The "let's all beat this dead horse" thread.

Otherwise, you're just its bitch.

...or in my case, its "creepy ass cracker." jokes.

In reply to Datsun1500:

The nature of that confrontation is the issue.

I confront people every day. A resident asking a stranger why he is in the neighborhood is a confrontation, but it does not warrant a fist in the face (which may or may not have happened).

If GZ approached TM and asked why he was there, it was not inappropriate, and was not the beginning of the escalation.

If he stalked him, or chased him, or threatened him, then I'd agree with you.

The jury has ruled not guilty.

Marjorie Suddard wrote: Sorry, I think I overwrote my response. What I meant to say was, "Really, stop now." Margie

If I win the lottery, can I make a generous donation to GRM and have you personally moderate the folks around me for a day?

I like PI.

Datsun1500 wrote: Zimmerman walked up and confronted Martin. To me that is what started it. However it went down, that is what started it. I have said it before, both are at fault, sadly, one paid a lot more than the other. Martin did have the power to not push, hit, shove, yell at, etc. in order to not escalate it further. Martin could have avoided it turning into something bigger (and chose not to) but Zimmerman could have avoided the whole thing (and chose not to) All I am saying is there is fault on both sides. People seem to be determined to say it was all on, or all the other.

ok, I can relate to that sentiment alot more. thx for clarifying.

I don't find fault with thinking that GZ was the catalyst of the scenario. but I do have difficulty with being persuaded GZ held all the cards exclusively when it came to making choices.

Marjorie Suddard wrote: Sorry, I think I overwrote my response. What I meant to say was, "Really, stop now." Margie

Cheese it!! Mom's here!!!!

Marjorie Suddard wrote: I graduated from Seminole High School in Sanford, Florida. I'm also reading Will D. Campbell's "Brother to a Dragonfly." It's a memoir of his growing up in the South and going on to become the chaplain at Ole Miss in the late 1950s, where he became involved in the Civil Rights movement. He's gorgeously honest about the world he grew up in. He also details how the white landowners in the South returned the poor blacks and the poor whites to servitude within a generation of reconstruction by setting the two factions against each other. Both of these experiences make me very sad about what's happened/happening in Sanford--and also aware that offering my summary judgement or a quick, pithy observation would be offensive. This is history, like it or not, and history has a weird way of worming itself out of the pigeonholes and hard lines we try to nail it into. Sometimes, though, if you open yourself up to all of its sides, you can get a glimpse of its true nature. Otherwise, you're just its bitch. Margie

Well worded.

In the early 80s, I was offered a chance to run a research farm in Sanford. Not a bad town at all at that time, but at night I was the only person under the age of 50 in the restaurants (I was 25 at the time). Little did I know this would come about.

In reply to Datsun1500:

So your beef is based upon a belief that the public should stand by and not do anything? That just doesn't work.

The whole mess should have never been started and everyone gone back to watching whatever crappy reality tv show was on.

I would love to find where Datsun is getting this absolute info? From everything we have heard/was reported it was Martin that confronted Z.

We don't know who is or who isn't.......we do know the state can't prove anything, I doubt the feds can either. Henceforth, as we don't have time machines, we don't know. Thats why we have all been saying everything is hearsay.

They both had families, they both had potential, and you never know what either would have accomplished. That's now gone.

Big +1. I get where you're coming from. I think you, me, and the rest of the world would agree that things would be better for everyone if Zimmerman had just stayed in the damned truck. But hearing how it went down in his words, I get it. I can't say that I wouldn't have done the exact same thing he did.

For the hell of it, I thought this was interesting. Weird that it's only got 175,000 views. I guess everyone's more interested in anybody but Zimmerman's version of the events.

Possible NWS language toward the end. Zimmerman with Sanford police at the scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX1sxARNq_c

Datsun1500 wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: I would love to find where Datsun is getting this absolute info? From everything we have heard/was reported it was Martin that confronted Z.

So Zimmerman was driving his truck down the road and Martin flagged him down? Have you read the 911 transcripts? Martin ran from Zimmerman and Zimmerman ran after him

Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. E36 M3 he's running. Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running? Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood. Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards? Zimmerman: The back entrance...berkeleying [unintelligible] Dispatcher: Are you following him? Zimmerman: Yeah Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that. Zimmerman: Ok

He spotted a suspicious person, called it in then followed because hte cops were taking forever and a day to get there. There is no account of him actually confronting M. Period. You can spin it however you want to make yourself feel better/whatever, but there is no record of Z confronting M. Period.

I'm pretty sure this horse is well and truly dead.

The Mrs. is going to get pissed directly. Y'all might want to shut it down.

On a side tangent, like the old saying goes: 'when seconds count the police are there in minutes'.

Earlier in the 911 call Zimmerman says 'these shiny happy people always get away'. That makes me think that he'd tried the call the cops thing before unsuccessfully.

Some news reports say he'd called 911 as many as 50 times in the six months or so leading up to this.

Datsun1500 wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: I would love to find where Datsun is getting this absolute info? From everything we have heard/was reported it was Martin that confronted Z.

So Zimmerman was driving his truck down the road and Martin flagged him down? Have you read the 911 transcripts? Martin ran from Zimmerman and Zimmerman ran after him

Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. E36 M3 he's running. Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running? Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood. Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards? Zimmerman: The back entrance...berkeleying [unintelligible] Dispatcher: Are you following him? Zimmerman: Yeah Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that. Zimmerman: Ok

This is my problem with the whole thing, for all the media coverage and all the testimony and the expert witnesses, we are still no closer to knowing the truth abuot what happened that night. If I had to explain what happened here to a child, i could not do it with a straight face. I have nothing else constructive to say, other than in before the lock..

Toyman01 wrote: I'm pretty sure this horse is well and truly dead. The Mrs. is going to get pissed directly. Y'all might want to shut it down.

A lot of people are genuinely interested in the case, and genuinely interested in WHY there is all the outrage...or whether or not there is any genuine outrage, or if it's all manufactured. I tend to believe the latter. I haven't seen a lot of E36 M3 slinging up to this point.

I post here because the average intelligence and awareness of current events is way higher than anywhere else on the internet or on TV or in "real life."

I'm genuinely interested in hearing and seeing all the angles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z36Xadupn5c&feature=youtube_gdata_player

poopshovel wrote: I'm genuinely interested in hearing and seeing all the angles.

Well, the age old line "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" has been upheld again. That is one angle to look at it from.

btw-- Zimmerman and his parents are in hiding now. Happy Media?

Oh good, this will fix everything since Stand-your-ground WASN'T EVEN USED IN THIS berkeleyING CASE

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/16/holder-wades-deeper-into-zimmerman-battle-calls-for-review-stand-your-ground/

Thanks, AG, I am glad we appointed a guy who knows his E36 M3.

Serious question. How exactly would the AG go about doing something about states Stand your Ground laws?

Datsun1500 wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: He spotted a suspicious person, called it in then followed because hte cops were taking forever and a day to get there.

So it was his job to follow him? How long did the cops take? How long did he wait before following him?

There is no account of him actually confronting M. Period. You can spin it however you want to make yourself feel better/whatever, but there is no record of Z confronting M. Period.

If an armed person starts following you, that's not a confrontation? Serious question: Do you think Trayvon Martin is 100% responsible, and if so, why?

Dude, remember when Ma said to stop? I am pretty sure she was talking about this E36 M3.

nocones wrote: Serious question. How exactly would the AG go about doing something about states Stand your Ground laws?

I would guess maybe some constitutional, basic rights / freedoms basis? (probably not though)

More realistically, it could be abused to effectively assassinate someone. e.g. confront someone in isolation, insult until attacked, shoot, eliminating any contrary testimony. Having a witness at some distance (so they can't hear) would probably be beneficial.

In reply to tuna55:

(EDIT: whoops, I was slow. This was meant in reply to tuna's prior post about the AG's interest in SYG laws)

I believe the assertion is that such laws may foster a tendency toward conflict/confrontation by removing the stipulation that you should try to remove yourself from danger if possible before resorting to deadly force, not that the law had a direct bearing on the outcome of this case.

This is not an assertion on my part either way, just an observation about why Holder is bringing it up, per the linked article.

ransom wrote: In reply to tuna55: I believe the assertion is that such laws may foster a tendency toward conflict/confrontation by removing the stipulation that you should try to remove yourself from danger if possible before resorting to deadly force, not that the law had a direct bearing on the outcome of this case. This is not an assertion on my part either way, just an observation about why Holder is bringing it up, per the linked article.

So, essentially you're confirming that Holder is in "don't let a crisis go to waste" mode and just playing on tattered emotions, or that it's an incredible (literally, not credible) coincidence.

Either way, that's not exactly what SYG means, but that's OK. He's never understood law before now, why should he start?