Zimmerman Not Guilty Open Thread
I’m as shocked and disgusted as I was last night when I heard. 2nd degree murder was likely a stretch but to acquit this guy from hunting down and killing this kid is an amazing injustice to the rest of us. Today I’m thinking about how to best prepare the kids around me to deal with this open season on them. Jay Smooth is reported to have said yesterday: “The fundamental danger of an acquittal is not riots, it’s more George Zimmermans.” Quite right. This from the Orlando Sentinal speaks for me:
But it’s worth remembering something that must send a chill down the spine of every parent of a black teenager in this country: Zimmerman was the architect of the events of that night.
Had he not disregarded the advice of a non-emergency police operator, gotten out of his car and followed the teenager, Martin would still be alive. Zimmerman was armed with a fully loaded semi-automatic pistol and two flashlights. Martin was on his way home from a 7-Eleven armed with a pack of Skittles, a watermelon-flavored Arizona Tea and a cellphone.
I found it appalling – though not surprising — when defense attorney Mark O’Mara showed jurors a chunk of concrete sidewalk in the courtroom on Friday and sneered at the idea that Martin was unarmed because, after all, he banged Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk, and a sidewalk is a weapon.
Prosecutor John Guy told the jury in the state’s final argument Friday: “ This is not a case about ‘stand your ground.’ It’s a case about ‘stay in your car.’”
I’m reminded of the situation where Henry Louis Gates was confronting the cop who was illegally in his home — and how so very many people insisted that you follow the instructions of the cops. Clearly there is a double standard in this instruction (as I pointed out repeatedly). Because the thing that links these two events is that both Trayvon and Gates needed to prove their legitimacy in a way that isn’t asked for from white people.
I understand that there is the possibility of some civil legal actions against Zimmerman which I do hope happens. Much like the family of Nichole Simpson did.
Anyway — got something to say about this? Sound off below. Will put up a regular Open Thread later.
Personally I can’t really make a judgement on this other than my own belief that Zimmerman is a fool.
An all woman jury sat through the whole trial, listened to both sides, and made a decision based on the facts available.
I thought it would be open season on women when OJ was acquitted….. Then the civil trial started and he lost everything….. I hoping the same for Zimmermam as well
This is going to be a long haul – young black men have to be as prepared as young women of any color to be hunted by predators. a sad but true fact of life in our society today.
What I find VERY interesting if O’Maras quote about the civil case. He said they would “look for and get immunity”
Zimmermam MUST testify in the coil case- does this mean that Zimmerman will say something that will incriminate himself? Does double jeopardy attach thru the civil phase?
Or did he justo am they would also win the civil case?
If so, that was a weird way to put it…..
Getting rid of Republican majorities would go a long way to make sure Justice is served equally among ALL people This trial is the symptom. Hate-filled Republicans, are the disease.
That’s real catchy kavips, but Zimmerman is a registered Democrat , and the stand your ground law passed the Florida Senate 39-0.
Florida: the place to get away with murder!
Florida has joined the list of states I will not set foot in.
Stand Your Ground Law needs to be overturned. Another Sad Day for victims seeking justice in Criminal Justice System. The Jury Make-Up set the stage even before the trial began. Father of Zimmerman was an influential judge also played a part.
People misunderstand the role that Florida’s stand-your-ground law played in Zimmerman’s trial.
There is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence under which Zimmerman had no duty to retreat even under Delaware law.
Under Delaware law, Zimmerman would have had a duty to retreat only if he knew that the necessity of using deadly force could be avoided with complete safety by retreating. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman(as the defense argued), then Zimmerman likely had no duty to retreat. Whether Martin or Zimmerman was on top is a question for smarter people than me But there was evidence on which a reasonable person could conclude that Martin was on top of Zimmerman.
In the end, this case is about reasonable doubt, nothing else. Only one person knows what happened that night: Zimmerman. And Florida failed to prove that his version of the facts was unreasonable given the evidence.
Davy’s right, people misunderstand the Stand Your Ground Role (but I think Davy might too) because it played no role at all.
While there was discussion of Zimmerman possibly requesting a Stand Your Ground hearing, he ended up deciding not to use the defense and waived it.
The defense pleaded not guilty under the theory of regular old Self Defense.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/30/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense
The other person that knew what happened that night is dead. The other person who knew what happened was chased down by Zimmerman — who had no right to do so — and was shot by this grown man because that grown man didn’t have the sense or the emotional control of a grown man. That kid had every right to be in that neighborhood. And he had every right to be left alone, since his only offense was a hoodie.
You can have on about whatever details of the trial (that I’m certain you didn’t see) all you want if that makes you feel better. But the real deal here is that Zimmerman got away with asserting his privilege at gunpoint.
I have advice for all black and brown men in Florida ARM Yourselves and if you ever see this man approaching you based on his past actions you will have every right to fear for your life ,therefore, shoot first.
Alan Dershowitz has an interesting take on the Zimmerman trial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k7oRlMbPno
I’m with you Geezer. I’ll never go to Florida again.
@Cassandra_M:
In America, moral outrage is an insufficient basis for a conviction. Little you wrote is relevant to whether Zimmerman defended himself.
This isn’t moral outrage. He had every right to be where he was AND he had every right not to be chased down by an angry white guy. Zimmerman chased that kid down — he wouldn’t have even had to defend himself (if he did) if he had stayed in his car. Because you still can’t get around the fact that Trayvon wasn’t doing doing anything in his own neighborhood for Zimmerman to hunt him down for.
No one has time for your trifling Bullshit today.
Dershowitz argued that the prosecution itself was misconduct.
I disagree. At minimum, the trial could have achieved catharsis, regardless of outcome. No one should claim that Martin’s story was never told (although, as Cassandra_M points out, the story will never be told in Martin’s own words).
@Cassandra_M:
Only one of us is an attorney. It’s not you.
Nothing required Zimmerman to stay in his car. No police officer or similar authority ordered him to stay in his car, although a 911 dispatcher suggested that Zimmerman return to his car.
Martin had the right to be in the neighborhood.
The question is how each should act when the two meet.
“An innocent, young man was walking down a street, was confronted by a stranger with a gun and that innocent, young man was shot,” Spitzer said on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” on ABC. “The criminal justice system should be able to deal with situations like that. It didn’t.”
The question is how each should act when the two meet.
The kid shouldn’t get shot.
And you are as much of an attorney as you are an economist — remember? When you were arguing that the CRA caused the housing crash. Seriously, you should cut bait here if you are going to jailhouse lawyer a grown man hunting down a kid and shooting him.
davy’s right about the law in florida. zimmerman did nothing illegal, though it was stupid. the first law was broken when martin hit zimmerman. don’t think trayvon threw the first punch? it’s a theory, but not one the prosecution could come close to proving. it also seems unlikely, based on the evidence they had. we might have wanted a guilty verdict, but in this country we don’t ignore the law because of emotion (or shouldn’t). read the applicable florida statute, all of it.
@m.v. buren:
I don’t know what Zimmerman did or did not do that night. My point is about the burden of proof.
@cassandra_m:
But a child can be shot without anyone breaking the law. Both Zimmerman and Martin are making decisions based on imperfect information. A decision can be right when made but wrong in hindsight. Sometimes, society can grieve without punishing anyone.
I have an Honors B.S. with Distinction in Economics (Minor in Mathematics), magna cum laude.
I am a member of the DE bar.
Sometimes, society can grieve without punishing anyone.
That’s not much of a society. Especially when that society keeps telling young black people that they aren’t quite human. That’s what the discussion is here — a legal system that specifically fails non-white people. There are people all over the US today who feel less safe than they did yesterday — because this verdict says that it is OK for someone to leave their car (with no provocation from you), chase you down and shoot you just for being in your own neighborhood.
You can wrap yourself in whatever legal details you think you know — since I’m certain you didn’t watch every minute of this thing, either. But that just puts you in a long line of folks who have wrapped themselves up in legal details to comfort themselves that brutalizing black kids is justified.
cassandra: again, read the law. it’s not even fuzzy. you could even find it on that tube called google.
Tumblr collecting the tweets of what “post-racial” America looks like after Zimmerman was acquitted.
@cassandra_m:
In your world, is someone punished whenever something bad happens? I doubt it.
Also, was there any evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin because he was black? Or are you assuming that?
In your world, is someone punished whenever something bad happens?
Since that’s not the discussion here, I’ll presume you are trolling.
Let’s rehash the conversation:
You: “The kid shouldn’t get shot.”
Me: “But a child can be shot without anyone breaking the law. . . . Sometimes, society can grieve without punishing anyone.”
You: “That’s not much of a society.”
Me: “In your world, is someone punished whenever something bad happens? I doubt it.”
Pretty sure that was our discussion, granted I omitted the details.
You proceed from the assumption that Zimmerman followed Martin because Martin was black. In our system, you need evidence. Even if the “average” white person in Zimmerman’s situation was following Martin because Martin was black, you cannot assume that Zimmerman did so–at least in a court of law. The burden of proof is clear: beyond a reasonable doubt. Are you that sure that Zimmerman profiled Martin?
This is about individual justice. Even if white America is collectively wrong, Zimmerman cannot be punished for that collective wrong.
davy’s last paragraph nails it.
I know it has no bearing on the case, but since race has been bought up into the conversation, Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic.
@fightingbluehen:
Zimmerman does identify as Hispanic, but many people identify him as white. In either case, he can still be racist.
Sucky prosecutors blow another layup. When there are two eye witnesses to a crime and one is dead, the living witness gets too much credence. (Unless the living witness is black, then the dead witness is the one with all the credibility.)
If Martin would’ve replied with: “oh, good evening sir, I’m simply passing through to my dads house. Can I help you with something?” Instead of feeling the need to run then fight Zimmerman, G.Z. would’ve never shot him, any escalation from that NORMAL REPLY martin SHOULD HAVE GIVEN would’ve been vigilantism on G.Z.’s part.
However
Martin wanted to go all street thug on an armed citizen who was doing nothing more than looking out for his community because the local cops wouldn’t do so. The naacp, Obama and the media jumped at the chance to make this about race to further demonize whites, push gun control, and to further strip rights away from individual citizens, now not only in the interest of the common good, but now also based on race.
Sayeth the troll: Zimmerman cannot be punished for that collective wrong.
This isn’t about a collective wrong — it is about a kid being shot, in his own neighborhood, trying to get to his own house. And instead of getting to his own house, he was hunted down and shot. And the person doing the shooting — a person who wasn’t anywhere where he was supposed to be — does not have to be accountable for that. Perhaps that would be just fine in your house, but not in mine.
For The Boys Who See Themselves In Trayvon Martin
This was on All Things Considered this evening and features Rev. Otis Moss who had to answer his son’s question after Trayvon was shot — Am I next? This is especially good for all of us trying to explain to what happened and what it means for them.
Here’s what stands out to me… people who are okay with this verdict never give Trayvon the benefit of having the right to self defense. It never occurs to them that Trayvon had just as much right to defend himself as Zimmerman. Why is that? (and cut the crap about Trayvon throwing the first punch – there is zero evidence of that)
Also, where is the NRA calling for black men to arm themselves?
If Martin had the good sense to be born white he would be alive now.
Charlie Pierce and then I’m out:
As always, go read the whole thing.
@cassandra_m:
A child was shot.
Martin was visiting his father and his father’s fiancee and thus had a right to be in the neighborhood. But Martin did not live in the neighborhood. This is why, although Zimmerman knew the fiancee, he did not know or recognize Martin.
Zimmerman saw someone that he did not recognize, Martin, and followed him. Zimmerman committed no crime here, even if his decision was unwise.
For some reason, this escalated, and the two fought. Under one reasonable interpretation of the evidence:
(1) Martin had hurt Zimmerman and pinned him to the ground and
(2) Martin had sustained no injuries (thus far).
Some questions:
How could Zimmerman now respond? How could Zimmerman respond if he reasonably believed that his life was in danger? How could Zimmerman respond if he reasonably believed that he could not retreat with complete safety?
Your answer thus far: Zimmerman must resign himself to whatever fate because he followed someone that he did not recognize.
Pierce is right only if, in every case, the evidence allows for a reasonable person to draw the conclusion that (1) the “hunter” was not seeking to hurt anyone, (2) the “punk” hurt the “hunter,” (3) the “punk” pinned the “hunter” to ground, and (4) the “hunter” reasonably believed that his life was in danger (and, where the duty to retreat prevails, that the “hunter” could not retreat with complete safety).
Just silly.
@pandora:
Your first comment is better than all of cassandra_m’s comments combined.
Martin did have a right to defend himself. This is absolutely true.
From Martin’s perspective, someone who he did not know was following him. Martin (or any teenager) might reasonably believe that he was in danger. FIGHT or flight is reasonable and expected for a teenager.
But from Zimmerman’s perspective, he was following someone who he did not know after a string of burglaries had occurred in the neighborhood. Zimmerman and this someone fought (put aside who threw the first punch), and Zimmerman lost: Zimmerman was bloodied and pinned to the ground. He might reasonably believe that his life was in danger. Deadly force is appropriate in any state if he does not know if he can retreat with complete safety.
You have to consider each decision from the decision-maker’s perspective. What should the decision-maker know? What did the decision-maker know? Just because Martin acted reasonably does not mean Zimmerman acted unreasonably.
@jason330:
“If Martin had the good sense to be born white he would be alive now.”
Evidence please. Or are you speculating?
7:55pm
Let me translate for Davy because I think I know what he’s getting at and he’s sort of being a turd about it.
There are elements that need to be met for any crime. It’s a checklist, with boxes. The prosecution has the duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each box has a check in it. They apparently didn’t to the jury’s satisfaction in this case. The checklist doesn’t care about how upsetting it is, or the societal repercussions that will abound, or the reveal of overwhelming unfairness that tends to come with certain kinds of people (in this case a young black kid) under our laws. It’s just a checklist. It doesn’t care. In that limited (and depressing) framework, the system worked here.
I’m not 100% surprised after watching the trial (I have some criticism about how it was presented, and they were going to have a hard time as is on the facts/witnesses they had even though the result of what happened that night was CLEAR). I am pretty surprised though, I thought he’d get manslaughter for sure.
Trayvon’s parents can sue him in civil court and I heard the Feds are looking into it now that the state’s case is finished. I don’t think this one is over yet.
@V:
(1) Under Florida law, Zimmerman can seek a court order that bars any civil action for wrongful death.
(2) Federal charges are unlikely. They have no evidence of racial animus, which the federal government must prove under the Shepard-Bird Act.
49 of 50 states require the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, once the defendant provides some evidence to that effect. (The outlier is Ohio.) This case ends differently only if (1) you eliminate the justification or (2) decrease the burden of proof or shift the burden of persuasion. Required cliche incoming: Hard cases make bad law.
The criminal justice system does not punish morally-bankrupt people. The system punishes people who break the law. And our prosecutors have discretion not to prosecute when enforcing the law creates unjust results. The pendulum does not swing the other way here. The executive cannot criminalize conduct after the fact, although in some cases injustice might result.
But imagine if the system was different.
@jason330:
He’s speculating too, but your speculation has no basis in the facts.
Does Martin die if Zimmerman and him do not fight? No. That said, Martin’s reaction was probably reasonable.
Davy – Well I know they already settled with the Homeowner’s Association, so I guess we’ll see.
I just wasn’t sure if the jury was going to buy self defense, I thought the hang up was going to be on depraved heart (hence my thought he’d get manslaughter). I was wrong.
@V:
Self-defense is hard to disprove on these facts. There was evidence that Martin threw the first punch and won the fight. Most people would fear further harm under those circumstances.
Murder was an overreach. Manslaughter was within the prosecution’s grasp IF they had a different theory of the case: concerned citizen who made an unreasonable mistake, not overzealous wannabe cop who acted with ill will. It is hard to argue the former after you argue the latter. Thus, the prosecution’s choice to seek manslaughter as a lesser-included offense was a big misstep, in my opinion.
Sure, but it’s a jury. They’re unpredictable. Given all the undertones of this case, I wasn’t sure if this would be a straight on the law verdict. There’s something that just feels gut-check wrong with this result and I thought that might come into play.
That and considering so much of the elements had to do with what Zimmerman was thinking at the time, and while there was evidence you can never be sure how people interpret that sort of evidence. Especially since he didn’t testify to give that sort of evidence first hand.
I sort of thought it was a hail mary in case they couldn’t prove the mental state (which they didnt). I thought it would save them from an acquittal. guess not.
All this talk about standing your ground based on the facts it would appear that Trayvon was the one that had a right under Florida law to stand his ground after all he was the one being pursued by a man with a gun who had no legal right to stop or detain him. Why this was never argued during the trial is beyond me
Here’s the problem with Zimmerman’s story: It’s not true. A neighborhood watch captain who doesn’t remember the name of one of the three (3) streets in his neighborhood? Bullshit. Trayvon jumped out from behind non-existent bushes? Bullshit. He was jumped from behind, even though at one point he slips up in his story and says he (Zimmerman) was walking towards Trayvon? Bullshit.
Zimmerman knows the law, so I must assume that he lied to cover up his own culpability. I don’t know the truth, but I know his story is not the truth.
Granted, under the law as written, there was very little avenue to find Zimmerman guilty — which is evidence that the law is flawed. Otherwise we are telling people they can pull out a gun if they’re losing a fistfight and, so long as they fear getting killed, can kill in retaliation. I think even Davy might agree that Florida lawmakers did not have that intent when they wrote the code.
“Otherwise we are telling people they can pull out a gun if they’re losing a fistfight and, so long as they fear getting killed”
Further, that they deliberately (with intent) sought to have some interaction, to wit, he followed Martin when expressly told he did not have to do that and got out of his vehicle, with a firearm. While there is little evidence that he intended to kill Martin, the facts suggest that he had some concern that his interaction would result in a need for force (hence the firearm) to (at minimum) defend himself.
If I start an altercation (verbal or otherwise) and because I am on the losing end of the altercation, had the need to use to use force to defend myself, who is the wronged party? If Martin had not resisted/fought back, whatever, it would have been clear (although difficult to prove I suppose) that Martin was the victim. But what is clear in this case is that Zimmerman was the aggressor who effectively was pursuing/hunting Martin.
Legally, can the aggressor become the victim? If the law absolves Zimmerman of any criminal responsibility, then the law is inadequate and must be changed. If the law allows the assignment of blame in the form of manslaughter as a charge, then prosecutorial error was responsible for not assigning the proper charge to the crime. I am positive there have been cases where bar fights result in a manslaughter charge and conviction where there is no intent or motive for a greater charge, yet the result was the death of someone.
In this case justice did not prevail. Whether the law or the prosecution error was responsible is debatable. My guess is that the prosecution was swayed by public opinion to bring a charge greater than was able to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Justice needs not only to be blind, but based on law to represent the people without passion or prejudice. My opinion is that in this case that did not happen.
Here is a totally different take.
Sexism by the media in this case. why?
George Zimmerman, over the course of this entire saga, seems to have lost and regained 40-60 pounds. Can anyone argue that some, if not all, our wonderfully talented and capable media, wouldn’t have made that the central focus if Georgiane Zimmerman was the one on trial? So why is it “sexism”? It more highlights the sexism in other cases because of the omission. just a passing thought. and…
disclaimer….. it would be wrong and tasteless no matter what. Im not condoning the disgusting practice of “weight tracking” women. It is something that unfortunately happens. It just hasn’t seemed to in this cause, probably because GZ qualifies as a “man” as far as genetics is concerned.
Another thought on the “punishment” He isnt going to jail, not for this anyway…. and hopefully he’ll lose a massive wrongful death lawsuit, although i doubt he has much in the way of personal assets. Thanks to our ever shrinking world, he will always be the guy that got away with killing an unarmed kid. The people who will embrace Zimmerman and welcome him are all disgusting racists and he likely knows it. He’s also “not white” and I’m sure the O’Reily crowd will tire of him soon enough. As far as “decent people”, he’s fucked.
He will be “free” as far as not having to go to jail, and he get’s to live, which is much more than his victim. But society can make that life very difficult for him. here’s to hoping we do it.
“But what is clear in this case is that Zimmerman was the aggressor who effectively was pursuing/hunting Martin.”
Really? I would argue the agressor was the street thug who smashed a neighborhood watch volunteer’s head into the ground and said “You’re going to die tonight, motherf*ker”.
It’s tragic but if the kid had just a shred of respect for authority he would be alive at this moment and we never would have heard of him or George Zimmerman.
and that is why the verdict didnt surprise me at all.
People think that a gun and a self-given title gives you authority….. even though a REAL authority told Zimmy to stay in his car…. naw. only “hood rats” have to respect authoritiah. The only proof you have that Trayvon said anything to Zimmerman is from the piggie’s own maw. Which, given his admitted penchant for self preservation, he probably lied under oath. Hell, who not. the only person that can dispute it is dead.
But I’ll tell ya this. As a person who will never EVER own a gun, if a civilian is chasing me and it becomes obvious they want to “get me” I’m gonna fight back however I can. It’s my right to demand to see a badge, and if they dont have one, they have NO authority.
“But society can make that life very difficult for him. here’s to hoping we do it.”
Nice. I mean, why even have judges, juries and lawyers. All we really need is the media to decide who’s guilty and innocent, right?
How’s life on that high horse? Ya know, the one you jumped on AFTER suggesting an unarmed kid was at fault for getting executed by trying to defend himself from a stranger wielding a gun and his ” special Jr policeman title”?
Why do you think Trayvon deserved to die?
I never said he deserved to die.
“I would argue the agressor was the street thug who smashed a neighborhood watch volunteer’s head into the ground and said “You’re going to die tonight, motherf*ker”.
How do you know he said that? We know Zimmerman lied to the cops about several things, so what makes you so sure he’s telling the truth about that?
“if the kid had just a shred of respect for authority he would be alive at this moment”
In what way is George Zimmerman an “authority”? He never identified himself to Trayvon Martin.
Rick Jensen made a very valid point on his conservative talk show. After spending an entire hour taking the side that Zimmerman had the right to protect his own life against Trayvon, a caller called in putting the context with Rick’s daughter being the victim. If she was stalked the caller said, say for being an odious NRA member, and she were grabbed from behind, and if she knew martial arts well enough to defend herself,…
Rick interrupted with: “You touch my daughter, you are going to get a beating. Anyone who touches my daughter, I certainly hope she turns on them and beats the living crap out of them….”
The caller continued: “If she did that so well that she was soon in control, so much that her stalker pulled out a gun….
Would he be then justified to shoot Rick’s daughter, just because he was being threatened when it was his criminal actions that caused the altercation in the first place?”
They cut quickly to a commercial.
“I never said he deserved to die.”
but you seem to suggest that you think he brought it on himself…. how exactly?
sb: by throwing the first punch (and if he didn’t, the state came nowhere close to proving that — burden of proof is on the prosecution). what zimmerman did before that was not illegal (there’s that annoying reality again). the jury could see that it was at least plausible that martin struck first. (i think it’s almost certain, given the evidence they had.) that doesn’t mean he deserved to die. good grief! i get that you’re angry, but the jury did what it was supposed to do under the circumstances. change the law. change people’s hearts. do what you think will improve the system. but try to keep emotion from overwhelming reason.
“Really? I would argue the agressor was the street thug”
Really? You wouldn’t consider someone coming up to confront you with a firearm and obviously not a uniformed police officer, an agressor?
And what’s with the “street thug” You mean Zimmerman knew he was hunting a street thug? Or is that your assessment after the fact?
The simple fact is, a person was walking home one evening from the store with candy and a soda. Now they are dead. Maybe they didn’t meet your definition of a fine upstanding citizen, but that was all they were doing. Someone took that person’s life after instigating a confrontation. I cannot even fathom the logic that leads you to the conclusion that the victim was the aggressor.
I cannot even fathom the logic of jumping on top of someone, punching them in the face, and smashing their head against the sidewalk just because he asked me what I was doing in their neighborhood.
“The simple fact is, a person was walking home one evening from the store with candy and a soda…but that was all they were doing”
So Zimmerman punched himself in the face and bashed his own head against the concrete?
Stop and think a little bit about what you are saying.
“I cannot even fathom the logic of jumping on top of someone, punching them in the face, and smashing their head against the sidewalk just because he asked me what I was doing in their neighborhood.”
There’s a LOT of this talk, and not one bit of evidence to back up this claim. How do you know that Zimmerman didn’t make a grab for Trayvon first? You don’t. So please stop with this made up crap. Maybe you should take your own advice… stop and think a little bit.
There is a lot of evidence to support this claim.
Some of it was even allowed by the State of Florida.
Clearly there was enough that the jury believed this version of events.
Don’t you believe that if there was any evidence whatsoever to support the hypothesis that Zimmerman attacked Martin that the prosecution would have proposed this version of events?
If the kid had just walked home then none of this would have happened.
Do you believe that Martin is at fault in any way in his death?
“just because he asked me what I was doing in their neighborhood.”
Where did you get this notion? Zimmerman never spoke to Martin, despite having opportunities to do so, and has never claimed otherwise. Garbage in, garbage out.
“There is a lot of evidence to support this claim.”
Produce it. Go on, I’ll wait.
Don’t be obtuse, Pandora.
There was a trial, you may have read a bit about it.
And I will phrase my question in a slightly different manner – do you think Martin bears any responsibility whatsoever in his death?
Got it. You have no evidence to support your claim.
No. Trayvon doesn’t bear responsibility for his death. All he did was walk home from a store. When their paths crossed, Trayvon had the right to self defense. He also had the right to be the one in fear for his life. He wasn’t the one stalking.
You are correct in that I personally have no evidence. However, the State of Florida collected plenty of evidence in this case and every account I read of the trial and the jury verdict supports my “claim”, or “made up crap” as you so artfully phrase it.
“All he did was walk home from a store” Really? How then did Mr. Zimmerman aquire his injuries? Did he perhaps slip and fall on the wet grass heard by the star prosecution witness?
In your arguments you resemble a child sticking their fingers in their ears and jumping up and down with their eyes closed.
“How then did Mr. Zimmerman aquire his injuries?”
Well, one could surmise that the person with the gun posed a clear and present danger to the unarmed person and the unarmed person decided to stand his ground and defend himself. But then we don’t know what the truth of the matter is, since we only have Zimmermans version. We don’t know who started it. What we do know is that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle with a gun. It doesn’t require a significant leap of logic to see where that was going to lead. Perhaps if Martin had been more intimidated by the firearm as it was probably intended for him to be, he would be alive. I suppose that’s the price for being uppity.
If by “being uppity” you mean “committing assault and battery”, then yes, I agree with you.
xyz: You have not addressed my point: Zimmerman never identified himself to Martin. How, then, do you maintain that Martin did not show “respect for authority”?
Oh, I don’t know, maybe when he beat the crap out of Zimmerman? Even if he was following him, you really think it’s OK to punch someone in the face for that?
If it makes you feel better, scratch “respect for authority”, replace with “act with common decency and respect for a fellow human being”. Doesn’t change my point a whit.
Do you think Martin bears any responsibility for his death?
(1) Both Zimmerman and Martin had a right to be “there.” That is, Zimmerman committed no crime until he and Martin fought. The special prosecutor conceded that this issue complicated the prosecution. [The facts are different if Zimmerman had tried raping Martin (like in the hypothetical above) or (clearly) thrown the first punch.]
(2) Zimmerman did not disobey a police officer or similar authority; he disregarded a suggestion: a technicality but an important one nonetheless.
(3) No evidence that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin. This is a tough pill to swallow. A jury cannot infer “black” from “suspicious.” Zimmerman’s character references also provided him with cover.
(4) You must judge Martin’s and Zimmerman’s actions based on the facts each knew and should have known at the time. Martin thought that Zimmerman might be dangerous. Assuming Martin started the fight, he was probably justified in doing so under the facts. Zimmerman thought that Martin was suspicious, and there was a string of burglaries in the neighborhood. Assuming Martin won the fist fight and pinned Zimmerman, Zimmerman was probably justified in drawing his weapon under the facts. If Martin started the fight, then Zimmerman has little reason to believe Martin is harmless or innocent.
(5) This is a tragedy, but the law is not the problem. There was evidence that Martin threw the first punch, won the first fight, and pinned Zimmerman. Mostly likely, the same result is required under Delaware law, under which you only have a duty to retreat if you KNOW that you can retreat with COMPLETE SAFETY. The evidence would give rise to reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman knew he could retreat with complete safety.
(6) Finally, Zimmerman does not need to produce evidence that Martin punched first. Zimmerman has no need to prove his innocence (hence the Huffington Post’s headline of “Not Guilty*” and “*But Not Innocent”). Florida needed to produce evidence that Zimmerman threw the first punch. And there IS evidence to contrary. Martin’s autopsy revealed no injuries besides the bullet wound. It is hard to fathom that if Zimmerman threw the first punch he caused no damage. Of course, this is not the strongest evidence, but it is still evidence (and the only evidence beyond Zimmerman’s statements to police).
“There was evidence that Martin threw the first punch”
Here we go again. Please provide the evidence. You believe Zimmerman. Fine, but that’s not evidence. What if Zimmerman made a grab for Trayvon first? What if he swung first and missed?
@Pandora:
Martin’s friend testified that Martin confronted Zimmerman. Further, Martin sustained no injuries other than the gunshot. These facts suggest Martin was the “aggressor,” once he perceived Zimmerman as a threat (which I said was a reasonable inference under the facts). You confuse evidence with conclusive evidence.
Also, the burden is on the prosecution. What evidence shows Zimmerman struck Martin first? Almost none. There is only evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin.
Finally, your bias is obvious. You have never thought to provide Zimmerman, the defendant in a criminal prosecution, with the benefit of reasonable doubt. You prefer to let your preconceived notions of what Zimmerman did that night cloud your judgment. You want Zimmerman to prove his innocence; that is antithetical to our system of justice. In sum, you are reacting, not thinking.
I think this article on Slate closely tracks my position:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html
Sometimes bad things happen, and they are nobody’s fault (at least in a legal sense).
So respect for authority is the same thing as common decency? How ironic of you to invoke common decency when you show so little of it.
“Do you think Martin bears any responsibility for his death?”
Nowhere near as much as Zimmerman does. Zimmerman went out there armed, did not tell his adversary that, but pulled the piece when he lost the fight. You really think it’s OK to do that?
“Even if he was following him, you really think it’s OK to punch someone in the face for that?”
Never said it was. If Trayvon lived he probably would have been charged with assault — because when a black kid does it, it’s not called standing your ground.
BTW, Davy has this exactly right under Florida law.
@geezer:
Zimmerman has no duty to inform anyone that he is carrying. That is the purpose of concealed carry. From a public policy perspective, this is justifiable as such:
(1) Criminals know some people carry concealed weapons;
(2) Criminals do not know which people carry concealed weapons; and
(3) Criminals are deterred from preying on anyone because there is an X percent chance that a target is carrying a concealed weapon.
The idea is that open carry only deters criminals from preying on people who carry but concealed carry reallocates some of that benefit to people who do not carry.
I cannot get into details about Delaware law on concealed carry, other than Delaware is a “may issue” state. Florida is among 37 “shall issue” states. That is, Florida must issue a concealed-carry license if certain statutory criteria are met. There is more discretion in Delaware.
[Whether those who carry in general commit more gun crimes is another issue.]
Martin probably did not consider whether Zimmerman was carrying (assuming that Zimmerman did not flash his gun). But if he did, he already thought that Zimmerman was a predator, and he needed to “fight” (vs “flight). The idea that the predator is carrying raises the stakes considerably for Martin and probably makes a violent reaction more likely.
I think its disgusting how there’s no mentions of Martins wanna be thug habits and Facebook posts of illegal firearms, weed, and obscenities (let’s not forget creepy ass cracker too)…..no one is disputing that the death of a child at any age is sad, wrong, or a “tragedy” however ruining the life of the man he assaulted, both through the trial by the media and now financially by the NAACP, based strictly and solely on race is blatant and open racism. If it wasn’t the NAACP wouldfile civil suits for black on black crime right?….right! Even the idea of the NAACP de values and belittles black folks!
Davy: I realize that Zimmerman has no responsibility to inform Martin of anything. My question was, do you think that’s OK? If you think it is, well, you’re part of the problem.
At several points, according to Zimmerman’s narrative, he had the opportunity to identify himself and tell Martin why he was being followed. He did not do so at any point. If he had this case might have turned out differently.
I do not believe Zimmerman acted with malice aforethought. But this case has given a blueprint to anyone who does want to go out thug-bashing, or thug-killing.
Lou: Please feel free to go fuck yourself, you racist piece of shit. Have a nice day.
Lol don’t get all mad and start hurling insults cuz I made a good point there yoo hoo….I’m not racist at all, I actually have quite a few black people in my family who feel the same way I do.
Bottom line, plain and simple, NO MATTER WHO THREW THE FIRST PUNCH, if Martin would’ve been simply cordial and said “can I help you?” Or “hey why are you following me?” Instead of (according to recheal janteal star witness) “there’s a creepy ass cracker following me.” There is a stronger possibility he would still be alive today…..RIGHT?!
RIGHT!!!
Plain and simple!
What Geezer said.
“Plain and simple” would be a better online name for you.
George Zimmerman’s life was not ruined by getting hit in the face. It was ruined by his stupid decision to carry a gun to a fistfight.
Why was Martin the one who was supposed to identify himself? George Zimmerman never said a word to him — he acted like the creepy-ass cracker Martin called him.
By putting the onus on Martin to explain himself, rather than on Zimmerman, who was the one doing the following, you reveal yourself to be a racist. If you’re black, you’re a self-loathing racist. But for the record, I don’t believe a word about the “black people in your family.”
I find the emphasis on all those fb pictures of Trayvon throwing the bird particularly (in a dark humor way) hilarious. Pretty much every picture of Mr. V circa 2007 on fb is him making a stupid face and flipping the bird. But you know, we’re white, so I think he’s fine.
Also if you want to rage go check out the juror interview that was on Anderson Cooper tonight.
Also FYI to lou – I watched Rachel’s testimony and the Trayvon’s last words over the phone were, indeed, “Why are you following me. ” Your quote was what he said to her minutes before (unless you don’t believe her.)
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/trayvon_chilling_last_phone_call_7Z7tPrWFfZxU46WC1RleNK
Well if I saw someone following me I sure as hell wouldn’t just jump them. Who’s to say said person following you isn’t an undercover cop? So COMMON SENSE dictates to make verbal contact to figure out their intentions before engaging a physical confrontation. DUH!!!
I’m sorry, where is the evidence that shows Trayvon “jumped” Zimmerman?
@ v:
1. I find it odd that she was found guilty of perjury twice and still allowed to testify.
2. Everyone accuses GZ of not being able to keep his stories straight, she couldn’t from the get go.
3. I personally don’t think she should’ve been allowed to testify. Due to the perjury charges, that’s what the LAW says for EVERYONE
@ PANDORA:
ask the witness that said Martin was ontop during the fight.
Lou, please stop reading Stormfront.
Don’t play the media manipulation card unless you have some serious or hard based logic proof to back it up….please it just looks really bad.
lou –
Prosecutors can’t control the caliber of their witnesses. Ever heard of a jailhouse snitch? Perjurers can testify, murders can testify, thieves can testify. Just sometimes their past crimes can be a factor for the jury to consider (and sometimes their past crimes can’t if they aren’t related and the jury doesn’t even find out. imagine that?!). That’s actually what the law says for everyone.
Honestly i felt like the fact that she SO BADLY didn’t want to be there or be involved with it in any way went towards her credibility.
v:
if she wanted to help the case she sure had a bass-ackwards way of showings it. I mean it doesn’t take a lawyer to figure out or know that perjury is a prosecutable offense…I mean you’d figure the so called friend of the victim would do everything needed for the prosecution to succeed right?
@Pandora:
The closest eyewitness testified that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.
@Geezer:
The question is how Martin would react if Zimmerman walked up and identified himself. I am not sure Martin would feel safe as Zimmerman approached him. In my opinion, the better course is “observe and report,” at least when weighed against engagement. Better yet, listen to the 911 dispatcher (as I’m sure you’d point out).
Zimmerman should also not flash his gun, especially if he decides to speak with Martin. The gun might exacerbate the situation before the two have a chance to diffuse it.
Finally, incidents like this highlight the dangers of even licensed firearms. But very often, such firearms do serve good. Now not everyone should carry. Mandatory background checks and training are sound policy. Neither will prevent most violent crime, but society should do what it can.
are you talking about lying about going to the hospital? perjury is only a crime if you lie under oath (in court, a deposition etc.). Lying to an investigator isn’t perjury.
I officially suspect you have no idea what you’re talking about. This is the third time I’ve had to correct you.
@V:
The prosecution did not prepare Martin’s friend well. The prosecution should have interviewed her without Martin’s family present and smoothed her rougher edges. Instead, the prosecution failed to know every detail of what Martin said on the phone, and the defense managed to portray her as stupid, racist, black youth. Our system and Martin deserved better than that. That said, the case was a dog anyway.
And lying to an investigator is obstruction of justice, which is still a crime. There is plenty to gripe about with those comments, no need to nitpick.
Agreed on both points Davy. I thought she could have been better prepped. I really wanted her to do well, because I thought she was giving important information that was being obscured by delivery (and then frustration because she wasn’t being heard).
@V:
In the end, her information was not that helpful. She provided some insight into Martin’s state of mind (he was scared or at least anxious). She also testified that Martin spoke with Zimmerman, even if briefly. But she could not explain why the meeting turned violent or who threw the first punch.
I think “what are you following me for” and Trayvon’s state of mind are pretty important. It establishes an argument that Trayvon was defending himself (since there’s no eyewitness to the start of the fight other than Zimmerman). All of the other witnesses that testified when one/the other was on top came in mid fight. I understand escalation came into play, but it’s still important to try and establish the beginning of the fight for the narrative (which i think the prosecution sort of whiffed on providing).
“The question is how Martin would react if Zimmerman walked up and identified himself.”
No it’s not. Zimmerman said Martin “circled his car.” Why didn’t he just roll down the window and identify himself from the relative safety of the vehicle?
Answer: Because he’s a dope. And a dope with a gun is a dangerous combination.
@V:
I think that everyone knew (or thought) that Martin perceived a threat and responded how he thought best. No one doubts that much. The only real question is whether Zimmerman could respond and how he could respond.
@geezer:
Assume Martin circled his car.
He rolled up his window to avoid a confrontation: observe and report. He followed Martin because he did not want him to get away: observe and report. He seemed to avoid contact with Martin, until Martin asked why Zimmerman was following him (and Martin’s phone disconnected).
Zimmerman should have stayed in his car, but he did try to avoid contact.
And no one doubted it due in part to the evidence we’re talking about. She’s important.
@V:
No, I mean that regardless of her testimony. I think most people infer that a person being followed, especially at night, will either fight or run.
Also, her testimony only allows the jury to empathize with Martin (somewhat important, but not critical). Her testimony does not help answer the important questions.
It happened again in Milwaukee. A 76 year old white guy shot a black teenager dead in front of his mom after accusing him of breaking into his house and stealing guns. The judge in the case lost no time explaining this was nothing like the Trayvon Martin case, but it was exactly like the Trayvon Martin case, except without the SYG law – a black teenager shot by a white dude who should have used a phone instead of a gun. Wait – he did call the cops. In fact he had breakfast that morning with a councilman to complain about the cop’s response to his gun theft.
Worse, the stupid cops kept the mother in a squad car for an hour while her son lay dying, choosing to spend that time searching her house for the allegedly stolen guns.
Another heartbreaking story. Another vigilante who feels they have the right to play judge, jury and executioner. Another black teen dead.
And this: “Police had forced the teen’s grieving mother, Patricia Larry, to sit in a squad car for more than an hour rather than let her hold her dying son or join him at the hospital. Officers also searched the mother’s home for the allegedly stolen firearms, which were not found, and they arrested another one of her sons on a year-old truancy violation.”
I can’t even get my head around this. Know why? Because the police would never treat me, or my son, this way. And why do you think that is?
@puck & pandora:
Zimmerman’s and Spooner’s cases are exactly the same if you ignore that the facts are completely different.
For one, the article indicates that the victim never struck Spooner. Spooner’s case is about straight-up revenge (even if he targeted the wrong person).
And there is a good chance the police WOULD treat you and your son the same way. The police would have two goals:
(1) maintaining the safety of officers and
(2) administering emergency care to the victim
Often loved ones can interfere with both goals (although not intentionally). If you do not heed an officer’s order, which most loved ones wouldn’t in the moment, the officer should and will remove you.
Also, Juror B37 has confirmed what a reasonable person would suspect about the jury’s deliberations: Something bad happened, but the prosecution failed to prove that Zimmerman broke the law.
There is a difference, davy, between the way the world ought to work, and the way it actually works.
A mother locked in the back of a police car while her son bleeds to death…. all on the word of a crazy old racist. Did they get a warrant to search the house? Or did the pigs just assume that because a white man killed a black boy, there was just cause?
Wake up man. Becasue as long as you deny that there is still deep ingrained racial injustice in the country…. especially in law enforcement, you are part of the problem.
They could have stayed with her outside the car. They could have gotten trauma counselors to speak to her. Instead a mother was locked in a cop car while her son died. They also arrested her other son for truancy. Yeah, white kids get arrested for cutting school ALL THE TIME.
Exactly, Ben.
And Davy is kidding himself if he thinks I would be treated this way. No way. No how. Someone is a little too comfortable with their privilege – so comfortable they don’t see it. I see mine, and know this would never happen to me. They wouldn’t dare – and that isn’t idle talk.
Another black child is dead due to a paranoid gun owner who decided he was guilty. That is the similarity, and one I expect to see a lot more of now that the Zimmerman case has created the blueprint.
And juror B37 is hardly credible. Book deal? She says:
“The potential book was always intended to be a respectful observation of the trial from my and my husband’s perspectives solely…”
Her husband’s perspective? On what? Taking care of the kids when she was sequestered? This juror might have some ‘splainin’ to do. (Also, looks like shooting off her mouth has resulted in her losing that book deal.)
“Because the police would never treat me, or my son, this way. And why do you think that is?”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323394504578608182550247030.html
@socialistic ben & pandora:
(1) In general, a warrant is required to search a house. One remedy for a violation is well-known: suppression/exclusion. But the family may also seek damages under federal law (Section 1983) for a violation of the Fourth Amendment. I suspect that the police obtained a warrant.
(2) The police cannot ignore an outstanding arrest warrant. The fact that the charge is truancy is immaterial. Also getting arrested for truancy is more common in large cities than in Delaware. They have police dedicated to arresting truants in New York City, for instance.
(3) You are arguing that police COULD have treated the mother better. Guess what: police have no duty to do so. Police have the two priorities that I mentioned above and a third that the article mentions (preserving the crime scene). Why is the third relevant? The mother herself was a witness.
(4) Spooner is pleading not guilty by reasonable of insanity. This is plausible considering he pulled a Lennon. Now he must prove it (unless it negates his mens rea).
Pandora – B37’s husband is a lawyer.
Davy – I think you’re right on your 3rd point. They COULD have treated her better. Could have not 100% adhered to protocol to allow the mother to go to the hospital, even though they didn’t have a duty to. Pandora’s point is that those kinds of courtesies DO happen, but they happen more for one group (and further, one economic class) than another. I think it’s fair to say she could have a point there, don’t you?
Why isn’t anyone outraged over 4 black men who beat a Marine to death a month after Trayvon Martin was shot? Where’s the outrage over 5 black men who murdered a young married couple? Where’s the outrage over an 18 year old black punk who murdered a 17 year old black kid over a bunch of comments on twitter up in Wilmington?
No you liberal idiots want to repeat the Al Sharpton/Tawana Brawley bullshit all over again, martin was far from being an innocent kid. Did he deserve to be shot and killed I don’t know I wasn’t there and neither was anyone else commenting in here. Did Zimmerman make a wrong decision again I’m not Zimmerman so I don’t know and neither do any of you know whether he was in fear for his life. According to police records Zimmerman claimed that during the time Martin was assaulting him Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun and tried to pull it out. That in itself was enough reason for Zimmerman to shoot if he truly believed Martin would have shot him, had he been successful in gaining control of the firearm. Also police evidence shows that a stress lie detector test showed Zimmerman’s statement about the encounter was truthful.
I doubt anyone would roll your window down if some black kid was menacingly circling your vehicle with a hood up. Again the statement by Zimmerman was his window was down and he put it up when Zimmerman was circling his vehicle. One has to wonder what Martin’s reason for circling Zimmerman’s vehicle was intimidation, or looking to see if the doors were unlocked.
It was a tragedy, but no some people just have to play race baiters and play the race card. Fuck the race factor unless people are willing to equally discuss all the other murders which involve different races .
Um all of those things are also outrageous and sad? And some of involve factors of race? it’s ok to be upset about both. All of those things you talk about are outrageous and horrible.
Just a question though, did any of those people escape charges for months or get acquitted?
Sorry, RacistBoy, but on the night he was killed Trayvon Martin did nothing wrong until he was approached by an armed, unidentified man. Until you get that through whatever passes for your skull, you have nothing to add here.
@Geezer:
The evidence suggests that Martin approached Zimmerman, although Zimmerman was following Martin.
@V:
The only time a courtesy is extended is when it does not conflict with the police’s goals. And any evidence that suggests police extend such courtesies to Black Americans less frequently is anecdotal. I accept that the U.S. still has problems with race , but I do not think that the problems are as pervasive as thought by many on this blog.
“The evidence suggests that Martin approached Zimmerman, although Zimmerman was following Martin.”
You keep making this claim, but there is no evidence… unless you believe George Zimmerman. And if you believe where Zimmerman claims the fight took place then how did Trayvon’s body end up 40ft away? Remember, Zimmerman claims that Trayvon was always on top of him, so they couldn’t have rolled 40ft.
V actually yes they did go months without being charged the incident involving the Marine the suspects were just recently caught.
My point was there was no media coverage of any of the incidents, I mentioned. Why? I suspect because the media didn’t feel the crimes would get people all worked up, like the one about a 17 year old black kid shot by a neighborhood watch member.
Why wasn’t their national news coverage of the black kid 17 years old killed in Wilmington last year, was it because he was murdered by another black kid.
For crying out loud, what are you saying? That George Zimmerman was justified in killing Trayvon Martin because, somewhere, a black kid killed a black kid or a marine? Is that really what passes for logic in your mind? Go back to Delaware Politics with this nonsense.
You say they were just recently caught. Is it because they hadn’t been identified as suspects until now? Or did everybody know who they were and the police just sat on their hands for months? I’m assuming you understand the difference. The reason this became a story was because the outrage started local and got people’s attention. If he’d quickly been arrested and charged, I bet we never would have heard about it. When an unarmed person is dead and the person who admits to doing it is just walking around. It’s going to get attention.
Davy,
i suspect you think your argument was objective and made sense.
However, all I saw was someone who was trying to rationalize horrific action by cops. Truancy arrests happen more in cities because….. there are more black people. The police had no reason to search this woman’s home until a murderer accused her of having his stolen guns…. BY THE WAY what an irresponsible shit… allowing multiple fire arms to go missing, that alone should be jail time…… Her son did nothing wrong but was treated like a suspect. Why? Not because the police were “just doin’ their job, ma’am” but because the killer is white and old and his victim is “probably just another hood rat (who might try to seduce our daughters)”
Im gonna go with the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren’t a racist and no more prejudice than the rest of us (h/t Ave Q). What you must be, is blind, or in denial about how this country works. This guy has a mental defect? Bull. Why was he allowed to own guns? Are we gonna start calling racism a mental disorder? You kill a black kid and plead “racial panic”? Seriously, what kind of precedent are you allowing to be set here by constantly apologizing for and rationalizing the actions of SO many people, when the sad, horrible truth is staring you in the face. Cops in most on this country miss-serve black communities and now white men with guns are getting bolder and bolder.
http://kotaku.com/5910857/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is
I don’t know Davy’s race/sex/orientation/economic status, but I do know it’s easy to downplay the results of internalized systematic racism when you’re wrapped in a blanket of privilege.
Above is my favorite way of explaining this to someone that has difficulty seeing it. Davy, I’d be interested in your thoughts.
I don’t think that works, V. I have the advantage of being a SWM with the unfortunate addition of (probably too much) self awareness. But a guy who, for example, HAS worked hard his whole life… good work ethic, pays bills, learned how to change a tire/oil….. doesn’t want to be told he’s had it easy and no argument will convey it. Most people take for granted what they get and they only see what they DONT get….. scholarships, welfare, a racial pride month…… Because a white man doesnt get any EXTRA just for being white, they cant really see how much MORE they really have…. they get defensive… and then hoods get donned. (snark)
Of course you arent actually telling them “everything good in your life came, not from what you have done, but who you were at birth…. you’ve earned nothing”. But that is what they will hear.
Kind of like how if I said “being a pretty girl is so easy because everyone will give you what you want” (which i dont actually think, nor would i ever say other than to set up a point) There is some truth to the fact that people are nicer to attractive people. It’s a sad, horrible truth, like how our racist law enforcement institution is a sad, horrible truth. Now, I’m breaking a personal rule by offering criticism with no suggestion, but I don’t know how to get across to the blind. Maybe because i know how it feels to work really really hard…. even if i am playing on the “easiest setting” I would take great offense to someone telling me I’ve had it easy. I’m proud of my accomplishments even if I “don’t deserve” them. That doesn’t mean I’m unaware that I’d have much less, or would have had to work much harder if I were gay/black/female…etc
I think that’s a big part of the article it accounts for people who (while white) have had hard lives and minorities who have it better than certain white people. Anecdotes don’t negate the rule.
And while they certainly wouldn’t want to hear it (and I also agree that “pretty girls” probably have it easier than not so conventionally pretty girls and there are studies that back it up – that’s off topic) people NEED to hear it. Nothing gets done to fix the system until the half that’s benefiting from it acknowledges it a little bit. I think plenty of people are COMPLETELY obviously to it. “I got mine because worked hard” yes, but if you weren’t you you would have had to work a whole lot harder.
pandora “Another black child is dead due to a paranoid gun owner who decided he was guilty. That is the similarity, and one I expect to see a lot more of now that the Zimmerman case has created the blueprint.”
Logic what would you know about logic. Are you saying that 4 black men killing a Marine, or 5 black men murdering a married couple couldn’t be racially motivated? I never said Zimmerman was justified, I never said he wasn’t either. Unlike you I’m not so presumptuous as to claim I know what was going though Zimmerman’s mind prior to him shooting Martin. I’m not so presumptuous like you are to claim that Zimmerman was a racist or a paranoid gun owner.
A total of seven arrests were made in the Marine’s death which, according to this article, came after an “alcohol and cocaine filled party.”
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/slain-marine-beaten-after-explicit-text-message/nN88Q/
The carjacking-torture-murder of the couple took place in Knoxville, Tenn. in 2007. Those responsible were caught and convicted. There’s a full account on Wikipedia; here’s an important quote:
–Police Chief Sterling Owen IV said that there is no indication the crimes were racially motivated and that the murders and assault “appears to have been a random violent act.”[48] “There is absolutely no proof of a hate crime,” said John Gill, special counsel to Knox County District Atty. Randy Nichols. “We know from our investigation that the people charged in this case were friends with white people, socialized with white people, dated white people. So not only is there no evidence of any racial animus, there’s evidence to the contrary.”[49]–
Link to the full story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom
“The evidence suggests that Martin approached Zimmerman, although Zimmerman was following Martin.”
And all agree that Zimmerman followed Martin by vehicle and on foot. Who was the hunter, and who the hunted? Should the hunted have no right to confront the hunter?
Zimmerman was taken into custody, treated for head injuries, then questioned for five hours, but eventually released under the supposition the shooting was in self-defense. However, six weeks later, amidst what some have described as a “media circus” atmosphere involving misleading accusations of racism, Zimmerman was charged with murder by a new prosecutor.
On June 26, 2012, the prosecution released the results of a voice stress test performed on George Zimmerman the day after the shooting. A voice stress test is a type of test used to measure deceptive or psychological stress in the human voice in response to questions. Zimmerman was asked, “Did you confront the guy you shot?”, to which Zimmerman answered, “No.” Zimmerman was asked, “Were you in fear for your life, when you shot the guy?”, to which Zimmerman answered, “Yes.” The examiner concluded that Zimmerman “told substantially the complete truth” in the examination, and Zimmerman was classified as “No Deception Indicated (NDI)” according to the report.
According to Martin’s autopsy report, the young man died from a single gunshot wound to his chest. Evidence indicates that when Martin was shot he was standing over Zimmerman. Although the muzzle of the gun may have touched Martin’s hoodie it was still at least 2 inches away from his body when the shot was fired.
It occurs to me that if Martin had somehow been able to wrestle the gun away from the guy stalking him …. giving him reasonable cause to fear for his life…. and shot Zimmerman, he would probably be on death row.
Outtie, even your explanation still makes it sound like an unjustifiable killing.
So what? Who was the hunter, and who was the hunted?
I am white, male, straight, and from a middle-income family.
But I am also the grandson of two holocaust survivors, one who entered this country illegally. My grandmother was a seamtress, and my grandfather was a deliman for decades and worked “under the table” for most of his life. Neither of my parents graduated from college. [Note: My mother was actually pinched for truancy in New York.] My father’s (extended) family was involved in organized crime. For example, my godfather (who is my father’s first cousin and best friend) is serving life in (federal) prison for murder. Despite this, I was fortunate that my parents loved me, cared for me, and pushed me “to do better.” Without them, I am not who I am today. I was and am privileged, but I am very much a product of the two generations that preceded me.
And I understand that my status is not visible, like in the case of “discrete and insular minorities.” But I do not think the world is “out for blood.” Instances of institutional prejudice are few and far between. That said, there are bigots, and there will always be bigots.
@pandora:
I do not need to prove the statement. The prosecution has the burden of proof.
Maybe you are not familiar with the Anglo-American system. Zimmerman is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Only Jeantel testified about this issue, and she said that Martin would have told her if he was going to confront Zimmerman. This is very weak evidence; in fact, Jeantel is speculating. In contrast, Zimmerman always claimed that Martin approached him. Unless I give zero credibility to Zimmerman’s claim, the evidence suggests that Martin approached Zimmerman first.
Also, even if Zimmerman approached Martin first, Zimmerman’s self-defense claim could still succeed. Zimmerman approaching Martin first could even bolster Zimmerman’s claim: “Zimmerman approaches Martin. Martin feels threatened and attacks because he believes that he is in danger. Martin subdues Zimmerman. Zimmerman fires because he believes that he is now in danger.” That narrative still allows Zimmerman to claim self-defense. Ultimately, the prosecution needed to prove that Zimmerman struck Martin first, and Martin did not take the fight to another level (using a weapon) without a reasonable belief that doing so was necessary:
(1) There was no evidence about who started the right.
(2) The evidence was mixed on whether Martin used the ground as a deadly weapon, as Zimmerman contended. [The definition of a deadly weapon in most states is EXTREMELY broad.] This largely depended on how many times Martin banged Zimmerman’s head into the pavement: 0? 1? 2? etc.
Finally, police would not give you a say in how you are treated if you are interfering. You would get one warning. That is a promise.
Interesting article about the duty to retreat outside the U.S.:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/07/is_stand_your_ground_unique_to_the_united_states.html
Blog post tallying up the States that still impose a duty to retreat:
http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/17/duty-to-retreat/
Isnt killing the kid “taking the fight to another level”? You cam so close to saying that you thought Martin was right to defend himself. Zimmerman is not a cop, therefor Martin had no responsibility to “respect his authority” or whatever the bigots think he should have done.
For me, it comes down to this. A 911 operator… who has more authority than a self-appointed Jr Mr sheriff, told Zimmerman to stay in the car and not to engage. He made some racist comments and disregarded the directive. (this is all easily available to hear for yourself) Because of that, he killed someone. No crime would have been committed if he did what he was told. I don’t need anymore story than that. Maybe Trayvon was aware enough to see Zimmerman had a gun… I would have kept fighting until he stopped moving. You know, left defense and all. But we’ll never know. His victim is dead because the only “order” that should have been followed wasnt. I hope he rots in hell.
socialistic ben “For me, it comes down to this. A 911 operator… who has more authority than a self-appointed Jr Mr sheriff, told Zimmerman to stay in the car and not to engage. He made some racist comments and disregarded the directive. (this is all easily available to hear for yourself) Because of that, he killed someone. No crime would have been committed if he did what he was told. I don’t need anymore story than that. Maybe Trayvon was aware enough to see Zimmerman had a gun… I would have kept fighting until he stopped moving. You know, left defense and all. But we’ll never know. His victim is dead because the only “order” that should have been followed wasnt.”
Try listening to the actual 911 call for christ’s sake.
Zimmerman was never told to stay in his vehicle, the 911 operators only directive was “we don’t need you to do that” when Zimmerman answered the 911 operators question if he was following Martin. You don’ even know if the 911 operator was a member of law enforcement or a civilian 911 operator.
Zimmerman never made any racist comments originally media claimed Zimmerman said “fucking coons” it was then reported that was incorrect he said “fucking cold” FBI evidence of the audio states what was said was unintelligible.
MAYBE it really happened just as Zimmerman said while being beat by Martin, Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun and made a grab for it. Damn straight it was now a fight for someones life. Evidence from the autopsy proves Martin was standing over Zimmerman less then 2 feet away (that’s within arms reach) when he was shot.
Funny how everyone is so quick to take the killer’s story as truth when clearly he lied about a whole lot. And the kid he killed can’t say anything because he is six feet under. Did the killer get his ass kicked? Maybe, but that’s what potentially could happen if you follow someone for NO reason and the person feels threatened. Instead of shooting Trayvon in the leg or arm or some other non-lethal part of the body, the killer shot him in the heart, point blank. The “fear for his life” argument is not even plausible. The killer only had abrasions which were NOT indicative of his head being smashed into the concrete. If Trayvon had actually bashed his head in the ground the way the killer claimed, his injuries would have been significantly worse.
You want to work with facts, work with this: the killer, a grown man, racially profiled Trayvon, a child, and followed him because he was tired of the “fucking punks getting away with it”. Instead of staying in the car and waiting for the REAL police, he got out of his vehicle, armed with a gun, which did not have the safety engaged and a bullet in the chamber and went looking for this so-called punk. This kid, based on testimony from someone who was on the phone with him real-time, asked the killer why he was following him. What happens next is up for debate because none of us where there and the killer is not credible (as shown by the facts and in my opinion). What we do know is, a kid who was walking home with skittles and can of arizona ice tea, as he and everyone in the country has a right to do, is now DEAD FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON but the uninitiated behavior of the killer. And now the killer is free to resume the same behavior with the same gun.
Yep, that’s the good old American justice system.
What crime would have happened if Zimmerman didnt try to play cops?
When you can answer that, I’ll believe Zimmerman had a reason to engage, therefore start a fight while hiding a gun, therefor scaring a kid into fighting for his life…. you know the rest. Since you CANT answer that, no pro-piggie argument has any validity.
Unfortunately, Fla law allowed adults to START FIGHTS WITH KIDS, then kill them if they don’t take the beating. That is why Zimmerman is free. he lives in the worst state in the country.
“the killer, a grown man, racially profiled Trayvon”
You know this how?
“is now DEAD FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON but the uninitiated behavior of the killer”
Well, no reason other than the fact that he committed assault and battery FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON.
“he committed assault and battery FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON.”
Being stalked is not “absolutely no reason.” In some states, for example New Jersey, being followed is considered a legitimate reason for throwing the first punch.
nc try posting real facts.
Zimmerman was diagnosed with a “closed fracture” of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury according to medical records entered as evidence during the trial.
The autopsy showed Martin was shot in the lung, the bullet traveled through the lung and lodged in the heart. The autopsy also revealed that Martin was standing over Zimmerman when he was shot. The autopsy report states the shot was at “intermediate range” (1″- 18″ in distance) NOT point blank range as you claim.
Zimmerman from the onset claimed he shot Martin at close range, in self-defense against physical attacks from the teen. Now the autopsy is suggesting the shot was indeed made at close range, and given the asymmetry of injuries suffered by Martin vs Zimmerman, this further backs up Zimmerman’s blow by blow account of the incident.
Zimmerman’s gun a Kel-Tec PF9 has an automatic hammer block safety there is no manual safety so you’re full of shit saying the safety was off.
http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/
As for a round in chamber of course there was, no one carries concealed without a round in the chamber. Zimmerman was licensed to carry a concealed weapon he was not breaking any laws the night of the tragedy.
Martin’s home was over 250 miles away in Miami, he didn’t live in Sanford, he was only there because he had been thrown out of Michael Krop HS for the third time in a year. He was visiting his fathers fiancee’.
There was no racial profiling another media created untruth. Zimmerman never mentioned Martins ethnicity he answered the dispatchers question about Martins race. So what he said “fucking punks” anyone who says they haven’t ever said the same or similar phrase is full of shit. Martin said some “creepy cracka” was following him apparently that’s not a racist comment in your mind.
There was no racial profiling? Close fracture of the nose and black eyes? Really? WHERE???
Even still, the killer, this grown man, still has his life.
Try to make this Trayvon’s fault all you want. IT WAS NOT. Fact still remains, had the killer remained in the car as instructed and not played rent a cop, none of this would have happened. None of it. Believe the killer’s story all you want and construe the so-called evidence of his deathly injuries all you want. At the end of the day it’s all BS.
NC, fortunately for all of us our criminal justice system is based on facts, and not emotion.
You have plenty of emotion but seem to be unwilling to consider the facts of the case.
@xyz: Surely this is an emotional situation, and everyone is free to express their emotions. However, based on the facts, as I saw when I watched this case, fully,
the killer should have been convicted of manslaughter. I think he was overcharged and the prosecution should have just gone for the manslaughter charge.
I actually thought that the jurors were going to succumb to emotion and convict on the manslaughter charge. Not sure the facts even support manslaughter.
Do you think if Trayvon had not thrown a punch he would still be alive today?
Are you saying that a child being followed by a stranger twice their size should just comply? Have you passed that wisdom to your children?
I believe that had the killer remained in the car as instructed, we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now. And let me repeat, I do NOT believe the killer’s recounting of the how things went down in any way. The only other person who can speak to the actual events is dead thanks to him.
The manslaughter conviction would not be based on emotion. If you listen to B37 (and her infinite wisdom to give these interviews right after the verdict) she uses language like “George” (like she knew him personally) “went to far”. This is language consistent with a finding for manslaughter. But for some reason, the law was not followed there…
@socialistic: that’s a question I have been wrestling with as well. It’s scary to know that people are actually giving credence to this train of thought and could potentially be teaching their kids the same.
NC – You did not answer the question I asked. I will repeat it. If Martin had not thrown a punch would he be alive today?
SB – I teach my kids to flee and call the police if they feel they are in physical danger.
Martin did neither. He decided to start a fight instead.
Yeah. Trayvon should have called the police. They served him SO well that night.
@xyz: I answered, you didn’t like my response. How do you know Trayvon started the fight? Because the killer said so? His word means absolutely nothing. Even if he threw a damn punch, he didn’t deserve to die for doing so. He had just as much right to defend himself as the killer. Apparently Trayvon did flee. The killer got out of the car and followed him.
Furthermore there is a difference between throwing a punch and shooting a gun. You don’t bring a gun to fist fight. And if someone dies because you did, in most other states you go straight to jail.
Here we go again… there is ZERO evidence on who threw the first punch. Everyone who claims that Trayvon threw the first punch simply believes Zimmerman, because there is no proof.
But, damn, you Z-guys are so sure you know what happened – which, of course, you do not. How do you know that Zimmerman didn’t swing or grab for Martin? You don’t.
If he threw the first punch, was he defending himself?
The kid was a two-bit punk who had been suspended from school multiple times, caught in possession of stolen jewelry and burglary tools, and bragged about starting fights.
It’s tragic that the kid died but he certainly bears some responsibility in his death. The complete failure of liberals and the black community in general to acknowledge this is mind-boggling.
There was no physical evidence in the autopsy whatsoever that Zimmerman punched Martin at all, so it’s pretty hard to believe he started the fight.
There is clearly evidence that Zimmerman was punched.
If one person was punched and one was not, it seems fairly obvious who threw the first punch.
So your claim that there is zero evidence on who threw the first punch is pretty much bullshit.
But keep spouting idiocy if it makes you feel better.
Yep and there is clear and convincing evidence that zimmerman kiled him.
Again, I don’t believe the killer’s story. No bruising or blood on Trayvon. But all the blood is on the killer.
You want to talk about idiocy, look back at your posts. You believe the words of a proven killer just because, when there is clear evidence that his story makes absolutely no sense.
Typing on this message board doesn’t make me feel one way or another. This situation is what is and there are plenty of people like you posting on social media and websites about how it was Trayvon’s fault the killer killed him. I have the same feeling about them as I do you – you are a sorry individual blaming a kid for the actions precipitated by a grown ass man who had nothing better to do than what he did. But Trayvon is the two-bit punk?? Right, enjoy your enlightened life.
@Pandora: isn’t it funny how much weight a killer’s word is worth to some people? Oh no, the killer has to be telling the truth. There is nothing anyone can say to me to make me believe the events played out as the killer described and the evidence doesn’t support it.
But again, Trayvon was a two-bit punk walking down the street looking for a confrontation with the killer after a stop at the 7-Eleven. If that story makes you feel good, please continue with that.
Well I believed him, and so did the police officers who questioned him, and so did the jury, and that’s about all that really matters.
The case should never even have gone to trial, and wouldn’t have, if professional race baiters like Holder, Jackson, and Sharpton, along with our amateur hour president, hadn’t gotten involved.
They have to believe this coward’s story, NC. It reenforces their world view.
It never occurs to them that Trayvon could have hit Zimmerman after Z swung and missed or made a grab for Trayvon. In their world, Trayvon laid in wait for Zimmerman. Never mind the fact that Trayvon was still on the phone when their paths crossed. And not only didn’t he hang up the phone (and put it away) before “attacking” Zimmerman, but he didn’t put down the Skittles or the tea. Yep, that’s how everyone would go into a fight.
And, xyz, it wasn’t Trayvon who was arrested for assaulting a police officer. That was your boyfriend.
I believe that had the killer remained in the car as instructed…
Do you know what happens when a police officer tells you face-to-face to stay in the car but you get out anyway? Try it sometime and if you survive, let us know how it goes. I guess disobeying an officer over the phone is something less. Or the dispatcher wasn’t a real cop.
It strikes me that cops all have a little George Zimmerman in them – armed, with a license to kill, a willingness to manufacture bogus threats to their safety, an army of irrational defenders, and an inexplicable ability to be believed over their victims.
I cannot even fathom the logic of jumping on top of someone, punching them in the face, and smashing their head against the sidewalk just because he asked me what I was doing in their neighborhood.
I can’t fathom the logic of not holding someone accountable for the murder they committed because he was losing a fight he started. And then lied about it.
Bring on the civil trial.
nc so now you can predict what happens?
Zimmerman was NEVER told to stay in his vehicle the full 911 audio is available to listen to. When asked if he was following Martin Zimmerman said “yeah” the dispatcher said “we don’t need you to do that”. That’s not a DIRECTIVE or LAWFUL ORDER which must be complied to. Medical records of Zimmerman’s injuries were submitted along with photographs as evidence. The only thing that’s bullshit is the peoples choice of emotional beliefs over factual evidence. I don’t need to believe the “killers” story anyone with a lick of fucking common sense can see the non biased EVIDENCE paints a picture of what happened. NO ONE other then George Zimmerman knows whether he was in fear for his life, NO ONE can positively state one way or another how they would have reacted in the same situation, unless they’ve been in that situation. If I carried a gun and someone tried to grab for it during an altercation there’s no way I would let them grab it, even if that meant shooting them, that’s self defense.
socialistic ben you have some great math skills if you are claiming a person who’s 5’7″s weighed 185 pounds at the time of the incident is twice the size of a person who’s 5’11″s and weighed 158 pounds at the time of the incident.
By my math Martin was 4 inches taller, Zimmerman only out weighed Martin by 27 pounds.
That’s a lot of no one knows. And why is that? Oh yeah, George Zimmerman killed the other witness.
pandora not everyone has their biased head firmly planted in their asses. I bet you used to stick your fingers in your ears singing la la la la la when you were a kid if someone said something you didn’t want to hear.
Zimmerman never uttered any racial slurs like ni**er, or coon. Your sweet innocent boy Martin called Zimmerman a “creepy Cracka”. Martin was on his 3 disciplinary suspension from the same Dr. Michael Krop high school my son attended, he was a year ahead of Martin. Martin was a punk wanna be gangsta, who would get into fights at the drop of a pin.
Remind me again which one was arrested for assaulting a police officer? Which one had a restraining order taken out against him? Which one has been accused of sexual abuse? You really wanna go down this path? Because your boyfriend looks like a violent creep. Seriously, how did he even qualify to own a gun?
cassandra_m “I can’t fathom the logic of not holding someone accountable for the murder they committed because he was losing a fight he started. And then lied about it. Bring on the civil trial.”
No evidence or proof was presented that Zimmerman started the fight, that’s your opinion. The evidence proved that Zimmerman didn’t lie. IF Martin tried to grab Zimmerman’s gun as Zimmerman claims that took this altercation to a whole new level. I have no more proof that is what happened, than you have proof it didn’t.
I doubt there will be a civil trial since FL has immunity laws concerning this.Don’t forget that all the evidence the defense has about Martin which was excluded will be admissible like the text messages, his school records, etc.
Don’t forget that all the evidence the defense has about Martin which was excluded will be admissible like the text messages, his school records, etc.
And so will Zimmerman’s… and he’ll have to take the stand. You do realize the reason he didn’t testify in the criminal case had to do with his lying.
IF Martin tried to grab Zimmerman’s gun as Zimmerman claims that took this altercation to a whole new level.
So you admit Zimmerman started the fight, then.
I never admitted or said any such thing. Zimmerman’s gun was concealed, he stated during the altercation that Martin saw his gun (I’m assuming it came into view during the scuffle) and made a grab for it.
What would you do if you had a gun and someone tried to grab it, during an altercation, would you let them?
Use some common sense instead of holding such a bigoted view.
I’d be curious to hear Martin’s version of events, but Zimmerman conveniently closes off that possibility. coincidence?
You are spending alot of energy spinning up a narrative where this child-killer gets to be a hero. You keep talking about him being in an altercation, but he wouldn’t have been in one if he hadn’t gotten out of his car and hunted that kid down to challenge him. He went looking for a fight and ended up killing this kid because he couldn’t manage what he started. That’s the common sense here — not this twisted bullshit that ignores the fact that Zimmerman made bad judgments here on multiple counts:
1. Thinking this kid was suspicious (and for stupid reasons)
2. Not paying attention to the 911 person — I don’t care about your bullshit that this person has no authority. Part of this person’s job is safety — for the responding police and for you. What they can do is limited on the phone, but if a 911 dispatcher is asking you to stand down until the police get there, they are doing that for reasons of everyone’s safety.
3. Leaving his car
4. Approaching this kid with a gun. Especially when he had no reason to.
There’s your common sense. And there isn’t a police officer, parent, you name your authority figure that won’t tell you that the best common sense is to not put yourself in a position where you can get in trouble.
And that “bigoted view” business? You can stand the fuck down on that right now. I’m not having it and if you can’t manage living with that, you can be gone. With some help, if necessary.
pandora you do realize that Zimmerman passed a stress level lie detector test which showed he was completely truthful about the events as they happened the night of the shooting. That information will also be admissible in a civil trial should it ever happen. The text messages between Martin and another party the day of the shooting will show that Martin was in an agitated state of mind that day. Martin had been arguing with the person all day long, the text messages show he was pissed.
Then there is the text message less than 3 months before between Martin and a friend Martin called his friend “soft” his friend responded “Boy don’t get one planted in ya chest.” The text messages Martin had saying he wanted to get a gun “heat” with a responding message do you want a .22 pistol. There’s a picture of him holding a semi automatic gun, pictures of pot plants in cups, text messages about him fighting with his mother, photos of him smoking pot, text messages by him bragging about smoking “kush” all the time. Martin was suspended for striking a teacher at Michael Krop H S which he denied he did. Martin got into a fight and beat a kid because he said the kid snitched on him, when one of his friends said let it go Martin said “no dat fools gonna see me again’. Martin was on a downward spiral which is why his mother sent him to live with his father. There’s a message from his father telling Martin to “be respectful and stop acting like a jackass”
That’s all admissible in a civil trial Martin was far from this angelic little boy you and others are trying to make him out to be.
This trolls argument seems to hang on the wholly specious supposition that Trayvon Martin had it coming. Whatever dangerous thug you imagine him to be I your racist mind, he didn’t deserve to be tried, found guilty and executed by a unhinged doofus with a gun.
Also, I’m done with the tool and this thread. Zimmerman boosters rate just below regular gun nuts in the scheme of things.
cassandra_m you know what you can do with your holier than thou bullshit! Neighborhood watch groups are required to take a course conducted by the police department. In Delaware if the HOA is in an annexed area it’s the municipal police department, if the HOA is in an un-annexed area it’s the state police.
You have no proof Zimmerman went looking for a fight, he had every right to follow a person who was unknown to him, since he was a member of his communities neighborhood watch group. Since there had been a recent number of robberies and break ins he had every right to be suspicious. Police do the same thing all the time, so do neighborhood watch groups. What the fuck do you think neighborhood watch groups are for a tea and crumpet get together. the groups are formed to protect and insure safety in their communities, that they have a vested interest in.
So if someone doesn’t agree with you, your solution is to threaten them that they will be barred from posting in here, sounds like that other forum you bitch about all the time..
You aren’t a victim here — you were the one throwing around accusations of bigotry and not even able to keep your story about who started the fight straight. You were told that accusations of bigotry — especially when you use it because you can’t keep your own argument on track — are not welcome here. But you are certainly free to go to that other place where that shit is nothing but kosher.
Your choice.
Let me see, I can start a fight with someone much smaller than me and when he starts to whoop my ass I can shoot him with no problem.
cassandra_m feel free to quote a post where I said Zimmerman started the fight then changed my story, you can’t. It’s okay for your miscreants to call people racist based on someone having a differing opinion, and that’s welcomed here as long as they agree with you. You and others have repeatedly said that Zimmerman’s actions were based on his racist view of Martin, youand the others refuse to even acknowledge that police evidence proves otherwise. That my friend defines what a bigot is a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
Just a few comments back the gun nut troll was talking up court room testimony as though it was reliable now that testimony rises to the level of police evidence. Funny that.
Anyway, that’s what I’d say if I was still following this thread, which I am not.
Let me see, I can start a fight with someone much smaller than me and when he starts to whoop my ass I can shoot him with no problem.
That seems to be the New Rule.
Untruths Continue’s name really says it all, doesnt it?
“Just a few comments back the gun nut troll was talking up court room testimony as though it was reliable now that testimony rises to the level of police evidence.”
Believe it or not, there is a name for that. It’s a form of cognitive dissonance called “belief disconfirmation paradigm.”
Short definition: when confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs, dissonance is not reduced by changing that belief. Instead they restore consonance through misperception, rejection or refutation of the information.
I knew it was a form of cognitive dissonance, but I did not know it actually had a name.