The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I'm actually surprised no one has brought this up. I was curious as to what you guys' feelings were on the subject as this is my town. I was born 42 years ago in the hospital across the street from all of the protesting going on. I work or know many people who either have been involved or have gotten involved. I have lived here my entire life and have had intimate knowledge of this thing from pretty much the beginning. It blows my mind as to where this thing has gotten but I have to say I like where it seems to be heading. I think it will do more help than harm for the future although things can seem pretty crazy when tens of thousans of people decend on a 50,000 person town.

Anyone care to share their thoughts?

I came to the story late, due to this little thing called tax season, so I don't really understand how it went from confronting an unknown person strolling your neighborhood to a gunshot.  Can anyone explain what the story here is?  How did the Zimmerman guy end up injured (as I understand he claims self defense)?

Knowing as little as I do, my gut feeling is this doesn't look right. 

I'll tell you that I haven't stepped foot in Sanford since this thing began. I really have mixed feelings as I was not there and the information seems to be coming out piece by piece. I was concerned hearing about how many calls Zimmerman placed to the police in a year. I thought he was the classic neighborhood watch wanna be cop (which he still might be). I was also concerned when I heard that the police operator told Zimmerman to stop following Martin. I had assumed he continued doing so. At that point I was thinking Martin himself thought he was acting in self defense. If I have a stranger following me (he was on the phone expressing concern about it apparently) there is only so much time before I am going to feel threatened myself. Currently the reports are that Zimmerman had given up following Martin and was then attacked from behind being knocked to the ground and having his head beat into the sidewalk.

If that is the actual event, then I think I would have pulled a trigger also.

The long and short of it is that it was a tragic event and regardless of the final outcome, someone is not going to be happy with it.

Hard to know what the truth is.

I honestly don't know if Zimmerman was acting in self-defense or not.  If this was murder or a legitmate act of self defense.

What I do know that the protesters are dillustional or straight up liers and for the most part racists.  To hear his supporters speak you would think Martin was a saint incapble of every causing any trouble.  However, on the day of his death was the first day of a ten day suspension from school.  While I haven't seen why he was suspended, my experience is kids don't get suspended 10 days for chewing gum in class or passing notes.  The only way to get such a harsh punishement is thru repeated acts of violence or drug use.  

While I don't know if Zimmerman committed a crime or not, I do know that the Black Panthers putting a $10,000 bounty for Zimmerman’s “capture” is a crime.  

I agree with Hoodie, I don't know enough....

My reaction to stories that blow up on the internet over rage about something,or strongly one way or another on an issue...They tend to be half truths,not the whole story...So I really don't care too much at all...

The latest reports are that the boy had the man on the ground and was punching him when the man shot him. 

Looks like a gray area to me.  Definitely not murder but the force was too excessive to be labeled as self defense

I don't think you'll find many logical people who believe that Zimmerman acted in self defense.  Although, because the way that the screwy law is written in Florida, he may get off.

There are a few things that a problematic:
- The police didn't arrest Zimmerman at the scene (which was the wrong call, in my opinion, but at least makes sense).  What doesn't make sense is that they didn't do the normal things that you do when there's a death, like confiscate the weapon/clothes/evidence for testing.  This means that a lot of the evidence that would corroborate a story is now destroyed.
- The police released Zimmerman's statement as fact.  That's pretty bad.

You can't go out, start trouble, and then shoot someone when that trouble escalates.  Also, this talk about Treyvon's character -- who gives a shit?  It doesn't matter why he wasn't at school or whether he was a saint or a total dickhead.  A crazy person tracked down, confronted, and ultimately killed a minor.  And the law is written so poorly that he may get off on a technicality, which is pretty absurd.  The dude had called the cops something like 40 times in the last year.  He has a screw loose, went out looking for trouble, and found it, by creating it himself.

There was marijuana remnants in his backpack.

Even if Treyvon was punching the guy, it doesn't matter.

The guy sought out the fight and brought a gun.  You can't go, act like a an asshole and start a fight, and then retaliate with deadly force, claiming self defense, when it is avoidable.  If that's a law, it's a bad law.

^^^ According to the reports there is more to it than you let on, if the reports are correct.

First, included in the punching was reportedly his head being slammed in the concrete. That is deadly force by Trevon if it happened.
Second, he did not seek out a fight according to reports. He is the neighborhood watch (although an overzealous one I feel). He followed someone he called the police about. According to reports when asked to stop following him he was retruning to his car when approached by Trevon.
Third, there is nothing illegal about carrying a firearm, provided you have the permit. I haven't heard anyone make that argument so there was nothing wrong I assume.
Fourth, there is nothing illegal about following someone down the street unless you commit some other action.

Granted, how I initially heard the story had me on the same path of thinking as you. But the police have a report saying the accused was leaving the scene when attacked.

First of all the 911 operator didn't order him to stop and couldn't do so as they have no authority.

When the officer arrived Zimmerman was standing next to the body. the body was face down laying on his arms. He had appeared to have been shot form the front.

Zimmerman was bleeding pretty badly from his nose and the back of his head.

Zimmerman's backside was very wet but his front was dry. It had been raining and the ground was wet.

Zimmerman told the officer that the 6'3"guy hit him in the nose and immediately knocked him to the ground. He was beating him and smashing his head into the road. Zimmerman kept screaming for help but no one would come and he wouldn't stop. Zimmerman tried to pull the gun to get him to stop but he tried to take it while continuing to beat him so Zimmerman fired.

Unlike the newspaper reports, they have witness statements that seem to back up some of this.

Based on this scenario there is no way they could arrest this guy. They took his gun for evidence and I believe some articles of clothes. I could be wrong on the clothes.

We have a very respected Police Chief that our "black" City Manager fully supports. He resigned rather than arrest this guy. The local State Attorney passed the case rather than arrest this guy. Do you not thnk either would have rather arrested him than go through this mess? I mean seriously ... who the heck is George Zimmerman?

The bottom line is all of the evidence points to self-defense. We will see. As I undertand it the Jacksonville State Attorney has filed crazy charges before and that is why she was hand chosen. She may press charges (which would supposedly calm things) but I really don't see how they could stick.

This guy George has several black relatives as well friends. He and his wife helps to support a young black boy and girl of a single mother.

Just today I saw an article from the former head of the NAACP calling out Jesse and AL for exploited this and racially dividing the country for their own puposes. I also saw pictures and the tweets this "innocent boy" has posted over the last two years. While not evidence, it does paint a pretty disturbing picture of the mindset of the victim.
The oddest thing to me is everyone keeps talking about racial profiling yet they don't publish his actual picture. He was a 6'3" 17 year with a gold grill working on dreads yet you would think he was this cute 10 year that they keep posting.


In the end I think, at least I hope, that we will be able to move on past a lot of this artificial racial stuff that seems to always pop up.  Is George totally innocent? I have no idea but I do know that some well respected people do not think there is evidence that the "law" thinks he is. I also know this town was never racially divided before (well since the 70s) and other than outsiders who keep saying it is, I still don't see it.

 

Even if Treyvon is a thug, it doesn't matter.  You are allowed to walk down the street without being harrassed by a nobody, self-appointed, lunatic.

Zimmerman is nuts.  Who calls the cops that much?  The guy is a fruit loop who took the law into his own hands and started trouble by finding someone suspicious by their look and not their actions.  He was clearly emotionally invested, as he called Treyvon an "asshole" and a "fucking coon", and then he went out to confront him, while armed.

What do you think is going to happen, in that scenario?

When you have crazy people that are armed, I guess this shit's going to happen.  It's a shame.

I haven't followed this case but everything I have heard is kind of opposite of what you said. The 911 operator told him to stop following the guy and the guy begging for help was the kid, not Zimmerman. But, I'm not going to come to any conclusion until someone actually has some kind of clue as to what happened.

If Trayvon Martin is 6'3" and weighs 140lbs... it is not credible to claim that a 250lb grown man was helpless to defend himself.  Sorry, it just isn't.

I also find it difficult to believe that Martin would have been "running" from Zimmerman (as Zimmerman claimed) and then, after getting away, somehow turn around and head right back to him?  That just doesn't make any sense.

I think what makes more sense is that he ran, Zimmerman caught up to him, and tried to "apprehend" him (read: grab him by the arm and take him back to his truck).  Martin resisted, a scuffle ensued, and Zimmerman responded with deadly force.

Are you joking?  There's a picture of Trayvon Martin in almost literally every article.

Google "trayvon martin" and go to images.  The picture in the red Hollister shirt is ubiquitous at this point.

I've seen and heard many different witnesses accounts and they all vary wildly.  This makes it very hard to figure what actually happened.

However, if the police had at least done their job and actually arrested the shooter at the scene, this wouldn't be nearly the big deal it is now.  I think that's why most people are upset.  I've seen a lot of internet chatter about giving Zimmerman "his day in court" before we make up our minds about his guilt, but the problem is that the court of public opinion is the only court he'll probably ever be tried in for his actions.  Had the appearance of due process occurred, there wouldn't be such a public outcry.

Now all sorts of crazies on either side are coming out of the wood works with their own agendas making this a gigantic circus.



I think Zimmerman is guilty as hell, but I don't think this case will ever get to see a judge or jury for any final verdict.

There is a oot of misinformation. What CF said was Zimmerman was not "ordered" which is correct. What was clearly said on the recording is the operator told him they don't need him to follow the suspect. As for the yells, many eywitness reports are that Zimmerman was the one on the ground and crying for help.

Why people thought it was Martin is because some of them said it sounded like a kid.

(http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxjm4n4umw1rn1xxfo1_400.gif)

Just to respond to this, the released photos of Martin are approximately four years old. That is what CF is referring to. No one has seen what Martin looks like currently without accessing his Facebook, etc.

I'm not sure where you live but according to Florida law, they had to have evidence that it was not self defense as claimed. I'm fine with a grand jury indicting him but the police had no evidence to arrest him at the scene based on the evidence they had.

Until all the information and misinformation, legal-dodging and race-baiting is straightened out and we get a clearer picture of what exactly happened, I really don't have any feelings on this issue. I am disappointed - but not surprised - to see all these politicians and attention-mongers using this situation to jump into the picture and promote their own agendas.

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that if, say, Martin had wrestled the gun from Zimmerman and shot him during the scuffle, he'd be walking free without even having been arrested.

You are doing an awful lot of assuming. He grabbed him by the arm and drug him to the truck?

I just googled him. Cute pictures but not even close to being recent. Just curious. Did you even read what I wrote.

This ones even old and how many times have you seen this one posted?  I'd guess never.
(http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/2012/03/pasc-tr1yv4n-r2tr1ct34n-2d3t2d.jpg)

Facebook had some very interestig photos but mysteriously went down pretty quick. Unfortunately if arrested Zimmeran's attorney's will have every right to show who the racist really was and Facebook postings are evidence.

Have you read No Limit Nigga's Tweets? Nice kid. I'm not sure why the media hasn't even mentioned the self proclaimed "G" .

Please let me be clear. I do not know Zimmerman or if he is guilty of anything. My only argument is that I honestly believe the police have no "legal" reason to arrest him. You can speculate all you want but the fact remains they cannot arrest tsomeone just because. 

Ironically isn't that what fighting against racial profiling is supposed to stop?

I aslo think media, Al and Jesse have contributed to the chaos tremendously and if any of them actually did what they qere supposed to do we wouldn't be in this situation today.

I thought it was only racial profiling if it only involved a white guy and a black guy. When did that change?

Anyone can be racially profiled.

No matter how this turns out, this feels bad for the following reason:

A kid with nothing on him other than skittles and an iced tea is dead.

No matter what comes out from this case, the Zimmerman "kid" (I read he's 28) was absolutely in the wrong for going out there and confronting the kid.  If he was on the phone with the police, then he should have let them take it from there (as, I understand, he was advised).  This is one of the reasons why police would rather us (civilians) not get involved.  We get scared, we get panicky, we don't have training to fall back on when the "suspect" is approached and becomes agitated, and we don't elicit the respect/fear from the "suspect" that will keep him or her reasonably in line.

If some jackhole approached me as I was walking down the street wanting to know my business, I surely wouldn't react violently, but I would not react kindly, either.  If a cop did the approaching, I would hate it, but I would at least keep it cordial lest I spend a night in jail.

The truth, as usual, probably lies between the two stories being told.  However, from Zimmerman's 911 call and the "rules" that govern neighborhood watch, none of this would have happened if Zimmerman did just what he was supposed to do, which is notify police and nothing else.

Good god, not this shit again. So a black kid gets killed and it's national news ? Wait, really, WTF ? How many people get killed everyday ?  I could care less about either of these 2 scumbags, but what I find really interesting and disturbing at the same time is how certain people will pick sides based on race(usually their own)in a particular situation regardless of right or wrong. Even when they weren't there and don't know what really happened. I think if the situation was reversed and this Trayvon character was the shooter and Zimmerman was killed, this thread probably wouldn't exist. People of every color die everyday all over the world, boo hoo who cares ? Not me, I don't know any of 'em. They can all kill each other and thin the gene pool for all I care, it ain't my business. Life is just like they taught you in science class, survival of the fittest. That goes for us also !!!

I do.

WTF, indeed.  In this case, it's national news because an unarmed black kid was killed by a private citizen, and the shooter wasn't even arrested.

How dare Trayvon Martin go out and get himself shot by an overzealous vigilante!  And I hear he had purchased a gold grill and listened to rap music!  What a scumbag.

That is 100% correct, because Martin would have been thrown in jail faster than you can blink.

This is why it matters (and I don't mean the LeBron angle):

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/hill-120326/lebron-james-other-athletes-protest-trayvon-martin-shooting-show-change-agent-power-sports

Among the excerpts:

Ryan Moats, an NFL running back, is Trayvon Martin. A police officer named Robert Powell pulled a gun on him and his wife in a hospital parking lot as his mother-in-law died inside.  "I can screw you over," the officer said at one point in the videotaped incident. When another officer came with word that Moats' mother-in-law was indeed dying, Powell's response was: "All right. I'm almost done."

Robbie Tolan, a 23-year-old minor league baseball player, is Trayvon Martin. Tolan was shot in the chest by police in his own driveway in Bellaire, Texas, an affluent, mostly white suburb of Houston.

That this still goes on in this country is beyond ridiculous. 

How can you ? You'll never hear about it because it doesn't get ratings for the sick media. You'll only hear about the ones they want you to hear about !!!

It's national news because it's racist sensationalist bullshit. Oh, the poor oppressed black kid with his skittles and iced tea who was hunted down and murdered in the street. Cry me an F'n river.Somehow I think that if it was an unarmed white kid that you wouldn't have much to say about it.
  Oh, is that what happened or just your assumptions ? You must be an eye witness to the incident because you seem to think you know exactly how it went down. Unlike you, I don't have that luxury because as I wasn't there.
There you go assuming things again. Did you know this Trayvon character personally or just like Sharpton and Jackson with that whole victim mentality thing.

Salman Rushdie is George Zimmerman.   Bounty placed on his head for publishing a book.

Terry Jones is George Zimmerman.  Bounty placed on his head for burning a book.

George Zimmerman had a bounty placed on his head for not being booked.  The one clear uniquivical injustice here is that the Black Panthers organization is not being treated like Al Quida.  

Spike Lee Tweeted his address (or attempted to) which turned out to be wrong. Imagine the lady's surpise when the news media showed up and the fear she is now going through.



Ex-NAACP Leader big rips Al & Jesse for handling of Trayvon Martin shooting

The furor over the shooting of Florida teen Trayvon Martin is being “exploited” by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to “racially divide the country,” a civil-rights leader charged yesterday.

Martin’s “family should be outraged at the fact that they’re using this child as the bait to inflame racial passions,” the Rev. C.L. Bryant, a former NAACP leader, said of the 17-year-old hoodie-wearing black youth who was shot dead by a mixed white-Latino neighborhood-watch volunteer.

The pastor accused Jackson and Sharpton — who yesterday organized a thousands-strong protest in Sanford, Fla., where the shooting occurred last month — of “acting as though they are buzzards circling the carcass of this young boy” in an interview with The Daily Caller, a news Web site.

 
State Sens. Kevin Parker, Bill Perkins and Eric Adams wear hoodies in Albany yesterday in tribute to Trayvon.
 
Bryant, the past president of the NAACP chapter in Garland, Texas, called Jackson and Sharpton “race hustlers” for inserting themselves into the drama.

His scathing criticism came as:

* New York lawmakers in Albany, wearing hoodies in solidarity with Martin, said the demonization of minorities by police “was born here in New York City.”

* Mayor Bloomberg, a gun-control advocate, said the Feb. 26 shooting was proof that loose national gun laws defy common sense.

* Thousands in Sanford rallied to demand that Zimmerman, a 28-year-old cop wannabe, be arrested and prosecuted. Other protests occurred throughout the country

* Sanford named Capt. Darren Scott, who is black, as acting police chief. He will fill in for Police Chief Bill Lee, who is white and had temporarily stepped down amid controversy over how local cops had handled the shooting.

* Sanford Mayor Jeff Triplet called his city “a tinderbox” set to explode amid the racial tensions.

Former NAACP leader Bryant said the rallies organized by Sharpton and Jackson suggest there is an epidemic of “white men killing black young men” while ignoring much more prevalent black-on-black crime.

“The epidemic is truly black-on-black crime,” he said. “The greatest danger to the lives of young black men are young black men.”

Bryant said he wants to see protests about those problems.

“Why not be angry about the wholesale murder that goes on in the streets of Newark and Chicago?” he asked. “Why isn’t somebody angry about that 6-year-old girl who was killed on her steps last weekend in a cross fire when two gang members in Chicago start shooting at each other? Why is there no outrage about that?”

Bryant, an outspoken conservative, predicted that “people like Sharpton and those on the left” will make Martin’s death an issue in the presidential race.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/race_buzzards_circle_trayvon_AQGwCzQo59asT5aOevVojK#ixzz1qLo44dE9

This is so far off base it is rediculous. I am familair with all three incidents and making the comparison does nothing but light fuses.

I am against any form of vigilante justice.  However, that is a seperate incident.  When you have an entire community of both blacks and whites upset, you're going to have a few idiots do stupid things to compromise the message of the group.

It's counter-productive to focus on the response of a few.


As for Phish's response to JVides, I think that those cases, while not the same, are part of the same problem -- the black community has just reason to believe they are treated inequally by police.

Do you seriously believe that an unarmed kid of any race being killed in the street by a wannabe cop who isn't even arrested for the shooting would not be a national story?

Yes, there is a racial component.  The racial component is heavily magnified because of the non-arrest of the shooter.  The fact that this kid appears to have been profiled and ultimately shot simply for being "in the wrong neighborhood" speaks strongly to historical racial issues.

If Zimmerman had been arrested for murder (or at least manslaughter) on the day of the shooting, this entire story goes down as "another black kid gets shot, film at 11."  The idea that a kid can be profiled, followed, and shot simply for being "in the wrong neighborhood," with are no legal repercussions to the shooter... that is what has blown this incident up.

That certainly doesn't seem to have stopped you from declaring both of them "scumbags."

If Martin was an innocent victim and Zimmerman was the aggressor, why is Martin a scumbag?
Conversely, if you believe Zimmerman was within his lawful rights and was defending himself from Martin's deadly assault, why is Zimmerman a scumbag?
Please do explain.

Yes I do believe that. The media has no problem stiring the racial pot of shit. If it came down between this incident and and the exact same story with a black person killing another black person the media would still pick this one to sensationalize because the evil white man vs the oppressed black man sells better. Didn't you know ?


The shooter wasn't arrested because the police determined at the time that he didn't break the law. It is their job to figure it out, not you or anyone else. If evidence shows otherwise he can be arrested and indicted in the future.

 

Was the dead guy in the wrong neighborhood ? I don't go to the wrong neighborhood. If I do and something happens, isn't it somewhat my fault ? I am one of the few white people where I work and I have had black co-workers tell me that I wouldn't dare go to certain neighborhoods because I don't belong there. Why is that if I may ask ?



Why should he be arrested for anything ? The police don't have evidence that he did anything wrong. In fact there is evidence that he was justified. No one should be arrested with no evidence of a crime just to "keep the incident from blowing up" or because a race feels slighted for things that have happened in the past.


They both seem like scumbags to me. Could I be wrong about them ? Of course. Am I wrong ? Probably not. One seems like your typical jackass fake alpha male hip hop/rap thug wannabe and the other one seems off his fucking rocker crazy. Either way, I don't give 2 shits about either one of them.

If an adult black man killed an unarmed black kid in the street and the police determined that they didn't even need to arrest him, it would still be a huge deal.
 
This is exactly why you are seeing a backlash.

The idea that a law can exist that allows a 250lb grown-ass man to shoot and kill an unarmed 140lb kid in the street with no legal repercussions is an outrage.

Jesus Christ, you are missing the point.

The suggestion that you shouldn't go to a rough area because of the risk of being a victim of violent crime is a damned far sight from the suggestion that you shouldn't go to a gated community because of the risk of being shot by crazy vigilantes (who then get off scot-free!), or even law enforcement.  Those two scenarios are NOT EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE.

I would say that the corpse he left in someone's yard is "evidence."

He took it upon himself to pursue an unarmed kid for no legitimate reason (against the advice of the 911 dispatcher) and shot him.

Again, please explain how Zimmerman is a scumbag if the shooting was "justified," or how Martin is a scumbag if it was not.

He didn't stand out because he was black. Sanford has a high percentage of blacks everywhere. They arent ever "in the wrong neighborhood". This keeps getting overlooked because Al called us a Plantation town. A plantation town with a black city manager, one black commissioner and several high ranking black police officers? They can paint it over and over but it isn't true.

I played football in the 80s and was one of three white guys on defense. My wife ran track and was one of the two white girls. Little has changed. It might have some racists as all towns do but it isn't a racist town by any means.

DC and Atlanta are both cities with majority black populations.  Do you mean to say that there are no neighborhoods (particularly, gated communities) in DC or Atlanta where the population is not representative of the city as a whole?  Where a black or Latino kid wearing a hoodie might be subject to profiling?

Really, I doubt it. In fact there is a recent story out of KC about 2 black teenagers that poured gasoline on a white kid and lit him on fire. Ain't seen that on the mainstream media circus lately, huh ???

But the law does exist in FL that says that you can protect yourself and don't have to retreat. Do you know for a fact that Trayvon didn't attack Zimmerman ? Prove it. For some reason these days, people in a certain lifestyle think that they can do whatever they want if they think they are "disrespected".  Ha, ha, not in the real world. Life ain't a rap video


No, you inferred that that he was, "profiled, followed, and shot simply for being "in the wrong neighborhood". But now it's not even remotely close. So a black guy can go anywhere, but me being white I can't go to the rough neighborhood ? Double standard ? Yep !!! Where does it end ? How about I hear the "N" word at work 25 times a day. But If I said it I would be fired. Double standard ? Yep !!!
What about Black Entertainment TV and Miss Black America is OK ? If you had a network called White Entertainment TV(regardless of programming) or Miss White America, all of a sudden it would be racist and Sharpton, Jackson, and all the other nut jobs would be licking their chops. Double standard ? You bet your ass. I can't do any of that because I'm white, boo hoo, I'm so oppressed. Look ma, I can pull the race card too........


Prove it. Your definition of "evidence" and opinion doesn't matter at all !!!


Zimmerman said that he stopped the pursuit and was headed back to his truck and he was attacked. Right now can you or anyone else prove anything different. If not he has done nothing wrong according to Florida law according to local PD. Hence he has not been arrested. Simple enough..........



You're silly, I already explained myself in my last post.

In order for this comparison to be valid, the suspects in this case would have to a) have been identified (they haven't) and b) been interviewed by the police and released without any legal action being taken.

Suffice it to say, this is not a valid comparison.

Again, you illustrate the point of the outrage:  if a grown man can shoot an unarmed kid (that he outweighs by 100 lbs), then throw up his hands and say, "self-defense!" when the only other witness is the person he killed, the law is incredibly unjust.

Let me try to explain this to you again:

You can go anywhere you want.  Some places have a higher risk of crime than others, so you probably shouldn't go there.  But since violent crime is illegal, you can at least know that you (nominally) have the protection of law enforcement and state prosecutors, should you fall victim to crime.

In contrast, a black person that goes into the "wrong neighborhood" does not have the same such guarantees, because a) their problems would be caused by law enforcement themselves or b) private citizens can shoot them and law enforcement will do absolutely nothing about it.

How is this remotely comparable?  In your case, you are worried about crime.  In the other case, people are worried about being lawfully (<--- this part is important!) executed.

I have no interest in discussing your sense of aggrievement in your lack of ability to use the n-word or proclaim "white power!"  If you believe that this is of equal import and consequence to being killed for "suspiciously" being in a neighborhood that you're not good enough for, so be it.

So then, I presume you are equally willing to extend this same presumption of innocence to all homicides?  If one person says that he felt in danger (even if he is much larger, armed, and is the aggressor in the conflict), and there are no other living witnesses, we must take his word as fact?

The whole point is that if the law can be interpreted in this fashion, it is INCREDIBLY unjust.

Disclaimer: I'm still firmly in "wait until all the details are known" mode, and am only offering rebuttal to individual statements made because the person making the statements would rip anyone else to shreds if they dared use the same faulty logic against him...


It would be a big deal, but nowhere near the national news item that this case has become...because of the racial issue.If you truly believe it would be "just as big" if it were a black on black shooting, then I think you are out of your mind.


He was 17 years old and 6'3", which while the age (unknown to Zimmerman at the time) legally categorizes him as a minor, his size puts him physically in the realm of "adult." The fact that Zimmerman was 250 lbs only indicates to me that "the adult-sized kid" was probably significantly faster than Zimmerman was.


The only thing a dead body would qualify as "evidence" for is that a person had died, not that a crime had been commited.


I'd say the robberies that had recently been commited in that gated community would provide the impetus for Zimmerman wanting to follow Martin, especially if, as noted many times in the reports, Zimmerman said that Martin was "acting funny." Not saying that acting funny is justification to shoot anyone, but combined with the robberies, it certainly could make someone acting as part of a neighborhood watch unit a little suspicious and maybe wanting to give him a second look.

Additionally, at the time Zimmerman began following Martin, how in the world could he know if he was armed or not?

We were discussing the media sensationalizing and exploiting race in an effort to gain ratings and push an agenda. The difference between them is that one in KC is a blatant crime with proof that got hardly any national air time and the other one has not been determined to be a crime at this time and it is plastered on every tv station, blog, and news site.

In lack of any other physical evidence what else is there to do. You can't convict someone without any evidence. If me and you are alone and you kill me and say that I attacked you and there is no other contradictory evidence, it's a moot point. Innocent until proven guilty. They have to prove him guilty. And without any proof they can't do that !!!!

So you're saying that if law enforcement would have arrived before the shooting that they would have let him be shot. What don't you understand, there is no proof of a crime at this time. Can you provide some proof or evidence that we all don't know about or not ?


No one has been executed and no one has been murdered at this point. That may change if some other evidence surfaces, but at this point the only thing that has happened is someone of questionable character has killed someone of questionable character.


No one ever does, they only want to discuss things that serve their purposes. I was making a point about the double standard that exists when it come to race and the media. Seems to me that instead of equality, some people want superiority. Racism is when someone of one race does something and tells another race that they can't do it.


Yes everyone is presumed innocent until there is sufficient proof the find them guilty. We don't know who the aggressor was at this point, you are assuming Zimmerman was the aggressor. You very well could be wrong about that. Your bias is blinding you....

There aren't even any suspects in the KC case (which resulted in first-degree burns, not a death).
Zimmerman fully acknowledges killing Martin.
Try harder.

No, you can't convict someone without A FREAKING TRIAL, and if the police refuses to ARREST someone, NO TRIAL EVEN OCCURS.

Do you understand this fundamental point?  "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to THE COURT SYSTEM.  Zimmerman hasn't even been arrested!

Since when do you have to have proof of guilt to ARREST someone?

No, I'm saying that he was shot and law enforcement refuses to even arrest his killer.  How can he be proven guilty if there is never even a trial?

...in a court of law, which only applies after an arrest!  Get your frame of reference right before you continue with this irrelevant and ridiculous "innocent until proven guilty" garbage.

Furthermore, one of the major points in this whole debacle is the interpretation of a law that potentially allows Zimmerman to legally stalk and kill Martin.  In that case, your continued insistence that Zimmerman has "broken no law" and is "innocent" does absolutely nothing to address the outrage over the law itself.

You need evidence that a law has been broken to arrest and charge someone. That is the same evidence that you would use to convict someone. Get it now ? Don't you think that if the police had some solid evidence that they would arrest him ? The outrage is a moot point, Law enforcement and criminal justice systems decisions should not be influenced by outside sources. If no more evidence surfaces then Zimmerman shouldn't be arrested or charged with a crime, the law is clear about that and the police have made their decision. If you don't like the law write your congressman. If you want to pick sides based on racial motives without knowing all the facts of the case then you have other issues to deal with.

So to conclude this, I invite anyone to provide any substantiated evidence that this killing was a racial hate crime.

You need probable cause in order to arrest someone.  You need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.

Zimmerman claims that he killed Martin in self-defense.  Given that the following facts are uncontested:

1) Martin was an unarmed minor
2) Zimmerman outweighed Martin by over 100 lbs
3) Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, even after having been advised otherwise by the 911 dispatcher

...there could easily be probable cause (a very low standard of evidence, mind you) to believe that Zimmerman's account is not true and that he is only claiming self-defense to avoid criminal repercussions.

Keep in mind that probable cause is a judgment call.  The police department decided that Zimmerman's account is solid, even though he has a history of conflict with the police and an extensive record of (unsubstantiated) 911 calls to report "suspicious activity."  That is their judgment call, which is in question.

The alleged racial motive is that if the decedent were not a young black male, the police would not be so quick to wholeheartedly presume that Zimmerman's account is completely truthful.

Wow so many factors that have been left out by this quick police investigation.
1. Listen to the 911 tape, he first says these guys always get away, and then just before the dispatcher asks if he is following the person, Zimmerman mutters "fucking..coons/goons" you can decide for yourself what the second word sounds like to you. This goes towards mens rea
2. Zimmerman has a history of violence. He was arrested for battery on a law enforcement officer and went into a diversion program to get the charges dropped, and he said it was the officers fault. He then got into a domestic dispute with his now ex-fiance and the court ordered them to stay apart for a year, Zimmerman said it was her fault. Now he gets into this shooting as says it was the kid's fault.
3. He has a long history of calling in everyone he thinks is a criminal. He chased a vehicle with his SUV while on the phone with 911. The person he was chasing told police he was afraid Zimmerman was going to attack him.
4. No witness saw the attack start, they heard the screams and saw the kid on top of Zimmerman, but the only witness to say Trayvon started the fight is the shooter himself.
5. Zimmerman admits that Trayvon approached from his left and asked "you got a problem" and that they then had "words". Zimmerman then states that after confronting Trayvon in the street, he turned towards his SUV, and pulled out his cellphone when he was attacked. Again the only witness to corroborate this is Zimmerman.
6. The police conducted a post mortem blood test on the victim for drugs or alcohol, but not the shooter.
7. This police department has a history of ignoring attacks on blacks and questionable investigations. In 2010 an officers son beat up a homeless black man and even though there was video evidence of the attack, which the police knew about, they did not arrest him for awhile. Also two security guards shot another black man and claimed self defense. The victim was not armed and shot in the back, but they were cleared under this law.

All-in-all this is a convoluted mess to be quickly pushed away as a justifiable shooting.

This is a small town and as far from being Atlanta as you are of being a republican. There are no "white" neighborhoods in the city. As well, I think you are over thinking the whole gated community. Don't confuse having a gate with being a rich neighborhood. It's a lower middle class neighborhood.

the consensus is there is no consensus. People wanting it to be racial say it is and others say it isn't. CNN admitted to not being able to determine what was said as well other news outlets.
I'm not a big fan of the resisting arrest charges. They are easily added to just about anything. Even touching the officer to include battery. I have no idea if he punched him or not but I'm speaking of my own experiences. He headed the neighborhoood watch program in a "high crime" neighborhood which would makes sense that he dealt with suspicios people more than the average. This isn't a lily white neighborhood that was unusual to have crime or suspicious people. And he is assumed guilty because no one saw it? Is this seriously what you are saying? Again with the only Zimmerman thing.  Look, if Zimmerman called the boy a punk arse "N" bitch it really doesn't matter to the law. If the boy was beating him he had a right to protect himself under the law. [/quote] Seems odd but I do not know what the policy is. People assume they should have but is that normal procedure? That would be the bigger question.this was screwed up and the first time I have heard the homeless man was black ... which is refreshingly nice.  Race didn't play a part in it. A stupid drunk police kid got covered up which is a horrible thing. It really didn't matter who the guy was. The kid is an arse and the cops who covered it are even worse. It cost the Chief his job and as such, they have a new highly respected Chief that came over from the Sheriff's Department. BTW ... the local Sheriff is very well liked.   The "victim" had already run over one person breaking their legs and was backing up to run over the guards. He was trying to get away. This is a high crime apartment complex ... hence the armed guards. For some reason that is always convienently left out when this case is mentioned. This also supports my theory that  there is more to any story when it sounds crazy.

Since you are not from the area, I should point out the use of gated community for this area is media hype. It is town homes which are just basically apartments for sale. This was not a high class "gated community" that comes to mind when you hear those terms. It is just a selling point for the place.

#3 is contested. Zimmerman says Martin attacked him from behind while he was returning to his car.

The houses in this neighborhood are currently selling anywhere from $90,000 to about $135,000 according to the property appraiser's records if that gives you any idea. They are tax appraised at 80-90.  Just my opinion but a far cry from the country club atmosphere some people are trying to paint.

...after having pursued him, which is uncontested.

I'm not going to be all up in arms if this goes to trial, the evidence is reviewed fairly, and it's deemed that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.  ....just like I wasn't up in arms when Casey Anthony was released.

However, the fact that Zimmerman wasn't even arrested when the initial look at the situation and circumstance certainly doesn't appear like self-defense, not to mention that he was allowed to keep the weapon, really speaks to the problem here.  The law probably needs to be changed, regardless, to the point where you can't pursue someone, get into an altercation, and then kill them in self-defense.  I think that a reasonable attempt to flee (unless you're protecting your family or property) is a much more logical law.

We don't know that he kept following him after the operator asked him not to which was your point.

Unrelated, I wonder why none of the witnesses who saw the two on the ground apparently did not see the shooting. We have witnesses saying martin was on top of Zimmerman before the shot, then witnesses seeing Zimmerman standing over Martin after the shot. Apparently no one has come forward (or it is being kept quiet) as to seeing the shot. Zimmerman's story is Martin was on top of him trying to grab his gun. I don't see how anyone would have an opportunity to flee if that is how it happened.

I'm fine if the grand jury indicts him and this goes to trial but as the law stands, the police had no evidence to disprove the self defense claims.

Of course he did.  Dude was driving a car.  Unless Trayvon dragged the dude out of the car...

All the guy had to do was go home...or stay in the car.

Regardless, again...the guy wasn't arrested.  This is most certainly an arrestable scenario.  An unarmed minor is dead after an armed man, who had 60 calls to the police of suspicion in recent history, was in pursuit of him.

You don't let the guy go home with the gun, regardless of what he says to justify it.

The police took the gun.

He left his vehicle prior to the operator asking if he was following him.

^ I am reading from multiple sources that he was allowed to return home with the gun.  Perhaps the cops came and took the gun later?

Missed this earlier.

I didn't say it would be "just as big," but it would still be a national story.  Has the revelation that Zimmerman is Hispanic significantly reduced the furor?

A 17 year old that is 6'3" and 140lbs is practically a bag of bones.  While I wouldn't doubt that Martin could have beaten Zimmerman in a foot race, that does not seem relevant to Zimmerman's claim that Martin represented a deadly threat.

Zimmerman freely admits killing Martin; a homicide has necessarily taken place.  Your attempt to frame it as "a person has died" (as if the cause of death is shrouded in mystery) is disingenuous, to say the least.

Zimmerman had called the police over 40 times in the last year.  His judgment of what is and is not "acting funny" is not exactly impeccable.

The fact that "crimes have occurred" does not give Zimmerman a reason to pursue Martin; he is not a cop, and Martin had committed no crime.  The 911 dispatcher advised him not to follow Martin and he chose to disregard that advice.

It is reasonable to believe that Zimmerman knew Martin was unarmed when he shot him, which is the point.

I'm really getting tired of seeing this lame ass excuse.

I wonder how much evidence the police need to "disprove" other self-defense claims, to the point where they steadfastly refuse to arrest the shooter.

It seems a minor miracle that suddenly, in Sanford probable cause has become this huge, unscalable barrier to an arrest.  I imagine homicide-related arrests must be extremely low in Florida, given the apparent difficulty in establishing probable cause for arrest if the shooter claims self-defense.

I'm getting tired of you lame ass assumption that Zimmerman kept following Marting. We do not know that.

It would be nice if you would get your own facts straight before you criticize me.  From the 911 call (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw):

2:09- Zimmerman says Martin is running.
2:20- (sound of wind in cell phone)
2:23- Dispatcher asks, "Are you following him?"
2:25- Zimmerman says, "Yeah."
2:26- Dispatcher says, "OK, we don't need you to do that."
2:28- Zimmerman says, "OK."
2:42- (wind sound ends)

That's 19 seconds from "he's running" and 8 seconds from the sound of wind in the phone.  The 911 call ends at 4:04, over 90 seconds later.  So it takes Zimmerman 90 seconds to get back to his vehicle after a 10-20 second chase, even though the sound of wind ends after 14 seconds?  That's an interesting theory.

Point blank, is this your assumption ? Do you personally know this as 100% fact. Yes or no ?

Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman punching him when he was shot.

Besides the fact that almost all media outlets have lied about what race George Zimmerman is (he is a Latino/Mestizo), they are also censoring major important details of the case. Some have even published wild opinions about the 911 calls as if the opinions were factual statements.

Would you be surprised to know that the statements of the eyewitness are being censored in almost every media story about the shooting?

1. When police officers arrived, George Zimmerman had a bloody nose and was bleeding from a wound on the back on his head and was treated by paramedics.
2. The eyewitness who called 911 said Zimmerman who screamed for help.
3. The eyewitness also reports that Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin was on top of him beating on him.

This information was public knowledge at least as early as February 27th.We now have 22 days of rampant media reports that omit these facts. Once you see what information the police had, it is obvious why they did not arrest him. They were simply abiding by Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law. Police are now required to have evidence that a shooter was not acting in self-defense.

How many times have you heard the phrase “Trayvon Martin was a cheerful person,” but you had never heard the words of the eye-witness to the shooting?

Each time you see a “mainstream” news outlet rant about the Zimmerman/Martin case, ask yourself why these three facts mentioned above are missing from the story. Ask yourself why the media is called Zimmerman a white man instead of a Latino. Ask yourself if you think the story is really news or is it agitation/propaganda designed to advance a political agenda.

Even if you think Zimmerman was completely unjustified in firing his gun; ask yourself why 99% of the now thousands of articles are solely from the point of view of the grieving family without trying give a balanced account of the events.

It doesn't have to be 100% fact for an arrest.  It doesn't even have to be 100% to win in court...but it definitely doesn't have to be for an arrest.

You guys should really wait for some real evidence to surface. You all are just speculating over most everything. I mean, someone's point is the wind in the cell phone and when it dies down. Really? A gust of wind doesn't exist in this neighborhood?

I wasn't talking about an arrest or court. Spiderdan claims that Zimmerman kept following him. I want to know if Spiderdan knows that as fact or it is his assumption. If no one else knows if Zimmerman kept following him. How can Spiderdan ?

It is 100% fact that Zimmerman pursued Martin.  The dispatcher asked him, "Are you following him?" and Zimmerman responds, "Yeah."  So that's that.

It is also a fact that on the 911 call, you can hear the sound of wind in Zimmerman's cell phone 11 seconds after he says that Martin is running.  6 seconds later, the dispatcher tells him not to follow Martin, and 14 seconds after that, the sound of wind ends.

So I'd love to hear you explain the cause of that wind sound.  If it's running, Zimmerman was still running 14 seconds after the dispatcher told him not to pursue.  If it's simply being outside on a windy day, then he somehow stopped being outside (read: re-entered his vehicle) 14 seconds later.  So did Martin reach into Zimmerman's SUV and drag him out, or did Zimmerman get out to pursue again?

Remember, in Sanford, none of this qualifies as probable cause.  What a joke.

Listen to the actual call.  It's not a "gust" of wind; it's continual wind buffeting for over 20 seconds that has a clear and defined start and stop.

Those times don't match what I've listened to from our local newspaper but I'm not doubting your recording. That still doesn't mean the time was filled by following Martin. He could have been standing still. He could have paced back and forth. Or he could have continued looking for Martin (I bet you thought I was just going to ignore the possibility). Regardless, it is speculation what he was doing.

Keeping in mind that the standard we are looking for here is probable cause (which is a very low standard of evidence), given that there were 8 seconds of wind noise before Zimmerman acknowledged the request to cease pursuit, and 14 seconds of wind noise afterwards, is not the most reasonable assumption that he chased him until told to stop, then turned around and re-entered his vehicle?

If that's true, how could Martin have attacked Zimmerman on the way back to his vehicle unless Zimmerman got out to pursue again?  Is it reasonable to believe that someone who ran away from Zimmerman's vehicle would then secretly pursue said vehicle on foot?

This is exactly the kind of logic that makes this case an issue.  In order to avoid escalating Zimmerman's role to one where the claim of self-defense becomes questionable, you have to make these crazy presumptions that essentially paint Martin as a sociopath.  This 17-year-old who went to the store to buy some candy for his brother is going to run away from Zimmerman, only to circle back and pounce on him (while unarmed)... but the extremely enthusiastic neighborhood watchman who has called over 40 times in a year, and who chooses to personally pursue (on foot) a person he deems suspicious, wouldn't track him down and try to apprehend him himself?

No that's not that !!! We all know that Zimmerman followed Martin before the dispatcher told him, "Ok, we don't need you to do that." But what you are implying is that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after he was told that he didn't have to. As seen bolded in the following quote made by you.


So now instead of talking in circles. Tell me fine sir, is it a known fact that Zimmerman disregarded the dispatchers advice and continued to follow Martin ? Yes or no ?

Although I don't agree with Zimmerman's choice. The fact that "crimes have occurred" gives gave Zimmerman, a member of community watch, every reason he thought he needed to follow Martin. I can follow anyone anywhere I want to on public property...........


GTFO with that shit. How in he hell would Zimmerman know if Martin was armed or not ? With his special undercover X-ray glasses ? Put the bong down, your arguments are getting sillier and sillier by the toke. LMFAO................

Zimmerman is half white/mexican. So the reports are half correct. The witnesses only saw the fight after they heard screams. Zimmerman admitted he followed Martin, he also admits Martin approached him from his left and asked if he had a problem. Zimmerman also admits they exchanged words. Zimmerman claims he turned around, pulled out his cell phone out of his pocket, and was attacked. We have no idea what words were exchanged and if Zimmerman said something that could have provoked a fight.
The only person who can verify this attack is Zimmerman. A guy with a history of violence and blaming it on others( he blamed the cop in his arrest, he blamed his ex fiance for the domestic dispute, he blames Martin). This guy has a history also of following and confronting people he believes are suspicious.
Once again only one of these two people has a history of violence and confrontation documented in court records and 911 calls, and it is not the dead one.

And I am implying that based on the 911 call, which indicates that after the dispatcher told him to cease pursuit, he apparently got back in his vehicle... but then got into a fight with Martin outside of his vehicle.  That indicates one of two scenarios to me:

1) Zimmerman decided to leave the incident in the capable hands of law enforcement, and went on about his day.  He got out of his vehicle for unrelated business, and when he returned, Martin (who had been secretly pursuing Zimmerman's vehicle on foot) ambushed and assaulted him.

or

2) After hanging up the phone, Zimmerman continued his pursuit of Martin (either on foot or in his vehicle), and upon finding him, confronted him.

This is yet another instance where in order to take the shooter at his word, you have to go with the far less plausible scenario.

I would love to hear what legal action you think Zimmerman planned to take when he caught up to Martin, particularly since he left his vehicle to chase him.

I think he might have figured it out when they were, you know, brawling.  That would be right before Zimmerman shot him.

It indicates to you ? Who are you and why do you think your OPINION matters ? Only the facts matter and you are not privy to those. The only opinion that matters is that of the local police and DA.  The thing it indicates is the only two situations that you want to see. The two situations that you so easily point out are only two scenarios out of hundreds that could have played out. You are making assumptions not based on facts, but on your racial agenda.
 

Less plausible out of the only two silly scenarios that you could dream up. Since you won't admit that you don't know all the facts of the case or at least enough to make an intelligent decision, I'll make it easy.I won't ask you this time, I'll tell you. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AND YOU WON"T EVEN ADMIT IT !!!



You forget silly, Zimmerman is the one that called the police to begin with. So to answer your question. The legal action that Zimmerman did was to call the police. You know that's the first thing that I do every time before I carry out a racially fueled hate crime murder is to call the cops. Give me a F'n break..........





There, I fixed the above quote for you free of charge. If you can make wild and spectacular assumptions I guess that we all can......

^^^ On that last edit, you should probably take a look at the video that is just now surfacing...

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/trayvon-martin-case-exclusive-surveillance-video-george-zimmerman/story?id=16022897 (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/trayvon-martin-case-exclusive-surveillance-video-george-zimmerman/story?id=16022897)

Sure doesn't look like someone who got his nose punched (or broken, as his lawyer claimed), and the back of his head sure doesn't look bruised and bloodied.

I don't know what really happened, I'm just making wild assumptions based on hearsay and rumors. If others are going to do it, I might as well also.

Never really been a big fan of the "if others are doing something goofy, I should too" philosophy...it always seemed counter-productive to me.

Two wrongs make a right!

OR

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em !!!

This may come as a shock to you, but this discussion we are having is not taking place in a courtroom.  We are not a grand jury or a bench of circuit court judges.  This is an internet forum created entirely for the discussion of opinions.

Then why are you posting repeatedly to this thread, hypocrite?

Again, hypocrisy at its finest; after you have already declared that they are both "scumbags" and repeatedly stated that the police don't have enough evidence to warrant arresting him, I am forced to ask where YOU have gained this amazing insight into the case.  Do you have a direct line to the Sanford PD?  Are you in the state attorney's office?

If not, try following your own advice: if your position is that uninvolved civilians should not be offering opinions on this case, you should not be posting to this thread.

Security footage popped up today from the night of the shooting. Zimmerman is brought into the police station, with no broken nose, and blood free clothes.
He also looks like he is in decent shape.

I've had my nose broken as well I'm sure many of you have. Do you really expect to see his face stuffed with paper towels etc hours later? Even 1 hour later? For the record I watched a girl get her nose boken  just his past weekend. Not only did it stop bleeding but she went back into the game later. I am talking about a 14 year old girl.  Now later that day she had some minor black eyes and swelling but it didn't just happen immediately.

As well, I remember my brother getting his nose broken and having to spend several days in the hospital. Obviously Zimmerman's nose didn't look like that.   

Joe Oliver, (black former CNN Anchor) said he saw the gash in the back of his head and said it could have used a couple of stitches. Could it be an exaggeration? Yes. Could it have not shown up on the film? Yes as well.

The video is of low quality and does not show detail. It shows an officer looking at the back of his head at one point. It shows the officer checking him and then wiping his hand off. What was he looking at andf wiping off? I would think anyone reasonable wouldn't expect to see "bruising" at one hour but who knows? This will leave everyone exactly where they are at today. To make their own assumtions.

I have two assumtions that haven't changed. 1. Several people have concluded their wasn't enough evidence to prosecute him so in my mind they have good reasons. I can only assume we will see those reasons before it is over. 2. I think the Jacksonville State Attorney (or Grand Jury if she submits it) will move to file charges and most of this stuff will come out in court ... which is a good thing.  I think this will be a great learning tool to hopefully teach some people not to overreact in the future. In the event there is a huge conspiracy by local law enforcement to protect Zimmerman and it comes out it will change my mind tremendously of the charactor of not only society but my neighborhood.  It would rock my reality for lack of a better term. 

Interesting to learn the investigator made the recommendation to file charges only to have the prosecutor's office decline.

In that video, I wish there was a better shot of the back of the head. It isn't the greatest quality but I thought I may have seen what looked to be something although it obviously wasn't bleeding at the time. I really can't tell. As for the mention of no visible blood, what do people expect. He had received medical attention at the scene. Common sense tells you they cleaned the wound. I'm sure a paramedic isn't going to send someone away with an uncontrolloable wound saying they don't need any more attention.

I think Will Smith summed it up best.  "We live in America...where the girl who poured flour on Kim Kardashian was arrested on site.  But the man who shot Trayvon Martin is walking free."

Fact:  We know this guy shot him.
Fact:  This guy is walking free.

You mean to tell me that Zimmerman's account of his injuries may not have been accurate, and may have been embellished to enhance the supposed threat he faced?

But why would someone lie to avoid going to jail?  That doesn't make any sense...

Do we know if those clothes he's wearing in the video are the same from the incident?  If so, and Zimmerman claims that Treyvon was on top of him during the shot, wouldn't he have blood all over him?

No shock at all. I know this is not a courtroom, Zimmerman may never see a courtroom unless they determine that he broke a law, which may or may not happen. Also I am aware that internet forums are designed to discuss opinions. But if your opinions are based on made up facts, fake scenarios, and false assumptions based only on your agenda, then don't expect not to get called out on it.



Hypocrite, ha ha. I repeatedly post in this thread for entertainment purposes. I freely admit that I don't know enough facts to make a determination either way. If no compelling evidence comes to light then the whole thing is over with. If there is evidence that proves Zimmerman guilty, they fry his ass. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter what happens and won't affect me one way or the other. You on the other hand have made up your mind on what happened without KNOWING all of the facts. So, I am just discussing your opinion and the flawed logic you used to justify your "cause". After all aren't we here, as you put it, to discuss opinions  ;)


Not sure why you keep bringing this up. I didn't call you a scumbag so why do you care ?



No, the police themselves have repeatedly stated that they don't have enough evidence. If I am wrong about that someone please correct me.

 

No an indirect line.

Quotes from the Miami Herald*

-Before temporarily stepping down from his position on March 22,  former Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee said that there wasn't enough evidence to arrest Zimmmerman.

-Lee defended the police in a memo on the Sanford city website, writing: "Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based of the facts and circumstances they had at the time."

-Early in the investigation, Lee also said police found no evidence to establish probable cause in the case, which is need to arrest someone.

 
Quote from the Miami Hearld*

"The Seminole County State Attorney's office has said previously that evidence obtained by police was insufficient for an arrest."



I never gave any advice nor did I say that uninvolved civilians shouldn't be offering opinions. I directly told you that your opinion doesn't really matter. Then again neither does mine. This forum is for entertainment and opinions discussed here don't matter in the real world, hence the only opinion that really matters is that of law enforcement and prosecutors. So here I am letting you entertain me.....

Because there is proof and plenty of witnesses to what happened in that situation.



Because we live in a country of laws that have to be followed.


Fact:  We don't all of the circumstances surrounding the shooting.

Fact:  Due to wording of the law and lack of evidence an arrest wasn't made.

Not sure, but it would be interesting to know.  I saw an interview where someone said that he was wearing a t-shirt. In the video he is wearing a t shirt but had a jacket on. I don't know, maybe he put his jacket on after the indecent and before going to the police dept. I would think that lack of blood wouldn't really prove much either way.

Paramedics more than likely would have stopped the bleeding and cleaned him up. Depending on how bad he was bleeding he may or may not have any blood on his clothes. I couldn't see anything on that fuzzy video even though I tried to zoom in on it but that really doesn't mean much. At the 51 second mark the officer is checking out the back of his head. I would assume to make sure that he didn't start bleeding again if in fact he was injured in the first place.

Do you understand that the entire reason this case is a big deal is because the police claim there isn't enough evidence for an arrest?  This is after their own lead investigator recommended that Zimmerman be arrested for manslaughter.

In case you haven't noticed, the point that I've been making in most of my posts is that even with the limited information that's available to the public, there appears to be probable cause to issue an arrest:

- Several minutes after having been advised not to follow Martin (and verbally acknowledging this request), Zimmerman was somehow outside of his car again, brawling with him
- Zimmerman outweighs this minor by a sizable margin
- Martin was unarmed
- Bystanders claim to have heard a young boy cry for help
- Phone records confirm that Martin was on the cellphone with a friend at approximately the time of the incident
- This girl has yet to even be interviewed by the police department, yet she claims that Zimmerman was the aggressor

Meanwhile, videos are surfacing of this "bloodied and broken-nosed" man at the police station, looking anything but.

Saying that the police have determined that there isn't enough evidence to arrest Zimmerman is about as relevant to this discussion as saying that the LAPD determined that Rodney King was an extremely belligerent and serious threat.  The whole point of the uproar is the police department's extremely questionable judgment in letting this man walk.

Duke Lacrosse team sez hey.

Has our white black president condemned the bounty yet?

My one comment here is that it was not the police's decision. As you recognize, the investigators recommended an arrest. When it all comes down, the prosecutors are the ones who pulled the trigger (excuse me for that but it is a common term) on letting him walk away.

Now the police are playing the PR game. Of course they are saying we don't have enough evidence. What they mean under their breath is the prosecutors don't think there is enough evidence. No good police force is going to throw their prosecutors under the bus publicly.

There is also the distinct possibility the prosecutors are playing an end game that no one is even considering. They did not like the evidence they had so they did not charge him. This is going to go in front of a grand jury though and this case has a lot of publicity. I dare say it would be very difficult for the grand jury to still let him walk away. I also dare say that any jury selected for a trisl is likely to be very well versed in this case which may increase the prosecution's odds. There is also the possibility that the jury comes back with a casey Anthony verdict though.

They might have to do a change of venue.  If the trial is held in Sanford, there will be a bunch of protestors. 

A coworker of mine made the same argument; it's not the PD, but the DA who made the call.

My response is essentially that it's all executive; if you really want to make the point that the protesters should cross out "Sanford Police Dept." and instead write "18th Circuit State Attorney's Office" on their signs, I guess that's fine, but at the end of the day, the law enforcement agency with appropriate jurisdiction chose to let him walk.  I am less interested in finding out the precisely correct person to point a finger at than I am in rectifying the problem.

Yea, and an innocent police chief stepped down because of thousands of people with the same philosophy.

As they say, sh*t rolls downhill.  He's the one that's in the press conference defending the decision, so he's the head that rolls.

edit: So much for the "innocent" police chief:

Source: Sanford police chief, state attorney made Zimmerman 'no charge' call in person (http://www.thegrio.com/specials/trayvon-martin/source-sanford-police-chief-state-attorney-made-zimmerman-no-charge-call-in-person.php)

A source with knowledge of the investigation into the shooting of Trayvon Martin tells theGrio that it was then Sanford police chief Bill Lee, along with Capt. Robert O'Connor, the investigations supervisor, who made the decision to release George Zimmerman on the night of February 26th, after consulting with State Attorney Norman Wolfinger -- in person.

(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotosash3/534363_3576763742834_1385333351_33392012_982997929_n.jpg)
(http://i973.photobucket.com/albums/ae214/chrizzle17/mediasucks.jpg)

I knew this thread would deliver.

(http://cache.blippitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Popcorn-09-Psych.gif)

Ah god bless the ignorant. The case you are refering too from Knoxville is not remotely close to the photo and information you provide. Where did you get it, a white supremacist site? The two victims were not mutilated sexual and dismembered. The girl was dead within 24 hours, not days later. Even the prosecutors office said these were lies. Also there was no racial element to the crime, but this hs not stopped the outcry of whites who feel persecuted in a country they are the majority, and control all centers of power.
But most importantly a 5 suspects were quickly caught, prosecuted, and sentenced to very long prison terms and in one case to death.

Also it is important to show the older picture of Zimerman as it is his booking photo. It is the documented histry of violent man, who likes to confront others and engage in violence. He then blames the other party for starting it all. Trayvon was the third person he has confronted and engaged violently with. Yet Zimmerman has been the poor victim in all three cases.
As to the question of the video. I worked for years at bars an have witnessed countless fights which caused similar injuries as Zimmerman was equating too. They all looked disheveled even after the blood had been cleaned off their faces, and I have never seen a man knocked down by a much lighter man and pummeled without the ability to defend himself without resorting to using a weapon ever. Only a couple times did I see a much heavier man get laid out by a lighter guy, but they were very drunk. I myself have been suckerd punched by lighter men (I weighed around 220) and never was dropped as Zimmerma is claiming a 140lb teenager did to him.

Pats2006, the supposed "current" picture of Martin in your "media narrative" image has been confirmed not to be him (http://restoringtruthiness.org/13700/malkin-bias-twitchy-com-posts-fake-photo-of-trayvon-martin-using-new-teamdueprocess-no-joke) (though I'm sure it's "close enough" for the creators of said image).

As for the "media outrage" image, were the offenders in said image arrested?
Yes?
Then that's a damned sight more than has happened to George Zimmerman.

Again, had Zimmerman even been arrested, this story wouldn't have blown up.  It's the very fact that an unarmed black minor can be shot and killed (based on suspiciously being in the wrong neighborhood) and his killer isn't even arrested.

Let me reemphasize this for the "reverse racism" crowd:  not even ARRESTED for killing an unarmed black CHILD.  To any person who already feels unfairly targeted by racial profiling, this incident screams "abandon all hope."

As a parent of a deceased teen, I can say it can actually be hard to find the right aged photo of your deceased child.  Not just emotionally, but physically the properly aged photos are not always easy to come by quickly or even at all. 

We had to run a picture of our boy for the newspaper that was probably 2 years old just because it was the best pic of him we could find in short notice.  Kids age quickly, and sadly, we didn't really have a decent photo of our own that captured the last few months of his life.

Don't know if that's the case here, but thought I would add my 2 cents worth.

white supremacist site lol..

It all of a sudden turns into a race thing.. they some how find a way to make it racial when its not. Then on more sites then your "white supremacist site" people are quick to thow up stories how this is raciest.  You cant believe with what the media reports to base you opinion. They dont even report facts. So let me guess.. right after this story aired a media station was quick to report how one of the FL police officers sons beat up a black bum.. What does that have to do with the story? Let me guess the FL police are all raciest..
Why isnt the media covering the story where a witness came forward and said the seen Trayvon on top of Zimerman with the upper hand.. If you dont agree with why Zimerman isnt arrested look at the FL laws on guns. Zimerman did not break any laws thats why he was not arrested... remember you vote in these people to your government take it up with them..

oh.. wait not only the media is making this into a race thing Rep. Gregg Harper also is http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rFQ7T8iiNEo

cant forget him

(http://www.ontheissues.org/Al_Sharpton.jpg)

or Obama If I had a son he would look like Trayvon.. Whats that have to do with anything?

Would this story have blown up like this if it was a 17 year old chinese kid?  I know that someone is going to think this guys "racist" so what does that make my black friends that think the same way?

So, would this story have blown up if this were a 17 year old Asian or white kid?  If the killer were not arrested, it'd still be news, but you wouldn't see the race card being played.  The reason why is because Asians and whites are not typically the victims of racial profiling (as criminals).

Had the shooter been a person with inconspicuous African-American heritage (think Derek Jeter or Mariah Carey) and the victim been a dark-skinned Latino, this case would be almost exactly the same.  The idea that an unarmed kid of suspicious race (that had not actually done anything wrong) can be gunned down with no legal repercussions for the killer is extremely troubling to anyone who has experienced racial profiling.

I will also say that the response of certain people, coming in this thread to complain that they can't say the n-word or wear a White Power t-shirt without being frowned upon, only serves to exacerbate the issue.  If you honestly believe that the lack of a white counterpart to the NAACP is an offense equivalent to an unarmed teenager being legally killed for Walking While Black, you are part of the problem.

That's horrible and I'm so, so sorry.

So im curious to hear how you guys feel about the Black Panthers putting a bounty on Zimmerman?

I would actually say the NAACP is part of the problem and that when blacks can have their own TV channel and say things that would have a white guy chastised is part of the problem. I was watching the latest slam dunk challenge and they were interviewing Sean Combs on the court and at the end of the interview, being broadcasted in the stadium, he actually said "Black Power". If a white guy said "White Power" he would have been thought to be a member of the KKK and would have had his life ruined, but somehow it's ok if a black guy says the same thing. That's actually where the problem is. Not knowing there is reverse-discrimination and not doing anything about it.

EDIT: Just to state my opinion, if Zimmerman broke the law while he killed Trayvon, then yes, throw the harshest penalty at him (I'm a proponent of the death penalty). If he didn't, then move on.

Again if the people involved weren't themselves "racial profilers" they would post pics of him that are current. He had a ton of pics on his facebook... as does most kids. I specifically heard a local black female DJ say that she moves to the other side of the street if she sees a group of  black wanna be ganster looking kids coming at her. She said they don't paint a picture of law abiding citizens but then again, they aren't trying to. I think everyone does it even if it isn't a conscious decision as is proven by hidding his pictures. People like to pretend it is only a white thing but it goes well beyond that and to pretend it doesn't creates a larger problem.

I also think this is a big case because it can be. I am convinced Al and Jesse got involved for the money it will make them and little else. I see the people here. They are here to see the rock stars Jesse and Al as much as anything else. To be a part of what Jesse and Al are doing. Just like the former NAACP leader C.L. Bryant said ... Let’s have the same type of energy towards the young lady, the little girl who was killed on her door steps in Chicago who was six-years old,” Bryant said. “Let’s gather 2 million people and talk about the black-on-black crime that is going on. The most dangerous person in the life of a young black man is another young black man. And the type of ideas that are spawned when we gather together over a white-on-black murder — and in fact, there is not an epidemic of white men killing black boys. There is an epidemic of black boys, black men killing black men and all of them know that,” he explained. “And so let’s focus the energy on solving the problem that happens every day, not something that happens once in a while.”

Central Florida is at the top of the list violent crimes in the United States. It's number 3 according to US News and thats mostly black on black crime. Where is the outrage there? Why aren't they marching up Paramore or OBT in Orlando to chase out the crime?

This is a very tragic story indeed but there has been so much negativity brought on by it that I'm not sure it is worth it. At the end of the day the "law" is going to do what it is going to do.  It's so easy to get behind bashing the redneck police in the "plantation town" of Sanford that people can't help themselves.  I have to admit that I was/am surprised at how this whole thing has been portrayed. In fact it has caused to me to rethink history and take it with a grain of salt. The sensationalism is well ... unbelievable to me.

 

That would be me. Sometimes the truth hurts and people(that would be you)start to rationalize and spin things. I never said anything about a white power t-shirt or NAACP, did I. Yes or no ? See there you go inciting your racial hate again. I simply made a comparison and gave examples of the double standard that exists in this country, in the media, and how it relates to this situation. If you can't or won't comprehend what I am saying and at least admit it, then you are in denial and the only hypocrite that I see. Maybe you should see someone about your racial anger issues, it might help


Killed for Walking While Black ? Really, are you fucking serious ? You still don't even know all the facts and are still spouting your racial propaganda. Again, maybe you should see someone about your racial anger issues, it might help you in life.

Never let a good crisis go to waste.  >:D

That's awful.  But that's a few moron vigilates.

It is difficult to accept claims that the playing field has already been leveled and pro-minority groups, affirmative action, etc. should be ended when unarmed black kids are being legally killed in the street for being "suspicious."

Which is kind of the point of the argument.

It's illegal and they should be arrested and prosecuted.

You know, like the opposite of what is happening to Zimmerman.

So why isnt the news reporting this garbage? Now if this was a white supremacy group and it was the other way around the news would blow this up

I'd feel a whole lot better about it if I actually knew where Zimmerman was hiding. ;)


The news IS reporting that garbage, otherwise you never would have heard about it (assuming you don't hang out at Black Panthers meetings, of course).

Pats2006, are you seriously asking why a bounty threat from a fringe group is not blowing up in the news?
Do you honestly believe that if the Aryan Brotherhood took out a bounty on OJ Simpson, that should also be a huge story?

So has Spike Lee been arrested?  Has the Black Panthers who put out the bounty been arrested? 

They are.  I saw this on the news on more than one network.

A former DA made an interesting point:

Let's suppose we take Zimmerman at his word and he was the victim of an assault by Martin, during which he suffered a broken nose and a deep gash to the back of his head.

If this is the case, where are the pictures of the injuries that Zimmerman suffered?  Isn't it standard practice to take pictures of a victim's injuries?

This has nothing to do with the "can't prosecute him because of the self-defense law!" part of the argument.  Zimmerman claims that he was a victim of an assault.  This assault is the basis for his self-defense claim.  So where are the pictures substantiating this claim of assault?

Anyone talking about Spike Lee and The Black Panthers -- that's irellevant.

The media isn't always going to report the stories equally.  They didn't with OJ.  Plenty of people kill their wives.   They didn't with Casey Anthony.  That's just reality and if you focus on "well...why don't you hear about this other case", you're in for an endless circlejerk.

You have to look at each case on its own merit.

They have not presented their case as to why they didn't press charges as it has never been a closed case. This is what everyone has been saying since the beginning.  We either assume they have evidence to support this or we assume they do not. It's the reasons behind why we think either of these that is tearing everyone apart.

I think that is the problem. People assume things that they don't know and make up their own facts based on their own agendas. Everyone should reserve judgement until all the facts come out.  If there is video tape evidence showing Trayvon on his knees pleading for his life or some other irrefutable evidence of guilt. Sure fry his ass. But until then it's all speculation. But if evidence to the contrary comes out I venture to say that all these racial hate mongers won't even apologize about it. The same way it happened with Jackson and Sharpton in the Duke lacrosse scandal. Zimmerman is innocent until evidence proving otherwise is found, simple as that.

...except that the police are not collecting evidence because they decided not to charge Zimmerman.

Why do you keep comparing this case to others in which suspects were actually arrested?  They are not comparable.

P.S.  Were you as adamant about withholding judgment on Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson as you are about George Zimmerman?  Or is this a newfound devotion to due process?

Spike Lee has called and apologized to the couple and settled out of court for the damages they suffered as a result of his mistake.

Your post gave me goosebumps ... and a lump in my throat.  As a new parent I can't imagine going what you've gone through.  I'm terribly sorry.

I'd like to jump in on one point, this one:  Spider has addressed this several times, the "250 pound versus 140 pound" thing.  I've studied martial arts for over 30 years.  I teach it.  I have been involved in every self defense scenario known to man, I literally can't think of one which hasn't been brought to me to be addressed.

250 pounds, 140 pounds, 5'4, 6'4...this all doesn't matter.  Please stop.  I have zero idea what happened on the night this young man lost his life.  What I do know is this: I've physically witnessed a tall, lanky kid whup the ass of a older, stronger person on many occasion - in a controlled atmosphere.  Toss "fight versus flight" into the fray and anything can happen.

"It's not the fight of the dog in the fight, it's size of the fight in the dog."

x2 size dont mean a thing.

Although this may be true in some circumstances - like a gym where both "fighters" are training - it's a little more rare on the street.  My total guess anyway.  Also, that smaller guy probably has an ass ton more training.

250 vs. 140 is a HUGE difference.   I used to "roll" (jiu-jitsu / grappling) with my buddy and I'm in pretty damn good shape at 175 while he was in pretty damn good shape at 225.  I felt like a 90 lb girl when going up against this guy.  I just find it hard to believe a 17 year old tall skinny kid posed a threat to this man's life with his bare hands. 

Doesn't really matter much. If the "little boy" put his hands on the "big man", the "big man" should feel threatened. Just because you are bigger or weigh more doesn't mean you don't get to protect yourself. I don't like people putting their hands on me regardless of what they weigh. If Trayvon in any way got physical with Zimmerman then he was justified.

So if you were followed and had "hands put on you" you don't get to protect yourself but if you get "hands on you" after instigating a fight you get to shoot someone.  Got it.

Maybe if "the little boy" wore an orange vest that read "VISITOR", than the "big man" wouldn't have felt "threatened" enough to follow the "little boy".
Or maybe "the little boy" should have just known that anyone following him, is not someone wishing to do harm. But a concerned citizen making sure he got to his destination safely. After all, only strangers in vans are dangerous. Not ones driving a truck.
Weight may or may not matter. Common sense does. Zimmerman didn't show any.

You are entirely correct, Zimmerman was an idiot. But you are presuming to know the facts. There is no law about showing common sense. If Trayvon put his hands on Zimmerman, then as far as I can tell the law is on Zimmerman's side. It may not be smart or the best thing to do, but there is no law that says you can't follow someone as far as, I can tell.

You were competing under a controlled set of rules. You were not in a street fight. The lack of rules can even a size difference.

I grew up a punk arse street kid and I can tell you I'd rather fight a thick guy than a lanky guy .. assuming both having the same fighting ability.

I have a buddy who is 6'3" and weighs about 260lbs. In high school he never weighed more than 160lbs and maybe even less. We still joke about how many guys he knocked out. While myself and others probably fought much more than Steve ... he had the ancanny knack to just flat out knock people out. His puch came from downtown.  Needless to say I can't remember one time I've ever seen anyone lay a hand on him and yet he actually kncoked people out that outweighed him by a good 70lbs. It's a little harder to find people smaller than him these days but then again he probably hasn't fought in a while either.

I hate to sound like I am always attacking Treyvon but honestly I had more in common with im than Zimmerman ealry in my life. Other than the drugs.  In fact ... in an odd coincidence (in 1985) I was accused of breaking into houses in a neighborhood less than 1/2 mile from where this happened. I used to visit a girl in there and a teacher who lived in the neighborhood gave them my name. The Sanford police came to get me and question me at my house. Does this count as racial profiling too or just assuming a kid that causes trouble and dresses the part could be doing something illegal?

Two separate, independent voice analyses have now concluded that the cries for help on the 911 tape were NOT Zimmermans (the experts did not have a sample of Trayvon's voice, so no comparison was done with him).

Can a smaller person knock out or beat up a larger person?  Sure.  There are plenty of instances of women legitimately beating up men.

That does not mean that a substantial size difference "doesn't matter."  It's possible that Martin was a naturally talented fighter and Zimmerman was a bum; the opposite is also possible.  But as a martial arts trainer, you should agree that the reason why fighters compete in weight classes is because weight disparities have a significant impact... particularly if the fight involves any sort of grappling.

I stole this poll from my local newspaper,The WHOLE thing,verbatim....So umm Here....

The special prosecutor looking into the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in Florida has three options. What do you believe should be the next step?

Poll added...

Not to mention the heavyweight class is the only class considered to always have a one punch knock-out no matter when in the fight. The lighter classes usually require significant number of punches to set up the knock-out punch.
Also factors such as physical shape and intoxication have parts to play too.

I'm not sure of the difference in legal ramifications between options 1 and 2.  Maybe someone more well-versed can elaborate.

Isn't the Grand Jury just a process in which the State Attorney takes the pressure off of themselves to indict? I mean, they can move to press charges or if they are uncertain they have enough evidence, present it to the Grand Jury to get their decision ... which is just a group of local jurrors.

So basicly after two weeks the case has has gone full cirlce as that is what the local State Attorney was doing as well.

I know someone in Jax who works for the Children's division and they felt confident she would press charges based on her history. I'm not sure this bodes well that she is taking it to the jury. Even if they move to charge him she obviously didn't feel comfortable enough to do it. 

For what it is worth ...  the crowds keep getting smaller and more black locals seem to be getting louder in their criticism of those the feel are taking advantage of Sanford for their own personal gain. Just this past weekend the local leader of the NAACP said he does not support Sharpton's boycott of local businesses and behind the scenes had much more to say ... I am told. Sharpton has started backtracking realizing he is losing the local support which could get ugly if they were to join other black civil rights leaders like C.L. Bryant in their criticsm of AL and Jesse. 

I'm not a Lawyer, I asked my boss,and he rambled on Missouri grand jury.When I told him it was this case,he believed not being sent to the grand jury,would take the death penalty off the table for Zimmerman  (limiting the charges) ...Short and sweet answer...

(modified to clarify thought better sorry,was in a hurry)

I think you might be shocked at the advantage I have over people larger than I am.  I am always weary when I had to fight someone in a lower weight class.  The assumption is always the weight class is to protect the lighter fighter, some degrees and some respects you'd be correct.  However, again, we're also speaking about a controlled enviroment. 

You're not taking anything else into account, specfically the most important element I mentioned earlier.  This is something I drill into my students.  When confronted, any animal (we're included in this) will have a natural "fight or flight" reflex.  In a dog pack the alpha is generally the largest and most powerful dog, yes?  When confronting a stray, in the wild, the stray will generally take flight.

When the smaller stray is willing to fight...that's when you need to take a second to take stock as to WHY.  The alpha will be weary in combat, he is used to the flight aspect.

It's not the size of the dog in the fight. It's the fight in the dog. 

You put this kid in the ring with Zimmerman, he gets a couple shots in.  Zimmerman crushes the kid, otherwise - the majority of the time.

You put the two on the street and the smaller of the two doesn't back down after being confronted?  There is a reason for that.  So, yes.  I am discounting the size difference.

It appears the enhanced videos do actually show what could be an apparent injury to the back of Zimmerman's head.

Doesn't matter what Zimmerman had on him. He could have had a quart of blood on him and people wouldn't care. People have made up their mind and want blood. Hell, at work I have guys saying that if they were Trayvon that they would have tried to beat Zimmerman's ass if he was following them. I tried to explain that following someone is not illegal but touching and assaulting someone is. Gotta love the fake alpha males, ha ha.....

The scenario that makes the most sense to me (given the available information) is that Zimmerman caught up to Martin a second time and attempted to physically detain him.  Martin effectively "resisted arrest," which is not at all difficult to imagine from a teenager, and doesn't require the sort of alpha-male interaction you describe (unless you consider general teenaged rebellion towards authority as fight-or-flight).  The conflict quickly escalated and Martin was shot.

Furthermore, following your train of logic, we would also have to predict that a woman being attacked by a man would be "more ferocious," and therefore, the more dangerous of the two.

I also think that you are failing to account for the fact that one of these participants was a teenager, and the other was a grown ass man.  Just as I would give the advantage to a 250 pounder over a 140 pounder, I would also give the advantage to a 28-year-old over a 17-year-old.

^This will sound like dripping in sarcasm, it's not meant to me - no other way to say this on a computer screen (you can't hear my vocal intent):

What year are you living in?

This isn't 1951.

The whole "he's an adult, he gets the edge" is about as out dated as "he gets the edge, he weighs more."  But what do I know? 

I cannot help but feel a rather extreme sense of irony that in a sports-focused forum, I am being challenged on the claims that:

a) a 28-year-old is more likely to have reached maturity from a muscular standpoint, compared to a 17-year-old
b) a 250-pound man would generally have an advantage over a 140-pound man in a fight

Again, if you don't think either of these things are true, I await your explanation as to how this situation would be any different if a 140-pound woman were in Martin's place.

And you have made up your mind that Martin initiated the fight. Zimmerman admitted he exchanged words, face to face with Martin, and that after that Martin attacked him for no reason.
Witnesses have said Martin was on top before he was shot, but the only person we have as a credible witness as to how the fight started is the guy who killed the unarmed person. Also this same person has a history of violence and confrontation.
So some of us are not buying the word of a man facing possible manslaughter or murder charges, especially since he has a documented history.
What are you basing yours on? You are assuming Zimmerman did not touch Martin or say something that could have provoked a fight, which most states equate to throwing the first punch.

Ok here is the problem I see. At 17, I thought I was King Bad Ass. I didn't have a lot of respect for adults for various reasons and had rarely lost a fight. I already metioned how I was accussed of breaking and entering down the street. Obviously there were reasons why that is. I can tell you if I had an adult questioning me or "confronting me" would have been my interpretation...  I would have kicked off in their arse. I have beat the crap out of several people who did not deserve it just because.  In fact my best friend has an embarasing story of how I beat the crap out of this man (propbably 30) one night and stood over him telling him he just got his ass whooped by a 15 year old. I loved to talk crap when I fought and embarrass people as a larger insult.

I honestly am not bragging and it shouldn't be construed as such. I was a thug. It's embarrasing to me because I work with kids constantly and try to steer them correctly but I have a very colorful past and sometimes people bring it up. Fortunatley for me by the time I was 21 my life had changed direction. By the time I was 27 I was a born again Christian with two kids. I was hardly the punk kid I used to be.  So to me to tell me the 17 year old, who is obviously not afraid to get into trouble, was just fearful and defending himself against the big 250 man with a "history of aggressiveness" ... I'm not buying it. I can tell you now if I was Trayvon I might be dead too as I have done dumber things than that but fortunately got away with it. I've had guns pointed at me on three occassions in my life and fortunately walked away from them. Who knows what would happen today?

I still don't know if George is guilty or innocent but I have a hard time believing Tryvon didn't contribute. I think it sucks because he could have turned his life around as many of us have but unfortunately not all of us get that chance.

CF, from what know you're a big dude and have always been pretty big.  Were you 140 pounds when you beat this 30 year old's ass? 

The fight of the dog is only as important as his size when he KNOWS how to fight.  You get two equally trained guys to fight in a ring, cage, street ... wherever ... my money will go on the bigger guy 11 times out of 10. 

OF COURSE the possibility of a smaller guy handling his own exists.  However, to say a 110 pound difference makes no difference is extremely asinine.  We're not talking about an obese tub of lard who can barely walk.  We're talking about George Zimmerman who is a pretty stout man and appears to at least be able to defend himself from a vicious, gang-banging, blood-thirsty black thug who only weighs 150 pounds.  Do you really think Manny Pacquiao or Floyd Mayweather would knockout Mike Tyson or Lennox Lewis with ease?  Do you think the smaller guys would be able to withstand half a blow from the bigger guys?  Put these same guys on the street and give Mike Tyson a gun ... who would you say would be the victim?

Catch someone on the chin or hit them in the back of the head and they are going down no matter how big.

I guess we are just going to continue to ignore the fact that Zimmerman was apparently injured with a substantial sized looking wound on the back of his head and continue to argue how Martin could not have done anything to cause it?

Also, you guys are misrepresenting the size difference quite a bit. The police list Trayvon as 6' 160. The family suggests 6'1" 150. Zimmerman is 5'9". Now I agree his listed weight during his mugshot was 250 but that is in contention now as you all see he is much slimmer. The family suggests he is 190 (I've seen as low as 170 but I doubt that myself) so if we allow the same 10 pound adjust as with Martin that puts him around 200.

Their size difference is nowhere near what you guys are suggesting.

Just like we ignore how Zimmerman is the one who initiated the altercation and deny Trayvon the right to defend himself?  Or the fact that it's been determined by 2 experts that the cries for help in the 911 call were not from Zimmerman.  It must have been Trayvon crying for someone to help him beat the crap out of Zimmerman further...

His wound looks like something someone would get if the fell and hit their head on the sidewalk not repeatedly bashed in by another person.

This is speculatory and not fact. That is the key. We know Zimmerman followed Martin at one point. No one knows how the two reconnected. I would like to see evidence of how far Zimmerman was from his vehicle at the point of the shooting. That I do not know.

So someone who weighs 100 pounds less than you will bring you down the same number of times that you would bring them down?  

And you know that how? I don't think anyone knows what happened yet...

There was the cell-phone call with Trayvon's girlfriend at the time Zimmerman caught up with Trayvon.  He kept saying "I think this guy's following me" when she told him to "just run away".  She could hear Zimmerman talking to Trayvon when all of a sudden the call went dead after what sounded like a scuffle.  You're right though, the facts aren't clear enough but we should try to go off basic things we know.

I'm not claiming such and such happened.  But I am shocked how people just try to apologize for the guy without knowing much themselves just like the "hang him now" crowd does the same.  He should have been charged with something so at least some form of investigation would be able to take place.  If he would be found innocent, well then that's that but the simple fact that he got to "get off" with so much evidence pointing in both directions is what irritates me.

^^^ We do know she was on the phone with him becuase the records do indeed show that. While I want to take her word at full value, she is not under oath and we have seen that several people are willing to give half truths in their telling/relaying of this story.

I want to be clear in that I am not calling her a liar. It very well may have gone down that way. Or she could be saying what she thinks will help bring this to court. It will be up to the jury to decide and not me (please do not let it be me picked for jury duty if the grand jury indicts).

I have heard very little about this case because I don't want to make up my mind until some speaks who actually has evidence. Granted, it doesn't affect me in any way if he gets off or not, but I would like justice to be served if he did break the law. I agree that it's upsetting people have already chosen sides with the lack of evidence. I'm just gonna wait.

Just for the record, the Zimmerman police surveillance tape that was released does not have the same aspect ratio as the original video; the video was squished horizontally to fit.  This makes everyone in that video (the cops, and Zimmerman) appear thinner.

Lawrence O'Donnell had a forensics expert on to analyze the clip (among other things), and they aired an aspect-corrected version of the surveillance video.

I didn't see the show. Did they happen to mention how distorted the video is? What they expect Zimmerman's weight to be?

Media malpractice alert: ABC and NBC backtrack on Zimmerman stories

Coverage of media coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting has now fully separated from the actual events of February 26, 2012, and become a separate story in its own right, as have political attempts to manipulate perceptions of the case.  Two important updates on the media front:

First, NBC News has launched an “internal investigation” of how a heavily edited version of the audio from George Zimmerman’s 911 call on the March 27 broadcast of the “Today” show.  The same “mistake” was made in a written transcript published at MSNBC.com.

It should be a fairly short “internal investigation,” because the brass just needs to figure out who decided to edit the following conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher:

ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he's up to no good… or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

DISPATCHER: Okay, is this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic?

ZIMMERMAN: He looks black.

… into this: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good… he looks black.”  As deceptive edits go, it’s rather clumsy, isn’t it?  Not to mention grossly irresponsible, given the volatile situation surrounding the Sanford case.

Meanwhile, ABC News manufactured a “scoop” last week by releasing edited video from the Sanford Police Department, ostensibly “proving” that Zimmerman didn’t have any visible injuries.  Since Zimmerman claims to have been physically assaulted by Trayvon Martin, a lack of injuries would do some damage to his story.

But ABC not only failed to remind its readers that Zimmerman was treated by paramedics at the scene of Martin’s death – a well-established hard fact documented in police reports.  They also used an on-screen graphic to obscure Zimmerman’s head at a crucial moment in their “big scoop” video clip.  Without this graphic, viewers can see a rather large gash on the back of Zimmerman’s head, which is totally consistent with his story, and completely destroys the action line for ABC’s “reporting.”  The video loudly touted as showing no injuries did, in fact, depict what appears to be a significant injury.

Lo and behold, ABC News has now produced an “enhanced” version of the security camera video, and whaddya know – it’s another sizzling-hot blockbuster scoop, which just happens to completely erase the previous scoop, because after more “enhancement and re-digitization” than Disney deployed to create Tron:Legacy, it turns out ABC’s sharp-eyed analysts can see that scar too!

Thus, ABC News claims to have “revealed for the first time” what everyone who didn’t fall for their earlier “scoop” could easily see with their own eyes, by viewing the unedited security tape.  Maybe a sufficiently loud cry of “Whoops!” will make an internal investigation unnecessary.

How did this become a partisan issue?  WTF...

^^^ This has been a partisan issue from day one. Look a thow many items have been reported and then taken back. You heard the police did not confiscate the gun- false reporting. It was reported Zimmerman was 250 and Martin 140- false reporting. Old pictures of both persons were used to sway opinion- false perceptions. It was reported that there were no visible injuries- false reporting. It was reported the police did not rope off the crime scene while investigating- false reporting. Gated community- false perceptions I'm sure there are more.

Trust me, I'm a farily liberal guy but I can completely see the complaint about the "liberal media" right now. There was a shooting that people are outraged over and the media is perpetuating the hype rather than reporting the facts in many instances.

couldnt have said it better

What is liberal or conservative about taking either side of this case?  That's what I mean.

If you want to complain about misreporting of facts, go ahead -- you'll get no argument if the info is indeed untrue.  However, how does that make that a liberal position?  How is the position that Zimmerman should be arrested a liberal viewpoint and that he should not be arrested a conservative viewpoint.

There's no policy or platform attached to this?  At least there wasn't.  I'm sure that politicians on both sides will (and have) used this for their own gain, and that's to be expected, but at its heart, there should be nothing partisan about this.

It doesn't have to really be a liberal or conservative position to be partisan. Partisan just means you support one side or the other. In this case there are kind of three sides. Zimmerman should be in jail right now, Zimmerman should face a grand jury, or Zimmerman should be considered not guilty.

I used the words "liberal media" in quotations because that is a favorite term of others.

No, it doesn't.  Partisan means associated to a specific party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan_(political)

But regardless, my point is the same.

Why have the liberals latched on to the arrest Zimmerman position and the conservatives latched on to the free Zimmerman position?

par·ti·san1    /ˈpɑrtəzən, -sən; Brit. ˌpɑrtəˈzæn/ Show Spelled[pahr-tuh-zuhn, -suhn; Brit. pahr-tuh-zan] Show IPA
noun
1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
2. Military . a member of a party of light or irregular troops engaged in harassing an enemy, especially a member of a guerrilla band engaged in fighting or sabotage against an occupying army

It gets lumped into politics but taking a side on anything makes you partisan. You should know that.

Also, I disagree with your stance that either side is specifically in either camp. I am one of the more socially liberal people here and I don't agree with the arrest Zimmerman position. I think Zimmerman's case needs to go in front of a grand jury. According to the law as written there was no evidence presented to refute his self defense claim.

The State Attorney was the first to fight back about made up things. He called out the lies yesterday. The police department has been dragged through the mud. We were talking yesterday about the consequences of this. If things pan out to show that everyone involved did what they were suppose to do can they sue for defamation? I mean ... I can't imagine how much this incident has damaged the police chief's career as well the State Atorney.

Obviously if the evidence shows they covered things up or didn't do their job they have no case but I have to wonder if a jury could find the rally leaders liable?

Just an outside the normal thought and Lord knows this thing has been anything but normal.

Partisan, in this case is an adjective, not a noun. 

It's a partisan issue.  Politically speaking, depending on whether you watch FOX or MSNBC, the coloring of the story is different.

Sure, you may be an outlier in this particular case, but most liberals are on one side, most conservatives on the other....no idea why.  There seems to be no underlying issue or position to support it.

An unarmed black kid was shot by a person with a valid concealed-carry permit.  The police decided not to prosecute the shooter.

This case never had any hope of not being partisan.  It is a nicely packaged bundle of hyper-partisan issues:

 - child killed by gun violence
 - potential racial profiling by the shooter
 - potential racial profiling by the police
 - potential police coverup
 - criticism of Stand Your Ground laws

 - defense of armed citizens
 - defense of claims of racism
 - defense of law enforcement
 - defense of Stand Your Ground laws

All of the race politics of this aside (which are certainly valid), I'm simply uncomfortable with a law that allows you to be an armed aggressor, and then claim self-defense if things get bad.

Here's what probably happened:

Zimmerman goes out after a kid he thinks is up to no good.  He is emotionally compromised / frustrated.  Martin is unwilling to cooperate and is disrepectful amid the accusations of Zimmerman.  The two get in a physical altercation.  Zimmerman fires on Martin.

Dave, you are letting your liberal biases (due to the liberal media) blind you.  Here is what really probably happened:

Exactly what Zimmerman said.

Somehow, I do not foresee that conservatives will continue this stance of "innocent, no trial necessary" for other persons suspected of potentially criminal acts.  What, you say that weed wasn't yours?  If the word of an innocent-until-proven-guilty citizen is good enough to prevent even being arrested for homicide (while you are literally standing with a smoking gun over an unarmed kid you admit killing), surely it must be good enough to avoid an arrest for something as trivial as marijuana.

...right?

Apparently, this incident has codified "I don't know how that got there" as a sturdy legal defense in the eyes of some.

You forgot to include what is coming out from the right too. Martin flipping off the camera...wrong kid( put out by Stormfront), the hacking of his accounts proving he is a drug dealer...wrong no proof of drug dealing( also done by a member of Stormfront). Martin came around SUV and ambushed Zimmerman...wrong, witnesses saw Martin hit Zimmerman and knock him down...wrong.

Both sides are engaged in it equally for various reasons. Hell I got into it with a member of the Brady Foundation blaming it all on guns, instead of the moron who did not listen to the dispatcher who said do not follow.

ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he's up to no good… or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
 
 
How come everyone keeps overlooking this statement? It's raining out but this guy is just walking around, looking about?  This seems like Zimmerman clearly thougt he was "casing" the place or at a minimum being suspicious as the average person doesn't just meander around the neighborhood in the rain at night with no purpose.  This doesn't sound like someone traveling from point a to point b eating and drinking and trying to get to a destination.

Again ... it doesn't mean Martin is guilty (nor does it prove Zimmerman's assumtions were correct) of anything but it does show that Zimmerman related his call to "suspicious actions" and not Martin's race or his hoodie.  Which would make sense considering he would probably have to call on a third of the neighborhood based on those two characteristics.

Just like you overlook the fact that Martin was on the phone at the time. At 7:00 on a Sunday.

I forgot one (and I admitted there were likely more). The flipping off photo is the only one of these I knew of. I've followed this pretty closely and had not heard of any of the others.

Here is where you might be mistaken on our stances (at least mine) a bit. I am in no way saying the law does not need tweaking. What I am saying is that under the law as it is written and has to be enforced, the burden of proof needs to be that it was not self defense. It appears Florida is the only state with a stand your ground law that gives automatic immunity but Florida was also the first state to pass such a law so it is natural that others would make tweaks as they considered similar legislation.

Phishfan, my point is that even under the law, there is only a lack of probable cause if you accept everything Zimmerman said as fact, in the face of all the circumstantial evidence that contradicts it:

 - Why was Zimmerman outside his car several minutes after he had supposedly broken off pursuit?
 - Why would Martin have fled from Zimmerman and then circled back to ambush him?
 - Why was this significantly lighter unarmed minor a credible deadly threat?
 - Who was screaming for help on the 911 tape?

Ultimately, as I see it, this law rests on one key question: if I, as a private citizen, decide to detain you (even though I have witnessed no crime), and you resist this detainment with violent force, does the Stand Your Ground law permit me to use deadly force in response?

If the answer is no, Zimmerman should have been arrested.  I'm no prosecutor, so I don't know if there was enough evidence to obtain a conviction to that end, but there was certainly enough evidence for probable cause (which is a very low standard of proof).

If I could write the law, I think that there should be two different standards.

I am much more in favor of allowing for use of deadly force when you're on your own property.  If someone breaks into your house, for example, I think that you are justified in assuming that they have weapons and will harm you.  If you kill someone under those circumstances, I'm willing to be very lenient with you.  Short of shooting someone in the back trying to retreat, I think that the law should favor the person "standing their ground".  I think that the concept of feeling threatened can be based on a reasonable assumption in that case.

For altercations not on your property, I don't like the word "threatened", because it's entirely subjective.  If Zimmerman can feel threatened by an unarmed minor, then anything goes.  You can never get into someone's head about whether they were truly threatened or not, therefore, you can claim self-defense in almost any situation.  I also am not comfortable with you claiming self-defense after you are the one who is the initial aggressor, even if the incident turns violent.  I think the law needs to ask you to make a reasonable attempt to retreat before lethal force.  I also like the wording about meeting force with equal force.
 
Can I go out and ask like an asshole, get myself into a fight, and then kill the guy who starts punching me?  If I'm understanding it correctly, the stand your ground law, as it's written now, allows you to do that.

Being outside the car is not evidence. Are you saying Zimmerman was required to remain in his vehicle.? That is stretching probable cause. As I said, I would like to know how far away Zimmerman was from the vehicle (I'm sure that will be evidence the grand jury hears).

If you or I would not circle back to to ambush Zimmerman, it doesn't mean someone else would not. Just because you cannot answer the questions does not make it evidence.

The minor was a credible threat if the injury reports are true. Martin was bleeding from the nose and back of the head (I'm sure the grand jury will also see more evidence on this than we have also). Witnesses say Matin on top of Zimmerman. Being unarmed has nothing to do with it. As the law is written you have to be in fear of your life or great bodily harm.

Zimmerman claims the screams were his. People saw Martin on top. At the original time, it makes sense. Now there are groups saying the voice analysis does not match Zimmerman. You may have something there, but it was not available at the time he was questioned about the incident.

I am not sure if you will find this interesting or not but the FL Supreme Court has upheld the Stand Your Ground Defense in other cases where the shooter "pursued" the shooting victim. Two guys had a drunken argument in a bar. Later that evening one of them was walking down the road when the other pulls up (as a passenger) in a car. The argument starts again. The walker leaned in the car window and was shot to death.

Phishfan, the combination of several pieces of circumstantial evidence provides probable cause.  That is essentially how probable cause works.

The many incident calls that Zimmerman had previously made are not, by themselves, probable cause.
Telling the 911 operator that he is following Martin is not, by itself, probable cause.
Being outside his car after he agreed to stop following Martin is not, by itself, probable cause.
Claiming that Martin ran away and then ambushed him is not, by itself, probable cause.
Cries for help on the 911 tape are not, by themselves, probable cause.

When taken in total, there is probable cause there.

I saw on the news the other night, an ariel view of the neighborhood.  It showed where Zimmerman lived (not near the incident).  I also showed where Martin was staying, which was near where the body was found, but not where Zimmerman initially spotted Treyvon.  Treyvon likely entered the neighborhood through the main gate, where Zimmerman initially starting following him, or at a cut-through path for pedestrians.

Basically, Zimmerman saw Treyvon at the main gate, followed him around the corner.  When Treyvon went off the main street to walk back behind the houses, Zimmerman got off on foot and followed him behind the houses (or I think that according to Zimmerman, he drove past Treyvon and walked behind the houses to meet him in his face).  Treyvon's body was found roughly four or 5 houses down, but behind the house, not on the street side. 

I don't know how accurate this map is, but it gives you an idea.  I think the thing to take away from it is that they were not near Zimmerman's car at the time of the shooting.

(http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-path.jpg?w=510&h=342)

I think you would argue the color of the sky.  I'll lay this out one additional time.

A:  This might be a sports related forum.  We're not talking about sports.  We're not talking about a controlled atmosphere.

B:  We're not talking about a "fight" in the classic sense.  Two people square off, hands up, yes.  The larger person *generally* has an initial advantage.

C:  I've explained myself fairly thoroughly on the subject.  When a person feels in danger, or their life is threatened, they will react in a much different fashion than a general fight.  Having a much larger man following you, in the dark, would place a younger person into this mind set.

Anything further on this, really, is arguing just to argue.  I'm sharing an well rounded, very educated opinion on the matter.  You're overblowing size of the person in this type of situation.  Take this well rounded, very educated opinion for what it's worth.

I saw your Halloween picture.  You're a slender guy yourself.  I have plenty of colleagues / friends, what-have-you, right in your back yard.  My old stomping grounds.  If you would like a "real world" education rather than this worthless back and forth on a computer screen, let me know. I'll make a couple calls and set you up.  My dime.  You will learn, hands on*, why size doesn't matter.  At the end of the day I could call the sky "sky blue", but until you see it for yourself you'll continue to refer to it as "Brandeis."

*You would probably end up talking to Doshu, versus actually "doing" anything.  It would take all of five minutes of a conversation for you to understand what I've been trying to get across here.

^ This is bullshit.

Size matters.

It is not the ONLY thing that matters, but it matters.

And I'm not talking about any of those things; I'm saying that a 17-year-old is less mature, from a muscular standpoint, than a 28-year-old.  For further reference, look at any of the pro athletes we discuss on a regular basis, and their looks/muscle mass as a high school senior vs. as a 5th year pro.

This has absolutely nothing to do with "the size of the fight of in the dog" (which neither you nor I can comment on with anything remotely approaching informed accuracy).  It has to do with simple physical muscular development.

You still refuse to address the fact that your train of logic results in the conclusion that a woman would enjoy the same "advantages" you attribute to Martin in this conflict.

If, as you claim, age/size/weight doesn't matter and (in a non-controlled scenario) it's strictly about the "size of the fight in the dog," are you saying that a 200-pound adult male can credibly claim to have feared for his life when confronted by a 110-pound 15-year-old unarmed girl?  Answer the question.

Maine, I am interested in what point you could possibly hope to prove by this demonstration.  Are you trying to argue that you can find one of your semi-professional fighter buddies that's lighter than me, but could kick my ass?  If that's the case, I'm pretty sure I can pull many, many examples of the opposite: predictable examples of a much smaller guy getting beat up by someone bigger than him.  And I don't think I need to go to a dojo to do it.

You accuse me of arguing to argue, but consider your position: you specifically made a reply to me with the sole purpose of pointing out that you believe that (absent all other information) the person who is 100 pounds lighter should be favored in a fight, based solely on the fact that he chose fight over flight*.

I'm arguing the general rule.  You're arguing the exception.

*Given that it's plausible that Zimmerman was forcibly detaining him (and that this was the cause of the fight), your fight-or-flight argument becomes particularly ironic.

So does speed, what they ate, their current health, whether they had sleep etc.  but it doesn't compare to experience. Are you guys purposely not reading what Maine is writing? I know Spider will argue regardless of what is written but I am very surprised that Dave doesn't get it. 

 

I get what Maine is saying.  But I don't think that you can discount something like size and weight entirely.  It's not the only thing that matters in a fight, but other things being equal, size is a big factor.

Experience matters over all of those things, sure.

I'm not trying to be argumentative.  In fact, I don't think that Zimmerman's size advantage (though I do think it's an advantage) is all that relevant in this case.

...but we don't know the experience of either of them!  That's the point!

If Martin was a two-time All-Valley karate champion, it probably would have come out by now.  Likewise, if Zimmerman is a retired cage fighter, that also would have come out.  But we don't know any of those things.

What we DO know is that Zimmerman had a substantial weight advantage.  And for some reason, the people who are insistent that "size doesn't matter" are refusing to follow through and say that it still wouldn't matter if Martin were replaced with a girl.

Some consistency, please.

Spider ... If we don't know, and I agree that we don't, why do you always assume Martin to the innocent side while assuming Zimmerman to the guilty side? My impression of the two based on my experiences with people. I really do not know how much is true nor do I really care as it doesn't effect the outcome of right and wrong in the shooting.

Martin ... street kid who has seen his fair share of trouble and fights. Suspended three times. Drugs, burglary tools and womens jewelry. Ganster texting and wardrobe supports this theory.

Zimmerman ... overzealous wannabe cop who probably got beat up in school. If not beat up proably picked on quite a bit which reinforces his need to be a ploice officer or authority.

In any hand to hand fight I would pick Martin all day long regardless of if he weighed 100 lbs less. I also don't see Martin screaming for help but I would expect Zimmerman to freak out when confronted with violence. Maybe even shooting someone before he needed to just basd on his outrageous fear.

That's the thing about today. In my day we fought and moved on win or lose. Today people get shot for accidently cutting others off. You never know what is going on in someone elses head.

And we aren't even sure of that since we don't know Zimmerman's weight. Some reporting has them within 20 pounds which is nowhere near substantial in a street fight.

Nor did Zimmerman know Trayvon's age, weight, experience, what he was doing, or if he had a weapon. Nor did Trayvon know what Zimmerman wanted or if he was dangerous. I guess for a good portion of the population it's easier to pull the race card instead of using common sense.

That's a good question.  "Innocent" and "guilty" of what?

Martin had a legitimate reason to be in that area, a legitimate explanation for where he was going and where he came from.  He was unarmed and had no questionable/ill-gotten items of property on his person.  This rather significantly restricts the things he could have been "guilty" of.

Could he have been guilty of an unprovoked assault on Zimmerman?  I suppose, but there's even less evidence to support that theory (specifically: a motive) than there is to support the theory that Zimmerman assaulted Martin.

It has been established that it was not Zimmerman screaming for help on the tapes (link (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57407964-504083/screams-on-911-call-not-george-zimmerman-forensic-voice-experts-say/) and more link (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-31/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-20120331_1_voice-identification-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty)).  Gangster stereotypes aside, how does this affect your opinion of Martin?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=8amLdrMTEJE

^^Prime example

I cant believe you guys are still trying to say that size matters..  I have seen smaller guys beat up on much bigger dudes in my life time.

So then, a woman vs. a man is a completely fair and reasonable fight, because size doesn't matter?  Still waiting for a response on this.

Stop citing exceptions and claiming them as the rule.  When David defeats Goliath, it is an epic triumph of legend; when Goliath beats David, it is a boring example of business-as-usual.

You guys are reaching, hard.

Are we talking about a man vs a woman? Last time I checked we were talking about a smaller man vs a bigger man. What does a woman have to do with this case? Maybe that why you havent got a response to your question.

Size doesnt matter thats like me trying to make a case that Trayvon had the upper hand because he was taller and had the reach.. it doesnt matter..

Maine, was right you guys will argue just to argue..

If size (and age) don't matter, why wouldn't an adult man vs. a minor girl be just as fair of a fight?

The reason why is because it does matter.  This is why weight classes exist.  This is why womens' sports are largely separated from mens'.  This is why the phrase "pick on someone your own size" exists.

If O.J. Simpson was patrolling this neighborhood and saw a "suspicious" unarmed Snooki walking around, according to the "size doesn't matter" crowd, he could credibly claim that she ambushed him and, as a deadly threat to his person, he was justified in shooting her.  Without even being arrested.

Remember, you aren't saying "Martin's longer reach made up for it" or "Zimmerman was mostly just chubby."  No, no... you are saying that size does not matter.  That is your argument.  So stick to it.

No he is making a point. For conditioned athletes, there is a breakdown of classes for a reason. This does not mean a smaller person with the same skill set as a bigger person cannot win, but even at higher levels it is not a guarantee. This becomes more obvious as you move down the scale to less athletic and trained people to the average person.
Have we all see cases where a normal small person beat a normal larger person. But this is not the accepted norm or standard in society. If given a chance to bet on two normal, untrained combatants, the average person will usually lay their money on the bigger combatant. Why? Because of the maxim in boxing, the heavyweights always have a punchers chance due to natural power that larger people tend to have over smaller people.
It is safe to assume neither Zimmerman nor Martin had the level of training as someone like Maine, that could easily overcome natural advantages such as height, weight, reach, etc..

Let me also add this point:

If, as it appears, it is verified that it was Martin and not Zimmerman that was yelling for help, Zimmerman should be indicted on that alone.

Is it even possible to spin shooting a kid that's screaming for help as "self-defense"?

We still do not know how things went from exchanging words to Martin on top of Zimmerman as the witness reports. That is the gap that will probably never be fully filled in.

Stop throwing out hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the actual case. You do this quite a bit. A woman versus man has nothing to do with this. Your argument is moot anyway as it is fact that Matin had indeed knocked Zimmerman down and had indeed injured him in the face and back of the head.

Actually, the only fact is that Zimmerman shot an unarmed kid. He admitted that. There are conflicting witness accounts as to who was on top of who. The idea that Martin ran away, doubled back, only to assail Zimmerman without cause is absurd. Martin ran away, hence this potential "threat" is no longer a threat. What we don't know, is how Zimmerman caught up to Martin. The screams for "Help" were proven not to be Zimmerman's. There were 4 screams. Which suggests Zimmerman already had his gun out and was aiming at martin. So, if anyone can explain how that qualifies as self-defense, I'm all ears. Actually  in this case, all eyes. If you have time to aim, you have time to think.

Yea, it is almost as absurd as thinking Zimmermand must have busted his own head open after assailing Martin from the top position. Eyewitness accounts typically need to be taken with a grain of salt. A psychology professor showed me just how bad a group can be by conducting an experiment one time in class. He started a movie which was designed to test our ability to observe and recall. None of the class knew the scene we were watching was actually going to test our abilities as eyewitnesses. Most of the students could not correctly identify clothing colors, hair colors, what someone was carrying in their hand, etc.

What I don't understand, is how is it relevant which one of the guys was screaming for help?

Say.. Zimmerman attacked the kid, and then the kid is screaming for help.

Or.... The Martin kid is beating the crap out of Zimmerman, and then Zimmerman pulls the gun. Then the Martin kid starts screaming for help.

  I don't claim to know what happened at all. But whomever was screaming for help is meaningless.

Point taken about the eyewitnesses.

None of which answers the huge underlying question. Who or how did the fight actually start? Was it verbal? Did Zimmerman try and detain Martin? Did Martin see Zimmerman's gun and freak out? So many questions.
As I said before, this is probably the most important fact, and all we have is the word of the shooter that he did nothing to start the fight that led to the shooting.

You (and others) are claiming that size and age are irrelevant factors.
I submit that you do not truly believe this, and are just making that claim because it is convenient in this case.
As evidence, I give the example of a minor female in Martin's place.  If size and age really don't matter, then how would that be any different?

The fact that every one of you steadfastly refuses to say "it would be no different" implies that in that situation, you would indeed consider size and/or age to be a factor.  So why then, but not now?

It is a hypothetical example designed to point out the error in your logic.

...yet Zimmerman's account, which has far more potential for bias than any eyewitness, should be taken at face value?

It is reasonable to assume that if someone is repeatedly screaming for help, they have (at the very least) been subdued, and certainly no longer represent a deadly threat.

Of course, you can claim that Martin was screaming for help as he ambushed Zimmerman and was repeatedly smashing his head into the concrete (according to Zimmerman, of course).  I would suggest that that is not a reasonable claim, but I guess if you can believe that Martin ran away from Zimmerman only to immediately turn around and ambush him, I supposed you can also believe that Martin was screaming for help as he was doing so.

I do find it interesting that prior to the evidence showing that it was NOT Zimmerman crying for help, no one (not even the pro-Martin crowd) suggested that Zimmerman was screaming for help as he was manhandling Martin.  Because such a proposition is laughably absurd.

I suppose you also believe that a 250 lb much older man can catch a 140 lb young man when that young man was running away from him ? If Trayvon didn't approach Zimmerman, how did Zimmerman catch him ? Size would matter more on that issue than anything else. Not to mention that I think that I read that the only physical marks on Trayvon was the gunshot wound. It seems from Police, eyewitness, and enhanced video that Zimmerman did indeed have injuries.

According to the map Dave posted (and the 911 call), Martin ran away from Zimmerman when he was still in his vehicle.  Zimmerman then purportedly circled around and cut Martin off (obstructing his way home).  So once Zimmerman confronted Martin on foot, Martin would have had to run in the opposite direction of his home to get away.  I think at that point, Martin challenged Zimmerman as to why he was following him (which is what the girlfriend on the phone reported).

I'm not disputing the claim that Zimmerman may have been injured.  I do think he greatly exaggerated the nature of said injuries; his shirt is remarkably clean for someone with a "broken, bloodied nose", and if he had a huge gash on his head, I'd think that the medic on the scene would have applied some sort of bandage (but I'm not a medical professional).

In any case, a law enforcement official has stated that based on the time the police arrived on scene, the distance to the police station, and the time of the surveillance camera, that whatever medical attention Zimmerman received took no more than 8 minutes, total (link (http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/04/02/nr-trayvon-martin-timeline.cnn)).  That sounds more to me like someone who was unexpectedly punched and knocked down (banging his head on the ground during the fall), not someone who "repeatedly had his head smashed into the concrete".

I can't tell if you just don't know the difference or you expect that I won't. I encourage you to look through this thread and cite one example where I said the words size or age does not matter. What you will find instead is me arguing that your stated size differences are exaggerated as well as stating a fight without rules can equal a size difference.

Of course size is a contributing factor but it is not the sole determiner of a fight.

If you disagree with the others who are literally saying, "size doesn't matter," that's fine.

I'm not saying that Zimmerman's weight advantage automatically means he was ragdolling Martin before he shot him.  I'm saying that it's yet another factor that damages the credibility on his claim that an unarmed Martin represented a deadly threat.

Do I believe that Martin was repeatedly bashing Zimmerman's head into the ground?  No.  Zimmerman already lied about calling for help, and the account of the incident from his camp keeps changing (link (http://www.thegrio.com/specials/trayvon-martin/george-zimmermans-evolving-story.php?page=1)).

The special prosecutor has decided against taking this to the grand jury which was scheduled to meet tomorrow. I wonder is she is plannign to bring charges or drop this now?

Hey CF, what's the mood in the town there? Seemed like things had calmed down but then there were some reports that make it sound like tensions are maybe rising.

I was surprised that his lawyers spoke out.  I found it kind of unprofessional.  I figured that if they weren't going to represent him (for any reason), that it would be better to just say that they were no longer working together and left it at that.

I would be weary of later hiring that attorney for that reason.  I would want my matters private, even if I am no longer a client.

There were more protesters who marched from Daytona in town and the police shut down their offices because of them, but it looked really peaceful to me. There has been some high tension stuff (cop car shot up) but if you know Sanford there really isn't anything shocking in that anyway.

Side note, I found out yesterday that I had actually met George Zimmerman a few times. I was talking to my ex and discovered that when we were together she worked with George. I had been to the office a couple times for lunch and even rode in a limo over to Tampa with their office people for their Christmas party. I can't say that anything about him or the experience sticks out in my mind that would allow me to have any insight to provide. I just thought you guys might be interested to hear that.

Zimmerman is to be arrested.  Charges being announced at 6 PM.

I think this is for the best.  I think that there are a lot of things wrong, but we need the appropriate channels to figure it all out.  Zimmerman needs to plea his case to a judge.  If he's acquitted, I'll be OK with that.  I think the law is totally screwed up and needs to be revisited.

But I also don't like a situation where most people agree that something is wrong, there's a growing mob mentality, and this guy is not only walking free, but also free to leave the country with no tabs on him while people decide.

So, I think that this should calm down a lot of the fight.  There will be some people that will lose their shit if he's acquitted, as well as those that will lose their shit if he goes to jail.  I will not be one of them.

On the eve of his facing charges, this is a strange story of events from his former attorneys.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577336143953995600.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

Again, just like O.J., Casey Anthony, whoever else... if he's acquitted because of that ridiculous law, then (after the verdict) rail against the law but leave Zimmerman in peace.

But the main point of outrage has been the lack of an arrest.  There was an excellent blog post (http://nomoremister.blogspot.ca/2012/03/why-rich-lowry-is-idiot-rich-lowry-at.html) that summed this point up, in response to the many conservative "counterexamples" of black-on-black or black-on-white crime that didn't become national stories (specifically, some from National Review's Rich Lowry):


That's the real force behind this outcry.  There's an element of racial profiling and an element of you-don't-belong-here, but those details don't make this a national story.  It became a national story because 2 weeks after Martin's death, Zimmerman had not even been arrested and it didn't appear that law enforcement cared too much about it.

Sanford's fine. It's everyone else who is out of control. I ate lunch today, as I do every wednesday at the local "chicken place". As you can imagine ... lot's of black and white in there. It's as blue collar a place as you can get ... I would imagine. Lot's of school board, police, fire, county and city workers and we all sit around yakking with each other.

Anyway the general sentiment is everyone in town is over it. Most of the protests you see or have seen has been conducted by outside people. There is even a movement to have the police chief reinstated by current police, fire, government officials and citizens.

I swear what i see on tv and wht i see every day is world's apart. i mean if youask me or you ask the CNN people who have been camped out doing absolutely nothing for weeks I'm sure you will get two different stories but honestly, it hasn't changed.

Aside from a kid dying which is horrible, the city, county and other local municipalities are suffering pretty badly. There is already talk of cutting people next year as they are way over budget dealing with this mess and everyone knows they were alreadyin bad shape.

please excuse my typos. this pc has issues.

I think Zimmerman is having a nervous breakdown ... but who wouldn't under these circumstances? The thing I have to ask is why these guys felt they were his attorney? I mean ... they never even met the guy.

Looks like they are going to charge Zimmerman. Too bad he will not get a fair trial..

It looks like the Stand Your Ground law may not apply.  If that's the case, Zimmerman is in for a rough time.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/ken-blackwell/truth-about-stand-your-ground-laws-and-why-they-dont-apply-trayvon-martin-case

"Under any version of the facts, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law did not apply in the Trayvon Martin incident. If Zimmerman pursued a confrontation with Martin, then Zimmerman was an attacker and cannot claim SYG. If Zimmerman’s account is true that he was on the ground and Martin was on top of him, then retreat was impossible, so there would be no duty to retreat anyway. A victim in such a situation can use deadly force, but only if he reasonably believes he is being attacked with deadly force.

To our knowledge, that is the law in all fifty states. It was the law before SYG statutes were ever passed, and SYG did nothing to change it."

If this is true, this case would be handled just as it would be in any other state without a similar SYG law.

According to the prosecutor, the Stand Your Ground law may be a tough defense to counter.  He is being charged with second degree murder, which means the state will have to prove malicious intent. 

Regardless of any our opinions:  if this case didn't make it to trial, at least, the entire state of Florida would burn to the ground.

Really? Where is your proof? It sounds as if this prosecutor actually reviewed all the evidence, too include stuff the public has not seen like the autopsy and ballistics reports before she made her decision.
This is the type of case that makes or breaks careers, and I doubt she is going to rush in and go for charges she has no chance of proving.

I would just like to mention that after all has been said so far, this is really what I was looking for: a trial.  I'm not hunting for a particular verdict.

If it turns out that Zimmerman's account was accurate and he is found not guilty by a jury of his peers, then so be it.  Contrary to how it may seem, I never wanted him to be convicted of a crime based solely on the circumstantial evidence I cited... I simply felt that said evidence put his statements in enough question to warrant an indictment, particularly given the seriousness of the (potential) crime.

I think I mentioned already but if not... I know a guy who works for the child protection agency in Jax who has intimate knowledge of her and he said day one that she would prosecute. She has a history of taking things to trial that others would not and was a big reason for her selection. She may have enough evidence but historically just because she gets them in court doesn't mean she wins them.

I think it really depends on the judge in the case. There are instances where the shooter has "pursued" the victim and stand your ground has been upheld. Charles Podany witnessed a speeder in his neighborhood. He grabbed a gun and jumped on his bike to get the license plate number. The passenger confronted him and a fight ensued where Podany drew his gun and killed his attacker. The judge at the pre-trial hearing granted immunity under the law.

This law has been pretty unevenly enforced throughout the state. It will be very curious to see what the courtroom evidence is and how the decision is rendered.

I agree, and I'm glad to hear you say that.

I would go one further and even be OK with a judge throwing the case out, if the evidence allowed for such a decision.  Trayvon (and the community) deserved the proper legal channels for this case to play out and up until yesterday, it hadn't.

I think that it's not Zimmerman's fault what the law is.  He should not be held accountable for bad legislation.

Instead, we should learn from it and adjust the legislation.

If that happened, I'd drop a dollar on a prop bet that says Zimmerman gets shot by someone looking for "justice" that they didn't feel was achieved with the case being thrown out.

This is said with every big court case, but Casey Anthony and OJ are still walking around.

I'll bet there are some people looking to do that already, which is why his lawyers were saying they had lost contact with him and the prosecutor is saying that he is somewhere in Florida in police custody.

The hate for Zimmerman is nowhere near where it was for someone like Casey Anthony.  I think that people are more mad at the police department, the law, etc -- rather than the actual man.  I think that some people are even sympathetic towards Zimmerman.

I don't know why they were being so cryptic about that. It is known that he is in the Seminole County Jail right now.

http://webbond.seminolesheriff.org/InmateInfo.aspx?bkgnbr=201200004452

That's why the prop bet would be a dollar, instead of my entire paycheck...


From a personal perspective only, I didn't spend 2 minutes following the Casey Anthony fiasco...all I know is she supposedly killed her kid, but it couldn't be proven in court. On the other side, I've been interested in the Trayvon mess since day one and read at least one news piece daily about it.

Martin, in my opinion, is a more INTERESTING case, because there is a law that seems to be on trial.  Casey Anthony was batshit, so it was neat to watch the circus.  But there weren't many people saying that Anthony was justified.  These kinds of things are important to our society, though.  The Casey Anthony trial made way for "Kaylee's law", which makes it a felony to have to report a missing child after X amount of hours.  Something will probably come from this case, too.

They had to tone it down in order for it to pass. I believe the law only makes it a felony to give false statements to police in cases of missing children, death, or injury.

My office is right behind the court house and next to the jail. As you can imagine the media is pretty crazy today. I swear it's like they have been waiting for this story to happen. That must have been lost without the Casey Anthony story.

Yes many more people are sympathetic to Zimmerman than Anthony.

Casey Anthony's case didn't involve a left-vs.-right issue.  This case (potentially) involves three of them:

- gun control laws (concealed carry + Stand Your Ground laws)
- racial profiling (of Martin by Zimmerman)
- mistreatment of minorities by law enforcement (the failure to fully investigate the death of a black homicide victim)

Given that all three of these issues happen to align such that conservatives would clearly be on one side and liberals would clearly be on the other, this case was always going to have a political spin.  However, if Zimmerman had been arrested immediately, this case would have been relegated to a cable-news talking-head feeding frenzy, instead of having mass protests.

I just don't see the left and right of it and think most of you consider it that way just because a large portion of people line up that way. I consider myself socially liberal but fully support laws that allow concealed carry permits. I also feel that stand your ground laws have a place. If attacked, the last thing I want is a responsibility to prove I tried to flee. My gut reaction is fight back.

As for the other two choices, racial profiling happens by everyone. I don't see it as a left/right issue. Is it right, is it wrong? I'd say it leads to quite a bit of misunderstanding.

Mistreatment of minorities is a left/right issue? I'd dare say any registered Republican would take offense to that line of thinking and they should. There is no politics there. Mistreatment is mistreatment and to think anyone would support it is crazy.

Phishfan, the difference between left/right is almost precisely the difference between believing that racial profiling is a problem that still exists (in any significant quantity).  More directly, when asked about specific, individual cases, conservatives are hard-pressed to acknowledge present-day cases where racial profiling has occurred.  So being opposed to racial profiling conceptually is not really a good barometer.

Similarly, while I'm sure many conservatives would be against "mistreatment of minorities," the difference is that they generally do not believe that (in any specific case, e.g. this one) it has actually occurred.

This may sound racist .... but there is a difference.

Nobody every put a bounty on either of those two's head.  If fact there was some in wild julibration after the OJ trial -- pretty much the same folks who have been demanding "justice" on Zimmerman.  The same folks who burned LA to the ground cause they didn't like the verdict in the Rodney King case. 

If a jury concludeds that Zimmerman is not guilty, his life is very much at risk. 

Note: this is not to say all African Americans or even most a prone to vigilantism.  But it only takes one.   

Totally different. LA had been a powder keg for decades, especially due to the behavior of the LAPD towards the minority communities. So when that segment of video tape kept getting played over and over again for a year, no one thought those officers would get acquitted.
While there is outrage here, due to the lack of in-your-face evidence like a video, it is not as bad as during the LAPD officers trial.
Also many people used the outrage as a cover to just commit crimes. While down there, we had gang members and other people tel us why they did some of what they did.

You don't remember the woman arrested (http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/07/15/casey_anthony_look_alike_sammay_blackwell_says_she_was_attacked_.html) for ramming and flipping the car of a woman she thought was Casey Anthony, in an attempt to kill her?

I will agree that you are correct in stating that it does sound racist.  Essentially, you seem to be claiming that when a good portion of the significant-majority ethnicity (whites) think a murderer is unjustly let off, that person is free to walk the streets (because white vigilantes don't exist?), but if a good portion of the ~12% black population thinks you are a murderer who cheated justice, well, your life is clearly in danger.  I leave it to the reader to determine why that is.

Say, I wonder what happened to those LAPD cops that beat Rodney King?  I mean, since the blacks back then were participating in actual riots (as opposed to internet bounties), surely those officers must have suffered brutally at the immense, lawless mob of black people, right?

I am also forced to wonder why fringe, extremist groups like the New Black Panther Party are given such esteemed credibility to speak for black sentiment.  Should we also look to neo-Nazi groups (http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/regret-the-error/169868/neo-nazis-respond-to-media-skepticism-about-sanford-patrols-by-offering-up-a-questionable-source/) to determine the mainstream white position?

Finally: not that it matters, but the only "bounty" that the NBPP (again, an extremist, fringe organization) offered was for the citizen's arrest of Zimmerman.  So since Zimmerman has been actually arrested by real police, isn't their bounty invalidated?

As I have said repeatedly: the point of outrage was that Zimmerman wasn't even arrested.  That lack of action would have signified a HUGE shift in the types of outcomes that minorities can expect from racial profiling.  A year ago, the idea that a private citizen could shoot and kill an unarmed child and not even be arrested would have been considered ridiculous and not worth discussing.

I think it was 50 something people that died in the Rodney King riots. But *if* none of the officers were killed or suffered harm then that's all good.

The nbpp had fliers that read 'dead or alive'. There are also numerous audios of them calling war against whitey 'suit up & boot up'.

You are an absolute trip.

The argument that vast swaths of the country will burn if Zimmerman is acquitted is a completely separate argument from the claim that Zimmerman is in immediate personal danger if he is acquitted.  He would be in no more danger than Casey Anthony, OJ, or the Rodney King cops, and none of them were lynched.

(http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/nbp-zimmerman-e1332652972903.jpg)
That is the flier.  Doesn't look like it says "dead or alive" to me.

Again, not that I want to spend too much time talking about the wishes of a fringe organization, but you can read this interview (http://yourblackworld.net/2012/03/uncategorized/new-black-panther-malik-shabazz-speaks-with-ybws-doshon-farad-about-the-bounty/) where the NBPP national chairman explicitly states that the reward was for the citizen's arrest of Zimmerman.  Nothing more, nothing less.

In other words, the position you are ascribing to an extremist organization is even more extremist than the position they actually hold.  The NBPP is standing to the side of Fox saying, "Whoa, man, dial it down."

I could not have put it better. Love your posts. Are you sure you are not a Fins fan?  ;D

Seriously, no one knows all the facts, but we see the race card being played over and over. I heard commentary calling Zimmerman a cold blooded killer and only shot him because of his color. That is BS. Even Obama had a comment.

Like it or not, the media is a POWERFUL force and with all the attention this has gotten, I am not surprised he was charged.

Now, if he is acquitted and from what I have read, that is very possible, I guess we will see riots and protests. The race relations in this country has gotten worse, not better. 

That poster looks about as real as Obama's birth certificate. LOL

This is what I was referring to. http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/NBPP-says-Zimmerman-is-Wanted-dead-or-alive/oenX9ta4FEyiMufpPMNNww.cspx (http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/NBPP-says-Zimmerman-is-Wanted-dead-or-alive/oenX9ta4FEyiMufpPMNNww.cspx)

1) I just provided a copy of the flier; if you can find a picture of one that says "dead or alive", I'm happy to see it
2) From the article you cited (emphasis added): "The focus is on Trayvon. The focus is on arresting this no good devil, this no good dog that killed an innocent child and that is the focus of the New Black Panther Party."
3) I already linked an article from the national chairman of the NBPP explicitly stating that the bounty was for a citizen's arrest
4) Most importantly, why are the positions of an extremist group even relevant to the discussion?  How much time should we spend discussing the KKK's position on this case?  I'm guessing near-zero, because nobody cares what the KKK thinks and they do not represent any sizable portion of the population.

You didn't bother to click the link I provided did you. LOL Lesson learned, don't discuss issues with people who are certain in their beliefs despite the overwhelming evidence of their ignorance.

I'd say the could likely care less as George Zimmerman doesn't really look like their poster boy.

I await your explanation for how I produced a quote from your article without clicking on the link.  Which you are aware of, having actually read my post before clicking Reply and all.

(http://i1085.photobucket.com/albums/j423/fanofet/deadoralive.jpg)

I guess it was your willful ignoring of the huge bolded headline


and the 2nd paragraph of the article


and the video that shows the dead or alive flyer and discusses it at length that threw me off.

My bad. After reading all the talk about killing Zimmerman


I must have forgotten about the quote you grabbed from the end of the article.

LOL

Seriously? Defending the NBPP? Even if you "thought" you were right you would be wrong and i know you are smarter than to believe that. They are as racist as the KKK and there isn't anything you could say to defend them that wouldn't make you look bad. Even the brothers in Sanford wanted those guys out of here.

I asked for a picture of the flyer, as I had not seen one.  There is no picture of the flyer in the article.  I have Flashblock on so I don't even see those videos (or the preview), and don't feel like sitting through commercials unless someone specifically says "watch the video."

That all being said:

1) the NBPP is an extremist, fringe organization that does not represent any significant constituency
2) even the national chairman of this extremist, fringe organization has specifically stated that they were looking for a citizen's arrest

So then, if your best evidence of the lawless undercurrent of general black unrest is that some crazy wackos in a fringe organization are calling for violence, when even the national leader of this fringe, extremist organization is emphasizing a citizen's arrest, your position is pretty baseless.

If some members of the KKK are calling for an open race war, and the national leader of the KKK is saying, "Whoa, everyone should calm down, we just want to make sure no whites are getting hurt," should we spend several pages discussing the impending Race War on Minorities by the white population?

tl;dr- Why does anyone care what the KKK, NBPP, Council of Conservative Citizens, Neo-Nazis, or any other racist organization says?

LMAO That is some of the most weak ass stuff I've ever seen on the internets.

There *is* a dead or alive poster. That fact that you choose to deny it and continue to carry water for a bunch racist ass hats says everything I need to know.

Yes, in the video there is a dead or alive poster, so we know that angle isn't being completely invented by the right (unlike, say, the "Zimmerman was screaming for help" angle).  However, you have yet to explain why anyone should care what the NBPP thinks.

Of course, given you are also openly ridiculing the "authenticity" of Obama's birth certificate, I guess you are happy to give credibility to fringe organizations of all types.  Kudos to you for your consistency, at least.

Obviously you care as you keep defending them. Citizen's arrest when the police aren't looking to arrest him? Again ... you should stop.

B the way according to a booking sheet, Zimmerman weighs 185 pounds and is 5 foot 8 inches tall. This kind of throws a wrench into the 250 lb gorilla theory.

How many times do I have to say this?

1) no one should care what they are saying, as they are a fringe organization
2) even IF (<--- this part is important) you DID care about what they are saying (which you should NOT), the NBPP is not calling for Zimmerman's head, according to their own leader

Links, please.

http://club937.com/the-new-black-panther-party-puts-a-bounty-on-trayvon-martins-shooters-head-video/ 

Do not see anywhere on the poster where it says dead or alive.

bsmooth, apparently some local NBPP members in Florida printed out a flyer that said WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE.  The NBPP national chairman decided that that position was far too extreme (for his extremist organization!) and clarified that their reward was for a citizen's arrest of Zimmerman.

The only one I have seen on the web and on the news is the one I linked.

The bc thing was a joke.... mostly. HAHA

I live in OKC where a very small number of fringe racist asshats killed 168 innocents. How many people do you think it takes to wreak havoc on society? 10,000? A million?

fify  ;D

Let's cut to the chase, here.  What is the point of bringing up the NBPP?

Do you think the individuals who printed the WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE poster should be arrested?  No objection from me.  (On a related note, the Tampa Chief of Police directly contacted (http://www.wtsp.com/TrayvonMartin/article/250102/406/New-Black-Panther-Party-chief-of-staff-apologizes) one of the NBPP members who made those type of "dead or alive" comments.  This individual later issued a public apology and retraction.)

Do you think the NBPP should be aggressively dismantled by the feds?  The continued existence of the KKK and Neo-Nazis says that's unlikely.

Do you think the statement by NBPP members should be taken as an indicator of the general black population?  If not the general black population, then whom, exactly?

They are a fringe organization, and their opinion is about as relevant to the Zimmerman case as the KKK's opinion of Kobe Bryant was in his rape trial.

I don't know, why don't you ask Hoodie as he's the one you basically implied was a racist after he brought up the bounty.

Mike Tyson on George Zimmerman: ‘It’s a disgrace he hasn’t been shot yet’

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/mike-tyson-trayvon-martin-case-disgrace-george-zimmerman-221115400.html

Another crazy person says crazy things.  I'm sure conservatives everywhere will insist that this statement needs to be Thoroughly Discussed.

Remember that this comment came from the same man who threatened to eat Lennox Lewis' children.

I'd love to see George Zimmerman call the cops on Mike Tyson, and then pursue him.  I'm sure the dispatcher will definitely advise Zimmerman not to pursue.   :D

If he had shot Mike Tyson, everyone would have agreed that his life was in danger.

Or at a very minimum, his ears.

Breaking out the strawman..... you know all the tricks.

There is an interesting Tyson bit since you brought him up regarding leftwing media/entertainment bias. Mel Gibson was to have a cameo in The Hangover 2 but that just wouldn't fly with the upstanding people involved in the production. Of course working with a psychotic ear eating rapist was not a problem.

Excellent point.  Let's set the "strawmen" aside and get back to the point:

So then, I take your response to mean that you don't actually have any real justification for repeatedly referencing the NBPP over the last three pages?

If you agree that their viewpoint is not relevant, I am very interested in hearing you explain why you continually cited their statements as proof of the dangerous mob mentality threatening Zimmerman.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/justice/florida-zimmerman-jail/index.html

According to a booking sheet, Zimmerman weighs 185 pounds and is 5 foot 8 inches tall. Tattoos include theatrical masks and a cross on the chest. He is listed as being unemployed.

185 lbs, whoa. I wouldn't wanna fuck with that big gorilla !!! Ha, ha, ha, the African American lynch mob at its finest. What a crock of shit..........

I've been saying for weeks this size difference story was bullshit.

(edit: I didn't like the original tone of this post)

If, as a result of this investigation into an alleged crime, evidence is discovered that proves Zimmerman's innocence (or more accurately, fails to prove his guilt), great!  That's why we have a justice system.

My entire point of contention was that he wasn't even arrested.  Now that an actual criminal case is being brought, we will see which claims were real and which were fictional.  It may be true that events transpired exactly as Zimmerman claimed, or it may not be.  He will have his day in court to make that case.

The most damning piece of evidence I feel is the pursuit piece. As I mentioned previously different judges have made conflicting rulings in this area.

Modified to add, possibly the help screams. It will be interesting to see how the defense will work to either refute the reports or have them excluded from evidence.

I was talking with a friend of mine about this.  A friend who happens to be in the legal system here in Bay County.  He says if Zimmerman was told not to pursue Martin by the dispatcher and he did anyway, then the Stand Your Ground law does not apply as Zimmerman initiated the altercation. 

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing this is what transpired:  When Zimmerman pursued Martin, Martin turned around and said, "Why the fuck are you following me?"  Some harsh words were exchanged and then they started trading blows.  In the process, Martin got the upper hand and had Zimmerman on his back, at which point Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot Martin. 

If Zimmerman pursued Martin against the dispatchers orders, then he is guilty or a crime, but not of second degree murder. 

Put rather simply, if Zimmerman was the aggressor (which could be something as simple as attempting to physically detain Martin until the cops got there), he's probably guilty of murder.  As has been said, you can't start a fight and then claim self-defense when you're losing it.

Remember, there are documented cases where there was a pursuit and the judge still granted the Stand Your Ground immunity. I think luck of the draw will determine which way this goes as much as anything.

What am I missing about this? Gun-toting idiot disregards specific instructions to stop pursuing the kid, not once but twice. If he would have kept his self-righteous meddling butt at home Martin would be alive. It really, truly is that simple. That's undeniable. How is he NOT legally responsible? -EK

I'm not talking about whether or not Zimmerman was chasing Martin; I think Zimmerman would have a hard time convincing any jury that Martin ambushed him "on the way back to his vehicle," based on the location of his vehicle, the spot of the shooting, and Martin's most direct path home.  The shooting took place exactly where you would expect it to if someone with knowledge of the area was attempting to cut off someone that ran away from him.

I'm specifically talking about whether or not Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin by force.  (It goes without saying that if Zimmerman actually initiated a brawl, self-defense/SYG wouldn't apply, but I don't think that's likely.)  Other than the alleged assault on Zimmerman, Martin had committed no crime that night... and Zimmerman claims that the assault directly led to the shooting.  So we can effectively say that Zimmerman would have had no legal reason to attempt to detain Martin.

As I understand it, if someone attempts to physically detain you without having witnessed you actually committing a crime, that attempt would be classified as assault (by them, on you).  In the case of pursuit that you cited earlier, when Charles Podany pursued a speeder to get a license plate number and a passenger in the speeder's vehicle, Casey Landes, confronted him, it was determined that Landes started the fight.  It is also significant that it was a passenger and not the driver, which eliminates the credibility of a claim that Podany might have been trying to detain or otherwise apprehend him (as is the case here).

Furthermore, in this particular case, if it is determined that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, the question must be asked: what were Zimmerman's intentions if he caught up to him?  It's hard to believe that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin on foot (after being specifically directed otherwise) with any intentions OTHER than detaining him for the police.  If the prosecution can convince the jury of that, then essentially they will be arguing that Zimmerman pursued Martin with the intent to commit assault.  That sounds like murder to me.

^^^ I understand. Landshark was specifically talking about pursuit.

And it would be very easy to explain why he would pursue him without trying to detain him. He was neighborhood watch and called the police afterall. A very simple explanation was that he wanted to see where Martin was going so he could direct the police there upon arrival.

Yea, that's the first thing I do when I commit a racial hate murder. Call the cops before I do it. Makes plenty of sense to me.

badger6, I agree; no one would call the cops right before they committed a "racial hate murder," because if the cops saw you standing with a smoking gun over your unarmed minor victim, they would most certainly arrest you on the spot... right?

Phishfan, I think that could be a plausible explanation for the first pursuit, but after he was explicitly told not to follow Martin and he apparently continued anyway, it becomes far less plausible... particularly given the distance Zimmerman traveled from his car and his (presumed) angle of pursuit, which was an "intercept" path, not a "follow" path.

As you implied earlier, I think this case will rest on several key determinations:

1) Did Zimmerman continue to pursue Martin after being explicitly instructed otherwise?
2) Did Zimmerman attempt to intercept and detain Martin?
3) Was Martin the person screaming for help on the 911 call?

If the answer to all three of these questions is "yes", I don't see how Zimmerman could avoid being convicted.

Absolutely correct. Unless of course you are defending yourself, then all bets are off.....

Except you cannot provoke a confrontation and then claim self defense because you feel you are losing. Remember that if he felt threatened, Martin had as much to defend himself as Zimmerman does.
If the witness on the phone is correct that Martin felt nervous are scared that a strange man was pursuing him to the house and finally caught him, then it is not unreasonable that he felt he had no choice but to fight, as Zimmerman removed his flight ability.
When both parties have the right to self defense, whom ever brought the situation to a confrontation by their actions loses that legal defense.

I'm not 100% postitive but I don't think that is correct bsmooth. I think it's easier to use deadly force as in shooting someone when "scared" than to commit battery on a person you "feel" threatened by. And yes I do see how ludicrous that is.

I disagree. We were having a conversation at work about this type of thing about 6 months ago. Without going it to how the subject came up. I was making the point that if I was at a public park and was staring at someone that there is nothing anyone could do about it. A couple of the louder wanna be alpha males (think Floyd Mayweather Jr) that talk too much, said that if someone was staring at them that they would physically confront the person. You can't just commit battery or assault someone because you don't like what they are doing. And as far as I can tell following someone in public would be in the same category as staring at someone in public. If Zimmerman did something physically to Martin first then lock his ass up, but if it is the other way around then I see this as justified. There is a difference in observation and impeding someone's ability to move or function.

Simply following someone is no more of a crime than "suspiciously" wearing a hoodie.  This case will turn on who initiated the actual confrontation/fight.

It was night, and not in a public park. Some strange man was following him as he tried to elude him, and within 70yds of home, he caught up to him. This is behavior that a reasonable person could agree could put someone into the flight or fight mode. Martin had as much right to defend himself if he felt threatened as Zimmerman did...as do all of us. So now you must look at the situation and see who was the initial aggressor.
This is also previous history, to include criminal to see if there is a pattern of aggression or confrontation could come into play as basically it is still a he said case.

Lol, I am glad you said it and not me.

You do realize this is mostly speculation don't you? Even his previous history was dropped so in a courtroom it doesn't even exist.

The facts we do know based on the actual police reports and 911 tapes.

Zimmerman called police and reported a black teenage male acting suspicious.
Zimmerman tried to follow but was informed he didn't need to do that.
Zimmerman appeared to have stopped pursuing as the wind stopped in the phone.
Zimmerman continued dialogue with operator for another minute and a half.
Two police officer arrive at scene a couple of minutes later.
One officer secures Zimmerman in handcuffs after Zimmerman admits to shooting him and places him in car.
Zimmerman's gun is secured by police.
The other officer works to try and revive Martin until furthur help arrives.
The area was secured with police ribbon and major crimes spent 6 hours processing the scene and wtinesses.
Zimmerman is reportedly saying several times that he kept calling for help but no one came (In the police report)
Martin was unarmed.
Zimmeran had a wet dirty back and had injuries to his face and back of his head
Zimmerman was taken into cusody and questioned by major crimes at the police station

There were at least 6 witnesses who were interviewed that night at the scene.

Specualtion begins here as no one has seen the witness reports so the speculation can go in many directions. My sources say that one witness saw Martin beating Zimmerman and as well heard and saw Zimmerman screaming for help. If this is true this was recorded in the report way before the 911 recording came out. I don't know how any profesiional after the fact can overule an eye witness with no affiliation to the supsect.

Zimmerman could have tackled Martin and threatened him with a gun but if no one can prove it the evidence seemingly points to innocence in my opinion.  If I had to guess I'd say he will walk but stranger things have happened.

I don't know where the confusion lies here. If Zimmerman stays home, Martin isn't shot. That's it. There's nothing more to it. Zimmerman isn't law enforcement. He had no business following the kid with a loaded handgun. How is this even defendable? -EK

^^^Because it isn't against the law to do any of those things.

Leaving your house is legal.
Following someone is legal.
Carrying a handgun in Zimmerman's case was legal.

Now physically confronting Martin is not legal but we need to see proof of that to see where Zimmerman did anything illegal. You better come up with a stonger argument that that if you want to influence anyone.

That part is true, in that if Zimmerman never followed him, then Martin isn't shot. What I don't agree with in your statement is that he did have business following the kid if he thought he was one of the people who have been breaking into houses. He's just trying to do his job of neighborhood watch.

If you are walking in front of my mother in law in a grocery store, down the street or even to my mailbox you are being followed by a person with a loaded gun. That isn't a crime in any sense of the word. If she thought you were doing something wrong and continued to follow you it still isn't a crime. How is that not understandable?

You may not like gun laws but there isn't anything illegal with carrying them with the proper permit. Following someone to see where they may be going doesn't make it illegal either.

I understand that if Zimmerman didn't come into Martin's life that he would probably still be alive but it's the legality of the situation that I don't see sticking.

The legality is that to prove murder, you need intent. The very fact that he had a gun is intent. You don't carry a deadly weapon if your plan is to sell a guy lemonade. -EK

^^^ That's not true at all... I don't carry a firearm, but if I did, I'd carry it for self-protection, not to start a gunfight. He might have had absolutely no intent to kill Trayvon, just to hold him up for the cops. No one knows that, but you carry a weapon to protect yourself - at least, that's what I would carry it for.

Except for the fact that he was told not once, but twice to cease pursuit and not confront him at all. The fact that Martin is dead is 100% Zimmerman's fault- NO ONE else's. He should be held accountable for that. You don't get to use the "self protection" excuse when YOU were the one who instigated the confrontation by the pursuit. -EK

Are you drunk ?? More people than you could imagine CCW, including me. Does that fact mean that I have "intent" to murder someone ??


And how do you know that he didn't cease pursuit when he was asked to. People are still making this assumption. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. You get to use the "self protection" excuse when you are physically attacked. Following someone doesn't instigate a confrontation. The person who initiated physical contact instigated the confrontation, whoever it was. Martin had more than one option to choose from also......

Yeah...he DID have the option to run away from the idiot gun-toating, vigilante wannabe; oh wait- he DID run in the other direction. If you have specifically been told not to follow, but are able to continue giving directions to where a person is, in fact, running away- which the transcripts of the 911 call show, then yes, he did not cease to pursue. That's not an assumption. It's a fact. How else do you suppose the two ended up TOGETHER? Zimmerman admits that Martin is running AWAY from him. The only way they are in the same place is if Zimmerman kept following him.

I personally don't care if you or anyone else carries a concealed weapon. My point is that if you are pursuing someone, and confront them for no reason other than you simply feel like it and disregard what someone has told you to do, the fact that you're carrying a gun speaks to motive. I'm being pretty specific here, so don't twist my words- not everyone who carries has the intent of murdering someone. But absolutely, if you DO shoot someone, after being told to stop following them, it speaks pretty clearly to intent. Don't jump my shit for that- it's one of the things the prosecutors are going to say. It is what it is. Bottom line- Zimmerman doesn't pursue, and Martin lives. Why is that a point of contention? What is wrong with society that we have to constantly remind people that shooting eachother is not allowed?

Edit to add- I guess it doesn't really matter. As this happened in Florida, where murder is apparently not really that big a deal, and you can kill your child and get away with it, I suspect that Zimmerman will get off anyway, inspite of the facts- but not because of them. -EK

I think that we need to break this discussion into two parts:

1) Under the current law, did Zimmerman commit justifiable homicide?

and

2) SHOULD Zimmerman be legally protected, based on what happened?

To #1, I think that you can make a case that the law protects Zimmerman.  If you allow someone to carry a weapon, track down suspicious people, start a conflict, and then retaliate in self-defense -- and all of those are protected, then he might walk.

My problem is with #2 -- though I agree that all of those are rights, I don't think that they should be rights in conjunction with one another.  If you are an aggressor and you don't make a reasonable attempt to retreat, I don't think it's RIGHT for you to be justified in escalating violence.  I feel that, at worst, you should only be able to meet force with equal force.

I'll go one further- the issue of "rights" flat irritates me. Why are they "rights?" Who made them "rights?" They're not God-given. God's stance on killing people or using violence seem pretty clear. Love thy neighbor. So who made these rights- especially the ones regarding guns, gun laws, gun safety, etc? A group of white, middle-class, slave-owning, land-holding men, who, in the same breath said, "All men are created equal.... as long as you're not black, or Indian, or a woman, or poor, or uneducated....but everyone is equal." BS. There is no "right" to go around shooting people because you feel they may or may not be a threat to someone indeterminately. The idea of even carrying a concealed weapon isn't a right- it's a priviledge which needs to carry with it a little more accountability when you use said weapon to shoot an unarmed person. -EK

Seriously? You can be anti-gun all you want but the fact of the matter is he possessed and carried the gun legally. There is no proof of intent.

It has been upheld in the Florida courts already. As long as Zimmermann did not cause the physical confrontation he did nothing against the law.

Then what- exactly- was his intent in pursuing the kid with a loaded gun when he was specifically told not to? Did he really need a gun to "detain" someone 20-30 pounds lighter than himself as he ran away? Seriously? What intent did he have? There better be a good answer for this, because you can bet the prosecuters will ask it. "As long as Zimmerman did not cause the physical confrontation" is the key- I believe he DID. How else do you explain the fact that the two ended up wrestling on the ground when Martin was fleeing to begin with? It's been publically stated that, according to Durell Peaden, one of the sponsors of the Florida Stnad your Ground law, the law does not say that a person has a right to confront another. "When [Zimmerman] said 'I'm following him', he lost his defense." -EK

^^^ Apparently you must not believe me because you keep doubting me. Florida courts have upheld the self defense claim even when the shooter "pursued" a victim. It is not a loss of defense.

...and the moment you bring "God" into a legal conversation, I have to throw out every one of your opinions presented in that legal conversation.

Apparently you must not believe me either, then, because the people who established the law are the ones I'm quoting.
The lawmakers who crafted the legislation in 2005 — former Sen. Durell Peaden and current state Rep. Dennis Baxley — said the law doesn’t need to be changed. They believe it has been misapplied in the shooting death of Trayvon by a Sanford crime-watch captain, George Zimmerman.

Zimmerman has not been charged because, police said, it appears he acted in self-defense. The Seminole County state attorney’s office decided Tuesday to take the case before a grand jury.

“They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid,” said Peaden, a Crestview Republican who sponsored the deadly force law in 2005. “He has no protection under my law.”

Peaden and Baxley, R-Ocala, say their law is a self-defense act. It says law-abiding people have no duty to retreat from an attacker and can meet “force with force.” Nowhere does it say that a person has a right to confront another.
The 911 tapes strongly suggest Zimmerman overstepped his bounds, they say, when the Sanford neighborhood crime-watch captain said he was following Trayvon and appeared to ignore a police request to stay away.

“The guy lost his defense right then,” said Peaden. “When he said ‘I’m following him,’ he lost his defense.”

-EK

I carry a gun every single day of my life, sometimes concealed, sometimes not....I have no intent of murdering anyone. I carry for self defense should I ever actually need it.  Hopefully that day never comes but if it does....I will be prepared to protect myself or my loved ones. Your above statement is very flawed my friend!!!!!!

You must have missed the post where I said that in general, I have no problem with CCA. IN THIS CASE- and this case is the only one I'm speaking of, not some generality, the intent can be derived by the fact that there is a dead body, a person told to stop pursuit, and a concealed weapon.

Let me put it in a different context. Suppose it's your kid, your brother, your father, or you. Walking home from the store with no weapon- in fact, nothing but a bag of Skittles and an iced tea. Some nutjob who thinks he's the neighborhood Batman shoots your relative dead. How is that defesneable? How would you feel?  -EK

You are correct, if Martin was a law-abiding citizen, he had no duty to retreat but if he was only being followed how can he meet "force with force"? There was no force to meet. So, lets say hypothetically,  that Zimmerman was following Martin. Martin felt threatened and got physical with Zimmerman and got the upper hand and was on top of Zimmerman. Punching him and hitting his head on the ground. So are you saying that if Zimmerman just grabbed a nearby brick and bashed Martin repeatedly in the head to protect himself that it would have been ok. Or are you saying that Zimmerman should have just let Martin continue to beat him ? Is your problem with the firearm or Zimmerman supposedly defending himself ?

Neither- my problem is with the fact that he was told at a neighborhood meeting specifically NOT to engage in any form of vigilanteism, then told again on the phone not to follow Martin. If he would have not taken the law into his hands, AS HE WAS TOLD, there is no case, no dead body, and no issue. He had multiple chances to do the right thing and not try to be a hero. What did he think, this kid who was 30 pounds smaller than him and not armed, was going to unleash the power of the Rainbow from his Skittles upon the neighborhood? If he would have stayed put, there's no case. There's no way to argue that point. It's indefensible. -EK

Yes, so long as Zimmerman stopped, once there was no longer a threat.  If he smashed him with a brick once to get Trayvon to stop hitting him, you'd have no complaints from me.

I concur. -EK

Your speaking assumtions and not specifics. There has been no proof he confronted anyone. In fact the 911 tape offers the opposite as he stopped pursuing, if you believe he stopped when the wind stopped, and then he continued talking to the operator for another 1 and a half minutes after being suggested " OK. We don't need you to do that". This whole assumtion that he must have continued is as much as an assumtion that he confronted him. You just as well assume he went to the moon too because none of the evidence says he went to the moon.

If he didn't continue, and he admitted that Martin was running away, then how did they get into an altercation AT ALL? The only possible way that could happen is if he did, in fact continue. He admitted that Martin was fleeing. That's not an assumption. That's a fact. -EK

I've got a full understanding but their intent is not what is written according to the judges.

I believe that remains to be seen- either in the manner in which the trial ends up or in a subsequent revision of the law. -EK

Once ? How do you determine when to stop ? Not sure how many of you have been in a confrontation, but most people don't just stop. If the other person doesn't stop, do you ? What if Travon saw the weapon and reached for it or there was a struggle for it ?


Or Martin could have felt "disrespected" like many of these fake "I'm a real man" wanna be thugs these days and tried to be a tough guy. LIFE IS NOT A RAP VIDEO, too many people think that they deserve some sort of respect from total strangers. They don't !!!  Don't tell me about it, I deal with these idiots everyday. The funny part is when you call their bluff and they start whining and crying about racism.

Gee, why would they say anything about racism when YOU just pointed out that life isn't a rap video. What a fail. Martin was running. He couldnt have felt "disrespected" because Zimmerman wasn't there to disrespect him until he pursued Martin. Why is that such a point of contention? This is SO absurdly black and white, it baffles me that there is any argument. Yes or no- if Zimmerman would have kept his happy ass inside and not followed at all when he was told to stop, would he have shot Martin? -EK

Badger brings up a good point and I would like to see how that flies in court. Apparently part of Zimmerman's statement is that Martin tried to go for Zimmerman's gun when it became exposed in the struggle. If this is fact, does that change any of your opinions (not stating it is fact but just curious about your position)?

I would feel most comfortable if the law protected you to only apply said force while it was being applied to you.  So, Zimmerman would be allowed to use the brick to stop threats against himself.  Once those threats stop (Trayvon stops punching or Zimmerman regains ability to retreat), Zimmerman should be legally required to do so before using more excessive force.

Absolutely it would change my opinion- but only in the sense that he had a more valid reason to shoot, not the overall point that he had no business pursuing to begin with. -EK

I have a hypothetical question:

Let's say I arm myself and go out to the hood.  (I am legally protected to do this.)
Let's say I pick a black guy and follow him around. (I am legally protected to do this.)
When he looks at me or question me, I call him a "n*****". (I am legally protected to do this.)

Let's say he gets angry and punches me.  Can I then shoot him in self defense?

I am not saying that this is the same as the Zimmerman case, but it speaks to the same point.  How much must you be willing to avoid conflict before you can claim self-defense?  Just because each of Zimmerman's individual actions are protected, in my opinion, doesn't mean that the collective of his actions are.

^^^ Your situation looks like it has the intent of starting a fight and shooting someone. The neighborhood watch guy doesn't seem like he had intent. Yours should be illegal.

What, exactly, are you proposing Zimmerman's intent was, pursuing a smaller, unarmed 17 year old, who is already running away, after being told not to, and while carrying a concealed weapon? If that's not intent to start some sort of conflict or vigilantism I don't know what is. -EK

Yes. By law you have done nothing wrong.

WTF is your point ? What does one have to do with the other ?


I would say that none of that gives anyone the right to put their hand on you whatsoever. Someone getting angry and not being able to walk away is a fault of theirs, not yours. If they do you have the right to protect yourself. How and to what extent you protect yourself is subjective and depends solely on the situation. Obviously a person should try to avoid conflict as much as possible, but avoidance shouldn't be a requirement if someone attacks you. 

While your actions are deplorable Dave (I assume we are talking more than one punch and you really have a fear for life or great injury) your shooting would be justifiable.

Badger, the fact that you don't see how your statement about life and rap videos can be seen as racist is troublesome. I don't know what else to say. That's a racist comment, whether you know it or not. -EK

Please explain how other people acting like real life is a music video is racist on my part ? Maybe it's not really racist, maybe you just feel "disrespected".

^ I'm white and I thought the same thing.  It's racist.  But whatever.  If you don't see it, there's not much I can do to sway you otherwise.  At the very least, it's insensitive to a whole group of people.

I guess that's where we disagree and I'll just have to leave it at that.  I don't think my actions should be legally protected in that case.  I don't think that you should be able to incite that violence and then respond with greater violence.

Whether or not Zimmerman did that will be determined.   And then whether or not he's protected if he did it will be determined as well.

I'll ask you the same question. If someone wants to act like a thug out of a rap video and bully people. When their bluff is called, how is that racist ? You know this whole society and it's politically correct bullshit has gotten so far out of hand it's ridiculous. So I can question the actions of a group of white people that act like jackasses it's perfectly acceptable, but if I question the actions of a group of black people that act like jackasses it's racist. More double standards, ha ha. It's racist alright, but not on my part.

^^^ I'm not certain, but I think they're complaining that you said "Life isn't a rap video" and Trayvon is black. I'm just guessing. I don't care about the PC crap as well, but that's what I think they're alluding to.

It's not your question that's racist.  First off, you're using dog whistles, with terms like "thug out of a rap video".  But the bigger point is that rap videos have nothing to do with this case.  An unarmed minor was shot.  Somehow relating his behavior in the moment (of walking home) to a "thug out of a rap video" is a gross generalization based on race.  If this were a white boy that was shot under the same circumstances, I highly doubt you'd be talking about rap videos.

And I don't think you have the responsibility to be killed (remember the key is that you are in fear of your own life or great bodily harm) because of your own stupidity. I don't see protecting your life as using a greater force. Either way at least we can discuss it civily.

^ I agree that I don't deserve to be killed in that scenario.

But I think that the defense of "fear of being killed" is flimsy.  If you were in fear of the person, you would've have put yourself in that situation.  If I were afraid of getting killed by a black guy on the street, I wouldn't be following them around calling them n*****.  I guess that's the point.  I don't believe for a second that Zimmerman was in fear for his life.  ...not for a second.  I think that if that were a reasonable fear, he wouldn't have been as aggressive in his behavior.

I don't think getting into that position is where you rate the fear. The fear needs to be in the immediacy of the fight. I know that opens a can of worms in terms of what constitutes real fear. I think we need to see the closeup photos of Zimmerman's injuries (I really hope the police took photos) and hear the testimony of the EMT to know what damage was really done in order to rule how much fear he should have had at that time.

Dog whistles ? Don't even know what that means.

Anyhow, my counterpoint to EK's ONLY POSSIBLE scenario that could have happened.


Just as likely a scenario is that Martin had the "no one is gonna disrespect me" attitude and initiated physical contact. Rap videos may not have anything to do with what happened. They do however have plenty to do with how many young people act these days. A good majority of those young people are black. That is not racist, that is just the way it is. There is a violent and thug aspect to it regardless. Whether Zimmerman is guilty of murder or a victim who fought back really doesn’t matter to any of the media or any of the others who seem to have "an agenda" in this. In the end, all they care about is the fact you’re tuned in giving them their ratings. If this were a white boy that was shot this whole thread wouldn't exist because it wouldn't make ratings.

What position did Zimmerman put himself in ? He followed someone. Of course he wasn't in fear for his life while following Martin. If he was attacked though, he had every right to fear for his life at that point. If that's what happened of course. I wouldn't expect to be attacked for following someone. The way I see it is that whoever initiated "physical contact" is ultimately at fault in this situation !!!

There is a legal term known as "fighting words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words)".  These words (which include hate speech) are "those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" and are not protected speech under the First Amendment.  IANAL, but I believe that if you were to make this kind of statement to another person, it would greatly damage your claims of "self-defense" in court, as you effectively incited the fight.

Actually, the 911 tapes indicate the opposite.  If you listen to the tapes, the wind sound starts and continues for ~10 seconds, the dispatcher asks Zimmerman if he is pursuing and advised him to stop doing so, the wind sound continues for ~10 more seconds, and then it stops.  So either:

a) Zimmerman continued pursuing Martin for 10 more seconds after the dispatcher told him not to, then finally stopped, or
b) the wind sound corresponds to when Zimmerman exited his car, and after the dispatcher told him to stop following, the wind sound continued until Zimmerman got back into his car

If b) is the case, it means that after the call ended, Zimmerman got out of his car again.  I leave it to the reader as to determine the most reasonable explanation for why that would be.

Furthermore, if you look at the map that Dave posted:

(http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-path.jpg?w=510&h=342)

Ignore the "assumed path" speculation and just look at where Zimmerman's car was, where Martin went into "the walkway between houses" (as Zimmerman claimed), where Martin's residence was, and where Martin was shot.  Look at the possible entryways into the walkway between houses.

Now try to explain how Zimmerman (who can be expected to have known this area reasonably well, being the self-appointed head of the neighborhood watch) could POSSIBLY have crossed paths with Martin at the location of the shooting WITHOUT specifically and intentionally taking an intercept path.

A "dog whistle" is a thinly-veiled code word for a statement that would not be appropriate to say directly.  For example, any time anyone in politics references "urban," "inner-city," or "hip-hop" (in a negative context), you can just replace that word with "black" and discern the true meaning of that statement.

A non-racial example would be asking if a judge believes there is a constitutional right to privacy.  This is a dog whistle for whether or not the judge supports legalized abortion, as the "right to privacy" was one of the foundations of the Roe vs. Wade decision.

Surely you can cite some empirical evidence for your totally-not-racist claims that the majority of aggressive (?) youths are black...?

I was unaware that (apparently since the invention of rap) white youths in the northeast and south had become much more passive and non-violent than their black counterparts.  I look forward to your data, sir.

It is funny that Badger keeps bringing up rap videos and thuggish behavior.
Yet the phone records show that Martin was on the phone up to the moments leading to the shooting, and there is a witness who heard Zimmerman approach Martin and they started exchanging words.
Also what is conveniently ignored is the fact that Martin was shot and killed on grass, and therefore Zimmerman was on his back on grass.
It is Zimmerman's story put forth by both him and his family that has changed multiple times.
So Zimmerman went out of his way to confront Martin, who was moving away from him.
The screams on 911 were not Zimmerman, yet it is still brought up.
I still think it is manslaughter.

bsmooth, how could it be manslaughter?

If Martin started the fight, it's self-defense (i.e. nothing).
If Zimmerman started the fight, it's murder.

I guess you might be able to argue that Martin started the fight but Zimmerman used excessive force to end it?  The laws in Florida would seem to make that a difficult sell.

You left out option c which is also very plausible if you have ever been on the phone in the wind. Zimmerman turned around and the wind no longer blew directly into the microphone.

That is possible.  However, since the sound didn't immediately stop when he received (and acknowledged) the direction to cease pursuit, that theory would require that he "delayed turning around" for almost exactly the amount of time it would have taken him to get back to his car.  So if the hypothesis is that he didn't continue following Martin after being instructed otherwise, the most charitable conclusion is that he stopped in place, waited 10 seconds, then turned around.

All of that is nearly academic, anyway; as I just pointed out, there's almost literally no way he could have encountered Martin at the location of the shooting without attempting to intercept him (after being advised not to).  Based on the location of his car, it seems clear that he did not abandon pursuit.

Sorry, I don't need any code words to say what I mean. Why would it be not appropriate to say something negative about urban, inner city, hip hop, or black if it's true ?


Well, since you asked for it. Here ya go chief.

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/hr_trends_race.html (http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/hr_trends_race.html)

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/hr_age-race.html (http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/hr_age-race.html)

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/hr_female.html (http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/hr_female.html)

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/hr_male.html (http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/hr_male.html)

The first link pretty much tells the story. Looks like the the highest violence corresponded to the east vs west rap thing in the early 90s and has declined and leveled out since. The homicide rates as of 2007 are still 3 times that compared to others in the graph. But I guess that information is totally racist....


Data above shows more black violence than any other group. But I guess rap, role models, and lifestyles that portray a fake TV image have absolutely nothing to do with it, huh ?

Ignorance, hate, prejudice, and racism are every bit as responsible as well. So as long as you're pointing fingers and making judgements about people based on the color of their skin, be sure to have a mirror handy to point some blame at yourself. Because some black people act a certain way, then surely Martin must act that way too, right? So... Since some hillbilly rednecks put on sheets, burn crosses and lynch minorities, all white people must do that too, right? This kind of simple-minded attack on groups of people isn't new, though. I get that. We watched old black and white films about it in high school, but I couldn't understand the narration because it was in German.  ::) -EK

Assuming the top of the page is north then Zimmerman could have already been behind the building when told to stop and was walking back another way than he got there. I do this all the time when walking through these townhome neighborhoods. We do not know how long Trayvon was on the north side of the building or if he was hiding. On first thougth it seems odd that Martin was ahead of Zimmerman but yet Zimmerman not only made it all the way around the building before Martin but was heading back towards the north before Martin got there. I would have to askwhere was he or waht was he doing during that time as Zimmerman covered much more ground during that time.

I'm not making judgements about anyone based on the color of their skin. The numbers speak for themselves. By no means are black people as a group thugs and criminals. But while we're talking about pointing fingers, may I remind you that there are plenty of people pointing fingers at Zimmerman based on the skin color of Martin. I have not accused anyone of anything. I simply pointed out that your "only possible" scenario was but one of many possible scenarios that could have played out. Was Martin a rap thug ? I don't know, but he could have been. Just as easily as Zimmerman could have just straight up shot him. We don't have all the facts. As I said before, regardless of race and other factors, as far as I am concerned the one who initiated physical contact is the one to blame.

Bullshit. You came up all high and mighty bitching about the race card after you categorized people with the whole rap video comment. You could have easily said any one of a hundred less racially charged things, but you chose not to. Don't be a little bitch about it now and backpedal. Have some balls to at least stand behind what you said- or better yet, don't say shit like that at all. -EK

Some black people may act a certain way, but if you're a black man and you've got pictures of yourself wearing baggy jeans, cap turned to the side, and gold teeth, it doesn't help to shed that negative perception.

Some white people may act a certain way, but if you're a white man and you're driving a pickup truck with a Confederate flag on it and chewing tobacco, it doesn't help to shed that negative perception.  

My department has student assistants that do office/clerical work.  Regardless of race, they are required to dress like they are going to work and not to a party and to speak in a professional manner at all times while on duty.  

People who don't know you that well usually perceive who you are by how you look and act.  

Are you gonna cry now little fella, bwahahahaha ?

These type of statistics, while useful for propagating racial profiling, completely neglect the factors of income and education on crime.  There is plenty of data (http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/18/2/182.abstract) to support the claim that income has more of an effect on criminal behavior than race.  But since blacks (and Hispanics) are disproportionately represented among the poor, there's a segment of society that likes to simply point at race as an indicator of criminal behavior.

Cherry picking at its finest.  If, as you claim, rap music is a motivating factor in black youth violence, and rap has increased in popularity (by any metric you want to use) since the early '90s, why did the crime statistics go down?

Seems to me that since rap music's popularity has grown and black violent crime has decreased, the logical conclusion must be that the increased popularity of hip-hop music has reduced violent crime, right?

P.S. Not that you would know or care, but the "east vs. west rap thing"?  Yeah, Tupac and Biggie were killed in '96 and '97 (respectively), 4 years after the crime peak, so you need to find a better scapegoat.  If we're going to throw out blind guesses at a dartboard, the movie CB4 came out in 1993.  Perhaps it was Chris Rock's scathing sendup that scared the black community straight!

It would have been impossible for him to encounter Martin while "walking back" unless he had already passed him.  And he would have had to pass him in the ~10 seconds from the moment you can hear him following Martin to the point where he agreed to stop.

Furthermore, it doesn't make sense for him to be walking south between the buildings when his car was northwest of where Martin was running.  That is, unless he was specifically looking for Martin.

Martin was on the phone the whole time.  It is reasonable to think that he stopped running after he had "lost" Zimmerman.  He may have just stopped to talk on the phone with his girlfriend; one of Zimmerman's original claims was that Martin was standing around "suspiciously."

That's assuming were he was at the moment he stopped. We don't know. According to the sketch he didn't pass him. He went a different way. I don't know how reliable the assumed sketch is in refernce to their travel paths. It even labels everything "assumed paths".

Zimmerman didn't go south between the buildings. He went north between the buildings according to sketch. The only time Zimmerman headed south was in fron tof the buildings. Martin was traveling south between the buildings.

We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. It’s Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle.

This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [00:25]

This would seem more like meandering than standing to me. I think of someone casing a place when I read this ... or at least I think the person is trying to describe someone who is seems to be casing things when I read this. "This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something doesn't paint the picture of someone standing around and talking on the phone.

Now one could argue George's interpretation of what he was seeing but that requires speculation.

BTW I have to ask ... do we really know that he was talking to his girlfriend the whole time? I say this because so many other "facts" turned out not to be true and I have never seen evidence of her phone call even mentioned. I mean I heard they didn't perform a crime scene. Turns out over 6 hours of investigating that night including intervewing at least 6 witnesses. Same deal with the gun, taking Geoorge into custody and whatever else I can't rememebr at the moment.

I'm not sure how long they were on the phone but records do indeed show he was on the phone with her right up to the incident I beleive (at least I heard it that way).

We rwally won't know how much of anything we have heard is fact (other than the recordings) until we hear it in the courtroom.

CF- the statement, "he looks like he's on drugs or something," coming from this particular individual (who also used the term "f*cking coon" on the 911 call) is highly subjective. I'm feel comfortable in saying it's more likely that he used the term because he saw a black kid in a hoodie than because the kid actually appeared to be on drugs. I got the impression from everything I've read that the ONLY person who felt like Martin was "suspicious" was Zimmerman. -EK

You really buy into the hype and suspicion of he is guilty so I'm not sure why you don't buy into any of the conservative hype that he is not?   

It was determined a while back that it was in fact "F'ing cold" and not what was reported by people who originally reported "f'ing coon". The same people and the same show changed their minds one week later. CNN backpeddled shortly after MSNBC fired their guy for doctoring the phone call to make Goerge look racist.

The guy has blacks in his very own family as well as does charity and sort of fostering for a single black mother. How come everyone keeps mandating he has to be a racist? Ever think he could have just been an overzealous wanna be cop who got out of control? Ever think he could have been trying to do the right thing and Martin was the offender who was trying to do something illegal? There are so many things that could have happened I am blown away at how so many people have made their decision.

 http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/04/did-zimmerman-say-coon-before-shooting-trayvon-martin/ (http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/04/did-zimmerman-say-coon-before-shooting-trayvon-martin/)

That bastion of conservatism CNN now reports that Z said '****ing punks'.

Post explaining the word 'punk' is code for black in 3...2...1  ;)

^^^^ The best thing I saw on the use of the word coon was in the comments. "When was the last time [since] 1963 has anyone used coon as a slur?"  I laughed when I read this as it is probably true. that isn't really a slur I've heard outside of movies.

The point I was making is everyone is quick to make judgements and I can't think of another case that has proven to NOT being able to be taken at face value. It's kind of proving that all of us are way too quick to judge and not slow enough to wait for "facts".

I'm not taking into account the speculation on Zimmerman's "assumed path" on that map, only the location of Zimmerman's car, the shooting, Martin's residence, and the fact that Zimmerman said Martin went into a walkway between buildings (which would seem to be right where the black arrows leave the road).

Again, I'm not using Zimmerman's "assumed path" from that map.  If Zimmerman had actually followed Martin on the pathway traveling due east (before he was instructed to stop), he would have had to turn south, away from his vehicle, to get to the location of the shooting.

The majority of this thread is speculation, so that's obviously not an issue.

When reading Zimmerman's account, I think of a teenager on the phone that's on his way back home (possibly because he had been instructed to go to the store and come right back, being on suspension and all), but isn't exactly motivated to rush back, so he is, as you put it, "meandering."

Absolutely correct......

So how was Martin acting like he was in a rap video? I've seen a lot of rap videos and I've never seen one with a guy over to the side minding his own business, not bothering anyone and eating his skittles. Guess I missed that one. Anybody got a link to it? -EK

I understand this topic is controversial and people want to talk about it.Can we watch our language,and keep this civil please,and leave out the personal attacks....

You can disagree with the post,or feel different,but Stop the name calling...


This is the one and only Warning.....

Thank you...

Sincerely,
your card carrying redneck off topic moderator

You asked for empirical evidence. I gave you the statistics and you choose to ignore it. Spin it how you want. Black people as a group commit more violent crimes than all other groups, that is a fact. If you want to blame income, education, me, all white people, or the Easter Bunny for peoples actions then that's your decision. Don't expect everyone else to make excuses for people instead of addressing the problem. Then again you do have an agenda to push.



Tupac and Biggie died violent deaths because why again ? Natural causes ? I guess young black males don't idolize that stuff and try to emulate it in real life do they ?

Don't just say it, prove it.


Do you know if anyone but Zimmerman even saw Martin before the last few minutes before the gunshot ? I saw a couple of interviews of local residents that backed up Zimmerman.

Ha, ha, ha, I can't wait for it. Should be an interesting read.....

So then, a serious question:  what should be done with this fact?

It sounds like you're saying that since statistical data shows that blacks commit a disproportionately high percentage of crimes, it is therefore reasonable to treat a person with greater suspicion because he is black.  Is this an accurate description of your position?

As many black leaders will tell you black on black crime is the highest crime rate in the US but yet most people ignore it. it's not black on white or even white on black . Black on black crime is a very serious issue but just like in this case, white on black crime gets the most attention. To pretend racism is the biggest isue today ... when we have a black president ... just boggles most white people's minds. Does it exsit in both subtle and very non subtle tones? Absolutely but it isn't the cause just because someone says it is.

This is probably a good time to start a new thread as I think profiling is a whole topic in itself. Profiling or not profiling is a huge issue today. Whether a kid is black, white, oriental or hispanic ... if they are dressed like a thug, or what a reasonable person thinks of a thug, I would expect they receive more attention than two kids whose pants are not dragging of any race playing catch with a baseball.   That's just the way it is. Blacks profile "ghetto' blacks just as I profile what I'd term white trash. That's not racism but it is profiling. That doesn't mean the whigger (please excuse my ignorance as I do not know of a better term) is breaking any law but if he wants to portray the part then he is going to get profiled. I was profiled as a kid and justifiably so.

CF Dolfan, you mention that black on black crime is the highest crime rate in the US, but that it is being "ignored."

What laws or policies do you think should be enacted based on that information?

You asked for data and I gave it to you. And no, that is not accurate of my position. If someone is acting suspiciously or thug like they should be treated as such regardless of what color they are.


Better yet what do you think should be done about it. Baiting people with questions and then arguing with them when they give you the answer is silly.

Well, you mentioned that blacks are the majority of the violent youth in this nation, and you also mentioned the thug rap mentality.  Let us take all of these points as undisputed fact.  What should be done with this data?

Rather than try to guess at your point, or erroneously attribute a false position to you (plural), I'm asking directly.  When you (plural) point out that "black on black crime is being ignored" or "the majority of violent youth are black," to what end are you making these points?  Are you proposing that something be done?  If so, what?

If you believe that this data should have no effect on policy making or incident evaluation, then I don't see how it's anything other than trivia (along the lines of "What is the favorite soft drink of convicted rapists?").  If, however, you think that this data should have an effect, then just say so, and we can discuss what effects you feel are appropriate.

I simply provided a different scenario to EK's "only possible way it could happen" as it pertains to this situation. Martin could have had some silly "I feel disrespected" thug rapper mentality and initiated physical contact. I see people of different colors act like that everyday. That is just as plausible as "Zimmerman hunted down an innocent black kid" given the actual facts that we are privy to.

Could Zimmerman have had some silly "I feel disrespected" thug rapper mentality?

Actually, let me rephrase that: would Martin have been more likely than Zimmerman to have an "I feel disrespected" thug rapper mentality?  If so, please explain why.

This is indeed a problem.But as Bill Cosby and other rational voices in the black community have pointed out that this is also a problem that needs to fully admitted too and efforts from within the black community need to be vigorously undertaken besides efforts from outside the community to combat it.

Absolutely. I know he just reiterated it again but Cosby has taken a lot of criticism in the past from blacks for stating this. There is no way white people can say this even though its the elephant in the room.

Personally I think so much is overblown about white racism and ignored about black on black crime that it actually adds to the problem. I mean, how much money and publicity is spent fighting white racism by the black community versus fighting crime in their own neighborhoods? I would argue if Zimmerman was black no one would know where Sanford even is. 

Take Sanford and Orlando for a moment. The violent crime rates are pretty high for both but where that crime happens is mostly in lower income minority neighborhoods. It's certainly not in the higher end neighborhoods and rarely in the middle class ... as this case was. It's certainly not white on black crime or even black on white crime so where should most of the resources be focused?

I'm not saying racism isn't a problem and I'm certainly not saying to overlook it but the mouthpieces for black America are doing a huge diservice to themselves by ignoring it and finger pointing at other things.

Not sure if it breaking news or anything but Terry Jones, aka Quran burning pastor, is holding a rally for Zimmerman tomorrow "to support George Zimmerman’s constitutional rights to a fair trial.”
and is set to face off against the black panthers. It's called "JUSTICE FOR ZIMMERMAN vs RACIST LYNCH MOB.”  Several deputies I know have been called in to work the detail.

Jones has been one of the few people publicly facing off against people screaming for Zimmerman's head. On one hand it's it's good someone is actually standing up to the extreme people (like the panthers) but it's sad it has to be another extremist. I would love for it to be someone like a Mike Huckabee or better yet, AL Sharpton, but I guess that isn't happening.

On the other hand if we get all the crazies in one spot they could spend eternity screaming at each other.

$150 K bond, electronic GPS monitoring, no alcohol or controlled substances, no contact with Martin's family and some other seemingly routine requirements. Seems as though that he can leave the state for safety purposes. The investigator seems to have said that they didn't have any direct evidence contradictory of Zimmerman's statement about who initiated physical contact, if Zimmerman continued to follow, or Zimmerman's injuries. With all the back and forth and controversy surrounding this situation the bail and conditions seem somewhat fair in my opinion.

It appears as though Zimmerman did indeed have the injuries that many people were questioning !!!

(http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wmain.jpg)

Given the nature of Terry Jones' "we need to take back America" statements, this name works on more than one level.

Zimmerman has been very cooperative, so far.  There's no reason to think he's a flight risk.  I think that a lenient bond and reasonable restritions make the most sense, including leaving the state, so long as he reports his whereabouts.

From ABCNews: "Even if George Zimmerman was injured in a fight, it doesn't change the fact that the prosecuters believe Zimmerman was the aggressor, and if Zimmerman was the aggressor, and they got into a fight, that doesn't allow him to use deadly force. It's simply that you can't be losing a fight and then decide to use your gun to protect yourself."

Apparently the prosecuter already had copies of the photo before charges were even brought, and they felt that it did not change the circumstance at all. Apparently, witnesses also viewed a chase between two people, but they were not positive who was chasing who, and finally, absolute proof that he followed Martin after being told not to: he apparently did not hang up the phone, but instead you can actually hear him getting out of a vehicle after the dispatcher tells him to cease. You then hear him shut the door of the vehicle, and him begin running before the call actually ends.

Noteworthy, too, TruTV pointed out (which I didn't know) that Zimmerman had previously been arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” and a separate charge of domestic violence. -EK

True.  But the location of the injuries are relevent.  The injuries are on the back of Zimmerman's head.  This suggests that at the time they were made Zimmerman was either fleeing or on the ground.  An unauthorized use fo force on Marin's behalf.

Likewise the autoposy of Martin will be relevent.  If Martin was shot in the back while attempting to flee than Zimmerman was not acting in self defense. If Martin was shot while Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin was over him beating him than it was. 


At this point that is pretty much a pointless conclution.  The prosecuter is under extreme political pressure to bring charges to avoid race riots.  This is going to trial regradless of what exculapatory evidence exists.  The DA might be able to win reelection if he loses this trial to a jury, but his political carear is over if he drops the charges for insufficient evidence. 


Charged?  Was he ever convicted or just charged?  If just charged it is irrelevent.  If convicted it is still probably inadmissible. 

The prosecutor (and this is all just the conjecture from TruTV, so take it for that) is likely going to say that the use of force by Martin was completely "authorized" because he- and ultimately NOT Zimmerman- was acting in self defense. Either of the circumstances you proposed looks bad for Zimmerman- shooting someone in the back while they are fleeing is not going to be covered in any way as stand your ground, and shooting someone while you are on top of them will not fall under that either. Zimmerman was not convicted of the third degree felonies associated with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer.” The charges were reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program and anger management. I would guess that that will be admissable, but I'm not certain. Regarding the domestic violence, a restraining order was issued, so I'm hearing that will be admissable according to TruTV. -EK
 

There's also the possibility that Zimmerman was knocked down and hit his head on the ground during a struggle.

Ultimately, it's going to come down to who initiated the conflict.  As had been said, you don't get to claim self-defense during a fight that you started, even if you are losing it.  And if Zimmerman tried to physically detain Martin, this case is basically done.

But if Martin was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was on the ground.  That would be self defense.

[/quote]


Than TruTV knows nothing about the rules of evidence.  Its character evidence.  The only way it is admissible is if Zimmerman's lawyer first presents evidence that Zimmerman has a peaceful character.  E.g. calls someone one to the stand that testifies "Zimmerman would never hurt a fly", than the DA can introduce it as evidence to rebut the testimony, otherwise it is inadmissible.  If Zimmerman's atty opens that door with this evidence out there, than the atty is a fool.  

The thing that I'm looking at is that if Zimmerman had a gun and was going to commit murder. How the hell did Martin injure him. I would have dropped him before he got to me. Not to mention, if you are going to murder someone you don't call the cops first.


The investigator on the stand pretty much said that the powder burns and stippling(sp???) were consistent with an up close shooting. He is under oath saying that as fact. That pretty much rules out a long range shooting. He also admitted under oath that FBI forensic analysis of the 911 call did not help identify who was yelling for help, and was inconclusive.


It didn't take a month and a half to get the fact together to charge Zimmerman. They weren't going to charge him and they caved in to the racial pressure to "do something". Contrary to what  the special prosecutor Angela Corey said something about "Zimmerman wasn't charged due to public pressure". The fact is that if there was no public pressure there would have been no arrest or charges filed. So in fact she lied and it was in fact due to racial pressure.


The judge pretty much discounted these previous charges as not very relevant.

That is possible.  That is why I said the location was relevent, not dispositive.


Not who intiated the conflict but who escalated it to deadly force.  (Deadly force = capible of death or serious bodily injury.)

E.g. If party A pushs party B to the ground causing party B to get a minor scrape, and then party B pulls out a knife and lunges at party A.  Followed by Party A pulling out a gun and shooting party B.  Party A actually still has the claim of self defense, even though party A inciciated the conflict, because party B escalated it to deadly force.   

We seem to be talking in circles here. 

This comes down to "what is the nature of self-defense?"  Can you be acting in self-defense, if you were the aggressor?

If I go and start a fight, can I then kill the person who fights be back, in defense?  Of course not.  That's the rub.

I don't think you'll find anyone here who's thinking that Zimmerman set out to kill Trayvon, prior to the incident.  However, I think that you will find people that think that Zimmerman overstepped his ability to claim self-defense, by seeking out a confrontation with Trayvon.

I don't know what happened in the situation, but if some random dude tries to detain me for simply walking to my own house, you bet your ass that I'm going to assault him if he tries to touch me.  I certainly don't feel that gives him the right to kill me.

But that's not what happened- Zimmerman's own report to the police was that after his head was hit into the ground, he moved over a grassy area where the actual shooting took place. Of course, this is one of three to five different statements Zimmerman has given, which isn't helping his case at all. -EK

It would be nearly impossible to make that argument with Martin being unarmed.   You cannot start a fistfight and then claim self-defense when you are losing a fistfight.

If Zimmerman made any attempt to detain Martin (given that Martin had committed no crime), it would clearly be assault, and Martin would have been acting in self-defense to fight back.  If Zimmerman then shot Martin, that would be murder.

yes, under some circumstances.



No, of course not.

 But if you start a fight, then break off the fight and flee and the guy chase you down and you defend yourself, you can claim self defense in the second fight.  

Or if you start a conflict that just involves pushing and shoving and he goes and gets a tire iron to hit you with you can claim self defense in protecting yourself from the tire iron.


yup, tht is the issue, nobody is claiming it was 1st degree murder.


But if all the guy does is block the sidewalk and asks you some questions you can't punch him to get him out of the way, without you being the aggressor.  Even if the reason he stopped you was racial profiling.  

Why not? He has no legal standing to continue blocking your way. If he doesn't move after you repeatedly ask him to and moves to obstruct you, you absolutely have the right to physically move him. At least one of the legal definitions for "assault" is "intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact." That is exactly what blocking someone from getting to their own property is. Under the very law that Zimmerman is trying to use- stand your ground- Martin would have the right to move him if he was purposefully moving to prevent Martin from walking home, to his own property.

Moreover, that picture doesn't seem to help Zimmerman's case IMO. Looks to me like he got punched in the nose, fell on his head, and shot the kid. His heart rate would have been sky high, and anyone who has ever had a head wound knows how thin your scalp is and how much it would bleed. I've bled more than that from a shaving cut- those "wounds" didn't happen from him having his head beaten into the sidewalk for a full minute like he's claiming. They're miniscule appearing. Further, if his injuries were SO bad, why didn't he go to the hospital that night? Why wait until the next day? Who does that?

Edit- FWIW, I believe he will not be convicted. I think it's going to be very difficult to convince 12 people beyond any doubt that he is guilty of second degree murder. That doesn't mean I believe he's any more innocent than Casey Anthony, but she got off with what seems like more and stronger evidence, so I'd be shocked if he's convicted. -EK

This is the second time that you have cited an example in which the person that is initially assaulted (the "victim") introduces a weapon to the fight; such an action drastically changes the nature of the conflict.  Martin was unarmed, so that obviously wasn't the case here.

If "blocking the sidewalk" means physically preventing you from getting past him to your destination, yes, that would be assault.

Also, an adult blocking the sidewalk and preventing a minor from getting home is threatening enough to justify Treyvon to strike, I think.  Again, I think I'd want to teach my child that if a stranger stops you on the sidewalk and doesn't let you pass, you need to jack them in the face.

Who says that's what happened ? You need facts to prove that and the investigator said under oath that they didn't have any proof either way who started it. Not sure who saw it live, but from what I saw and what many of the legal analyst have said today, this may not make it to trial. If it does they don't have much of a chance to get murder2. Maybe manslaughter, but that isn't what he's charged with.......

Hoodie is the one saying that's what happened, in his hypothetical scenario.  Read the thread before replying.

You are no more privy to which facts the current prosecutor has than I am, so please don't try to act like you have the facts and I'm just guessing.  This whole thread is almost entirely speculation.

What we do know is that the current prosecutor has chosen to charge Zimmerman with murder 2.  Now you can speculate as to whether or not they will be able to prove that, but they obviously believe they can, or they would have charged him with something else (or nothing at all).

Spider I'm confused at to what you are saying ... The guy representing the state said they have no proof who started the fight.  Are you saying he was lying or not privy to the information? There is not much room for speculation in my opinion. It was a yes or no question.

If you are basing your assumtion based on the charges I will warn again that this lady was chosen because she is an overzealous prosecutor and not because of her conviction rate.

I note Yahoo has an article this morning indicating that the investigator for the state who signed an affidavit stating that Zimmerman started the fight has now admitted there is no evidence disprove Zimmerman's contention that Martin started the fight/that he was walking back to his car when the fight began and was not the aggressor. This is important, as the state has the burden of proof, and, if there's no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's contention that he was not the aggressor (and, as this board has indicated, that's really the critical matter in this whole case) then, isn't this essentially an admission that the state has no case?

http://news.yahoo.com/experts-zimmerman-attorney-made-smart-move-072305753.html

I am privy to the fact that the investigator said under oath that they didn't know who initiated physical contact, who was yelling for help, on the 911 tape or if Zimmerman continued the pursuit. If they don't have evidence then they don't have a case. This is nothing but a attempt to dial down the black outrage and hope for the best.

In my examples I also used Party A and Party B, not Martin and Zimmerman.  My point being it isn't as simple as "who started."

At least under the tradition definintion of self-defense (FLA's stand your ground law might allow for more) once the person is no longer attacking you, you must stop. 

So if Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin was over him continuing to beat him, Martin lost his self defense right and Martin now has the right to defend himself (at least under the traditional definition of self-defense, may be different under FLA's modification)

Chief Lee resigned today and the city commissioners voted NOT to accept it. That's a far cry from the vote of no confidence a few weeks ago!

I saw that.  What does that even mean?  How do you not accept someone's resignation?

Maybe if he steps down, he still collects all his benefits as former police chief.  If he gets terminated for misconduct, he gets nothing.  By not accepting his resignation, the city commissioners leave him open for investigation into this alleged wrongdoing.

Not hardly.  I had mentioned that the locals were fighting to keep him ... especially the local police.  He is a genuine good guy. I don't mean he has a lot of friends ala good ole boy kind of way ... although he does have many.  I mean he has a lot of people who have very high respect for him. He was a Captain with the Sheriff's department before becoming Sanford's police chief and oddly enough, was pretty much hand picked to raise the level at Sanford's department.  There is no doubt he has a job back at Seminole County if he wanted.

The biggest question in the meeting was what has he done wrong and no one could give a direct answer. They are going to wait until after a federal investigation and then take another vote but I think as evidence comes out it will show he stood behind his department and felt they did the right things. I think the local commissioners have come outy pretty bad in this thing. We have a black lady who pretty much polls Sharpton before making a decision and a Mayor who flip flops accroding to who is standing next to him. It's been sadly comical and almost sterotypical of a Wayans brothers movie.

I saw someone (don't remember who -- woman from some local tribunal) defending him last night that said that he was paying for the sins of the crappy chiefs that came before him.  ...that he'd been there a short time, and though things were bad, that he'd been moving things in the right direction and shouldn't be the scapegoat.

I think the big thing was that there had been a severance package as part of the discussion. Since the package needed the council's approval they have a right to not accept it.

Bingo.  I knew there had to be some financial package involved with him stepping down.

He has a contract and is an at-will employee as many government managers are. They can not allow him to break his contract period.... Or at least until the terms of the contract are met but that isn't why they rejected it. It's strictly a "we are behind you" move which is political for some and integrity for others.

New evidence leaked today. Not sure if it is all true, but very interesting indeed. THC in Travon's system, an intermediate distance (1-18 inches) frontal shot to heart, and scrap(s) on Travon's knuckles. Not to mention a grainy black and white picture of Zimmerman's face where his nose is as wide as an 18 wheeler, obviously broken. If true, the prosecutions job just got a bit harder

Not one bit. Since you cannot seem to fathom what self-defense means I will try and make this simple. Every person has the right to use the necessary amount of force if they feel threatened or fear an imminent battery. Both Martin and Zimmerman had this right when the confrontation started.
So this leaves the question of who started the fight and why? Was the fight a direct result of Zimmerman's pursuit and confrontation of Martin? Did Martin strike out because he feared for his safety? Did Zimmerman try and detain Martin until the police arrived? There are so many scenarios that could explain how this fight started beyond the ignorant "he was a thug" or "he hunted him down" mentality.
This "new" evidence and the release of the doctor's reports bring nothing new to the table. The only semi-viable witness already stated he say Martin on top of Zimmerman. Nothing so far sheds light as to how they came to be that way other than the tainted word of the shooter, who has a violent criminal history and a penchant for blaming the victim for everything. Martin did not give a statement as to how the fight started, all his corpse told us is that he was fighting( for his life) when he was gunned down.
Also I would have loved to know what drugs or alcohol were in Zimmerman's system that night as he has a prescription for Adderall and Temazepam, and he refused medical attention the night of the shooting, instead saying he needed to see his psychologist immediately. But that's right the police never tested him, searched the SUV, talked to all the witnesses, etc.
So we will probably never know what exactly happened that night due to favortism, shoddy investigative work, etc.

Although I don't advocate it, following someone is not against the law. You cannot attack someone for being followed in public. As far as I can tell, the only way Zimmereman is guilty is if they can prove with facts that he followed him AND tried to physically detain him. If they can't fill in the blank of how the fight started they don't have a case. And the lead investigator already stated under oath that they didn't know who initiated contact, who's voice was on the 911 tape or even if Zimmerman continued the pursuit. Not to mention the fact that Martin's own father said the voice on the 911 tape WASN'T his sons voice way before his mother said that it was. In the end this evidence does matter. These are things that we didn't know or were just speculating on before today.

Martin had an intoxicant in his system.

The gunshot was a close range front shot which would be more consistent with self defense as opposed to a longer range shot in the back.

Besides the gunshot wound, Martin only had scrapes on his knuckles consistent with hitting someone.

Frontal picture of Zimmerman's face that clearly shows a broken nose, contrary to everyone saying, "I don't see any injuries to Zimmerman".

Martin's own father saying that it is not his son's voice on the 911 tapes.

Yes, if true, all of those facts matter in court.

BTW, If as you say, that we don't know who started the fight and If Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him, how does that equate to being gunned down ? 

None of that evidence changes the fact that you can't shoot someone during an altercation that you start.

The case will likely hinge on whether or not Zimmerman attempted to physically detain Martin, and the prosecution's ability to make that case will probably lean on an allegation that Zimmerman was pursuing him (against the instructions of the dispatcher).  If Zimmerman tried to physically detain him, all this other stuff is irrelevant; it's an assault that led to murder.

^^^ I would say you have to look at it case by case. You can't say that you shouldn't be allowed to shoot someone during an altercation you started. That's not right.

Even if he didn't start the altercation, the question is, can he legally respond with a firearm if he's attacked only with fists?

^^^ If the attacker is beating the ever loving crap out of him with no end in sight, then sure. I don't see why not. If you can't defend yourself with your fists, then why not? What if a guy, whose a boxer is attacking a woman or an untrained guy. They're not allowed to stop the assault with a gun? It's all case by case to me. I don't generally like to make absolute rules.

You guys are either leaving out a key piece or just haven't heard it. I don't know which. Zimmerman's story is that he never reached for his gun until it became exposed and Martin reached for it first.

This is the key and only piece of testimony that needs to be refuted in order to disprove self defense if I am on the jury.

You cannot claim self-defense in a fight that you started.  This is a very basic and fundamental principle.

And I don't mean "starting a fight" in the sense of you yelling "asshole!" to someone that cut you off.  I mean starting a fight in the sense of you physically assaulting someone.

Look at it this way: if Zimmerman did assault Martin (by trying to physically detain him), what were Martin's options?

- fight back and lose
- fight back and win, then get shot (legally!)
- try to run away
- simply submit to this illegal detention

The third option is particularly ironic on a couple of fronts.  Notwithstanding the fact that running away from someone because they are illegally detaining you is rather unrealistic, when you consider that the basis of Zimmerman's defense is a law that says that you don't have to run away when assaulted, the whole idea becomes fairly absurd.

So in your view, it is irrelevant as to whether or not Zimmerman initially assaulted Martin?

I am also interested in hearing what kind of evidence would suffice to refute this testimony from Zimmerman.  Barring slow-motion replay, it seems rather impossible to disprove a claim as to what people were reaching for when scrumming on the ground.

My personal opinion, the prosecution has overcharged based on what is known. Just as it will be nearly impossible to disprove Martin reached for the gun, with what is known it is just as improbable to prove Zimmerman physically laid hands on Martin. in one instance you have testimony in the other you have speculation.

You need eyewitnesses and none have come forward (to our knowledge) as seeing either stage of this altercation. Therefore we have to take Zimmerman's testimony without any contradictory testimony. Our legal system works that you are innocent until proven guilty and there is no proof that it did not happen this way.

I think self defense is fluid and can be ever evolving. Let's say for a second Zimmerman did lay hands on Martin first. We do know Martin had the upper hand. At that point it is his responsibility to back off. Instead the testimony is that he reached for a gun. At that point it is Zimmerman who is in fear and is then in need of protection.

disclaimer: this is purely speculative

This kind of approach to adjudication would result in a great number of murder defendants being let go.

Essentially, you're saying that the defendant says one thing, and there's no living eyewitness who can testify otherwise, therefore it must be true.  I'm no lawyer, but I would imagine that in a trial, if the defendant even takes the stand (which is far from guaranteed), their word would be portrayed as highly conflicted.  Not all witness testimony is equal.

It is interesting that you frame the argument this way.

Imagine a slightly different hypothetical scenarion in which the two of them are scrumming on the ground and instead of reaching for Zimmerman's gun, Martin reaches for his own gun and shoots Zimmerman.  Given that (in this hypothetical scenario) Zimmerman assaulted Martin, they got in a fight, and Martin shot him, wouldn't SYG apply?

How can it be that SYG would apply to both participants in an altercation?  Does it automatically apply to the person that is losing, no matter who started it?

Another scenario:  I am mad that my girlfriend cheated on me with you 2 months ago.  I see you on the street, run up to you, and (while armed) punch you in the face.  You defend yourself and (using your advanced ninja skills) start kicking my ass.  I then shoot you.  This is "self-defense"?

And why is running away such a ridiculous idea? I'll admit, I don't follow any of this, so I don't know why I keep coming back here. I like to wait until most of the facts are in instead of speculating.

But, anyway, why are you saying running away is absurd? By physically detaining him, did he just block his path, or just verbally tell him he can't move, or bear hug Trayvon and told him to wait for the cops? If someone was doing that to me, I'd either run or wait for the cops. Why start a fist fight?

In order to use stand your ground as a defense you need to be in immediate fear for your own life or grave injury. Martin was winning the fight by all known accounts. He could not legally shoot anyone.

I do indeed feel you have the right to use deadly force at any moment your own life or the life of someone else is in danger. It is a slipperly slope if you started the altercation. The key is there is a huge difference between an ass kicking and fear of your life. Your ninja skill scenario is just an ass kicking. If I as a ninja tried to take your weapon to use against you, then yes I feel you could use it in that case.

The source of conflict (in that scenario) is that Zimmerman is preventing him from leaving; that is to say, if Martin could freely leave, there would be no conflict.

Of course, this presumes that Zimmerman was trying to physically detain Martin.  But that's the point: if the altercation was started by Zimmerman trying to physically detain Martin, that effectively takes "run away" off of the table as a realistic option, since Martin would have been trying to leave from the start.

Furthermore, given the prominence of Stand Your Ground in this case, saying that Martin should have simply run away from a person assaulting him is incredibly disingenuous.  That literally runs counter to the point of the law's existence.

I'm not specifically talking about SYG in this instance; if Zimmerman was truly on the ground under Martin, SYG doesn't even apply (as Zimmerman had no ability to run) and it's standard self-defense.

Do you believe that self-defense applies to a person who starts the fight if they are in fear of grave injury?  Because getting your ass kicked in a fight certainly feels like the threat of grave injury, particularly since you have no idea when the other person will stop fighting until they actually stop.

I submit that it is impossible to tell the difference between the two in the middle of a fight if you are the one losing.

I don't see why it should make a difference (from your perspective).  From Zimmerman's perspective, Martin had him on the ground, had already broken his nose, and was repeatedly bashing his head into the concrete.  That sounds like "fear of grave injury" to me.  So why would it matter whether or not Martin reached for Zimmerman's gun?  Wasn't Zimmerman already entitled to shoot Martin by that point?

You accurately point out that it's a slippery slope when you allow aggressors to wrap themselves in the cloak of self-defense.  It essentially gives any armed person free license to assault any unarmed person and shoot them if the fight doesn't go in their favor.  The victim's only recourse is to accept their beating passively or run away, which is an ironic perversion of SYG.

But there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started an altercation. They already stated that they didn't know who started it or how it started. So at this point with what we actually know, under the law there can be no conviction. In general second degree murder involves unlawful killing with intent or malice aforethought. The prosecution fucked up. They should have charged him with manslaughter.



It really doesn't matter if he continued the pursuit against the advice of the dispatcher. Even if it did, they can't prove it as far as I can tell. Allegations are only allegations without proof. In order to get a conviction they need to prove that Zimmerman got physical with Martin. And without a direct eyewitness or a confession they cannot do that......

The 911 call does indeed indicate that after he was told to stop pursuit he continued. He didn't hang up the phone and you can clearly here him close his truck door and begin running. Further, in one of 8 other 911 calls, you can hear- at least according to the Martin family attorney- Martin beging for his life before he is shot. How is that defensible? -EK

Eyewitness saw Martin was on top beating Zimmerman.
Martin shot at close range from underneath. (I would assume the witness saw the shooting too)

How is your scenario even possible? Was he wailing on him and beating his head into the ground while screaming for help? I'm trying to see the visual that you are talking about and it just doesn't make sense.

If you don't believe that Zimmerman started the altercation, how can you charge him with manslaughter?  As far as I can tell, it should either be murder or legitimate self-defense.

Again, I'm wondering how anyone can be convicted of murder under this standard.  If I kill you, and no one else is around to see it, does that automatically make my testimony indisputable fact?

Martin and Zimmerman are scrumming.  Zimmerman is losing.  Zimmerman tries to pull his gun; Martin sees it and starts wrestling for control while screaming for help.

Ok ... that makes sense. For whatever reason I honestly couldn't picture that on my own.

Given the evidence and facts that we actually currently know, I don't think he should have even been charged. But then again there might be some blow your pants off evidence that we don't know about. I was referring to the prosecution. IMO they would have a better chance of a manslaughter conviction than a murder conviction.


That's why it's hard to get murder convictions in high profile cases, OJ, Casey Anthony. You have to have evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt and a motive. I don't really see any of that here.....

So here's something interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_self-defense

I'm not sure if it applies in Florida (the article mentions, CA, MD, and MI), but it says (in part):

Michigan also recognizes imperfect self-defense as a qualified defense that can mitigate second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter.[6] However, the doctrine can only be used where the defendant would have had a right to self-defense but for the fact that the defendant was the initial aggressor.[7]

That would seem to be relevant to this case, but maybe Florida does not recognize that doctrine.

That is actually the standard in all criminal cases, not just murder nor high profile. 

A former co worker says Zimmerman was a big racist

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-evidence_n_1528268.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D162348

No but it makes the burdon of proof much harder. Remember Zimmerman does not have to prove anything. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that what they say is what happend. With what information we have right now, there is reasonable doubt.

I'm not sure if the Florida Supreme Court took up the case or not (I don't see a ruling at a glance. An appeals court has turned down the option of suing that argument though because the Florida law specifies in the language that they have to have reasonable belief that they needed to use the deadly force. I also didn't see mention of cases where the accused was the aggressor.

Well, let me put it this way:

- the case may hinge on whether or not Zimmerman initiated the altercation
- the only evidence indicating that Martin initiated the altercation is the defendant's own testimony
- if the testimony of the defendant, by itself, was a significant barrier to conviction, there would not be many people in jail

^^^^^ but guilty or not, the burden of proof is on proving his guilt and not his innocence. If his testimony is all they have to say Martin started  it, then they need proof otherwise. Actually even without his testimony they have to prove it.

But that's NOT all they have. If it was, the whole thing wouldn't have gotten this far. -EK

You are correct, they had a country in outrage.

And a dead child...not sure how you're minimizing that point. -EK

The death doesn't prove murder.  It is an element of the crime, but not the one that will be contested. 

And don't lose sight of the fact that Zimmerman doesn't have to prove that Martin started the altercation.  The DA is required to prove Zimmerman did. 

I'm not minimizing it. It just has no bearing on if this was murder or self defense. Your inferrence is worlds off from what I said.

The same way you implied the ONLY reason it was taken to trial was because the country was in outrage. Murder and self-defense are not the only two options. It's not that black and white; the jury can still find manslaughter. -EK

^^^ I thought that the reason why everything escalated so quickly is because it got galvanized as another type of race killing, otherwise it would just be another self-defense/murder case.

The race part was a factor, but certainly far from "the reason."  Had Zimmerman been immediately arrested and charged, "man shoots teenager" is not a national story.

"Man shoots teenager and is not even arrested," however, is.

Actually, neither of those were a national story.

The story was not "man shoots teenager" nor was it "man shoots teenager and not arrested"  The story was "blacks (most of whom never knew either of the people involved and live miles away) hold protests, have rallies, and issue death threats" 

Really? Even though you people of all races at rallies and protesting, it was the "blacks"? I don't condone the alleged death threats. But it was the perceived mishandling of the case from the 911 call to today that made it a national story.

Begging for his life ?? Haven't heard that one yet. But judging from the source I'm sure (ha ha) that they are 100% accurate.  I don't know you. Don't know if you are male or female, tall or short, Black, White, Asian, or Hispanic. But you seem to have made up your mind on this topic regardless of what the facts may be, even though the rest of us don't know enough of the facts to make a decision.

LMAO, The Huffingtion Post, you gotta be kidding me. I have a link too.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/21/10791755-neighbor-comes-to-defense-of-trayvon-martins-shooter?lite

The whole thing wasn't going anywhere until the racial outrage, Al and Jesse, and the media went kerouac on Zimmerman's ass. Big ass circus and a joke if you ask me !!!

I wouldn't classify Martin as a child. Children don't beat up grown men with guns.....

Actually the first thing that I ever saw about this whole clusterfuck was something along the lines of "White man kills black kid", or something to that effect.

And the sad thing is that's what you hold onto. The first thing I heard/saw was "Unarmed teen shot by neighborhood watchman."

Your statement contradicts itself.  If "the blacks" don't know either of the people involved and live far away, how can they protest something they don't know about?  In other words, how can there be a national story about protests (complete with national figures like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) if the killing is still only local news?

Furthermore, your interpretation of events seems to imply that the actual story is about the protests and not the shooting.  This would be like saying that the Casey Anthony coverage was about the investigation, not the homicide.

When, exactly, did the prosecution say in court that "they don't know who initiated the altercation"?

Injuries to the defendant don't tell you anything about who started it.

Since when is Zimmerman's account the only piece of evidence in the case?  There are the 911 calls, there is the testimony from the girl Martin was talking to on the phone, there is the testimony from the other witnesses, as well as all of the physical evidence (such as the location of the shooting relative to the location of Zimmerman's car).

I would argue that the protests were more of what most people heard about than the actual incident. Al, Jesse, NBA, musicians , Hollywood and the infamous Black Panthers etc. Ask most of the people about the case and i bet they don't know much about it but can tell you about who was standing up against it.

It doesn't matter what YOU would classify him as. He was 17. He was a child. Period. -EK

You wanna play with the big boys, don't expect to be treated like a kid.

My bad. Those Skittles and that Iced tea he had sure made him one of the "big boys." What a bullshit, cop out answer. He couldn't vote. He couldn't be drafted. He couldn't drink alcohol. He was a minor. It's not even a debatable topic. Martin was a child. -EK

He might be a juvenile but he was far from being a child.

One again your lack of knowledge is showing. Prosecutors routinely overcharge cases, which allows for plea bargains to lesser charges or allows the jury to find guilt to a lesser charge when they receive their instructions. I imagine that Florida, like many other states, allows for the jury to find guilt for a charge of manslaughter if they do not feel 2nd degree murder is warranted.

Well then I guess that several of legal analysts on various news channels have the same lack of knowledge because they seem to think the same thing. They seem to think that the states case is week and that there will be repercussions for the special prosecutor. Just one of the many legal analysts that have blasted this clown recently. And I quote.

--- “She has a terrible reputation in Florida for always overcharging,” Dershowtiz said of Corey. Recently, Corey has come under fire from Congresswoman Corrine Brown, in an unrelated case, for her courtroom victory in getting Melissa Alexander sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a “warning shot” at her allegedly abusive husband.---

Angela Corey was appointed to "Get" big bad Zimmerman and reduce race riots. If and when an acquittal or not guilty is found. Whatever happens as far as riots is solely on Corey and she should be held 100% accountable

^^^ Just to clarify a bit about that Alexander case, since I am a resident of the state. Alexander left the confrontation and went to her garage (where should could have easily left and in fact had left the confrontation) and came back with the gun when she fired the shot. Firing a gun during the commission of a crime (in this case the unnecessary firing of a gun) gets an automatic 20 years in this state. It is called 10-20-life. Pull out a gun get an automatic 10, fire it get 20, kill and get life (if convicted of a crime).

Corey had no say so in sentencing and neither did the judge.

I can't imagine anyone who knew about the protests but didn't know what they were protesting.  In 1993, how many people do you suppose knew that there was some riot thing going on in LA, but had no idea what triggered it?

I am somewhat skeptical (or amazed) that such a circular law can be written into the books.  So you get 10 years for drawing a gun during the commission of a crime... even when the only crime is the actual drawing of the gun?   That's absurd.  Effectively, you have set the MANDATORY (<--- this word is important) penalties for illegally drawing a gun at 10 years, illegally firing a gun at 20 years, and illegally killing someone with a gun at life.

Significantly, this means that if you kill someone with a gun and are convicted of manslaughter (which is a crime), you receive a mandatory life sentence.  With regards to the current case at hand, I think someone would have mentioned that manslaughter (by gun) carries a mandatory life sentence in the state of Florida.

I made it sound a bit simplistic but it is indeed a law. The prosecutor can waive the 10-20-life sentencing structure if desired. Life also is not automatic, 25 to life (and we also have the death penalty) is and you don't have to kill someone. Just shooting them is enough.

The crime needs to be a felony (and I expect the drawing of a gun on someone falls under a felony)

You mean other than myself?  First I think I really knew was probably after the "can't we all get along" speech. Other than that we pretty much figured it was idiots looking for a reason rather than actually having a reason ... Which in retrospect they didn't. I hadn't heard of Rodney King prior to the riots and I don't think most over here did either.

To that, I guess I would say that if one is disconnected enough from the news cycle not to have heard of the Rodney King case beforehand, I would be surprised that one would hear about the riots.  Similarly, if you don't follow the news and have no inkling about the Martin case, why would you know about the protests either?

Please do explain.

The original comment was a mistake on my part. She did indeed have a say, but the general practice is that if the accused turns down a plea offer they get the book thrown at them. That is what happened here.

Up to four witnesses who have changed their stories,. to include the guy who was walking his dog and said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. This shows why eyewitnesses are not reliable as most people believe.

And the fact that so many seem to have changed their stories, may be 1 or 2, but 4, and that usually memories fade over time and can be changed by perception and coercion . The witnesses all look like they were tampered with by the prosecution in my opinion.

He's already been charged,since this thread keeps lingering let's change the poll...

Good plan B. I am leaning towards the jury finding him not guilty, but I voted that I still don't know yet as I am waiting to hear if the prosecution has any more compelling evidence.

I said that I didn't have enough info.  However, I feel like he'll probably be found not guilty (and I'm OK with that.)  I do not feel that what he did is morally acceptable, but the law is what it is, and Zimmerman needs protection under it, during the time of the incident.  If found not guilty, the law needs to be examined so that later incidences ARE found guilty, as I do not believe that law should protect a physical aggressor in an altercation that he prompted.

He's probably going to get not guilty.  There's too much shit about this case that doesn't make any sense which is why I've stayed away from commenting about it until now.

1.  You don't just shoot somebody and the cops pick you up for it, and you walk out a couple hours later and go home.  Even in a self-defense state like FL.  Regardless of who you shot, in front of that many people, the cops are gonna want to talk to you about it and you're gonna spend a couple nights in jail until your story checks out.  Something obvious has to be screaming self defense or they would have locked him up.

2.  Eyewitnesses keep changing their story.  One says one was on top then switches, then somebody says the other one was on top and then switches. 

3.  Now we find out Martin had drugs in his system.  And the only reason I bring it up is that this kid may have gone off on a guy because he was high and paranoid, when he otherwise would have walked away.

4.  If it's a true murder case or even reasonably looks like one, they wouldn't have had to skip the grand jury.  The fact that the prosecutor said I can't come up with enough shit to even bring a shooting in front of at least 4 people before a grand jury should have screamed that something was off here.

So far there is no evidence of that though. There is assumption by some Martin was a physical agressor but we do not know it.

You have a misunderstanding here. I'm not sure if you are underinformed on the facts of this case or of the effects of marijuana. Yes Martin was found to have traces in his system but the reports are that it was a small amount equivalent to having used several days prior. While still in the sytem THC does not cause highness of paranoia several days after use.

While I would generally agree with this statement, I wouldn't say that in all cases. It would depend what "trace amounts" equals and if they used any kind of cut off limit on the tests. Every time I have ever smoked pot, a couple hits got me as high as I wanted to be. That amount would probably not even hit the cut off on a regular test and be considered trace amounts while I was still somewhat high. In the past, certain friends of mine that I would see on occasions could smoke whole fat ass joints or clear multiple bowls while I would take a couple small hits and I would seem as high as they were. All of this is greatly dependent on the individual tolerance and metabolism. 

^^^ I think there is another bit of misunderstanding here. From what I know, we simplify things by saying the among of THC found in the body but that isn't really what is tested. What they look for are the metabolites that use of THC creates in the body. Therefore it really does not matter how much you ingested becasue they are actually testing for the metabolites rather than the actual ingested substance.

If Martin was still under the effects of marijuana, he would have been far more likely to either laugh at Zimmerman or join him for brunch at Denny's than get violent with him.

Take it from someone who has smoked the stuff for 37 years...pot does NOT make you violent or aggressive.