is at least some evidence of those things.
Had Zimmerman not acted recklessly, he would not have been there to have the confrontation. However, he did it anyway despite his watch training and probably CHL training not to do exactly what he did. If he cannot exercise better judgment, he is a danger to others to allow him to have a CHL. I feel that way and I have had CHL training and own several guns. I am not anti gun. I am not anti CHL. I am anti allowing a real knucklehead like Zimmerman to be armed on the streets.
Her telling people that is proof that she believes it's an ass whooping, not that she told Trayvon to attack him and kick his ass. You can make up whatever stories you want, but that's all it is, is stuff you're making up unless you have some proof that hasn't come out yet.
Sure TM handled things poorly. Nobody is completely blameless. However, I would expect an adult neighborhood watchman who holds a CHL to exercise better judgment than a 17 year old.
