Pages

3/20/12

The murder of 17-year old trayvon martin has emerged as a huge news story this past weekend. I anticipate that it will incite further passions.

First, my heart goes out to this young man and his family. Zimmerman, the killer, should spend the rest of his life in prison without any hope of leaving prison walls.

However, the liberal media is once again distorting the nature of crime and race in this country. From their viewpoint, blacks are victims of menacing whites who are out to oppress them. Never mind that black-on-white crime, including murder, rape, and assault, are MUCH more common than white-on-black crime. Of course, you will never see the liberal media discuss this. And never mind that blacks, although 13% of the U.S. population, account for more than 50% of this nation's violent crimes. Do I think that it's wrong to automatically assume that a black male is a criminal? Absolutely. But liberals fail to realize that there is a reason why people fear blacks, especially in major cities. The insightful Chris Rock said in one of his monologues, "when i am withdrawing money from an ATM machine, i'm not scared of ted koppel. i'm scared of blacks!"
http://www.thegrio.com/specials/trayvon-martin/rev...

Comments (581)

3/20/12


Is it just me or does he look like he's not exactly white?

What a joke though... neighborhood watch harassing a black kid cause he looks "suspicious". What a retard.

"I'm still waiting for the day that young black men (and women) can walk freely in any neighborhood without fearing for their lives."

What a nice quote though... as if the white neighborhoods with the occasional racist moron are more prevalent than the ghettos. Why does he have to split it up to just black men and women anyways?

If your dreams don't scare you, then they are not big enough.

"There are two types of people in this world: People who say they pee in the shower, and dirty fucking liars."-Louis C.K.

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews.

3/20/12

this is a white guy? when they flashed the pictures i wasn't sure who was the perp and who was the victim. too bad for the kid though. this guy seems like a little busybody with a violent streak and it all ended badly.

3/20/12

I don't know what the so-called "liberal media" has been saying about this crime, but this is definitely a case of racism.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/19/justice/florida-teen...

Skip to 5:11. This Zimmerman guy didn't even get a background check. If Zimmerman was black and Trayvon was white, then do you think Zimmerman would've gotten one? I'm not pretending to understand the typical procedures of Florida's police department, but something seems very off.

The reason people (ok I can't speak for all the extreme articles from the "liberal media" that you somehow manage to find) are bitching isn't because of the racial profiling, it's because the Florida police has done absolutely nothing to bring this man to justice despite the fact that he shot an unarmed black kid.

3/20/12

Yes, I agree. Liberals are so evil. I saw one yesterday eating a baby before rounding up some commies to march on wall street.

3/20/12
TheMasao:

Yes, I agree. Liberals are so evil. I saw one yesterday eating a baby before rounding up some commies to march on wall street.

LOL

Brady, focus on work/school. Current events / politics for the average person is like sports: it's good to know what's going on, and every once in a while there's a big event that everyone should go to, but for the most part it's a lot of observers and only a few real players.

Get busy living

3/20/12

Have you guys heard the 911 calls? They're chilling. A woman sees Zimmerman and White arguing outside so she calls the police. During the call you hear White let out a hideous scream, then there's one gunshot. Done.

Blatant case of racism here, and it's ridiculous that charges haven't been filed yet

3/20/12

I have never heard of a neighborhood watch outside of a retirement community doing anything but causing problems.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

3/20/12

Are you serious with your fucking first post, Brady? The kid was 17 and had an iced tea and a bag of skittles on him. The Zimmerman dude called 911 and said he "looked suspicious" and then pursued the kid (who had walked away from him) after the 911 operator told him to not pursue him. There are other 911 calls in which you can hear the kid screaming for help before being shot dead. This isn't a case of "liberal media bias," it's a case of a dumbass with a gun on some sort of power trip killing a kid for no reason, even after being told by the police that he didn't need to pursue.

Not to mention, this Zimmerman dude was the self-appointed "captain" of his neighborhood watch group and he had previously called 911 fucking 50 times since joining the neighborhood watch, and almost all of them were false alarms.

People are outraged because this fucking guy shot a kid dead and hasn't been charged for anything. He claimed self-defense, even though HE pursued the kid and the fucking 17 year old kid didn't have a weapon (unless you count skittles.)

Go work on your b-school apps, dude.

3/20/12
TheKing:

Are you serious with your fucking first post, Brady? The kid was 17 and had an iced tea and a bag of skittles on him. The Zimmerman dude called 911 and said he "looked suspicious" and then pursued the kid (who had walked away from him) after the 911 operator told him to not pursue him. There are other 911 calls in which you can hear the kid screaming for help before being shot dead. This isn't a case of "liberal media bias," it's a case of a dumbass with a gun on some sort of power trip killing a kid for no reason, even after being told by the police that he didn't need to pursue.

Not to mention, this Zimmerman dude was the self-appointed "captain" of his neighborhood watch group and he had previously called 911 fucking 50 times since joining the neighborhood watch, and almost all of them were false alarms.

People are outraged because this fucking guy shot a kid dead and hasn't been charged for anything. He claimed self-defense, even though HE pursued the kid and the fucking 17 year old kid didn't have a weapon (unless you count skittles.)

Go work on your b-school apps, dude.

Wow. Are you struggling with reading comprehension, bro? I said EXPLICITLY in my post that the death of martin was tragic and that zimmerman should spend the rest of his life in prison. I too heard the 911 tapes, and it's obviously clear that he was out to get martin because he was a black guy walking around in a gated neighborhood.

My point is that whenever these types of events happen, self-righteous liberal buffoons like al shaprton, jesse jackson, and the rest of their cohort at MSNBC go buck wild and use such an incident to preach to us about "racial equality" and "justice." Of course I have never heard Al Sharpton once reprimand black teens, for example, when they assault non-black students in philly high schools simply because of their race. The broader issue here is that there is a double standard in the way the media covers inter-racial crime. That is what I am objecting to, not whether or not zimmerman is guilty. Go back and read what I actually wrote. For someone whose moniker is "TheKing," you sound more like an idiotic court jester.

3/20/12

TheKing,

THE KID HAD SKITTLES!?!?! Tasting the rainbow would anger the lord so he had to shoot him.

Checkmate atheists.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

3/20/12

Brady,

"fearing blacks" because they account for "50% of crime" does not justify murder. Are you somehow trying to justify this guy's actions? I'm not sure what you're really trying to get at here with this post. It seems to me the media is talking about a specific crime; one in which it appears that a 17 year old was killed by a racist white person . As someone mentioned above, the tapes are absolutely chilling and it would be hard to draw any other sort of conclusion other than that this guy straight up murdered a 17 year old. Also what exactly do you expect the media to say, "Although this appears to be cold-blooded murder, its ok because even Chris Rock is scared of black people. You stay classy San Diego."

I do not know what actually happened so I can't speak definitively, but as of now it seems like a pretty clear cut case of racism.

3/21/12
analyst-therapist:

Brady,

"fearing blacks" because they account for "50% of crime" does not justify murder. Are you somehow trying to justify this guy's actions? I'm not sure what you're really trying to get at here with this post. It seems to me the media is talking about a specific crime; one in which it appears that a 17 year old was killed by a racist white person . As someone mentioned above, the tapes are absolutely chilling and it would be hard to draw any other sort of conclusion other than that this guy straight up murdered a 17 year old. Also what exactly do you expect the media to say, "Although this appears to be cold-blooded murder, its ok because even Chris Rock is scared of black people. You stay classy San Diego."

I do not know what actually happened so I can't speak definitively, but as of now it seems like a pretty clear cut case of racism.

+1 Good Point.

But I'd expect nothing less from the worlds first Anal-Rapist

I'm like one of them marriage counselors. Charge by the hour to tell some fool he needa bring some flowers home. Then charge another hour telling the bitch she oughta suck some cock every little once in a while. Keep a marriage strong like that. -Prop Joe

3/20/12

Yeah, I mean, if I turned on the news and they told the facts of the story and then went on a diatribe of how black people commit more crimes than white people, it would be so fucking out of whack. I assume Brady would be flipping his shit if they prefaced all stories about Asian people with a stereotype on how hard they study.

3/20/12

this guy is an ENORMOUS TOOL. apparently he called the cops 50 TIMES in the past year, most of which were false alarms. he called the cops when he saw Trayvon, and the cops told him to STOP FOLLOWING HIM, and he didn't.

Jesus, if this guy isn't put to death it would be some fucked up shit.

Money Never Sleeps? More like Money Never SUCKS amirite?!?!?!?

3/20/12
sayandarula:

this guy is an ENORMOUS TOOL. apparently he called the cops 50 TIMES in the past year, most of which were false alarms. he called the cops when he saw Trayvon, and the cops told him to STOP FOLLOWING HIM, and he didn't.

Jesus, if this guy isn't put to death it would be some fucked up shit.

I'm not sure all of the facts and circumstances have come out yet, but I'm starting to agree. The guy seems like a psychopath.

3/20/12
sayandarula:

this guy is an ENORMOUS TOOL. apparently he called the cops 50 TIMES in the past year, most of which were false alarms. he called the cops when he saw Trayvon, and the cops told him to STOP FOLLOWING HIM, and he didn't.

Jesus, if this guy isn't put to death it would be some fucked up shit.

this is some real insight?... lol

3/20/12

Go work on your b-school apps, dude.

Brady has agreed to go skydiving or hang gliding this weekend.

If I get back to Chicago and Brady is still sitting in front of his computer obsessing about b-school, I will ensure he falls out of that plane whether he wants to or not.

Weekend car rentals from Enterprise are $35/day, Brady. $35/day. You have no excuse.

3/20/12

I'd like to see links to where you got these statistics from. The more Brady posts, the more he seems like that nerd loser asian kid that even other asians don't want to hang out with.

p.s. lol at the racist post

3/20/12

Brady is a cool guy to grab a beer with. And he is a successful trader. Like many conservatives, he harbors suspicions about the liberal news media. That does not make him a racist.

3/20/12

I always have to laugh when I hear about the big bad liberal media bias.

1.) Major media companies are big businesses out to make money, first and foremost.

2.) Conservative media outlets more or less dominate their "liberal" counterparts. Fox News trounces the competition in ratings, the WSJ is one of the most widely circulated newspapers in America, and talk radio is almost entirely super far right conservative.

3.) The whole constant victim complex of the far right is tiresome and only makes those who share it look insecure.

3/20/12
TheKing:

I always have to laugh when I hear about the big bad liberal media bias.

1.) Major media companies are big businesses out to make money, first and foremost.

2.) Conservative media outlets more or less dominate their "liberal" counterparts. Fox News trounces the competition in ratings, the WSJ is one of the most widely circulated newspapers in America, and talk radio is almost entirely super far right conservative.

3.) The whole constant victim complex of the far right is tiresome and only makes those who share it look insecure.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is...

"While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly."

Yes, news agencies are big business, but if the majority of them are liberal they have little competition. There is no drive or economic punishment for those who are not even handed. Fox is the only conservative media outlet.

The media is Left biased, but I fail to see how that has any bearing on this story. The town has a history of covering up shit and this guy was a bully and shot a kid.

FYI - the kid is Hispanic, not black.

3/20/12
TheKing:

I always have to laugh when I hear about the big bad liberal media bias.

1.) Major media companies are big businesses out to make money, first and foremost.

2.) Conservative media outlets more or less dominate their "liberal" counterparts. Fox News trounces the competition in ratings, the WSJ is one of the most widely circulated newspapers in America, and talk radio is almost entirely super far right conservative.

3.) The whole constant victim complex of the far right is tiresome and only makes those who share it look insecure.

spot on

3/20/12

Spot on and incorrect.

3/20/12

Fox news dominates its competition, talk radio is almost entirely super far right. These points are still correct despite your WSJ study (which im sure is soon to change with newscorp running it.

3/20/12
BigBucks:

Fox news dominates its competition, talk radio is almost entirely super far right. These points are still correct despite your WSJ study (which im sure is soon to change with newscorp running it.

Wow. Where to start.

Fox news has higher ratings. That doesn't mean the liberal media with more than one outlet doesn't trounce Fox when they are combined. Fox is the only conservative news TV outlet.

And the research was done by a UCLA professor.

Hahaha wow man, pick up the pace a little.

3/20/12

If Drudge leans left, then I'm not sure what isn't considered liberal. By the looks of the methodology that was used, I'm not sure that the media outlets are "liberal" so much as "not overtly conservative." There is a difference.

3/20/12

I mean, shit, Drudge right now has a link on his site which he titled "POSTMAN CLAIMS: Ayers family put 'foreigner' Obama through school..." while simultaneously having a picture of Paul Ryan looking stately as his headline picture. He is almost constantly pushing Romney while making Obama and his administration look foolish. But, yeah, he's left leaning!

If he's left leaning than what is a guy like Ed Schultz? Karl Marx himself?

3/20/12

This is pretty funny: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa...

"None of the outlets that reported on the study mentioned that the authors have previously received funding from the three premier conservative think tanks in the United States: the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), The Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace."

Apparently the study also found the following to be true:

NRA - barely conservative

RAND Corporation - Liberal

The ACLU - Conservative.

If you're going to cite that study, then I guess you love the ACLU!

3/20/12
TheKing:

This is pretty funny: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa...

"None of the outlets that reported on the study mentioned that the authors have previously received funding from the three premier conservative think tanks in the United States: the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), The Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace."

Apparently the study also found the following to be true:

NRA - barely conservative

RAND Corporation - Liberal

The ACLU - Conservative.

If you're going to cite that study, then I guess you love the ACLU!

NRA is about protecting the 2nd amendment. Not sure how that is liberal or conservative. Members of the NRA probably are conservative, but the organization is pretty singular in its focus.

As for the other two I am not sure, would have to read the study. Once again, they used at ADA as a benchmark which tracks liberal voting. Maybe the ACLU is supporting things that liberals don't like. Civil Liberties are for both right and left.

3/20/12

The study used the ADA (http://www.adaction.org/) ,which is a liberal organization that tracks Democratic voting on issues, as the bench mark. It found Drudge to be SLIGHTY liberal or left of moderate Democrats.

The issue with media bias is not so much with the news, but the people who opine on the news and present it. Journalists tend to be more liberal than conservative (http://www.journalism.org/node/2304) and this internal preference is projected into the news.

Why is it that Fox can be labeled as being conservative, but nothing else can be liberal? I freely admit Fox is right leaning and I think CNN/MSNBC tend to lean left. Bloomberg news is pretty middle ground though. WSJ tends to be fiscally conservative, but all in all, center or slightly left.

3/20/12

Way to turn a tragedy into a straw man argument about the "liberal media" and your masked attempts at justifying this. Sickening. I'm about to get some credits just to throw MS at you.

3/20/12
IBTeaching:

Way to turn a tragedy into a straw man argument about the "liberal media" and your masked attempts at justifying this. Sickening. I'm about to get some credits just to throw MS at you.

I really hope this isn't directed towards me. Especially when I clearly admit that this was a case of bias and the dude was a thug. Guess people can't interject fact or opposite opinions into a discussion.

3/20/12

I didn't even want to address the fact that Fox News is overtly right whereas a liberal CNN will at least attempt neutrality (as other "liberal" news outlets do), I thought that wasn't worth stating and was obvious.

p.s. lol at citing a study you didn't even bother to read

3/20/12

The issue is how the study defines "liberal." Here: http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_prob...

"In short, the underlying assumption is that, if the press is unbiased, then media outlets will cite think tanks in news reporting in a fashion that is "balanced" with respect to the scores assigned to the groups based on Congressional citations. Any deviation from the mean ADA score of Congress is defined as "bias." But is that a fair assumption?

In particular, the paper's methodology doesn't allow for two important potential differences between the processes generating news citations and floor speech citations:

(1) Technocratic centrist to liberal organizations like Brookings and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities tend to have more credentialed experts with peer-reviewed publications than their conservative counterparts. This may result in a greater number of citations by the press, which seeks out expert perspectives on the news, but not more citations by members of Congress, who generally seek out views that reinforce their own.

(2) The Groseclose/Milyo methodology doesn't allow for differential rates of productivity in producing work of interest to the media or Congress between organizations. To the extent that a think tank is better at marketing itself to the press than Congress (or vice versa), it could skew the results. For instance, the Heritage Foundation is extremely close to conservative members of Congress and has an elaborate operation designed to put material into their hands. But the fact that these members end up citing Heritage more than the press does is not ipso facto proof that the media is liberal."

Obviously MSNBC is liberal, they market themselves that way. CNN is just a worthless dump. Fox News is extremely conservative save for a couple hosts. Talk Radio is almost entirely ANT-level far right. The New York Times is center / center-left, save for their opinion pages, and the WSJ is fiscally conservative and uber-conservative on their opinion pages. I don't find their general news articles to have any bias. I don't think citing think tank studies where appropriate is necessarily the best way to determine liberal / conservative.

My greater point, however, was that the constant "woe is me" of the far right is tiresome. You aren't victims. In fact, if you're wealthy and on the far right, you're doing fucking incredibly well.

3/20/12
TheKing:

The issue is how the study defines "liberal." Here: http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_prob...

"In short, the underlying assumption is that, if the press is unbiased, then media outlets will cite think tanks in news reporting in a fashion that is "balanced" with respect to the scores assigned to the groups based on Congressional citations. Any deviation from the mean ADA score of Congress is defined as "bias." But is that a fair assumption?

In particular, the paper's methodology doesn't allow for two important potential differences between the processes generating news citations and floor speech citations:

(1) Technocratic centrist to liberal organizations like Brookings and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities tend to have more credentialed experts with peer-reviewed publications than their conservative counterparts. This may result in a greater number of citations by the press, which seeks out expert perspectives on the news, but not more citations by members of Congress, who generally seek out views that reinforce their own.

(2) The Groseclose/Milyo methodology doesn't allow for differential rates of productivity in producing work of interest to the media or Congress between organizations. To the extent that a think tank is better at marketing itself to the press than Congress (or vice versa), it could skew the results. For instance, the Heritage Foundation is extremely close to conservative members of Congress and has an elaborate operation designed to put material into their hands. But the fact that these members end up citing Heritage more than the press does is not ipso facto proof that the media is liberal."

Obviously MSNBC is liberal, they market themselves that way. CNN is just a worthless dump. Fox News is extremely conservative save for a couple hosts. Talk Radio is almost entirely ANT-level far right. The New York Times is center / center-left, save for their opinion pages, and the WSJ is fiscally conservative and uber-conservative on their opinion pages. I don't find their general news articles to have any bias. I don't think citing think tank studies where appropriate is necessarily the best way to determine liberal / conservative.

My greater point, however, was that the constant "woe is me" of the far right is tiresome. You aren't victims. In fact, if you're wealthy and on the far right, you're doing fucking incredibly well.

ANT level far right huh, oh please.

All I am saying is that in the research out there it tends to show a bias, both in stories and actual people in the media. I personally don't think there is a huge bias, other than the fact that Fox is the only TV news station with a conservative tilt.

As far as radio is concerned, you might be correct. Other than catching my boy Limbaugh on the radio I don't listen to much else.

3/20/12

Wasn't directed at you ANT.

3/20/12
IBTeaching:

Wasn't directed at you ANT.

Ok cool. We Kosher then haha

3/20/12

I "might be correct" about talk radio? Turn on WABC or whatever your equivalent is in your neck of the woods any day from noon - 9pm. Do that every day and you'd assume that Obama was about to nuke half the country.

3/20/12
TheKing:

I "might be correct" about talk radio? Turn on WABC or whatever your equivalent is in your neck of the woods any day from noon - 9pm. Do that every day and you'd assume that Obama was about to nuke half the country.

As I said, you might be correct. I don't listen to anything by L-dog sending truth directly to the cortex.

3/20/12

I caught the first few posts only. But this site has become like the CNN comments page. What is all this crap about liberalism, racism, and conservatives that every thread Brady, ANT, and TheKing comment on? Guess what, no one wins these arguments. Everyone has his/her own opinions, everything ends up being name calling. Let's just focus on the story. It's sad and unfortunate, and there will be a backlash.

Every media is bias, unless all you want to watch is C-Spann and numerical data on display and interpret all the information yourself.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hug It Out

3/20/12
Ari_Gold:

unless all you want to watch is...numerical data on display and interpret all the information yourself.

That's actually what I do. Matrix news.

3/20/12

What are they supposed to do? "Young Trayvon was killed tragically, but on another note, black people are suspicious!"

You are creating an issue in your own mind and then getting outraged over it. It's absurd.

3/20/12
TheKing:

What are they supposed to do? "Young Trayvon was killed tragically, but on another note, black people are suspicious!"

You are creating an issue in your own mind and then getting outraged over it. It's absurd.

No. I'm just saying that it would be helpful if the media were not so one-sided in their coverage of inter-racial crime.

Did MSNBC or CNN ever cover the story of asian high school students in philly getting ruthlessly attacked by their black classmates? Did they ever cover the mass random attacks on whites in Chicago by black teens last summer? Those stories were published in the local papers but not shown on national TV. Meanwhile, everytime there's a tragedy like the death of martin, in which the victim is black and the culprit is non-black, the liberals in the media go buck wild, expressing bouts of indignation while trying to impose their views of "racial and social justice" on the rest of America.

3/20/12
Brady4MVP:
TheKing:

What are they supposed to do? "Young Trayvon was killed tragically, but on another note, black people are suspicious!"

You are creating an issue in your own mind and then getting outraged over it. It's absurd.

No. I'm just saying that it would be helpful if the media were not so one-sided in their coverage of inter-racial crime.

Did MSNBC or CNN ever cover the story of asian high school students in philly getting ruthlessly attacked by their black classmates? Did they ever cover the mass random attacks on whites in Chicago by black teens last summer? Those stories were published in the local papers but not shown on national TV. Meanwhile, everytime there's a tragedy like the death of martin, in which the victim is black and the culprit is non-black, the liberals in the media go buck wild, expressing bouts of indignation while trying to impose their views of "racial and social justice" on the rest of America.

Brady does have a point. A white kid was attached in Philly, while being called racial slurs and yelling racist things and no hate crime charges were filed. Very apparent double standard. Asian kids have been attacked in schools countless times also.

3/20/12
ANT:
Brady4MVP:
TheKing:

What are they supposed to do? "Young Trayvon was killed tragically, but on another note, black people are suspicious!"

You are creating an issue in your own mind and then getting outraged over it. It's absurd.

No. I'm just saying that it would be helpful if the media were not so one-sided in their coverage of inter-racial crime.

Did MSNBC or CNN ever cover the story of asian high school students in philly getting ruthlessly attacked by their black classmates? Did they ever cover the mass random attacks on whites in Chicago by black teens last summer? Those stories were published in the local papers but not shown on national TV. Meanwhile, everytime there's a tragedy like the death of martin, in which the victim is black and the culprit is non-black, the liberals in the media go buck wild, expressing bouts of indignation while trying to impose their views of "racial and social justice" on the rest of America.

Brady does have a point. A white kid was attached in Philly, while being called racial slurs and yelling racist things and no hate crime charges were filed. Very apparent double standard. Asian kids have been attacked in schools countless times also.

true. the media seems to care about certain victims and not at all about others.

3/20/12

Kid was Hispanic

3/20/12

Paul Blart: Neighborhood Watch?

If your dreams don't scare you, then they are not big enough.

"There are two types of people in this world: People who say they pee in the shower, and dirty fucking liars."-Louis C.K.

3/20/12

It is because of the liberal bias in the lame stream media . . .

3/20/12

It's not all that biased.

Fox: clear right wing bias.
MSNBC: clear left wing bias
CNBC: very slight libertarian/business bias.
CNN: generally factual reporting with a lot of sensationalism.

I think throwing out the label "lamestream" is a good indication that you may have drunk a little too much of the Palin kool-aid. (Yes, there is Obama kool-aid too.)

Running this country like it is a football game between a bunch of teams in red jerseys and blue jerseys is not good for the country, nor is it good for the Republican party. We need to come up with an alternative message that stands on its own rather than in opposition to Obama and also short-circuits a number of liberal concerns.

IlliniProgrammer's moderate libertarian planks:

1.) Electrify our federal highways. We've already spent billions of dollars building the darned things; find an area with lots of excess electrical supply (the midwest) and make it possible to run your car on electricity while it drives down the interstate. Run a pilot project in Chicago and if it succeeds- and everyone adds an electric drivetrain option to their car- license it to regulated utilities free of charge. End the oil addiction, replace it with energy manufactured here, and oops, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by accident.

2.) Replace the federal mandate in Obamacare with funding for states to implement their own systems if they so choose.

3.) Raise the social security and medicare retirement age to 70 and cut medicare coverage to outpatient and hospice care.

4.) Impose a 50 cent/bushel export tariff on grain to China until they let the Yuan float and stop providing massive manufacturing subsidies.

5.) Fund research on nuclear fusion, space elevators, and geoengineering so we don't have to be held hostage to the green lobby every time someone shouts "global warming" in a crowded theater.

3/20/12
IlliniProgrammer:

It's not all that biased.

...

CNBC: very slight libertarian/business bias.
...

That was good for a laugh. Those guys would sell their own mother's blood for kiss-up time with anyone worth more than USD 100 M.

3/25/12
IlliniProgrammer:

It's not all that biased.

Fox: clear right wing bias.
MSNBC: clear left wing bias
CNBC: very slight libertarian/business bias.
CNN: generally factual reporting with a lot of sensationalism.

I think throwing out the label "lamestream" is a good indication that you may have drunk a little too much of the Palin kool-aid. (Yes, there is Obama kool-aid too.)

Running this country like it is a football game between a bunch of teams in red jerseys and blue jerseys is not good for the country, nor is it good for the Republican party. We need to come up with an alternative message that stands on its own rather than in opposition to Obama and also short-circuits a number of liberal concerns.

IlliniProgrammer's moderate libertarian planks:

1.) Electrify our federal highways. We've already spent billions of dollars building the darned things; find an area with lots of excess electrical supply (the midwest) and make it possible to run your car on electricity while it drives down the interstate. Run a pilot project in Chicago and if it succeeds- and everyone adds an electric drivetrain option to their car- license it to regulated utilities free of charge. End the oil addiction, replace it with energy manufactured here, and oops, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by accident.

2.) Replace the federal mandate in Obamacare with funding for states to implement their own systems if they so choose.

3.) Raise the social security and medicare retirement age to 70 and cut medicare coverage to outpatient and hospice care.

4.) Impose a 50 cent/bushel export tariff on grain to China until they let the Yuan float and stop providing massive manufacturing subsidies.

5.) Fund research on nuclear fusion, space elevators, and geoengineering so we don't have to be held hostage to the green lobby every time someone shouts "global warming" in a crowded theater.

^This whole post

and people who use the phrase "lame stream media".....really?

i mean, really?

3/20/12

Oh C'mon, Lame Stream is an epic word. If The Anointed one himself said it I would use it.

3/20/12

Just have to throw this in here: Drudge isn't "liberal" or "conservative" by either of the definitions. While he's obviously fiscally conservative and (I believe) he's pro-life, I don't think he's this uber-neocon or whatever that a lot of people think he is.

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." -IlliniProgrammer
"Your grammar made me wish I'd been aborted." -happypantsmcgee

3/20/12

I support your plan.

3/20/12

So a Hispanic guy kills a black kid. *yawn*.

This shit happens every day. The only reason that anyone gives a shit is because the hispanics guys last name is Zimmerman. Without that specific tidbit there is *zero* story.

3/21/12
melvvvar:

this is a white guy? when they flashed the pictures i wasn't sure who was the perp and who was the victim. too bad for the kid though. this guy seems like a little busybody with a violent streak and it all ended badly.

Exactly -That guy IS NOT white. Jeeze, this is obvious by just looking at the picture itself.

LA Times: "Police identified Zimmerman as white, but his family says he's Hispanic."
Now the mainstream media is running with the white-on-black crime story...I guess Hispanic-on-black doesn't catch as much attention.

Impossible is nothing

3/21/12
EPS:
melvvvar:

this is a white guy? when they flashed the pictures i wasn't sure who was the perp and who was the victim. too bad for the kid though. this guy seems like a little busybody with a violent streak and it all ended badly.

Exactly -That guy IS NOT white. Jeeze, this is obvious by just looking at the picture itself.

LA Times: "Police identified Zimmerman as white, but his family says he's Hispanic."
Now the mainstream media is running with the white-on-black crime story...I guess Hispanic-on-black doesn't catch as much attention.

Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race. Both white and black Hispanics exist.

3/21/12
tico:
EPS:
melvvvar:

this is a white guy? when they flashed the pictures i wasn't sure who was the perp and who was the victim. too bad for the kid though. this guy seems like a little busybody with a violent streak and it all ended badly.

Exactly -That guy IS NOT white. Jeeze, this is obvious by just looking at the picture itself.

LA Times: "Police identified Zimmerman as white, but his family says he's Hispanic."
Now the mainstream media is running with the white-on-black crime story...I guess Hispanic-on-black doesn't catch as much attention.

Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race. Both white and black Hispanics exist.

Take a look at the motherfucker. He doesn't look the slightest bit European.

3/21/12
PetEng:
tico:
EPS:
melvvvar:

this is a white guy? when they flashed the pictures i wasn't sure who was the perp and who was the victim. too bad for the kid though. this guy seems like a little busybody with a violent streak and it all ended badly.

Exactly -That guy IS NOT white. Jeeze, this is obvious by just looking at the picture itself.

LA Times: "Police identified Zimmerman as white, but his family says he's Hispanic."
Now the mainstream media is running with the white-on-black crime story...I guess Hispanic-on-black doesn't catch as much attention.

Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race. Both white and black Hispanics exist.

Take a look at the motherfucker. He doesn't look the slightest bit European.

since he's from Florida, i would assume that maybe he's of Cuban origin?

in Cuba and other parts of the latin-american world, the word "white" is used to describe anyone who has one drop of european blood. over here it's the opposite, where if you have a drop of any other ethnicity, you're not "white".

like most latinos, i would guess this guy is a mix of european and native american blood. don't believe me? George Lopez (the comedian) took a DNA test which showed that he was of mostly European origin, mixed with Native American and some African blood.

Money Never Sleeps? More like Money Never SUCKS amirite?!?!?!?

5/22/12
EPS:
melvvvar:

this is a white guy? when they flashed the pictures i wasn't sure who was the perp and who was the victim. too bad for the kid though. this guy seems like a little busybody with a violent streak and it all ended badly.

Exactly -That guy IS NOT white. Jeeze, this is obvious by just looking at the picture itself.

LA Times: "Police identified Zimmerman as white, but his family says he's Hispanic."
Now the mainstream media is running with the white-on-black crime story...I guess Hispanic-on-black doesn't catch as much attention.

Sorry for the response to an old post, but for the record I would like to point out that Hispanic is not a race its an ethic category. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget currently defines "Hispanic or Latino" as "a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race" The U.S. Census Bureau recognizes the following as a race: American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander and White.

Based on the above Zimmerman can rightly be labeled a White guy.

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews.

3/21/12

Cliff notes.

Hispanic man kills black kid

Clearly racism involved

Police call him white

family calls him Hispanic

News media disregard what the family said and report the man is White.. then proceed to make a national story.. "White man kills black kid" Meanwhile a reporter asks the mother of the kid who died does he eat chicken.

/thread.

The answer to your question is 1) network 2) get involved 3) beef up your resume 4) repeat -happypantsmcgee

WSO is not your personal search function.

3/21/12

I'm confused. Were the Skittles before or after the chicken?

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton appearances in 3... 2... 1...

3/21/12

I'm quite surprised this thread has turned into a political debate (again).

1. Zimmerman has criminal history. I'm not even sure why he is allowed to carry a firearm. http://opnateye.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Zim...

2. All else aside, being black and walking in a gated neighborhood does not justify confrontation.
3. Zimmerman is playing cop. He was ordered by dispatch to stand down and yet pursued anyway.
4. From a gun owner's perspective and from firearms training courses, you are taught to always be a witness and take action ONLY if required. This was not the case here.
5. As for the self defense argument... He is the aggressor here.

3/21/12

Maybe if every murder said the person they killed was suspicious then they wouldnt go to jail.

The Four E's of investment
"The greatest Enemies of the Equity investor are Expenses and Emotions."- Warren Buffet

3/21/12

the murder of this kid is a tragedy. full stop.

the second order consequence is that CCW rights, which do save lives, will become further endangered because of stupid fuckwitted cocksuckers like this zimmerman piece of shit.

i say lynch this motherfucker, liquidate his assets to pay the kid's mother, and move on.

3/21/12
melvvvar:

the murder of this kid is a tragedy. full stop.

the second order consequence is that CCW rights, which do save lives, will become further endangered because of stupid fuckwitted cocksuckers like this zimmerman piece of shit.

i say lynch this motherfucker, liquidate his assets to pay the kid's mother, and move on.

lol HEY GUISE LIQUIDATE HIS ASSETS~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dibs on earingz

3/21/12
blastoise:
melvvvar:

the murder of this kid is a tragedy. full stop.

the second order consequence is that CCW rights, which do save lives, will become further endangered because of stupid fuckwitted cocksuckers like this zimmerman piece of shit.

i say lynch this motherfucker, liquidate his assets to pay the kid's mother, and move on.

lol HEY GUISE LIQUIDATE HIS ASSETS~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dibs on earingz

you didn't hear? volunteer neighborhood watchmen are KILLING IT.

3/21/12

The kid was Hispanic, not black.

3/21/12
ANT:

The kid was Hispanic, not black.

No, kid was black. Killer dude was hispanic.

3/21/12

How the fuck can u "look European"? Do Spaniards look like Swedes? Do Englishmen look like Italians?

3/21/12
BigBucks:

How the fuck can u "look European"? Do Spaniards look like Swedes? Do Englishmen look like Italians?

If you don't know how the fuck someone can look "European" then I don't know what the fuck to say to you. Do you think Chinese people and Europeans can't be separated by looks? How about sub-Saharan Africans? Use some common fucking sense.

The guy looks mestizo. He doesn't look like a 'white' Hispanic.

3/21/12

dblepost

3/21/12

Saw a (local) news spot on this last night that would make OP and others' heads explode. The "distortion" was unbelievable.

"That dude is so haole, he don't even have any breath left."

3/21/12

Yo, regardless of anything else, the reporter asking "chicken?" blew my fucking mind.

3/21/12
TheKing:

Yo, regardless of anything else, the reporter asking "chicken?" blew my fucking mind.

How has no one else said anything about this? Then the people in the background start laughing? Unbelievable.

The answer to your question is 1) network 2) get involved 3) beef up your resume 4) repeat -happypantsmcgee

WSO is not your personal search function.

3/21/12
TheKing:

Yo, regardless of anything else, the reporter asking "chicken?" blew my fucking mind.

They found out he wasn't killed for eating skittles so the reporter figured "Hey maybe it was because he ate chicken".

"Sincerity is an overrated virtue" - Milton Friedman

3/21/12

yeah Big Bucks, you're sounding retarded in this thread

If your dreams don't scare you, then they are not big enough.

"There are two types of people in this world: People who say they pee in the shower, and dirty fucking liars."-Louis C.K.

3/21/12

^^^oh, and people from Southern Italy and Southern Spain tend to have that "middle-eastern" esque look... so he does look a little European.

Money Never Sleeps? More like Money Never SUCKS amirite?!?!?!?

3/21/12

I think the point some people are trying to make here is that the media likes to sensationalize things, often at the expense of their credibility.

I haven't followed the case closely at all, but most of what I've heard is that a racist white man shot and killed an unarmed black teenage. Then, come to find out that the white man isn't exactly white and that he may have been assaulted (I read a report that said he had or possibly had a bloody nose or face...but I don't know if that is actually true) by the teenager.

PLEASE...I am NOT saying that the guy was justified in killing this kid...it seems very unlikely that he was but as I previous stated, I haven't followed the facts of the case and I don't know what happened. I'm merely trying to point out that people on the left love going on witch hunts when it suits their cause...similar to what TheKing said, but the exact opposite.

As others pointed out, other violent crimes have occurred recently that were known to be motivated by race, not just assumed to be, and they weren't ran with by the national media (at least, not to my knowledge). One distinct difference was the crimes they didn't heavily report...and that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were, as far as I know, dead silent about, where black-on-white crime. Now that there is a "white-on-black" crime the media is all over it right along with the two swindlers mentioned above.

This guy called the cops 50 times in the last year and was the self appointed 'captain' of the neighborhood watch. Might it be possible he is just an over eager, paranoid asshat? Were all 50 of the previous calls to report a black person in the neighborhood?

Shooting an unarmed, presumably law abiding, black teenager doesn't make you racist, it makes you an asshat...unless you specifically shot him because he is black...which none of you could possibly know unless the guy just admitted it.

Take some of the emotion out of the analysis to at least look at the known facts. As far as the police are concerned, an article I read said it was difficult to hear who was actually screaming before the shots were fired and that the police believed it was the 'white' guy as he was being attacked. AGAIN, that may not be the case or you may feel differently...I'm just trying to point out that this might not be some department wide conspiracy to release a known racist murderer back onto the streets.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

3/21/12

If you look at the articles that discuss how Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend at the time he was being followed by the asshole Zimmerman, his girlfriend talks about how he told her that he was being followed and he was alarmed.

Zimmerman's car didn't have any insignia or indication that he was anything other than a civilian. If you were walking alone and someone was following you in a car, got out of the car, brandished a gun and tackled you to the ground, you would have reacted with screaming for help as well.

Zimmerman had a 100 pound advantage, not to mention a gun on him. This 17-year-old had a pack of skittles on him. That's all! What is even more disgusting is that Zimmerman was not even a real cop. He was just some "neighborhood watchman." He was told by the dispatcher to stand the fuck down. Instead, he goes "vigilante" and goes after Martin anyway. He can't even argue self defense. If anything, Martin had the right to utilize self defense since he was followed, tackled to the ground and then shot to death.

Why is this asshole not behind bars?

3/21/12
TraderDaily:

If you look at the articles that discuss how Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend at the time he was being followed by the asshole Zimmerman, his girlfriend talks about how he told her that he was being followed and he was alarmed.

Zimmerman's car didn't have any insignia or indication that he was anything other than a civilian. If you were walking alone and someone was following you in a car, got out of the car, brandished a gun and tackled you to the ground, you would have reacted with screaming for help as well.

Zimmerman had a 100 pound advantage, not to mention a gun on him. This 17-year-old had a pack of skittles on him. That's all! What is even more disgusting is that Zimmerman was not even a real cop. He was just some "neighborhood watchman." He was told by the dispatcher to stand the fuck down. Instead, he goes "vigilante" and goes after Martin anyway. He can't even argue self defense. If anything, Martin had the right to utilize self defense since he was followed, tackled to the ground and then shot to death.

Why is this asshole not behind bars?

Just to play devil's advocate here...where is the evidence (reports, pictures, video etc.) that the guy jumped out of his vehicle brandishing his weapon?

I realize this seems super cut and dry for some folks but from a legal standpoint I don't know that it is. Florida has a 'right to defend' law that would allow the gun with the gun to defend himself, arguably, even if he initially approached the kid that was shot. I realize the guy with the gun appears to be the aggressor but everyone is questioning the one set of people that actually have first and second hand knowledge of the incident/crime (Zimmerman and the police).

Also, I'm pretty sure the dispatcher has no authority over anyone but themselves. The guy wasn't breaking the law by following the kid. Lastly, what does the 100 lbs difference have to do with anything? The guy either broke the law or he didn't...his weight isn't likely to change that.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

3/21/12

Typically when a person asserts self defense as the reason for their actions, it must be true that they meet the reasonable person standard in that Zimmerman must have reasonably believed that he faced an imminent threat to himself and it also must be true that the amount of force that he used must have been reasonable.

Here, it is highly unlikely that Zimmerman thought that it there was an imminent threat to himself and that his response was reasonable given that threat. In other words, it must be true that he believed that his life was in danger and that under the circumstances, his response was also reasonable.

Here, Martin did is the one that can be heard screaming for help, hardly the sign of someone who had the potential upper hand and who could strike fear in someone else like Zimmerman. Zimmerman also pursued him and as Martin's girlfriend indicates, Martin did not feel comfortable with this and because of this, he ran. This is indeed the behavior of someone who felt threatened and afraid, rather than someone who was an aggressor of a situation.

Also, we have to remember that even before Zimmerman got out of the car, he said to the dispatcher that Martin had "something" in his hand. This "something" was likely the pack of Skittles that he had in his possession. Would a reasonable person have used deadly force under this scenario without even knowing what he had in his hand? Absolutely not.

Even if Zimmerman did not have his weapon out when he exited his car, which by the way was unmarked, the mere confrontation with Martin surely would've alarmed Martin. A total stranger asking questions without a badge and uniform and who had already followed you without identifying himself would alarm anyone. Plus, this was late in the evening, adding to the likely alarm. When he exited his vehicle, it will be very difficult to show that given his aggression towards Martin, how he could've feared for his life and how he acted in self defense.

If this case is ever brought to trial, Florida's self defense law will also come into debate. A good attorney representing Martin's family will likely argue for the court to consider not just the law in its blanket black letter reading. But also consider it's rationale. Here is where Zimmerman's case would likely further collapse. Self defense laws are written to protect one from being in fear of protecting oneself when faced with imminent danger. However, Florida legislators surely did not enact the law to allow for vigilante killings or for deadly force to be used unnecessarily without just cause. If Martin had a means of applying deadly force and the state of mind to do so, surely he would've at least attempted to do so. Remember earlier, I said that Zimmerman stated that Martin had something in his hand. This "something" was not a gun/knife or any other weapon.

So, instead, he sought to run and when that failed, he was tackled and screamed for someone to help. This is inconsistent with someone who meant to do harm. Zimmerman's behavior is therefore inconsistent with the "spirit of the law", although many may look to the mere black letter of the law. The spirit of it was grossly violated however based on the facts that we have so far. I was not there, but this will be something that will be the core of many subarguments of the family attorney's case.

3/21/12
TraderDaily:

Typically when a person asserts self defense as the reason for their actions, it must be true that they meet the reasonable person standard in that Zimmerman must have reasonably believed that he faced an imminent threat to himself and it also must be true that the amount of force that he used must have been reasonable.

Here, it is highly unlikely that Zimmerman thought that it there was an imminent threat to himself and that his response was reasonable given that threat. In other words, it must be true that he believed that his life was in danger and that under the circumstances, his response was also reasonable.

Here, Martin did is the one that can be heard screaming for help, hardly the sign of someone who had the potential upper hand and who could strike fear in someone else like Zimmerman. Zimmerman also pursued him and as Martin's girlfriend indicates, Martin did not feel comfortable with this and because of this, he ran. This is indeed the behavior of someone who felt threatened and afraid, rather than someone who was an aggressor of a situation.

Also, we have to remember that even before Zimmerman got out of the car, he said to the dispatcher that Martin had "something" in his hand. This "something" was likely the pack of Skittles that he had in his possession. Would a reasonable person have used deadly force under this scenario without even knowing what he had in his hand? Absolutely not.

Even if Zimmerman did not have his weapon out when he exited his car, which by the way was unmarked, the mere confrontation with Martin surely would've alarmed Martin. A total stranger asking questions without a badge and uniform and who had already followed you without identifying himself would alarm anyone. Plus, this was late in the evening, adding to the likely alarm. When he exited his vehicle, it will be very difficult to show that given his aggression towards Martin, how he could've feared for his life and how he acted in self defense.

If this case is ever brought to trial, Florida's self defense law will also come into debate. A good attorney representing Martin's family will likely argue for the court to consider not just the law in its blanket black letter reading. But also consider it's rationale. Here is where Zimmerman's case would likely further collapse. Self defense laws are written to protect one from being in fear of protecting oneself when faced with imminent danger. However, Florida legislators surely did not enact the law to allow for vigilante killings or for deadly force to be used unnecessarily without just cause. If Martin had a means of applying deadly force and the state of mind to do so, surely he would've at least attempted to do so. Remember earlier, I said that Zimmerman stated that Martin had something in his hand. This "something" was not a gun/knife or any other weapon.

So, instead, he sought to run and when that failed, he was tackled and screamed for someone to help. This is inconsistent with someone who meant to do harm. Zimmerman's behavior is therefore inconsistent with the "spirit of the law", although many may look to the mere black letter of the law. The spirit of it was grossly violated however based on the facts that we have so far. I was not there, but this will be something that will be the core of many subarguments of the family attorney's case.

You still haven't provided any proof supporting your statements of how this went down. First you claim that Zimmerman exited the vehicle brandishing his weapon, but then dismiss it as if it's unimportant. Then you claimed that Zimmerman tackled Martin to the ground but the police reports stated that Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and from the back of the head and that his jacket had wet grass stains on it, as if he was on his back in the grass. Additionally, two people claimed to witness the acts that would support Zimmerman's claim of self defense...although one has stated that statement the police said she gave, that supports Zimmerman's story, is incorrect and that she never said the things the police claim.

Additionally, Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin had his hand in his waist...not that he had something in his hand...two entirely different things when you think about it. Furthermore, you don't need to have a knife or a gun or any other weapon for someone to feel threatened...which could, upon convincing articulation, grant someone the legal right to shoot and kill you.

Also, I'm not aware that you have to have any sort of marker on your vehicle or uniform or badge to speak to someone...that isn't, in and of itself illegal. I will admit that it starts to diminish the ability to put together a self defense argument...but that's up to a jury, so it's rather subjective.

You also haven't really mentioned the situation (something a defense attorney will do for Zimmerman). It was pointed out that Zimmerman had called the cops nearly 50 times in the prior year but it wasn't pointed out that (1) it was actually 'only' 46 and (2) that only 9 of those 46 calls to police were about a suspicious person with the rest being about "disturbances, break-ins, windows left open and other incidents"...now all of a sudden Zimmerman looks much less like a racist, cold-blooded murderer and much more like a very concerned citizen that cares about the safety of his neighbors and the community, which is also supported by the testimony of neighbors that 'knew' him...and (3) that, while on his self-imposed neighborhood watch, Zimmerman supposedly stopped a burglary from occurring and (4) that the community reportedly experienced numerous instances of burglary, theft, and one shooting during the previous year and (5) that they had phoned the police 402 times within that same time period...so, subtracting out Zimmerman's call...that would leave you averaging just about 1 call per day.

Also factor in it's dark, the self proclaimed neighborhood watchman doesn't recognize a guy that's walking around out in the rain. All of that seems reasonably suspicious and, even if it doesn't seem important, it seems like it's enough to cast doubt on a murder charge.

Finally, you have an eye witness that said he saw and heard what happened, as mentioned above...how does that stand up to the other 'eye witness' testimony from the person that appears to have recanted her original statement? Not to mention that she reportedly didn't see what happened, just heard the 'young voice' crying for help, then heard a shot, then saw the Zimmerman standing over the body. Question there is how much time elapsed and is it possible that Zimmerman shot Martin...possibly from his back, while on the ground...then got up/moved over to the body?

Again, I'm not here trying to defend the guy because I don't know what really happened, but all this garbage about him being a racist appears to be unfounded and even the notion that he was some sort of vigilante has really been unproven. So it's still seems to be a question as to whether or not this guy will even be put on trial and if he is, whether or not the state will be able to meet the burden of proof to charge this guy with anything more than voluntary manslaughter...maybe stretch it to 2nd degree murder, but seems very unlikely since it would be my guess the state would have a hard time proving there was malice on the part of Zimmerman.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

3/21/12
cphbravo96:
TraderDaily:

Typically when a person asserts self defense as the reason for their actions, it must be true that they meet the reasonable person standard in that Zimmerman must have reasonably believed that he faced an imminent threat to himself and it also must be true that the amount of force that he used must have been reasonable.

Here, it is highly unlikely that Zimmerman thought that it there was an imminent threat to himself and that his response was reasonable given that threat. In other words, it must be true that he believed that his life was in danger and that under the circumstances, his response was also reasonable.

Here, Martin did is the one that can be heard screaming for help, hardly the sign of someone who had the potential upper hand and who could strike fear in someone else like Zimmerman. Zimmerman also pursued him and as Martin's girlfriend indicates, Martin did not feel comfortable with this and because of this, he ran. This is indeed the behavior of someone who felt threatened and afraid, rather than someone who was an aggressor of a situation.

Also, we have to remember that even before Zimmerman got out of the car, he said to the dispatcher that Martin had "something" in his hand. This "something" was likely the pack of Skittles that he had in his possession. Would a reasonable person have used deadly force under this scenario without even knowing what he had in his hand? Absolutely not.

Even if Zimmerman did not have his weapon out when he exited his car, which by the way was unmarked, the mere confrontation with Martin surely would've alarmed Martin. A total stranger asking questions without a badge and uniform and who had already followed you without identifying himself would alarm anyone. Plus, this was late in the evening, adding to the likely alarm. When he exited his vehicle, it will be very difficult to show that given his aggression towards Martin, how he could've feared for his life and how he acted in self defense.

If this case is ever brought to trial, Florida's self defense law will also come into debate. A good attorney representing Martin's family will likely argue for the court to consider not just the law in its blanket black letter reading. But also consider it's rationale. Here is where Zimmerman's case would likely further collapse. Self defense laws are written to protect one from being in fear of protecting oneself when faced with imminent danger. However, Florida legislators surely did not enact the law to allow for vigilante killings or for deadly force to be used unnecessarily without just cause. If Martin had a means of applying deadly force and the state of mind to do so, surely he would've at least attempted to do so. Remember earlier, I said that Zimmerman stated that Martin had something in his hand. This "something" was not a gun/knife or any other weapon.

So, instead, he sought to run and when that failed, he was tackled and screamed for someone to help. This is inconsistent with someone who meant to do harm. Zimmerman's behavior is therefore inconsistent with the "spirit of the law", although many may look to the mere black letter of the law. The spirit of it was grossly violated however based on the facts that we have so far. I was not there, but this will be something that will be the core of many subarguments of the family attorney's case.

You still haven't provided any proof supporting your statements of how this went down. First you claim that Zimmerman exited the vehicle brandishing his weapon, but then dismiss it as if it's unimportant. Then you claimed that Zimmerman tackled Martin to the ground but the police reports stated that Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and from the back of the head and that his jacket had wet grass stains on it, as if he was on his back in the grass. Additionally, two people claimed to witness the acts that would support Zimmerman's claim of self defense...although one has stated that statement the police said she gave, that supports Zimmerman's story, is incorrect and that she never said the things the police claim.

Additionally, Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin had his hand in his waist...not that he had something in his hand...two entirely different things when you think about it. Furthermore, you don't need to have a knife or a gun or any other weapon for someone to feel threatened...which could, upon convincing articulation, grant someone the legal right to shoot and kill you.

Also, I'm not aware that you have to have any sort of marker on your vehicle or uniform or badge to speak to someone...that isn't, in and of itself illegal. I will admit that it starts to diminish the ability to put together a self defense argument...but that's up to a jury, so it's rather subjective.

You also haven't really mentioned the situation (something a defense attorney will do for Zimmerman). It was pointed out that Zimmerman had called the cops nearly 50 times in the prior year but it wasn't pointed out that (1) it was actually 'only' 46 and (2) that only 9 of those 46 calls to police were about a suspicious person with the rest being about "disturbances, break-ins, windows left open and other incidents"...now all of a sudden Zimmerman looks much less like a racist, cold-blooded murderer and much more like a very concerned citizen that cares about the safety of his neighbors and the community, which is also supported by the testimony of neighbors that 'knew' him...and (3) that, while on his self-imposed neighborhood watch, Zimmerman supposedly stopped a burglary from occurring and (4) that the community reportedly experienced numerous instances of burglary, theft, and one shooting during the previous year and (5) that they had phoned the police 402 times within that same time period...so, subtracting out Zimmerman's call...that would leave you averaging just about 1 call per day.

Also factor in it's dark, the self proclaimed neighborhood watchman doesn't recognize a guy that's walking around out in the rain. All of that seems reasonably suspicious and, even if it doesn't seem important, it seems like it's enough to cast doubt on a murder charge.

Finally, you have an eye witness that said he saw and heard what happened, as mentioned above...how does that stand up to the other 'eye witness' testimony from the person that appears to have recanted her original statement? Not to mention that she reportedly didn't see what happened, just heard the 'young voice' crying for help, then heard a shot, then saw the Zimmerman standing over the body. Question there is how much time elapsed and is it possible that Zimmerman shot Martin...possibly from his back, while on the ground...then got up/moved over to the body?

Again, I'm not here trying to defend the guy because I don't know what really happened, but all this garbage about him being a racist appears to be unfounded and even the notion that he was some sort of vigilante has really been unproven. So it's still seems to be a question as to whether or not this guy will even be put on trial and if he is, whether or not the state will be able to meet the burden of proof to charge this guy with anything more than voluntary manslaughter...maybe stretch it to 2nd degree murder, but seems very unlikely since it would be my guess the state would have a hard time proving there was malice on the part of Zimmerman.

Regards

See my link above to how the FL lawmakers say that Zimmerman cannot use the self defense law to claim immunity.
Zimmerman followed Martin. You cannot argue self defense when you follow somone. Look at the article that I linked to. Lawmakers intended for the law to be for innocent civilians who are themselves attacked, not for someone who follows someone and then uses deadly force.
Take a look at the article referencing Martin's gf's account. She should know. She was on the phone with Martin.
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-20/justice/justice...

Also, Zimmerman's racism is evident given this:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/317086/20120320/tr...

3/21/12
TraderDaily:
cphbravo96:
TraderDaily:

Typically when a person asserts self defense as the reason for their actions, it must be true that they meet the reasonable person standard in that Zimmerman must have reasonably believed that he faced an imminent threat to himself and it also must be true that the amount of force that he used must have been reasonable.

Here, it is highly unlikely that Zimmerman thought that it there was an imminent threat to himself and that his response was reasonable given that threat. In other words, it must be true that he believed that his life was in danger and that under the circumstances, his response was also reasonable.

Here, Martin did is the one that can be heard screaming for help, hardly the sign of someone who had the potential upper hand and who could strike fear in someone else like Zimmerman. Zimmerman also pursued him and as Martin's girlfriend indicates, Martin did not feel comfortable with this and because of this, he ran. This is indeed the behavior of someone who felt threatened and afraid, rather than someone who was an aggressor of a situation.

Also, we have to remember that even before Zimmerman got out of the car, he said to the dispatcher that Martin had "something" in his hand. This "something" was likely the pack of Skittles that he had in his possession. Would a reasonable person have used deadly force under this scenario without even knowing what he had in his hand? Absolutely not.

Even if Zimmerman did not have his weapon out when he exited his car, which by the way was unmarked, the mere confrontation with Martin surely would've alarmed Martin. A total stranger asking questions without a badge and uniform and who had already followed you without identifying himself would alarm anyone. Plus, this was late in the evening, adding to the likely alarm. When he exited his vehicle, it will be very difficult to show that given his aggression towards Martin, how he could've feared for his life and how he acted in self defense.

If this case is ever brought to trial, Florida's self defense law will also come into debate. A good attorney representing Martin's family will likely argue for the court to consider not just the law in its blanket black letter reading. But also consider it's rationale. Here is where Zimmerman's case would likely further collapse. Self defense laws are written to protect one from being in fear of protecting oneself when faced with imminent danger. However, Florida legislators surely did not enact the law to allow for vigilante killings or for deadly force to be used unnecessarily without just cause. If Martin had a means of applying deadly force and the state of mind to do so, surely he would've at least attempted to do so. Remember earlier, I said that Zimmerman stated that Martin had something in his hand. This "something" was not a gun/knife or any other weapon.

So, instead, he sought to run and when that failed, he was tackled and screamed for someone to help. This is inconsistent with someone who meant to do harm. Zimmerman's behavior is therefore inconsistent with the "spirit of the law", although many may look to the mere black letter of the law. The spirit of it was grossly violated however based on the facts that we have so far. I was not there, but this will be something that will be the core of many subarguments of the family attorney's case.

You still haven't provided any proof supporting your statements of how this went down. First you claim that Zimmerman exited the vehicle brandishing his weapon, but then dismiss it as if it's unimportant. Then you claimed that Zimmerman tackled Martin to the ground but the police reports stated that Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and from the back of the head and that his jacket had wet grass stains on it, as if he was on his back in the grass. Additionally, two people claimed to witness the acts that would support Zimmerman's claim of self defense...although one has stated that statement the police said she gave, that supports Zimmerman's story, is incorrect and that she never said the things the police claim.

Additionally, Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin had his hand in his waist...not that he had something in his hand...two entirely different things when you think about it. Furthermore, you don't need to have a knife or a gun or any other weapon for someone to feel threatened...which could, upon convincing articulation, grant someone the legal right to shoot and kill you.

Also, I'm not aware that you have to have any sort of marker on your vehicle or uniform or badge to speak to someone...that isn't, in and of itself illegal. I will admit that it starts to diminish the ability to put together a self defense argument...but that's up to a jury, so it's rather subjective.

You also haven't really mentioned the situation (something a defense attorney will do for Zimmerman). It was pointed out that Zimmerman had called the cops nearly 50 times in the prior year but it wasn't pointed out that (1) it was actually 'only' 46 and (2) that only 9 of those 46 calls to police were about a suspicious person with the rest being about "disturbances, break-ins, windows left open and other incidents"...now all of a sudden Zimmerman looks much less like a racist, cold-blooded murderer and much more like a very concerned citizen that cares about the safety of his neighbors and the community, which is also supported by the testimony of neighbors that 'knew' him...and (3) that, while on his self-imposed neighborhood watch, Zimmerman supposedly stopped a burglary from occurring and (4) that the community reportedly experienced numerous instances of burglary, theft, and one shooting during the previous year and (5) that they had phoned the police 402 times within that same time period...so, subtracting out Zimmerman's call...that would leave you averaging just about 1 call per day.

Also factor in it's dark, the self proclaimed neighborhood watchman doesn't recognize a guy that's walking around out in the rain. All of that seems reasonably suspicious and, even if it doesn't seem important, it seems like it's enough to cast doubt on a murder charge.

Finally, you have an eye witness that said he saw and heard what happened, as mentioned above...how does that stand up to the other 'eye witness' testimony from the person that appears to have recanted her original statement? Not to mention that she reportedly didn't see what happened, just heard the 'young voice' crying for help, then heard a shot, then saw the Zimmerman standing over the body. Question there is how much time elapsed and is it possible that Zimmerman shot Martin...possibly from his back, while on the ground...then got up/moved over to the body?

Again, I'm not here trying to defend the guy because I don't know what really happened, but all this garbage about him being a racist appears to be unfounded and even the notion that he was some sort of vigilante has really been unproven. So it's still seems to be a question as to whether or not this guy will even be put on trial and if he is, whether or not the state will be able to meet the burden of proof to charge this guy with anything more than voluntary manslaughter...maybe stretch it to 2nd degree murder, but seems very unlikely since it would be my guess the state would have a hard time proving there was malice on the part of Zimmerman.

Regards

See my link above to how the FL lawmakers say that Zimmerman cannot use the self defense law to claim immunity.
Zimmerman followed Martin. You cannot argue self defense when you follow somone. Look at the article that I linked to. Lawmakers intended for the law to be for innocent civilians who are themselves attacked, not for someone who follows someone and then uses deadly force.
Take a look at the article referencing Martin's gf's account. She should know. She was on the phone with Martin.
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-20/justice/justice...

Also, Zimmerman's racism is evident given this:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/317086/20120320/tr...

Unfortunately the FL lawmaker isn't going to be the one that judges whether or not that law applies in this case. He can state his opinion, which is fine...and valid...but the jury will have to decide whether it applies. He followed Martin, but the defense could still establish that the right to defend yourself remains since Zimmerman wasn't out looking to create problems...maybe he was just approaching this young man and Martin lashed out and attacked him. Of course, that probably isn't the case, but it doesn't mean that the defense won't try to persuade a jury otherwise. Besides, Zimmerman claimed that he got out of his vehicle to check the street name and was essentially jumped from behind. If that was the case, and maybe it's not, but assuming that is what he will tell a jury, it's reasonable that your right to defend yourself is reestablished. Even beyond that, the defense could convince the jury this was just a case of imperfect self-defense because Zimmerman feared for his life and responded accordingly, even if he wasn't within the confines of the law. Here again, there is no malice and therefore the state will be unable to carry a murder charge/conviction and it's still 'just' voluntary manslaughter...not that being convicted of voluntary manslaughter would be fun or anything.

From my understanding, the slur that is purported to be on the 911 dispatch tape is mumbled at best and people have reported hearing several different things...even the article clearly says that he "may" have said that...so again, you have to convince a jury to sentence a man to life in prison or possibly death because he may have said a racial slur that may prove that he was racist that may prove he had malice. The defense will ask the state to point to any other incident where Zimmerman was known to hold racist feelings and when they try to say what the neighbors said about Zimmerman and watching out for black people...the defense will yell, "Objection, hearsay!" and the judge will say "Sustained"...unless the person on the stand is the person that was actually told to watch out for black people.

It's sad how everyone had ran with this whole situation. Everybody is out to convict a man because the news media thinks he is guilty. Everywhere I look I see "the murder of Trayvon Martin" despite there being no conviction...hell, there aren't even charges filed! We all saw with the Casey Anthony trial how the media can warp people's perceptions...and I realize that not being found guilty doesn't actually make you innocent, but it goes to show what happened and what you can proved happened are two entirely different things.

I will admit the police seemed to fumble this case pretty well and that is unacceptable.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

3/22/12
cphbravo96:
TraderDaily:
cphbravo96:
TraderDaily:

Typically when a person asserts self defense as the reason for their actions, it must be true that they meet the reasonable person standard in that Zimmerman must have reasonably believed that he faced an imminent threat to himself and it also must be true that the amount of force that he used must have been reasonable.

Here, it is highly unlikely that Zimmerman thought that it there was an imminent threat to himself and that his response was reasonable given that threat. In other words, it must be true that he believed that his life was in danger and that under the circumstances, his response was also reasonable.

Here, Martin did is the one that can be heard screaming for help, hardly the sign of someone who had the potential upper hand and who could strike fear in someone else like Zimmerman. Zimmerman also pursued him and as Martin's girlfriend indicates, Martin did not feel comfortable with this and because of this, he ran. This is indeed the behavior of someone who felt threatened and afraid, rather than someone who was an aggressor of a situation.

Also, we have to remember that even before Zimmerman got out of the car, he said to the dispatcher that Martin had "something" in his hand. This "something" was likely the pack of Skittles that he had in his possession. Would a reasonable person have used deadly force under this scenario without even knowing what he had in his hand? Absolutely not.

Even if Zimmerman did not have his weapon out when he exited his car, which by the way was unmarked, the mere confrontation with Martin surely would've alarmed Martin. A total stranger asking questions without a badge and uniform and who had already followed you without identifying himself would alarm anyone. Plus, this was late in the evening, adding to the likely alarm. When he exited his vehicle, it will be very difficult to show that given his aggression towards Martin, how he could've feared for his life and how he acted in self defense.

If this case is ever brought to trial, Florida's self defense law will also come into debate. A good attorney representing Martin's family will likely argue for the court to consider not just the law in its blanket black letter reading. But also consider it's rationale. Here is where Zimmerman's case would likely further collapse. Self defense laws are written to protect one from being in fear of protecting oneself when faced with imminent danger. However, Florida legislators surely did not enact the law to allow for vigilante killings or for deadly force to be used unnecessarily without just cause. If Martin had a means of applying deadly force and the state of mind to do so, surely he would've at least attempted to do so. Remember earlier, I said that Zimmerman stated that Martin had something in his hand. This "something" was not a gun/knife or any other weapon.

So, instead, he sought to run and when that failed, he was tackled and screamed for someone to help. This is inconsistent with someone who meant to do harm. Zimmerman's behavior is therefore inconsistent with the "spirit of the law", although many may look to the mere black letter of the law. The spirit of it was grossly violated however based on the facts that we have so far. I was not there, but this will be something that will be the core of many subarguments of the family attorney's case.

You still haven't provided any proof supporting your statements of how this went down. First you claim that Zimmerman exited the vehicle brandishing his weapon, but then dismiss it as if it's unimportant. Then you claimed that Zimmerman tackled Martin to the ground but the police reports stated that Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and from the back of the head and that his jacket had wet grass stains on it, as if he was on his back in the grass. Additionally, two people claimed to witness the acts that would support Zimmerman's claim of self defense...although one has stated that statement the police said she gave, that supports Zimmerman's story, is incorrect and that she never said the things the police claim.

Additionally, Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin had his hand in his waist...not that he had something in his hand...two entirely different things when you think about it. Furthermore, you don't need to have a knife or a gun or any other weapon for someone to feel threatened...which could, upon convincing articulation, grant someone the legal right to shoot and kill you.

Also, I'm not aware that you have to have any sort of marker on your vehicle or uniform or badge to speak to someone...that isn't, in and of itself illegal. I will admit that it starts to diminish the ability to put together a self defense argument...but that's up to a jury, so it's rather subjective.

You also haven't really mentioned the situation (something a defense attorney will do for Zimmerman). It was pointed out that Zimmerman had called the cops nearly 50 times in the prior year but it wasn't pointed out that (1) it was actually 'only' 46 and (2) that only 9 of those 46 calls to police were about a suspicious person with the rest being about "disturbances, break-ins, windows left open and other incidents"...now all of a sudden Zimmerman looks much less like a racist, cold-blooded murderer and much more like a very concerned citizen that cares about the safety of his neighbors and the community, which is also supported by the testimony of neighbors that 'knew' him...and (3) that, while on his self-imposed neighborhood watch, Zimmerman supposedly stopped a burglary from occurring and (4) that the community reportedly experienced numerous instances of burglary, theft, and one shooting during the previous year and (5) that they had phoned the police 402 times within that same time period...so, subtracting out Zimmerman's call...that would leave you averaging just about 1 call per day.

Also factor in it's dark, the self proclaimed neighborhood watchman doesn't recognize a guy that's walking around out in the rain. All of that seems reasonably suspicious and, even if it doesn't seem important, it seems like it's enough to cast doubt on a murder charge.

Finally, you have an eye witness that said he saw and heard what happened, as mentioned above...how does that stand up to the other 'eye witness' testimony from the person that appears to have recanted her original statement? Not to mention that she reportedly didn't see what happened, just heard the 'young voice' crying for help, then heard a shot, then saw the Zimmerman standing over the body. Question there is how much time elapsed and is it possible that Zimmerman shot Martin...possibly from his back, while on the ground...then got up/moved over to the body?

Again, I'm not here trying to defend the guy because I don't know what really happened, but all this garbage about him being a racist appears to be unfounded and even the notion that he was some sort of vigilante has really been unproven. So it's still seems to be a question as to whether or not this guy will even be put on trial and if he is, whether or not the state will be able to meet the burden of proof to charge this guy with anything more than voluntary manslaughter...maybe stretch it to 2nd degree murder, but seems very unlikely since it would be my guess the state would have a hard time proving there was malice on the part of Zimmerman.

Regards

See my link above to how the FL lawmakers say that Zimmerman cannot use the self defense law to claim immunity.
Zimmerman followed Martin. You cannot argue self defense when you follow somone. Look at the article that I linked to. Lawmakers intended for the law to be for innocent civilians who are themselves attacked, not for someone who follows someone and then uses deadly force.
Take a look at the article referencing Martin's gf's account. She should know. She was on the phone with Martin.
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-20/justice/justice...

Also, Zimmerman's racism is evident given this:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/317086/20120320/tr...

Unfortunately the FL lawmaker isn't going to be the one that judges whether or not that law applies in this case. He can state his opinion, which is fine...and valid...but the jury will have to decide whether it applies. He followed Martin, but the defense could still establish that the right to defend yourself remains since Zimmerman wasn't out looking to create problems...maybe he was just approaching this young man and Martin lashed out and attacked him. Of course, that probably isn't the case, but it doesn't mean that the defense won't try to persuade a jury otherwise. Besides, Zimmerman claimed that he got out of his vehicle to check the street name and was essentially jumped from behind. If that was the case, and maybe it's not, but assuming that is what he will tell a jury, it's reasonable that your right to defend yourself is reestablished. Even beyond that, the defense could convince the jury this was just a case of imperfect self-defense because Zimmerman feared for his life and responded accordingly, even if he wasn't within the confines of the law. Here again, there is no malice and therefore the state will be unable to carry a murder charge/conviction and it's still 'just' voluntary manslaughter...not that being convicted of voluntary manslaughter would be fun or anything.

From my understanding, the slur that is purported to be on the 911 dispatch tape is mumbled at best and people have reported hearing several different things...even the article clearly says that he "may" have said that...so again, you have to convince a jury to sentence a man to life in prison or possibly death because he may have said a racial slur that may prove that he was racist that may prove he had malice. The defense will ask the state to point to any other incident where Zimmerman was known to hold racist feelings and when they try to say what the neighbors said about Zimmerman and watching out for black people...the defense will yell, "Objection, hearsay!" and the judge will say "Sustained"...unless the person on the stand is the person that was actually told to watch out for black people.

It's sad how everyone had ran with this whole situation. Everybody is out to convict a man because the news media thinks he is guilty. Everywhere I look I see "the murder of Trayvon Martin" despite there being no conviction...hell, there aren't even charges filed! We all saw with the Casey Anthony trial how the media can warp people's perceptions...and I realize that not being found guilty doesn't actually make you innocent, but it goes to show what happened and what you can proved happened are two entirely different things.

I will admit the police seemed to fumble this case pretty well and that is unacceptable.

Regards

The lawmaker's statement that the self defense law does not protect Zimmerman is not opinion. At least one of the lawmakers in the article is the co-author of the law. So he has the ability to apply the law that he helped write to the known facts to determine if it applies. It does not.

Also, the recorded statement is muffled, however, remember that in order to establish probable cause there need not be a smoking gun. The totality of the circumstances are at least enough for there to be an indictment and trial. Remember that Zimmerman said that Martin was suspicious. What made him suspicious? The way he was dressed is logical for someone who was attempting to cover his head due to the impending rain. Since he had no umbrella, it is only logical that he would cover his head with his hood to protect himself from the rain. Remember also that Zimmerman did not observe Martin breaking in someone's townhouse or car. He observed a young man with a hood over his head merely walking in the area. This is hardly suspicious. It is more likely that Zimmerman reacted based on preconceived notions and stereotypical beliefs about Martin, rather than what Martin was actually doing.

Going back to my first paragraph in re the lawmakers' comments, you are correct in that Zimmerman did have injuries to himself and it appeared that he had scuffled on the lawn. However, when he failed to follow the dispatcher's suggestion and stand down, he became the aggressor in any ensuing altercation. Even if Martin did cause those injuries, it is likely that it was Zimmerman who provoked the conflict and if the situation were reversed, Martin would be able to apply the self defense claim and not Zimmerman. The existence of a duty to comply with the dispatcher or lack thereof is not really relevant. His failure to comply created a situation where he became the provocateur and not the victim.

You are correct in that there is some ambiguity in the case. There are no eyewitnesses who actually saw the altercation. We are only left with audio recordings and are forced to piece together what happened. The presence of ambiguity however, is part of what justifies an indictment so that a jury can sort out the issue. The case itself though is not wholly ambiguous. We do know certain facts. We know that Zimmerman provoked the altercation by approaching Martin. It could be argued that Martin likely exchanged words with Zimmerman, but given the circumstances, it is most likely that it is Zimmerman who initially questioned and confronted Martin. Common sense and reason must prevail here. In the absence of a video recording, a logical jury of his peers would be asked to take the facts that we do know into account in light of what a reasonable man in Martin's shoes would do. It was dark and he was being approached and followed by a strange man in an unmarked car. He told his girlfriend on the phone that he was being followed by someone and she told him to run. He was alarmed and at least somewhat afraid. Given his fear, he would not have been without alarm when Zimmerman exited his car in the dark of night and while exiting an unmarked vehicle. A reasonable man in his shoes would have been at least short with Zimmerman and may have asked him to leave him alone. None of the ensuing events would have taken place had Zimmerman not confronted Martin in the first place. A reasonable man in Zimmerman's shoes would have perhaps notified the police, but not then pursued Martin anyway after the fact. This behavior was grossly overboard, especially since we know that Martin was not even committing a crime at the time that Zimmerman pursued him after the dispatcher said that it was unnecessary.

Additionally, we know that Martin was unarmed. We know that Zimmerman used deadly force even though it was unnecessary. Zimmerman's defense lawyer may undoubtedly argue that Zimmerman at the time believed that deadly force was necessary. However, his belief is not relevant. It only matters that he provoked the incident by approaching Martin and he in turn cannot now assert self defense for reasons cited above.

Furthermore, Zimmerman's race is not relevant. Whether he is white or hispanic is irrelevant. His rationale for targeting and ultimately killing Martin is however. His state of mind, from the facts cited above suggest that his belief that Martin was "suspicious" was not based on mere observation of Martin's behavior. In fact, if he were to take the stand at trial, his own statements that he made to the dispatcher may be arguable ambiguous but are questionable at the very least. For instance, when he says that "these guys got away." What did he mean by this? When he says a muffled statement thereafter that some have construed as a racist statement, he would be asked what he actually said. Here he could feign ignorance or be compelled to tell the truth. Recorded statements are admissible into evidence so there Zimmerman, if he took the stand would have a chance to explain the statements that he made.

Secondly, the reason why Zimmerman's race is not relevant is because the targeting of someone because of THEIR race is the only issue that goes to illegality, not the race of the actual person who commits the crime. If Zimmerman were black, it would not matter. To suggest that he need be white for him to harbor racial animosity towards Martin is absurd. In fact, it is equally plausible that a black person could harbor such animosity towards individuals of his/her own race who "look" a certain way given the manner in which they are dressed, hair style, whether they have a hood on, whether their pants are low hanging etc. While I loathe to cite to an actor/comedian, Chris Rock has indicated that he loves black people but he hates n**** , referring to blacks who speak, dress and carry themselves in a way that is commensurate with what he and some others would describe as being a thug or criminal. I myself know of blacks who have expressed a similar sentiment so Zimmerman's race is a non-issue. You are correct in that the media has falsely claimed that Zimmeman is white while it is clear that he is not. But again, this does not really matter and does not go to the heart of whether Zimmerman could have had a racist state of mind.

3/23/12
TraderDaily:

The lawmaker's statement that the self defense law does not protect Zimmerman is not opinion. At least one of the lawmakers in the article is the co-author of the law. So he has the ability to apply the law that he helped write to the known facts to determine if it applies. It does not.

Whether or not the law applies will be up to the jury (assuming there is one)...unless the law maker is selected to be on the jury, his opinion doesn't actually matter.

TraderDaily:

Also, the recorded statement is muffled, however, remember that in order to establish probable cause there need not be a smoking gun. The totality of the circumstances are at least enough for there to be an indictment and trial. Remember that Zimmerman said that Martin was suspicious. What made him suspicious? The way he was dressed is logical for someone who was attempting to cover his head due to the impending rain. Since he had no umbrella, it is only logical that he would cover his head with his hood to protect himself from the rain. Remember also that Zimmerman did not observe Martin breaking in someone's townhouse or car. He observed a young man with a hood over his head merely walking in the area. This is hardly suspicious. It is more likely that Zimmerman reacted based on preconceived notions and stereotypical beliefs about Martin, rather than what Martin was actually doing.

The fact that a guy who presumably knows many of his neighbors didn't recognize a person...who was wearing a hood and walking around in the rain. I know that may not seem odd to someone in NYC or Chicago, but in Florida, most people don't wander about when it's raining...so to many, that would seem very, very odd, some may even say...suspicious. As to Zimmerman's preconceived notions and stereotypical beliefs, there is still no solid evidence to that. Even you admitted that the recording that contains this purported racial slur isn't clear and from what I read, many people hear many different things. 12 jurors, (probably) 24 ears, 12 different brains that could interpret that recording differently.

TraderDaily:

Going back to my first paragraph in re the lawmakers' comments, you are correct in that Zimmerman did have injuries to himself and it appeared that he had scuffled on the lawn. However, when he failed to follow the dispatcher's suggestion and stand down, he became the aggressor in any ensuing altercation. Even if Martin did cause those injuries, it is likely that it was Zimmerman who provoked the conflict and if the situation were reversed, Martin would be able to apply the self defense claim and not Zimmerman. The existence of a duty to comply with the dispatcher or lack thereof is not really relevant. His failure to comply created a situation where he became the provocateur and not the victim.

I still think this is going to be very subjective. If I approach someone to ask for directions and they start punching me, I still have the right to defend myself. I think the state will have to establish that Zimmerman's intent was to hurt Martin. I'm not sure how they do that. Most of everything you write isn't concrete, I keep reading 'may' and 'likely' which means these are all things that create doubt in the minds of jurors, unless the state can bring forth solid evidence to prove the assertion.

TraderDaily:

You are correct in that there is some ambiguity in the case. There are no eyewitnesses who actually saw the altercation. We are only left with audio recordings and are forced to piece together what happened. The presence of ambiguity however, is part of what justifies an indictment so that a jury can sort out the issue. The case itself though is not wholly ambiguous. We do know certain facts. We know that Zimmerman provoked the altercation by approaching Martin. It could be argued that Martin likely exchanged words with Zimmerman, but given the circumstances, it is most likely that it is Zimmerman who initially questioned and confronted Martin. Common sense and reason must prevail here. In the absence of a video recording, a logical jury of his peers would be asked to take the facts that we do know into account in light of what a reasonable man in Martin's shoes would do. It was dark and he was being approached and followed by a strange man in an unmarked car. He told his girlfriend on the phone that he was being followed by someone and she told him to run. He was alarmed and at least somewhat afraid. Given his fear, he would not have been without alarm when Zimmerman exited his car in the dark of night and while exiting an unmarked vehicle. A reasonable man in his shoes would have been at least short with Zimmerman and may have asked him to leave him alone. None of the ensuing events would have taken place had Zimmerman not confronted Martin in the first place. A reasonable man in Zimmerman's shoes would have perhaps notified the police, but not then pursued Martin anyway after the fact. This behavior was grossly overboard, especially since we know that Martin was not even committing a crime at the time that Zimmerman pursued him after the dispatcher said that it was unnecessary.

I actually read there was 1 person who heard and saw what happened and 1 person who heard the altercation and then saw the tail end and not the beginning...which is the important part. I don't know how accurate those claims are but assume they are true. I see 'likely' again...which equals 'doubt' in my mind.

TraderDaily:

Additionally, we know that Martin was unarmed. We know that Zimmerman used deadly force even though it was unnecessary. Zimmerman's defense lawyer may undoubtedly argue that Zimmerman at the time believed that deadly force was necessary. However, his belief is not relevant. It only matters that he provoked the incident by approaching Martin and he in turn cannot now assert self defense for reasons cited above.

A person does NOT have to be armed for them to be a threat to someone else. A weapon is NOT required in order to justify the use of deadly force. Zimmerman's belief of his safety is absolutely critical in this case. One, it may be used to re-establish that the use of deadly force was reasonable if the defense can prove that Zimmerman either (a) didn't actually approach Martin and was actually just checking the street sign and that Martin 'jumped' him on the way back to the truck (which he did claim) or (b) if the legitimate self-defense claim doesn't hold, there is still the possibility that "imperfect self-defense" could apply. I realize it seems like I'm splitting hairs, but I think it's reasonable to assume that the defense is going to say yeah, Zimmerman was following Martin but Martin was the one that turned and charged Zimmerman forcing him to the ground, striking him and causing him to bleed from his nose and head and Zimmerman felt his life was in danger so he drew his firearm and shot.

TraderDaily:

Furthermore, Zimmerman's race is not relevant. Whether he is white or hispanic is irrelevant. His rationale for targeting and ultimately killing Martin is however. His state of mind, from the facts cited above suggest that his belief that Martin was "suspicious" was not based on mere observation of Martin's behavior. In fact, if he were to take the stand at trial, his own statements that he made to the dispatcher may be arguable ambiguous but are questionable at the very least. For instance, when he says that "these guys got away." What did he mean by this? When he says a muffled statement thereafter that some have construed as a racist statement, he would be asked what he actually said. Here he could feign ignorance or be compelled to tell the truth. Recorded statements are admissible into evidence so there Zimmerman, if he took the stand would have a chance to explain the statements that he made.

I think his race is relevant, because hating people of your race would imply you hate yourself. Again, you have no proof that he 'targeted' Martin with the explicit intent to kill him. Again, Martin would have struck many as suspicious, especially at the point he saw someone following him and he took off. What would a criminal, or someone about to commit a crime, do if he was looking for a house to break into and turned around and saw someone following him? Clearly we know that wasn't the case here, but remember that Zimmerman doesn't know that when this is all going down. In his mind he sees a potential criminal and someone reacting like a criminal would. There are people that are enhancing the audio and some of them have said that it wasn't a racial slur that was said. What he actually said will be up to the jurors' interpretation, but I suspect the audio will be sent off to the FBI for some enhancement and it will become clear.

TraderDaily:

Secondly, the reason why Zimmerman's race is not relevant is because the targeting of someone because of THEIR race is the only issue that goes to illegality, not the race of the actual person who commits the crime. If Zimmerman were black, it would not matter. To suggest that he need be white for him to harbor racial animosity towards Martin is absurd. In fact, it is equally plausible that a black person could harbor such animosity towards individuals of his/her own race who "look" a certain way given the manner in which they are dressed, hair style, whether they have a hood on, whether their pants are low hanging etc. While I loathe to cite to an actor/comedian, Chris Rock has indicated that he loves black people but he hates n**** , referring to blacks who speak, dress and carry themselves in a way that is commensurate with what he and some others would describe as being a thug or criminal. I myself know of blacks who have expressed a similar sentiment so Zimmerman's race is a non-issue. You are correct in that the media has falsely claimed that Zimmeman is white while it is clear that he is not. But again, this does not really matter and does not go to the heart of whether Zimmerman could have had a racist state of mind.

The 'race/hate crime' absolutely does NOT apply here. In order for that to apply the race has to be the sole motivation for the crime and that just doesn't seem to be the case. I think most attorneys would agree with that. I also don't think it's plausible for a black person to be charged with a race based hate crime against another black because they are the same race. Things that typically fall under 'hate crime' have to do with race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability...baggy pants don't fall into any of those category.

My honest opinion is that this was a really horrific accident. I agree that Zimmerman was overzealous, but I think that he got pumped up, tried to stop someone from committing a potential crime and the "criminal" thought he was going to be attacked and attempted to defend himself. That lead to the physical altercation and the subsequent shooting. Obviously we will have to wait for all of the evidence to come out but I don't think this will result in a murder conviction.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

3/21/12

So note to self: if you want to kill somebody, just get them alone with you, challenge them to a fight, shoot them after they rough you up a little bit, then claim self defense.

If this guy doesn't even go to trial then this would make that^ seem wayyyy too easy especially considering the idiot's the one who followed him... He was looking for a reason to be a hero and become a humongous piece of shit in the process.

And I realize that this is speculation, but how much can you really be fearing for your life when the guy you're fighting with is screaming for help? Fuck that guy. I hope he goes to prison and runs into a guard that takes his job way over the top like he did.

If your dreams don't scare you, then they are not big enough.

"There are two types of people in this world: People who say they pee in the shower, and dirty fucking liars."-Louis C.K.

3/21/12

What is really disgusting is that Martin, in the last moments of his life, screams for help. Yet he was shot anyway.

Zimmerman needs to be brought to justice.

3/21/12

Breaking News:

Florida Lawmakers say that Zimmerman Unprotected by Self Defense Law:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/george-zi...

3/21/12

The second tragedy in this story is the police handling of it. The fact that Zimmerman has not been arrested yet is absolutely incredible. There's no way the Sanford police chief survives this.

3/21/12

I think zimmerman is in the wrong but don't see enough evidence to suggest that he is a racist.

Did any witness actually see the confrontation from beginning to end?

3/22/12
Brady4MVP:

I think zimmerman is in the wrong but don't see enough evidence to suggest that he is a racist.

Did any witness actually see the confrontation from beginning to end?

Go practice your GMAT, and maybe, maybe you might get into B-school.

Power and Money do not change men; they only unmask them

3/22/12
Brady4MVP:

I think zimmerman is in the wrong but don't see enough evidence to suggest that he is a racist.

Did any witness actually see the confrontation from beginning to end?

Well he did call the police cause a black kid was walking in his neighborhood, then followed him, then called him a "fucking coon" while talking to the 911 dispatcher.

So he seems pretty racist. Even if he wasn't so blatant about his racism, you know for damn sure that he wouldn't be calling the cops or tailing some white kid with skittles.

I know all the racism talk about everything else is annoying as hell, but I'm pretty sure this dude's racist ha...

If your dreams don't scare you, then they are not big enough.

"There are two types of people in this world: People who say they pee in the shower, and dirty fucking liars."-Louis C.K.

3/22/12
Brady4MVP:

I think zimmerman is in the wrong but don't see enough evidence to suggest that he is a racist.

Did any witness actually see the confrontation from beginning to end?

For me, the racism is in the handling of the case.

Can anyone tell me what would have happened if the guy lying face-down was a white latino, while the guy standing over him was a black man with a "previous"? Would he have been released with no drug testing?

But Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely.

And Rhaegar died.

3/22/12

Guesses on what happens to this movie?

3/22/12

@TheKing i agree w/everything you've said

Play games and get a finance job or internship with ConnectCubed

3/22/12

To add: I don't think race is even the biggest issue here. It's the fact that Zimmerman fucking chased after a kid after the cops told him not to, the kid screamed for help and was shot dead. The kid had skittles and iced tea on him and was trying to get away from Zimmerman who pursued him even after being told not to.

This is getting massive coverage because Zimmerman hasn't been charged with a crime even though a harmless kid is fucking dead.

3/22/12

BigBucks calls someone racist and then makes a crack about "you're probably the nerdy asian kid ..." Uh-huh.

3/22/12

i can't believe we are arguing about this. violent, angry, hot-headed busybody with no real job starts a scuffle with a black kid. black kid fights back. busybody gets mad and pulls a gun.

zimmerman's race IS irrelevant. this ain't no bernie goetz where the shooter was about to get attacked by four guys with sharpened screwdrivers. zimmerman was armed and looking for trouble.

3/22/12

I live less than a mile from where this happened. Our city has always had a LOT of racial tension and this certainly isn't helping. Supposed to be a huge protest march tonight, I'll drive by and see what it's like. Can't wait for when Sharpton comes to town and the real circus starts.

3/22/12

Can someone tell Reddit that the guy is Hispanic and not white?

Thanks.

3/22/12

On a different note, the demand for skittles has dropped drasticly.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

3/22/12
heister:

On a different note, the demand for skittles has dropped drasticly.

I'm officially short Skittles. This whole debacle is gonna make me a killing.

Side note: I'm glad the whole liberal media bullshit in the OP wasn't turned into a full-fledged debate. Save that for the fucking political threads. This poor kid's death has nothing to do with the liberal media (and neither does anything else really, but I'm not about to try to convince conservatives of that).

3/22/12

Now we also know that Zimmerman's parents had heavy ties in government. This may explain why he was allowed to just go home after shooting Martin.

3/22/12

link?

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." -IlliniProgrammer
"Your grammar made me wish I'd been aborted." -happypantsmcgee

3/22/12

Google. I saw that on Headline News or CNN earlier today.

3/22/12
TraderDaily:

Google. I saw that on Headline News or CNN earlier today.

Bleh, can't find it. If I do, I'll post up a link, thanks for the heads-up!

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." -IlliniProgrammer
"Your grammar made me wish I'd been aborted." -happypantsmcgee

3/23/12

This kid was obviously dangerous. He could have broken the iced tea bottle and tried to stab someone with it. Furthermore, he could have offered skittles to a 3-year old, potentially creating a choking hazard. Good riddance I says.

Under my tutelage, you will grow from boys to men. From men into gladiators. And from gladiators into SWANSONS.

3/23/12

Silly thread...but Im' bookmarking it so that I can douse brady with some festering monkey shit when my credits are back up.

While I agree with Brady's general arguments, using this tragic story to score some political points is big a low.

__________

3/23/12

I wonder whether this thread is the reason why Brady is fleeing the forum

But Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely.

And Rhaegar died.

3/23/12

cphbravo defending zimmerman like he's got money on the outcome. Damn.

3/24/12
TheKing:

cphbravo defending zimmerman like he's got money on the outcome. Damn.

Vegas baby!!

I'm just trying to remind everyone there is two sides to the story and one isn't really being told in the media. Everyone has a right to a defense in the court of law and what I described is the reason I don't think he will get convicted. Everyone here has rushed to judgement and stated that he is a murder. Murder requires, by law, malice. There is no proof of that.

My guess is the state will want to pursue manslaughter charges because they will have a tough time proving that Zimmerman's intent was to kill Martin. However, since all of the race pimps and camera whores have crawled out of the woodwork and are organizing marches the state will be pressured into pursuing murder-2 charges, which they won't be able to secure a conviction on.

Additionally, everyone is making a big stink about the police department throwing the case, but the fact of the matter is there is only so much they can do. I realize they deviated from their standard operating procedures but in all actuality, they would not have been able to force Zimmerman to take a drug test anyways and it's safe to assume that Zimmerman would have denied taking one if he was asked and he knew he was drunk or high. Lastly, as I stated above, this is a very ambiguous case and the police department doesn't necessarily have enough to hold the guy on murder charges...so they can't really arrest him. The unavoidable aspect of a self defense claim is there is only one person's story for the police to evaluate so what often happens is the local police investigate it and if they can't find proof a crime was committed they will release the suspect and allow them to go home. Then the police will go to the state and say, "Hey, this is what we have, can you charge this guy?" and the state will investigate it and determine whether or not they feel the charges would hold up in the court of law.

Something very similar happened near the area where my parents live. I can't find the article about it, but essentially two guys had an exchange of words while playing basketball at a community court one Sunday morning. One guy turned and started walking away and the second guy followed and grabbed him, and then a physical altercation occurred and guy number 2 pulls a gun and shots and kills guy number 1. The police didn't have enough to charge the guy with the gun so he was free for a couple of weeks before they were able to gather enough evidence...in this case the actual testimony of guy number 2's son (who witnessed the whole thing)...to charge him...which they did, but a few weeks after the incidence occurred. Like it or not, it's just how it works in these cases.

I honestly think the state could very likely bend to the will of the protesters and overreach on the charges and this guy could walk. Only time will tell.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

3/23/12

The problem here is that, the guy acted on his own rather than doing what the cops told him over the phone and just wait for the cops to handle it. The kid would of respected the cops and the cops would have approached it in a routine manner of asking what the kid was doing. Martin would have respected the cops, but just this random guy approaching him, Martin was probably just as scared as the whole neighborhood watch.

This story is sickening. Such a waste of life.

3/23/12

cph: I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that excuses the man's actions. At the very least he should be tried for manslaughter and unlawful use of a deadly weapon. The way he acted (by following the kid) alone makes this unlawful use of a deadly weapon. Neighborhood Watch is just that: watch. They shouldn't be following, much less confronting suspects. Is this a really shitty situation and this guy probably just fucked up? Yes. Does he still have to pay for his mistake? Yes.

My money is on manslaughter, if anything. The evidence here is lacking, but the court of public opinion could very well prevail.

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." -IlliniProgrammer
"Your grammar made me wish I'd been aborted." -happypantsmcgee

3/24/12
D M:

cph: I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that excuses the man's actions. At the very least he should be tried for manslaughter and unlawful use of a deadly weapon. The way he acted (by following the kid) alone makes this unlawful use of a deadly weapon. Neighborhood Watch is just that: watch. They shouldn't be following, much less confronting suspects. Is this a really shitty situation and this guy probably just fucked up? Yes. Does he still have to pay for his mistake? Yes.

My money is on manslaughter, if anything. The evidence here is lacking, but the court of public opinion could very well prevail.

Unfortunately there is no legal definition of neighborhood watch, so his actions, compared to the intended duties of such an organization is mostly irrelevant, not to mention it wasn't even a 'real' neighborhood watch. He is nothing more than a private citizen and private citizens can intervene just about anywhere anytime but, of course, they risk recourse should they hurt, harm or kill anybody or anything.

And I agree, he should pay for his mistake, but people have already convicted this guy based on a mumbled phrase that may or may not be racist and based on the 'young' voice that yelled "help"...which you would need some sort of high level audio enhancement of in order to even attempt to match the voice on the tape to either the victim or the suspect.

Respect

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

3/23/12

I just don't get how people can somehow try to rationalize Zimmerman's actions. Are you human? You may be missing the point that this is huge news because they guy hasn't even been ARRESTED. I'm pretty sure you put the gun in the black kids hands and it's game over; trial date and death row sentence all but scheduled. Do some of you actually believe that Zimmerman should not get the murder conviction or should but won't?

3/23/12

Right. The fact that he hasn't even been placed in custody is MINDBOGGLING.

3/24/12
TraderDaily:

Right. The fact that he hasn't even been placed in custody is MINDBOGGLING.

He was placed into custody, but released...which often happens with self-defense cases because the police typically only have one side of the story and that person is very unlikely to say, "Yeah, he was black and I hate blacks and I was just looking to use up some of my excess ammo". They can only arrest him if they have charges and they can only develop charges after looking at the evidence...which takes time.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

3/23/12

I'm surprised that someone is actually defending Zimmerman. Well considering it's Cphbravo not really.

Race may not be the reason why he shot him, but I'd bet money it's the reason he thought he was suspicious.

I'm trying to understand what exactly Martin should have done differently. Not go to the store? Not wear a hoodie in the rain? Not be black?

If a rapist tries to attack a woman and the woman starts beating the rapists ass can the rapist shoot her because he was suddenly "in fear of his life"?

If you expect a dog to bite you you'll be happy when al they do is pee on your shoes.

3/23/12
fruit loops:

I'm surprised that someone is actually defending Zimmerman. Well considering it's Cphbravo not really.

Race may not be the reason why he shot him, but I'd bet money it's the reason he thought he was suspicious.

That probably is the reason. A teenager in a hoodie walking/running in the rain is suspicious, whether they're black or white. I'm not defending Zimmerman because he DEFINITELY shouldn't have shot this kid for fuck's sake. But thinking Martin was suspicious? That was Zimmerman's job.

fruit loops:

I'm trying to understand what exactly Martin should have done differently. Not go to the store? Not wear a hoodie in the rain? Not be black?

All could've helped his fate. Especially the first two, but even the last one might've had an effect. Whether we like it or not, there's clear statistical evidence that shows correlation between crime and ethnicity. That's no reason to actively pursue a suspect, but it's a pretty solid reason to be suspicious in the first place.

fruit loops:

If a rapist tries to attack a woman and the woman starts beating the rapists ass can the rapist shoot her because he was suddenly "in fear of his life"?

No, and that analogy bears little resemblance to this case.

3/24/12
fruit loops:

I'm surprised that someone is actually defending Zimmerman. Well considering it's Cphbravo not really.

Race may not be the reason why he shot him, but I'd bet money it's the reason he thought he was suspicious.

I'm trying to understand what exactly Martin should have done differently. Not go to the store? Not wear a hoodie in the rain? Not be black?

If a rapist tries to attack a woman and the woman starts beating the rapists ass can the rapist shoot her because he was suddenly "in fear of his life"?

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm wondering how I will ever fall asleep tonight knowing you don't respect what I have to say.

The reason he thought Martin was suspicious has nothing to do with the murder for this to be considered a race or hate crime. The crime that was committed has to be done solely because of that factor.

There probably isn't Martin could have done any differently. I stated before this seems like it was a huge, absurdly peculiar 'accident'. One guy thought he was doing his civic duty and protecting his neighborhood. The other guy probably thought he was about the get jumped or robbed. That lead to an altercation which resulted in Martin's death. That doesn't, in the legal sense, make Zimmerman a murder...or guilty of murder.

To your last point, yes, he can do as he pleases...unfortunately. At the point he kills her he can just flee the scene and likely get away and not get caught. If he doesn't think he can get away, then he can conjure up a story about the girl approaching him and asking him for money...he can say he said no that he didn't want to give him money and she attacked him, whether physically or he can rummage through her purse and spray himself in the face with the can of pepper spray that is probably in there. It's not right, but he can do it and because she isn't around to say otherwise, it's very possible he gets away with it. That's our legal system. Sometimes you risk releasing the guilty to avoid charging the innocent.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

3/23/12

Look at this fucking reporting.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na...

Both LA Times and of course race baiter Jackson.

THE FUCKER IS MEXICAN! FUCK WITH ALL THIS WHITE SHIT??

3/24/12
Nobama88:

Look at this fucking reporting.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na...

Both LA Times and of course race baiter Jackson.

THE FUCKER IS MEXICAN! FUCK WITH ALL THIS WHITE SHIT??

You can throw Obama into the race baiter category as well. If someone has a link to his, or Jackson's or Sharpton's statements about the following, I would love to see them...
http://urbangrounds.com/2011/11/black-men-rape-old...
http://urbangrounds.com/2011/11/octavius-lanier/
http://urbangrounds.com/2011/08/philadelphia-hate-...
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/01/16/police...
http://www.thegrio.com/local/atlanta/suspects-iden...

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

3/24/12
cphbravo96:
Nobama88:

Look at this fucking reporting.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na...

Both LA Times and of course race baiter Jackson.

THE FUCKER IS MEXICAN! FUCK WITH ALL THIS WHITE SHIT??

You can throw Obama into the race baiter category as well. If someone has a link to his, or Jackson's or Sharpton's statements about the following, I would love to see them...
http://urbangrounds.com/2011/11/black-men-rape-old...
http://urbangrounds.com/2011/11/octavius-lanier/
http://urbangrounds.com/2011/08/philadelphia-hate-...
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/01/16/police...
http://www.thegrio.com/local/atlanta/suspects-iden...

Regards

Add this to your list: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-04/news/31...

where two black kids set a 13 year old white kid on fire...probably one of the most evil/painful acts of violence out there. let's see Obama comment on that one.

3/24/12

patrick move this thread to JDOasis

3/24/12

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

3/24/12

cphbravo96, are you hispanic?

3/24/12
alreadyrich:

cphbravo96, are you hispanic?

No.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

3/24/12

You can't claim self defence against self defence. I find it hard to believe Martin was the aggressor given he was running away from Zimmerman and even told his gf on the phone "I think I've lost him ..."

3/24/12

cphBravo -

The entire premise of your argument, the "we don't know both sides to the story" falls apart due to the simple fact that Zimmerman pursued the kid and was told to not pursue the kid by the 911 operator. It's no longer self-defense if you're instigating it.

If someone walked past my house with a hoodie on, and I thought he looked sketchy and chased after him and killed him, I couldn't claim self-defense because I thought he was up-to-no-good. That's absurd.

And, again, the reason why this is such a big deal is because of the controversial "Stand Your Ground" law. All of the white people coming into this thread whining about not enough reporting on black on white crime look like idiots. Again, the Stand Your Ground law combined with the killing of a kid who was buying skittles and iced tea for his brother is at the heart of this. And, let's be real, black on white crime is reported all the fucking time. Turn on the local news any day of the week and you'll get plenty of brutal reporting on murder, robbery, etc. Some of it mixed race, some white on white, some black on black, etc. The oppressed majority routine is played out.

Lastly...CPH, did you really imply that "fucking coon" may or may not be racist? How is it even up for debate? God damn.

3/25/12
TheKing:

cphBravo -

The entire premise of your argument, the "we don't know both sides to the story" falls apart due to the simple fact that Zimmerman pursued the kid and was told to not pursue the kid by the 911 operator. It's no longer self-defense if you're instigating it.

If someone walked past my house with a hoodie on, and I thought he looked sketchy and chased after him and killed him, I couldn't claim self-defense because I thought he was up-to-no-good. That's absurd.

And, again, the reason why this is such a big deal is because of the controversial "Stand Your Ground" law. All of the white people coming into this thread whining about not enough reporting on black on white crime look like idiots. Again, the Stand Your Ground law combined with the killing of a kid who was buying skittles and iced tea for his brother is at the heart of this. And, let's be real, black on white crime is reported all the fucking time. Turn on the local news any day of the week and you'll get plenty of brutal reporting on murder, robbery, etc. Some of it mixed race, some white on white, some black on black, etc. The oppressed majority routine is played out.

Lastly...CPH, did you really imply that "fucking coon" may or may not be racist? How is it even up for debate? God damn.

The premise of my arguement stands until the jury finds him guilty of murder. Following someone doesn't give them the right to attack you (this is Zimmerman's claim). I'm merely saying that the defense may be able to establish that Zimmerman was no threat to Martin but that Martin can after him.

If this isn't about race, then why is Sharpton and Jackson getting involved? Where were they on the other crimes? How come nearly everyone in this thread has labeled Zimmerman a racist? The "Stand Your Ground Law" isn't controversial in my mind, so I guess that one is just subjective. I have a right to defend myself anytime anywhere, and you can rest assured I would do whatever I had to do to save my life. Better to be judged by twelve then carried by six.

And frankly, I don't care about the local news, I care about the national/international news and the events that the president feels the need to chime in on. It seems your as sick of the 'oppressed majority' line as the rest of us are about the caring liberal mantra that never plays out. You and your ilk do more harm than good to every American, regardless of race, but as long as you feel good about it at the end of the day. Just a bunch of welfare pimps and race baiters.

And go back and read what I wrote. If you weren't so eager to disagree with everything that I write you would see that I explained the audio wasn't clear and most people have said that can't be sure what he said. Then you have internet detectives like yourself who have super sleuthed the shitty audio through your Beats audio headphones and fucking solved the case already. Hooraaaahhhhh!!!

Just go away.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

3/24/12

http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-george-zimmerm...

"A 47-page document of Zimmerman's most recent 9-1-1 calls, posted online by the city of Sanford today, paints a portrait of a man who was obsessed with law-and-order. Most of the calls relate to suburban mundanities (kids jumping fences, suspicious cars), but he appears to have been particularly concerned about the behavior of young black males.

Mother Jones' Adam Weinstein draws our attention to these calls:

In August 2011, he called to report a black male in a tank top and shorts acting suspicious near the development's back entrance. "[Complainant] believes [subject] is involved in recent S-21s"--break-ins--"in the neighborhood," the call log states. The suspect, Zimmerman told the dispatcher, fit a recent description given out by law enforcement officers.

Three days later, he called to report two black teens in the same area, for the same reason. "[Juveniles] are the subjs who have been [burglarizing] in this area," he told the dispatcher.

And last month, on Feb. 2, Zimmerman called to report a suspicious black man in a leather jacket near one of the development's units. The resident of that townhouse, Zimmerman told dispatch, was a white male. Police stopped by to investigate, but no one was there, and the residence was secure.

After that, there's one final call logged in the report. At 7:11 on February 26, Zimmerman called police to report a black male in a dark gray hoodie. A few minutes later, that male--Trayvon Martin--lay dead on the sidewalk.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-george-zimmerm..."

3/24/12

gstackle -

Why would the Obama administration comment on a crime like that? How is that truly comparable?

Your case:

--The police are pursuing suspects but have not yet been able to apprehend them

Zimmerman case:

--Police know who the killer is and haven't made an arrest

Your case:

--No gray area even remotely. They even call it a hate crime.

Zimmerman case:

--Stand Your Ground law adds some gray area to this case, even if Zimmerman clearly provoked things (hence the controversy.)

So, you found a case in which two black teens brutally assaulted (but did not kill, mind you) a white teen and compared it to a grown man pursuing a black teen after being told not to by the 911 dispatcher and then shooting the kid dead after he was screaming for help and then claiming self-defense...even though he instigated it.

These cases are not comparable.

"but, but...REVERSE RACISM! I AM AN OPPRESSED WHITE MAN!"

3/24/12

As I said, I live less than a mile from where this happened and grew up in Sanford.

Some tidbits. Went to a movie yesterday and a preview for "Neighborhood Watch" came on. The tension in the theater was pretty palpable. Kind of funny though.

Several news outlets are definitely doing their best to increase racial tension. Saw an AP report yesterday that quoted a resident and noted that she "Grew up black in Sanford." Little things like that are going to change the dialogue surrounding the event for the worse.

Funny to see how the media uses the popularity of the case to turn our city into something it isn't. From the coverage you'd think we were on the brink of a race war, which simply is not the case. Truth be told, this even BARELY occurred in Sanford. The neighborhood is a nice newer gated community that is literally about 500 feet from the border with Lake Mary, a mostly white middle-class suburban archetype. Had this event happened there, there would be no talk of decades of racism and the event would be nowhere as widespread as it is.

I just wish they would focus on the laws at hand and leave race out of it (or be a little more open about mentioning the fact that Zimmerman is Hispanic). They really are kicking the hornets nest here...

3/24/12

CHP is just presenting the realities of the situation. What he is saying is correct. Just like in the Casey Anthony case you had every yoohoo out there screaming for the needle. Fact of the matter is that the law is the law it doesn't care how emotional we are about a case. CHP is right that the Zimmerman kid will more than likely get off due to a technicality in how the degrees of charge. Is this right? No, however if people want justice they should sit on their couches and watch it unfold not march out in the streets putting pressure on the DA to go after the heaviest charge.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

3/24/12

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-24/new...

I didn't know the Black Panthers were still a thing. Apparently they're rallying and trying to take the law into their own hands in the capture of Zimmerman. Also "Black power!" chants? Geez, this is getting a little interesting...

3/24/12

The liberal biased news is just pumping this up. I find it funny how they are making this out to be a white racist when the guy is Hispanic. Also, glad to know Clownbama is focusing on this triviality instead of the economy, two wars or anything else. What a joke.

This is why I don't waste my time watching news.

3/24/12

@CPH - next time you piss truth all over the place tell me a head of time so I can get a poncho. So glad to know that the kangaro court of public opinion is ready to condemn and ruin someone's life before any facts or trial are had.

Oh, another thing. God bless Florida and their Stand Your Ground law.

3/24/12
ANT:

@CPH - next time you piss truth all over the place tell me a head of time so I can get a poncho. So glad to know that the kangaro court of public opinion is ready to condemn and ruin someone's life before any facts or trial are had.

Oh, another thing. God bless Florida and their Stand Your Ground law.

I don't know all the facts of the story, but I just read an article that said the "Stand Your Ground" defense may be null and void since he was specifically told by the police to stand down and stop pursuing the individual. He then took it upon himself to keep following said individual when he wasn't really in any imminent danger.

I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea how that will be interpreted however.

My name is Nicky, but you can call me Dre.

3/24/12

Getting a little interesting after all...
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witnes...

3/25/12
Nobama88:

Getting a little interesting after all...
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witnes...

This is exactly what I said 2 fucking pages ago. Just further proof that the police department isn't the national headquarters for the KKK. There are standards that have to be met to arrest someone and...unfortunately for all of you line cooks stirring the pot of race bait soup...the burden, in the eyes of the PD, was not met.

Look at all of these people on here that are trying to convict a man and take his life just because they think a voice heard in the background of a 911 recording is that of someone they have never met or spoke to in their life...does that not just seem fucking loony tunes or what?

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

3/24/12

A small teenager was beating up a 200+ lb adult who was chasing him down? Please, tell me more...

3/24/12

A 17 year old athlete.

Wow, the witness adds to the story. I love the people in the peanut gallery who condem a guy without knowingthefacts.

3/24/12

once again TheKing is absolutely crushing the thread.

3/24/12

once again TheKing is absolutely crushing the thread.

3/24/12

By crushing do you mean playing second fiddle to correct wing knowledge dropping CPH?

3/24/12

ANT, really, i can predict your response to any conflict.

i mean, what do you stand for? TheKing seems to have some kind of morality resembling the kind i was taught in church and by adults whom i respect, growing up. What you seem to stand for is intolerance for anyone who disagrees without, labeling/name-calling of political philosophies and ideologies you don't bother taking the time to understand, defending soldiers who commit atrocious war crimes, defending pill-popping filthy-mouted hypocrites using gutter language to slur young women on national radio, young people exercising their freedom of speech in public parks?

i am not so sure that you are a conservative. maybe you are some crazy super-sly liberal trolling as a conservative to make the whole movement look silly. or maybe you are a conservatism-enthusiast who gets more of a kick out of liking conservatism rather than really practicing it even when it doesn't benefit your pocketbook, flatter your ignorance, or tickle your vanity.

i know you really have it in for liberals, but how have they harmed you, really? you pay a lot in taxes out of your paycheck? yeah that sucks, but you act as if you invented the idea of taxes sucking. didn't get into the schools you want because of affirmative action? you still seem to be doing alright. maybe you'd like to switch places with a black dude since in your world it's so awesome to be black because Obummer and his liberal cronies are handing it all to them on a silver platter. maybe you'd like to be poor? hey those guys don't pay a nickel in income tax, it must be so sweet to be poor in america. how about switching places with one of those afghan kids killed in their beds? i don't even know what bullshit reason you have for why what ssgt bales did was right, but i'm sure you got one! someone do a site search and find me an ANT defending crazy war criminals post, i'm sure there's one.

brady is right, this site is getting weak. i am sure you are very good at what you do in finance, but when it comes to everything else in life, you don't sound any more coherent than the crazy wino standing on top of a crate in the corner screaming about the end of the world.

ps. obummer's getting re-elected this november. deal with it.

3/24/12
melvvvar:

ANT, really, i can predict your response to any conflict.

i mean, what do you stand for? TheKing seems to have some kind of morality resembling the kind i was taught in church and by adults whom i respect, growing up. What you seem to stand for is intolerance for anyone who disagrees without, labeling/name-calling of political philosophies and ideologies you don't bother taking the time to understand, defending soldiers who commit atrocious war crimes, defending pill-popping filthy-mouted hypocrites using gutter language to slur young women on national radio, young people exercising their freedom of speech in public parks?

i am not so sure that you are a conservative. maybe you are some crazy super-sly liberal trolling as a conservative to make the whole movement look silly. or maybe you are a conservatism-enthusiast who gets more of a kick out of liking conservatism rather than really practicing it even when it doesn't benefit your pocketbook, flatter your ignorance, or tickle your vanity.

i know you really have it in for liberals, but how have they harmed you, really? you pay a lot in taxes out of your paycheck? yeah that sucks, but you act as if you invented the idea of taxes sucking. didn't get into the schools you want because of affirmative action? you still seem to be doing alright. maybe you'd like to switch places with a black dude since in your world it's so awesome to be black because Obummer and his liberal cronies are handing it all to them on a silver platter. maybe you'd like to be poor? hey those guys don't pay a nickel in income tax, it must be so sweet to be poor in america. how about switching places with one of those afghan kids killed in their beds? i don't even know what bullshit reason you have for why what ssgt bales did was right, but i'm sure you got one! someone do a site search and find me an ANT defending crazy war criminals post, i'm sure there's one.

brady is right, this site is getting weak. i am sure you are very good at what you do in finance, but when it comes to everything else in life, you don't sound any more coherent than the crazy wino standing on top of a crate in the corner screaming about the end of the world.

ps. obummer's getting re-elected this november. deal with it.

You are such a bigot. I hate racism and I hate it when people like you spew it on this site.

3/24/12

Wow, I guess waiting for a court to expose facts makes me a radical. Sorry I don't agree with you condemning a person until all the facts are exposed. Guess that makes me a radical.

3/24/12

I love it, you show that there are two sides to a story and the site is getting weak. Get real. I frankly could careless. People are senselessly killed every day, but this Hispanic guy is being judge by a bunch of back seat driving clowns.

3/24/12

here's some cognitive dissonance for you:
http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/01/mild-manner...

please, tell me who is right or wrong in this one.

3/24/12

I'll wait for a trial or official report bro. Sorry I don't condem someone to death off a blog post. What's a joke.

3/24/12

ung was acquitted. waddya think? joke or no joke? please send more monkey shit my way, i know i am doing right when i'm getting them from you.

3/25/12

Fox is the only station on point in this case. This is a local shooting issue that warrants only one mention. CNN and their ilk, with their liberal bias, are the epitome of lame stream media. Pumping this fake racism issue.

And why? Because the 911 call "sounds like" he said coon? Get fucking real.

Unlike all the heathens calling for death, I'll wait for a trial or official statement before I pass judgement.

Ohh, and the Ung case was different than this in so many ways. The kid also deserved to be let go free and would never have been put through the misery he was if Shitadelpia had a stand your ground law. It will never happen though because it is a Democrat run city that likes seeing law abiding citizens taken advantage of and killed.

3/28/12
ANT:

Fox is the only station on point in this case. This is a local shooting issue that warrants only one mention. CNN and their ilk, with their liberal bias, are the epitome of lame stream media. Pumping this fake racism issue.

And why? Because the 911 call "sounds like" he said coon? Get fucking real.

Unlike all the heathens calling for death, I'll wait for a trial or official statement before I pass judgement.

Ohh, and the Ung case was different than this in so many ways. The kid also deserved to be let go free and would never have been put through the misery he was if Shitadelpia had a stand your ground law. It will never happen though because it is a Democrat run city that likes seeing law abiding citizens taken advantage of and killed.

Ant, I can't believe you buy into Fox's shit. It tastes just the same as your so-called liberal media blah blah. The only thing both care about is dollars and getting your attention...

... and dude, seriously, Hannity? Fuckin Hannity?

3/25/12

CPH is just educating people today. Bravo good man !

3/25/12

Im liberal (sorta) & i can see the sense in wat bravo n ANT are sayin. Need to get the facts before passing judgement. That is all. Really dont see how such a simple point is stretchin this thread to page 4!!!

__________

3/26/12

Cphbravo96,

I've been trying to avoid responding to you, because I really do not like getting into arguments with people who are not fully aware of the subject matter (in this case law) they are debating. While I congratulate you on your valiant attempt at protecting the vanguard of "innocent until proven guilty" (we need more people doing this), you have made the mistake of mixing incorrect notions into your otherwise zealous defense. Many of your arguments lay around logical possibility. Many things are logically possible- but most of those logical possibilities are not reasonable. That is why jury instructions are "beyond a reasonable doubt". Doubt is almost always logically possible, but is it reasonable? The principle problem, as you have pointed out, is we don't know absolutely. But much of prosecution is "we don't know". Most murder trials that end in conviction don't have a confession tape that explicitly describes the nature of murder by the killer. But the standard is reasonable doubt.

To address some of your claims: first, the idea that they could not have arrested at the scene is incorrect. For example, many states have 'mandatory arrest' clauses for domestic violence calls- as in, someone HAS to be in handcuffs before the police leave. Just because Zimmerman asserted a legal defense on-site, doesn't mean the police can or should his word for it. He said self-defense. They should then search Mr. Martin's corpse. They find no weapon. This is reason enough to arrest. If his story checks out, then he is released. Why? First, because someone is dead. Second, Because if one person shoots another and the only other potential witness is dead, the police should not and cannot take the word of the shooter because he or she is not a disinterested party. "Innocent until proven guilty" is different from "justified"- the former is a negative protection whereas the latter is a pro-active defense.

There are two areas of questioning I find interesting.

1. It is reasonable that walking at night is suspicious? If you think so, you fall outside the accepted norms and law. Consider that in most jurisdictions the police cannot stop you for wearing a hood and walking around while it is raining. I'm dead serious. If a squad car rolls up, and a courteous officer ask you "What you are doing out here? Need a ride?" You can look him in the eyes and say, "If you are not detaining me, I have nothing to say to you." And there is nothing they can do (for more, see flexyourrights.org). So, many officers don't even bother unless you are in the vicinity of the active crime scene or making furtive gestures.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say you are suspicious, Mr. Zimmerman's words on the phone clearly demonstrated he had already made a judgment call as to what he thought about Mr. Martin's presence. He called Mr. Martin an "asshole" and suggested criminals like him "always get away" (despite having no evidence) and a "fucking" something. I think it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Zimmerman wasn't the most even-handed person when the confrontation did happen.

2. Second, is it reasonable to assume that Mr. Martin, with no criminal record of any kind, attacked Mr. Zimmerman, a man who is, according to some report, is 100 pounds heavier, for, what, asking him a question? What is the motive? Now, you mentioned size doesn't matter in asserting self-defense. But again, reasonableness matters. If a 6' 2" 250-lb 25 year-old man shoots a 110-lb, 5' 6" unarmed 82 year-old woman and claims self-defense, the question of "Was this a reasonable response?" will be asked- and it should be. Again, that scenario is technically possible, but there will be a significant hurdle. If Mr. Zimmerman is claiming that someone who has no history of violence suddenly attacked him so viciously that he needed deadly force to protect himself, there is a high bar. As you can imagine this is logically possible, but is it reasonable or likely? Especially when there is testimony that Mr. Martin tried to avoid Mr. Zimmerman. Is it reasonable to believe that Mr. Martin, according to Mr. Zimmerman, for no apparent, attacked Mr. Zimmerman as he was returning to his car while simultaneously trying to avoid him? Is it more likely that Mr. Zimmerman, given his emotional disposition heard on the 911 call and who already has a history of violent confrontation accosted Mr. Martin? I don't know. I'll leave that the grand jury. When there is only one witness that has a stake in the outcome, the jury must assess what is reasonable and heavily discount the word of an interested party. And the story so far is not plausible. But again, a grand jury will hear all the available, admitted evidence and I will defer to them.

To call the investigation "half-assed" is an insult to just "poorly done" jobs. In essence, there was no investigation. And because of that, there is a lot of lost forensic information we will never know.

1. They didn't test Zimmerman's blood for substances. You are incorrect that the police could not have drug tested Mr. Zimmerman. Your blood, the Supreme Court has ruled, is not protected under the 5th Amendment. They can collect it- If he refuses, you can arrest, and then take sample- just like a DUI stop.
2. They didn't test the blood found on Zimmerman. Reports are that there was blood on Mr. Zimmerman's head and/or clothes. What we don't know is whose blood- it wasn't tested (hopefully, they haven't disposed of the little evidence they do have). I've heard reports of a broken nose on Mr. Zimmerman, again did the police note this in their report? Is there a doctor visit or X-ray to substantiate? Can they demonstrate it was broken that night? Again, nothing.
3. They didn't contact a key witness (say, the person who was on the phone during the incident).
4. They didn't take the gun as evidence for ballistics testing.
5. They didn't do ballistics testing. How far was Mr. Zimmerman from Mr. Martin when he shot him? What angle was the shot fired? We will never know for sure.
6. They didn't even try to find out who the corpse was or his relationship to Mr. Zimmerman- that is absolutely critical for finding out if the shooter had motive. They put a John Doe toetag on him and didn't even ask around.

None of this was done. And not to mention, they sent a narcotics officer to investigate what was known to be a possible homicide. There was no evidence to support Mr. Zimmerman's claim of self-defense and since someone is dead, the police must not take someone's word as part of an investigation. Self-defense is a positive claim and does require some kind of evidentiary support. Although the bar is fairly low, especially in FL where it dangerously approaches 0, Mr. Zimmerman was not required to demonstrate anything.

As a final note, the court should not and will not accept additional witnesses. I am beginning to hear and read reports or people saying they saw this or that. That will not fly in a courtroom and should been viewed as extremely spurious. This happened a month ago and the few statements that were actually collected will stand as authoritative. Any Johnny-come-lately's will have to explain just where the hell have they been and how can we trust them, considering they didn't make a statement the night of. A lawyer, prosecution or defense, would make mincemeat out of them.

Ultimately, we can agree on two things- first, there is a lot we don't know and will never know. And secondly, Mr. Zimmerman, afforded the proper representation, has a good chance of getting off scot-free (any decent lawyer could do it for him). And in the event of a conviction, he has one hell of an appeal, given all the publicity. Mr. Zimmerman will likely walk because of an absolute embarrassment of an investigation. On the other hand, the Martins may have a case again Sanford PD for an absolutely horrible performance. Also, Zimmerman risks a wrongful death civil suit which has a lower evidentiary standard called "preponderance of evidence".

Usually, I would let your mistakes slide, but people seem to think you are correct on some important issues. Full disclosure- I don't think "Stand Your Ground" is a bad idea, it's unfortunate that its' use here could undermine reasonable citizens' access to necessary defensive weapons. Also, the broad language probably needs work.

Cphbravo96, your heart is in the right place (defending equal justice even for extremely unpopular people), but you've got to check your facts too.

Bene qui latuit, bene vixit- Ovid

3/26/12
rls:

Cphbravo96,

I've been trying to avoid responding to you, because I really do not like getting into arguments with people who are not fully aware of the subject matter (in this case law) they are debating. While I congratulate you on your valiant attempt at protecting the vanguard of "innocent until proven guilty" (we need more people doing this), you have made the mistake of mixing incorrect notions into your otherwise zealous defense. Many of your arguments lay around logical possibility. Many things are logically possible- but most of those logical possibilities are not reasonable. That is why jury instructions are "beyond a reasonable doubt". Doubt is almost always logically possible, but is it reasonable? The principle problem, as you have pointed out, is we don't know absolutely. But much of prosecution is "we don't know". Most murder trials that end in conviction don't have a confession tape that explicitly describes the nature of murder by the killer. But the standard is reasonable doubt.

To address some of your claims: first, the idea that they could not have arrested at the scene is incorrect. For example, many states have 'mandatory arrest' clauses for domestic violence calls- as in, someone HAS to be in handcuffs before the police leave. Just because Zimmerman asserted a legal defense on-site, doesn't mean the police can or should his word for it. He said self-defense. They should then search Mr. Martin's corpse. They find no weapon. This is reason enough to arrest. If his story checks out, then he is released. Why? First, because someone is dead. Second, Because if one person shoots another and the only other potential witness is dead, the police should not and cannot take the word of the shooter because he or she is not a disinterested party. "Innocent until proven guilty" is different from "justified"- the former is a negative protection whereas the latter is a pro-active defense.

Geez, I wish you hadn't tried. I'm not sure if you are a lawyer or you just grew up on a healthy diet of Perry Mason...since you pointed out that I don't know what I'm talking about, despite you not actually knowing anything about me...but your example of domestic violence doesn't even make sense. There are specific laws that deal with domestic violence cases and the people involved in this incident haven't been reported as being intimate...sooooo, I'm not sure why you brought it up. Anyways, my understanding is they did take him into custody and they did an investigation. They showed up on the scene, one guy was dead and the shooter had fresh grass stains on his jacket, as if he was wrestling on the ground, and a bloody head/face. Unless the police find the body face down in the dirt with a close range wound to the back of the victim...there isn't going to be much in the way of trying to charge him. You can reverse engineer the positions each individual was in when the shot was fired and that will tell you a ton of stuff like who was standing or on the ground, which direction each person was facing, etc. If the shooter claims self defense and it isn't readily apparent that this was a murder, there isn't much the police can do.

rls:

There are two areas of questioning I find interesting.

1. It is reasonable that walking at night is suspicious? If you think so, you fall outside the accepted norms and law. Consider that in most jurisdictions the police cannot stop you for wearing a hood and walking around while it is raining. I'm dead serious. If a squad car rolls up, and a courteous officer ask you "What you are doing out here? Need a ride?" You can look him in the eyes and say, "If you are not detaining me, I have nothing to say to you." And there is nothing they can do (for more, see flexyourrights.org). So, many officers don't even bother unless you are in the vicinity of the active crime scene or making furtive gestures.

I've already laid out my argument here, so taking parts of what actually occurred isn't going to get it done here. It was dark and raining in a state where most people travel by car. There was an individual that wasn't recognized by someone that lives in the neighborhood...and rightfully so, because Martin didn't actually live there..and he has his faced covered. All of that seems very suspect. Let's agree to disagree because I think plenty of people would find that suspicious. And I'm well aware of my rights and that law enforcement officers have to have 'reasonable and articulate suspicion' in order to detain someone. They can stop anyone they want but you never have to answer their questions and can ask to leave unless otherwise directed...at which point it becomes an investigation and they would have to prove to a judge that they had legal grounds to stop you. I have a dozen close friends that work in law enforcement and speak to them frequently. Random stops happen all the time and are initiated often by them in order to probe around when they don't have RAS to actually detain the individual.

rls:

But, for the sake of argument, let's say you are suspicious, Mr. Zimmerman's words on the phone clearly demonstrated he had already made a judgment call as to what he thought about Mr. Martin's presence. He called Mr. Martin an "asshole" and suggested criminals like him "always get away" (despite having no evidence) and a "fucking" something. I think it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Zimmerman wasn't the most even-handed person when the confrontation did happen.

That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion, but the defense is entitled to parade in front of the jury all of the neighbors that say Zimmerman was passionate about the safety of the neighborhood and those that lived there. That is supported by the fact that Zimmerman took time out of his life to make sure that houses in the neighborhood were secure and not being broken into. I realize that we live in a self serving, ego maniacal society now, but there was a time when his ambitious behavior would have been accepted and praised.

rls:

2. Second, is it reasonable to assume that Mr. Martin, with no criminal record of any kind, attacked Mr. Zimmerman, a man who is, according to some report, is 100 pounds heavier, for, what, asking him a question? What is the motive? Now, you mentioned size doesn't matter in asserting self-defense. But again, reasonableness matters. If a 6' 2" 250-lb 25 year-old man shoots a 110-lb, 5' 6" unarmed 82 year-old woman and claims self-defense, the question of "Was this a reasonable response?" will be asked- and it should be. Again, that scenario is technically possible, but there will be a significant hurdle. If Mr. Zimmerman is claiming that someone who has no history of violence suddenly attacked him so viciously that he needed deadly force to protect himself, there is a high bar. As you can imagine this is logically possible, but is it reasonable or likely? Especially when there is testimony that Mr. Martin tried to avoid Mr. Zimmerman. Is it reasonable to believe that Mr. Martin, according to Mr. Zimmerman, for no apparent, attacked Mr. Zimmerman as he was returning to his car while simultaneously trying to avoid him? Is it more likely that Mr. Zimmerman, given his emotional disposition heard on the 911 call and who already has a history of violent confrontation accosted Mr. Martin? I don't know. I'll leave that the grand jury. When there is only one witness that has a stake in the outcome, the jury must assess what is reasonable and heavily discount the word of an interested party. And the story so far is not plausible. But again, a grand jury will hear all the available, admitted evidence and I will defer to them.

Where is the report of a history of violence? I don't recall hearing about prior violence, so if you have a link or something I would love to educate myself. Is it reasonable to assume that Zimmerman, who has never killed anyone before and who has no credible claim of racism against him was so angry about a random black kid being in his neighborhood that he stalked him and then provoked him into a physical altercation so he could gun the kid down...or are you saying that he just murdered this kid because of his skin color and then rolled in the grass to give the appearance that a struggle occurred and then punched himself in the nose and head so that it appeared he was attacked?

rls:

To call the investigation "half-assed" is an insult to just "poorly done" jobs. In essence, there was no investigation. And because of that, there is a lot of lost forensic information we will never know.

Do you work for the DA's office or the DOJ? How do you know that 'there was no investigation' done? Seems to me there were statements taken from neighbors...which would be part of an investigation in my book.

rls:

1. They didn't test Zimmerman's blood for substances. You are incorrect that the police could not have drug tested Mr. Zimmerman. Your blood, the Supreme Court has ruled, is not protected under the 5th Amendment. They can collect it- If he refuses, you can arrest, and then take sample- just like a DUI stop.

Your budget law school must have used the other version of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment is what you were actually looking for. The SCOTUS has actually ruled that the drawing of blood is only minimally invasive, so the Fourth Amendment isn't automatically violated...so it can be done when it's believed that the blood harbors evidence that a crime has been committed (such as a DUI), however, the individual doesn't have to consent to a blood test in this case because the police can not forcefully take the blood...because that would be a clear violation of Zimmerman's Fourth Amendment rights. The police would have to obtain a warrant from a judge in order to compel Zimmerman to submit to a blood test and in order to submit to garner a warrant from a judge you would need probable cause that a crime has been committed...which arguably doesn't exist given that they released Zimmerman.

rls:

2. They didn't test the blood found on Zimmerman. Reports are that there was blood on Mr. Zimmerman's head and/or clothes. What we don't know is whose blood- it wasn't tested (hopefully, they haven't disposed of the little evidence they do have). I've heard reports of a broken nose on Mr. Zimmerman, again did the police note this in their report? Is there a doctor visit or X-ray to substantiate? Can they demonstrate it was broken that night? Again, nothing.

Those are all excellent points. Again I revert back to the point that none of the answers to these questions are known...so how can so many people crucify this guy without the proof?

rls:

3. They didn't contact a key witness (say, the person who was on the phone during the incident).

Seems odd since that particular witness said that she talked to the police but that the police misreported her statement. She also claims that the police were on Zimmerman's side from the very beginning and that she doesn't believe "there was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling" right before the gun shot...then again, she also admits that she didn't actually see what happened. So you essentially have a witness that wasn't actually a witness. I wouldn't want my case resting on her testimony, that's for sure.

rls:

4. They didn't take the gun as evidence for ballistics testing.

I haven't read that so I don't know if that is true or not. At any rate Zimmerman admitted he shot Martin so I'm not sure why they would need ballistics. Bullets fly straight so you really only need to know the positions of the bodies to determine whether the shooter is being truthful about the events. Presumably an execution style shot would be apparent and those that wouldn't be apparent on the scene would likely be discovered during the autopsy.

rls:

5. They didn't do ballistics testing. How far was Mr. Zimmerman from Mr. Martin when he shot him? What angle was the shot fired? We will never know for sure.

Again, don't know that this is true, so see above. Also, I'm not sure what information would need to be collected at the scene that couldn't be determined later. Distance from one another can probably just be determined by knowing the velocity of the round that was fired and the approximate amount of clothing and penetration into the body cavity.

rls:

6. They didn't even try to find out who the corpse was or his relationship to Mr. Zimmerman- that is absolutely critical for finding out if the shooter had motive. They put a John Doe toetag on him and didn't even ask around.

I'm not sure how much this matters either. You can't keep people locked up because you aren't sure that they haven't committed a crime. You have to have reasonable cause or suspicion and the police felt like they didn't have that. As I stated in a previous post, it's not unheard of for the police to interview a suspect and let them leave only to go back and arrest the person once they have gathered enough evidence to support their arrest.

rls:

None of this was done. And not to mention, they sent a narcotics officer to investigate what was known to be a possible homicide. There was no evidence to support Mr. Zimmerman's claim of self-defense and since someone is dead, the police must not take someone's word as part of an investigation. Self-defense is a positive claim and does require some kind of evidentiary support. Although the bar is fairly low, especially in FL where it dangerously approaches 0, Mr. Zimmerman was not required to demonstrate anything.

Again, not sure if any of that is true so it's hard to comment. There is plenty to support Zimmerman's claims...first and foremost is his appearance when the police showed up...the grass stains and the blood...second is an eye witness that claims to have seen it all...sounds like enough my book, but I'm not emotionally invested in the outcome as some many here appear to be. I don't know who your source is for all of your knowledge about what evidence was and wasn't collected but you should vet them a bit more if they haven't told you about the apparent eye witness.

rls:

As a final note, the court should not and will not accept additional witnesses. I am beginning to hear and read reports or people saying they saw this or that. That will not fly in a courtroom and should been viewed as extremely spurious. This happened a month ago and the few statements that were actually collected will stand as authoritative. Any Johnny-come-lately's will have to explain just where the hell have they been and how can we trust them, considering they didn't make a statement the night of. A lawyer, prosecution or defense, would make mincemeat out of them.

I can't pretend to know what the court will and will not allow. It's my guess that neither side will want to put someone on the stand that they know is going to perjure themselves so we will just have to wait and see.

rls:

Cphbravo96, your heart is in the right place (defending equal justice even for extremely unpopular people), but you've got to check your facts too.

Don't necessarily agree that I made any mistakes, but it's been known to happen, and to my knowledge, I'm one of only a few people in the thread judging this incident on the reported facts and not on the emotional beliefs of some that have been broadcast throughout the media.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

3/26/12
cphbravo96:
rls:

Cphbravo96,

I've been trying to avoid responding to you, because I really do not like getting into arguments with people who are not fully aware of the subject matter (in this case law) they are debating. While I congratulate you on your valiant attempt at protecting the vanguard of "innocent until proven guilty" (we need more people doing this), you have made the mistake of mixing incorrect notions into your otherwise zealous defense. Many of your arguments lay around logical possibility. Many things are logically possible- but most of those logical possibilities are not reasonable. That is why jury instructions are "beyond a reasonable doubt". Doubt is almost always logically possible, but is it reasonable? The principle problem, as you have pointed out, is we don't know absolutely. But much of prosecution is "we don't know". Most murder trials that end in conviction don't have a confession tape that explicitly describes the nature of murder by the killer. But the standard is reasonable doubt.

To address some of your claims: first, the idea that they could not have arrested at the scene is incorrect. For example, many states have 'mandatory arrest' clauses for domestic violence calls- as in, someone HAS to be in handcuffs before the police leave. Just because Zimmerman asserted a legal defense on-site, doesn't mean the police can or should his word for it. He said self-defense. They should then search Mr. Martin's corpse. They find no weapon. This is reason enough to arrest. If his story checks out, then he is released. Why? First, because someone is dead. Second, Because if one person shoots another and the only other potential witness is dead, the police should not and cannot take the word of the shooter because he or she is not a disinterested party. "Innocent until proven guilty" is different from "justified"- the former is a negative protection whereas the latter is a pro-active defense.

Geez, I wish you hadn't tried. I'm not sure if you are a lawyer or you just grew up on a healthy diet of Perry Mason...since you pointed out that I don't know what I'm talking about, despite you not actually knowing anything about me...but your example of domestic violence doesn't even make sense. There are specific laws that deal with domestic violence cases and the people involved in this incident haven't been reported as being intimate...sooooo, I'm not sure why you brought it up. Anyways, my understanding is they did take him into custody and they did an investigation. They showed up on the scene, one guy was dead and the shooter had fresh grass stains on his jacket, as if he was wrestling on the ground, and a bloody head/face. Unless the police find the body face down in the dirt with a close range wound to the back of the victim...there isn't going to be much in the way of trying to charge him. You can reverse engineer the positions each individual was in when the shot was fired and that will tell you a ton of stuff like who was standing or on the ground, which direction each person was facing, etc. If the shooter claims self defense and it isn't readily apparent that this was a murder, there isn't much the police can do.

rls:

There are two areas of questioning I find interesting.

1. It is reasonable that walking at night is suspicious? If you think so, you fall outside the accepted norms and law. Consider that in most jurisdictions the police cannot stop you for wearing a hood and walking around while it is raining. I'm dead serious. If a squad car rolls up, and a courteous officer ask you "What you are doing out here? Need a ride?" You can look him in the eyes and say, "If you are not detaining me, I have nothing to say to you." And there is nothing they can do (for more, see flexyourrights.org). So, many officers don't even bother unless you are in the vicinity of the active crime scene or making furtive gestures.

I've already laid out my argument here, so taking parts of what actually occurred isn't going to get it done here. It was dark and raining in a state where most people travel by car. There was an individual that wasn't recognized by someone that lives in the neighborhood...and rightfully so, because Martin didn't actually live there..and he has his faced covered. All of that seems very suspect. Let's agree to disagree because I think plenty of people would find that suspicious. And I'm well aware of my rights and that law enforcement officers have to have 'reasonable and articulate suspicion' in order to detain someone. They can stop anyone they want but you never have to answer their questions and can ask to leave unless otherwise directed...at which point it becomes an investigation and they would have to prove to a judge that they had legal grounds to stop you. I have a dozen close friends that work in law enforcement and speak to them frequently. Random stops happen all the time and are initiated often by them in order to probe around when they don't have RAS to actually detain the individual.

rls:

But, for the sake of argument, let's say you are suspicious, Mr. Zimmerman's words on the phone clearly demonstrated he had already made a judgment call as to what he thought about Mr. Martin's presence. He called Mr. Martin an "asshole" and suggested criminals like him "always get away" (despite having no evidence) and a "fucking" something. I think it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Zimmerman wasn't the most even-handed person when the confrontation did happen.

That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion, but the defense is entitled to parade in front of the jury all of the neighbors that say Zimmerman was passionate about the safety of the neighborhood and those that lived there. That is supported by the fact that Zimmerman took time out of his life to make sure that houses in the neighborhood were secure and not being broken into. I realize that we live in a self serving, ego maniacal society now, but there was a time when his ambitious behavior would have been accepted and praised.

rls:

2. Second, is it reasonable to assume that Mr. Martin, with no criminal record of any kind, attacked Mr. Zimmerman, a man who is, according to some report, is 100 pounds heavier, for, what, asking him a question? What is the motive? Now, you mentioned size doesn't matter in asserting self-defense. But again, reasonableness matters. If a 6' 2" 250-lb 25 year-old man shoots a 110-lb, 5' 6" unarmed 82 year-old woman and claims self-defense, the question of "Was this a reasonable response?" will be asked- and it should be. Again, that scenario is technically possible, but there will be a significant hurdle. If Mr. Zimmerman is claiming that someone who has no history of violence suddenly attacked him so viciously that he needed deadly force to protect himself, there is a high bar. As you can imagine this is logically possible, but is it reasonable or likely? Especially when there is testimony that Mr. Martin tried to avoid Mr. Zimmerman. Is it reasonable to believe that Mr. Martin, according to Mr. Zimmerman, for no apparent, attacked Mr. Zimmerman as he was returning to his car while simultaneously trying to avoid him? Is it more likely that Mr. Zimmerman, given his emotional disposition heard on the 911 call and who already has a history of violent confrontation accosted Mr. Martin? I don't know. I'll leave that the grand jury. When there is only one witness that has a stake in the outcome, the jury must assess what is reasonable and heavily discount the word of an interested party. And the story so far is not plausible. But again, a grand jury will hear all the available, admitted evidence and I will defer to them.

Where is the report of a history of violence? I don't recall hearing about prior violence, so if you have a link or something I would love to educate myself. Is it reasonable to assume that Zimmerman, who has never killed anyone before and who has no credible claim of racism against him was so angry about a random black kid being in his neighborhood that he stalked him and then provoked him into a physical altercation so he could gun the kid down...or are you saying that he just murdered this kid because of his skin color and then rolled in the grass to give the appearance that a struggle occurred and then punched himself in the nose and head so that it appeared he was attacked?

rls:

To call the investigation "half-assed" is an insult to just "poorly done" jobs. In essence, there was no investigation. And because of that, there is a lot of lost forensic information we will never know.

Do you work for the DA's office or the DOJ? How do you know that 'there was no investigation' done? Seems to me there were statements taken from neighbors...which would be part of an investigation in my book.

rls:

1. They didn't test Zimmerman's blood for substances. You are incorrect that the police could not have drug tested Mr. Zimmerman. Your blood, the Supreme Court has ruled, is not protected under the 5th Amendment. They can collect it- If he refuses, you can arrest, and then take sample- just like a DUI stop.

Your budget law school must have used the other version of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment is what you were actually looking for. The SCOTUS has actually ruled that the drawing of blood is only minimally invasive, so the Fourth Amendment isn't automatically violated...so it can be done when it's believed that the blood harbors evidence that a crime has been committed (such as a DUI), however, the individual doesn't have to consent to a blood test in this case because the police can not forcefully take the blood...because that would be a clear violation of Zimmerman's Fourth Amendment rights. The police would have to obtain a warrant from a judge in order to compel Zimmerman to submit to a blood test and in order to submit to garner a warrant from a judge you would need probable cause that a crime has been committed...which arguably doesn't exist given that they released Zimmerman.

rls:

2. They didn't test the blood found on Zimmerman. Reports are that there was blood on Mr. Zimmerman's head and/or clothes. What we don't know is whose blood- it wasn't tested (hopefully, they haven't disposed of the little evidence they do have). I've heard reports of a broken nose on Mr. Zimmerman, again did the police note this in their report? Is there a doctor visit or X-ray to substantiate? Can they demonstrate it was broken that night? Again, nothing.

Those are all excellent points. Again I revert back to the point that none of the answers to these questions are known...so how can so many people crucify this guy without the proof?

rls:

3. They didn't contact a key witness (say, the person who was on the phone during the incident).

Seems odd since that particular witness said that she talked to the police but that the police misreported her statement. She also claims that the police were on Zimmerman's side from the very beginning and that she doesn't believe "there was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling" right before the gun shot...then again, she also admits that she didn't actually see what happened. So you essentially have a witness that wasn't actually a witness. I wouldn't want my case resting on her testimony, that's for sure.

rls:

4. They didn't take the gun as evidence for ballistics testing.

I haven't read that so I don't know if that is true or not. At any rate Zimmerman admitted he shot Martin so I'm not sure why they would need ballistics. Bullets fly straight so you really only need to know the positions of the bodies to determine whether the shooter is being truthful about the events. Presumably an execution style shot would be apparent and those that wouldn't be apparent on the scene would likely be discovered during the autopsy.

rls:

5. They didn't do ballistics testing. How far was Mr. Zimmerman from Mr. Martin when he shot him? What angle was the shot fired? We will never know for sure.

Again, don't know that this is true, so see above. Also, I'm not sure what information would need to be collected at the scene that couldn't be determined later. Distance from one another can probably just be determined by knowing the velocity of the round that was fired and the approximate amount of clothing and penetration into the body cavity.

rls:

6. They didn't even try to find out who the corpse was or his relationship to Mr. Zimmerman- that is absolutely critical for finding out if the shooter had motive. They put a John Doe toetag on him and didn't even ask around.

I'm not sure how much this matters either. You can't keep people locked up because you aren't sure that they haven't committed a crime. You have to have reasonable cause or suspicion and the police felt like they didn't have that. As I stated in a previous post, it's not unheard of for the police to interview a suspect and let them leave only to go back and arrest the person once they have gathered enough evidence to support their arrest.

rls:

None of this was done. And not to mention, they sent a narcotics officer to investigate what was known to be a possible homicide. There was no evidence to support Mr. Zimmerman's claim of self-defense and since someone is dead, the police must not take someone's word as part of an investigation. Self-defense is a positive claim and does require some kind of evidentiary support. Although the bar is fairly low, especially in FL where it dangerously approaches 0, Mr. Zimmerman was not required to demonstrate anything.

Again, not sure if any of that is true so it's hard to comment. There is plenty to support Zimmerman's claims...first and foremost is his appearance when the police showed up...the grass stains and the blood...second is an eye witness that claims to have seen it all...sounds like enough my book, but I'm not emotionally invested in the outcome as some many here appear to be. I don't know who your source is for all of your knowledge about what evidence was and wasn't collected but you should vet them a bit more if they haven't told you about the apparent eye witness.

rls:

As a final note, the court should not and will not accept additional witnesses. I am beginning to hear and read reports or people saying they saw this or that. That will not fly in a courtroom and should been viewed as extremely spurious. This happened a month ago and the few statements that were actually collected will stand as authoritative. Any Johnny-come-lately's will have to explain just where the hell have they been and how can we trust them, considering they didn't make a statement the night of. A lawyer, prosecution or defense, would make mincemeat out of them.

I can't pretend to know what the court will and will not allow. It's my guess that neither side will want to put someone on the stand that they know is going to perjure themselves so we will just have to wait and see.

rls:

Cphbravo96, your heart is in the right place (defending equal justice even for extremely unpopular people), but you've got to check your facts too.

Don't necessarily agree that I made any mistakes, but it's been known to happen, and to my knowledge, I'm one of only a few people in the thread judging this incident on the reported facts and not on the emotional beliefs of some that have been broadcast throughout the media.

Regards

now everyone has to scroll twice as far. in yo face bishes!

3/26/12
cphbravo96:
rls:

Cphbravo96,

I've been trying to avoid responding to you, because I really do not like getting into arguments with people who are not fully aware of the subject matter (in this case law) they are debating. While I congratulate you on your valiant attempt at protecting the vanguard of "innocent until proven guilty" (we need more people doing this), you have made the mistake of mixing incorrect notions into your otherwise zealous defense. Many of your arguments lay around logical possibility. Many things are logically possible- but most of those logical possibilities are not reasonable. That is why jury instructions are "beyond a reasonable doubt". Doubt is almost always logically possible, but is it reasonable? The principle problem, as you have pointed out, is we don't know absolutely. But much of prosecution is "we don't know". Most murder trials that end in conviction don't have a confession tape that explicitly describes the nature of murder by the killer. But the standard is reasonable doubt.

To address some of your claims: first, the idea that they could not have arrested at the scene is incorrect. For example, many states have 'mandatory arrest' clauses for domestic violence calls- as in, someone HAS to be in handcuffs before the police leave. Just because Zimmerman asserted a legal defense on-site, doesn't mean the police can or should his word for it. He said self-defense. They should then search Mr. Martin's corpse. They find no weapon. This is reason enough to arrest. If his story checks out, then he is released. Why? First, because someone is dead. Second, Because if one person shoots another and the only other potential witness is dead, the police should not and cannot take the word of the shooter because he or she is not a disinterested party. "Innocent until proven guilty" is different from "justified"- the former is a negative protection whereas the latter is a pro-active defense.

Geez, I wish you hadn't tried. I'm not sure if you are a lawyer or you just grew up on a healthy diet of Perry Mason...since you pointed out that I don't know what I'm talking about, despite you not actually knowing anything about me...but your example of domestic violence doesn't even make sense. There are specific laws that deal with domestic violence cases and the people involved in this incident haven't been reported as being intimate...sooooo, I'm not sure why you brought it up. Anyways, my understanding is they did take him into custody and they did an investigation. They showed up on the scene, one guy was dead and the shooter had fresh grass stains on his jacket, as if he was wrestling on the ground, and a bloody head/face. Unless the police find the body face down in the dirt with a close range wound to the back of the victim...there isn't going to be much in the way of trying to charge him. You can reverse engineer the positions each individual was in when the shot was fired and that will tell you a ton of stuff like who was standing or on the ground, which direction each person was facing, etc. If the shooter claims self defense and it isn't readily apparent that this was a murder, there isn't much the police can do.

rls:

There are two areas of questioning I find interesting.

1. It is reasonable that walking at night is suspicious? If you think so, you fall outside the accepted norms and law. Consider that in most jurisdictions the police cannot stop you for wearing a hood and walking around while it is raining. I'm dead serious. If a squad car rolls up, and a courteous officer ask you "What you are doing out here? Need a ride?" You can look him in the eyes and say, "If you are not detaining me, I have nothing to say to you." And there is nothing they can do (for more, see flexyourrights.org). So, many officers don't even bother unless you are in the vicinity of the active crime scene or making furtive gestures.

I've already laid out my argument here, so taking parts of what actually occurred isn't going to get it done here. It was dark and raining in a state where most people travel by car. There was an individual that wasn't recognized by someone that lives in the neighborhood...and rightfully so, because Martin didn't actually live there..and he has his faced covered. All of that seems very suspect. Let's agree to disagree because I think plenty of people would find that suspicious. And I'm well aware of my rights and that law enforcement officers have to have 'reasonable and articulate suspicion' in order to detain someone. They can stop anyone they want but you never have to answer their questions and can ask to leave unless otherwise directed...at which point it becomes an investigation and they would have to prove to a judge that they had legal grounds to stop you. I have a dozen close friends that work in law enforcement and speak to them frequently. Random stops happen all the time and are initiated often by them in order to probe around when they don't have RAS to actually detain the individual.

rls:

But, for the sake of argument, let's say you are suspicious, Mr. Zimmerman's words on the phone clearly demonstrated he had already made a judgment call as to what he thought about Mr. Martin's presence. He called Mr. Martin an "asshole" and suggested criminals like him "always get away" (despite having no evidence) and a "fucking" something. I think it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Zimmerman wasn't the most even-handed person when the confrontation did happen.

That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion, but the defense is entitled to parade in front of the jury all of the neighbors that say Zimmerman was passionate about the safety of the neighborhood and those that lived there. That is supported by the fact that Zimmerman took time out of his life to make sure that houses in the neighborhood were secure and not being broken into. I realize that we live in a self serving, ego maniacal society now, but there was a time when his ambitious behavior would have been accepted and praised.

rls:

2. Second, is it reasonable to assume that Mr. Martin, with no criminal record of any kind, attacked Mr. Zimmerman, a man who is, according to some report, is 100 pounds heavier, for, what, asking him a question? What is the motive? Now, you mentioned size doesn't matter in asserting self-defense. But again, reasonableness matters. If a 6' 2" 250-lb 25 year-old man shoots a 110-lb, 5' 6" unarmed 82 year-old woman and claims self-defense, the question of "Was this a reasonable response?" will be asked- and it should be. Again, that scenario is technically possible, but there will be a significant hurdle. If Mr. Zimmerman is claiming that someone who has no history of violence suddenly attacked him so viciously that he needed deadly force to protect himself, there is a high bar. As you can imagine this is logically possible, but is it reasonable or likely? Especially when there is testimony that Mr. Martin tried to avoid Mr. Zimmerman. Is it reasonable to believe that Mr. Martin, according to Mr. Zimmerman, for no apparent, attacked Mr. Zimmerman as he was returning to his car while simultaneously trying to avoid him? Is it more likely that Mr. Zimmerman, given his emotional disposition heard on the 911 call and who already has a history of violent confrontation accosted Mr. Martin? I don't know. I'll leave that the grand jury. When there is only one witness that has a stake in the outcome, the jury must assess what is reasonable and heavily discount the word of an interested party. And the story so far is not plausible. But again, a grand jury will hear all the available, admitted evidence and I will defer to them.

Where is the report of a history of violence? I don't recall hearing about prior violence, so if you have a link or something I would love to educate myself. Is it reasonable to assume that Zimmerman, who has never killed anyone before and who has no credible claim of racism against him was so angry about a random black kid being in his neighborhood that he stalked him and then provoked him into a physical altercation so he could gun the kid down...or are you saying that he just murdered this kid because of his skin color and then rolled in the grass to give the appearance that a struggle occurred and then punched himself in the nose and head so that it appeared he was attacked?

rls:

To call the investigation "half-assed" is an insult to just "poorly done" jobs. In essence, there was no investigation. And because of that, there is a lot of lost forensic information we will never know.

Do you work for the DA's office or the DOJ? How do you know that 'there was no investigation' done? Seems to me there were statements taken from neighbors...which would be part of an investigation in my book.

rls:

1. They didn't test Zimmerman's blood for substances. You are incorrect that the police could not have drug tested Mr. Zimmerman. Your blood, the Supreme Court has ruled, is not protected under the 5th Amendment. They can collect it- If he refuses, you can arrest, and then take sample- just like a DUI stop.

Your budget law school must have used the other version of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment is what you were actually looking for. The SCOTUS has actually ruled that the drawing of blood is only minimally invasive, so the Fourth Amendment isn't automatically violated...so it can be done when it's believed that the blood harbors evidence that a crime has been committed (such as a DUI), however, the individual doesn't have to consent to a blood test in this case because the police can not forcefully take the blood...because that would be a clear violation of Zimmerman's Fourth Amendment rights. The police would have to obtain a warrant from a judge in order to compel Zimmerman to submit to a blood test and in order to submit to garner a warrant from a judge you would need probable cause that a crime has been committed...which arguably doesn't exist given that they released Zimmerman.

rls:

2. They didn't test the blood found on Zimmerman. Reports are that there was blood on Mr. Zimmerman's head and/or clothes. What we don't know is whose blood- it wasn't tested (hopefully, they haven't disposed of the little evidence they do have). I've heard reports of a broken nose on Mr. Zimmerman, again did the police note this in their report? Is there a doctor visit or X-ray to substantiate? Can they demonstrate it was broken that night? Again, nothing.

Those are all excellent points. Again I revert back to the point that none of the answers to these questions are known...so how can so many people crucify this guy without the proof?

rls:

3. They didn't contact a key witness (say, the person who was on the phone during the incident).

Seems odd since that particular witness said that she talked to the police but that the police misreported her statement. She also claims that the police were on Zimmerman's side from the very beginning and that she doesn't believe "there was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling" right before the gun shot...then again, she also admits that she didn't actually see what happened. So you essentially have a witness that wasn't actually a witness. I wouldn't want my case resting on her testimony, that's for sure.

rls:

4. They didn't take the gun as evidence for ballistics testing.

I haven't read that so I don't know if that is true or not. At any rate Zimmerman admitted he shot Martin so I'm not sure why they would need ballistics. Bullets fly straight so you really only need to know the positions of the bodies to determine whether the shooter is being truthful about the events. Presumably an execution style shot would be apparent and those that wouldn't be apparent on the scene would likely be discovered during the autopsy.

rls:

5. They didn't do ballistics testing. How far was Mr. Zimmerman from Mr. Martin when he shot him? What angle was the shot fired? We will never know for sure.

Again, don't know that this is true, so see above. Also, I'm not sure what information would need to be collected at the scene that couldn't be determined later. Distance from one another can probably just be determined by knowing the velocity of the round that was fired and the approximate amount of clothing and penetration into the body cavity.

rls:

6. They didn't even try to find out who the corpse was or his relationship to Mr. Zimmerman- that is absolutely critical for finding out if the shooter had motive. They put a John Doe toetag on him and didn't even ask around.

I'm not sure how much this matters either. You can't keep people locked up because you aren't sure that they haven't committed a crime. You have to have reasonable cause or suspicion and the police felt like they didn't have that. As I stated in a previous post, it's not unheard of for the police to interview a suspect and let them leave only to go back and arrest the person once they have gathered enough evidence to support their arrest.

rls:

None of this was done. And not to mention, they sent a narcotics officer to investigate what was known to be a possible homicide. There was no evidence to support Mr. Zimmerman's claim of self-defense and since someone is dead, the police must not take someone's word as part of an investigation. Self-defense is a positive claim and does require some kind of evidentiary support. Although the bar is fairly low, especially in FL where it dangerously approaches 0, Mr. Zimmerman was not required to demonstrate anything.

Again, not sure if any of that is true so it's hard to comment. There is plenty to support Zimmerman's claims...first and foremost is his appearance when the police showed up...the grass stains and the blood...second is an eye witness that claims to have seen it all...sounds like enough my book, but I'm not emotionally invested in the outcome as some many here appear to be. I don't know who your source is for all of your knowledge about what evidence was and wasn't collected but you should vet them a bit more if they haven't told you about the apparent eye witness.

rls:

As a final note, the court should not and will not accept additional witnesses. I am beginning to hear and read reports or people saying they saw this or that. That will not fly in a courtroom and should been viewed as extremely spurious. This happened a month ago and the few statements that were actually collected will stand as authoritative. Any Johnny-come-lately's will have to explain just where the hell have they been and how can we trust them, considering they didn't make a statement the night of. A lawyer, prosecution or defense, would make mincemeat out of them.

I can't pretend to know what the court will and will not allow. It's my guess that neither side will want to put someone on the stand that they know is going to perjure themselves so we will just have to wait and see.

rls:

Cphbravo96, your heart is in the right place (defending equal justice even for extremely unpopular people), but you've got to check your facts too.

Don't necessarily agree that I made any mistakes, but it's been known to happen, and to my knowledge, I'm one of only a few people in the thread judging this incident on the reported facts and not on the emotional beliefs of some that have been broadcast throughout the media.

Regards

this is soooo long

that's what she said!

3/26/12

It's unreal that people are justifying the police action of NOT ARRESTING HIM ON HIS OWN WORD OF SELF DEFENSE and conducting a more thorough investigation. That is the heart of the issue here, not the race of the victim/offender or liberal media bias. The cops in this case should be fired, and their pensions should be liquidated to pay for the DoJ investigation instead of my tax money. Fuck them for doing such a piss poor job.

3/26/12

Just for the general good of the group, the police cannot arrest him in a case where Self Defense is claimed without compelling reasonable cause because, if they did and he his lawyer can prove it was improper in relation to the self defense law, the arrest (and I believe any evidence unearthed before it) would be thrown out.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

3/26/12
happypantsmcgee:

Just for the general good of the group, the police cannot arrest him in a case where Self Defense is claimed without compelling reasonable cause because, if they did and he his lawyer can prove it was improper in relation to the self defense law, the arrest (and I believe any evidence unearthed before it) would be thrown out.

Happypants,

The reasonable cause is there is an unarmed dead guy with no criminal record. This is one of those "smoking gun" situations. If a guy with a gun is standing over a body of a dead unarmed kid, you arrest him. How long they could have held Mr. Zimmerman is another question, but they absolutely had enough for an arrest. As much as they'd like to be, officer and detectives are not qualified to accept a legal defense on the scene. Frankly, it is not their job- that why we have attorney generals and prosecutors. The police should gather evidence and suspects- they did neither.

Bene qui latuit, bene vixit- Ovid

3/26/12
rls:
happypantsmcgee:

Just for the general good of the group, the police cannot arrest him in a case where Self Defense is claimed without compelling reasonable cause because, if they did and he his lawyer can prove it was improper in relation to the self defense law, the arrest (and I believe any evidence unearthed before it) would be thrown out.

Happypants,

The reasonable cause is there is an unarmed dead guy with no criminal record. This is one of those "smoking gun" situations. If a guy with a gun is standing over a body of a dead unarmed kid, you arrest him. How long they could have held Mr. Zimmerman is another question, but they absolutely had enough for an arrest. As much as they'd like to be, officer and detectives are not qualified to accept a legal defense on the scene. Frankly, it is not their job- that why we have attorney generals and prosecutors. The police should gather evidence and suspects- they did neither.

Sorry, rereading that I don't think I was clear. I completely agree with you. The problem, as I understand it from a couple of lawyer friends, is that there is significant pressure on the police from the DA and Justice Department to not mess this up long term (ie him not being arrested yet is a travesty but having the whole thing thrown out on a technicality would be a disaster).

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

3/26/12

Haha, I see this got out of hand over the weekend. Wow.

Look, folks:

--Zimmerman called the kid a "fucking coon" under his breath. Listen to the 911 call he made. I don't think he was talking about a raccoon.

--He was told not to pursue Trayvon, but he did anyway. I don't see how it's self-defense when you go chasing someone. Keep in mind that Zimmerman wasn't in any sort of uniform and isn't a law officer in any capacity. It'd be like walking home in the rain and having some big burly dude chase after you. I know I wouldn't take that well, and I'm sure none of you would either.

--I think that, at the very least, the Stand Your Ground law needs to be given a hard look. The implications of it are pretty far reaching, especially if it is grounds for a legal defense in Zimmerman's case.

3/26/12

Btw, didn't Zimmerman shoot the kid twice? I mean, we're talking about an unarmed kid being shot twice after he was pursued for no actual reason even after the police told Zimmerman not to pursue him.

It's one thing to say that we need to wait for the trial before convicting Zimmerman in the court of public opinion. It's a whole other thing to write bible-length posts defending Zimmerman like you're getting paid for it.

3/26/12
TheKing:

Btw, didn't Zimmerman shoot the kid twice? I mean, we're talking about an unarmed kid being shot twice after he was pursued for no actual reason even after the police told Zimmerman not to pursue him.

It's one thing to say that we need to wait for the trial before convicting Zimmerman in the court of public opinion. It's a whole other thing to write bible-length posts defending Zimmerman like you're getting paid for it.

Dude you don't even know the simple fact that Marin was 'only' shot once. How can you even pretend to offer advice on a topic you obviously have done NO research on beside from hearing a very unclear statement you claim to be racist.

And just to make it clear for everyone, not listening to the dispatcher is not a crime, they hold no authority to tell you to do anything.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

3/26/12

I didn't hear him say coon at all.

3/26/12

Happypants,

When I originally wrote my post, I left out a line that "this will all end in tears". If I were Mr. Zimmerman's lawyer, he would beat the charges. You can tell from my post that my view of the issue is that much of the evidence that would be necessary to prosecute this case is irretrievable. The investigation was godawful. There are police officers that should face expulsion for this. But, there are enough loopholes and lack of witnesses (coupled with a broadly worded law) that Mr. Zimmerman with a good lawyer, more likely than not, will walk or take a much lesser charge like battery as a plea (believe it or not). Every day that goes by that he is not arrested only helps his appeal, should that become necessary.

Bene qui latuit, bene vixit- Ovid

3/26/12

Yeah, I agree ANT. No one can make any reasonable claims about the alleged slur on that audio tape. They took it to an audio studio at CNN and cleaned it up and it was garbled at best. The innuendo about that tape would not stand up to any kind of scrutiny. What can be said, as I wrote in my post, is that Mr. Zimmerman clearly had a negative view of Mr. Martin's presence and that was clearly expressed, despite the complete lack of evidence of malfeasance.

Bene qui latuit, bene vixit- Ovid

3/26/12

Wait a minute...didn't you say you were permanently signing off WSO?

-MBP

3/26/12
manbearpig:

Wait a minute...didn't you say you were permanently signing off WSO?

I think this was made pre resignation.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

3/26/12

Expected at today's rally downtown at City Hall:
Al Sharpton
Jessie Jackson
Sinbad (Can't remember the last relevant thing he was in)
And, irony of all ironies, RAY LEWIS of the Baltimore Ravens.

3/26/12
tedrd.88:

Expected at today's rally downtown at City Hall:
Al Sharpton
Jessie Jackson
Sinbad (Can't remember the last relevant thing he was in)
And, irony of all ironies, RAY LEWIS of the Baltimore Ravens.

To be fair, Ray Lewis could be considered an SME on murdering someone and getting off scott free.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

3/26/12

Zimmerman's dad is white and mom is hispanic, FYI.

Also, Trayvon was suspended for weed, had possible gang ties, and was 6'3" tall.

In summation, let the police do their job is what I think.

3/26/12
txjustin:

Zimmerman's dad is white and mom is hispanic, FYI.

Also, Trayvon was suspended for weed, had possible gang ties, and was 6'3" tall.

In summation, let the police do their job is what I think.

This assumes that the police will do their job correctly, which they did not in this case. That is why people are upset. Sanford PD botched the fuck out of this investigation.

Also please provide sources for your claims about the kid. Otherwise you're just another asshole spewing bullshit on the internet.

3/26/12
elephonky:
txjustin:

Zimmerman's dad is white and mom is hispanic, FYI.

Also, Trayvon was suspended for weed, had possible gang ties, and was 6'3" tall.

In summation, let the police do their job is what I think.

This assumes that the police will do their job correctly, which they did not in this case. That is why people are upset. Sanford PD botched the fuck out of this investigation.

Also please provide sources for your claims about the kid. Otherwise you're just another asshole spewing bullshit on the internet.

Here ya go. I couldnt' find the one on gang ties. Considering I said "possible gang ties" they may or may not be true. I'll search later. Also, please tell me how the Sanford PD botched this.
http://news.yahoo.com/family-pot-linked-trayvon-ma...
http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-shooter-told-c...

3/26/12
txjustin:
elephonky:
txjustin:

Zimmerman's dad is white and mom is hispanic, FYI.

Also, Trayvon was suspended for weed, had possible gang ties, and was 6'3" tall.

In summation, let the police do their job is what I think.

This assumes that the police will do their job correctly, which they did not in this case. That is why people are upset. Sanford PD botched the fuck out of this investigation.

Also please provide sources for your claims about the kid. Otherwise you're just another asshole spewing bullshit on the internet.

Here ya go. I couldnt' find the one on gang ties. Considering I said "possible gang ties" they may or may not be true. I'll search later. Also, please tell me how the Sanford PD botched this.
http://news.yahoo.com/family-pot-linked-trayvon-ma...
http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-shooter-told-c...

Thanks for the links. The other one you posted later in the thread is really good as well - seems like an unbiased author. Not that I was ever falling into the "Zimmerman is a crazy nazi" camp, but your sources definitely ensured my head was on straight. Trayvon was no small fry, that's for sure. I'm sure the kid put up a fight, whether he instigated it or Zimmerman did.

I don't feel like searching through this thread to find the posts detailing the Sanford PD's faults, but if I recall it has to do with not background checking Zimmerman at the scene nor checking for alcohol/drug levels, and failing to properly collect evidence. I'm sure more details (if they exist) will come to light, seeing as the Justice Department as well as Sanford's city manager have opened investigations into the PD's conduct.

3/27/12
elephonky:
txjustin:
elephonky:
txjustin:

Zimmerman's dad is white and mom is hispanic, FYI.

Also, Trayvon was suspended for weed, had possible gang ties, and was 6'3" tall.

In summation, let the police do their job is what I think.

This assumes that the police will do their job correctly, which they did not in this case. That is why people are upset. Sanford PD botched the fuck out of this investigation.

Also please provide sources for your claims about the kid. Otherwise you're just another asshole spewing bullshit on the internet.

Here ya go. I couldnt' find the one on gang ties. Considering I said "possible gang ties" they may or may not be true. I'll search later. Also, please tell me how the Sanford PD botched this.
http://news.yahoo.com/family-pot-linked-trayvon-ma...
http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-shooter-told-c...

Thanks for the links. The other one you posted later in the thread is really good as well - seems like an unbiased author. Not that I was ever falling into the "Zimmerman is a crazy nazi" camp, but your sources definitely ensured my head was on straight. Trayvon was no small fry, that's for sure. I'm sure the kid put up a fight, whether he instigated it or Zimmerman did.

I don't feel like searching through this thread to find the posts detailing the Sanford PD's faults, but if I recall it has to do with not background checking Zimmerman at the scene nor checking for alcohol/drug levels, and failing to properly collect evidence. I'm sure more details (if they exist) will come to light, seeing as the Justice Department as well as Sanford's city manager have opened investigations into the PD's conduct.

I agree, let's let the facts come out, then let the law make judgement.

3/26/12