My 89 year od mother is convinced thqat Trayvon Martin was a strapping young man of 6 feet, 2 inches in height, and weighing 175 pounds. My mother did NOT get that from the unfair and unbalanced network, as ATl&T took that network away from her TV package. My mother--shut in her house--watches CNN, and other LEFTIST "news" channels, all day. Where did this come fro? If it is true, does that not make our media among the greates LIARS who ever lived? What am I saying? They are some of the greatest liars who ever lived, whether my motehr got this right or not.
I tried (for a little wile) to find ut. That disturbed me MORE than the assertion by my mother. This is a matter of FACT. An AUTOPSY ws presumably done. That is also true, by the way, of martin's INJURIES (apart from the gross gunshot wound), if any, which shuld have been recorded ii any autopsy. For our media, however, this is a matter of OPINION. It is a matter of SPECUALTION. You just don't get any more EVIL than that. A Chicago Tribunearticle, for example, lists Martin's weight as somewhere in the "range" of 140 to 170 pounds (lol). Did SOMEONE not WEIGHT the body? Even if death changes the weight I would assumme thaqt we now know how to tell what the "living" weight was. No, "death" itself woulld not change the weight, as by deleting the weight of the departing soul, but there might be CHANGES after death (like dehydration) that would affect the weight. How dod I know? I am not a forensic pahthologist. Then there is the question of Martin's last RECORDED weight, while alive. My brief lok at the internet indicated that the media pretty much IGNORED the idea of NOT asserting a "wieigth", without CONCLUSSIVE proof of the weight. But this is the SAME media who used a 5 year old lPICTURE. Here is the attitue of ALL of today's media: "FACTS". Don't confuse us with facts. Al we want is OPINION, because a good ARGUMENT (especailly over RACE) is what the public wants."
Anyway, there appears to be a fair amount of agreement that Martin was between 6 feet and 6 feet, 2 inches tall. That, of course, is NOT a "kiid" (like the media picture suggested). My mother is pretty much right that this was a STRAPPING YOUNG MAN (altthough there may be a questin about how "strapping", as he seee seemed pretty thin for his hieght). It seems likely--but why a matter of OPINION) that Martin weighted close to that 170 pounds mentioned in the LIBVERAL Chicago Tribune. Zimmerman, in contrast, seems to weigh between 170 and 175 pounds, and is between 5 feet 7 and f 5 feet nine in height. You may think that makes Zimmerman more SOLID> However, that is a double edged sword. Say Marin is pretty thin. Thin YOUNG men can be pretty strong. But Martin might be considered to be pretty thinn for his hieight, and therefore not to have that much LEVERAGE in a fight (such as a thin, tall basketball player being MUSCLED around by a more solidly built player). Doest that not mean that Martin should have been able to EASIY OUT-DISTANCE Zimmerman in any "pursuit"? And what abut that autopsy, and what seeems to be the LIKELY fact that Zimmerman was LOSING the fight? If Simmerman was likely to "win" a FAIRR gith,, does that not suggest that Zimmerman was ATTACKED unawares? What about that autopsy? WE know Zimmerman had injuries, including to the back of his head.--not really serioius injuries, but obviious injuries. What if the Martin autopsy showed essentially NO injury? It would be hard to believe that Zimmerman precipitated the fight.
I have given you the "worst case scenario, where Zimmerman somehow grabbed or moved in a threatening manner toward Marin in a wlay to precipitate the fight. That may not matter under the new Florida "stand your goround" law. Maybe Zimmerman can defend himself anyway, with deadly force. lBut even under what generally IS the law, and SHULD be the law, Zimmerman is in a good positoin if he were walking AWAY from Martin, back to his vehicle (as he is asserting), and Martin ATTACKED him from behind. Then it would be ZIMMERMAN 9best case scenario for Zimmerman) who "groke off" any confrontation, and Marttin who INSTIGATED the fight. This idea would be SUPPORTED by Martin's age and physique, IF Martin were tal and slender. Martin SHOULD have been able to RUN AWAY from Zimmerman (if he so desired). And maybe Martin SHOULD have been at a DISADVANTAE in a FAIR fight. All of that would TEND to support what Zimmerman says happened.
But we shoululd have FACTS. The FACTS of the injuries suffered by BOTH Zimmerman and Martin should be NOT a "matter of opinion". And the police HAD essentailly those facts at the time it was decided not to charge Zimmeramna.
Nope. The media has NO RIGHT (morally, or in journalism", as distinct from a Constitutional right), to SPECULLATE on these things. They shuld WAIT for the facts. Sure, they can REPORT what teh Martin family lawyer says, and what other INTERESTED peoople say. But the media hhas NO BUSINESS SPECUALINTG on who is right and whoois wrong, especailly when the FACTS exist--it being just a matter of WHEN those facts come out.
I find it vastly disturbing that even the most basic facts are distorted in this case, including by that OLD picture of a KID (because Martin was a kid when the picture was taken). This is not just amateter of RACISM by the media (although that exists). It is a matter of an EVIL approach to ALL of these cases, where the media is NOT INTRESTED in actual facts, but only in OPINION (even when they are supposedly reporting "straight" news). No one should have any OPINION abut the Zimmerman/Martin case until the FACTS are there. Otherwise, you are basing your opinion on SPECULATION (not to mentino outright media LIES, like the NBC lie about Zimmerman ephasizing Martin "looks balck", and the media LIE that Zimmerman said "coons" under his breath)
No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). No. I don't really have a picture of what Martin REALLYL looked like. Neither do you, if you are basing that picture on media coverage. I do know that the media "storyline' of Zimmerman shooting an OBVIUS "kid" was a distortin from the start.