Et tu, WSJ?
Maybe I shouldn’t have, but I expected better from the WSJ editors than this:
Mr. Zimmerman made many mistakes that February evening, not least failing to heed police advice not to pursue Martin.
Earth to WSJ editors: do your homework. There is no evidence that Zimmerman “failed to heed police advice not to pursue Martin”, and some evidence that in fact he stopped pursuit of Martin after the dispatcher told him it wasn’t necessary to follow him. This “following” meme has taken on a life of its own, and it’s time it was put to rest.
—According to the transcript of his 911 call, Zimmerman said “okay” after the dispatcher said he didn’t need to follow him.
—Zimmerman mentions that he had lost sight of Martin (who had started running), and never again indicates he knows where Martin is.
—Zimmerman had been in the car early in the call, and he only gets out of the car after the dispatcher asks him of Martin, “He’s running? Which way is he running?” That’s when he gets out of the car and tries to find the direction Martin is running in order to tell the dispatcher Martin’s probable new location if he can. It is immediately after that that the dispatcher says he doesn’t need to follow him and Zimmerman responds “okay.”
—Zimmerman spends a great deal of time trying to describe his own whereabouts to the dispatcher so that the police can find him when they arrive. Zimmerman indicates that they should go “straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck.” That’s where he is planning to meet them, although he doesn’t know the exact address. When the dispatcher then asks for Zimmerman’s home address, he worries aloud about giving it to them, because he says,”oh, crap, I don’t want to give it out ”“ I don’t know where this kid is (inaudible).”
Sure doesn’t sound like a person who is continuing to follow someone—especially since Zimmerman hasn’t even got a clue where Martin is at that point, and is making arrangements to meet the police, whom he’s hoping will get there very soon. In addition, the fight occurred not far from where the 911 call took place. If it was Zimmerman who was following Martin, why would that have happened? It’s much more likely that Martin doubled back to find Zimmerman, whom he’d gotten a bead on earlier (Zimmerman had described Martin as having stared at him while Zimmerman was in the car making the 911 call).
This is simply no evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin after the dispatcher suggested he didn’t need to do so, and all the evidence indicates that he did not follow him. I understand why the “follow” story might be promulgated by liberals and the left. But what’s going on with the WSJ editors? Have they really paid that little attention to the facts of the case?
Perhaps it’s time for a public apology from the WSJ to Zimmerman, or at the least a very noticeable correction?
Neo, write them. FYI, James Taranto has a twitter he’s active and pretty responsive on.
https://twitter.com/jamestaranto
Eric:
I’m not a Twitter user (not a Tweeter?) and have no idea how to do that. Could you oblige?
Yes, agree, but… he did then start walking in that direction, right? I mean, I think Zimmerman admitted that to the police. And supposedly it was about locating street signs or something, it’s not really clear. It does seem clear that he wasn’t that intent on meeting Martin at that point and Martin likely surprised him. There was a brief exchange, and then the action ensued.
So, the idea that Zimmerman sprinted from his car to track down this kid is a total misrepresentation. But he did, for some reason, leave the area of his vehicle.
Neo- missing out on Twitter! So much fun.
holmes:
He wasn’t right at his vehicle, but everything I’ve read about where the fight occurred indicates it was not far from Zimmerman’s car at all.
Diagram here.
This there a little known federal regulation or local ordinance in Sanford that prohibits a person from getting out of their car and walking down the sidewalk? Shame on WSJ editorial board for this latest tidbit of misinformation.
The only person responsible for the fate of TM is TM. Don’t want to get shot? Don’t attack anyone. It would be a far more peaceful society if criminals and thugs had to assume that almost everyone they encounter is armed.
Neo,
Sorry! Neither am I. But I’m sure there are more traditional (conventional?) ways to contact the WSJ editors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_2NeMrGCvg
Try this video for George’s walk through with the police.
It doesn’t appear that Zimmerman ever pursued or followed Martin on foot. It appears he only left his car after he lost track of him and sort of floundered around trying to pick up a clue of the direction of escape to tell the police when they arrived.
There is an interesting set of maps of the Zimmerman/Martin movements here:
http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back
Not sure the author has it exactly right, but seeing the map gives a better idea of what went down. Or how it might have gone.
It appears that Martin may have actually gotten very close to his father’s home, but for some reason doubled back to check out Zimmerman’s intentions. Zimmerman may have been walking back to his truck when he may or may not have seen Martin approaching him from the left. Martin asked him (paraphrasing here) why he was following him. Zimmerman denied following him or some such declaration while simultaneously reaching for his cell phone. Martin then hit Zimmerman and knocked him down. With Zimmerman on the ground Martin jumped on him and began pummeling him causing his head to contact the concrete sidewalk. The neighbor hears Zimmerman’s screams for help and looks out. He then goes to call 9/11. Another neighbor is also on the phone calling 9/11. That’s the call where the cries for help can be heard.
At some point Zimmerman goes for his gun and is able to shoot Martin.
Don’t know if that is how it occurred, but the evidence certainly points that way.
But there is more evidence than what you posted above, Neo. We have Jeantel’s testimony that she spent minutes on the phone talking with Martin about a guy who was following him, followed by a question: “Why are you following me?” and Zimmerman’s response, with heavy breathing, “What are you doing around here?”
The fact that he says “okay” to the dispatcher doesn’t mean he followed the instruction.
Zimmerman telling the dispatcher to meet him at his truck could simply mean he intended to return to his truck eventually. It’s a fixed point, and he knew he would want to go back there, a known location. Whether he intended to follow Martin or not, he couldn’t very well tell the cop to meet him somewhere random if he didn’t know where Martin was going.
It’s indisputable that the altercation happened away from his truck, and Zimmerman had been slowly following Martin in the truck, as well, before he left it.
Mitsu:
Jeantel’s testimony is irrelevant, not just because her veracity and recall of the conversation is suspect (she did not come forward until quite a bit of time had passed, and Martin’s parents located her, plus her story changed over time, and she was lying about certain facts such as why she didn’t attend the funeral). But taking her testimony at face value and assuming it is true, it is also irrelevant as to where that confrontation occurred (she had no way of knowing), as well as when Zimmerman had been “following” Martin and when he stopped doing so. Zimmerman had been following Martin earlier, in the car, and Zimmerman says on the 911 tape that Martin saw him doing so and stared at him. Even Jeantel says that the “following” guy seemed to have disappeared and then resurfaced, and so when (and if) Martin actually asked Zimmerman why he was following him on seeing him again, Martin could have been referring back to that earlier time when Zimmerman had in fact been following him (as Zimmerman agrees on the 911 tape, before it was suggested he not follow him, and before he got out of the car).
The fight occurred near the car, not at the car. Martin was going away from the car (and could easily have gotten home, but did not). Instead he doubled back and confronted Zimmerman near Zimmerman’s car, not at Zimmerman’s car—much nearer the original site of the car than where Martin had run off to in the interim.
You can continue to believe and defend whatever your imagination conjures up. But the evidence shows otherwise.
sharpie,
Thanks for the youtube link. Seeing the area with the drive and walk-through helps.
It is clear that Obama, Holder and the left are intent on whipping up race riots and murders of white people for the 2014 elections and to cover up their countless scandals. Why doesn’t the Republican House assemble on the capitol steps and demand that the president and Holder stop fomenting race hatred and riots.
Oh that’s right the GOP is the stupid party and the party of cowards. When white people are murdered for Trayvon the GOP will be just as responsible as they will have done nothing.
Neo,
My main point is not that Trayvon accudes Zimmerman of following him, but simply that the exchange occurred (obviously, if Jeantel’s testimony is to be believed — whether you believe it or not, however, it is evidence.) If Trayvon had “jumped” Zimmerman completely unprovoked, as the defense claimed, this interchange would not have occurred. At some point, Martin and Zimmerman would have to have been together, outside, away from the car (and the altercation wasn’t right next to the car, it was several houses away from the car), and Trayvon started with a question, “Why are you following me?” And Zimmerman responds with a question. Obviously all this happened *after* Zimmerman had hung up with the dispatcher, because Zimmerman had never mentioned talking with Trayvon Martin already. Therefore after Zimmerman hung up, some time passed and if the testimony is true, he crossed paths with Trayvon Martin.
This is at least highly suggestive evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the dispatcher told him not to. At the very least, saying there is “no evidence” that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin is not accurate. There is evidence. It may not be absolutely conclusive, but given what we know about Zimmerman (his obsessiveness, his paranoia, his incessant calls to 911, his violent past), it’s hardly implausible to think he blew off the dispatcher’s instruction and continued to follow Martin, given this testimony and the location of the fight.
If Jeantel’s testimony is true, it means that Trayvon first asked Zimmerman why he was following him, and Zimmerman replied with a question “What are you doing around here?” This doesn’t jibe with Zimmerman’s story that Trayvon
Sorry, editing glitch. The last paragraph I meant to rewrite.
When I say Jeantel’s testimony is evidence I just mean it is data. We have a lot of information about that night, but nothing conclusive. Given everything we know, I find the conclusion that Zimmerman acted totally responsibly and didn’t do anything reckless, didn’t continue to follow Martin, etc., and didn’t contribute to this tragedy rather implausible. You have a different view. I don’t think your conclusion is that plausible, though I admit it is possible.
Mitsu: “Zimmerman’s response, with heavy breathing, “What are you doing around here?””
Is *that* the hot-headed belligerent action by Zimmerman you believe provoked Martin? I guess if you set the bar low enough so that merely exiting his vehicle qualified as provocation, then those would qualify as fighting words.
Anyway, the video and images helped a lot in setting the scene.
The layout of the houses at the location are such that the lines of sight are limited – corners. And to see around the corner, he couldn’t drive up to it. Plus visibility was decreasing.
The key at the point that Zimmerman left his vehicle to go on foot is he had lost sight of Martin. So, Zimmerman was not pursuing or following Martin. He’d lost him.
By his account, he was preoccupied with answering non-emergency’s questions about the direction Martin had gone and getting an address, which were both info requests from his call.
Zimmerman stayed on the walkway, got his look around the corner and got his address. He was walking back to his vehicle on the same walkway when Martin surprised him and attacked.
Again, there was no following or pursuit by Zimmerman. Martin came back and initiated the contact.
Mitsu,
Why do you insist on repeating the lie that Zim was “instructed” to return to his car?
Hopefully, Angela Corey will be discliplined by the Florida Bar for perpetrating that lie, which of course has taken on such a life of its own, it has become the “truth” for the Lefts’ legions of useful idiots.
Furthermore, who gives a flying rats a$$ if he WAS “instructed” by the dispatcher to return to his truck. Cite to me any law that says he committed so much as a misdemeanor by failing to obey an alleged “instruction.”
I can follow whoever the hell I want, wherever I want, as long as I am not trespassing. I can give some kid the “skunk eye” all the hell I want, if I so desire. If he decides to then physically attack me because I have somehow impugned his sense of sacred honor, and if I percieve my life to be in danger – which is entirely reasonable if he is straddling me and doing a “ground and pound” (eyewitness description) on my head, MMA Style, I have the right (in Florida) to use deadly force in self defense.
That is all this case was about. Nothing else. Not Jeantel’s creepy ass crackers, not whether Zim was a racist or not, not whether Tray had a large or small bag of skittles, not whether he had been previously booted out of high school in Miami just a few weeks earlier for being trouble with a capital T — NONE of that matters.
The takeaway for the Propaganda machine churning out thought control and talking points for its legion of useful idiots is “it’s open season on black youths!!!” OMG! We need….um….we need….umm….MORE GUN CONTROL!!! . Yeah, that’s the ticket. Riiigght.
A more helpful takeaway is this handy tip for kids, as follows: Hey kids, if some pudgy looking dude follows you and says “what you doing?” just say “I ain’t doin nothin,” and keep on going — and don’t go all MMA on his cracker ass, because he just might have a f–king gun. Especially in someplace like my home state of Florida, or Texas. Now, on the other hand, if you are in one of those “gun free” zone safe places like NYC – then go for it! Pound away, I say! Bottom line, kids – know your geography!
My opinion about WSJ is the opinion page including the editorial writers have lost their senses not only concerning Zimmerman case but also Immigration/Amnesty bill where they want open borders. Big corporations are sucking the illegal immigrants’ blood for cheap labor. I just cancelled the WSJ as I am disgusted with their open border policy.
Mitsu:
I wonder if you are unaware of how many facts you ignore.
I have already offered you links about how incorrect you are about Zimmerman’s supposedly “violent” past (see also this). You have no reason to call his phoning 911 obsessive, unless you can offer a comparison to other neighborhood watch people in his neighborhood and how many 911 calls they make per hour (or day, or week, or month, or whatever the mode of comparison would be) compared to the number Zimmerman made in the same stretch of time. He does not sound the least bit paranoid to me under the circumstances. There have been many unsolved breakins in the neighborhood. Martin was acting suspicious (wandering around in the rain looking at houses). You have no idea why Martin was doing this, although in retrospect his behavior may have been completely innocuous. You ignore the fact that Martin must have doubled back to the general vicinity of where he had last seen Zimmerman, not the other way around. You ignore the fact that Jeantel’s story had changed, plus how late she told it and the circumstances under which she told it (interview with Martin’s family present).
You write “If Trayvon had ‘jumped’ Zimmerman completely unprovoked, as the defense claimed, this interchange [Martin’s reported question, Zimmerman’s reported answer] would not have occurred.” Why not? What’s one got to do with the other? Where is the provocation for a beating? Why do you assume that, if the question and the answer had occurred as reported, that it could not have been followed by Martin punching Zimmerman unprovoked? Or do you consider that following someone for a little while (at a distance) as Zimmerman had done, then disappearing for a while as Zimmerman did, and then appearing again not too far from where you started out as Zimmerman did (while the other person had moved around quite a bit, coming back in Zimmerman’s direction), and then responding to a question as Jeantel reported Zimmerman had, some sort of provocation to have your nose broken, to be straddled, and to have your head pounded into the concrete?
Really? How extraordinary.
You also seem to ignore the link I provided in an earlier comment, where it goes into Jeantel’s changes in what she said that exchange between Zimmerman and Martin was. Here, I’ll make your task easier by giving you one relevant quote from the article:
Note not only that Jeantel had changed her testimony in an important matter, but that her earlier report of what Zimmerman had said was very consistent with the fact that Zimmerman had not been following Martin at that point. “What are you talking about?” has a very very different tone and meaning, and indicates he doesn’t know why Martin might be accusing him of following him at that time.
I’m not at all sure Jeantel was able to remember the conversation with any exatitude at all. Remember, she was not interviewed right away, and she changed her story in important ways between her interview (under non-objective circumstances, highly unusual) and the time she actually testified. She changed it in the direction of making Zimmerman sound somewhat more confrontational.
“his obsessiveness, his paranoia, his incessant calls to 911, his violent past”
Yeah, Neo, I see what you mean about Mitsu.
Mitsu needs those as foundational building blocks to his position, so he’s going to hold onto them no matter what. When they’re knocked out, he just hugs onto them tighter and doubles down on the language.
William Saletan, who watched hours of closing arguments, concluded he had been wrong about many things regarding this case: he realized that he had believed many negative things about Zimmerman which turned out not to be the case. However, even after watching the entirety of the closing arguments and carefully poring over the case, he concludes the same as I have:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html
“If Zimmerman’s phobic misreading of Martin was the first wrong turn that led to their fatal struggle, Martin’s phobic misreading of Zimmerman may have been the second.”
Some of your response to my post is countering an argument I have not made. I am not arguing that Zimmerman was guilty, or that his provocation of Martin justified Martin jumping him (if that’s what happened — though I am persuaded it is more likely than not that this is indeed what happened). I am simply arguing that Zimmerman shares the blame for the incident, even if this blame does not rise to a criminal violation under Florida law.
As for Zimmerman’s violent past: you didn’t mention that he had been placed under a restraining order for domestic violence, nor that he had been charged with two felonies for shoving a police officer (later reduced to a misdemeanor). As for his obsessiveness — you can judge for yourself, here’s a complete list of his 46 calls.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/22/george-zimmerman-s-history-of-911-calls-a-complete-log.html
The list sure appears obsessive to me.
What I am saying is that the defense’s claim is that Trayvon jumped Zimmerman “from the bushes” does not jibe with the interchange that Jeantel reported. What Zimmerman claimed Trayvon said is different. If Trayvon had been hiding in the bushes ready to pounce on Zimmerman, wouldn’t he have mentioned this to Jeantel? Etc. That whole story just strikes me as laughable, quite frankly.
I think it’s reasonable to think Trayvon jumped Zimmerman, but not that he did so out of hiding from the bushes while Zimmerman was on his way back to the car after complying with the dispatcher’s request that he not follow Martin.
In the end I agree with this quote from Saletan’s piece:
“Zimmerman’s lawyers have teamed up with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, inadvertently, to promote the false message that Zimmerman’s acquittal means our society thinks everything he did was OK.
It wasn’t OK. It was stupid and dangerous. It led to the unnecessary death of an innocent young man. It happened because two people–their minds clouded by stereotypes that went well beyond race–assumed the worst about one another and acted in haste.”
Obama told everyone to bring a gun. They did. It’s his fault, of course.
The Japanese say that in 3 days, a boy can change enough not to be recognized.
Ever since 2008, Mitsu hasn’t changed a bit. What does that say?
Eric, 5:36 pm — “Mitsu needs those as foundational building blocks to his position, so he’s going to hold onto them no matter what.”
A bitter clinger, is he?
Mitsu:
I am officially finished arguing with you on this topic, although I suppose I could waste more time countering every last thing you have said in your last comment.
Suffice to say you are ignoring my points and raising irrelevancies once again. I could not care less what Saletan thinks; the argument from authority holds no weight with me. However, I did read the bulk of his article earlier today, before you linked it, and I was struck by the fact that he ignores the same evidence the WSJ ignores and therefore makes the same error. He is a sloppy thinker, as evidenced by his own admission that he swallowed the MSM story at the outset (and for quite a long while) hook, line, and sinker. He’s a useful idiot, and just because he learned a few things along the way when he finally decided to do a little research does not excuse him.
It is you whose mind is “clouded”—with stereotypes, with illogic, with stuck thinking. Unlike the opinion many people here hold about you, I don’t think you are insincere in what you think and in what you express in your posts here. But unfortunately you ignore what you don’t want to face, in order to keep yourself from having to change too many of your deeply-held suppositions.
A mind is a difficult thing to change. I can’t quite imagine that there’s anything that would cause you to change yours. I say that much more in sorrow than in anger.
Mitsu,
Again, it makes me sad that you would assign the agency of a wild aggressive animal to Martin rather than grant him the dignity in death of the standard of a civilized human being.
Saletan is better than the propagandist exploiters. But the same thought goes to him, who, by the way, relies on an error to draw his conclusion. He overlooks that Zimmerman lost sight of Martin while still in his vehicle and therefore was not following or in pursuit while on foot. Martin initiated the ultimate contact.
Saletan also undervalues the indicators, both common sense and legally accepted, that made Martin suspicious to Zimmerman.
(Tip: Mitsu, if you’re really a NYer, while trusting NYPD is fine, I advise that you not undervalue both kinds of indicators in your real life, even if you don’t admit them to your friends. NYPD, like Sanford PD, isn’t everywhere and has a response time. And I know from my professional real life that crime still happens in NYC.)
I’ve said before, I served with people who were like Martin when they were young who used the Army as their ladder to climb out of the mess of their youth toward a constructive manhood.
For their sake, I will grant Martin a floor of respect as a man that you deny him, and I’ll hold Martin accountable as a civilized human being rather than an animal.
Mitsu,
I live in an area of Los Angeles where our city officials have used our tax dollars to move people in that do not share our values or morals. I can’t help but notice that so many people that are responsible for this fact or in favor of it, live in gated communities and far less “diverse” neighborhoods.
Unfortunately calling the police about a break-in is not going to result in a timely response from our police. In one case I’m personally aware of, a neighbor reported to the police that she was watching someone walk down the street with a suitcase, having come from her neighbor’s home. No arrest, too bad for my friend.
I have 2 sons. Are we allowed to pay attention to who is in our neighborhood, around ours and our neighbors’ homes? Or is that strictly the authority of the state now?
Two years ago Bryan Stow was exiting a Dodger game and was knocked to the ground and suffered life-altering brain damage and disability. No one has been found guilty of that crime.
What if Zimmerman hadn’t called the police, but had questioned Martin and then things transpired but instead, like Stow, the knock to the ground results in disability or death? And then Martin runs, and nobody knows anything. And now there is an assault or murder and the perpetrator is free.
When I see Zimmerman, I can only feel concern for my sons, should they ever be so unfortunate as to have to stand up to a perceived threat and the potential escalation resulting in Monday-morning quarterbacking. I guess, in our culture we can likely expect to see the results of the quote, “All that you need for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Mitsu:
I said I was finished engaging you on this topic, but going back for a quick look at Saletan’s piece I am struck even more by his illogic than I was on my first reading of it (not to mention his irresponsibility as a journalist—at this late date, he’s only just learning some of the most basic facts of the case). So this is more about Saletan than about you.
These parts struck me in Saletan’s article:
But Zimmerman never says that, only that Martin was acting suspiciously (and Z goes on to describe what Martin was doing to cause suspicion). Martin’s behavior seemed indeed suspicious. It is a logical fallacy to think that Martin had to actually have been intent on a burglary that night to have justified Zimmerman’s suspicion of his behavior. Neither neighborhood watch nor police can have a 100% correct track record of whom they have suspicions about in order to justify themselves (plus, although it’s not relevant to what Martin was actually doing that night while wandering around, there is indeed strong evidence that in the past Martin had committed a burglary—see this for the evidence).
Saletan continues:
I’ve already covered—in rather exhaustive detail, I might add—why there is virtually no evidence to conclude that and plenty of evidence to conclude that it is untrue.
More Saletan:
There was nothing either stupid or dangerous, or acting “in haste,” about Zimmerman that night when he was calling 911 or when he was supposedly “following” Martin. He acted on reasonable suspicions, and he acted properly. He was doing exactly what he was supposed to do.
And I’ve already discussed the faulty reasoning of the chain of events argument that Saletan ends up making. Just because an act is part of a chain of events that led to a certain ending does not mean that act is in the least responsible for that ending. Martin’s death occurred because Martin decided to beat Zimmerman up and would not stop and left him no opportunity for exit, causing Zimmerman to fear for his life. Zimmerman also testified that Martin saw his gun a moment beforehand, which had been exposed by Zimmerman’s movements during the beating, and that Martin had just threatened to kill Zimmerman. That’s what Zimmerman was reacting to; until that moment he had endured the beating and not reached for his gun. But it’s not even necessary to believe that part of Zimmerman’s testimony (although I find it credible) in order to see that Zimmerman had real reason to fear for his life anyway, or to fear that he would be sustaining grave bodily harm, if he did not protect himself by shooting Martin. There was no other out for him, and that’s because of Martin’s decisions and Martin’s actions.
As my dad once told me many years ago, “Son, don’t get into an argument with a fencepost.”
You can always tell a liberal, you just can’t tell him much. Like other major religions, liberalism has all the answers and makes you feel secure.
Thank you, Neo. That point has stuck in my craw for a while and you’re the first I’ve seen that took issue with it. Seems everyone has accepted that part of the narrative as fact, but I, too, was disappointed when I read it in the WSJ.
A little housekeeping: Zimmerman didn’t call 911 that night. He called the non-emergency line (according to his interview with Serino)
Here is an example of someone who would have done well to disregard the dispatch operator’s advice:
Denver 911 Apologizes for Deadly Instructions
http://abcnews.go.com/US/911-operators-instructions-return-crime-scene-turn-deadly/storynew?id=16064447#.UeXQlm3y3To
parker,
Those fenceposts can pen us all in if we let them.
As Neo has repeated while dragging her weary self back to Mitsu, it’s not about convincing him. This discussion is about all of us. Our country is at a crossroads. We’re at a point in our history where our steps can lead us in radically different directions.
As southernjames, SharonW, and Neo have pointed out in this thread – as I and others have said in previous posts in her Zimmerman series – criminalizing and censuring Zimmerman and his actions holds repercussions for an entire way of life for Americans, particularly working class and middle class (and working middle class) Americans – rural, urban, and suburban.
Identify the fundamental social-cultural norms and values and laws that are now threatened by the activists against Zimmerman, from media and pop culture, up through our highest offices in government.
Right is being made wrong.
If the contest of dueling narratives is lost at the outset, that could be it for the whole thing.
Add: To be more precise about it, We are George Zimmerman. If he goes down, we’re next.
Neo,
You keep coming back to the proximate cause issue, which I (and Saletan) already admitted; i.e., I agree with you that the evidence, as far as I’ve seen it, looks to me to weigh more in favor of the theory that it was Martin who was on top, not Zimmerman, and that Martin initiated the attack.
However, you haven’t acknowledged the possibility that Martin himself may have felt threatened by what appeared to him to be Zimmerman’s threatening behavior. Again, imagine the situation reversed in racial terms: suppose you’re a white teenager coming back from buying a pack of Skittles from a convenience store, walking through a housing complex where you were legally staying, and some black guy is following you in a truck, slowly, and then he gets out of the truck? What would you do? Do you think Martin might have felt he was defending himself against a potential threat?
Most of your remarks are simply assuming Martin had no reason whatsoever to attack Zimmerman, but it’s not clear at all to me why you’re so willing to believe Zimmerman’s justifications for being afraid of Martin but not to see things from the other point of view.
I haven’t ignored any of the points you’ve made, I simply don’t find them, as a whole, convincing. Yes, perhaps Jeantel’s testimony is unreliable. But perhaps she misspoke earlier on and later remembered it more correctly.
You keep raising the 100% correct track record, and yet make no mention of the 46 calls to 911. If you can read the 46 call record and conclude Zimmerman was a completely run of the mill, ordinary, responsible and level-headed member of a neighborhood watch, I have to say I think your judgement of that is at variance with most people’s. Even the juror most sympathetic to Zimmerman agreed that he shared the blame. So do I, so does Saletan and so do many others. I feel you are reading the evidence in the most favorable light to your hypothesis. But whatever, we’ll just disagree here I suppose.
Mitsu is George Zimmerman, too. He just doesn’t know it and wouldn’t until it’s too late.
@Mitsu-
“You keep raising the 100% correct track record, and yet make no mention of the 46 calls to 911. If you can read the 46 call record and conclude Zimmerman was a completely run of the mill, ordinary, responsible and level-headed member of a neighborhood watch, I have to say I think your judgement of that is at variance with most people’s”
If he were not a member of the neighborhood watch, I might concede your point. However, as a member of said watch, in a neighborhood known to have home invasions, I don’t think 46 calls is unreasonable.
Who else is he supposed to call?
Would you rather he not and take the law into his own hands?
No. Of course not. He was supposed to stay in the car and keep his head down like a good subject.
I, frankly, without knowing a number, would have expected more phone calls from a member of the neighborhood watch.
Mitsu’s comments reveal the true nature of the issue here:
It isn’t about race. Never has been. That is just the method of delivery.
It is about Authority.
“He should never have exited his vehicle. Good sheep don’t do that. George Zimmerman had the nerve, the unmitigated gall to think he could act as a protector of his neighborhood, if the police couldn’t. And now, an innocent is murdered.
Shame on him.”
This is the real meat of it.
It’s very important for the Left to get something from the trial which is supported by the facts. Mitsu tries and fails not merely because the facts are misrepresented but the inferences from the facts eg., the 46 phone calls represent an overzealous wannabe cop, are false as well.
With Hillary and every Obama voter, the issue isn’t truth but social justice. Just like the “spitting” incident which Breitbart debunked, the false Zimmerman narrative is slander for the purpose of evil.
Our elected gov’t now refuses to accept the validity of what they demanded and got: a more than fair trial. And there can be no true equivocating that the whole process is corrupt: It is the Left and Obama and the DOJ and the race hustlers who are corrupt. Zimmerman isn’t corrupt. He hasn’t the slightest thing to apologize for. He had a right to be a watch captain. He had a right to carry a concealed gun. He had a right to self defense.
His defense attorney’s are not corrupt. And I suppose there are a whole of people who condemn Zimmerman who are not corrupt. They just lack the correct knowledge and as God once said, “My people perish for lack of knowledge.”
Many are corrupt and Mitsu is one of them. He just has to have something and slandering Zimmerman and petulantly targeting him remains above recognition of the media’s horrendous abuse of power and the equally corrupt power of Obama and his DOJ.
To destroy a man’s reputation is the same as killing him. Al Sharpton and Obama and Mitsu share a killer’s appetite for destruction. They never create, only destroy.
“Mitsu needs those as foundational building blocks to his position, so he’s going to hold onto them no matter what.” MJR
This gets to the heart of Mitsu’s intransigent refusal to allow mere fact to modify his position. There is however a larger context. The Zimmerman ‘following’ meme continues because it is necessary to the left’s social narrative.
If Zimmerman stopped following Martin or never really did, then the entire case against Zimmerman is greatly weakened but more importantly, the usefulness of the Zimmerman case to the left’s social narrative of black persecution is lost.
And that is what this case is really all about, the continued manipulation of blacks, indoctrinating them into the meme; that they are a persecuted minority, in an essentially irredeemable system of racist white privilege.
And the race hustler’s have taken it to the point where nothing will now satisfy young black rage but violent retribution aginst randomly chosen whites, as they accept the meme that all whites are racist, which excuses their black racism* as more and more young blacks are seeking revenge against whites for imagined wrongs; “Jeantel: “The Jury, They Old. That’s Old School People. We In A New School, Our Generation” [my emphasis]
And that generation is actively attacking whites;
Georgia man beaten unconscious by 4 young black men, left to die on the highway, run over by a passing car.
Two Jacksonville, FL white teenagers with Free Zimmerman bumper sticker, murdered in parking lot by multiple black perpetrators.
Violent ”flash mobs,” of large bands of black teens that attack mostly white victims and white businesses, resulting in injuries have been reported over the past year in Boston, Philadelphia, South Orange, N.J., and Brooklyn.
Then, we now have the “knockout game” which involves “unprovoked attacks on innocent bystanders,” in which a group of black males, one of whom strikes the randomly chosen victim as hard as they can in the face, attempting to knock them out with one punch. The victims are typically not robbed, but simply punched with no provocation. Such attacks have been reported in Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Jersey.
“The knockout game has claimed at least one life so far. In St. Louis this year, 72-year old Hoang Nguyen was walking with his wife, Yen, when four “young people” attacked. The attacker pushed the old man’s face to the side to make a “clear target for his fist,” recalled his wife. Nguyen was punched so hard that he fell to the ground and struck his head. Then the attacker turned on Nguyen’s 59-year-old wife, punching her so hard that she suffered a broken eye socket. She could only watch as her husband was then kicked repeatedly. Hoang succumbed to his injuries later that day. A young black male, 18-year-old Elex Murphy, is charged with first-degree murder.”
* According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 31 percent of blacks recognize that the majority of blacks are racist.
“Defending himself against a potential threat.” Where was the “potential threat?” If Trayvon Martin assumed Zimmerman was a threat, why didn’t he call 911? Better yet, why didn’t he go straight to his father’s girlfriend’s house? Was that belief one of a gangbanger’s?
Assume race reversal. A 17 year old white kid is taking a circuitous route to where he’s going, runs from a black neighborhood watch volunteer, and decides he’s had enough and starts beating the crap out of him. He gets killed. And? Is the volunteer a racist because he believed he was protecting his neighborhood? Nope. A good citizen in a bad situation with sad consequences.
Zimmerman didn’t make the choice to confront and assault, Trayvon did, and regrettably, he paid for that choice with his life.
Mitsu:
Oh, you keep enticing me back in with your astounding denseness, or apparent denseness.
Let me attempt to be very direct: I don’t give a rat’s ass about what Trayvon perceived Zimmerman to be doing, if that perception was not reasonable under the circumstances, or (far more importantly) if the actions Trayvon took in response to those perceptions were unreasonable and just plain wrong in the moral and legal sense.
If Trayvon were still alive and able to function, and for some reason I were acting in the role of counselor or advisor to him, I would give a rat’s ass what he perceived, reasonable or not. I would try to get him to understand why his perception might be incorrect, or failing that to think of some alternative actions that might be more protective of himself and not have a tendency to provoke more problems. But that is a completely different issue, and not the one we’re dealing with here. Therapists, friends, ministers, counselors, teachers, all of them can decide to try to understand someone’s reasons for (erroneously) perceiving something—whether it be, for example, that Zimmerman was a homosexual rapist, or that he was out to attack him, or that he was a space alien come to implant a radio receiver in his brain. Some of those possibilities would be less likely than others (the last one the most unlikely of all, but the homosexual rapist isn’t far behind, since that is not their usual m.o.).
Zimmerman was not afraid of Martin. He was doing a job as part of a neighborhood watch, considering Martin’s suspicious behavior to be suspicious. Nor did he attack him in any way (that’s the importance of the “action” part—you seem to have trouble distinguishing between that and a perception, and why it’s the action that is most important).
As a white woman who has lived a long time and in many cities, and been in potentially dangerous situations since I was quite young and used to ride the NY subways by myself, sometimes in the early evening (starting at about the age of twelve, and near Times Square, not a great neighborhood in those days to say the least), I have no trouble figuring out what I would do.
If I had a cell phone, I’d call the police (when I was younger of course there were no cell phones) or call my family and tell them what was happening. Or if I was near home (as Martin was, although he of course had a cell phone) I would try to lose the person by maybe taking an unexpected turn to where there were more people, or I would hurry home as quickly as possible if I was near enough. Or, I would ring a doorbell of someone I knew, if I knew someone (I did that once; not sure that option was open to Trayvon). I would try to walk purposefully and look as though I had a very distinct destination in mind. Under no circumstances whatsoever would I turn back to confront the person, which is what virtually all the evidence (including the place where the altercation occurred) indicates that Martin did.
I have already discussed in great detail the stupidity of Saletan’s reasoning process, and why appeals to his authority have no clout. I have also responded at some length to your bringing up the number of calls, and why that is meaningless unless you have other neighborhood watch call data to compare it to. You have ignored my responses on these matters and act as though I didn’t respond at all.
And no one remembers a conversation more accurately as time goes on. That is preposterous. Jeantel suddenly “remembered” better only while on the witness stand? Absolutely absurd.
Mitsu harps on the number of calls to the cops but never bothers to find our over how many years as a member of the neighborhood watch those 46 calls to the cops occurred. The desperate need to place blame upon the white hispanic is pathetic. The concept that words justify violence is odious
“Mitsu is George Zimmerman, too. He just doesn’t know it and wouldn’t until it’s too late.”
Hammer meets nail.
brinster Says:
July 16th, 2013 at 8:40 pm
That’s exactly correct. If Trayvon Martin had been an adult neighborhood watch volunteer and George Zimmerman the 17-year-old hothead, pretty much all of us here would side with the black guy who is a responsible, upstanding citizen.
rickl, an a**hole is an a**hole, no matter what his/her skin color is.
Last comment for the night: You get coldcocked, knocked down and your head is being bashed into a concrete sidewalk; you yell for help and none arrives. You possess a firearm. What do you do?
I wonder why Mitsu didn’t call upon the gods of justice and truth before he became an Obamacan and disciple of the one True God, Obama.
Why didn’t he call?
Geoffrey Britain: “And that is what this case is really all about, the continued manipulation of blacks, indoctrinating them into the meme;”
There’s more at stake than that.
Eric, could you be more specific? I’m referring to the specific goals of racist agitation that the left is engaged in…
These facts are quite easy to ascertain: Zimmerman became a member of the neighborhood watch in September 2011, long after most of his eccentric calls to 911 were made. How many times have YOU called 911? To say that his 911 behavior wasn’t odd is to stretch credulity.
Of course you’re right that Trayvon Martin, if he did initiate the fight, was acting badly. Unlike you, however, I am not trying to paint a picture wherein one party is wholly blameless and the other is entirely at fault.
I feel your reading of the evidence is essentially: is there any evidence that proves conclusively that Zimmerman acted with poor judgement? I agree that the evidence is not conclusive. Unlike you, I think the totality of the evidence suggests Zimmerman did act in at least a somewhat imprudent manner. That’s not a certainty, just a judgement.
Mitsu,
During a recent week, July 4th I think, 40 young black men were shot in Obama’s home town. 12 of them died.
Pop quiz: Can you, without recourse to the internet tel me the name of one of those victims or anything about any of their shooters.
If you say you can you are lying.
And yet you obsess over Trayvon Martin. Why the difference?
Don’t tell me, I already know. It’s because you don’t really give a damn about any of them, even Trayvon, unless you can use them to support your racist agenda. All of the peeps in the Chicago shootings were black and so their victims, many probably as or more innocent than the thuggish Trayvon, are of no use in your despicable
Geoffrey Britain,
It’s all there with Zimmerman.
From beginning to end, think of every law involved or just related – self defense, stand your ground/castle, concealed carry. Private handgun ownership. I’m probably missing a few. Whatever law covers neighborhood watch.
But there’s more. Mitsu explains: “I think the totality of the evidence suggests Zimmerman did act in at least a somewhat imprudent manner.”
From the known accounts and evidence, Zimmerman’s actions from beginning to end were prudent and proper.
Yet people like Mitsu want to criminalize and/or censure Zimmerman’s judgements and actions beginning from the moment that Martin caught Zimmerman’s attention and set off warning bells for Zimmerman.
Think of every law that underwrote each action taken by Zimmerman and every social norm and value that animated Zimmerman to act for the sake of his community.
All of it is at stake.
And destructive crusade. If you think that the relationship between the races is deteriorating and want to know the cause all you need to do is look in the mirror.
For all of your preening and sanctimony the true racist in this conversation is you.
Waiting to see you standing in a line in a demo for justice for any of the hundreds of black kids being killed by other black kids, but they are just “bumps in the road aren’t they.
Hypocritical progressive shill.
Add: Race is the political mechanism, but as an issue, it’s a red herring. It’s about the working middle class.
George Zimmerman is America’s middle class. That’s what they’re attacking through him. We are all George Zimmerman.
The local librag, while asking us all to just move on, tosses out the assertion the GZ “confronted” TM, as if it is the received truth. Why do they bother to write reasonable – sounding editorials, and then salt them with falsehoods that just perpetuate the anger they claim to want to put to bed?
The obvious answer is that while they want to appear to be smoothing things out, they also want to ensure that the fire does not go out, and the nasty brew the they call “news” keeps simmering so it can be sold afresh tomorrow.
This is despicable sophistry of the highest order.
I’m sorry, big knobby fingers, little bitty touch screen…
I’ll try to type my comment again.
To Mitsu,
During one week recently, I think the 4th of July, 40 young black men were shot in Mr. Obama’s adopted home town and 12 of them died.
Pop Quiz! Can you, without referring to the internet, tell me the name of any of them or anything about the circumstances of the crimes? If you say you can you are lying, but then that’s the “progressive” way. And yet you obsess over Trayvon Martin. Why the difference?
Never mind, I already know. The truth is you don’t give a damn about dead kids of any color, including Trayvon, if you can’t use their death to push your despicable and racist social agenda.
For all your progressive sanctimony, to ghouls like you dead kids are only “bumps in the road” if they can’t be exploited to foster your despicable and destructive crusade. (you’ve seen the rest)
Vote for Obama everyone. Every vote for Obama, a black kid and his kitten is killed. Do it. Now.
or Else Sharpton and Jackson may come to your door soon.
“I agree that the evidence is not conclusive. Unlike you, I think the totality of the evidence suggests Zimmerman did act in at least a somewhat imprudent manner.”
So a somewhat imprudent manner automatically triggers an assault? Broken nose and multiple head injuries and possibly death are the price we all can expect to pay if we behave in a manner that is perceived as somewhat imprudent by some young white, black, asian, or white hispanic thug?
“That’s not a certainty, just a judgement.”
Obviously its not a certainty, but its not just a judgement either. Its grasping at straws to keep the agenda alive. We all reap what you and your ilk sow. TM is a victim of your ideology. He thought he was immune from the consequences of his actions.
Eric,
You correctly identify the larger context. My focus for this post was more narrowly defined. In retrospect, your points are not only relevant but essential to a deeper understanding of the reality we face.
If someone like GZ has just been on the phone with 911, do we think he’s in the frame of mind to commit a violent crime on the suspect that he had just called the police about?
If the police were already on their way there then I am sure that GZ felt justified in baiting that poor kid into a confrontation. Yeah right…. cmon people give it a rest.
I should have come to read you sooner on this subject Neo! I’ve been traipsing through FB postings that are making me insane — of course, most of the “friends” on there, real and not so real, are left wing. Thankfully not all and a few people who have unknown political proclivities are on there too, and are more moderate or logical in their thinking on this. But, I have been NOT commenting much, but just looking at the comments — the posts, is driving me nuts. Plus the protests going on in Oakland which are turning violent. The same for LA, though other cities don’t seem to be violent. Any way, I just think the world has gone mad sometimes. Thanks for being a voice of sanity and for reporting more of what actually happened. It is upsetting to see things like that in the WSJ of all places, I expect my left wing friends to carry on like this but not the WSJ. It does make one wonder…
I’m not surprised that the WSJ would get key parts of the narrative wrong due to my experience explaining the Iraq mission, where even supporters have uncritically accepted cornerstone details from the left’s false narrative. The left’s propagandists are excellent at seizing the initiative and planting the cornerstone details from the outset that they need to control the frame.
The game is activism and the infrastructure is Marxist. The right consistently shows up late to the game, after the left has already laid down the narrative and written the rules.
Geoffrey Britain,
Regarding the attack on America’s middle class via Zimmerman, Daniel Greenfield’s post linked by Gary Rosen clarified the issue for me. I’ll re-post it here. It can’t be repeated enough:
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/07/wrong-side-of-street.html
What defines America’s working middle class?
They are citizens who depend on a social contract, but it is a true social contract, reciprocal and agreed upon between free men. So, they are defined as free men who form a community as neighbors. They are defined by autonomy, independence, self-reliance, self-help, and help-you-neighbor as individuals and a micro-community. The rights and responsibilities of property. The authority, power, duty, and responsibility that transform an immature George Zimmerman into a mature married man, a head of household and community man.
If Zimmerman’s civic manhood is taken from him, it is taken from of all of us.
It is not the rich that stand in the way of the Marxist vision. It’s the middle class.
As far as race as a political red herring, the Zimmerman and John White cases are kindred. While the facts of their cases diverge, they are both American middle-class men who used lethal force to protect themselves and their turf. Zimmerman is white Hispanic. White, of course, is black.
Regarding John White:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2646787/posts
Slaves these days are getting quite imprudent, aren’t they. They will be taught their place, soon enough.
Pingback:Reaction catchup | Rhymes With Cars & Girls
Here’s a once in a life time opportunity.
Those who want their family, their loved ones, to taste the fear and terror that Zimmerman and many other victims of the Left has tasted, step right up here and volunteer.
All you have to do is to pretend you have seen no evil, spoke no evil, and heard no evil. Just sit down, shut up, and allow the Left to do as they please. No words, no actions, no thoughts that would be considered bitterly clinging to your resistance.
Step right up here. Once in a life time opportunity, ladies and gentlemen.
The opportunity works both ways.
They’ve taken off their masks, bared their teeth, and shown their hands on Zimmerman. By attacking, they have exposed themselves to attack.
This isn’t like the NSA wiretapping controversy that has a basis in a legitimate national security interest and only a potential source of abuse. The Zimmerman case is a naked attack on, as Geoffrey Britain termed it, American cultural and institutional infrastructure. A direct assault on the American middle class.
This is a golden opportunity for civil libertarians to rally the middle class and counter Obama’s America.
I am genuinely grateful to the owner of this website who has shared this impressive paragraph at
at this time.
Eric, certainly I’ve seen some positive public responses to it. At least when it comes to rhetoric and exposition on various emotional reactions. Emotional reactions are good. It’s been too long that emotion has been solely used as a weapon by one side only.
I’m way late to this conversation, and haven’t finished reading it all yet, but Mitsu said something that I feel compelled to comment on…
About this…
I have been in an almost IDENTICAL scenario to your “hypothetical”. I am a white male, at the time, aged 27 (so very much still in the prime of my life/youth), and found myself at 63rd St South and Cicero in South Chicago. Now, I have been in some SHIT neighborhoods in my life, and one thing I have almost invariably found is that regardless of race, creed, color, etc, if you traverse in these areas, and you hold yourself upright, like you belong there, look people in the eye, and treat them as human beings, almost invariably, you will be treated the same in kind. At least to some degree.
But back to the story… I don’t know how familiar you are with South Chicago, but trust me. Once you get south of Hyde Park (~55th St South) by the lake, and even further up (~46th St South out by Midway/Cicero), the neighborhood changes drastically. Disrepair, needles on the ground, etc. It’s a shit area.
I found myself leaving a party one night, too late to catch the Orange Line out of Midway back to my residence (Evanston, just north of Chicago proper) via transfer to the Red Line in the city . I worked in the area (pretty industrial) so I knew it pretty well and knew that the Red Line and Green Line both have connections that far south closer to the lake, so I started walking. For the most part, no harm, no foul. I got some pretty strange looks, and had some brief conversations with the people I met along the way (largely black, not that I really gave a damn…). But the Red Line was quite literally miles away, and I was making that hike from ~3am -> 6am after finally catching a bus to take me the last part of the journey to the Red Line.
About halfway through my trek, a painted up, chromed out car (I believe a Caddy, but I’m not positive) rolled by me, slowed down, the window came down, and I heard from the car “Hey white boy, come over here a minute.”
I ignored it largely, and kept walking, and he eventually just drove on (after following me for a short while)… However, my mind was racing at that point, because I felt threatened. Not many street lights, a car that was the picture perfect stereotype for a dealer’s/gangsta’s car, and in an area of Chicago where shootings and murders happen on an almost daily basis.
And here’s my thought process and what I did… I grabbed my phone in my pocket, and preemptively dialed 911, ready to push “call” in case I needed it. That was #1. I didn’t call my girlfriend at the time or anything like that. My thought was for my personal safety, and as such, I began taking steps to maximize MY survival.
But that’s not all. I knew that having to make the call wouldn’t be much of a help… At BEST, it would be 5-10 minutes before the police could show up to help, and at that time, any action that might have happened would have already happened, and the cops, true to form, would be there to clean up the mess.
So I began taking note of my surroundings… Which fences were open/jumpable. Which directions I could go to lose a car on foot. IE – How I might ESCAPE.
Had it somehow happened that I had been backed into a corner, yeah… I would have tried to fight. But prior to that, I was perfectly legal in being where I was, but I was looking to AVOID confrontation with an unknown. I don’t know, to this day, who was in that car… Or what their intentions were… But I do know that my own personal reaction seems to have been 180° different from Trayvon Martin’s. He was gone. He had a clear path home. Had he felt “threatened”, to me, it stands far more to reason that his thoughts would have been, “How the hell do I get out of this?”
If you are truly threatened, it is usually the natural instinct to get OUT of the threatening situation. This is not what Martin did. He doubled back and initiated a confrontation. And beyond that… It sounds to me like he struck out in anger. Anger that someone else dared follow him. The last part is purely speculation on my part, and only 2 people will ever truly know what happened (Martin being one of them), but based on the evidence and personal experience, the idea that he acted the way he did because he felt “threatened” feels far fetched. Maybe it’s me, my upbringing, or whatever, but I’m sorry… If you throw the first punch, you’re the aggressor.
And if you have a clean avenue of escape when you feel truly threatened, you take it. The simple fact that Martin didn’t do that implies to me, by logic and my own personal experience, that he didn’t feel threatened, he was angry, and initiated a confrontation.
Do that with an unknown like he did in this case, and you are asking for trouble.
I’ve been a teenager too, and I’ve felt invincible before… But I’ll tell you what. That night, walking down 63rd St South in Chicago taught me a few things about fear and self preservation that I had never had to consider before.
You say that Neo should reverse the situation, and contemplate that? Well, I counter with my little story and outcome. I count myself blessed that the person driving that car didn’t get out to confront me. I wasn’t armed, and my thoughts based on the stereotypes led me to believe the person in the car very well may have been. I feel blessed that I didn’t HAVE to confront the man in that car… Trayvon Martin had the same options I had that night. He had a clean avenue of escape, based on almost all the evidence presented in court, and he chose not to take it, but rather to lash out against an unknown quantity.
Had I done the same thing on my walk, I give myself even odds that I’m not sitting here typing this.
nyght,
Most of us who have been teenage boys and young men can put ourselves in Martin’s place and come out with a very different course of action. Mitsu is the exception.
Mitsu’s hypothetical only works if Martin and Zimmerman never broke contact, ie, if Zimmerman did not lose sight of Martin and chased him on foot.
But that’s not how it happened. It’s established that Zimmerman lost contact with Martin. At the point he exited his truck, he thought Martin was gone. There was no following, no pursuit.
Then Martin ambushed Zimmerman.
Mitsu is trying really hard and taking wide liberties to establish that Zimmerman provoked Martin and Martin’s actions were justified.
Problem with people in cars is that they are hard to reach with my hands. But with guns, they generally have a clear line of sight to me if I don’t have cover or concealment. Which on streets, usually don’t. Tactically, bad situation to be in.
The good point is that guns in the hand of gang bangers can be made to lose tracking due to zig zag or evasive maneuvers. Since gang baners can shoot a full round of clip at people 9 feet away, and only hit bystanders around the target. That’s how gang bangers were trained to shoot.
nyght…
I didn’t understand Martin’s moves until it became crystal clear that he’d just been talking to his gal.
THAT’S what motivated the confrontation: He felt compelled to take direct actions completely opposite to what he’d been doing… which was escape and evade. He’d actually broken contact.
He realized, too late, that by calling her he had put himself in a position to be disrespected — by HER.
His acts were not to impress her — they were to intended to retain her respect. That was his motivation — and why he was psychologically cornered. Hoist on his own braggartry, he was.
If the eyewitness had rendered prompt physical support, Martin would still be alive. Instead, he held off and dialed 911, — even though he was informed the cops had long been called.
It really is astonishing the media outlets that are continuing to reinforce the factually incorrect story line. The NY Post , Daily News , even Fox news.
Now I realize that many of them are reprinting biased AP drivel , but look at the cover stories on the Post/Daily news websites reacting to the verdict. It’s starting to feel like Invasion Of The Body Snatchers.
Why is all these race and classes of mankind hate the blackman..we never enslave no other race of people for thousands of years this is true definition of how this society views the blackmale this world wasnt created for one class of people and why man and there idiotic rules and there criminalise institutions thinks that this place call earth belongs to them akl man are free souls under god u demons those not controll this planet and the sooner you get that comes your glory.these educated fools sit down and spend thousands of dollars to justify a criminal act do u think a judge and a jury can wash away blood from a mans hands wise ask your self whose is the true judge and from where comest your health and strenght not from this society that is controll by the opressors .vampiric .god and god alone stand .this place is hades abd there no justice in hades only chaos and desair we have to ressurect our souls from this place only devils will ever make it here we as a people fell out of heaven when we end up here wisewe are all witnesses to report to the creator about this place…true angels dont die infinit is it live on t a greater heaven than this. Wise dont be trick by theae educated fouls there is not truth in files it all fabricated lies to minupulated justice. Where is the human rights now a nation of people need them …crime against humanity