This thread is moving too fast so I only went to page 23 after my last post. I'm just gonna answer some of the people who responded to me and then I'll come back and read the responses and then most likely just leave for awhile until more facts come out.
Thanks for the 911 run-down, Steely Dan. I just love number 13...his roommate letting people in the house that GZ "didn't like." That one is particularly rich, imo. Sure glad he doesn't live in my neighborhood! I like to have the freedom to hang out with my garage door open if I want.
imo
That one did make me do a doubletake. That's such a weird call.
I really don't have any evidence to refute the opinions you've displayed. Thank you for admitting the error about the 911 tapes, though. That's been widely mischaracterized in the media for some reason.
I want to address this last issue with you. It is my belief that if someone exercised a proper use of force in a clear self-defense scenario, they have every right to not be arrested. Let me give you this scenario (I am in no way comparing this to the case this thread is about, this is just an attempt to explain why the law is the way it is) -
Say John is a student at a local college, and has just stopped at a store to pick up some stuff for the night. Upon returning to his car, two males approach him at knifepoint and demand he hand over his keys. John pulls a gun of his own and shoots one individual in the head, killing him, and clips the second male. John has sustained injuries of his own during the conflict. Police are called to the scene. Given that John just fought for his life, and that he is clearly a victim in this scenario, do you think it would be morally or ethically right to mandate he gets arrested simply because he used deadly force? This man, a victim, should not have to lose time off from school and work because of a situation he was thrown into and in which he was forced to defend himself. That is the standpoint from which this law was written. It's not an attempt to protect anyone but a victim of a violent crime that was forced to ultimately defend themselves. The law makes clear exceptions for individuals that are suspected of actually using such force unlawfully; whether the police or prosecutor decides there's enough probable cause is an entirely different story.
JMO
Btw - that's a legitimate story that happened here in Atlanta, FWIW.
BBM
That case I don't know fully about but it's much, much different than this one. There was one surviving attacker to give his side out. If it was a convenience store there may have been video or other witness'. I think any time deadly force is used outside the house the person should be arrested and spend the night in jail. Then get an arraignment as soon as possible and a fair bail set. Then let a DA decide whether to take it to trial or not.
I don't believe in taking someone's word as to why they killed someone outside the home and then letting them go. Murder is a crime that deserves a lot of scrutiny.
Our schools are not the best in the world. A lot of our citizens are paranoid because the media focus' on murders because they mean ratings. We are not a society of people capable of policing themselves. I think this case proves it. JMO
I don't know, I am not privy to the information.
I just read he was interviewed three times and it was video taped. It was from this KC site.
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/03/21/3505774/commission-votes-no-confidence.html
Also that there was a struggle over Zimmerman's gun:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-ma...n-manslaughter/story?id=16011674#.T3Ikf2HOVEL
The sentence just hanging out there at the end is not sourced and seems weird....whooooooo knows.
You can bet your bippy they are doing a fine toothed comb investigation right now. The prosecutor said yesterday it may be another couple of weeks.
Another poster gives a good scenario to this
(Respectfully snipped and bolded by me.) None of us are privy to the full story. There are some things we do know. We know that Trayvon was found with a cell phone but no ID, and yet nobody at the PD thought to call a number on it and find out who it belonged to. They never checked the phone records that were in the phone itself to see who he last talked to and when.
I found a cell phone once. I called one of the numbers and explained that I had just found a cell phone and that the person probably wanted it back. Could they have the owner call me at their own cell phone and I can tell them where to meet me to pick it up. However, graduates of the PA who work in Sanford couldn't come up with this idea.
What if Trayvon was a guy GZ suspected of having an affair with his girlfriend? They didn't even know who the victim was before they let GZ go. If you can't ID a victim you can't make a fair judgment on whether or not there was something personal between the two. Finding the identity of the person shouldn't have to wait til the next morning when a missing persons call is finally made. They had a listing of a lot of his friends and family's phone numbers and yet never bothered to call anyone and ask them who the phone belonged to and did that person match the description of Trayvon. Remember when I said our schools aren't the best? I think that proves it.
What this comes down to, IMO, is this. Is it that racism is being yelled at the drop of a dime like it has been at other times or is it just that black people are sick and tired of this :censored: happening to them. If your white I suggest you talk to black people and listen to them. What do they think? They live it everyday.
I have a black friend who was pulled over by a white cop because the cop was thinking about buying a car like his and just wanted to see what they were like. Things like: how big is the trunk, how far back the seats go and what's under them, what the car smells like etc. I don't know a single white person this has ever happened to.
