Trayvon vs. George: Which one would you execute?

Excellent post

What they have to do with the fact, Mr. Bashir, is that he started the fight that he ultimately lost

The three facts of Bashir

1) Man with a gun didn't "pursue" (that implies intent to apprehend), he followed, which is not illegal. In fact, if he were a cop, nobody would even care about this case.
2) GZ didn't confront and he wasn't advised not to...he was asked twice what the suspect was doing and told that he wasn't required to follow (as opposed to pursue).
3) Why does the color of anyone's skin matter here? Much less "haunt" Bashir.

ron, what would you have done?

GL, Edited the telecast

Wut? I'm asking what you would have done that fateful night in Florida.

ron, he was told he didn't need to follow trayvon, which is quite different than what you say here. Why are you lying? You seem suspicious. I tired of folks like you always getting away with things.

I am not understanding this whole thing. When OJ simpson killed his white wife, you didn;t see hoards of white people in the streets after he got away with with it and it was a much worse crime than this thing was. And Yes OJ did kill his wife. He had a history of domoestic violence.

also if trayvon had killed zimmerman, it wouldn;t even be a story. If zimmerman would have been declared guilty would latinos have marched in protest? He is not white. He is latino and someone needs to point that out.

@ #6 Here's the transcript of the call: http://tinyurl.com/m2p6m6t
0:25 Dispatcher: OK. And this guy, is he white, black or Hispanic?

0:29 Zimmerman: He looks black.

0:30 Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?

0:31 (sound of windshield wipers)

0:33 Zimmerman: Yeah, a, a dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes

(The dispatcher asked about him being black...do you see this?)

:27 Dispatcher: OK, just let me know

1:28 Zimmerman: Please get an officer

1:29 Dispatcher: if he does anything…1

1:30 Zimmerman: over here.

(Clearly, someone with malice in heart, calls cops and asks for someone to come over...did you see the first time the dispatcher asked what suspect was doing?)

2:08 Dispatcher: He’s running? Which way is he running?

2:10 (door opens, sound of door alarm)

2:10 Zimmerman: Ah, down towards the, ah, other entrance of the neighborhood.

(Evil?)

2:23 Dispatcher: Are you following him?

2:25 Zimmerman: Yeah.

2:26 Dispatcher: OK, we don’t need you to do that.

2:28 Zimmerman: OK.

2:34 Dispatcher: Alright, sir, what is your name?

2:36 Zimmerman: George. He ran. (disengaged)

Where'd I lie, again?

If I follow A 17 year old kid with a gun, lets pretend I am Black and the kid is white, I get out my car to confront this scared kid who is obviously just wondering why is this black guy following me and I confront that kid and shot him I have a strange feeling I would be put in jail.
If I White followed a 17 year old white girl and stalked her and got out the car and confronted her people would assume I was trying to rape her.
I think people confuse what the case is about the case comes down to is it legal to follow and stalk someone ultimatly leading to their deaths if you are ok with a world where someone who never been charged in a viloent crime Trayvon can be followed and stalked and ultimately killed holding a juice bottle then maybe when your child is 17 and walking home and someone scares the shit out of them at night by following them stalking them and confronting them you are suppose to tell your child hey if someone does that dont fight just do what he says? See what doors are open? You tell your kids dont talk to strangers now we are telling our kids not only to talk to strangers but if only trayvon would have stopped possible be searched and apprehended by a unknown man who is following him he would be alive? come on anyone defending this man is defending strangers being able to follow their kids at night and stalk them and you must do nothing but follow the strangers direction in a world full of rapist and killers what are we teaching now?

I never shoot anyone and I'm unlikely to do so, because I think it might not be a good idea and I don't have access to firearms.

I think that a dangerous maniac like Zimmerman is a Public menace and should be behind bars for the rest of his life, and certainly not be allowed access to weapons any more dangerous than wet spaghetti.

The death penalty is too final and without an error-free Justice system, the inevitable mistakes that occur cannot be rectified after sentence has been carried out.
When will the US become a civilised country? For this it needs a colour-blind justice system. It needs to end the death-penalty. It also needs to treat child-killers suitably - with lengthy imprisonment until they are no longer a danger. To me that means not letting them back on the streets, and most certainly not freeing them and letting them have access to weapons - presumable so they can do it again.

"told that he wasn’t required to follow"

"OK, we don’t need you to do that."

"Where am I lying?"

You truly are ignorant.

To return to the question...
Shoot the Georges...all 3. but do it 30yr ago.
But why bother if the 1st two georges weren't here the American right would have elected some other wing nuts.
The 3rd george should have been shot as he hung up the phone cuz his stupidity was not penetrated by the voices on the phone. But shoot him in the knee caps...like gawd I like watching evil people suffer for a long time. ;-}

@ Dean #12

Video of the dispatcher testifying that he did not ORDER Zimmerman to do anything. http://tinyurl.com/kzd8rec

Saying I'm ignorant is not backing up the claim that I was lying. Games of semantics are not enough to put a man in jail, sorry.

Ignorant, racist jurors are enough to let a man who obviously caused a death avoid any penalty. If the roles were reversed, the shooter would be in jail right now.

@ GL #5

Hypotheticals don't matter. Would I have gotten out of the vehicle? Would I have hung up the phone with the dispatcher? Would I have done anything like this without a "partner"?

We can second guess Z all day long, but he did not commit a crime.
It's very dangerous to say that the sum of a series of non criminal acts (using foul language + getting out of the vehicle + following + carrying a weapon) results in a crime. He can and did defend himself from a felonious assault. End of story.

No, ron, when I asked you what you would do, I mean if you were Trayvon. What would you have done if George Zimmerman confronted you while on your way home from the shop?

Greg,
'
If you'd like to retry the case, I'm game.
Testimony and the non-emergency call show that GZ was following TM (but they didn't know each other) by driving in his truck. Eventually TM realizes he's being followed and comes up to GZ's truck (not illegal)...then continues on his way.

When GZ hung up with the dispatcher, GZ and the DIspatcher thought the event was finished.
You say GZ confronted TM...GZ's account (which didn't change over the multiple statements he voluntarily gave to police in the days after the shooting) is that he was confronted and sucker punched by TM (although this isn't in evidence at the trial, there are multiple instances where TM bragged about such activities).

Having said all of that: A) If I am being followed, I'm going to go somewhere safer (but probably not home, why would I take you there if I'm not sure you know where I live?) B) If I am "confronted" by another man, I attempt to de-escalate and disengage. C) It may have been wise to activate a recording device when being followed. D) I would not confront / throw punches. E) Perhaps I would phone the place I was en route to and have someone come towards me in order to intercept any following. (Modern phones are powerful tools)

I'm not sure how you arrive at GZ doing the confronting, as there is no evidence of this. If you'd like to say that GZ jumped out of a tree at TM and scuffed his knuckles on the pavement before shooting him, you can...but there's not evidence to back that up.

I appreciate the somewhat tactical question, though.

@ mark p

the roles have been reversed. Remember OJ simpson?

Ron, the record doesn't agree with you. You are lying. You are also asserting other things without support. Where have I said anything about the verdict?

@#20 Dean
I'm willing to discuss the record with you, if you're willing to accept the testimony of the parties at trial. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Kevin Sanders - My question is this: what would have happened had a black man with a gun in a car followed a white boy, exited the car, engaged in a confrontation with the white boy, and then shot him dead? I have no doubt that the black man would be convicted if the facts were exactly the same as in this case, only the roles of the people in question had been reversed. And yes, with the same jury.

The OJ case is a red herring. It's not remotely like the George Zimmerman case.

Kevin:

When OJ simpson killed his white wife, you didn;t see hoards of white people in the streets after he got away with with it and it was a much worse crime than this thing was.

True. Crimes against women by their husbands seldom see protests in the US when they go unpunished, and his case is not unique. And there are marital cases more apropos to the Zimmerman verdict. In Florida, a woman has just been sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot in her home to try to scare off her abusive husband. She attempted to use the same defense as Zimmerman, but did not prevail. So, I am forced to conclude that in Florida, you have the right to defend yourself, but only if your case is high profile enough to attract good lawyers, and it probably also helps if you're a white male.

Yet Ron you continue to misstate something simple. Considering how you tried to put not only words but a conclusion in my mouth I am not surprised.

mark

you are right. in the OJ case, he murdered his wife by almost cutting her head clean off. It was not self defense at all. Just plain jealous rage in its finest hour.

Calle

white males have little to do with it. location has everything to do with it. in a state like new york mass, or california, one would be convicted of a crime just by saying the word GUN. far left places are more likely to punish the victim and reward the criminal than others. Alos, good lawyers help. Zimmerman had god lawyers that knew their stuff.

look at it like this. The martin family's lawyers failed to convince the jury that Zimmerman was guilty. They failed to prove within a reasonable doubt if you will. In order to win a case, you have to have a good lawyer, ex- OJ simpson.

@ Dean #24
What am I misstating?

I've given the transcript of the call where the dispatcher asks twice what the suspect is doing / which way is he running, the suggestion that the dispatcher / police don't NEED GZ to follow the suspect, the video testimony of the dispatcher denying that he gave an ORDER. (http://tinyurl.com/kzd8rec 1:18 - 2:10...the lawyer says "it isn't necessary?" the dispatcher agrees)

What is your evidence that I am misrepresenting what happened?