[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Let me ask it another way... if it was "duty to retreat" then all he has to do is make up a story in which he was unable to retreat. He already says that he had abandoned his fruitless pursuit and was simply walking back to his car when he was jumped from behind unexpectedly. He already says that he was pinned down, head bashed against the ground. He already says that he fired during this wrestling match. To be honest, I don't think his story even has to change at all in order to accommodate "duty to retreat." In what way would a "duty to retreat" require a change in this tale?

Okay... I get your point now, and it's not a bad one.

Where I've been going with this is the only real piece of physical evidence we (the public) have is a 911 tape of someone who does not seem to be of a mind to retreat from a conflict.

If what the prosecution has to do is show someone who ultimately didn't retreat when they could have, the prosecution has the perfect blunt instrument to do that, even if it doesn't depict all the events of the situation.

If OTOH, the prosecution has to show someone wasn't in fear for their life, the 911 tapes are a far less effective tool, precisely because they don't depict all the events of the situation.

To put it another way, in a "duty to retreat" state, the 911 tapes show "a homicidal maniac about to dispense vigilante justice" (sayeth the prosecution). In a "stand your ground" state, the tapes show a "citizen dutifully investigating suspicious behavior" (sayeth the defense). Neither of them can use their argument as effectively in the reverse situation.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

If what the prosecution has to do is show someone who ultimately didn't retreat when they could have, the prosecution has the perfect blunt instrument to do that, even if it doesn't depict all the events of the situation.

Really? When could he have retreated? Only before the first violence started (sayeth the defense), before he even knew he would have had to retreat at all. Does "duty to retreat" include retreating from conversation? The first time someone says "boo" you are bound BY LAW to run away from them, on the chance they might turn violent?

If OTOH, the prosecution has to show someone wasn't in fear for their life, the 911 tapes are a far less effective tool, precisely because they don't depict all the events of the situation.

IMO, the 911 tapes show his state of mind, and that's about it. They don't show whether he had the ability to retreat after the first violence, regardless of who committed it (and they don't show who did it either). His state of mind is the key to either defense, and it was compatible with neither "retreat" nor "stand," it was "attack."

To put it another way, in a "duty to retreat" state, the 911 tapes show "a homicidal maniac about to dispense vigilante justice" (sayeth the prosecution). In a "stand your ground" state, the tapes show a "citizen dutifully investigating suspicious behavior" (sayeth the defense). Neither of them can use their argument as effectively in the reverse situation.

The defense saying so does not hide the fact that the tapes clearly don't show that, IMO. More importantly, citizens shouldn't be afraid of prosecution for (actually) dutifully investigating suspicious behavior. The disconnect in this case was where he wasn't "investigating" he was "hunting," he wasn't gathering information or confirming a suspicion, he just skipped over that part of the process and jumped straight to attack mode. Knowing the difference comes down to whether he turned out to be right or not, whether he had targeted an innocent or guilty, and that was the first thing I said in this thread, back on page one.

[ghporter]

"Not retreat" is significantly different from "pursue," particularly pursuing in a vehicle. Not retreating also doesn't mean ignoring instructions from the 911 dispatch to back off and wait for the police to arrive.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Ditto "stand your ground."

[Uncle Skeleton]

[BLAZE_MkIV]

But he took it off when he went inside.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

But he took it off when he went inside.

Did he wear it in the rain?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Did he wear in on a train?

[Athens]

Its not the hoodie people. Its the candy and the pop. Every one knows that if you have candy and pop you are a criminal.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Really? When could he have retreated? Only before the first violence started (sayeth the defense), before he even knew he would have had to retreat at all. Does "duty to retreat" include retreating from conversation? The first time someone says "boo" you are bound BY LAW to run away from them, on the chance they might turn violent?

I think a good prosecutor could sell a jury on the argument if someone is acting suspicious (which the tapes show beyond a doubt Zimmerman believed was the case), and then that person follows it up with something really suspicious (fleeing), one could consider further contact having a high likelihood of violence.

They would also argue this is why the 911 operator "insisted" Zimmerman not follow, and I presume could get any number of cops to say they would assume said scenario would turn violent were they in the same situation.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

IMO, the 911 tapes show his state of mind, and that's about it. They don't show whether he had the ability to retreat after the first violence, regardless of who committed it (and they don't show who did it either). His state of mind is the key to either defense, and it was compatible with neither "retreat" nor "stand," it was "attack."

The defense saying so does not hide the fact that the tapes clearly don't show that, IMO. More importantly, citizens shouldn't be afraid of prosecution for (actually) dutifully investigating suspicious behavior. The disconnect in this case was where he wasn't "investigating" he was "hunting," he wasn't gathering information or confirming a suspicion, he just skipped over that part of the process and jumped straight to attack mode. Knowing the difference comes down to whether he turned out to be right or not, whether he had targeted an innocent or guilty, and that was the first thing I said in this thread, back on page one.

I'll admit, I haven't listened to the tapes, I've been going on transcripts. Do the tapes absolutely prove that? If seems to me if he was "hunting", he wouldn't have called 911 in the first place. Zimmerman, one would presume, wanted the cops to be involved. From what I've read it wasn't until Martin ran that Zimmerman switched modes.

[Chongo]

This is interesting. NBC news runs edited 911 tape.

NBC to do internal investigation on Zimmerman segment - Erik Wemple - The Washington Post

NBC told this blog today that it would investigate its handling of a piece on the “Today” show that ham-handedly abridged the conversation between George Zimmerman and a dispatcher in the moments before the death of Trayvon Martin. A statement from NBC:

“We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.”
Great news right there. As exposed by Fox News and media watchdog site NewsBusters, the “Today” segment took this approach to a key part of the dispatcher call:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
Here’s how the actual conversation went down:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
The difference between what “Today” put on its air and the actual tape? Complete: In the “Today” version, Zimmerman volunteered that this person “looks black,” a sequence of events that would more readily paint Zimmerman as a racial profiler. In reality’s version, Zimmerman simply answered a question about the race of the person whom he was reporting to the police. Nothing prejudicial at all in responding to such an inquiry.

[OAW]

Screams recorded on a 911 call during the confrontation that ended in Florida teenager Trayvon Martin's death don't seem to be those of neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, two audio experts who analyzed the recordings said Monday.

Zimmerman, 28, has claimed self-defense in shooting Martin on February 26, saying the 17-year-old accosted him after he had called police to report the teenager as a suspicious person walking around his neighborhood.

But audio experts Tom Owen and Ed Primeau, who analyzed the recordings for the Orlando Sentinel using different techniques, said they don't believe it's Zimmerman who can be heard screaming in the background of the 911 calls.

"There's a huge chance that this is not Zimmerman's voice," said Primeau, a longtime audio engineer who is listed as an expert in recorded evidence by the American College of Forensic Examiners International. "As a matter of fact, after 28 years of doing this, I would put my reputation on the line and say this is not George Zimmerman screaming."

Owen, a forensic audio analyst who is also chairman emeritus of the American Board of Recorded Evidence, said he also does not believe the screams come from Zimmerman.

Software frequently used to analyze voices in legal cases shows a 48% likelihood that the voice is Zimmerman's. At least 60% is necessary to feel confident that two samples are from the same source, he said Monday on CNN. That means it's unlikely the screams came from Zimmerman, Owen said.

The experts, both of whom say they have testified in cases involving audio analysis, stressed they cannot say who was screaming. They have no samples of Martin's voice.

Zimmerman has told police that he was screaming for help.

Who screams on 911 call in Trayvon Martin case? - CNN.com

Not surprising in the least. Common sense would tell most people that the person most likely doing the screaming is the one who had a gun pointed at him. Now there is expert analysis to back that up.

OAW

[OAW]

The state of Texas has a similar "Stand Your Ground" law. In 2007 a man named Joe Horn witnessed a neighbor's house being burglarized. The neighbors were not home at the time. He called 911 as a good citizen should. He immediately told the 911 dispatcher he had a shotgun and asked if the dispatcher wanted him to stop them. He was told no in no uncertain terms. "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over." You can clearly glean Mr. Horn's intentions early on in the call when he said the following:

Originally Posted by Joe Horn

But uh hurry up man ... .catch these guys will you. Cause I ain't gonna let em go I'm gonna be honest with you. I'm not gonna let em go ... I'm not gonna let em get away with this sh*t.

In fact, Mr. Horn was warned 14 times NOT to go outside. Eventually he did anyway and shot two burglars in the back as they were leaving his neighbor's house with stolen goods. Killing them both. He then got back on the phone and said ....

Originally Posted by Joe Horn

Get the law over here quick. I've nailed ... one of em's in the front yard over here he's down. The other one's running down the street. I had no choice they came in the front yard with me. I had no choice!

You can listen to the entire call here. I encourage everyone to listen to it in its entirety. It's quite chilling to say the least. Mr. Horn was never arrested and was cleared by a Texas grand jury.

This case did not generate the same level of outrage as the did the killing of Trayvon Martin because he was a typical American teenager who was clearly innocent ... whereas the two men killed by Mr. Horn were illegal immigrants with a long criminal history who were killed while committing a crime. However, it was not without controversy. Critics contend that Mr. Horn essentially got away with premeditated murder because these types of "Stand Your Ground" laws allow for a person to intentionally put themselves into harm's way ... and then turn around and claim that they "had no choice". Now me personally I can't stand a thief. I actually have more respect for a drug dealer than a thief. So there's a part of me that has an initial reaction of "Good riddance!" to something like this. But upon further reflection, I think laws that allow for this type of cowboy behavior are a really bad idea. Because eventually it's not going to be a dirtbag criminal who gets shot. At some point it'll be a kid with a bag of Skittles and an Arizona Iced Tea ... because some guy with a vigilante mentality decides a guy is "suspicious" simply for WWB in the rain with a hoodie on and is thinking "These assholes, they always get away."

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

there's a part of me that has an initial reaction of "Good riddance!" to something like this.

But upon further reflection, I think laws that allow for this type of cowboy behavior are a really bad idea. Because eventually it's not going to be a dirtbag criminal who gets shot. At some point it'll be a kid with a bag of Skittles and an Arizona Iced Tea ... because some guy with a vigilante mentality decides a guy is "suspicious" simply for WWB in the rain with a hoodie on and is thinking "These assholes, they always get away."

Standard slippery slope fallacy. Judge the Zimmerman case on its merits. There's no reason to turn a blind eye to what makes the two cases different, and then use that as an excuse to throw up your hands and claim they are indistinguishable. They're not.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This is interesting. NBC news runs edited 911 tape.

NBC to do internal investigation on Zimmerman segment - Erik Wemple - The Washington Post

........ F*ing Media....

[OAW]

An enhanced version of the surveillance tape video shows what appears to be some sort of injury to the back of Mr. Zimmerman's head. Still doesn't show any sign of a "broken nose" or any signs of blood on his shirt. Not that it matters in the grand scheme of things because there was objective evidence from the neighbor's 911 calls that some sort of physical altercation took place from the very beginning. As I said way back on page 1 ....

Originally Posted by OAW

1. I'm not going to say Mr. Zimmerman is "crazy" or a "nutjob" ... because he exhibits a mentality that is unfortunately all too common. There are lots of people who are quick to make presumptions of criminality on kids like Trayvon Martin. And it would be nonsensical to think "mental illness" is the reason behind all of them. There simply aren't that many "crazy" people in the world.

2. What does make Mr. Zimmerman different, however, is his apparent willingness to act on the presumptions of criminality that he makes. Emboldened, no doubt, by his license to legally carry a firearm on his person.

3. Mr. Zimmerman follows and confronts this kid. Despite the 911 dispatcher instructing him not to and despite the fact that he has no legal authority to stop, detain, or question this kid whatsoever.

4. A verbal dispute escalates into a physical altercation. Considering the fact that Mr. Zimmerman outweighed this kid by 100 lbs I don't think it's a stretch to say that it is unlikely that the kid was the one who took it there. This is also borne out by the girlfriend's testimony who overhead the confrontation over the phone.

5. The kid fights back ... as he should have. Other neighbors who called 911 reported two guys wrestling out back. The kid must have gotten a few good licks in despite their size difference because the cops said Mr. Zimmerman was bloodied when they arrived on the scene. Fearing that he just might get his ass kicked, in an utter and complete display of "bitchassness" ... Mr. Zimmerman doesn't finish the fistfight/wrestling match he started like a man. Win or lose. Instead, he pulls a gun on a kid who he outweighed by 100 lbs! The kid begins to scream help for his life ... but Mr. Zimmerman decides pump some hot lead into the kid's chest nevertheless.

Still plenty of probably cause for a manslaughter charge IMO.

OAW

[Captain Obvious]

Investigations from 3rd parties not involved with law enforcement are meaningless. It doesn't matter if they imply Zimmerman left the scene unscathed or if they show he was beat to near death. (which by the way is not a requirement of FL law. The degree of threat a party posed is not simply gauged by the level of injury the person claiming self defense sustained)
And opinions from "experts" that are not considered valid by the court are just that, opinions. They don't prove shit and aren't relevant to a trial. And both sides get to call their own expert witnesses who will have been shopped around for experts that support what they want the jury to hear.

But for the sake of the people getting off on it here, let me show you how easily it would be pulled apart at trial.

Defense attorney: In your so called expert opinion you claimed the calls for help on the night’s 911 recordings were not of Mr. Zimmerman?

Paid expert: that is correct

Defense attorney: You also stated that using your investigation process there was a 48% chance that the voice on those recordings could have been Mr. Zimmerman.

Paid Expert: yes, that is technically true

Defense attorney: So your investigation yielded a result that states that the voice in those calls were statistically just as likely to be that of Mr. Zimmerman as much as could not have been him

Paid Expert: Yes, that is correct

Defense attorney: so in truth you are saying that there’s a 50/50 chance, given a margin of error, that Mr. Zimmerman was the person on that tape crying for help.

Paid Expert: yes

Defense attorney: Can you claim with any greater certainty that the voice was that of Mr Martin?

Paid expert: no

Defense attorney: Thank you

you people
These stupid reports don't amount to anything other than riling up easily manipulated lemmings for the sake of TV ratings.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

They don't prove shit and aren't relevant to a trial.

These stupid reports don't amount to anything

Maybe you don't care how well the legal system is aligned with any fundamental idea of justice or objective truth, but some of us find it rather interesting. Any analysis done outside of law enforcement can also be repeated inside law enforcement, giving all of us rubberneckers an insight into what toolbox we might expect the prosecution to draw from.

you people

If gawking at a murder investigation makes us "lemmings," then what does it say about you that you're gawking at... us?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This is interesting. NBC news runs edited 911 tape.

NBC to do internal investigation on Zimmerman segment - Erik Wemple - The Washington Post

That is too shocking to be forgiven. Nothing less than an apology from the anchor or president of NBC will be acceptable.

That being said, even if Zimmerman was the one to bring up Martin's race, I don't think that in itself is racist. A caller should always provide a complete description, so even if he did bring it up, it would mean nothing.

I see that the Fox story begins with a claim that the "mainstream media" and Congress are distorting the story, then Hannity runs a bunch of clips, most of which aren't objectionable in any way whatsoever.

1. When a person says "in my opinion, this killing is a hate crime," that's his opinion. Guess what: saying you think this is a hate crime is absolutely no different than Hannity believing it isn't a hate crime (which he clearly does). An opinion is just an opinion.

2. When a congressman put on a hoodie to make a point that wearing a hoodie shouldn't be a death mark, that's just common sense.

3. And the members of the New Black Panthers are neither part of the media or Congress, which Hannity is too stupid to realize.

4. When a talking head says that Jeb Bush's Stand Your Ground law paved the way for this tragedy, he's making a common sense observation. (I don't know whether that person is claiming it contributed to Martin's death, or just let a killer walk away from justice, but I think the later might be true but the former isn't.)

5. Lastly, Al Sharpton makes an excellent point: we shouldn't demonize the dead kid. And he has been demonized, by the police leaking irrelevant facts about him, by right-wing blogs making up lies about him, and so on. And Hannity is contributing to this demonization when he says that Martin fighting with Zimmerman means Zimmerman's story must be true.

I watched Hannity's list of "wrong doers" twice, and other than the Panthers and that lady's silly pink clothing, I can't see anything worth complaining about. I find it revolting that Hannity thinks these trivial things are worthy of complaining about, but a dead kid isn't.

Lastly, Hannity claims that "eye-witness testimony" disproves racial profiling. No it does not. Someone saw them fighting, that's all. It doesn't disprove the allegation that Zimmerman chased after a kid because he was black; we frankly have no idea why Zimmerman thought that kid looked suspicious. He says he looked suspicious but never says why.

But the fact is, black men are accosted and arrested without charge on a regular basis in the United States for no reason other than being black; they are stopped while driving or on foot, in their own neighbourhoods or other people's neighbourhoods, regardless of how they dress or how they behave. It's a national epidemic, and it's reasonable to suggest that Zimmerman might have been concerned about a black stranger because he hasn't given anyone a good reason why he chose to follow this kid around. If you behave like a racist, some people are gonna accuse you of being a racist. The recently released 43 911 calls by Zimmerman which indicate that he calls the cops on strange black kids a lot doesn't help his case.

Hannity is a fncking twit, and always has been, and anyone who looks to him for news analysis is also a fncking twit or elderly and senile.

And asking the Media Research Center or NewBusters for their analysis of media bias is fncking hilarious. These yahoos get hysterical over minor errors by most of the media while completely ignoring deliberate deception by Fox and other right-wing sources. They are the very definition of vicious hypocrites. And by comparing the Martin case to the Brawley case, they have already decided that Zimmerman is innocent. Why is it ok to believe Zimmerman is innocent, but not ok to believe Zimmerman should be arrested?

I'm now very concerned about Zimmerman's father. He says something insidiously racist: he complains about the "hate" coming from Obama, the Black Congress, the NAACP. There is nothing that these people have said that is any different than what thousands of white people have also said about the Zimmerman case. Why does he whine about what black leaders are saying, but not about what white people are also saying?

You know the answer: blacks aren't allow to speak up when they are treated unjustly. Can't let them get all "uppity."

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I don't understand how bringing up fringe websites is going to help at all, or adds anything to the discussion.

People have been using info from these sites in this thread. That's why it's relevant.

You're stereotyping and assuming that anyone that disagrees with you must be from the other side of the political isle than you.

No, I haven't done that at all. There isn't a single example in this thread where I do anything like that.

Several conservatives on here are vehemently advocating Zimmerman's arrest.

Yes, I was very pleased to see that.

The irony of that is you spread the very hate and prejudice you're claiming to decry, just with a different set of stereotypes.

Who am I spreading hate against?

Originally Posted by Athens 

He does that very often. Makes him look like a racist unintentionally.

Against who?

I love the absurdity that by complaining about racism, I am advocating racism.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You can listen to the entire call here. I encourage everyone to listen to it in its entirety. It's quite chilling to say the least. Mr. Horn was never arrested and was cleared by a Texas grand jury.

No, I don't think my shrivelled respect for humanity can take anymore.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Who screams on 911 call in Trayvon Martin case? - CNN.com

Not surprising in the least. Common sense would tell most people that the person most likely doing the screaming is the one who had a gun pointed at him. Now there is expert analysis to back that up.

That's a very... interesting... take given the facts:
"There's a huge chance that this is not Zimmerman's voice," said Primeau, a longtime audio engineer who is listed as an expert in recorded evidence by the American College of Forensic Examiners International. "After 28 years of doing this, I would put my reputation on the line and say this is not George Zimmerman screaming."

He cited software that is widely used in Europe and has become recently accepted in the United States that examines characteristics like pitch and the space between spoken words to analyze voices. Using it, he found a 48% likelihood the voice is Zimmerman's. At least 60% is necessary to feel confident two samples are from the same source, he told CNN on Monday -- meaning it's unlikely it was Zimmerman who can be heard yelling.

So we're at a 48/52 (keep in mind that 52 is anyone but Zimmerman, not Martin specifically) chance the screams are from Zimmerman.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Maybe you don't care how well the legal system is aligned with any fundamental idea of justice or objective truth, but some of us find it rather interesting. Any analysis done outside of law enforcement can also be repeated inside law enforcement, giving all of us rubberneckers an insight into what toolbox we might expect the prosecution to draw from.


If gawking at a murder investigation makes us "lemmings," then what does it say about you that you're gawking at... us?

You have to remember that the good Captain is a lawyer, and is much smarter than the rest of us combined, as he often likes to remind us.

[Athens]

Claims to be a lawyer. Just like I claim to be a Astronaut for CanASA, a secret division of my government that put a Canadian on the moon before the Americans.

This is me up on the Moon... Athens on the moon - YouTube

As for the sound of the voice screaming , im using my own judgement on that one. It sounds like a black guy. Additional to that I've listen to the 911 tapes of ZImmerman and the scream and I am pretty sure its not Zimmerman.

That media issue though at how the words where cut annoys me to no end. Because my first exposure from the story from from that altered recording and before I even new of any additional facts I had a opinion formed early on that Zimmerman was a racist just because of how it sounded in that edited tape. While I still think he is guilty of Murder from all the other evidence my opinion of him being a racist is some what changed. I still think he profiled the person based on perhaps clothing appearance, the gangsta trouble look. Had the teen been in a suite and tie he probably would have ignored him. If the dude was white in the same spot, in the same cloth I bet the same thing would have happened.

[hyteckit]

It's 48% match, not 48% chance.

That's like saying your mom and a mouse has a 98% match in DNA, thus your mom has a 98% chance of being a mouse.

Defense attorney: In your so called expert opinion you claimed the calls for help on the night’s 911 recordings were not of Mr. Zimmerman?

Paid expert: that is correct

Defense attorney: You also stated that using your investigation process there was a 48% chance that the voice on those recordings could have been Mr. Zimmerman.

Paid Expert: No. It's 48% match. Not 48% chance. Your mom and a mouse has a 98% match in DNA, doesn't mean your mom has a 98% chance of being a mouse.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

That's like saying your mom and a mouse has a 98% match in DNA, thus your mom has a 98% chance of being a mouse.

That is fncking hilarious!

[The Final Dakar]

I'm really surprised at the depths some people are going to here in what seems to be to avoid admitting there's a chance this guy murdered an innocent teen. I just can't believe the spinning is politically or racially motivated, but I also can't imagine what other reasons there are to stick up for this guy.

Knee jerk reaction to the race card being pulled early on? Knee jerk defense of arms when it really doesn't apply? What is it you guys are seeing about the situation that I'm not, because I clearly am missing something.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

It's 48% match, not 48% chance.

The article said "48% likelihood." That sounds more like "chance" than "match" to me.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The article said "48% likelihood." That sounds more like "chance" than "match" to me.

Screams on 911 call not George Zimmerman, forensic voice experts say - Crimesider - CBS News

Audio Experts Say Voice Crying For Help Isn't George Zimmerman - Yahoo! News

The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think a good prosecutor could sell a jury on the argument if someone is acting suspicious (which the tapes show beyond a doubt Zimmerman believed was the case), and then that person follows it up with something really suspicious (fleeing), one could consider further contact having a high likelihood of violence.

They would also argue this is why the 911 operator "insisted" Zimmerman not follow, and I presume could get any number of cops to say they would assume said scenario would turn violent were they in the same situation.

The existing cover story is consistent with Zimmerman immediately turning around and retreating as soon as he learned that his counterpart was fleeing (because when Zimmerman tried approaching, he didn't find the person), and during this "retreat" was when the violence was initiated against him, preventing his continued retreat.

I'll admit, I haven't listened to the tapes, I've been going on transcripts.

Same here

Do the tapes absolutely prove that?

I already linked to a legal journal, talking about Florida law specifically, which implies that self-defense puts the burden of proof on the defense not the prosecution. IMO they don't "absolutely prove" that he's a liar when he claims he did not plan and initiate the conflict, but they make me think it's absolutely more likely than not (that he's lying), and that is enough to derail his affirmative defense, absent other evidence supporting his story.

If seems to me if he was "hunting", he wouldn't have called 911 in the first place. Zimmerman, one would presume, wanted the cops to be involved. From what I've read it wasn't until Martin ran that Zimmerman switched modes.

Why wouldn't he call 911 if he thought he was right and the police would back him up?

[mduell]

Which way did the racism and aggression go?
According to a source with knowledge of the investigation in to the Trayvor Martin shooting, three witnesses have now been identified that all confirm that Martin was on top on Zimmerman before he was shot. Details are sketchy, but some of the witnesses confirm hearing Zimmerman yelling for help and one witness states that Martin could be heard yelling at Zimmerman, calling him a “honkey” and saying “You’re going to die” or some words to that effect. None of the witness can testify about whether Martin tried to grab Zimmerman’s gun, and none specifically saw the shot.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Which way did the racism and aggression go?
According to a source with knowledge of the investigation in to the Trayvor Martin shooting, three witnesses have now been identified that all confirm that Martin was on top on Zimmerman before he was shot. Details are sketchy, but some of the witnesses confirm hearing Zimmerman yelling for help and one witness states that Martin could be heard yelling at Zimmerman, calling him a “honkey” and saying “You’re going to die” or some words to that effect. None of the witness can testify about whether Martin tried to grab Zimmerman’s gun, and none specifically saw the shot.

What a bias article written by someone who doesn't even know the facts about the case. Did you write this crap?

From that stupid blog:

Persons familiar with the development state that if Martin had been to the 711 he wouldn’t have been in the area where he was confronted. As Martin had a history of being in possession of drugs and burglary tools there is the possibility that he could have been in the area for something other than candy and an ice tea. As I said before non of those items were in his possession when police searched his body.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Which way did the racism and aggression go?
According to a source with knowledge of the investigation in to the Trayvor Martin shooting, three witnesses have now been identified that all confirm that Martin was on top on Zimmerman before he was shot. Details are sketchy, but some of the witnesses confirm hearing Zimmerman yelling for help and one witness states that Martin could be heard yelling at Zimmerman, calling him a “honkey” and saying “You’re going to die” or some words to that effect. None of the witness can testify about whether Martin tried to grab Zimmerman’s gun, and none specifically saw the shot.

What did I say about disreputable right-wing sites?

[ghporter]

Who says "honkey" anymore? Does anyone under 30 still know that word?

[subego]

It is forever burned in my brain from Richard Pryor on SNL.

"Honky."
"Honky. Honky."
"Dead honky."

[subego]

Not that that doesn't support your point.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm really surprised at the depths some people are going to here in what seems to be to avoid admitting there's a chance this guy murdered an innocent teen. I just can't believe the spinning is politically or racially motivated, but I also can't imagine what other reasons there are to stick up for this guy.

Knee jerk reaction to the race card being pulled early on? Knee jerk defense of arms when it really doesn't apply? What is it you guys are seeing about the situation that I'm not, because I clearly am missing something.

I'm having problems with this situation as well. Zimmerman initiated this whole scenario by getting out of his car, and playing cop, when he was clearly asked not to do so! He is a murderer! He knew the police were on the way, yet he chose to interfere with their operations! This has nothing to do with Stand Your Ground! Zimmerman is a murderer!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What a bias article written by someone who doesn't even know the facts about the case. Did you write this crap?

From that stupid blog:

Persons familiar with the development state that if Martin had been to the 711 he wouldn’t have been in the area where he was confronted. As Martin had a history of being in possession of drugs and burglary tools there is the possibility that he could have been in the area for something other than candy and an ice tea. As I said before non of those items were in his possession when police searched his body.

'Cmon! It was from "a source with knowledge of the investigation" and reported by MacRanger! You can't get closer to the truth than that!

[The Final Dakar]

So a redacted leak of the police report came out, strengthening Zimmerman's claims. Then there was a story about how his father, a retired judge might have, uh, influenced the process. Two steps forward, one step back. Story is a mess.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Who says "honkey" anymore? Does anyone under 30 still know that word?

This is upsetting how racist the filters are at MacNN. The N word gets automatically changed to *** but honkey is allowed. As a white man this upsets me that my skin color isn't treated with the same respect with filtering derogatory words.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I'm having problems with this situation as well. Zimmerman initiated this whole scenario by getting out of his car, and playing cop, when he was clearly asked not to do so! He is a murderer! He knew the police were on the way, yet he chose to interfere with their operations! This has nothing to do with Stand Your Ground! Zimmerman is a murderer!

Dont forget he said in the 911 calls these bastards always get away or something like that. (Of course no idea if any NEWS editing changed the context of this statement either)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Athens 

This is upsetting how racist the filters are at MacNN. The N word gets automatically changed to *** but honkey is allowed. As a white man this upsets me that my skin color isn't treated with the same respect with filtering derogatory words.

You poor, poor persecuted thing!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So a redacted leak of the police report came out, strengthening Zimmerman's claims. Then there was a story about how his father, a retired judge might have, uh, influenced the process. Two steps forward, one step back. Story is a mess.

Oh it's a mess alright. The "story" coming out of the Zimmerman camp seems to change depending on who's doing the talking.

Trayvon Martin case: George Zimmerman's evolving narrative

OAW

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Athens 

This is upsetting how racist the filters are at MacNN. The N word gets automatically changed to *** but honkey is allowed. As a white man this upsets me that my skin color isn't treated with the same respect with filtering derogatory words.

Please tell me you're kidding.

[stupendousman]

Here's all I really need to know.

1. I don't believe he had any evidence of a crime.
2. He wasn't a law enforcement officer.
3. He was told not to follow Martin by someone in law enforcement.
4. He went after him.
5. After being pursued, Martin was giving him a beat down, but did not use a weapon.
6. He killed Martin with his gun.

Zimmerman took action despite being told by law enforcement not to. He acted not in self DEFENSE, he acted in OFFENSE not on his own personal property.

At best, this is manslaughter. I don't think that "race" or any gun laws have anything to do with this. Similar circumstances could have happened with a knife and a white teen similarly dressed would likely have garnered the same attention.

What more is there to say really? How does ZImmerman's lawyers explain away that it was Martin who was being pursued and harassed despite there being no criminal activity on his part? Zimmerman put himself in a situation where there was going to be a conflict, then acted with lethal force when that conflict didn't go his way. That is NOT self defense and it matters not a wit what Martin's race was, especially since Zimmerman too was a racial minority.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Here's all I really need to know.

1. I don't believe he had any evidence of a crime.
2. He wasn't a law enforcement officer.
3. He was told not to follow Martin by someone in law enforcement.
4. He went after him.
5. After being pursued, Martin was giving him a beat down, but did not use a weapon.
6. He killed Martin with his gun.

Zimmerman took action despite being told by law enforcement not to. He acted not in self DEFENSE, he acted in OFFENSE not on his own personal property.

At best, this is manslaughter. I don't think that "race" or any gun laws have anything to do with this. Similar circumstances could have happened with a knife and a white teen similarly dressed would likely have garnered the same attention.

What more is there to say really? How does ZImmerman's lawyers explain away that it was Martin who was being pursued and harassed despite there being no criminal activity on his part? Zimmerman put himself in a situation where there was going to be a conflict, then acted with lethal force when that conflict didn't go his way. That is NOT self defense and it matters not a wit what Martin's race was, especially since Zimmerman too was a racial minority.

Excellent post. I agree 100%. People trying to spin this to Race and Gun Control issues are just muddying the waters.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Here's all I really need to know.

1. I don't believe he had any evidence of a crime.
2. He wasn't a law enforcement officer.
3. He was told not to follow Martin by someone in law enforcement.
4. He went after him.
5. After being pursued, Martin was giving him a beat down, but did not use a weapon.
6. He killed Martin with his gun.

Zimmerman took action despite being told by law enforcement not to. He acted not in self DEFENSE, he acted in OFFENSE not on his own personal property.

At best, this is manslaughter. I don't think that "race" or any gun laws have anything to do with this. Similar circumstances could have happened with a knife and a white teen similarly dressed would likely have garnered the same attention.

What more is there to say really? How does ZImmerman's lawyers explain away that it was Martin who was being pursued and harassed despite there being no criminal activity on his part? Zimmerman put himself in a situation where there was going to be a conflict, then acted with lethal force when that conflict didn't go his way. That is NOT self defense and it matters not a wit what Martin's race was, especially since Zimmerman too was a racial minority.

OMG; I actually agree with you on something!

I'm amazed at all the blathering and armchair quarterbacking going on, and on, and on, and on, about this issue! I'm even more amazed that Zimmerman hasn't been charged with murder yet!

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Here's all I really need to know.

1. I don't believe he had any evidence of a crime.
2. He wasn't a law enforcement officer.
3. He was told not to follow Martin by someone in law enforcement.
4. He went after him.
5. After being pursued, Martin was giving him a beat down, but did not use a weapon.
6. He killed Martin with his gun.

Zimmerman took action despite being told by law enforcement not to. He acted not in self DEFENSE, he acted in OFFENSE not on his own personal property.

At best, this is manslaughter. I don't think that "race" or any gun laws have anything to do with this. Similar circumstances could have happened with a knife and a white teen similarly dressed would likely have garnered the same attention.

What more is there to say really? How does ZImmerman's lawyers explain away that it was Martin who was being pursued and harassed despite there being no criminal activity on his part? Zimmerman put himself in a situation where there was going to be a conflict, then acted with lethal force when that conflict didn't go his way. That is NOT self defense and it matters not a wit what Martin's race was, especially since Zimmerman too was a racial minority.

I couldn't have said it more concisely. Agree 100%

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

3. He was told not to follow Martin by someone in law enforcement.

It's a small point, but this is untrue. Dispatchers are civilians.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's a small point, but this is untrue. Dispatchers are civilians.

Depends on jurisdiction, perhaps. The dispatchers at our Sheriff's dept are actual deputies. They typically aren't armed, and I think they're there because they now have physical limitations (one lost his leg in Afghanistan as a member of the Guard) but they do have the authority to serve as peace officers.