There is no double standard. Z did not give the justice department the opportunity to do their job. You previously stated "...When will the Treyvonites give it up and let the justice system do its job?" I found irony in that statement. However, I believe that Z deserves a fair trial. I am not a proponent of vigilante justice. "Extrajudicial remedy" is always the wrong answer.
I think we may be getting somewhere. So we both agree that Z deserves to be treated fairly under the laws of the State of Florida whether he is a cold blooded murderer or an angel? Whether he afforded that same opportunity to TM or not? Correct?
Do you understand that this means that if the preponderance of evidence available to police on the night of the incident supported Z's claim of self defense then an arrest was prohibited and the protestors that were screaming for an immediate arrest were wrong (not to mention those demanding even more extreme extra-judicial remedy)?
Now, I will ask again. Where is your proof that "Z did not give the justice department the opportunity to do their job?"
Let me paint two equally possible scenarios. Both are well and equally supported by the evidence that is available to the public. You tell me where the evidence is to tip the interpretation one direction or the other. I personally don't care if Z is guilty of murder or not, I only care about the truth and I want justice served, not some vigilante BS. (and yes, by that I mean if the court determines that Z hunted down and killed TM then, and only then, I believe he deserves the maximum penalty of the law).
#1 - The well published interpretation of the facts in the MSM as championed by the likes of Al Sharpton et al... An innocent child goes to the store to buy a bag of Skittles. On the way home he is scared by a larger man following him through the development and runs, to look for safety. Z gives chase while discussing the situation with the police department. He briefly breaks off the chase to conclude his conversation with the police after being told he does not need to follow the suspect. After hanging up from the police, he resumes his chase and runs down TM. A paranoid Z initiates a confrontation with TM who acts in self defense due to fear of the larger Z. Z, overcomes his adversary leading TM to call out repeatedly for help. For some reason, although he is clearly in control of the situation, is on top of TM, and is beating TM up, Z decides to finish it once and for all and shoots TM, killing him.
#2 - An alternative interpretation of the facts that is equally viable. TM, a young punk who was suspended from school and previously was found to have utensils for robbery and stolen goods in his possession, is in fact casing the neighborhood for potential targets (not a necessary part of this scenario, but still an interpretation that is valid and cannot be disproven from the facts we have available). His behavior raises the suspicion of Z, a rather paranoid community watch person who also happens to carry a CCW and has the permit to do so. TM, realizing that he has been discovered, places his hand in his waistband and moves threateningly toward Z's vehicle. He subsequently decides to give Z the slip, but circles back on Z. Initially Z makes a pursuit to maintain contact with TM in order to clearly point him out to the police, a legitimate, but potentially dumb thing to do. When he is informed by the police operator that "we don't need you to do that" Z accepts the reality that he no longer knows where the suspect is and he breaks off his pursuit in order to "give the justice department the opportunity to do their job" He completes his conversation with the operator and begins to return to his car. Before he can get there, he is jumped by TM who proceeds to beat him up. Z, being fearful for his life screams for help repeatedly as he is subdued by the stronger TM. Realizing that he is about to die, Z pulls his gun in self defense and kills TM.
Your statement indicate that you are convinced that #1 is true. Show me the evidence that this is the only legitimate interpretation of the evidence. There are many other potential interpretations of the evidence, however #1 is the only interpretation that is narrow enough to support your claim that "Z did not give the justice department the opportunity to do their job."
To pre-empt your complaint on number two, don't tell me that if he hadn't exited the vehicle in the first place, he wouldn't have been jumped by TM. That is no different than blaming a woman for being raped because she wore a mini skirt while walking down a dark street. Okay, maybe it wasn't the smartest thing to do, but it doesn't absolve the rapist of responsibility for his actions, or somehow make her guilty of some inviting rape crime. If she shoots and kills the attempted rapist, she would be well within her rights to do so and would not be guilty of murder.
So I ask again. Where is your evidence that the narrow interpretation #1 is in fact correct and all the others are false?
- pod
