Trayvon Martin

[RobinFinderson]

Saying "grossly misrepresents" is a gross misrepresentation - what exactly do you think he means by "walking around looking about" and "up to no good" - that reads "checking things out" in my translator. Not sure what you think Zimmerman meant by it.

And as Surfah has pointed out - close to half of breakins and thefts occur when people are on something. Given his fetish for neighborhood security I suspect Zimmerman was aware of this.

I said that you grossly misrepresented the facts as they pertain to Martin approaching Zimmerman. Here is what you said:

Ox: Finally on the 911 call - everyone says "Zimmerman should have listened to the instruction that they didn't need him following" but the moment when the dispatch officer makes that comment is only seconds before Zimmerman says that the guy is staring him down and coming toward him. He arguably had little time to heed the police instruction before Trayvon came at him.

This is a GROSS misrepresentation of the content of the call, and I point out in great detail, referencing specific time stamps, how your description is exactly wrong. Without repeating all of the detail I transcribed before, the order of the 'facts' as you present them is backwards. He first describes Martin as approaching his vehicle, he then describes Martin as fleeing, and only THEN does he get out of the vehicle to pursue the child. The dispatch tells him not to pursue the fleeing child, which is the opposite of what you describe in the quote above.

[DU Ute]

I really would expect more thought in a response from you.

Does he use racial slurs among friends. Has he had altercations with blacks before. He has made numerous 911 calls. What is the percentage of those made involve blacks.

Anyone can involve in any kind of profiling. Profiling doesn't automatically make you anti something.

I should have been more clear. I don't think racial profiling always rises to the level of racism, but racial profiling in itself is a problem and if you treat people and situations differently when race is the only variable you are doing it.

[Colly Wolly]

No. He was already out of his vehicle when he says that he is being stared down and approached on the 911 call.

Oh, so you mean things got worse as he (the one with the permit who understands explicitly that in situations like this you do EVERYTHING you can de-escalate and defer to law enforcement) chose to escalate the situation by leaving his vehicle, follow, and engage?

[byu71]

I should have been more clear. I don't think racial profiling always rises to the level of racism, but racial profiling in itself is a problem and if you treat people and situations differently when race is the only variable you are doing it.

Now that is more like what I expect from you.

I totally agree. If I am in my office complex and I see a young black man with a hoody walking in my direction and I get nervous, I should have a heart to heart conversation with myself.

Or if a young black man comes to my door (totally white neighborhood) and is selling something and I get nervous, I have to have a heart to heart conversation with myself. I will admit, there was a time long ago, I had to have that chat with myself.

[DU Ute]

Unless you know that Zimmerman would not have called the police if it was a tatooed white kid in baggy jeans and a wife beater, this claim is problematic.

And you don't know that. So the claim is problematic. [EDITED FOR TONE IN DEFERENCE TO DU UTE]

I haven't said anything about Zimmerman engaging in racial profiling, the post you referenced was just a response to 71's hypothetical. My other posts have mostly been trying to show how this is a big deal outside of the race issues. I agree that it is unfortunate that race has become an issue, it really shouldn't matter in this situation.

[RobinFinderson]

No. He was already out of his vehicle when he says that he is being stared down and approached on the 911 call.

What is your source for this? It contradicts the audio of Zimmerman's call:

1. Zimmerman describes Martin as approaching/staring.
2. Zimmerman describes Martin as fleeing.
3. Audible sound of car door closing + new audio of wind and or heavy breathing into phone.
4. Dispatch, upon hearing door close, immediately (within 2 seconds) asks whether Zimmerman is following the child.
5. Zimmerman answers in the affirmative.
6. Dispatch says that isn't necessary.
7. About two more minutes of calm discussion before Zimmerman asks the police to call him when they arrive in the area.

[oxcoug]

Oh, so you mean things got worse as he (the one with the permit who understands explicitly that in situations like this you do EVERYTHING you can de-escalate and defer to law enforcement) chose to escalate the situation by leaving his vehicle, follow, and engage?

Now you're gaming small details - as I've said, Zimmerman's choice to use deadly force is indefensible (at least as far as we know the details). And I'm not interested in defending his choice to get out of the car (though I still don't know exactly what prompted him to do so and neither do you).

However:
1. There is no evidence that his actions were racially motivated
2. There is good reason now to believe that he did not initiate the physical altercation - at the very least we don't know who did
3. The original narrative is ridiculously inconsistent with the emerging facts
4. The public has now been whipped into an artificial frenzy over a wildly misrepresented narrative

[DU Ute]

Colly Wolly is killing it in this thread. I agree with everything he's said so far. It's good to have it coming from someone who isn't a gun fearing pansy. The fact that anyone would defend how Zimmerman acted is the reason I'm afraid of some people packing heat. If they were all like CW, iPU and cowboy it wouldn't freak me out.

[byu71]

Now you're gaming small details - as I've said, Zimmerman's choice to use deadly force is indefensible (at least as far as we know the details). And I'm not interested in defending his choice to get out of the car (though I still don't know exactly what prompted him to do so and neither do you).

4. The public has now been whipped into an artificial frenzy over a wildly misrepresented narrative

Exactly. I almost fell guilty stating that perhaps Zimmerman isn't a cold hearted racist killer. Much less suggesting the police aren't the klu klux dominated force you heard about in the South.

Again, I ask. The tragedy wasn't covered nationally for a month. What has been the catalyst to bring it nationally with non-stop coverage.

[Colly Wolly]

Now you're gaming small details - as I've said, Zimmerman's choice to use deadly force is indefensible (at least as far as we know the details). And I'm not interested in defending his choice to get out of the car (though I still don't know exactly what prompted him to do so and neither do you).

However:
1. There is no evidence that his actions were racially motivated
2. There is good reason now to believe that he did not initiate the physical altercation - at the very least we don't know who did
3. The original narrative is ridiculously inconsistent with the emerging facts
4. The public has now been whipped into an artificial frenzy over a wildly misrepresented narrative

We're pretty much on the same page then. No major disagreements with your four points. I've stated a couple times that I don't think we have enough to conclude that racism played a part in this yet. The case certainly deserves more attention than the local PD seems to have given it. Given the concessions you offer at the beginning of your post, I presume you would find it very reasonable if manslaughter charges were brought against Zimmerman? We may not ever know enough to determine if this was cold-blooded murder, but his irresponsible actions were direct contributors to the death of a child.

[RobinFinderson]

However:
1. There is no evidence that his actions were racially motivated
2. There is good reason now to believe that he did not initiate the physical altercation - at the very least we don't know who did
3. The original narrative is ridiculously inconsistent with the emerging facts
4. The public has now been whipped into an artificial frenzy over a wildly misrepresented narrative

1. Wrong. There is evidence that sounds like 'fucking coons' on the 911 tape. He MIGHT have said something else, but it sounds a LOT like 'fucking coons,' and this is evidence. It might not be perfect evidence, but it it is factually incorrect to say that there is 'no evidence that his actions were racially motivated.'

2. What is known from the 911 call is that Zimmerman began to pursue a child walking alone at night after Zimmerman described the child as 'running away.' The testimony of Martin's girlfriend, which fits the time-frame of the tragedy, and is every bit as credible as Zimmerman's testimony, supports Zimmerman's description that Martin was fleeing from Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. It also suggests that Martin was terrified.

3. You keep referring to this 'original narrative.' Post some links to support what you are saying. The current racial component deals with the issue of racial profiling, which is a serious and legitimate issue faced by black Americans, and it deserves discussion. So how was the 'original narrative' about something other than racial profiling? Links to examples of what you are talking about, please.

4. An artificial frenzy over a 'wildly misrepresented narrative?' This might mean something if it was coming from someone who hasn't repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn't understand the order of events, as they occur in Zimmerman's 911 call, and who uses the wrong order of events to defend his point of view.

[byu71]

1. Wrong. There is evidence that sounds like 'fucking coons' on the 911 tape. He MIGHT have said something else, but it sounds a LOT like 'fucking coons,' and this is evidence. It might not be perfect evidence, but it it is factually incorrect to say that there is 'no evidence that his actions were racially motivated.'

Source? I haven't followed this as closely as you have. I have heard there is "possibly" racial words. I also heard that a prominent source who enhances these type of recordings said there is no racial comments.

I hope your source isn't Reverend Sharpton.

[Colly Wolly]

1. Wrong. There is evidence that sounds like 'fucking coons' on the 911 tape. He MIGHT have said something else, but it sounds a LOT like 'fucking coons,' and this is evidence. It might not be perfect evidence, but it it is factually incorrect to say that there is 'no evidence that his actions were racially motivated.'

I haven't listened to the tape. Can you really and definitively hear him use racial slurs?

[RobinFinderson]

Source? I haven't followed this as closely as you have. I have heard there is "possibly" racial words. I also heard that a prominent source who enhances these type of recordings said there is no racial comments.

I hope your source isn't Reverend Sharpton.

I haven't listened to the tape. Can you really and definitively hear him use racial slurs?

My source is the tape, which is widely available on YouTube and other places. You can definitely hear something that sounds to me like 'fucking coons.' It is muttered, and there is background noise, so it is POSSIBLE that it might be something else, like 'fucking tools...'. It is NOT perfect evidence, but it really does sound like 'fucking coons' to me.

I don't think this evidence will hold much water in court, and if I were a DA, I would probably not even bring it up. But Ox's assertion that there is NO evidence supporting racial prejudice is simply false. There is WEAK evidence supporting the suspicion of racial motivation.

[byu71]

My source is the tape, which is widely available on YouTube and other places. You can definitely hear something that sounds to me like 'fucking coons.' It is muttered, and there is background noise, so it is POSSIBLE that it might be something else, like 'fucking tools...'. It is NOT perfect evidence, but it really does sound like 'fucking coons' to me.

I don't think this evidence will hold much water in court, and if I were a DA, I would probably not even bring it up. But Ox's assertion that there is NO evidence supporting racial prejudice is simply false. There is WEAK evidence supporting the suspicion of racial motivation.

Wow. I think my definition of the word "evidence" is closer to Ox's than yours. Not meant to offend you.