Sunday, March 25, 2012

Where are they getting these crystal balls?

The television coverage of the Zimmerman case, of which I've caught a few soundbites too many, is infuriating. An honest assessment would say that this is what we know:
  1. Zimmerman was out doing his neighborhood watch thing and saw Martin.
  2. He called 911 and followed Martin in his vehicle.
  3. When Martin walked someplace that Zimmerman couldn't follow in his vehicle, he got out of his vehicle and followed on foot.
  4. ???
  5. In the process of getting his ass beaten, Zimmerman busts a cap in Martin.
The entire case turns on what happened in the ???, but don't tell that to the media, the folks playing poker with a deck full of race cards, the victim disarmament crowd, or apparently the frickin' President of the United States of America.

Did Zimmerman follow Martin because he was "walking while black"? Doesn't matter. Was Zimmerman being a Mall Ninja by patrolling the neighborhood and following Martin? Doesn't matter. Zimmerman had as much right to follow Martin as Martin had to walk through any public thoroughfare.

All that matters is what happened during the mysterious "???" of Step 4. And that's the whole of the case right there: Did Martin turn around and launch the ass-beating on Zimmerman out of the blue? Or did Zimmerman grab Martin in an attempt to detain him and get his ass beaten for doing so, because Martin had no duty to retreat, either? Half everybody seems to think they know the answer, but they're all talking about other things.

I wish the media would find another ball to chase soon. I have never hoped for some random celebrity to choke on their last cookie so hard in my life. Elton John would probably do. He'd wipe the whole Zimmerman/Martin thing right off the front page, and he's kinda past his Sell-By date, anyway. I mean, all he's done in the last twenty years is release more re-recordings of songs about dead blondes, right? Come on, Elton, how about leaning in over the plate and taking one for the team?

58 comments:

Julie said...

lol ... i was just thinking the same thing the other day ....

Carteach0 said...

Amen

MSgt B said...

Don't you remember what happened last time you said something like that?

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2012/03/well-that-was-prompt-service.html

You're tempting fate now, young lady.

Robert Fowler said...

Here's a great take on the whole thing.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/what_if_trayvon_had_been_white_and_the_shooter_black.html

It's the gun haters and the race baiters that are keeping this alive.

RobertM said...

Yep.

Anonymous said...

Leave poor Elton alone. He never hurt anyone.

How about the whole Kardasian tribe instead?

Gerry

Stranger said...

While CNN and a few others are trying to keep the hate alive, today's media commentary is much more restrained.

Of course, it is hard for anyone to say the "victim" was not at fault when he was on top of a man screaming for help, beating the stew out of him.

While only a small fraction of the facts are in on the case, at least a few are beginning to realize just what position they have put themselves in.

Stranger

Joseph said...

LOL, What did Elton ever do to you?

Of course the press, Obama and every Democrat wants this to be a huge story, just like birth control. It takes the attention away from the utterly horrific job Obama has done since being ordained by the press in 2008.

Guess that whole post-racial thing if you elect "The One" was all a big sham. Color me surprised.

Gladorn said...

The argument from the media is that they do not create the news, they just report it. However, by bird dogging certain stories and ignoring others noteworthy events the media, in essence, creates the story. Also, the true events are corrupted by a misunderstanding of the issue and by a lack of thorough investigation of the issue.

Thus, while the media may be giving this issue a lot of air time, they are not giving it very thorough coverage.

Anonymous said...

Propaganda pimps.

Sentenza said...

And showing the five year old pictures of the kid as a teenager, and the shooter in county orange all the time is not bias...

Reno Sepulveda said...

I think it would take Michelle Obama choking on a big fresh, local and sustainable organic pork chop to bump this off my TV.

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

"However, by bird dogging certain stories and ignoring others noteworthy events the media, in essence, creates the story."

And, of course, by misquoting Zimmerman in a manner that can only be interpreted as deliberately racially inflammatory, they also twist the story in a way that makes it "newsworthy" longer and gives it legs nationally.

Bil said...

Once the "could have been my own son" comment was out there - it was clear that it was an issue that the current administration felt could help their re-electability. And that Zimmerman is going to have a tough time getting an unbiased judgement in the case.

The New Black Panther Party weighed in on it...does this mean we'll get more video of white voters getting barred from Philly voting booths? Y'know, like last time?

I'm in agreement with you Tam - there's a missing piece of the puzzle. Did he have sufficient cause to apply deadly force? Was there a rule of proportionality applied?

We don't know - cause all we're getting is media circus.

It has led to some good discussions amongst some of my fellow Floridians about just those issues though.

Frank W. James said...

Yaa, Tam, I think Elton plays for the OTHER team. Just saying...

All The Best,
Frank W. James

Anonymous said...

According to first reports, the action occurred in a gated community in FL. Which means it was private property, not public. Geoff Who wonders what the "noose" media is up to?

Anonymous said...

Ehhhh....two cents worth.

Don't know what happened. Whether he's a closet racist, a police fanboy, one of those all too common (unfortunately) folks who harbor fantasies of shooting evil doers...whatever. Doesn't matter. Based on what I've read from various authors, mostly Massad Ayoob (and common sense - remember that?), Zimmerman appears - emphasize appears - to have made at least two major mistakes, one tactical and one at least pseudo-legal. Tactical - if you're armed, don't put yourself in a position to let your opponent get close enough to try to relieve you of your weapon. Zimmerman did just that, like it or not. Kid is walking down the street and Zimmerman followed him, got out of his car and accosted him, after being advised by a police dispatcher not to do so. Can't get away from that - Martin wasn't doing anything wrong and Zimmerman hadn't witnessed him doing anything wrong. Leave out whether Martin was black, wearing a hoodie or anything else, he hadn't done anything wrong prior to Zimmerman accosting him. Conscious decision: put yourself in a position to potentially be attacked and/or relieved of your weapon by someone who did not threaten you or anyone else prior to your accosting him (or her). You don't get to just stop someone on the street and demand identification or explanation if you haven't seen them committing a legal offense of some sort unless you're a sworn officer or a security guard in a posted patrolled area. Being a self appointed community/neighborhood guard won't do it.

Second mistake - again according to Ayoob and others - Zimmerman wasn't prepared for the consequences of his actions. If he'd given the slightest amount of thought to the inevitable consequences of using his weapon under the circumstances, he wouldn't have gotten out of his car. Leave out all the political and racial bullshit, if you draw your weapon and use it - even "In the Gravest Extreme" - you're in for some and maybe a lot of unpleasant experience with the police and the legal system. That's if it's a black and white, fear-of-your-life, no question situation. And you know what? That's okay. If you take someone's life there should be questions, and if you've done wrong there should be consequences. Again from Ayoob and others: you're taking on a lot of weight when you carry, aside from (in my case) the 48 ozs. of a 1911 with an eight round magazine. Not being a victim is a one thing, putting yourself in the way of trouble is another.

Second guessing? Sure. Again, guess what? In most places if you draw and use your weapon anywhere and anytime except in your own home defending yourself against an intruder, and possibly even then, you will be second guessed. Even the cops get second guessed if there's even a hint of a shoot being in a gray area, say against an unarmed person. Again, that's okay. If you draw a weapon and shoot someone, even if you don't kill them, you've changed a life forever. You should know and think hard about the consequences. Call me crazy, but I think that's called being a responsible adult. If you want to be able to shoot on suspicion without consequences there are places you can do that, but they aren't places I'd care to live.

Steve said...

My guess is that "???" means Zimmerman just has to keep his mouth shut and he will ultimately walk (after being bankrupted and forced into hiding).
Then the riot begins.
And the end result may be that the media's attempt to turn this into Mississippi Burning will ultimately get more people killed.

Drang said...

Anon @1130. You make several assumptions there. You assume that Zimmerman accosted Martin. You assume that Martin was doing nothing wrong.

Kristopher said...

Shakes Magic Eightball, and looks at underside:

"Answer unclear, ask again later."

SG said...

The race pimps are out in full force, cashing in on this story. The last thing on their minds is justice. I agree with Tam-time for Elton or Billy Joel to take one for the team.

UtahCCW said...

I pretty much agree. I think a lot of this talk about the stand your ground law is just political posturing.

Baddog said...

And cue the race/occupy/Black Panther/Sharpton riots in...3...2...

benEzra said...

At least here in NC---and, I'm thinking, FL---being the pursuer rather than the pursued puts one on very shaky legal ground WRT a claim of self-defense. AFAIK Zimmerman was not on his own property when the initial confrontation occurred, and if he got out of his car to go chase down the guy then that seems legally very problematic.

The Raving Prophet said...

Drang,

The assumption is that Martin was doing nothing wrong specifically because there's not one shred of evidence thus far that he was.

Even Zimmerman himself does not seem to have said that he saw any particular violation of the law on Martin's part. Which is why benEzra has a good point- this entire thing was initiated by Zimmerman and not Martin, which puts Zimmerman in a very ugly spot.

It appears the entire case will hinge on how Zimmerman acted when he caught up with Martin and how Martin responded. That's something we're not likely to get a definitive answer to. Zimmerman is the only one still living of the two who know exactly how that went down, and if he has any sense in his head he'll keep his mouth shut from this point on.

Even if this is a justified shoot, this whole thing has NOT done the CCW cause any favors at all.

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

"Kid is walking down the street and Zimmerman followed him, got out of his car and accosted him, after being advised by a police dispatcher not to do so."

Even that isn't clear from the 911 call. Specifically, it isn't clear whether Zimmerman kept following Martin after the dispatcher told him "We don't need you to do that"*, or whether he turned around to go back to his truck and either ran across Martin accidentally or (as he claims) was attacked by Martin from behind.

* Contrary to media reports and most people's claims, the dispatcher never actually told him to stop following Martin, just that the police didn't need him to. It was never an order, it was a statement of necessity.

Anonymous said...

No way in hell they drop coverage of the hated Zimmermann in favor of a dead celebrity. No. Way.

Oh, and the Panthers seem to have placed a $10,000 price on his head. It's not as if they have anything to fear from the amusingly named Department of Justice, a wholly owned subsidiary of you-know-who-we-can't-talk-about, but that's the level we are now at.

Mike James

mariner said...

There's not one shred of evidence that Zimmerman was doing anything wrong either, but most people seem to be glossing right over that.

Thanks, Tam.

mariner said...

This may turn out like the contraception-war-on-women story.

It may wake up a few more people to the fact that we're already in a war. Freedom and the American people are losing.

Alan J. said...

re: Mariner 5:08, "There's not one shred of evidence that Zimmerman was doing anything wrong either, but most people seem to be glossing right over that."

The obvious evidence is the dead body on the ground. As for whether it was legally put there, that's for a jury to decide.

SGB said...

I'm not debating whether Zimmerman acted wisely - I think not - and I do believe it has hurt CCW but justice can only be done through the rule of law. This mob mentality aided and abetted, if not enhanced by the media is certainly not justice.

Anonymous said...

Tam-
1. Whitney Houston
2. Davey Jones
3. ???
While I won't go so far as to nominate the breathing goiter with the thickest layer of celebrity frige mold, you just gotta figure one of 'em is fast approaching the event horizon.
Keep the faith!

Tokenokie

Anonymous said...

This mess is probably the only thing keeping Dick Cheney from being the headline (or at least on the news shows I've seen today).

And between the "Reverends" and the N.B.P.P. wading into it, I have a horrible feeling that someone who just wants to be left alone is going to get badly hurt.

LittleRed1

Panamared said...

Tam-
Thank you for the best explanation of what we really know about what happened. My concern is what is being ginned up over what may or may not have been justifiable. If the race pimps manage to turn this into riots in the streets, how long will it take PODUS to declare martial law?

the pawnbroker said...

Shoulda known. It doesn't even matter what happened at #4 on Tam's list...

It's Bush's fault, of course.

No, not that one. Or that one. It's Sprout, as detailed by one Susan Clary, formerly of the liberal organs The St. Pete Times and the Orlando Sentinel, but now apparently laying down her mis- and mal-information "free-lance".

You can read the entirety of Ms. Clary's contradiction and hate-filled spittle here:

http://www.floridavoices.com/columns/susan-clary/too-many-deaths-name-self-defense

But here's her money quote:

"This legacy (Stand Your Ground) belongs squarely on the shoulders of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush..."

And to that I can only say,

Jeb 4 Prez!

Jeffro said...

Damn. Had I any money to spare, I'd be going to Intrade and putting it all on Elton giving it up for the team. Crap.

Sigman said...

That what Zimmerman did up to the confrontation was not smart does not make it wrong or illegal (wrong does not always equal illegal). That Martin is dead does not make the shooting wrong or illegal. People are filling in the missing pieces of the puzzle based on their beliefs, backgrounds and prejudices.

Tam's right, until more actual pieces of the ??? are revealed, there can be no true determination of the rightness or legality of Zimmerman's actions.

Anonymous said...

Sigman, you're correct, and being correct doesn't have any meaning, in this case. A thirteen year old white boy in Kansas City was doused with gasoline and set on fire by two black kids, there doesn't seem to be any doubts about the facts involved, and there will be no rioting over that stupid, unforgivable crime.

Maybe Kathy Shaidle's right--not showing up for the riot is a failed policy--but it hasn't been explained to me how throwing a riot is actually helpful.

And it sure would have been a good thing if Zimmermann stayed in the car. Wish in one hand, and do something else in the other, as they say...

Mike James

Montie said...

Contrary to what has been bandied about on the national media over this incident, the local PD actually did an investigation at the scene. The physical evidence that they uncovered pretty much jibed with Zimmerman's story, as did the statements given by all the witnesses that they were able to locate. The police chief and the lead investigator on the case took what they had to the district attorney's office and were told that there wasn't enough evidence to support a manslaughter charge let alone a murder charge.

Everybody ginning up outrage over this case seems to focus on the fact that Zimmerman wasn't arrested on the spot for the shooting. I can guarantee you that he was detained until the cops felt that they didn't have the probable cause to make an arrest based on the EVIDENCE, or he would have been cooling his heels in the local graybar hotel that night.

The INVESTIGATION at the actual scene, in the immediate aftermath of the event, led to his not being arrested because the EVIDENCE pointed in that direction.

While most of the media and the rest of the population are filling in ??? with their own fantasies, beliefs and prejudices, only Zimmerman knows what actually took place at ???. The on-scene investigating officers probably have the next best grasp of the truth about ???, and they didn't make an arrest, but nobody cares about that. This has become a race hustler and media created racial and political powder-keg and you can bet your bottom dollar that the truth no longer matters.

On how many other shootings has the Florida State Attorney General's Office come in and usurped the local DA? The state is now second guessing the local police and DA with "special" investigators and prosecutors and may come back and say "Did we say that your shooting was legally self-defense? Forget that, there's too much heat on us, you are being charged."

The Feds are galloping to the rescue right behind them. Think you have some kind of Constitutional protection against double-jeopardy? Not so grasshopper. If the state fails to convict Zimmerman, the Feds will come in right behind them and charge him Federally (different level of government so no double-jeopardy, right? No really, just aske them they'll tell you). One way or another, Zimmerman will end up doing some time, wait and see.

oh, and how long do you think he'll last in the joint with that price on his head?

Anonymous said...

I understand that he (Zimmerman) had no duty to retreat under the law, but did he give up this protection when he got out of the car, and advanced?

Anonymous said...

For what it's worth...

I based my earlier comments about Zimmerman's mistakes based on what I've read, and new evidence could come out which changes my opinion. Although I seriously doubt, not to be sarcastic, that anyone is going to come forth saying, for example, that Martin tossed an AK in the bushes before his (fatal) encounter with Zimmerman. I think Zimmerman made mistakes; whether those mistakes constitute legal offenses is not my responsibility, for which I'm devoutly thankful.

My point - again based on what I've read - is that Zimmerman used poor judgment. Anyone who has a permit and carries is by definition assumed to have good judgment, because mistakes due to poor judgment can be fatal. As witness the stories we've all read about some anal orifice popping off caps and having them go through a wall to hit some five year old child.

Going back to Tam's earlier thread and comments, and what I've read - Zimmerman wasn't defending his own life or that of another when he got out of his car. He got out based on a suspicion at best. One person was armed, the other wasn't, and the one who wasn't ended up dead. Under Florida law Zimmerman may or may not be guilty of anything. But if he hadn't gotten out of his car - bearing in mind that based on available info Martin hadn't committed a crime - Martin would be alive and Zimmerman wouldn't be on his way to a legal/political lynching bee.

Zimmerman used poor judgment at best, which from the standpoint of a CCW holder is about the most damning offense there is. If you're going to carry you cannot use poor judgment because there are no do-overs or mulligans once you squeeze the trigger.

It's over, I'm done, fini, -30-.

Sebastian said...

Zimmerman did just that, like it or not. Kid is walking down the street and Zimmerman followed him, got out of his car and accosted him

That last part I bolded is part of ???

We don't know that happened. All we know is he got out of his car and followed him. That's not wise, but it's doesn't defeat his self-defense claim, stand your ground or not.

Sebastian said...

I understand that he (Zimmerman) had no duty to retreat under the law, but did he give up this protection when he got out of the car, and advanced?

Two separate legal issues here. Generally to claim self-defense, you have to be faultless. That means you can't have created the circumstances that lead to your necessity to use self-defense. But faultlessness is not what the media and the blowhards like Sharpton think it is.

I consider Zimmerman somewhat morally at fault for this, even if ??? was totally on the up and up, because he did something unnecessary, based on a rationally baseless suspicion, that lead to him having to shoot someone. If he saw the kid snatch some old ladies purse, or smash and grab from a neighborhood car, that would be totally different. But he didn't need to pursue someone, armed and in plain clothes, just based on suspicion.

But Tam is correct. Whether Zimmerman is faultless is entirely within ???, and not based on what lead up to ???. You are permitted, legally, to exit your car, follow someone, and ask them what they are doing in your neighborhood. That could arguably make that person a racist asshole, depending on the proximate cause for concern, but being a racist asshole is not a reason to attack someone. Word alone do not surrender faultlessness, unless those words are threats. Zimmerman could have gone up to Martin and called him all manner of racial epithets, said his mother was a whore, and said his girlfriend was ugly. That doesn't amount to fault in the eyes of the law. If Martin at that point hauled off and punched Zimmerman, Zimmerman might have arguably deserved it, but Martin would legally be the aggressor, and Zimmerman faultless. That means he has no duty to retreat, and if he develops a reasonable fear of grave bodily injury or death, he's justified in moving to deadly force.

Based on the evidence we know about, duty to retreat does not factor in to this case. Martin was on top of Zimmerman. He could not retreat. The entire case hinges on ??? and whether at any point during ??? Zimmerman because legally at fault for the affray, and ultimate need to use deadly force. If the answer is yes, he has no self-defense claim, and is guilty of manslaughter.

Bram said...

I wonder if Zimmerman can be charged with some kind of stalking or assault crime for #2 and 3? I would shocked if it isn't against Florida law to follow somebody to the point he feels threatened.

I would rather see that kind of a charge than a circus murder trial followed by a race riot - or some kind of BS Civil Rights charge since apparently Hispanic = White because it fits the narrative in this case.

Joel said...

Tam,

While I don't disagree in principle, I think wishing death on Elton John may be taking it a little far.

I have no comment on Martin/Zimmerman, because I don't know anything about it except what the newsies say which means I don't know anything at all.

Tam said...

Joel,

I don't really wish death on Elton John. That part was black humor.

First, it is rude to wish death on complete strangers who probably haven't done anything to deserve it and, second, having the TeeWee play nothing but "Candle In The Wind" for a month straight would send me up a clock tower with a scoped rifle and a sack lunch.

Anonymous said...

Actually, although it is uncomfortable to say because we are talking about a dead 17 year old boy, it is not accurate that Martin did nothing wrong.

There is an eye witness that has him on top of Zimmerman hitting him as Zimmerman cries for help.

Pretty hard to be on top of someone hitting them without breaking the law. I can't really think of a way, actually.

Jon

Tam said...

Jon,

"Pretty hard to be on top of someone hitting them without breaking the law. I can't really think of a way, actually."

Depends. How many blows did they land on you before the fight went to the ground?

mariner said...

Alan J.
The obvious evidence is the dead body on the ground. As for whether it was legally put there, that's for a jury to decide.

The body is not evidence that Zimmerman did something wrong. It's evidence that something happened.

RWC said...

SG said...
The race pimps are out in full force, cashing in on this story.


Why yes, yes they are.

http://tinyurl.com/chqvntx

jetfxr69 said...

Tam said...

Joel,

I don't really wish death on Elton John. That part was black humor.

First, it is rude to wish death on complete strangers who probably haven't done anything to deserve it and, second, having the TeeWee play nothing but "Candle In The Wind" for a month straight would send me up a clock tower with a scoped rifle and a sack lunch.

11:09 AM, March 26, 2012

I see what you did there.... ;-)

Bram said...

If I'm on top of somebody trying to pull a gun, I won't be getting off until the gun is out of reach or my opponent is unconscious.

staghounds said...

It would thae Gaga, Clooney, and Caroline Kennedy.

GuardDuck said...

If I'm on top of somebody trying to pull a gun, I won't be getting off until the gun is out of reach or my opponent is unconscious.

Yeah, but the reason you are on top of them and the reason they are trying to pull the gun are the answers to who is the aggressor and who is the victim - or if both of you are aggressors.

And those reasons are....wait for it....???? <--- that part

Anonymous said...

Word alone do not surrender faultlessness, unless those words are threats. Zimmerman could have gone up to Martin and called him all manner of racial epithets, said his mother was a whore, and said his girlfriend was ugly. That doesn't amount to fault in the eyes of the law. If Martin at that point hauled off and punched Zimmerman, Zimmerman might have arguably deserved it, but Martin would legally be the aggressor, and Zimmerman faultless. That means he has no duty to retreat, and if he develops a reasonable fear of grave bodily injury or death, he's justified in moving to deadly force

I don't know Sebastian, I could see where a person would have an articulable fear if a person in a car followed them around, got out and then verbally accosted them. Is that fear somehow less valid beacuse it was backed up by fists instead of bullets?

Anonymous said...

"If I'm on top of somebody trying to pull a gun, I won't be getting off until the gun is out of reach or my opponent is unconscious."

It all depends, Bram. Was he moving from his vehicle towards you, or moving from you towards his vehicle? Had he drawn his pistol when you broke his nose and put him on the deck with one punch, or did you hit him first without his drawing a weapon? Plus a few other questions in the same vein.

Answer them one way, and I vote to convict the killer Zimmermann. Answer the other, and I won't weep one tear for poor dead Bram.

With respect, your statement might be a tad too open-ended to shed much light.

Mike James

Matt G said...

Tam, you realize that you're committing us to 6 weeks of hearing "Candle In The Wind" and "Tiny Dancer" every time that we turn on our media reception devices, right?

Unforgivable.

The Freeholder said...

Best take on the situation yet. How do you do it? :-)