TM & GZ Q's I have:

The case is over. Lots of people have passionate opinions, which I wouldn't wish to deprive them of, but I would want people to use as much logic as possible to form these decisions. Keeping this in mind, i don't mind keeping the discussion going. So I have a few questions.

1) Do that many people believe 'cracker' or 'cracka' is NOT a racial thing?

2) How can people, including the media and politicians keep piling all of this on GZ, a legally exonerated man, and not call it bullying, or racial baiting, or not trusting the government, or double jeopardy, witch hunt, or even a lynch mob? (I understand that the term lynch mob is definitely racially charged, but I think it might apply here. If you wish, pretend I just said 'mob.')

3) I'm totally not fully aware of ALL the evidence in the case, because I only saw or heard what I heard in the media, but in my current opinion, anybody calling for GZ's downfall from this point forward is relying on circumstantial evidence to make their case. When I was growing up, and going through school, I was taught not to assume, but to rely on facts, or evidence. So, my third question is: What are the FACTS that we KNOW about the case, that should be relevant?

4) Are there any graphics of the scene that show layout of the neighborhood? Where was TM when GZ saw him? What TM behavior was supposedly seen by GZ? Did TM duck somewhere?

5) Why was evidence of TM's behavior, prior to the night in question, not allowed in court?

(I am a white guy. I have friends from every walk of life. Call me racist, if you want, but thats not me. Used to be real liberal, I think, but more conservative now. Probably fit in with libertarian crowd. Pretty level head, IMO. Based off the evidence or testimony made available to me, I did think he should have been acquitted, but I was thinking it was gonna be manslaughter. I can't believe how much people are just assuming GZ's ill intentions, and his racism (even though that's pretty much been debunked, I think. Right?), and now it's okay for people to act like fools. The media and gov just fan the flames, too.))

I bring this stuff up because i havent seen it discussed this way, or dont remember those discussions, at least.
Ok, have at it. Are there any other questions that haven't been over used?

First! Lol

6) Are you happy with the media's coverage? Fact wise? Opinion wise? Too much, over all? Not enough?

I think there are just too many pundits, paid by the same people. (correct usage?) Not enough investigative journalism.

Hey japhrimu, Good questions. I posted something kinda along the same lines but forgot one good damn question.

If Eric Holder is actually going to look into whether George Zimmerman violated Trayvons civil rights, should not the answer lead to Trayvon violating George Zimmermans? or do not white (hispanic) folk have civil rights?

Did not the the prosecutor bring up child abuse charges? meaning Trayvon was a minor, putting his parents liable for his actions?
what exactly are our civil rights ?

reply to post by tinner07


Hey japhrimu, Good questions. I posted something kinda along the same lines but forgot one good damn question.

If Eric Holder is actually going to look into whether George Zimmerman violated Trayvons civil rights, should not the answer lead to Trayvon violating George Zimmermans? or do not white (hispanic) folk have civil rights?

Did not the the prosecutor bring up child abuse charges? meaning Trayvon was a minor, putting his parents liable for his actions?
what exactly are our civil rights ?

Right, about the reversal of rights thingy, but I wouldn't want to assume. I'm pretty sure there'll be another trial, or two, and I hope they get more specific at the same time as getting more general, or hypothetical.
As far as changing the charges: I think that's horrible. They had a year to get their case together, right? I might be wrong. I am from time to time.
Civil rights: communities should erect monuments dedicated to these, but it SHOULD be easier to say what we can't do. This is random and impulsive, since I have to admit I don't even know them like I should, but weren't the Ten Commandments mostly things you can't do? I'm not religious, really. But at they're core, they give a good start for laws, no?

Originally posted by japhrimu
1) Do that many people believe 'cracker' or 'cracka' is NOT a racial thing?

As with all things, it depends on context. Given the context and testimony from the witness; "cracker" or "cracka" could be inferred to be racial. I highly doubt that such a term, as the witness defined it as, would have been applied to a visibly noted darker skinned individual. Of course, this is speculation and based on hearing the word used in context in my life time.

2) How can people, including the media and politicians keep piling all of this on GZ, a legally exonerated man, and not call it bullying, or racial baiting, or not trusting the government, or double jeopardy, witch hunt, or even a lynch mob? (I understand that the term lynch mob is definitely racially charged, but I think it might apply here. If you wish, pretend I just said 'mob.')

They can because it brings ratings and they will as long as it is a story that grips the minds of viewers. Sadly, news is no longer news since they are competing for Nelson ratings.

3)So, my third question is: What are the FACTS that we KNOW about the case, that should be relevant?

This is a very good question.
FACT: We know Zimmerman called the non-emergency number.
ASSUMPTION: He was ordered to 'stand down' or such; even though an operator is not an authority of the State, the media and others have taken this as disobeying a 'direct order'.

FACT: Zimmerman and Martin eventually confronted each other (as to how; that is pure speculation and assumption) and the result was a fight. During that fight, Zimmerman discharged his weapon.
ASSUMPTION: Zimmerman was in fear of his life. Zimmerman 'profiled' and intended to shoot Martin. Martin confronted Zimmerman first. Etc, etc.

4) Are there any graphics of the scene that show layout of the neighborhood? Where was TM when GZ saw him? What TM behavior was supposedly seen by GZ? Did TM duck somewhere?

Some were shown during the trial but only of the knowns; such as where Martin fell and died. All else is supposed.

5) Why was evidence of TM's behavior, prior to the night in question, not allowed in court?

Some was and most wasn't. For evidence to be admitted, it must pertain to the case and the judge felt that a lot of the information, given the prosecutions' objections and the defenses' reasoning, they did not meet that criteria.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Number 1 was kinda rhetorical. Every time I've heard it, minus the edible variety, referred to race. Been called It numerous times. Never worried about it, but it was never a question as to the context. I bet if I tried, I could find numerous examples in popular culture to support my claim. I also bet it'd be hard for you to do the same.

I kind of know an answer to number 2. Didn't a propaganda ban just get repealed? Freedom of speech, too, but this sure seems like infringing on GZ's rights, now, like BULLYING and SLANDER.

(This is a very good question.
FACT: We know Zimmerman called the non-emergency number.
ASSUMPTION: He was ordered to 'stand down' or such; even though an operator is not an authority of the State, the media and others have taken this as disobeying a 'direct order'. )
His 911 call is not the time in question, so it's pretty irrelevant.

(FACT: Zimmerman and Martin eventually confronted each other (as to how; that is pure speculation and assumption) and the result was a fight. During that fight, Zimmerman discharged his weapon.
ASSUMPTION: Zimmerman was in fear of his life. Zimmerman 'profiled' and intended to shoot Martin. Martin confronted Zimmerman first. Etc, etc. )

I can't argue with those...

(Some were shown during the trial but only of the knowns; such as where Martin fell and died. All else is supposed.)

So how does half of America know enough of the circumstances to call for this man's head, metaphorically, or nearly literally?


(Some was and most wasn't. For evidence to be admitted, it must pertain to the case and the judge felt that a lot of the information, given the prosecutions' objections and the defenses' reasoning, they did not meet that criteria. )

That stuff doesn't prove Trayvon's state of mind that night, but it does prove he wasn't JUST the innocent kid the prosecutor wanted people to believe he was. The GZ detractors sure don't want to speculate on it. Just that a kid was killed.

If I were reading my own comments, I'd say I was anti-Trayvon, but I'm really not. It sucks he got shot. I just hate the persecution of an exonerated man, without even knowing what happened. There's so much reasonable doubt, but people don't want to see it. THIS is the kind of stuff that perfectly reminds me of the scale of an agenda machine the media really is.

reply to post by japhrimu


All your questions are valid. I wasn't attacking nor defending them, just answered them (regardless if they were rhetorical) in a sensible notion. They are questions that help further the discussion and not drive the conversation into a black-hole. Kudos to you.

Now that the trial is over the defense should publish everything the complete trial evidance and all the evidance not allowed in the trial.
I believe it would show TM for what he really was and would show how the government used buzzwords and the media and not facts to go after GZ..

I believe if the public saw everything they would not be going after GZ but would be p**sed at the government manipulation if the facts to push a anti gun, anti self defense, anti stand your ground, agenda

You see the anti gun part in this trial and in fast and furious.

The Obama administration is using any tricks they can can to push there anti gun agenda.
AND there will be MORE of this before Obama is out of office.
Its just a mater of time before Obama administration finds or invents the right case/s to push there agenda .