walking while black - Trayvon Martin

[F.U.]

Zimmerman let his imagination dictate his actions.

Black kid = crime.

Zimmerman felt empowered by his imagination.

It might be a little more complicated than that, but I think you may be in the right ballpark.
Its probably a little more like, Strange black kid, wandering around at night, in the rain, in a area where there have ben burglaries, = crime.
Had I ben in Z's shoes I am sure I would have kept a eye on him also. Would I have followed him that long on foot, probably not. Would I have introduced myself as neighborhood watch capt if I made contact with T, Hell Yes. Would I have capped his ass had he attacked me, I cant say for sure but its very possible.

The crime stats have been grossly exaggerated. Most residents had no idea. And, I just cannot imagine seeing a black kid walking down the street in front of my home and me feeling threatened.

Regardless. NW should not be armed. George was taught better. he even stated that his own father chastised him for not listening. What a dumbass.

Zimmerman was trained in the ways of NW. He knew better. Dumbass. And he was not an NRA gun nut, but his best buddy, Osterman may have been. His mentor maybe?

It is hard to say if the crime stats are exaggerated. Some of the residents having no idea about the number of burglaries tells us nothing about the actual number of crimes. Police reports would be a more accurate way to tell.

The fact that you cannot imagine questioning a black kid walking down the street, at night, in the rain does not mean that Z should not question it.The fact that he was neighborhood watch means he should have questioned a stranger to his neighborhood, in that situation. Now weather or not he dealt with it correctly [by following him on foot for that long, not notifying T he was a NW] that is another story.


Exercising ones right to carry a weapon for personal defense [if they hold a permit to do so], in my opinion, should not be infringed on, period. So I don't see why a person should be asked/told to disarm when stepping into a roll such as NW. Why is his ability to defend himself less important when he is acting as a NW? Should he not be allowed to defend himself in the event he spots someone in the process of stealing the neighbors auto or breaking into a neighbors home and that thief in turn should spot him, be armed and decide to"fix" the fact that there is a eye witness ? One never knows when a life threatening situation will arise and if they are legal to carry a firearm for defense they should be allowed to do so.


So because Z's friend was a firearms enthusiast that makes Z guilty by association? I have friends that are doctors/nurses, lawyers and even drug dealers, that don't make them my heroes, just my friends.







I refuse to convict Z until all the facts are out, then and only then will I make a decision on his guilt. However it seams as though most people have already convicted Z because of what the media has spoon fed them about this case. What happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty? That is how the legal system works in our country, is it not?