The police chief who has now stepped down stated that Martin was 70 yards from his house when he died.  If he took off running for the front porch when he noticed Zimmerman getting out of his car, he'd have been home free about 10 seconds after Zimmerman said, "****, he's running." 

Everyone points out how little Martin was, and how much bigger Zimmerman was; which is a semi-valid point.  However, that only gets taken into account when talking about the fight.  Does anybody really believe that George Zimmerman was faster than Trayvon Martin?  The kid wasn't that big, and since he apparently made the cut on his high school football team, I feel pretty safe assuming he was pretty fleet of foot.

From the article:

If what the police chief said is true, I would interpret this to mean that Trayvon did not want to lead Zimmerman to his home. This could be for various reasons, depending on Trayvon's perception of Zimmerman at the time. The cell phone call as his girlfriend reported it suggests that Trayvon was alarmed and possibly scared by this stranger following him.

Also, if Trayvon was that close to home, either Zimmerman followed him a long ways, or they live in the same neighborhood. Either way, I don't think it doesn't look terribly good for Zimmerman.

My interpretation, subject to further facts as they arise, is that Zimmerman followed Trayvon motivated by suspicion based at least in part by race, and what transpired wasn't according to any plan or racial malice, but inept bungling of an unnecessary situation created by an armed man with bad judgment.

What matters is that a young man is dead, and he wasn't doing anything that necessitated his getting killed. He was just walking home with candy and iced tea, talking to his girlfriend. He wasn't doing anything illegal or immoral (and if he were, does that merit a death sentence?), and he wasn't even aware of Zimmerman until he started following him, and if Zimmerman had stayed put instead of creating a situation, he'd be alive today. Nothing I've read or heard has countered this. Burglary tools in his home? Traces of marijuana in a baggie not on him at the time? Truancy at school? These are nothing but speculative smears, and none of it means he should have been shot to death. None of it.

The initial rage against the police for letting Zimmerman go and dismissing this as an open-and-shut case, I think, is completely justified. Given the conflicting facts coming out, it's beyond ridiculous that Zimmerman was just free to go home. (How long was he in custody? I've never heard this mentioned.) Think about how much trouble we expect, and how thorough an investigation is likely to occur if any of us shoots someone who breaks into our house, and consider that this happened within 70 yards of the victim's residence! Unfortunately, though the anger at the police department is richly deserved, it has been FUBARed by the media and those who live for the public eye (*ahem* Spike Lee), and everyone else who entered the scrum afterwards.

In the end, like the OJ Simpson case, I don't think anyone's going to be happy with the results, and it's going to be an open sore in race relations. Neither case should be about race, but they are.

If what the police chief said is true, I would interpret this to mean that Trayvon did not want to lead Zimmerman to his home. This could be for various reasons, depending on Trayvon's perception of Zimmerman at the time. The cell phone call as his girlfriend reported it suggests that Trayvon was alarmed and possibly scared by this stranger following him.

Also, if Trayvon was that close to home, either Zimmerman followed him a long ways, or they live in the same neighborhood. Either way, I don't think it doesn't look terribly good for Zimmerman.

Martin didn't live in the neighborhood, he was staying with his dad and dad's girlfriend.

My interpretation, subject to further facts as they arise, is that Zimmerman followed Trayvon motivated by suspicion based at least in part by race, and what transpired wasn't according to any plan or racial malice, but inept bungling of an unnecessary situation created by an armed man with bad judgment.

What matters is that a young man is dead, and he wasn't doing anything that necessitated his getting killed. He was just walking home with candy and iced tea, talking to his girlfriend. He wasn't doing anything illegal or immoral (and if he were, does that merit a death sentence?), and he wasn't even aware of Zimmerman until he started following him, and if Zimmerman had stayed put instead of creating a situation, he'd be alive today. Nothing I've read or heard has countered this. Burglary tools in his home? Traces of marijuana in a baggie not on him at the time? Truancy at school? These are nothing but speculative smears, and none of it means he should have been shot to death. None of it.

According to Zimmerman, and corroborated by Zimmerman's injuries and witness testimony, Martin was trying to beat Zimmerman's brains out on the sidewalk.  As a regular contributor to this forum, I would think that you'd understand the difference between Brady Campaign demagoguery about "death sentences" and the use of force to end an assault.  I have seen zero evidence to back the claim that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the dispatcher told him the police didn't need him to follow Martin.  When the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that", Zimmerman said, "Ok."  That sounds fairly compliant to me, especially when his next sentence was "He ran".  Speaking in the past tense implies that Martin was gone at that point.  At any rate, everyone keeps going on about how we don't have all the evidence, but the Sanford Police Department *does* have all the evidence, and they think it was a justified shooting.  There has been no evidence that categorically refutes that position; which is why I'm inclined to believe them. 

The initial rage against the police for letting Zimmerman go and dismissing this as an open-and-shut case, I think, is completely justified. Given the conflicting facts coming out, it's beyond ridiculous that Zimmerman was just free to go home. (How long was he in custody? I've never heard this mentioned.) Think about how much trouble we expect, and how thorough an investigation is likely to occur if any of us shoots someone who breaks into our house, and consider that this happened within 70 yards of the victim's residence! Unfortunately, though the anger at the police department is richly deserved, it has been FUBARed by the media and those who live for the public eye (*ahem* Spike Lee), and everyone else who entered the scrum afterwards.

In the end, like the OJ Simpson case, I don't think anyone's going to be happy with the results, and it's going to be an open sore in race relations. Neither case should be about race, but they are.

Look at it from the perspective of Occam's Razor:  On the one hand, it could be that all evidence corroborates Zimmerman's story, and the shooting was justified.  On the other hand, there could be a massive police coverup involving everyone at the Sanford Police Department, from the initial beat cop that responded to the 911 call all the way up to the Chief of Police.  Which one sounds more likely: that a 17 year old kid who referred to himself as No_Limit_N***a and had a history of behavior problems assaulted someone, or that everyone at Sanford PD is willing to put their careers and freedom on the line to cover up a murder committed by Joe Citizen? 

Not to mention that you're condemning Zimmerman for following Trayvon, but then turning around and claiming that Trayvon would have been fully justified to confront Zimmerman rather than get inside his house.  Which is it?  Can ordinary citizens confront suspicious characters, or can't they?

Im with you cougar. this is my OPINION.....this taro head was-casing the house, got caught, ran, came back, caught the catcher, beat him, got popped, died. end of story. HE GOT WHAT HE DESERVED. And as far as this protest? Some black people want guarenteed results (no way) in their favor as well as guarenteed opportunities (which is as it should be).These people need the fabricated excuse of racism to justify their idiotic, unlawful behavior. This is just the type of protection the 2a is for. end of story
Pastor Dennis

The attitude of the P.O.S. bleeding heart liberals is evident with ignorant posts.

In one sentence, these tree hugging liberals condemn a man for protecting his life against a thug "kid".

And in their next sentence they want street justice.

I can tell you this. If some punk were bashing my head against the sidewalk and punching me to the point of near loss of consciousness, I would do WHATEVER IT TOOK to protect my life.

If you can't live with that then sell your guns, and be the sheep that you are.

My interpretation, subject to further facts as they arise, is that Zimmerman followed Trayvon motivated by suspicion based at least in part by race, and what transpired wasn't according to any plan or racial malice, but inept bungling of an unnecessary situation created by an armed man with bad judgment.

Please explain to me any "facts" you have that suggest that Zimmerman's suspicion was based on race. Really, one instance? I think it is just amazing that Jesse Jackson can tell the world he basically profiles other black men ((12/12/93): Jesse Jackson is traveling the country with a tough anti-crime message that he is delivering to inner-city youngsters. In Chicago he said, "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery ”then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.") but have a concerned citizen (who is half hispanic and has a black best friend) follow someone suspicious in his neighborhood, and just because the person is black, he's motivated by racism?? 

Martin didn't live in the neighborhood, he was staying with his dad and dad's girlfriend.

My point still stands; would you want someone menacing following you back to your dad and dad's girlfriend's house?

According to Zimmerman, and corroborated by Zimmerman's injuries and witness testimony, Martin was trying to beat Zimmerman's brains out on the sidewalk.

From the photos and counterevidence I've seen, and there might be more stuff out there I haven't which may change my evaluation, I think Zimmerman's testimony and his supposed injuries (I haven't seen photos of these.) are exaggerated at best.

The eyewitness testimony I've seen haven't been anywhere near conclusive or undisputed. I've read very conflicting reports on witness testimony. Not to mention, if you'd read up on just how unreliable witness recall is, but how much sway it has in court, I'd bet you'd plead out almost no matter what.

As a regular contributor to this forum, I would think that you'd understand the difference between Brady Campaign demagoguery about "death sentences" and the use of force to end an assault.

Consider the context in which I used the phrase, rather than its unfortunate resonance with Brady rhetoric. People are trying their best to come up with excuses why Martin deserved to be killed! We're focusing (not unjustifiably, I might add) in this forum on the hysterical left, but there's a lot of hysterical right adding their noise to the mix as well.

I have seen zero evidence to back the claim that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the dispatcher told him the police didn't need him to follow Martin.  When the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that", Zimmerman said, "Ok."  That sounds fairly compliant to me, especially when his next sentence was "He ran".  Speaking in the past tense implies that Martin was gone at that point.

 

This is literally the first time I've heard anyone suggest that Zimmerman stopped pursuing Martin after the 911 operator told him to stop. Every other report, discussion, and opinion assumes he kept following. How did they end up 70 yards from Martin's dad's place?

At any rate, everyone keeps going on about how we don't have all the evidence, but the Sanford Police Department *does* have all the evidence,

*All* the evidence? My impression is that this was a very slipshod, quickie dismissal, and there was not due diligence done on the part of the police force. If there's public knowledge out there that the cops did a thorough job in their investigation, I could have a different opinion on the matter, but for all I know,

This is a real mixed bag as far as which side is being supported, but take a look at this:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/04/zimmerman-demanded-discipline-in-2010-race-related-beating-for-officers-who-investigated-martin-shooting/

George Zimmerman had called for disciplining officers in the same police department for beating a black homeless man.

Zimmerman's action suggests that he is anything but racist (More on this a bit later.), but it paints a very poor picture of the police department.

The attitude about the police in general on this board seems to swing from one extreme to the other: either they're thugs in uniforms (Remember Chris' video, not to mention how angry we are at the police chief for denying us CCW rights?), or they're upstanding, nigh-infallible heroes. Under what contexts are the police one or the other?

and they think it was a justified shooting.  There has been no evidence that categorically refutes that position; which is why I'm inclined to believe them.

I'm honestly divided on this. If one of us shoots someone in justified self-defense, but there's no one around to back up your story, it's scary to think you would be charged with manslaughter or murder. Yet, if someone can shoot someone else where there aren't witnesses, they can get away with murder? This is more of a pondering than directly related to the Zimmerman case. There were witnesses, I know.

It would be one thing if Zimmerman shot Martin on his own property. What troubles me is that Martin was shot closer to his (temporary) residence.

Look at it from the perspective of Occam's Razor:  On the one hand, it could be that all evidence corroborates Zimmerman's story, and the shooting was justified.  On the other hand, there could be a massive police coverup involving everyone at the Sanford Police Department, from the initial beat cop that responded to the 911 call all the way up to the Chief of Police.

I don't think it's either. If there was an angry looking man following you (I do not know how far the pursuit went.), is there not a good chance you might confront him, and it could escalate into a fist fight? If that man then turned out to be armed, and shot you, would it be a clear-cut case of self-defense at that point?

Which one sounds more likely: that a 17 year old kid who referred to himself as No_Limit_N***a and had a history of behavior problems assaulted someone, or that everyone at Sanford PD is willing to put their careers and freedom on the line to cover up a murder committed by Joe Citizen?

The "history of behavior problems" describes a LOT of kids, of all races. I daresay even some of the people on this board. Most of them grow up to be fine people.

As for Sanford PD, I don't think they're motivated by their concern for Zimmerman. I think they're covering their own ass for letting him go without doing due diligence. (Maybe with the history they had, they didn't want to seem like they were seeking retribution.)

As for Zimmerman being "Joe Citizen", he had applied to be a police officer and was turned down. I have not seen any mention of why. I get the sense that he was overzealous and thought himself a vigilante. As I said, I don't think he got into the situation thinking he would pull his gun and shoot an unarmed kid, but he got in over his head.

Not to mention that you're condemning Zimmerman for following Trayvon, but then turning around and claiming that Trayvon would have been fully justified to confront Zimmerman rather than get inside his house.  Which is it?  Can ordinary citizens confront suspicious characters, or can't they?

Confront? Sure. Martin was STANDING HIS GROUND. Zimmerman was pursuing. That is the difference.

How come no one is asking why Martin assaulted Zimmerman? Does it make any sense to anyone that a kid walking home in the rain, 70 yards from home with Skittles and an iced tea, talking to his girlfriend on a cell, would just flip out for no reason and attack someone?

As for Zimmerman's racism, here's the thing: racism is being talked about as though a person is a card-carrying, hood-donning Klansman, or someone who just doesn't see color in other people at all, and as though there is no range in between.

Does Zimmerman being half hispanic and having black friends preclude the possibility that he has implicit racist attitudes? Does he evaluate a person as equally suspicious, if he is black or white? Zimmerman's racial background does not preclude him holding racist attitudes or beliefs against black people. Black people can easily be racist against other black people. Does this mean absolutely that Zimmerman *is* racist? Was this a hate crime? No.

I absolutely do not believe, even a little bit, that Zimmerman is a Klansman kind of racist. I find it easy to believe that he has typical race-profiling instincts that most of us have, that cause us to take notice and even tense up in certain situations. There are a number of visual cues that set off alarms about a person, and a lot of it occurs in combination with race. If this is the case, then race had an undeniable catalytic effect on this incident.

Im with you cougar. this is my OPINION.....this taro head was-casing the house, got caught, ran, came back, caught the catcher, beat him, got popped, died. end of story. HE GOT WHAT HE DESERVED. And as far as this protest? Some black people want guarenteed results (no way) in their favor as well as guarenteed opportunities (which is as it should be).These people need the fabricated excuse of racism to justify their idiotic, unlawful behavior. This is just the type of protection the 2a is for. end of story
Pastor Dennis

Why are these posts getting a pass from most of you? I'm curious. Did everyone already dismiss him as a troll and are applying a policy of ignoring him?

My view of this is that the racism 'fact' has been fabricated by the media and the radical activists.
A few posts back a news outlet has been caught releasing edited '911 evidence' to spin the call to sound 'racist'.

To me all these so called (activist) leaders are bent on starting some kind of race class war, placing progress, relations, and trust that are decades in making back to those of the mid 20th centrury, all for political gains, and off of some kind blind innuendo.  This in itself is discusting. (using a death, homicide or lawful it doesn't make a bit of difference, to further their political agenda)

Again, if he is guilty of some kind of crime, then Zimmy should be punished. If not then he should be left be. 
I think some forget that in this part of America the right of a common citizen to defend one self is respected, not discouraged as in this state.
My guess is if he was here in this state, he would be drawn and quartered, guilty until proven innocent, as is the case many times.

Why are these posts getting a pass from most of you? I'm curious. Did everyone already dismiss him as a troll and are applying a policy of ignoring him?

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the meaning of "Taro head"?

Otherwise stated opinion of what pastor believes happen doesn't seem wrong to me.

Please explain to me any "facts" you have that suggest that Zimmerman's suspicion was based on race.

I find it harder to believe that Martin's race had NOTHING to do with raising Zimmerman's suspicions. Honestly, do you think Zimmerman 1) didn't notice that Martin was black, and/or 2) has absolutely no awareness of or inclination toward racial profiling?

Really, one instance? I think it is just amazing that Jesse Jackson can tell the world he basically profiles other black men ((12/12/93): Jesse Jackson is traveling the country with a tough anti-crime message that he is delivering to inner-city youngsters. In Chicago he said, "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery ”then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.") but have a concerned citizen (who is half hispanic and has a black best friend) follow someone suspicious in his neighborhood, and just because the person is black, he's motivated by racism?? 

I'm imagining a tall and skinny young man walking in the rain with his hood up, with Skittles in a bag, and a 7-11 iced tea, talking on his Bluetooth. I have not read one report of what Zimmerman found to be suspicious about him. Was he standing in one spot looking at a house? Was he darting around like a ninja? How threatening can you look or be with a grocery bag and an iced tea in your hand? What is he, live-casing Zimmerman's neighborhood over the cell to his girlfriend?

If it wasn't his actions, then what, his clothing? How unusual is it for someone to be wearing a hood while walking when it's raining?

Was it because Zimmerman didn't know who he was? Zimmerman felt threatened to call 911 before anything happened because he didn't recognize him? That would mean a LOT of 911 calls.

I am still maintaining (until further facts to the contrary) that this was something that spiraled out of control, and that this is categorically not a hate crime.

My view of this is that the racism 'fact' has been fabricated by the media and the radical activists.
A few posts back a news outlet has been caught releasing edited '911 evidence' to spin the call to sound 'racist'.

Remember when, which was it, TIME or NEWSWEEK?, darkened OJ Simpson's mugshot to make him look more black and menacing?

For all the accusations about the media being liberal, anti-white, racist, or what have you, no one seems to put their finger on the obvious: The media are WHORES. They'll do or say anything to get eyeballs and sell advertising.

To me all these so called (activist) leaders are bent on starting some kind of race class war, placing progress, relations, and trust that are decades in making back to those of the mid 20th centrury, all for political gains, and off of some kind blind innuendo.  This in itself is discusting. (using a death, homicide or lawful it doesn't make a bit of difference, to further their political agenda)

I absolutely concur.

Again, if he is guilty of some kind of crime, then Zimmy should be punished. If not then he should be left be.

The issue I have is that until there was a big stink made about it, the Sanford PD seems to have patted him on the back and let him go without due process.

How do you shoot an unarmed kid (Skittles are deadly to your enamel, sure, but...) and pretty much just get to go about your business like nothing happened?

I think some forget that in this part of America the right of a common citizen to defend one self is respected, not discouraged as in this state. My guess is if he was here in this state, he would be drawn and quartered, guilty until proven innocent, as is the case many times.

If anyone wants to bother looking it up, I was leaning on the side of Deedy (Whatever happened, btw?) when that went down a few months back. Still, if he was just let go without a full investigation, I think there'd be much cause for concern.

"Standing your ground" to me means you don't have to run for your life when danger comes to you. When you chase after trouble, knowing you're armed, you're not just defending yourself, like it seemed happened here, you're being a vigilante. (That is a whole nother discussion, right there.)

heavies...taro head means hard headed.....like putting a broken bit in a horses mouth to force him to turn and obey the rider. Unwilling to be taught. having a rebellious spirit. and as far as being a troll........... I am a  2nd amendment freak that is VERY passionate about my firearms. I even challenge HPD on issues reguarding the right to be armed. I thank God for all of you, even those who dont agree with me. In the end .....we are all  PATRIOTS. My question to you'all is. Will the constitution and the 2nd amendment die with us? In this generation? I will give life and fortune so it does not.
Pastor Dennis

heavies...taro head means hard headed.....like putting a broken bit in a horses mouth to force him to turn and obey the rider. Unwilling to be taught. having a rebellious spirit. and as far as being a troll........... I am a  2nd amendment freak that is VERY passionate about my firearms. I even challenge HPD on issues reguarding the right to be armed. I thank God for all of you, even those who dont agree with me. In the end .....we are all  PATRIOTS. My question to you'all is. Will the constitution and the 2nd amendment die with us? In this generation? I will give life and fortune so it does not.
Pastor Dennis

10-4. Thank you

Now Old Joe Biden is using this to spin more anti gun BS. I kinda expected something like this.

 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57407389/biden-trayvon-case-could-spur-fla-gun-law-debate/?tag=re1.discussed

Racist BK ad.





 
Is this where we are in America?
 

The issue I have is that until there was a big stink made about it, the Sanford PD seems to have patted him on the back and let him go without due process.

How do you shoot an unarmed kid (Skittles are deadly to your enamel, sure, but...) and pretty much just get to go about your business like nothing happened?

"Standing your ground" to me means you don't have to run for your life when danger comes to you. When you chase after trouble, knowing you're armed, you're not just defending yourself, like it seemed happened here, you're being a vigilante. (That is a whole nother discussion, right there.)

Well I don't know about you but a skinny kid in a hoodie would look suspicious to me, raining sunny whatever, I'm gonna keep my eye one him, I might even call the cops on him, I might even follow him if I thought he was up to no good. And I don't care what color he is, Crackheads and chronics know no color.  Skinny kids are sometimes chronics, and hoodies hide their face.  Why hide something.
 
As for shooting, if a guy, bigger or smaller than me, is trying to beat my head into the concrete, and I am armed, well then I guess the choice is clear.
 
Is that what happened?  We don't know yet.  However, labling someone as a racist exocutioner, with no hard evedence, that is the real problem.
 
You need to look past your assumptions and wait for facts (not anything the media dreams up) before saying that the guy was racially motivated.

However, labling someone as a racist exocutioner, with no hard evedence, that is the real problem.
 
You need to look past your assumptions and wait for facts (not anything the media dreams up) before saying that the guy was racially motivated.

I think you're misreading my posts and replies. I am specifically and clearly saying what he did was not a hate crime, but a massive blunder that was probably catalyzed by the kind of racial profiling most people do.

I find it harder to believe that Martin's race had NOTHING to do with raising Zimmerman's suspicions. Honestly, do you think Zimmerman 1) didn't notice that Martin was black, and/or 2) has absolutely no awareness of or inclination toward racial profiling?

While I respect your opinion, your beliefs on the subject at hand do not equal facts. You have made the claim that Zimmerman is a racist, subsequently qualifed those initial remarks to "lessen" the degree of racist, but still claim he racist. Furthermore, it is not "racial profiling" it is "profiling." And while many don't really understand what this means, and it is certainly not "PC" it is a legitimate and useful tools in many circumstances. Let's look at it in another context: You are walking down the street and are confronted by an angry, barking dog. What do you do? Well, most likely you are going to do a quick "profile" of the dog in front of you and base your actions on your knowledge of the behavioral charastics of that particular dog.

Let's take it a step further. You're walking down the street and you see a skinny, somewhat discheveled and dirty male, in a hoody pulled up so as to obscure his face. His hands are in his pockets and he is walking toward you. What do you do? If you cannot determine his race but cross over to the other side of the street, is that racist or just being prudent? What if you can see his face and he's white and you cross over to the other side of the street? Is that racist? But, if you can see his face and know he is black and cross over the other side of the street, suddenly you're a racist? What about what Jesse Jackson said in 1992, was that racist?

I'm imagining a tall and skinny young man walking in the rain with his hood up, with Skittles in a bag, and a 7-11 iced tea, talking on his Bluetooth. I have not read one report of what Zimmerman found to be suspicious about him. Was he standing in one spot looking at a house? Was he darting around like a ninja? How threatening can you look or be with a grocery bag and an iced tea in your hand? What is he, live-casing Zimmerman's neighborhood over the cell to his girlfriend?

Listen to the 911 call Zimmerman made. He states [about Martin] "This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [00:25]" So, it appears, at least from the transcript, that he may not have been walking directly home, and if so, it is pretty reasonable to assume that he might be "casing" the place. About 42 seconds into the call, Zimmerman notes that Martin is "...staring" at him, so is apparently aware of Zimmerman's presence. At 48 seconds he notes again that Martin is "staring" at him. At 1:03 into the call, Zimmerman noted that Martin was "...coming toward me. He has his hands in his waist band." At 1:20 Zimmerman says Something is wrong with him. Yep, he's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is." At 2:08 Zimmerman noted that Martin started running away. At 2:24 the dispatcher asks ZImmerman if he's following Martin, he replies yes and is told he doesn't need to do that. Zimmerman then answers several more questions about his current location, his phone number, and it is obvious that he has stopped chasing Martin. The 911 call ends at 4:07, with Zimmerman waiting for the police to arrive and is either back at his truck, or walking that way.

So, it is obvious that Zimmerman did not continue following Martin, so your whole theory that Zimmerman was the aggressor, seems somewhat implausible. What I find interersting, is that in that approximately 2 minutes from when Zimmerman stopped chasig Martin, to when the 911 call ended, Martin didn't go back to his house. Why? Zimmerman was no longer chasing him and says on the 911 tape that he has lost sight of Martin. I find it somewhat difficult to understand why Martin, having eluded Zimmerman, is suddenly in such close proximity to Zimmerman. Could it be that Martin returned to confront Zimmerman as Zimmerman contends?

I don't know. We need more facts. But to suggest that a home owner, volunteering as a neighborhood watch participant, alerted police to a "suspicious" person is racist, is irresponsible and conterproductive. Could it have been? Sure, but where (I ask again) is the evidence? Not oinion, not conjecture, not supposition, facts. THere really aren't any that I have seen or that are reliable. If you'd like to provide some, I would encourage you to do so. Otherwise, get off this racist BS.

As a point of interest is that when initially asked if the suspicious person was white, black or hispanic, Zimmerman replied "He looks black" (that's about 25 seconds into the call). Then, at 1:03, when Zimmerman is telling dispatch that Martin is "..coming toward me" does he confirm that Martin is black. So, from that, one could reasonably argue that Zimmerman was not initially sure what race Martin was (He LOOKS black), which would further shoot holes in the racist card you seem to want to play..

While I respect your opinion, your beliefs on the subject at hand do not equal facts. You have made the claim that Zimmerman is a racist, subsequently qualifed those initial remarks to "lessen" the degree of racist, but still claim he racist. Furthermore, it is not "racial profiling" it is "profiling." And while many don't really understand what this means, and it is certainly not "PC" it is a legitimate and useful tools in many circumstances. Let's look at it in another context: You are walking down the street and are confronted by an angry, barking dog. What do you do? Well, most likely you are going to do a quick "profile" of the dog in front of you and base your actions on your knowledge of the behavioral charastics of that particular dog.

...

As a point of interest is that when initially asked if the suspicious person was white, black or hispanic, Zimmerman replied "He looks black" (that's about 25 seconds into the call). Then, at 1:03, when Zimmerman is telling dispatch that Martin is "..coming toward me" does he confirm that Martin is black. So, from that, one could reasonably argue that Zimmerman was not initially sure what race Martin was (He LOOKS black), which would further shoot holes in the racist card you seem to want to play..

Thanks for the 911 tape transcript. It's sheds more light on an already murky subject.

No offense, but I really think you *want* to believe race had absolutely nothing with this, and that Zimmerman has some sort of blinders that made Martin's being black completely and utterly non-consequential. That, to me is much more unlikely than anything that's been supposed, and goes against what you said about racial profiling. You yourself said that it's profiling, but you seem hypersensitive to adding the word "racial" to it, as though we have blinders on about the color of people's skin.

Now, I want you to understand, and make this crystal clear: I do *not* think you are racist, nor do I think you want to defend racists. I do think we have a disagreement on the definition and nature of racism. I'm perceiving that you think of it as a very binary, either-you-are-or-you-aren't classification, whereas I think it's much more gradient, and that hardly anyone is completely free of race-bias.

Here's what I don't understand. I don't know how much clearer I can make it that I do not believe Zimmerman is a racist in the "hates black people" sense of the word, but the rebuttals are aimed at that target. My claim is that Martin's race probably helped trigger Zimmerman's suspicions. What made Zimmerman think Martin was on drugs? What made him notice Martin in the first place? If Martin had drugs in his system, don't you think we would have heard about it long before now?

What flabbergasts me is that the issue is so focused on race, when the main meat of the matter is that person A made a series of decisions that ended up with him killing person B when there is no evidence or even indication except person A's suspicions that person A was doing anything wrong in the first place. Staring at him? If I was walking down a street and someone sitting in a car was glaring at me, I'd stare back, too.

My conjecture is simply that Martin's race influenced Zimmerman's perception.

You're focusing on the wrong thing here. I am not accusing Zimmerman of any racist attitudes that most people in America don't already have. I have specifically, and CLEARLY said that I do not believe this is a hate crime. How am I in any way playing a race card against Zimmerman?

I've also clearly said that this is my evaluation of the facts as we know them, and that they're subject to change as new facts come to light. If we have to believe that one party is "good" and the other "bad" (Just look at the smear campaign going on against Martin!), and I don't, just the fact that Zimmerman had a gun and this is a 2A board doesn't mean he's the good guy.

It's an error to try to divide this issue into two sides and pick one. There are too many players and divergent interests. The media, the activists, the police department, Martin's family, Zimmerman's family, etc. If your interest is in trying to get the facts straight and drawing the most accurate conclusion you can, picking a side is the wrong way to go.

No offense, but I really think you *want* to believe race had absolutely nothing with this, and that Zimmerman has some sort of blinders that made Martin's being black completely and utterly non-consequential. That, to me is much more unlikely than anything that's been supposed, and goes against what you said about racial profiling. You yourself said that it's profiling, but you seem hypersensitive to adding the word "racial" to it, as though we have blinders on about the color of people's skin

No offense taken, but you are wrong. It is not what I want to believe, it is what I have been hearing, since the beginning of this event that drives me to comment. And, what I have been hearing is a lot of "it was racial" and "Zimmerman is a racist" without any shred of evidence to support the statements, except the fact that Martin was black and Zimmerman was not. Now, as I have said in the past, if it turns out Zimmerman was wrong, he deserves to be prosecuted. And, conversely, if Martin was the "bad" guy, then Zimmerman's actions become a reasonable response and he gets off. As for race not comming into play, I no more believe that than I believe the earth is flat. And, I didn't say that. As I tried to explain, and demonstrate wihth the 911 call, it appears Zimmerman was not entirely sure of Martin's race when he called 911 and that his alleged actions and possibly dress, were the issues that focused Zimmerman's attention on him. There is a huge difference in being racist (def: 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. ) and profiling. Profiling (def: the extrapolation of information about something, based on known qualities) has gotten a bad rap (not all of it undeserved...) but is a legitimate tool and we all do it daily to a greater or lesser extent. And, I am sensitive to adding the word "racial" to profiling as that then becomes less profiling and more racial. You cannot look just at race, but you can consider race as part of the overall picture of the issue at hand.

Now, I want you to understand, and make this crystal clear: I do *not* think you are racist, nor do I think you want to defend racists. I do think we have a disagreement on the definition and nature of racism. I'm perceiving that you think of it as a very binary, either-you-are-or-you-aren't classification, whereas I think it's much more gradient, and that hardly anyone is completely free of race-bias.

I think you have a point here, in terms of gradation, but again, in the context of the Martin shooting, I thought is was totally irresponsible and lacking any merit, to start with the racism card as opposed to something else, be it eitther a good self-defense shoot or second degree murder.

Here's what I don't understand. I don't know how much clearer I can make it that I do not believe Zimmerman is a racist in the "hates black people" sense of the word, but the rebuttals are aimed at that target. My claim is that Martin's race probably helped trigger Zimmerman's suspicions. What made Zimmerman think Martin was on drugs? What made him notice Martin in the first place? If Martin had drugs in his system, don't you think we would have heard about it long before now?

Again, I bring up the fact that Zimmerman did not initially appear to know Martin was black, as the 911 call seems to demonstrate. If that is correct, how could the fact that Martin was black play into the what made him seem suspicious to Zimmerman? I am not sure what made Zimmerman believe Martin was on drugs, but can extrapolate that Zimmerman's perception of Martin just hanging around, as opposed to walking directly home, may have had some influence. And, it is not unusual to not get a toxicology screen released publically in a criminal case, so no real weight should be given to the fact we haven't heard Martin did (or did not) have drugs in his system. 

George Zimmerman had called for disciplining officers in the same police department for beating a black homeless man.

Zimmerman's action suggests that he is anything but racist (More on this a bit later.), but it paints a very poor picture of the police department.

Your words: So, he's "...anything but a racist" on one hand, but in this instance he is? And, he is racist because he "MAY" have used race as a component in evaluating the totality of the circumstances before calling 911 to report a suspicious person? 

If this issue is, as you seem to imply, simply a matter of semantics, I will agree that race MAY have played a part in Zimmerman deciding to call 911 to report a suspicious person in his neighborhood. If, on the other hand you are trying to say that all Zimmerman saw, or thought, was, "hey, it's a black kid, he must be up to no good" I believe you are wrong and that there is no evidence to support that type of assertion. My problem is that in playing the "race cards" in absence of any clear evidence to support those claims, organizations and individuals are in actuality doing more harm than good. And, if improving "race-relations" and promoting racial harmony and understanding is the ultimate end goal, then their actions have set back that effort.

Aloha