The Glade 4.0

You'll have to show me where I posted repeatedly that I would beat the hell out of someone for following my kids.

First, do you realize what sort of psycho I'd have to be to just run up to some guy and start pounding on him because he was following a child?

I would confront him, sure, but my initial assumption would NOT be that he's some sort of menace. I have been "that guy" many times - there are cases where I've seen children or others in a situation that I don't feel is safe for them, and I've observed them until they got to a safe place. My assumption would be he's doing something similar or wants something benign, but yes - I'd confront him. I certainly would not just roll up and start pounding on him (unless of course, he was rude when confronted, and then of course I'd go completely nuts because that's how I roll ).

Ok, let me lay out my understanding of this point using a couple of maps (note that I just grabbed these from Google Images, so no endorsement of whatever source they come from is implied). Let me know if you think any of the following is disputed and/or wrong.



Referring to the first map, I believe Zimmerman was driving up the north-south road along the western edge of the neighborhood when he first spotted Martin entering the neighborhood from Oregon Ave. by cutting between the houses in the northwest corner. Martin then walked east along Retreat View Circle. Zimmerman drove past Martin and parked by the Clubhouse - which is the large building opposite the Front Entrance on the corner of Twin Trees and Retreat View Circle - so he could call 911 and keep an eye on Martin. During the 911 call, Martin continued walking over on Retreat View Circle, went past Zimmerman's truck and checked Zimmerman out, and then turned right onto Twin Trees. Zimmerman followed Martin along Twin Trees in his truck, until just before the road turns south again at the second bend.

Referring now to the second map, Martin then left the road, taking the "cut-through" between the houses at the top of the map, at which point, Zimmerman lost sight of him. Martin's route after that is unknown (in the post-shooting walkthrough with the cops, Zimmerman said Martin came back and circled his truck before going back into the cut-through, but he didn't describe that happening during the contemporaneous 911 call). Zimmerman got out of his truck and proceeded on foot along the same cut-through, emerging onto the eastern leg of Retreat View Circle on the other side. At about this time, Zimmerman claims he started heading back to his truck the same way he came, and he ended the 911 call. He further claims that Martin then approached him in the cut-through area from his left side (i.e. from the South), and the confrontation occurred between the first set of houses roughly where it's indicated on the maps (which, I note, isn't exactly along the direct route back to Zimmerman's truck, which casts some doubt on his account, though the fight could certainly have carried them in that direction).

So, that's about it. Anything about that description that you guys think is disputed or mistaken?

One might classify it as threatening, but there are varying degrees of threat. It is not a binary condition. You would not, in this case, be justified in walking outside and punching the guy in the face.

People keep trying to say that Zimmerman following Martin was threatening. It might be, but only to the degree that Martin might reasonably suspect an attack, not to the degree that he was justified in attacking Zimmerman, and certainly not after demanding to know what Zimmerman was up to. Neither of the responses Zimmerman gave in any way indicate an impending attack.

Also, as to the silly grizzly bear example, bears are not people and are not capable of rationally evaluating threats. Furthermore, a bear is always armed with sharp claws and powerful jaws and has a massive physical advantage over any person. Part of the reason we have laws against backing bears into a corner and then shooting them is that people are **** idiots, and part is because they poach, and we don't want to **** run out of grizzly bears because people use self defense as a means to get around the hunting laws.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The location of the confrontation is wrong in the second map. That happened up north where the sidewalks form a T intersection.

Cause i misread your post.

_________________

Have you read this version of events? If not, will you please read GZ's account?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_o ... _of_events

From a purely personal perspective, if I would have been in GZ's place I'd not have been armed, even though I have that right. I just don't carry a gun without some reason. I do realize, though, that the instant I regret that decision it'll be too late to rectify it.

That said, from the description at that link, if I had been in GZ's shoes I might not have been the one walking away from the confrontation.

Are your thoughts after reading that description still swaying you to feel that GZ has responsibility? If so, is it because of specific issues presented, or is it because of issues not presented in that description?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Which Taskiss? I just spent twenty minutes on your link and there is the prosecutors version, several witness versions, Martin's family version and the media version

_________________

When I clicked that link, it took me straight to a wiki page called "Trayvon Martin Shooting" and to a subheading titled "George Zimmerman's account of events".

Taskiss,

I'm guessing that like most of the rest of us, you are only skimming other peoples posts here, so just in case you missed it, you are wasting your time trying to convince RD of anything.

He's already admitted he hadn't read the facts of the case, while vehemently espousing Zimmerman's guilt.

Hopwin, I linked specifically to GZ's account of events.



I'm not trying to convince RD of anything, I'm trying to figure out if there is some detail I'm not seeing or if the issue is just my yin vs his yang.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. He hasn't "vehemently espoused" Zimmerman's guilt. He's stated that there is a plausible argument for him having some responsibility for the outcome of the engagement.

So I just read Zimmerman's "side" from that link. If indeed it went down as he describes, then I don't see that he did anything wrong.

I am, however, concerned about the inconsistencies commented on related to his written statements and the evidence. Obviously at this point, we really only have Zimmerman's side of the argument and the evidence. It's too bad there wasn't video footage or an eye witness to help provide an impartial view into the events.

I also have to raise an eye at Sean Hannity being the first person you give an interview with. Partisanship aside, I would think there would be plenty of other conservative interviewers with more credibility.

Name a conservative interviewer with more credibility that is not a mealy-mouthed moderate. I can tell you right off the bat that Beck and Limbaugh are right out; Beck is a complete lunatic and Limbaugh is the king of distortion for effect.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You might want to go back and reread my posts, Midgen. I said I'm not following the trial, and so I don't know all the ins and outs of the case, but if you read my posts with an unjaundiced eye, I think you'll find that I'm sufficiently familiar with the facts to form a valid opinion and have a reasonably informed discussion. Once again, though, I'll invite you to correct any misapprehensions you think I have about what the facts are.

ETA: Taskiss - I'll give your link a read shortly. Most of my understanding of events is consistent with Zimmerman's own 911 call (yes, I know it was actually the non-emergency number, but it's easier to say 911) and the post-shooting video walkthrough he did with the cops, though, so I don't expect to find much in the way of disagreement.

RD:

I'd say the layout of both those maps are contested.

Furthermore, the first map lists ABC news as a source, which has already edited with inflammatory intent Zimmerman's call to police. As such, I'd discount that source.

We know for sure that the location "where the 911 call ended" can be discounted entirely, given no witnesses were onsite at that time. Unless GPS data on the phone has been submitted, that is.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Its a fairly depressing situation. One of two outcomes are inevitable at this point.

1) In a gross miscarriage of justice, Zimmerman is convicted. Or
2) he is found not guilty, which will lead to violence in retaliation.

And this can clearly be laid at the feet of the media who have hyped up, manipulated, and sensationalized this story well before the facts were known.

Ok, just read it. I had skimmed that account before, and it's substantially in accord with my understanding of the facts. I do discount a few of Zimmerman's more self-serving claims - e.g., colorful embellishments like the B-movie style exclamations/threats allegedly made by Martin during the fight and, more importantly, Zimmerman's claim that he was just looking for an address rather than following Martin into the cut-through - but the core of his story strikes me as plausible.

My sense that Zimmerman may have some culpability turns on the issue of whether or not (and the degree to which) his decision to follow Martin into the cut-through was wrongful. I have no legal objection to his actions before that or his actions in the confrontation/altercation that followed. I admit, it's a close call for me. On the one hand, his intent was benign and the law should encourage people to be good samaritans by giving them some safe harbor for reasonable, good faith self-help. On the other hand, the law should also protect innocent people from being harrassed, intimidated or otherwise harmed by well-meaning but overzealous good samaritans, and it does that by holding such samaritans accountable when they act unreasonably and, in some cases, even when they act reasonably but in error. It's extremely important to remember here that Martin was completely innocent of any wrongdoing right up to the moment he swung at Zimmerman, so Zimmerman pursued and placed in fear a completely innocent person based on some vague and subjective suspicions. That innocent person reacted badly to the provocation and might himself have been charged with assault had he lived, but the rightfulness or wrongfulness of Zimmerman's precipitating actions doesn't depend on the rightfulness or wrongfulness of Martin's eventual reaction.

But Zimmerman himself describes all of that and actually walks the cops through it in the walkthrough video he did for them after the shooting.

What CNN did in editing the phone call to make Zimmerman sound racist, inflaming racial anger which is already a paranoid hair-trigger for many people, was pretty unforgivable in my eyes.

Irrc it was AbC that doctored the tape. Other news agencies may have been perfectly happy to run with it without obtaining their own version though

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

This is interesting since it was actually NBC who edited the call.

_________________

That is actually evidenced on the NEN call, George just got events out of order. He gets out of the vehicle in response to being asked where Trayvon is running. 17 seconds later, he agrees he doesn't have to follow, and then indicates he lost Trayvon ("he ran".). Noffke asks about an address where George is at, while George is at the T intersection, and George says he doesn't know, because he is in a cut through, and at the T only the backs of houses are visible.

I think that's what prompted George to continue to RVC for an address.

Considering the groups that are calling for conviction or riots, I think we are headed for a big incident.

I remember working in Philadelphia the day the OJ verdict came out. We had the trucks gassed up, packed up, and running for an hour before it came out. I think in Florida, and with how social media can immediately bring together like minded individuals at a location quickly, there are going to be those using the day as an excuse to loot.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that video. Given that, I'd give a lot more credence to the maps then, obviously.

Personally, that still wouldn't move any "following" to a "threatening" or "reckless" state for me personally, due to the fact that public property does not have presumption of privacy and that Martin had not asked him to desist.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

And who's prejudiced now? Interesting how you can claim to know what is or is not justice, when the trial isn't done and you aren't personally involved.

Because it's really obvious. This isn't a case about the facts of the details of the Zimmerman/Martin incident. This case is about whether people have a right to defend themselves with lethal force, or whether nitpicking legal trifles can whittle away your right to defend yourself and allow for a murder conviction when you were just defending yourself.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

No Taly, this is a case about whether you can provoke someone into defending themselves and then shoot them in defense of yourself.

_________________