[turtle777]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Once Zimmerman got out of his car nothing he does can be considered self defence.

Oh shuddup. That's too much common sense.

Especially after the police told him to stay put.

-t

[lpkmckenna]

Someone mentioned there was a witness that says Martin was on top of Zimmerman and attacking him.

Apparently, there is also a witness that says Zimmerman was on top of Martin after shooting him, pushing down on the dead kid's back.

Witness: Zimmerman Straddled Trayvon - ...with hands pressed on his back: neighbors

So if both witnesses are accurate:
1: Martin was on top of Zimmerman, attacking him
2. Zimmerman shot Martin
3. Martin falls dead onto his front
4. Zimmerman get up, straddles Martin, and pushes on his back

If you just shot someone, why would you straddle them afterwards? I suppose he might have been checking vitals or something.

And more importantly: why didn't we hear about this before now? Why did the cops release witness info that Martin was seen on top of Zimmerman, but not that Zimmerman was seen on top of Martin?

And is it possible that one of the two witnesses is incorrect?

BTW, I just watched a video of Zimmerman's attorney on ABC. He says Zimmerman didn't say "coon," he said "goon." So we have his own lawyer saying Zimmerman called Martin a goon, even though Martin wasn't involved in any crime. Sounds like Zimmerman either a) already had his mind made up that Martin was a criminal or b) was a racist. Neither option is good for Zimmerman.

[Athens]

Zimmerman is going to be a dead man, Give it a few more weeks some one will pop him.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Zimmerman is going to be a dead man, Give it a few more weeks some one will pop him.

An eye for an eye? I thought our outrage was the alleged vigilantism. Now you're advocating more?


The more I learn about this the more skeptical I become that Zimmerman was in the wrong.

Should he have followed Martin? Absolutely not - But if Martin attacked him as (according to the police) the evidence suggests, then it certainly wasn't murder and Martin can blame only himself for turning violent. Tragic indeed, and further investigation is necessary, but I think its time everyone put their pitchforks away and try to figure out if Zimmerman was attacked and overpowered.

Its funny how the media can twist things to get everyone in a hussy for a big pay day. Don't forget that as you carry on with outrage.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

It looks like the police are demonizing the victim to cover their own asses. The fact that he was a typical troublemaking teenager is irrelevant.

It speaks to the credibility of the narratives.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I find it incredible the typical reaction of Zimmerman defenders is "self-defence." Isn't it possible that Martin was acting in self-defence too? He was being stalked by a big man with a gun!

I've seen nothing to indicate that anyone knew Zimmerman had a gun until the moments before he shot Martin.
As a "troublemaking teenager" (your words), would you charge a large man with a gun? How about a fat guy playing neighborhood watch?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Here's what I think happened: Zimmerman chased Martin, Zimmerman grabbed Martin

And that's where your narrative goes off the rails without supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I'd like to ask the Zimmerman defenders a simple question: who is more likely to be the aggressor: a skinny kid who smokes pot and sprays graffiti, or a gun-carrying hall monitor who once attacked a police officer and once had a restraining order against him for alleged domestic violence?

If we're gonna demonize the victim, we should demonize the shooter too.

A teenage football player with a recent (within 6 months) history of assault/fighting or an overweight 30 year old with whose last fight 6 years ago ended poorly?

Zimmerman should not have followed Martin. Zimmerman should not have exited his car. Zimmerman should not have confronted Martin. Zimmerman should not have shot Martin.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

OMG. This kid smokes pot and writes graffiti.

That makes him violent and deserves to be killed.

He is black and has a hoodie. Another reason to be killed.

Please stop creating straw men, they just distract from the conversation.

What's with the hoodie fixation? Clothing is a pretty standard way to describe someone you see on the street.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Especially after the police told him to stay put.

The 911 dispatcher was a police officer? Or a civilian who went to a week training course?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

BTW, I just watched a video of Zimmerman's attorney on ABC. He says Zimmerman didn't say "coon," he said "goon." So we have his own lawyer saying Zimmerman called Martin a goon, even though Martin wasn't involved in any crime. Sounds like Zimmerman either a) already had his mind made up that Martin was a criminal or b) was a racist. Neither option is good for Zimmerman.

Given Zimmerman's repeated reports of robberies in the neighborhood, I'm going to guess (a).

[Athens]

Predicting is not advocating....

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Predicting is not advocating....

I sure hope not - this is a time that we should be coming together for common justice, not more vigilante justice.

[mduell]

Anyone know what the crime is like in Sanford and vicinity? I don't know the regions of Florida that well but I'm wondering if they have much Latin gang activity related to the drug/human smuggling trade.

[lpkmckenna]

The author of the Stand Your Ground law says it doesn't appear to apply in the Zimmerman case.

Op-Ed: Why I Wrote 'Stand Your Ground' Law : NPR

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Should he have followed Martin? Absolutely not - But if Martin attacked him as (according to the police) the evidence suggests, then it certainly wasn't murder and Martin can blame only himself for turning violent. Tragic indeed, and further investigation is necessary, but I think its time everyone put their pitchforks away and try to figure out if Zimmerman was attacked and overpowered.

Its funny how the media can twist things to get everyone in a hussy for a big pay day. Don't forget that as you carry on with outrage.

Does a police officer have the right to shoot a person dead if the person attack the officer?

Like resisting arrest and using violence against an officer?

[Athens]

Here every officer related death is investigated and some times but not often a officer gets charged with Murder.

[lpkmckenna]

Someone at Reddit stole this quote from Fark, and now I'm stealing it.

George Zimmerman initially called the police and reported that he spotted a suspicious person (Trayvon Martin) at 1111 Retreat View Circle (point A on the map), where he reported that Trayvon Martin started running and that he was following.
The police were eventually called to 2381 Retreat View Circle (point B on the map). The body was found at the point between 1210 Twin Trees and 2381 Retreat View Circle (labeled C with green circle) on map.
So, Zimmerman practically chased Martin across the entire development prior to the encounter. The area that Zimmerman claimed that he was ambushed at when he was walking back to his car was essentially a flat townhouse yard with no features except a few trees and with no real places to hide a person who is 6'2" (see area C).
Also, George Zimmerman claimed that he stepped out of the truck to check the street name and he was attacked from behind when walking back to the truck. That doesn't explain why Zimmerman was in the area between Twin Trees and Retreat View Circle (area C) where they don't typically put street signs. He walked a long way to nowhere to check a street sign where no street signs existed.
Also, the man lived in the community, claimed to be neighborhood watch and ran patrols, but didn't know the name of the street in the development community? Especially as, seeing on the map, it looks like there were only three or four streets in the entire community itself?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Should he have followed Martin? Absolutely not - But if Martin attacked him as (according to the police) the evidence suggests, then it certainly wasn't murder and Martin can blame only himself for turning violent.

Doesn't the Stand Your Ground Law also apply to Martin? Certainly, he had reason to feel threatened.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Someone at Reddit stole this quote from Fark, and now I'm stealing it.

Of course Zimmerman knows the neighborhood. He has made a dozen calls to 911 complaining about parties in the clubhouse and people in the pool since 2009. Point A is where the clubhouse and pool is.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by mduell 

A teenage football player with a recent (within 6 months) history of assault/fighting or an overweight 30 year old with whose last fight 6 years ago ended poorly?

Wow, a 150 lbs "football player." Terrifying.

And what's this "history of assault/fighting" nonsense? Are you talking about the bus driver assault that was invented by a rightwing blog that has since been debunked?

In fact, the rightwing blogosphere has been passing around a whole bunch complete bullshit about Martin: a fake photo of him looking angry and flipping the bird (from the evil Michelle Malkin's website), the false story of him attacking a bus driver (from the conservative blog The Examiner), the false story that Martin was a drug dealer (from Dan Riehl's blog), and I'm sure there are many, many other lies that never went anywhere. Why is the conservative blogosphere flooded with lies about a non-political event?

I'd like to point out something else about the character assassination of Martin: the cops started it. That's right, the info about Martin being thrown out of school was leaked from the cops. Why? To deflect criticism from themselves, of course.

[hyteckit]

So Zimmerman claimed that the kid broke his nose and slammed his head to the ground leaving a gash in his head.

So where are the police photos of Zimmerman? Zimmerman was not required to take any drug test. No photo of Zimmerman's injuries? Police said Zimmerman didn't needed medical attention and was released after given testimony.

Let me get this straight. Zimmerman has a broken nose and a gash on his head. The police says Zimmerman doesn't need medical attention. Zimmerman doesn't seek medical treatment that night.

[hyteckit]

This does not look like an obese 250lb guy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The author of the Stand Your Ground law says it doesn't appear to apply in the Zimmerman case.

Op-Ed: Why I Wrote 'Stand Your Ground' Law : NPR

Because it doesn't. There's a difference between standing your ground and stalking passers-by with a weapon.

My .02; Zimmerman should be arrested and held for this thing to go to trial. A kid is dead and Zimmerman sought and eventually shot the kid. He's got a felony assault on an officer in '02, two domestic assault charges, and has called at least 15 other such reports into the police. He's a nuisance, a thug, a stalker, and now his stupidity has reached tragic proportions. He stopped "Standing his ground" when he followed Trayvon against the specific instructions of police dispatch, I don't care how little he trusted the police to catch the presupposed "asshole". I can't stomach the notion that we'll read about this thug committing more acts of violence within the next two years.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I'd like to point out something else about the character assassination of Martin: the cops started it. That's right, the info about Martin being thrown out of school was leaked from the cops. Why? To deflect criticism from themselves, of course.

Look, I agreed with much of what you've said, but there's no reason to perpetuate lies in the other direction. He was suspended from school for possession of a baggie containing marijuana remnants. As "leaked" by his own mother.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He stopped "Standing his ground" when he followed Trayvon against the specific instructions of police dispatch

I'm not sure this is the best moment to choose. From a legal standpoint, the instructions of the police dispatcher in this context were more like "suggestions".

[Chongo]

What happens if the grand jury does not return an indictment?

[Paco500]

I am shocked and rather appalled that this has turned into a right/left issue on this board and in the public dialog. I can't believe that any reasonable person could believe anything other than the fact that a kid is dead due to the unbelievably stupid decisions and actions of Zimmerman. He is without a doubt- at least in my mind- morally responsible for a death.

If he does not go to jail, the other villain aside from Zimmerman is the ridiculously absurd law in Florida. It's not a race issue, it's not a gun control issue, it's not a political issue. Zimmerman is 100% responsible for a death of a kid- if he is not held to account we should all be outraged at the Florida legislature and scouring the statues in the other 49 states ensuring that this stupid miscarriage of justice could not be repeated anywhere else.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Wow, a 150 lbs "football player." Terrifying.

And what's this "history of assault/fighting" nonsense?

The Thanksgiving fight. And his friends seem pretty confident he "whooped [Zimmerman's] ass doe."

Originally Posted by Chongo 

What happens if the grand jury does not return an indictment?

Same as if he's found not guilty... Obama admin will go after him under 18 USC 249.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by mduell 

And his friends seem pretty confident he "whooped [Zimmerman's] ass doe."

This is dumbest shit I've read in the thread and seeing it repeated makes me question what what you people are trying to accomplish by posting it.

Do you guys usually hold teenagers' opinions in high regard in general? Do you think they are likely to realistically look at this situation, rather than paint a picture to their liking? Are their statements anything other than speculation to the largest possible degree?

Personally, I don't think you guys could give two shits what a bunch of snot-nosed teenagers think anytime, or that they're full of anything more than bluster, but it's somewhere between hilarious and sickening to see you guys quoting them as some kind of purveyors of a larger truth on a situation they were no where near and know nothing about.

What the ****, fellas?

[The Final Dakar]

As Paco pointed out, this shouldn't be about politics, guns, or skin color. It should be about whether a man who perceived a threat from a man walking down the street his neighborhood was justified in taking that man's life.

From what I've read, this guy [Zimmerman] took matters into his own hands and lost any ability to purport self-defense when he left his vehicle to pursue the kid. I don't care if the kid was Hulk Hogan and Zimmerman was Peter Dinklage, once that guy came after him, how was Martin not in a position to claim self-defense against a man who was stalking him?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Because it doesn't. There's a difference between standing your ground and stalking passers-by with a weapon.

My .02; Zimmerman should be arrested and held for this thing to go to trial. A kid is dead and Zimmerman sought and eventually shot the kid. He's got a felony assault on an officer in '02, two domestic assault charges, and has called at least 15 other such reports into the police. He's a nuisance, a thug, a stalker, and now his stupidity has reached tragic proportions. He stopped "Standing his ground" when he followed Trayvon against the specific instructions of police dispatch, I don't care how little he trusted the police to catch the presupposed "asshole". I can't stomach the notion that we'll read about this thug committing more acts of violence within the next two years.

For once ebuddy and I totally agree.... Re-posted for truth. It really is as simple as this.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Because it doesn't. There's a difference between standing your ground and stalking passers-by with a weapon.

My .02; Zimmerman should be arrested and held for this thing to go to trial. A kid is dead and Zimmerman sought and eventually shot the kid. He's got a felony assault on an officer in '02, two domestic assault charges, and has called at least 15 other such reports into the police. He's a nuisance, a thug, a stalker, and now his stupidity has reached tragic proportions. He stopped "Standing his ground" when he followed Trayvon against the specific instructions of police dispatch, I don't care how little he trusted the police to catch the presupposed "asshole". I can't stomach the notion that we'll read about this thug committing more acts of violence within the next two years.

OAW

[Athens]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

As Paco pointed out, this shouldn't be about politics, guns, or skin color. It should be about whether a man who perceived a threat from a man walking down the street his neighborhood was justified in taking that man's life.

From what I've read, this guy [Zimmerman] took matters into his own hands and lost any ability to purport self-defense when he left his vehicle to pursue the kid. I don't care if the kid was Hulk Hogan and Zimmerman was Peter Dinklage, once that guy came after him, how was Martin not in a position to claim self-defense against a man who was stalking him?

Can't totally agree, there is a political element to this story that does deserve debate. The law that has allowed at the moment Zimmerman to escape justice. Even if this is not what the law was intended to do, it has resulted in a situation that deserves political debate about such laws, for or against. The actions of the police department are questionable too. And skin color does play into this as well for motives. And why the Police might have looked the other way at first never expecting this to become international.

Otherwise I totally agree with everything else you said.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Look, I agreed with much of what you've said, but there's no reason to perpetuate lies in the other direction. He was suspended from school for possession of a baggie containing marijuana remnants. As "leaked" by his own mother.

I agree with pretty much everything you said too. But the police leak isn't a lie. The Orlando Sentinel uncovered the story that someone in the police leaked the info, and an investigation into the leak has begun.

Trayvon Martin: George Zimmerman's account to police of the Trayvon Martin shooting. - Orlando Sentinel

I can't find the original Sentinel article, but here's more info from a source I've never heard of, but in it the police more or less admit that the leak must have come from them:

Trayvon Martin update: News of Trayvon's suspension illicitly leaked, police say

In a statement released to the press, the police department admitted to being the likely source of this breach while criticizing its occurrence. "In response to the recent article in the Orlando Sentinel, the information was not provided to the media through an authorized source at the Sanford Police Department, but possibly by a leak from within the department," the statement read.

Yet, Sanford police confirm that, "The information in the article is consistent with the information provided to the State Attorney's office by the police department."

Adding yet another layer of inquiry into possible wrongdoings by Sanford police, City Manager Norton Bonaparte, Jr. has announced that an investigation will be launched into the leak's source.

"We do not condone these unauthorized leaks of information," Bonaparte said in a statement. "Acting Chief Scott will be doing an internal investigation within the Sanford Police Department, as this type of action compromises the integrity of the law enforcement agency, which has pledged to uphold the law."

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The Thanksgiving fight.

Never heard of it, and I've been following this story very closely.

EDIT: BTW, I just saw a news report that Martin's autopsy following his death confirmed no drugs in his system. Since pot is detectable in the body for up to month, I think we can be sure Martin wasn't a habitual pot user. Either way, it isn't relevant.

But what is relevant is: the cops apparently leaked the suspected drug use, but didn't leak the confirmed clean drug screen. Very suspicious.

[OAW]

So now the Sanford PD which has been under withering (and quite justified) criticism for its virtually non-existent investigation is starting to leak bits and pieces of info to the press in order to disparage this kid. Throwing stones to hide their hands it would seem. Just a sampling of the utter incompetence ... or perhaps just fundamental disregard for Trayvon Martin's life ... in their handling of this case on the night he was killed:

- Complete failure to confiscate Zimmerman's gun and store it as evidence (ballistics testing, etc.).
- Complete failure to collect Zimmerman's clothing and store it as evidence (gun powder residue, blood, DNA).
- Complete failure to even ask Zimmerman what happened after he told them he shot the kid. Failed to take him in for further questioning.
- Allegedly ignored some witnesses while failing to follow up with others. One officer is said to have "corrected" a witness who said that it was the kid crying for help and not Zimmerman.
- Complete failure to follow-up with the kid's girlfriend who was on the cell phone with him despite having cell phone logs showing this to be the case.
- Complete failure to ask anyone in the neighborhood if they recognized the kid. His body is alleged to have been in the morgue for several days and was only identified after his father reported him missing.
- Complete failure to call any of the numbers stored on the kid's phone to see if anyone knew who he was.
- Complete failure to perform a toxicology test on Zimmerman to see if he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol ... as is standard procedure ... but naturally they did on the kid who turned out to be clean.
- Complete failure to check Zimmerman's vehicle and/or impound it.

So now the Orlando Sentinel is receiving leaks from "anonymous police officials" in violation of the law in an attempt to smear this kid as some sort of thug. A tried and true tactic that police departments have often used to deflect attention away from their own incompetence and/or misconduct.

But in all honesty, I don't think these sorts of shenanigans are going to work in this case because A) the toxicology reports have already demonstrated that the kid was not under the influence of any substance, and B) serving a suspension for tardiness or putting graffiti on a locker is by no means any sort of justification for Zimmerman's actions. And beyond that ... Zimmerman's "story" of being attacked by this kid flies in the face of simple logic and common sense. Sure anything is possible. But is it probable?

This is what we know that is not even in dispute:

- Zimmerman observed the kid walking through the gated community while in his SUV. Per the 911 tapes he called the police and reported the kid. Said he was "suspicious". Thought he "might be on drugs or something". Said he "didn't know what he was up to". He was just "standing there staring". We also know that the kid was coming back from the store with a bag of Skittles and an Arizona Iced Tea. We know it was raining. We know from the girlfriend's testimony that the kid had taken shelter briefly at an apartment building from the rain before covering his head with his hoodie and continuing on his way. Now what's notable beyond this is what Zimmerman did NOT say! He never said on the 911 tapes that the kid was casing the neighborhood. Never said he was peering into the windows of homes or cars. Never said he was checking to see if any home or car doors were unlocked. Not going through people's mailboxes. Nothing of the sort. He said the kid was standing for bit and then was walking. So the million dollar question then becomes ... on what basis did Mr. Zimmerman conclude that the kid was "suspicious"? On what basis did Mr. Zimmerman conclude that the kid "might be on drugs or something" from the considerable distance that was from him sitting in his SUV? His own words on the 911 tapes indicate that this kid wasn't doing anything illegal. His own words on the 911 tapes about "these assholes, they always get away" .... said PRIOR TO the kid even running away from him ... clearly indicate a level of BIAS that Mr. Zimmerman had with regard to the kid's intentions. Was that BIAS rooted in Mr. Zimmerman's perceptions regarding the kid's race? His youth? His clothing? His unfamiliarity as a neighbor? Some combination of the aforementioned? Regardless of where one falls on that question .... what's simply NOT in question to most fair-minded people at least is that some sort of bias existed.

- Zimmerman follows the kid in his SUV. The kid gets spooked and takes off running. Zimmerman exits his vehicle and pursues the kid despite explicit instruction by the 911 dispatcher not to.

- Zimmerman is said to have outweighed the kid by approximately 100 pounds. Zimmerman is also armed with a 9MM handgun. He also had a holster for the weapon. It is unclear whether the holster was concealed or not.

Now given that back drop, this is what Mr. Zimmerman is asking the public to believe based upon these recent leaks from the Sanford PD:

- Mr. Zimmerman claims that after going out of his way and in defiance of the 911 dispatchers instructions to follow this kid on foot ... he just turned around and headed back to his SUV for no apparent reason.

- Mr. Zimmerman claims that this kid who we know for a fact was running away from him then inexplicably decides to turn around and follow Mr. Zimmerman back towards his car and approach him from behind.

- Mr. Zimmerman claims that this kid who again we know for a fact was running away from him just moments earlier initiated a physical attack by punching him the nose, jumping on top of him and repeatedly slamming his head into the sidewalk, and going for his gun. So think about this now. Which is possible? And which is probable? Mr. Zimmerman who is supposedly walking back to his SUV and now being followed by the kid ... gets punched in the nose from behind? Or Mr. Zimmerman was actually facing the kid when the initial confrontation took place? Which is possible? And which is probable? A kid who was afraid enough to run away moments earlier decides to punch a man who outweighed him by 100 lbs AND was carrying a gun in the face? Or Mr. Zimmerman ... feeling empowered by the fact that he was armed and clearly not happy about "these assholes, they always get away" ... initiated the altercation and the kid fought back? And again, let's not forget the crucial evidence of the cell phone logs that show that the kid was on a call with his girlfriend until moments before he was shot. So Zimmerman is asking the public to believe that this kid who was running away from him ... then turned around and accosted him unprovoked ... all while holding a cell phone conversation with his girlfriend? Like I said earlier ... that's a really neat trick.

- When this story first made national news, reports indicated that Mr. Zimmerman was "bleeding from his nose and the back of the head". As well as he had "grass stains" on the back of his clothing. Now the story is that he suffered a "broken nose" and the back of his head was repeatedly "slammed into the sidewalk" by the kid. Now paramedics examined Mr. Zimmerman at the scene and found him to have injuries consistent with the initial reports. Mr. Zimmerman also refused to go to the hospital. Despite this allegedly broken nose and blunt force trauma to the back of his head. To date no photographs or medical records have been released documenting these supposed injuries.

- And just how does one "go for my gun" unless the gun has already been brandished or displayed in some fashion? How would the kid even know that there was a gun for him to allegedly go for unless Zimmerman either had it in his hand or it was readily visible (i.e. not concealed) in his holster? Moreover, for this to be credible Mr. Zimmerman is asking the public to believe that a 150 lb kid was downright IRRATIONAL enough to try to initiate a fistfight with a man who outweighed him by 100 lbs and was CARRYING A GUN! Again, which is possible? And which is probable? The screams heard on the 911 tapes are an armed Mr. Zimmerman getting his ass kicked by an unarmed 150 lb kid with a bag of Skittles who seconds earlier was talking on the cell phone with his girlfriend? Or the screams heard on the 911 tape was the kid screaming for his life after Mr. Zimmerman pulled his weapon ... moments before he put a slug in his chest?

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

- Complete failure to confiscate Zimmerman's gun and store it as evidence (ballistics testing, etc.).
- Complete failure to collect Zimmerman's clothing and store it as evidence (gun powder residue, blood, DNA).
- Complete failure to even ask Zimmerman what happened after he told them he shot the kid. Failed to take him in for further questioning.
- Allegedly ignored some witnesses while failing to follow up with others. One officer is said to have "corrected" a witness who said that it was the kid crying for help and not Zimmerman.
- Complete failure to follow-up with the kid's girlfriend who was on the cell phone with him despite having cell phone logs showing this to be the case.
- Complete failure to ask anyone in the neighborhood if they recognized the kid. His body is alleged to have been in the morgue for several days and was only identified after his father reported him missing.
- Complete failure to call any of the numbers stored on the kid's phone to see if anyone knew who he was.
- Complete failure to perform a toxicology test on Zimmerman to see if he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol ... as is standard procedure ... but naturally they did on the kid who turned out to be clean.
- Complete failure to check Zimmerman's vehicle and/or impound it.

It's mind-boggling.

[k2director]

This case is reminding me more and more of the case of the Duke Lacross players....ie, the Left and the "always-the-victim" black community howl in outrage over "racism", and are ready to string up the "perpetrator(s)" at a moments' notice.

But then, little by little, more details emerge that dilute the purity of their narrative. In the Duke case, it turned out that the black supposed "victim" was actually a lying slut whore criminal (one who went on after the Duke case to be arrested multiple times for child abuse, attempted murder, arson, identity theft, and finally, is in jail for stabbing her boyfriend to death with a knife). And the sanctimonious District Attorney who tried to lynch the white Lacross players (namely withholding evidence that exonerated them) got disbarred.

Will Trayvon's case unravel like the Duke case? Maybe or maybe not, but I have many reasons to doubt whatever a politically-correct press and Al Sharpton's black community are trying to feed me.

For instance, we're learning that other people whose paths crossed with Trayvon suspected him of criminal activity (jewelry theft, drug possession and use, etc). That leads me to believe that Trayvon may have given Zimmerman a reason to suspect the same thing. And if somebody sees a suspicious person in their neighborhood, it's entirely reasonable to take a closer look.

We're also learning that at 17 years old and 6"3 with gangster-inspired gold teeth, Trayvon didn't look anything like those angelic photos of a 12 and 14 year old that the media keeps posting. When the media keeps publishing those photos, they give the impression that Zimmerman fought and shot a smiling 14 year old innocently eating his Skiddles. In reality, the guy Zimmerman saw probably would have given a lot of reasonable people pause.

What else might we learn going forward? We'll see.

But I know this: ***this case comes down to whether Trayvon or Zimmerman initiated the violence.*** Zimmerman can't be faulted simply because he left his car to follow Trayvon. Zimmerman is a free man in a free society, and if he wants to take a closer look at a suspicious individual in his neighborhood, that's his right.

It comes down to who initiated the physical altercation. If Zimmerman physically tried to stop Trayvon, laying his hands on his person, or repeatedly blocking his path, and a fight ensued, then I would say Zimmerman bears responsibility because he initiated the violence.

BUT....if Trayvon initiated an aggressive attack (as Zimmerman says), then Zimmerman has every right to defend himself with his gun. If somebody 6 inches bigger than you attacks you, knocks you down, and begins pounding your head into the ground, then you've got every right to pull the trigger.

Also, please spare me the outrage over the police department leaking inconvenient truths about the so-called "victim". Maybe it's mildly improper, but in the court of public opinion, the media and the federal government is portraying the police department's investigation as the work of racist criminals, and making the public aware of some details that don't fit the story they're constantly being fed is a way to defend themselves.

Besides, if our useless, sh*t-for-brains, affirmative-action-abomination, imbecile-of-a-President can use the power of his office to influence this case in the public eye ("if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon"), then I give the police department a little slack.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by k2director 

But I know this: ***this case comes down to whether Trayvon or Zimmerman initiated the violence.*** Zimmerman can't be faulted simply because he left his car to follow Trayvon. Zimmerman is a free man in a free society, and if he wants to take a closer look at a suspicious individual in his neighborhood, that's his right.

It comes down to who initiated the physical altercation. If Zimmerman physically tried to stop Trayvon, laying his hands on his person, or repeatedly blocking his path, and a fight ensued, then I would say Zimmerman bears responsibility because he initiated the violence.

BUT....if Trayvon initiated an aggressive attack (as Zimmerman says), then Zimmerman has every right to defend himself with his gun. If somebody 6 inches bigger than you attacks you, knocks you down, and begins pounding your head into the ground, then you've got every right to pull the trigger.

Those are the kinds of questions usually addressed in a trial

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Wow, a 150 lbs "football player." Terrifying.

And what's this "history of assault/fighting" nonsense? Are you talking about the bus driver assault that was invented by a rightwing blog that has since been debunked?

In fact, the rightwing blogosphere has been passing around a whole bunch complete bullshit about Martin: a fake photo of him looking angry and flipping the bird (from the evil Michelle Malkin's website), the false story of him attacking a bus driver (from the conservative blog The Examiner), the false story that Martin was a drug dealer (from Dan Riehl's blog), and I'm sure there are many, many other lies that never went anywhere. Why is the conservative blogosphere flooded with lies about a non-political event?

I'd like to point out something else about the character assassination of Martin: the cops started it. That's right, the info about Martin being thrown out of school was leaked from the cops. Why? To deflect criticism from themselves, of course.

The hell does this have to do with being right or left wing? Seriously I'd like you to answer that.

[turtle777]

Ok, so let's assume for just a second that Zimmermann was black, and Martin was white.

Does anyone honestly believe Zimmermann would be treated the same way he is now ?

This whole police investigation is really as f*cked up as could be.

-t

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Doesn't the Stand Your Ground Law also apply to Martin? Certainly, he had reason to feel threatened.

IF (and i stress if) Zimmerman was walking back to his car, Martin would have had to follow him for the confrontation to happen. Martin also (assuming the accounts are true) through the first punch. Prior to that, no one could reasonably fear for their life as there was no violence or reasonable threat of violence for either party.

Simply following someone on a public street is not a reasonable threat on your life. Jus' sayin'.


Personally I think Zimmerman should be arrested and tried, with all the evidence out there for a jury to decide. Zimmerman's defense is affirmative (self-defense) and as with all affirmative defenses, should be proven in court.

Personal anecdote: I was walking through Baltimore in an unfamiliar area last year when I noticed someone following me. This same man was behind me in line at the convenient store I had just left. A black man with a hoodie on, actually. He was outpacing me and as I made it to my car he yelled and started running at me. I stood up out of my car to see why he was following me and as I did, noticed my wallet in his hand. I had left it on the counter at the convenient store I stopped at and and he ran me down to return it. I gave him 10 bucks out of it and thanked him profusely. I'd have been screwed without it.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

I got it! Zommeran and Trayvon ran around the building in opposite directions. After they passed each other Zimmerman turned around and started walking back to his car. Trayvon also stopped running and turned around to punch Zimmerman in the nose and then bash his head on the sidewalk. In doing so he injured himself in some fashion so that he stopped beating on Zimmerman and started crying out for medical assistance. Then when Zimmerman recovered from having his head slammed into the pavement Trayvon threatened to assault Zimmerman again, while continuing to call out for medical assistance, and was shot.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Those are the kinds of questions usually addressed in a trial

A lot of self-defense cases don't go to trial. The police and DA determine that. And they did in this case. But some people just didn't agree, largely because it's a white guy killing a black kid (or a hispanic guy with a white name killing a black kid).

It's odd how easy-going the black community seems to be when black kids kill other black kids, and the police department can't make an arrest. That happens ALL THE TIME and where's the moral outrage? Only when a non-black kills a black and the police department cant make an arrest does it instantly become "racism" and a national issue.

I guess it works just like using the word "n*gg*r" does. Blacks can say "n*gg*r" all day long, and in fact, many seem to enjoy flaunting it in front of non-blacks. But as soon as a non-black says "n*gg*r", it's armageddon.

Anyway, Zimmerman has his side of the story. The other party is dead, so we can't hear his. We have inconsistent witness reports to the police. I'm sure many other cases like this have not gone to trial in the country.


P.S. Editing note: I initially tried to spell out the word "n*gg*r" but the forum here automatically replaces it with "******". If I were black, I think I would be offended by that censorship--ie, the fact that the forum prevents me from using a word that has become magically reserved for the black race alone. Just another case of the "man" robbing us black folks of what's ours.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Ok, so let's assume for just a second that Zimmermann was black, and Martin was white.

Does anyone honestly believe Zimmermann would be treated the same way he is now ?

This whole police investigation is really as f*cked up as could be.

-t

Absolutely not!

Again, I pose a simple question to the board as a whole. And for those of you who have a particular distaste for Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and/or President Obama ... I ask you to put that aside for a moment and just ponder it as well. Which is possible? And which is probable?

Cops from a Central Florida police department arrive on the scene and find a 6'3" black kid with a gun in his hand standing over the body of a dead white man. What happens next?

- The cops immediately A) draw their weapons, B) order the kid to drop the gun and get down spread-eagle on the ground, C) handcuff him and carry his black ass off to jail, and D) sort out what happened later?

or .....

- The cops A) don't arrest the kid, B) don't collect any crucial evidence, C) allow the kid to keep his gun, and D) tell him to come on down to the station in the next day or so to provide a statement.

Would anybody here honestly bet their next paycheck on the latter? Like ... seriously.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by k2director 

The police and DA determine that. And they did in this case.

That's an interesting perspective.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Personal anecdote: I was walking through Baltimore in an unfamiliar area last year when I noticed someone following me. This same man was behind me in line at the convenient store I had just left. A black man with a hoodie on, actually. He was outpacing me and as I made it to my car he yelled and started running at me. I stood up out of my car to see why he was following me and as I did, noticed my wallet in his hand. I had left it on the counter at the convenient store I stopped at and and he ran me down to return it. I gave him 10 bucks out of it and thanked him profusely. I'd have been screwed without it.

I'm so glad you told this story! Simply put, it goes to the crux of what I was getting at in the OP. The reason why I'm uncomfortable with laws that allow people to carry guns in public in general is because someone else may have felt "threatened" and pulled out a gun and shot a man dead who was simply trying to be a good citizen and return a wallet. And they could WALK because of these "stand your ground" laws that allow people to get off with the "Ooops. My bad!" defense. I can see pros and cons to both sets of laws. But in combination they seem particularly dangerous from a public safety standpoint IMO.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I'm so glad you told this story! Simply put, it goes to the crux of what I was getting at in the OP. The reason why I'm uncomfortable with laws that allow people to carry guns in public in general is because someone else may have felt "threatened" and pulled out a gun and shot a man dead who was simply trying to be a good citizen and return a wallet. And they could WALK because of these "stand your ground" laws that allow people to get off with the "Ooops. My bad!" defense. I can see pros and cons to both sets of laws. But in combination they seem particularly dangerous from a public safety standpoint IMO.

OAW

Devil's advocate: What if that man had an illegal gun and was planning to use it on me for whatever reason. Am I to die because the law prohibits me from defending myself? There are millions of illegal guns in Baltimore alone.

I actually was transporting a gun (locked in my trunk, unloaded) at the time. The thought didn't even cross my mind to go for it.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Absolutely not!

Again, I pose a simple question to the board as a whole. And for those of you who have a particular distaste for Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and/or President Obama ... I ask you to put that aside for a moment and just ponder it as well. Which is possible? And which is probable?

Cops from a Central Florida police department arrive on the scene and find a 6'3" black kid with a gun in his hand standing over the body of a dead white man. What happens next?

- The cops immediately A) draw their weapons, B) order the kid to drop the gun and get down spread-eagle on the ground, C) handcuff him and carry his black ass off to jail, and D) sort out what happened later?

or .....

- The cops A) don't arrest the kid, B) don't collect any crucial evidence, C) allow the kid to keep his gun, and D) tell him to come on down to the station in the next day or so to provide a statement.

Would anybody here honestly bet their next paycheck on the latter? Like ... seriously.

OAW

You're neglecting some information that's specific to this case in particular, and also the police's general experience (and *everyone* relies at least to some extent on their experience).

The specific information that you're omitting is that the black guy is known to the police to be a neighborhood crime watch captain (and has been for a while), has spoken to the police on numerous other occasions, and just called the police to report a suspicious person, and asked for the police to send officers, and has a license to carry a concealed gun. Oooops, all that right there will temper the outcome you claim is certain -- i.e., that the black guy will be carted off to jail, no questions asked.

The general information you omitted in your example is the idea that the police already see a large amount of crime committed by white guys in hoodies with gold teeth and tattoos, who don't seem to live in the neighborhood where they're found. Not only that, there's also the fact that the police virtually never have to arrest black guys for violent crimes. Like it or not, the police do go by experience and intuition, like we all do. If a Jew sees a blond haired blue eyed man walking down the street with a swastika on his arm, the Jew will be making certain assumptions based on experience and intuition. Is the Jew wrong to do that? And if the guys the police usually find committing violent crimes and robberies are white, and the dead guy lying on the ground is white, then I think the police are naturally going to have an easier time accepting the story of the black guy who lives *right there*, when blacks, in the police's vast experience, are rarely the aggressors or are getting arrested.

If you add those elements to your hypothetical role-reversal, then I think there's a very good chance that the black guy who's a member of the neighborhood watch and called the police in the first place, would not be arrested.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

IF (and i stress if) Zimmerman was walking back to his car, Martin would have had to follow him for the confrontation to happen. Martin also (assuming the accounts are true) through the first punch. Prior to that, no one could reasonably fear for their life as there was no violence or reasonable threat of violence for either party.

It was implicit in your post that you placed the burden of proof on Martin, the victim, and I'm asking whether the onus isn't on Zimmerman, the shooter, to prove he was attacked. In other words, the crucial legal question seems to be whether one can prove that Zimmerman initiated the altercation (rather than vice versa). Doesn't the Stand Your Ground law apply to Martin as well? Hence, the question is whether the onus is on Martin or Zimmerman to prove that either one of them was attacked. Wouldn't Martin enjoy the Stand Your Ground privilege as well?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Simply following someone on a public street is not a reasonable threat on your life. Jus' sayin'.

You get no argument from me. Just imagine you pulled a Zimmerman on the helpful person who was so kind as to hurry after you in order to return your wallet. The Stand Your Ground-type laws are dangerous in my opinion since they remove accountability from the equation. They should be struck.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I'm so glad you told this story! Simply put, it goes to the crux of what I was getting at in the OP. The reason why I'm uncomfortable with laws that allow people to carry guns in public in general is because someone else may have felt "threatened" and pulled out a gun and shot a man dead who was simply trying to be a good citizen and return a wallet. And they could WALK because of these "stand your ground" laws that allow people to get off with the "Ooops. My bad!" defense. I can see pros and cons to both sets of laws. But in combination they seem particularly dangerous from a public safety standpoint IMO.

OAW

That's the problem with Stand Your Ground Laws.

Police officers are trained on when to use deadly force. Even with training, the police officer doesn't always make the correct/best decision.

However, with Stand Your Ground Laws, you give ordinary citizens, without proper training on when to use deadly force, the right to shot and kill if they felt they are threaten.

I can only guess people who have concealed weapons tend to be more paranoid and suspicious of others.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Ok, so let's assume for just a second that Zimmermann was black, and Martin was white.

Does anyone honestly believe Zimmermann would be treated the same way he is now ?

This whole police investigation is really as f*cked up as could be.

-t

My gut reaction is that zimmerman's actions were colored by racism, but the police' actions were probably just sloppiness/laziness (incompetence). The shooter was the one who called them, I think that goes a long way in their expectations.

[hyteckit]

What seems like sloppy/lazy police work, might just be police guidelines as the result of Stand Your Ground Laws in Florida.

Zimmerman is protected by the Stand Your Ground Law and the police had no right to arrest Zimmerman unless there was a reasonable suspicion that it wasn't a self defense case.

And when it comes to reasonable suspicion, race does play a role in the decision.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by k2director 

But I know this: ***this case comes down to whether Trayvon or Zimmerman initiated the violence.*** Zimmerman can't be faulted simply because he left his car to follow Trayvon. Zimmerman is a free man in a free society, and if he wants to take a closer look at a suspicious individual in his neighborhood, that's his right.

+1 This.

Another very important part is the situation at the moment he shot him. For all the discussion of Stand Your Ground, it may not even apply; if you don't have the option of fleeing, Stand Your Ground is irrelevant.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

That's the problem with Stand Your Ground Laws.

Police officers are trained on when to use deadly force. Even with training, the police officer doesn't always make the correct/best decision.

However, with Stand Your Ground Laws, you give ordinary citizens, without proper training on when to use deadly force, the right to shot and kill if they felt they are threaten.

I can only guess people who have concealed weapons tend to be more paranoid and suspicious of others.

I love Stand Your Ground laws, and I don't think you guys understand them very well. Or you're so far off the deep end of liberal wackoism that you do understand the laws, and that's why you dislike them.

I like the laws because they protect the concept of self-defense, which the most fundamental human right.

Stand Your Ground laws have been passed as a counterweight to the liberal wacko impulse to reserve the use of force for the state and government, taking it out of the hands of individuals who find themselves threatened.

In a liberal wacko state like California, I can be waiting in line at a grocery store, and be told by a bully to give him my place in line. If I refuse and the bully picks up a heavy metal bar to hit me over the head, California wants me to flee the bully rather than standing my ground and risk killing the guy who's about to kill me. That actually sounds fair and reasonable to a lot of California jack-offs and liberal law-makers.

In a state with a good Stand Your Ground law, I would have every right to pull a gun and shoot the bully before he can hit me over the head with the iron bar (or grab an iron bar of my own and hit him with it). Which seems perfectly reasonable to me. **** A free society with respect for individual rights cannot require the law-abiding, non-aggressive citizen to run from the criminal for any reason, much less for the sake of the criminal's well-being. ****

Anyway, Stand Your Ground laws are hardly a license to shoot people because they look at you funny, or speak to you in a threatening voice, or even run after you trying to give you a wallet. You guys are crazy if you think a good summaritan chasing someone down the street with his dropped wallet could be shot and killed while the shooter goes scott-free because he thought he was being chased by a "crazy" person.

Those cases would easily go to trial, and juries would have to be convinced that the shooter's life was immediately threatened (which are the requirements of the laws), and that the shooter had no credible choice.

In Trayvon's case, the police thought there was enough evidence to believe that Zimmerman was attacked and his life was threatened. Maybe they shouldn't have accepted his statement so easily, but that's not the fault of a Stand Your Ground law. It has nothing to do with it.