Originally Posted by willow_girl (Post 6663109)

I think this case illustrates the dangers of vigilanteeism, and suggests a breakdown in law and order in our society.

When GZ called 911 from his car to report a suspicious individual in his neighborhood, [b]I believe the dispatcher told him not to follow the 'suspect.' If he had taken that advice and stayed in his vehicle,[b] it's likely the shooting never would have happened.

Likewise, if TM had called 911 when he realized he was being followed, and had chosen to get out of Dodge instead of confronting Zimmerman, he wouldn't have been shot.

Neither man trusted the police to do their job adequately. GZ expressed his frustration to the dispatcher ("These [expletives] always get away"). It appears Martin did not even turn to the police for help.While it's risky to speculate as to another's mindset, I think it's possible that as a young black man, he did not view the police as being his allies. Perhaps it never even occurred to him that he could summon them for help.

When law and order break down in a community, and people no longer trust authority figures to protect them, tragedies like this are the result.

Originally Posted by Darren (Post 6663114)

Martin had several choices that would have probably led to his survival.

1. He could have gone home as suggested by the girl he was talking to.

2. He could have chosen not to knock Zimmerman to the ground.

3. After he had knocked Zimmerman to the ground, he could have stopped instead of straddling Zimmerman and continuing the beating.

4. He could stopped beating Zimmerman on the ground when Zimmerman started crying for help.

5. He could stopped beating Zimmerman on the ground after Zimmerman was crying for help.and the neighbor who witnessed the beating told him to stop. I don't think the gun was in play yet.

Seconds after the neighbor went inside, the gun came out and Martin's options and life expired.

Martin went through at least five points in time when he could have stopped during the confrontation and assault and lived.

Originally Posted by dixiegal62 (Post 6663126)

No links, but fox is reporting that feds are looking into this being a hate crime AGAIN.

Originally Posted by Darren (Post 6663134)

Martin, per Zimmerman, didn't know about the gun until towards the end. He could have chosen to walk away from the man at five identifiable moments before the gun was revealed. Zimmerman had a CCW. Those who characterized Zimmerman as a cop wannabe ignored that Zimmerman acted as a civilian and not a cop the entire time. He kept the gun concealed until almost the very end.

I've yet to attack anyone. And I have no reason to think I will in the future. I have no reason to wonder whether someone has a gun. The point is Martin had the opportunity to stop the assault several times. After the gun was revealed, maybe he did go after it. He might have still been able to throw his hands up and give up.

Martin didn't know Zimmerman had a gun until it was probably too late. Martin made choices and he paid the ultimate price for his bad decisions.

As for what I would do if I was forced into that situation, I don't know. There are too many factors to take into consideration to give a pat answer.

Originally Posted by mmoetc (Post 6663141)

And yet you're certain how Martin should have acted at each and every point.

Originally Posted by Darren (Post 6663147)

Martin was out of control before he encountered Zimmerman. I've haven't seen anything that makes me think anything other than Martin saw Zimmerman as an opportunity to pound the hell out of a ***** *** ******* and brag about it to his friends later.

Martin crossed more than one line on his rendezvous with death that night.

Originally Posted by Forerunner (Post 6663195)

So, what should we do......re-try the case ?

What fate for Zimmerman would sate the appetites of those here who believe he murdered a man ?

Originally Posted by Karen (Post 6663255)

I agree with Angie and it's the fact that it wasn't just quoting an article; rather being used over and over in these posts when there is no reason to keep using. Even in Florida, it becomes insulting if used constantly to reference someone.

In other words, it was fine to define/quote that M called Z a "creepy cracker" but then when making personal posts, it isn't necessary and is inflammatory, to constantly keep referring to Z as the creepy cracker rather than just using his name. So it's not that it's wrong, but it becomes wrong and no better than using the 'n' word when it you take it too far and constantly as a derogatory term.

Please let's not argue the point anymore and get back to the original intent of this thread.

Originally Posted by sandsuncritters (Post 6663291)

Cracker refers to a proud heritage and hardworking honest people who helped to build this country.

Originally Posted by Nevada (Post 6663347)

I've never heard the term "cracker" used in that context.

Originally Posted by Forerunner (Post 6663195)

So, what should we do......re-try the case ?

What fate for Zimmerman would sate the appetites of those here who believe he murdered a man ?

Originally Posted by mmoetc (Post 6663362)

The trial was fair and the verdict just. What I object to is the deification of Zimmerman and the demonization of Martin. Both made numerous decisions that night that led to the death of one. Neither had to die or even have a violent confrontation. I find the celebratory nature of some's reaction to the death of a young man as distasteful as the violence that occurred in Oakland in the aftermath of the verdict.

Originally Posted by mmoetc (Post 6663362)

The trial was fair and the verdict just. What I object to is the deification of Zimmerman and the demonization of Martin. Both made numerous decisions that night that led to the death of one. Neither had to die or even have a violent confrontation. I find the celebratory nature of some's reaction to the death of a young man as distasteful as the violence that occurred in Oakland in the aftermath of the verdict.

Originally Posted by Ambereyes (Post 6663375)

The media got what they wanted, divisions.

Originally Posted by mmoetc (Post 6663379)

The media did get what they wanted. Ratings and ad revenue.

Originally Posted by chickenista (Post 6663345)

Zimmerman will crash and burn.
Too much fame.
He may get too much money.. book deals, Lifetime movie deal whatever..
Too fast of a new car, too much drink, gambling..
Or he may just fade away, ending up destitute and making poor choices.
I cannot imagine that he will get a good job, settle down and buy a house, grow some roses in the backyard...

He was not a successful guy, he didn't have the faculties to have a steady job and life.
The fame/infamy will be his downfall.
You have to be a seriously centered person to survive this untainted and I don't see him having that.

Originally Posted by Possum Belly (Post 6663372)

I was proud to be called a cracker. Still am.

Originally Posted by Nevada (Post 6663347)

I've never heard the term used in that context.

Originally Posted by CesumPec (Post 6661963)

I used to have a customer at DOT HQ, an older white man nearing retirement. There was a meeting and one of the new low level political appointees of the GWB administration was sitting in and things got mildly contentious. That's when another DOT employee, a black man, said to my customer, "Look, (white-eee), that's how it is supposed to be done."

The political appointee was astounded that such a simple discussion of procedure had gone from mild disagreement to racial insults so fast. He stopped the meeting because he knew he could not be seen as allowing this sort of thing. This was the first test of his leadership, he had to take a stand.

And everyone laughed and laughed and laughed at him; the political guy was embarrassed and confused. Then it was explained that (White-eee) was the Christian name of that particular fellow, just like (White-eee) Ford, the baseball player.

Originally Posted by farmrbrown (Post 6662053)

:smack LMAO

LOL
That just reminded me of a story that an EMT friend of mine that I grew up with from Florida tells.

He was in a deposition being questioned about what he saw in the aftermath of a DUI case, I believe.
His statement under oath was something to the effect of, "Yessir, he was drunker than Cooter Brown."

The whole room broke up with laughter.....all except that poor ole lawyer from out-of-town, when he asked my friend with a straight face..."Would this Mr. Brown, be willing to testify?"

Originally Posted by farmrbrown (Post 6663462)

LOL
Picture this, said in the dialect of Jeff Foxworthy, or even Larry the Cable Guy, (a perhaps little known part-time resident of Sanford, on the north side of Lake Jessup, I believe)......


"IF......you've ever......heard.......the phrase........'You ain't from around here, are ya?'...........you probably aren't."

:cool:

Originally Posted by farmrbrown (Post 6663462)

"IF......you've ever......heard.......the phrase........'You ain't from around here, are ya?'...........you probably aren't."

:cool:

Originally Posted by Nevada (Post 6663486)

Except that I used to live in Florida.

Originally Posted by jtbrandt (Post 6663548)

But aren't you from Ohio originally?

Originally Posted by Darren (Post 6663139)

Fox is still stirring the pot. Some ex-employees of the DOJ don't think it will be easy. The FBI already eliminated racism. That's probably the high hurdle Holder mentioned.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...inglepage.html

Originally Posted by dixiegal62 (Post 6663601)

When some voiced feared Z wouldn't be able to receive a fair trial we where told by more than one member that the jury's verdict was law and whatever they decided was justice. It's pretty clear they only felt that way when they assumed Z would be found guilty. Now that he's free many are singing a different tune.