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

Thanks for your reply. It was very thoughtful and I appreciate it.

I do think, though, that you may be conflating what I have said is my evaluation of the facts as I'm aware of them, with what others both here on the board and otherwise may have said. Your analysis and presentation has helped shed light from a different angle, and opened up new channels for inquiry, so I'm not just blowing hot air. I really do appreciate your response.

To clarify the point, though, Zimmerman's very public protest against the police department indicates that he is anything but racist in the "I hate black people" sense. I keep hammering the point that I do not believe Zimmerman killed Martin out of hate, and I have seen nothing to indicate that he does. This new evidence further solidifies that impression. When I say Zimmerman's suspicions may have been racist, I mean toward the other end of the spectrum, the profiling that you speak of.

I just want to reiterate, because it seems to keep coming up, that I do not believe this was a hate crime, or that Zimmerman holds actively hostile feelings toward black people. It's more of an aside than anything else, that race might have been a catalyst, or perhaps more aptly, a tiny spark, that set off a huge, destructive fire. (See my previous points about what really matters about this case.)

Some of the responses I've seen in reaction, though, are much more clearly racist. This new pastor guy that keeps posting incendiary comments, I'm almost certain he's just trying very hard to stir up crap, but I am kind of disturbed that he can say stuff like that on this board and hardly anyone says anything in opposition. Remember how this is a 2A board that's being watched and recorded by anti-gun people?

In any case, if we can set aside the racial angle for a moment, I don't know how we can talk about this without a common ground of assumptions (Under what circumstances did Zimmerman and Martin initially confront one another? Did Zimmerman catch up to Martin? Did Martin circle back around and confront Zimmerman? Who said what before the initial blow was struck? Who threw the first punch? At what point did Zimmerman draw his gun?), but what do you think about Zimmerman's actions? Of course in Hawaii, carrying a concealed gun outside of your home is a clear violation of law (for better or worse), but let's say you were in Zimmerman's shoes, in a gun-friendly state. Would you have done the same thing he did? I think it's fair to say that Zimmerman's choice to pursue Martin ultimately created the situation.

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

This is the more relevant and weightier angle that's getting drowned out with the focus on race.

If it turns out that Zimmerman was at fault, and that he should not have entered a situation in which no one's life was in danger, and created the situation in which a deadly confrontation was the result, does it behoove the 2A community to rally around him just because he was the one with a gun in the situation? Or do we use it as an opportunity to educate and prevent similar situations?

It's ridiculous to assume that there won't be any unjustified or accidental shootings if 2A wins, and it's sheer madness to PRETEND that there aren't, and automatically assume the man with the gun acted in good faith or judgment.

Just as it is to assume the flip side of that coin.

I think that "...4-things-media-got-wrong-130500344.html" is a wild underestimate.

Thanks for your reply. It was very thoughtful and I appreciate it.

Thank you.....for both the thought provoking discussion and your concerns.

In any case, if we can set aside the racial angle for a moment, I don't know how we can talk about this without a common ground of assumptions (Under what circumstances did Zimmerman and Martin initially confront one another? Did Zimmerman catch up to Martin? Did Martin circle back around and confront Zimmerman? Who said what before the initial blow was struck? Who threw the first punch? At what point did Zimmerman draw his gun?), but what do you think about Zimmerman's actions? Of course in Hawaii, carrying a concealed gun outside of your home is a clear violation of law (for better or worse), but let's say you were in Zimmerman's shoes, in a gun-friendly state. Would you have done the same thing he did? I think it's fair to say that Zimmerman's choice to pursue Martin ultimately created the situation.

As you said, without knowing the facts it would be difficult to comment on Zimmerman's actions. But, if we take it to the basics, I would (and have) participated in neighborhood watch efforts. Both in creating them and participating in them. Would I carry a gun if legal to do so? Definitely. Would I call 911 to report a suspicious person? Again, yes and I have done so in the past. Would I have tried to follow a fleeing suspicious person I just called 911 on? Maybe. Not to catch him, but to keep him in sight so as to direct authorities to his location or to prevent him from ambusing arriving LE. And, again, this is something I have done in the past, not in my neighborhood, but at work. We had a crack-addled female come in with a firearm. She held the staff at bay, ended up firing off a few rounds, and then fleeing out the fire exit which emptied into a parking lot and then a busy downtown street. I followed her, not because I wanted to catch her (I was unarmed and she still had a loaded firearm) but because I knew that both my security staff and police were responding. I didn't want her to disappear between parked cars only to pop up and surprise/shoot someone. As it ended up, I was able to keep eyes on her and direct responding officers to her location.

So, maybe that is what Zimmermann wanted to do. Simply keep eyes on his "suspicious person" to assist responding LE in locating him. And, again, maybe not......

Aloha

This is the more relevant and weightier angle that's getting drowned out with the focus on race.

If it turns out that Zimmerman was at fault, and that he should not have entered a situation in which no one's life was in danger, and created the situation in which a deadly confrontation was the result, does it behoove the 2A community to rally around him just because he was the one with a gun in the situation? Or do we use it as an opportunity to educate and prevent similar situations?

It's ridiculous to assume that there won't be any unjustified or accidental shootings if 2A wins, and it's sheer madness to PRETEND that there aren't, and automatically assume the man with the gun acted in good faith or judgment.

Just as it is to assume the flip side of that coin.

As Rahm Emanuel said: "Never let a crisis go to waste"

If it turns out that Zimmerman was at fault, and that he should not have entered a situation in which no one's life was in danger, and created the situation in which a deadly confrontation was the result, does it behoove the 2A community to rally around him just because he was the one with a gun in the situation?

I think you bring up a valid point. But, if Zimmerman was, as many neighborhood watch members do daily, just trying to identify suspicious persons in his neighborhood and provide police with relevent info on those so identified, is that activity allowable? After all, he did insert himself into a situation where "no one's life was [at least immediately] in danger." Furthermore, if said neighborhood watch volunteer, in the process of just providing information to the police is subsequently confronted and attacked, is the blame placed on the volunteer because he "created the situation in which a deadly confrontation was the result" by being in the area and reporting to the poice when the suspicious person took exception to this activity and decided to confront him?

Citizens have the right to watch over and report to the police suspicious or probable criminal activity. If in the process of doing so, those suspicious persons approach and confront the volunteer, and create a situation where the citizen is forced to use force in self-defense, the blame should be placed squarely where it belongs, the "bad" guy, not the law abiding citizen trying to protect their property by watching it and notifying the police. 

I think we, because of our beliefs, hope Zimmerman didn't do something boneheaded, as that reflects poorly on all gun owners. But, we'll have to just wait and see what the investigation uncovers.

I think we, because of our beliefs, hope Zimmerman didn't do something boneheaded, as that reflects poorly on all gun owners. But, we'll have to just wait and see what the investigation uncovers.

Agreed. 

Presented without comment:

http://www.businessinsider.com/zimmerman-lawyers-withdrawing-as-council-have-lost-contact-with-trayvon-martin-shooter-2012-4

Bah. Mountain out of a mole hill. What a circus.

If the kid was one year older this would have drawn zero attention. Had this been gang violence perpetrated with an ~illegal~ weapon it would have drawn even less. Had it been an unarmed Zimmerman unconscious and bled to death on the sidewalk it would have gone unnoticed. The police called it a lawful shooting in self-defense.... and the media jumps on an unrelated (and very mild) Florida 2a law to spin nationwide attention. Nice work.

Same bull$hit, different day.

Only instigating idiots even bring this up anyway.

Same soap opera, different idiot.

If it was a black guy protecting his family in his own driveway from a psycho white guy, the NRA wouldn't give a damn even if their precious castle doctrines and stand your ground laws were conveniently ignored.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/11/when_stand_your_ground_fails/

Stand your Ground is a good law, but the way it's applied is racist. I can see there are a lot of people here who live under the shield of White Privilege and never bothered to examine it. Even in this state the question is why are there so many Hawaiians locked up when they make up such a small part of the population? Cause the master race(s) have a huge double standard and you have to be pretty ignorant not to see what's really going on.

Bah. Mountain out of a mole hill. What a circus.

If the kid was one year older this would have drawn zero attention. Had this been gang violence perpetrated with an ~illegal~ weapon it would have drawn even less. Had it been an unarmed Zimmerman unconscious and bled to death on the sidewalk it would have gone unnoticed. The police called it a lawful shooting in self-defense.... and the media jumps on an unrelated (and very mild) Florida 2a law to spin nationwide attention. Nice work.

Same bull$hit, different day.

I think the controversy stems most from the fact that it seems Zimmerman was let go with what seems to be nothing but his word and a few confused witness accounts, rather than a full investigation.

http://www.businessinsider.com/forensic-expert-its-not-george-zimmerman-screaming-for-help-in-the-911-calls-2012-3

The media are making things worse, of course. They keep running pictures of Martin at a much younger age, giving the impression that a 14-15 year old was killed, rather than a 17-year-old. Then there are people on the other side. Racist sites have been running pictures of a bigger, more menacing-looking black man claiming it was Trayvon (It wasn't.), asking why the media isn't running that photo instead.

Each of us are 2A proponents, and I'm pretty sure none of us are too shy about it in our personal lives, so the topic will come up with friends and neighbors. When it does, do we want to be one of those uneducated misled people spreading false information and biased conclusions based on shaky evidence? Or do we want to know all the angles, and have heard the reasoning for both or all sides, and be a voice of reason? What if we're faced with a similar situation? Do we want to end up in the same situation as Zimmerman?

Sweeping this under the rug and not talking about it is a wasted opportunity.

George Zimmerman has set up a web site.

http://www.therealgeorgezimmerman.com/

Now he's in custody. Finally.

It's a complete travesty what's going on with Zimmerman right now. The justice system was never established to make the general feel good about what they were told to think they should feel about a case. They'll never be able to find a single unbiased juror and any judgement handed down that doesn't appease the rabid idiots that think this is about race will instantly claim racism. I hope at the end of all this Zimmerman can sue the shit out of everyone for such a terrible intrusion on his rights.

It's a complete travesty what's going on with Zimmerman right now. The justice system was never established to make the general feel good about what they were told to think they should feel about a case. They'll never be able to find a single unbiased juror and any judgement handed down that doesn't appease the rabid idiots that think this is about race will instantly claim racism. I hope at the end of all this Zimmerman can sue the shit out of everyone for such a terrible intrusion on his rights.

+1

If it was a black guy protecting his family in his own driveway from a psycho white guy, the NRA wouldn't give a damn even if their precious castle doctrines and stand your ground laws were conveniently ignored.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/11/when_stand_your_ground_fails/

Stand your Ground is a good law, but the way it's applied is racist. I can see there are a lot of people here who live under the shield of White Privilege and never bothered to examine it. Even in this state the question is why are there so many Hawaiians locked up when they make up such a small part of the population? Cause the master race(s) have a huge double standard and you have to be pretty ignorant not to see what's really going on.

$$$ plays a big role in getting good legal representation, however to lay it all on "The White Man," IMHO is flawed.  The reason people are typically locked up is they did something illegal.

This is interesting "if" everything stated here is indeed "Factual". 

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back

This is interesting "if" everything stated here is indeed "Factual". 

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back

It appears, when you listen to the complete, unaltered 911 call, that Zimmerman stopped as soon as the 911 operator told him to.

People who are doing wrong don't call 911.

The truth is out there.