# The Zimmerman/Martin Case



## SenorDingDong

What are your guys' thoughts on this case?


I'm having trouble deciding whether or not I think Zimmerman is guilty or innocent. The whole "racist" side of this case has been seeming increasingly ridiculous to me, given the fact that the 911 call proves that race was not mentioned until the dispatcher asked Zimmerman Martin's race. 

Also, I've been struggling with the fact that, just because Martin was unarmed, it didn't necessarily mean he was innocent. The prosecution has been adamant about the whole "armed with Skittles and iced tea" thing, but it could have just as easily been that Martin attacked Zimmerman as reported without being aware that he was attacking an armed man.


Anyway, I'm still trying to level my head on this case. What are your guys' thoughts?


----------



## highlordmugfug

SenorDingDong said:


> What are your guys' thoughts on this case?
> 
> 
> I'm having trouble deciding whether or not I think Zimmerman is guilty or innocent. The whole "racist" side of this case has been seeming increasingly ridiculous to me, given the fact that the 911 call proves that race was not mentioned until the dispatcher asked Zimmerman Martin's race.
> 
> Also, I've been struggling with the fact that, just because Martin was unarmed, it didn't necessarily mean he was innocent. The prosecution has been adamant about the whole "armed with Skittles and iced tea" thing, but it could have just as easily been that Martin attacked Zimmerman as reported without being aware that he was attacking an armed man.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'm still trying to level my head on this case. What are your guys' thoughts?


He followed Trayvon after being told not to by 911, and then shot him and killed him.

Racist or not, he's guilty.
[/thread]


----------



## Randy

Just glad he was finally arrested. I have my opinions on what happened and his intentions but since I wasn't there, that's up to the jury to decide.


----------



## McKay

highlordmugfug said:


> He followed Trayvon after being told not to by 911, and then shot him and killed him.
> 
> Racist or not, he's guilty.
> [/thread]


----------



## Pooluke41

I don't get how this has turned into a "white on black" racism case. Yet Zimmerman was hispanic iirc.


----------



## renzoip

Pooluke41 said:


> I don't get how this has turned into a "white on black" racism case. Yet Zimmerman was hispanic iirc.



Yes, Zimmerman is of mixes American and Peruvian decent. But let's not forget that there is bo such thing as a "hispanic race". Hispanics are a linguistic ethnicity, not a racial one. So you can have any color skin and still be hispanic. So, in this case, Zimmerman is a White Half Hispanic, if we go by those standards. 

Even if he was of a different ethnicity, I still think racial prejudice had a lot to do with this. But like it has been said already, he he shot and killed an unarmed minor, while disobeying orders from the 911 dispatcher. So I say let's cut the BS already.


----------



## BlackMesa

Just to play devil's advocate. You guys do know that a 911 operator is not a police officer right? They are just a regular civilian. You dont have to follow any suggestion they give you.


----------



## flint757

It'd be like picking a fight with someone say an MMA fighter and then getting your ass kicked. That is essentially what happened (not the MMA part) and when he was losing he shot him (maybe accidentally). That is part of my problem with concealed carry; some people get a little too cocky and get themselves into situations they normally would avoid. 

Since Zimmerman has blame in that regard and the other person is dead I'd say he deserves to serve some time. However, I doubt race was involved and I don't think he intentionally shot him (but I wasn't there so).


----------



## vampiregenocide

I heard the phone call both he made and a woman on the street made as the kid was shot, and it seems like he was just a bit of a nut job. 

I believe Zimmerman was also fired from a security job after being very heavy handed and attacking a woman. Sounds like the guy had anger issues, and people with anger issues and a gun are dangerous. It doesn't seem like there is much room for opinion on this. He chased down and shot a 17 year-old unarmed kid who wasn't a threat.


----------



## flint757

As for the wounds as evidence (which weren't severe). If someone chased you down and started accusing you of something I think you'd get defensive too (he is a teenager after all). That to me makes him at the very least irresponsible as said before.

Also, his reaction was oddly calm, but that is not really relevant.

Frankly no matter what happened this whole thing got blown way out of proportion just like all those crazy mom cases. While it is fine that it is public information it is hard for a jury to be unbiased when the media already decides who is guilty. Although as my other posts stated I do think he is guilty that is not how our court systems are meant to work. 

With that case about the woman and her getting arrested right away (for NOT shooting her husband) versus this case (Man KILLS 17 yr old) where they waited till media outcry I think this case did need further investigation and I don't think the former should have been a case at all. Our legal system is so bureaucratic that it can't tell the difference between a good case and a bad one. Following law blindly and all its technicalities are just ridiculous that's why I do feel like cases should be initially looked at subjectively to weigh their merit.


----------



## SenorDingDong

BlackMesa said:


> Just to play devil's advocate. You guys do know that a 911 operator is not a police officer right? They are just a regular civilian. You dont have to follow any suggestion they give you.



That was one of the things that made me a little curious, as the big outcry is that he disobeyed a law enforcement officer, and yet I was under the same impression. 

I have no doubt he is guilty of murder--Martin is dead. But I am still a little curious as to how things really went down, as it seems curious to me that he would just rampage on a random kid. Maybe I just don't understand it because I can't fathom someone doing something like that without provocation and it's my dis-understanding that leads me to still be curious about this case.


----------



## Pooluke41

SenorDingDong said:


> That was one of the things that made me a little curious, as the big outcry is that he disobeyed a law enforcement officer, and yet I was under the same impression.
> 
> I have no doubt he is guilty of murder--Martin is dead. But I am still a little curious as to how things really went down, as it seems curious to me that he would just rampage on a random kid. Maybe I just don't understand it because I can't fathom someone doing something like that without provocation and it's my dis-understanding that leads me to still be curious about this case.



Well I'm not saying that this is what I believe.

But the media shows pictures of Trayvon like this one;






But supposedly this one was taked about 5 or so years before. When Martin was 13.

This is supposedly him when he was 17:











Honestly, I think the Media is a "little" too bias.

IMHO; I think Trayvon; who was reportedly a large stocky football player. Got into a fight with Zimmerman after Zimmerman saw him walk 'suspicously' into a gated community; where Trayvon's Father lived. 

Zimmerman thought it was suspicous, called 911. Asked to wait, but went forward anyway. Got into a fight with Trayvon. Was getting his ass kicked and shot Trayvon.

Personally I think that they are as bad as each other.

One is a Neighbourhood watch coordinator with issues. And the other a young man involved in a gang.


----------



## Guitarman700

Trayvon was not in a gang. Those pictures are not of him. Please, please get your facts straight and stop speculating.


----------



## Pooluke41

Guitarman700 said:


> Trayvon was not in a gang. Those pictures are not of him. Please, please get your facts straight and stop speculating.



Like I said, "apparently this is what Trayvon looked like"

About the Gang bit, I honestly have no idea.


----------



## Guitarman700

Pooluke41 said:


> Like I said, "apparently this is what Trayvon looked like"
> 
> About the Gang bit, I honestly have no idea.



You have no idea, and yet you compare the two men and say they were the same? I don't follow your logical process at all.
Baseless speculation has no place in a case like this, or any part of life, really. Wait till the facts are in, before passing any kind of judgment.


----------



## flint757

Also, even if it is him who said giving a camera the finger and wearing a grill makes you a thug or in a gang. Are all people with long hair and black shirts pot head losers who don't work. Seriously bad stereotyping there either way.

I agreed with the rest that they both had responsibility except Zimmerman in the end killed him which is worse than someone responding to an accusation and fighting. If someone made slurs at me and was making wild accusations to my face/questioning me I'd probably punch his ass out too and based on his wounds he probably took one punch to the face and hit the concrete (causing the blood on back of head). IMO the rest is fabricated for dramatic effect so he looks less guilty than he is.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Guitarman700 said:


> Trayvon was not in a gang. Those pictures are not of him. Please, please get your facts straight and stop speculating.



Actually, those pictures _are_ of him. As for being in a gang? I've not heard any evidence to back that up, so I doubt its validity.


There _have_ been reports that Martin was currently suspended from school for being caught with drug paraphernalia and that is why he was at his father's.


----------



## Pooluke41

I didn't say they were "the same" I said that they were both as bad as each other.

I think it's a bit unfair of the Media to portray Zimmerman as an evil guy, and to portray Martin as a Saint.

There's two sides to the story.

Fair enough about the gang bit though.

_*@flint*_ (I've forgotten how to quote... )

I'm not speculating just from the pictures.

According to his twitter, he was a gang member.

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/was-trayvon-martin-a-drug-dealer
http://patdollard.com/2012/03/was-trayvon-martin-a-drug-dealing-gangbanger/
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=126213


----------



## SenorDingDong

Pooluke41 said:


> I didn't say they were "the same" I said that they were both as bad as each other.
> 
> I think it's a bit unfair of the Media to portray Zimmerman as an evil guy, and to portray Martin as a Saint.
> 
> There's two sides to the story.
> 
> Fair enough about the gang bit though.
> 
> _*@flint*_ (I've forgotten how to quote... )
> 
> I'm not speculating just from the pictures.
> 
> According to his twitter, he was a gang member.
> 
> Was Trayvon Martin a Drug Dealer?
> 
> Meet The Real Trayvon Martin: Evidence Emerges He Was A Drug Dealer And Gang Banger « Pat Dollard
> 
> iOwnTheWorld.com » Blog Archive » Was Trayvon Martin A Drug Dealer And Gang Banger?



Well _that's_ something I've yet to see. I'm actually interested to read these in a little bit.


----------



## flint757

Pooluke41 said:


> I didn't say they were "the same" I said that they were both as bad as each other.
> 
> I think it's a bit unfair of the Media to portray Zimmerman as an evil guy, and to portray Martin as a Saint.
> 
> There's two sides to the story.
> 
> Fair enough about the gang bit though.
> 
> _*@flint*_ (I've forgotten how to quote... )
> 
> I'm not speculating just from the pictures.
> 
> According to his twitter, he was a gang member.
> 
> Was Trayvon Martin a Drug Dealer?
> 
> Meet The Real Trayvon Martin: Evidence Emerges He Was A Drug Dealer And Gang Banger « Pat Dollard
> 
> iOwnTheWorld.com » Blog Archive » Was Trayvon Martin A Drug Dealer And Gang Banger?



Scrolling through those it is all speculation. I know plenty of people who like being perceived as gang member and throw up signs etc. to seem cool and as for the drug thing on there taking pictures of some dope by someone else doesn't make him a drug dealer that is just silly. I'm sure there are some people on this forum who smoke pot and I'm sure they are not drug dealers (maybe ). Not saying it isn't true because I wouldn't know, but nothing seems definitive.

The tweet about kicking someones ass though is intriguing, although irrelevant honestly. What I said before still applies as to the violence and what not. If those are true he is clearly hot headed, but that doesn't mean he just randomly beats up strangers. In fact by the sound of what I'm reading it is people who have irritated him which would also imply that Zimmerman approached him first. Not justifying anything for either side, but it does set the point that Zimmerman shouldn't have approached him. It seems like people with concealed carry all of a sudden have bigger balls.


----------



## Guitarman700

Pooluke41 said:


> I didn't say they were "the same" I said that they were both as bad as each other.
> 
> I think it's a bit unfair of the Media to portray Zimmerman as an evil guy, and to portray Martin as a Saint.
> 
> There's two sides to the story.
> 
> Fair enough about the gang bit though.
> 
> _*@flint*_ (I've forgotten how to quote... )
> 
> I'm not speculating just from the pictures.
> 
> According to his twitter, he was a gang member.
> 
> Was Trayvon Martin a Drug Dealer?
> 
> Meet The Real Trayvon Martin: Evidence Emerges He Was A Drug Dealer And Gang Banger « Pat Dollard
> 
> iOwnTheWorld.com » Blog Archive » Was Trayvon Martin A Drug Dealer And Gang Banger?



Pat Dollard is crazy. Literally crazy. I would take ANYTHING he says with a massive grain of salt.


----------



## flint757

Just read the title a drug dealer and a gang banger are 2 different things and even if you are in a gang you aren't necessarily doing either. When people slant things either way like the child picks of Trayvon and these overkill personas these article build it is discredited almost immediately in my book.


----------



## Pooluke41

Guitarman700 said:


> Pat Dollard is crazy. Literally crazy. I would take ANYTHING he says with a massive grain of salt.



I just quickly found something related to this case. 

I don't know who the hell is crazy or not crazy. 

I've never even been on Pat Dollard's site before, Just found that then.


----------



## Guitarman700

Pooluke41 said:


> I just quickly found something related to this case.
> 
> I don't know who the hell is crazy or not crazy.
> 
> I've never even been on Pat Dollard's site before, Just found that then.



That's my point, though. If you just grab the first article you see, who's to say if it's true or not? You could simply be spreading misinformation.


----------



## SenorDingDong

flint757 said:


> Scrolling through those it is all speculation. I know plenty of people who like being perceived as gang member and throw up signs etc. to seem cool and as for the drug thing on there taking pictures of some dope by someone else doesn't make him a drug dealer that is just silly. I'm sure there are some people on this forum who smoke pot and I'm sure they are not drug dealers (maybe ). Not saying it isn't true because I wouldn't know, but nothing seems definitive.
> 
> The tweet about kicking someones ass though is intriguing, although irrelevant honestly. What I said before still applies as to the violence and what not. If those are true he is clearly hot headed, but that doesn't mean he just randomly beats up strangers. In fact by the sound of what I'm reading it is people who have irritated him which would also imply that Zimmerman approached him first. Not justifying anything for either side, but it does set the point that Zimmerman shouldn't have approached him. It seems like people with concealed carry all of a sudden have bigger balls.



Whether the gang claims are true or not, it goes a mile toward showing the kid's mentality (if it is true), something that has as of yet been described as shining and perfect. This sheds light on a possibly different person entirely from who the parents are claiming their son is, which is a huge impact upon the case. And as for the following bit, well, he _was_ part of the neighborhood watch after all, and while that doesn't give him all the rights in the world, it does give him a bit of leeway when inspecting suspicious behavior. I'm not siding with him, but I'm still having a ton of trouble pinning this case, because the portrayal of Zimmerman had me fairly suspicious from the get-go, especially seeing as, if you read his site, he was obsessed with law enforcement and had extreme views on right/wrong and such.


----------



## flint757

Agree it is hard to pin since the first articles about it were right off the back biased. 

Well I already knew he wasn't an angel or anything since he is a football player and I have never met a football player who was just an angel. In my school they were always the ones who barely tried in school, but I suppose that can't be applied across the board either.

Zimmerman's obsession with law says good and bad things about him IMO. I don't think it was intentional, I think they got in a fight and he panicked and shot him. The part that takes me back off his side is that he shouldn't have tailed someone he considered a threat. At that point it doesn't matter who threw the first punch since it could have been avoided that easily. He clearly has aspirations for law enforcement and got way ahead of himself.


----------



## SenorDingDong

flint757 said:


> Agree it is hard to pin since the first articles about it were right off the back biased.
> 
> Well I already knew he wasn't an angel or anything since he is a football player and I have never met a football player who was just an angel. In my school they were always the ones who barely tried in school, but I suppose that can't be applied across the board either.
> 
> Zimmerman's obsession with law says good and bad things about him IMO. I don't think it was intentional, I think they got in a fight and he panicked and shot him. The part that takes me back off his side is that he shouldn't have tailed someone he considered a threat. At that point it doesn't matter who threw the first punch since it could have been avoided that easily. He clearly has aspirations for law enforcement and got way ahead of himself.



Definitely. I don't think I'd ever be able to say, "He was right." I already stated my opinion that, regardless of who instigated, murder is murder in my eyes and he is guilty of such. But as the issue stands, I'm getting more and more curious based upon the things that Martin's family has so successfully hidden and that the majority of people seem content with ignoring.


----------



## Randy

There absolutely is a racial component to this.

With regard to the handling of this by the media and by general public, the racial part is absolutely blown up. First, there were the pictures put out that were supposedly of Trayvon Martin (but weren't actually him), then the pictures of him posted above (middle finger, gold teeth, etc). Are you going to tell me outside of the context of trying to fit him into the stereotype of a "black street thug", those pictures would have any relevance? Would the same "if you think he's so innocent and the media isn't slanted, how about these pics vs. theses" type argument hold water if it were, IDK, Jamie Kennedy in a suit and then Jamie Kennedy in Malibu's Most Wanted? No, because it would look like joke. Just accepting that he's black so whatever he does that's doesn't include wearing freshly pressed drycleaning or posing in his football jersey implies that he is or could be a thug?

The fact that stuff is put out there, the fact that it effects or is even out there to effect perception says a LOT about the racial component.


----------



## synrgy

The only part I'm familiar with which strikes me as eyebrow raising in the 'character assessment' department is that apparently Zimmerman made upwards of 46 calls to police since 2004. That detail - to me - helps paint the picture of an extremely paranoid guy.

In fairness, paranoia certainly doesn't directly translate to criminality. That said, murder does.

*edit* obligatory sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/trayvon_martin_george_zimmerman_basics.php
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/28/nation/la-na-zimmerman-profile-20120329


----------



## SenorDingDong

Randy said:


> There absolutely is a racial component to this.
> 
> With regard to the handling of this by the media and by general public, the racial part is absolutely blown up. First, there were the pictures put out that were supposedly of Trayvon Martin (but weren't actually him), then the pictures of him posted above (middle finger, gold teeth, etc). Are you going to tell me outside of the context of trying to fit him into the stereotype of a "black street thug", those pictures would have any relevance? Would the same "if you think he's so innocent and the media isn't slanted, how about these pics vs. theses" type argument hold water if it were, IDK, Jamie Kennedy in a suit and then Jamie Kennedy in Malibu's Most Wanted? No, because it would look like joke. Just accepting that he's black so whatever he does that's doesn't include wearing freshly pressed drycleaning or posing in his football jersey implies that he is or could be a thug?
> 
> The fact that stuff is put out there, the fact that it effects or is even out there to effect perception says a LOT about the racial component.






I have to disagree, as I believe it goes more toward showing mentality than it does showing that he's "black kid type A." Just like how the pictures of Casey Anthony partying after her daughter's death were a huge deal because she tried to play the "hurt, sad mother" role, the pictures of Martin at his current age and outside of that innocent-youth period, emulating a different lifestyle than that which has been depicted, and the suspension at school as well as claims to being in a gang show that he isn't the child-like, innocent figure that his parents want to pass him off as. It also shows that he was possibly "troubled," something which could have had a factor in how the events of that night played out. It makes a huge difference in the case because Martin's parents are claiming that he would never, ever do anything like Zimmerman said, and these things show the possibility of a different tale. That he's black doesn't make much of a difference; Anthony was white and look how much an impact the pictures made, and went, against the facade she put up.


----------



## Pooluke41

synrgy said:


> http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/



That is one of the only unbias sources on this I've seen.

It seems that most reports on these are either intent on showing Zimmerman as an evil guy or Martin as a Thug.

I'm probably completely wrong here, but I can't help but think that most media outlets are bias to get more readers...


----------



## Randy

SenorDingDong said:


> I have to disagree, as I believe it goes more toward showing mentality than it does showing that he's "black kid type A." Just like how the pictures of Casey Anthony partying after her daughter's death were a huge deal because she tried to play the "hurt, sad mother" role, the pictures of Martin at his current age and outside of that innocent-youth period, emulating a different lifestyle than that which has been depicted, and the suspension at school as well as claims to being in a gang show that he isn't the child-like, innocent figure that his parents want to pass him off as. It also shows that he was possibly "troubled," something which could have had a factor in how the events of that night played out. It makes a huge difference in the case because Martin's parents are claiming that he would never, ever do anything like Zimmerman said, and these things show the possibility of a different tale. That he's black doesn't make much of a difference; Anthony was white and look how much an impact the pictures made, and went, against the facade she put up.



I think the way the Casey Anthony pictures were used was also an unfair characterization, actually. Absolutely. Do I think the behavior illustrated in them appeared to be cold considering the circumstance? Maybe. But the fact they're there and seemed to specifically try to fit this narrative that "Casey Anthony is a partying slut that wanted her kid dead so she could do more partying" is it's own form of prejudice.

There's a discussion to be had about our sex/race physically versus, say, our sex/race "culturally". It's not totally fair to paint one person into one kind of mindset based on their race but it's also blind to just say there's not what could be considered "traditionally black things" and "traditionally white things" and "traditionally hispanic things", etc (EDIT: or "traditionally guy things" and "traditionally girl things". Again, that doesn't mean any of those "things" are exclusive to one group or that they immediately EXCLUDE other groups from doing those same things, but there's definitely a cultural perception. 

That said, you have a picture of Trayvon Martin with gold teeth, in a wife beater and flipping the bird. Go turn on a rap video. Go and see what older kids in magazines or on TV were wearing/doing, that Trayvon Martin would've seen and probably identified with. He was a teenager, after all. To just make the jump that these pictures all of the sudden discredit his innocence is absolutely the height of racism in the worst possible way; when we bias our opinions based on things without even knowing why or that we're doing it. 

Those pictures aren't exactly a high definition video of Trayvon participating in a drive-by shooting or dealing drugs or prostituting women. And even if those things exist(ed), George Zimmerman had no access to them when he chased Trayvon down. The Trayvon Martin that George Zimmerman saw, as a matter of fact and not character profiling, was walking home from a gas station with things he purchased (not stole), he had no weapon on him, he didn't have any visible gang tattoos or something to that effect and he wasn't breaking into somebody's house or looking in their windows. Again, this narrative that Trayvon Martin was secretly some thug and George Zimmerman used his super secret "X-ray Character Profiling" powers to view that is absurd.


----------



## Whitechapel7

is he innocent of shooting a human being? no. is he sorry that he did it? possibly. he has taken a child from the parents, regardless if that child was in a gang, doing drugs or if he beat the shit out of his assailant. whether or not he goes to prison, he will be haunted everyday by the last facial expression of Trayvon. in my opinion he is guilty as sin, but it is not my place.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Its pretty obvious zimmerman is a retarded prick, anyone who thinks he had any sort of justification in ahooting some skinny ass kid for no reason is probably retarded too.


----------



## flint757

I agree with Randy on this.

I also think the child pic's versus the "thug" pic's were not to sway the public, but avoid swaying if that makes since. How many people would jump to an absurd conclusion that he deserved it if those other pictures were used. I have no doubt that that is what would be said in a comment section of that. Our society stereotypes on the most ridiculous level especially since he is probably just emulating some rap artist he looks up too and honestly there is nothing wrong with that. That whole hoody shit was even more ridiculous, last I checked we were allowed to wear what we please without fear of being you know killed.

In Houston that is how most inner city kids dress irrelevant to race, it's called a trend for a reason. 

He profiled Trayvon from the start which means he already has an opinion of Trayvon as a criminal so chances are he approached him that way. Like I said earlier someone starts accusing me of shit, saying hateful things and tailing me they are probably going to get there ass knocked out. Why? Because I have a slight temper and that is just pathetically rude.

Not saying it was like this, but say someone was level headed and someone just kept trying to irritate them until they snapped and then finally did. Who's fault was it?


----------



## SenorDingDong

Randy said:


> I think the way the Casey Anthony pictures were used was also an unfair characterization, actually. Absolutely. Do I think the behavior illustrated in them appeared to be cold considering the circumstance? Maybe. But the fact they're there and seemed to specifically try to fit this narrative that "Casey Anthony is a partying slut that wanted her kid dead so she could do more partying" is it's own form of prejudice.
> 
> There's a discussion to be had about our sex/race physically versus, say, our sex/race "culturally". It's not totally fair to paint one person into one kind of mindset based on their race but it's also blind to just say there's not what could be considered "traditionally black things" and "traditionally white things" and "traditionally hispanic things", etc (EDIT: or "traditionally guy things" and "traditionally girl things". Again, that doesn't mean any of those "things" are exclusive to one group or that they immediately EXCLUDE other groups from doing those same things, but there's definitely a cultural perception.
> 
> That said, you have a picture of Trayvon Martin with gold teeth, in a wife beater and flipping the bird. Go turn on a rap video. Go and see what older kids in magazines or on TV were wearing/doing, that Trayvon Martin would've seen and probably identified with. He was a teenager, after all. To just make the jump that these pictures all of the sudden discredit his innocence is absolutely the height of racism in the worst possible way; when we bias our opinions based on things without even knowing why or that we're doing it.
> 
> Those pictures aren't exactly a high definition video of Trayvon participating in a drive-by shooting or dealing drugs or prostituting women. And even if those things exist(ed), George Zimmerman had no access to them when he chased Trayvon down. The Trayvon Martin that George Zimmerman saw, as a matter of fact and not character profiling, was walking home from a gas station with things he purchased (not stole), he had no weapon on him, he didn't have any visible gang tattoos or something to that effect and he wasn't breaking into somebody's house or looking in their windows. Again, this narrative that Trayvon Martin was secretly some thug and George Zimmerman used his super secret "X-ray Character Profiling" powers to view that is absurd.



I'm not claiming that Zimmerman was a character profiling champ, or that Martin was a super secret thug or anything of the sort. However, both the victim and the perpetrator's personal lives do have significant bearing in any case, as it should be. It gives a picture into who they are and helps decide what the hell actually went down. The multiple suspensions and drug use and such have bearing on the case, as do Zimmerman's unhealthy obsession with law enforcement and his past arrests. It's sketchy that the twitter and Facebook accounts were deleted, seeing as several of the posts able to be found were shady enough to begin with. It's as if his parents wanted to hide anything that would diminish Martin's "perfect behavior," which is unfair seeing as anything and everything has been thrown out at Zimmerman. 

The case isn't what Zimmerman saw or didn't see but how the altercation was incited, namely who swung first, and knowing specific things about Martin's past as we do Zimmerman's, and _true_ things at that, not painted saintly pictures by his parents, will help establish exactly what happened.


EDIT: I agree that there was profiling involved, but not racial. He saw a kid in a hoodie with his hood up, and if you listen to the 911 call you get the impression he wasn't sure what his race was until the dispatcher asked for it and he checked, because he second guesses himself after he says it.


----------



## Randy

SenorDingDong said:


> It gives a picture into who they are and helps decide what the hell actually went down.



Right. Facts relevant to the case should be in the discussion. 911 calls and suspensions all day long.

The debate of the photos is completely and entirely different. That's something that's put out there as a "sound bite" for the general public who are too lazy, dumb or just disinterested to follow the whole story. For people actually following the story closely, how many times have you heard the picture mentioned in relation to "This is a picture Trayvon Martin sent to a fellow gang member" or something to that effect, versus "The media has unfairly been slanting this story because they have a shitty picture of George Zimmerman and a picture of Trayvon Martin smiling. If you saw this picture of Zimmerman instead and this picture of Martin instead, it'd be a very different story"? The answer is that you've heard the first assertion zero (or near) times and the second _countless_ times. So you have these pictures being pushed out there in an attempt to somehow alter the narrative and my point was, the fact or perception that THOSE pictures will somehow change public opinion or effect the strength of the case is, in my opinion, racist.


----------



## Razzy

synrgy said:


> The only part I'm familiar with which strikes me as eyebrow raising in the 'character assessment' department is that apparently Zimmerman made upwards of 46 calls to police since 2004. That detail - to me - helps paint the picture of an extremely paranoid guy.



He was the neighborhood watch captain. 46 calls to the police in 8 years doesn't seem that crazy to me.

That's only 5-6 calls a year. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

Edit: Shit, even I call the police that many times a year just to report shit I see. Drunk drivers, stuff like that.


----------



## flint757

Razzy said:


> He was the neighborhood watch captain. 46 calls to the police in 8 years doesn't seem that crazy to me.
> 
> That's only 5-6 calls a year. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
> 
> Edit: Shit, even I call the police that many times a year just to report shit I see. Drunk drivers, stuff like that.



He mus live in a bad neighborhood. My neighborhood is open and virtually crime free no calls to police ever.


----------



## Sicarius

SenorDingDong said:


> That was one of the things that made me a little curious, as the big outcry is that he disobeyed a law enforcement officer, and yet I was under the same impression.
> 
> I have no doubt he is guilty of murder--Martin is dead. But I am still a little curious as to how things really went down, as it seems curious to me that he would just rampage on a random kid. Maybe I just don't understand it because I can't fathom someone doing something like that without provocation and it's my dis-understanding that leads me to still be curious about this case.


depends on the Law Enforcement Office, some of the calltakers are law enforcement officers.

Or they're high enough rank in the dispatch office that they've been promoted to "officer".

It's kind of a general rule to listen to what they say, you don't have to, obviously, but it's kind of a good idea to do so.

I think the kid was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sucks that he was killed, but the media and everything else blew this way out of proportion.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

How? Some nutcase shot a kid for literally no reason.


----------



## Guitarman700

Sicarius said:


> depends on the Law Enforcement Office, some of the calltakers are law enforcement officers.
> 
> Or they're high enough rank in the dispatch office that they've been promoted to "officer".
> 
> It's kind of a general rule to listen to what they say, you don't have to, obviously, but it's kind of a good idea to do so.
> 
> I think the kid was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sucks that he was killed, but the media and everything else blew this way out of proportion.



Not really. A kid is still dead.


----------



## nostealbucket

What do I think?

Zimmerman is guilty. He killed somebody. The race of the person he killed shouldn't matter, Zimmerman killed somebody, no matter what race, Zimmerman should be punished.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Randy said:


> Right. Facts relevant to the case should be in the discussion. 911 calls and suspensions all day long.
> 
> The debate of the photos is completely and entirely different. That's something that's put out there as a "sound bite" for the general public who are too lazy, dumb or just disinterested to follow the whole story. For people actually following the story closely, how many times have you heard the picture mentioned in relation to "This is a picture Trayvon Martin sent to a fellow gang member" or something to that effect, versus "The media has unfairly been slanting this story because they have a shitty picture of George Zimmerman and a picture of Trayvon Martin smiling. If you saw this picture of Zimmerman instead and this picture of Martin instead, it'd be a very different story"? The answer is that you've heard the first assertion zero (or near) times and the second _countless_ times. So you have these pictures being pushed out there in an attempt to somehow alter the narrative and my point was, the fact or perception that THOSE pictures will somehow change public opinion or effect the strength of the case is, in my opinion, racist.



I think I misunderstood your initial post and we are both arguing for the same point 

I agree that the photos themselves shouldn't be the issue. Things like, as you also mentioned, suspensions, police obsessions, drugs, etc. are the things that should be focused on. When I said "painting the picture" I meant that they were making his behaviors out to be angelic and such. 

If any of the photos being used are a closing point in the case, America has no right to have a court system. My point with the Anthony photos was that she was behaving unacceptably by doing such and such after her child's death, and as such I meant that that counted as usable personal information that the courts needed, whereas with Martin and Zimmerman, it's the past behaviors, and truthful recollections of such personal information, that need to be brought to the public's attention. Because as you said in your post, the kid could simply be emulating his idols. That alone doesn't make him a bad kid in any way, shape or form--it's the behaviors that are being kept under wraps by the family that make the difference.


----------



## flint757

SenorDingDong said:


> I think I misunderstood your initial post and we are both arguing for the same point
> 
> I agree that the photos themselves shouldn't be the issue. Things like, as you also mentioned, suspensions, police obsessions, drugs, etc. are the things that should be focused on. When I said "painting the picture" I meant that they were making his behaviors out to be angelic and such.
> 
> If any of the photos being used are a closing point in the case, America has no right to have a court system. My point with the Anthony photos was that she was behaving unacceptably by doing such and such after her child's death, and as such I meant that that counted as usable personal information that the courts needed, whereas with Martin and Zimmerman, it's the past behaviors, and truthful recollections of such personal information, that need to be brought to the public's attention. Because as you said in your post, the kid could simply be emulating his idols. That alone doesn't make him a bad kid in any way, shape or form--it's the behaviors that are being kept under wraps by the family that make the difference.



They could have him on photo injecting heroin that doesn't mean he came to his parents neighborhood to start trouble. He could be the hugest dick in the world and that wouldn't change anything. Unless he walked up to an unsuspecting Zimmerman and beat him until he was dead (not even stitches were needed) for absolutely no reason is the only reason I can come up with for Zimmerman to deserve getting off the hook and even his story doesn't say this so he's guilty in my book either way. Now in the confines of the law there may be more circumstances of "innocence" so that may not matter.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Guitarman700 said:


> Not really. A kid is still dead.



But he's right. It isn't a small deal that a kid is dead, but there have been similar cases that have received very, very little attention, and the media, with the help of Obama inserting the issue of race with his comment about Trayvon, blew this way out of proportion. Namely, when Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed an unarmed, "suspicious looking" white teenager in Rochester NY back in 2009 and was let off. 


And that CNN report of "fucking coon" was withdrawn, to what was originally said: "It's fucking cold." Just wanted to clear that up from the article above.


----------



## Guitarman700

SenorDingDong said:


> But he's right. It isn't a small deal that a kid is dead, but there have been similar cases that have received very, very little attention, and the media, with the help of Obama inserting the issue of race with his comment about Trayvon, blew this way out of proportion. Namely, when Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed an unarmed, "suspicious looking" white teenager in Rochester NY back in 2009 and was let off.
> 
> 
> And that CNN report of "fucking coon" was withdrawn, to what was originally said: "It's fucking cold." Just wanted to clear that up from the article above.



The ministers of Misery Jackson and Sharpton have done far more to make this a race issue than Obama.


----------



## SenorDingDong

flint757 said:


> They could have him on photo injecting heroin that doesn't mean he came to his parents neighborhood to start trouble. He could be the hugest dick in the world and that wouldn't change anything. Unless he walked up to an unsuspecting Zimmerman and beat him until he was dead (not even stitches were needed) for absolutely no reason is the only reason I can come up with for Zimmerman to deserve getting off the hook and even his story doesn't say this so he's guilty in my book either way. Now in the confines of the law there may be more circumstances of "innocence" so that may not matter.





I'm pretty sure having a background in heavy drugs and such would have a substantial impact on the case. 

And also, I never said he deserves to get off the hook--I already stated that I believe he is guilty of murder, as it's pretty black and white that Martin is dead--but you may be a little bit ambitious in saying that he needs to beat someone to the point of death in order for them to defend themselves. It's just unrealistic. I'm not saying that's what happened, as I still can't figure out what has happened with the amount, or lack, of actual evidence in the case, but that is a bit extreme.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Guitarman700 said:


> The ministers of Misery Jackson and Sharpton have done far more to make this a race issue than Obama.



I agree that they've done more, but whose words hold more weight? I like to think the President of the United States of America's do. The New Black Panther's also had a big hand in this, but Obama is ultimately much, much more powerful.


----------



## flint757

Part of me feels more like none of thee should be in the media and the law should just do the right thing from the start. Did the media blow this out of proportion? Yes. Are they milking it? Yes. I can't do anything about the lack of media support on other cases and the lack of light on one case doesn't mean the other should be buried with last years furniture.

You are making it racial by pointing out a case of a race reversal going on FYI. Not that I care.


----------



## Guitarman700

SenorDingDong said:


> I agree that they've done more, but whose words hold more weight? I like to think the President of the United States of America's do. The New Black Panther's also had a big hand in this, but Obama is ultimately much, much more powerful.



He said one thing. Made a comment. He's not down there stirring up hatred in the black community like the Panthers and Jackson/Sharpton.


----------



## SenorDingDong

flint757 said:


> Part of me feels more like none of thee should be in the media and the law should just do the right thing from the start. Did the media blow this out of proportion? Yes. Are they milking it? Yes. I can't do anything about the lack of media support on other cases and the lack of light on one case doesn't mean the other should be buried with last years furniture.
> 
> You are making it racial by pointing out a case of a race reversal going on FYI. Not that I care.



I think the media's response (and this is just my personal opinion without any actual proof--I don't think I could find any if I tried) is the reason this case got so messed up, as they hopped right on it and shook it up so that the police didn't have much time to investigate and such without interference from do-gooders and false witnesses and such. 

I was simply trying to show the slant of the media's bias and the community's bias.


----------



## flint757

SenorDingDong said:


> I'm pretty sure having a background in heavy drugs and such would have a substantial impact on the case.
> 
> And also, I never said he deserves to get off the hook--I already stated that I believe he is guilty of murder, as it's pretty black and white that Martin is dead--but you may be a little bit ambitious in saying that he needs to beat someone to the point of death in order for them to defend themselves. It's just unrealistic. I'm not saying that's what happened, as I still can't figure out what has happened with the amount, or lack, of actual evidence in the case, but that is a bit extreme.



Didn't mean literally beaten to death and then wait to the last minute to use the gun and shoot said assailant yes that would be stupid. I was more referring to the fact that Trayvon did not seek Zimmerman and just attack him for no reason, based on what little is said he was at the very least verbally provoked and stalked into any form of violence. Even in school fights though weapons have gotten out of hand I miss the days when people could just duke it out without doing something incredibly stupid. By owning and using the gun though he accepts the responsibility.



SenorDingDong said:


> I agree that they've done more, but whose words hold more weight? I like to think the President of the United States of America's do. The New Black Panther's also had a big hand in this, but Obama is ultimately much, much more powerful.



Similar to why it was refiled as a case is why Obama spoke up. people would have been upset if he didn't. It isn't like he wanted to take sides, he was asked a question and the media was in a frenzy so he had to respond. Not justifying anything, but that is how most of the things of that nature get spoken by any president. (taking sides rarely makes you friends)

[EDIT]

What I meant about drugs is that if he did not in fact come there to do anything illegal then it doesn't matter for this case if he did. Maybe as character witness type thing, but even then it isn't really relevant especially since it is speculation and he wasn't on anything when he died. Otherwise this case would have been done at the autopsy report.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Guitarman700 said:


> He said one thing. Made a comment. He's not down there stirring up hatred in the black community like the Panthers and Jackson/Sharpton.



But it's how the comment is used. As the president, he should be taking into consideration how his words will be used by various organizations. I personally didn't even think his words were _bad_, but the fact that he commented on what could be seen as on one side of a case-in-progress is something that would undoubtedly be used to sway people.


----------



## Sicarius

none of you guys know Zimmerman personally, no one except he and Trayvvon know what actually happened that night.

It's my opinion that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If you guys want to get butthurt and go along with whatever hearsay you've come across, that's fine. I personally don't care about this case, as it doesn't affect me personally.


----------



## Guitarman700

Sicarius said:


> none of you guys know Zimmerman personally, no one except he and Trayvvon know what actually happened that night.
> 
> It's my opinion that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
> 
> If you guys want to get butthurt and go along with whatever hearsay you've come across, that's fine. I personally don't care about this case, as it doesn't affect me personally.



You care enough to comment in this thread. No one is butthurt. This is called a debate.


----------



## SenorDingDong

flint757 said:


> Didn't mean literally beaten to death and then wait to the last minute to use the gun and shoot said assailant yes that would be stupid. I was more referring to the fact that Trayvon did not seek Zimmerman and just attack him for no reason, based on what little is said he was at the very least verbally provoked and stalked into any form of violence. Even in school fights though weapons have gotten out of hand I miss the days when people could just duke it out without doing something incredibly stupid. By owning and using the gun though he accepts the responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Similar to why it was refiled as a case is why Obama spoke up. people would have been upset if he didn't. It isn't like he wanted to take sides, he was asked a question and the media was in a frenzy so he had to respond. Not justifying anything, but that is how most of the things of that nature get spoken by any president. (taking sides rarely makes you friends)



I agree; weapons have gotten out of hand, and it seems that anyone can get a license for A, B or C weapon. But I still haven't seen anything that tells me who the aggressor was. 

In the end, I do believe that Zimmerman deserves to go to prison, and I hope that no one thinks I believe otherwise. Taking a life is taking a life. But I am still extremely curious as to how things really went down and what factors were involved. 





And as for Obama, there is always the famous phrase, "I have no comment." A phrase that he really needs to start using


----------



## flint757

Sicarius said:


> If you guys want to get butthurt and go along with whatever hearsay you've come across, that's fine. I personally don't care about this case, as it doesn't affect me personally.



No one is butt hurt and obviously no one knows for sure, it's just discussion at the end of the day I could care less.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Sicarius said:


> none of you guys know Zimmerman personally, no one except he and Trayvvon know what actually happened that night.
> 
> It's my opinion that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
> 
> If you guys want to get butthurt and go along with whatever hearsay you've come across, that's fine. I personally don't care about this case, as it doesn't affect me personally.





Guitarman700 said:


> You care enough to comment in this thread. No one is butthurt. This is called a debate.







See, no butt hurt here.


There's not enough room in the bed for it


----------



## flint757

SenorDingDong said:


> I agree; weapons have gotten out of hand, and it seems that anyone can get a license for A, B or C weapon. But I still haven't seen anything that tells me who the aggressor was.
> 
> In the end, I do believe that Zimmerman deserves to go to prison, and I hope that no one thinks I believe otherwise. Taking a life is taking a life. But I am still extremely curious as to how things really went down and what factors were involved.
> 
> 
> And as for Obama, there is always the famous phrase, "I have no comment." A phrase that he really needs to start using



I agree with it all


----------



## Sicarius

Guitarman700 said:


> You care enough to comment in this thread. No one is butthurt. This is called a debate.


Actually, I was commenting on the dispatcher thing, since that, I do have experience with.

I merely said what I thought to keep the post relevant to the thread as a whole.

Good try, though.


----------



## Guitarman700

Rushing to judgment is something people do far to often, and it destroys cases like this by making it nearly impossible to separate the facts from the rhetoric. Do I think Zimmerman should be tried? Yeah, I do. And his current charge is sufficient. It doesn't need to be upped to murder 1. This isn't a case of premeditated murder, as many in the media and community seem to believe. Neither was young Mr. Martin a saint, either, but we don't know exactly what he was. Surely some of his misdeeds were the folly of youth. Who he could of been, we will never know. And Zimmerman needs to answer for that.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Guitarman700 said:


> Rushing to judgment is something people do far to often, and it destroys cases like this by making it nearly impossible to separate the facts from the rhetoric. Do I think Zimmerman should be tried? Yeah, I do. And his current charge is sufficient. It doesn't need to be upped to murder 1. This isn't a case of premeditated murder, as many in the media and community seem to believe. Neither was young Mr. Martin a saint, either, but we don't know exactly what he was. Surely some of his misdeeds were the folly of youth. *Who he could of been, we will never know. And Zimmerman needs to answer for that.*



I believe that's the biggest issue with this case, that people jump right to a conclusion based on their feelings or what the first news clip shows and not based on fact. And it happened so close to Occupy Wall Street that the protesters were primed and ready to go. 

That last segment, despite my need for some kind of factual breakdown of what happened, says it beautifully. I don't believe Zimmerman premeditated anything, but as we've all said at one point in this post; murder is murder is murder is, well, murder.


----------



## ST3MOCON

Don't know the facts of the case but ran into this on yahoo. Here is some Zimmerman background info. Yahoo! News thought I was interesting. We will see what happens in this case in the future. No matter what Zimmerman is going to have it tough.


----------



## flint757

ST3MOCON said:


> Don't know the facts of the case but ran into this on yahoo. Here is some Zimmerman background info. Yahoo! News thought I was interesting. We will see what happens in this case in the future. No matter what Zimmerman is going to have it tough.



Yeah until people forget his face he's screwed no matter what the verdict is.


----------



## Necris

First off I want to make it very clear that I don't support what George Zimmerman did and believe he should be on trial for his actions.
However, I have a really, really difficult time believing this was a premeditated and strictly racially motivated murder like the media seems to want everyone to believe. Once Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, The New Black Panthers, other members of the african american comminuty and most importantly the Media took this case and ran with it making it out to be a strictly racial issue and calling for blood any chance of a fair investigation and trial went out of the window. 

President Obama should have had the good sense to keep his mouth shut when asked about the case, but history has shown he isn't particularly likely to turn down a chance to give his opinion (calling Kanye West a jackass, the "Beer Summit" idiocy).

To play the devils advocate for a moment, there are quite a few scenarios that could have played out in which the law would have been on on Zimmermans side and even made him immune to prosecution under the Florida version of the stand your ground law.


----------



## ST3MOCON

The article really is intersting it explains why Zimmerman didn't listen to the dispatcher and why he had a concealed carry in the first place. I think it's a bunch of crazy events and it really did play out very bad for both of them. We really don't know anything. You don't know if Zimmerman was in fear of his life or not. I can understand why Zimmerman was doing what he was doing, but he took on a huge responsibility and since he is not an officer its going to play out very bad for him. People in the neighbor hood really were scared and zimmerman was trying to do some good. A person was killed. This case isn't black and white there is a huge grey area. Shit happens. It happened to Martin and its happening to Zimmerman.


----------



## TemjinStrife

Another thing about this case that's really fucked up was when Zimmerman's defense lawyers held a PRESS CONFERENCE saying that they couldn't represent him anymore and calling out to him "to see if he was okay."

I hope those fucks get whatever ethics violations they have coming to them


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone

Dammit, I thought SS would've just glided past this.



highlordmugfug said:


> He followed Trayvon after being told not to by 911, and then shot him and killed him.
> 
> Racist or not, he's guilty.
> [/thread]


----------



## highlordmugfug

TemjinStrife said:


> Another thing about this case that's really fucked up was when Zimmerman's defense lawyers held a PRESS CONFERENCE saying that they couldn't represent him anymore and calling out to him "to see if he was okay."
> 
> I hope those fucks get whatever ethics violations they have coming to them


I read that they quit because he never got back in contact with them (after calls, texts, etc.) and he set up his own website for donations to 'help pay for his legal fees' after they had already set one up for him. From what I heard, he was acting like a fucking idiot and refusing to contact his lawyers.


----------



## flint757

Wonder why he'd do that. It isn't smart to scare off your lawyers it makes you look bad


----------



## highlordmugfug

flint757 said:


> Wonder why he'd do that. It isn't smart to scare off your lawyers it makes you look bad


George Zimmerman's attorneys quit; announcement in case imminent - Los Angeles Times

Here: George Zimmerman's attorneys quit; announcement in case imminent - Los Angeles Times

"they had lost all contact with him and that he called the prosecutor and talked to a TV host after they told him not to speak to anyone.

"As of the last couple days he has not returned phone calls, text messages or emails," Sonner said at a news conference outside Seminole County Courthouse in Sanford, Fla. "He's gone on his own. I'm not sure what he's doing or who he's talking to. I cannot go forward speaking to the public about George Zimmerman and this case as representing him because I've lost contact with him."
Uhrig added, "Whenever we call him, the call goes to voicemail."
The attorneys said they had not spoken with Zimmerman since Sunday. Since then, they said, they had learned that he spoke to Corey's office and to Fox News TV host Sean Hannity without consulting them, in an attempt to give his side of the shooting. They said Corey refused to talk to Zimmerman without his attorneys' consent and Hannity wouldn't tell them what was discussed.
Uhrig said the final straw was Zimmerman's call to Corey, which came at 10:55 a.m. Tuesday.
"We were a bit astonished," Uhrig said. He praised the prosecutor for refusing to speak with Zimmerman unless he had legal counsel.


He set up his own website even as they were setting up one for him at his request. On the website, Zimmerman says he wants "to ensure my supporters they are receiving my full attention without any intermediaries." The site allows visitors to give Zimmerman money for living expenses and legal bills.


The lawyers admitted they had an unusual business arrangement. Neither had met Zimmerman; they communicated strictly by phone and email.
And Zimmerman had paid them nothing yet, Sonner said.
The arrangement was that unless the special prosecutor filed charges, Sonner would work for free. In the last few weeks, he and Uhrig have traveled to New York at least twice to appear on network news shows.
" 


Read the full article if you want the whole story, I just got the examples of what he was doing that made them quit.


----------



## flint757

He clearly think he knows what he's doing


----------



## TemjinStrife

Yes, but it is a horrifically bad idea to hold a PRESS CONFERENCE calling out YOUR OWN CLIENT. You know, the person you are supposed to be advocating for and protecting.

Seriously.

Legal Ethics Forum: Message to George Zimmerman's former lawyers: as Joe DiMaggio said to his doctors, "shut up!"

Legal Ethics Forum: Did George Zimmerman's Lawyers Violate the Duty of Confidentiality?

Toobin: Lawyers' 'bizarre' announcement no help to Zimmerman &#8211; This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

Mark Geragos Blasts Zimmerman Lawyers&#8217; Presser On CNN: I Thought I Was Watching SNL Skit | Mediaite

It's shit like this that makes me wonder how the fuck people like this made it through law school. The code of conduct for lawyers is not particularly forgiving, and I don't understand how holding a press conference to sensationally reach out to their client could possibly have been a good idea.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Necris said:


> First off I want to make it very clear that I don't support what George Zimmerman did and believe he should be on trial for his actions.
> However, I have a really, really difficult time believing this was a premeditated and strictly racially motivated murder like the media seems to want everyone to believe. Once Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, The New Black Panthers, other members of the african american comminuty and most importantly the Media took this case and ran with it making it out to be a strictly racial issue and calling for blood any chance of a fair investigation and trial went out of the window.
> 
> President Obama should have had the good sense to keep his mouth shut when asked about the case, but history has shown he isn't particularly likely to turn down a chance to give his opinion (calling Kanye West a jackass, the "Beer Summit" idiocy).
> 
> To play the devils advocate for a moment, there are quite a few scenarios that could have played out in which the law would have been on on Zimmermans side and even made him immune to prosecution under the Florida version of the stand your ground law.





And what makes it worse is that those men and the organizations they lead started a racial issue that has further muddied the waters. There have been two "racial hate crimes" that have stemmed from this case already. Two crimes in which the perpetrators attacked a white mile, then claimed they did out "Because they were mad about Trayvon Martin," or did it "For Trayvon."


Officials: Trayvon case cited in racial beating - Chicago Sun-Times

Beating of Alabama man not seen as hate crime, despite claim &#39;Trayvon&#39; invoked | Fox News


----------



## Randy

Gotta love people doing completely random shit (likely attempted theft or the like) and blaming whoever/whatever they can, unwittingly implicating themselves in a hate crime. 

Throw the book at those fuckers.


----------



## Pooluke41

Randy said:


> Throw the book at those fuckers.


----------



## flint757

In the name of Trayvon? Anger blamed in beatings of whites - latimes.com

Found this too. This guy was charged for a hate crime. What is funny is Zimmerman is only half white and he definitely looks latino so why are they beating up pastie's in the name of Trayvon. 

Sounds like an excuse to do something they already wanted to do personally. OWS and the UK riots started for legitimate reasons and then the same thing happened, people who had nothing better to do started joining up and in the case of the riot just wanted to go crazy.


----------



## Randy

> On Wednesday, Hayes was charged with a hate crime, as well as with attempted *robbery* and aggravated battery.



He attempted a robbery and, being the numskull that he is, figured that invoking Trayvon Martin was going to make this sound like something less severe. What he did, instead, was implicate himself in a hate crime.


----------



## flint757

Randy said:


> He attempted a robbery and, being the numskull that he is, figured that invoking Trayvon Martin was going to make this sound like something less severe. What he did, instead, was implicate himself in a hate crime.



Yeah basically

Why is it attempted robbery I wonder? Did he have nothing on him or is that just what we call mugging's in a legal sense?


----------



## renzoip

flint757 said:


> In the name of Trayvon? Anger blamed in beatings of whites - latimes.com
> 
> Found this too. This guy was charged for a hate crime. What is funny is Zimmerman is only half white and he definitely looks latino so why are they beating up pastie's in the name of Trayvon.
> 
> Sounds like an excuse to do something they already wanted to do personally. OWS and the UK riots started for legitimate reasons and then the same thing happened, people who had nothing better to do started joining up and in the case of the riot just wanted to go crazy.




I'll say it before, and I'll say it again: There is no such thing as looking latino. Latinos share a a language and a common ancestry traceable to the Former Spanish & Portuguese colonies in the Americas. So, just because one of his parents isn't an Anglo, does not make him non-white. How light his skin must be in order to be considered "white" is an opinion that will vary from person to person. But he is still a light skin half anglo american with a Germanic last name. 

Not trying to make this into a black/white issue, just clarifying some specifics. Also, I do thing that race must not be ignored in the context of this case. Not because I think Trayvon Martin's skin color was the Zimmerman's reason to kill him. But because of the way law enforcement handled the issue. Stand your Ground laws disproportionally benefit Anglo Americans, than they do other people. If the victim would have been an Anglo, and the person who shot him a 28 year old African-American, Florida cops would not buy no Stand your Ground plead. Also, many of the people now trying to look into the specifics and technicalities that may mitigate this case, would have instead rush to condemn the attacker and call for the death penalty.


The rest of your post I more or less agree with.


----------



## Necris

Randy said:


> He attempted a robbery and, being the numskull that he is, figured that invoking Trayvon Martin was going to make this sound like something less severe. What he did, instead, was implicate himself in a hate crime.


I sincerely hope that while he and all the other people who invoked Trayvons name as a justification for their crimes realize while sitting in prison that their actions only increased racial tensions making incidents like Trayvons more likely to occur. Doesn't seem so much like "Justice for Trayvon" from that angle, does it?


----------



## flint757

renzoip said:


> I'll say it before, and I'll say it again: There is no such thing as looking latino. Latinos share a a language and a common ancestry traceable to the Former Spanish & Portuguese colonies in the Americas. So, just because one of his parents isn't an Anglo, does not make him non-white. How light his skin must be in order to be considered "white" is an opinion that will vary from person to person. But he is still a light skin half anglo american with a Germanic last name.
> 
> Not trying to make this into a black/white issue, just clarifying some specifics. Also, I do thing that race must not be ignored in the context of this case. Not because I think Trayvon Martin's skin color was the Zimmerman's reason to kill him. But because of the way law enforcement handled the issue. Stand your Ground laws disproportionally benefit Anglo Americans, than they do other people. If the victim would have been an Anglo, and the person who shot him a 28 year old African-American, Florida cops would not buy no Stand your Ground plead. Also, many of the people now trying to look into the specifics and technicalities that may mitigate this case, would have instead rush to condemn the attacker and call for the death penalty.
> 
> 
> The rest of your post I more or less agree with.



I'm going to disagree with you on the color thing mainly because you are splitting hairs.

I didn't even technically say skin color I said looks latino. As in of latino origin. He doesn't look Mexican because the facial structure is more from the native american descent. People with true spanish origins yes are light skinned, but just like how germans have distinct features and Africans have distinct features so do latino's. My family has strong polish and german features. He could be way more white and I'd still say he looks latino.

In any case even if I was referring to what you were talking about it is still not illogical. South America, Mexico, and any other country that is qualified as a latino country (with Spain being probably the only exception) share similar skin colors and features.

And I agree color should be removed from the issue. My only point was it isn't like these people are only targeting white people making it a black versus white issue and he is hardly white (in color). Caucasian would be more appropriate since it isn't strictly a color thing. To adhere to any logic they would have to target half white-half hispanic men just under the age of 30. (attacking a stranger hardly makes sense in any situation though )


----------



## renzoip

flint757 said:


> I'm going to disagree with you on the color thing mainly because you are splitting hairs.
> 
> I didn't even technically say skin color I said looks latino. As in of latino origin. He doesn't look Mexican because the facial structure is more from the native american descent. People with true spanish origins yes are light skinned, but just like how germans have distinct features and Africans have distinct features so do latino's. My family has strong polish and german features. He could be way more white and I'd still say he looks latino.
> 
> In any case even if I was referring to what you were talking about it is still not illogical. South America, Mexico, and any other country that is qualified as a latino country (with Spain being probably the only exception) share similar skin colors and features.
> 
> And I agree color should be removed from the issue. My only point was it isn't like these people are only targeting white people making it a black versus white issue and he is hardly white (in color). Caucasian would be more appropriate since it isn't strictly a color thing. To adhere to any logic they would have to target half white-half hispanic men just under the age of 30. (attacking a stranger hardly makes sense in any situation though )



Ok, I understand that people may look at things other than skin color when speculating about "race", but even when considering physical features, I still stand by my argument. Latinos by definition, are a a multiracial ethnicity, they are a result of the large mix or Europeans, Africans, Asians, and Native Americans. So a Native American Latino, and African-Latino, and a Latino of European descent, will have completely different features. Therefore, rendering the idea of "Distinct Latino Features" invalid.

Whoops, I think I'm getting a little too off topic here.


----------



## flint757

renzoip said:


> Ok, I understand that people may look at things other than skin color when speculating about "race", but even when considering physical features, I still stand by my argument. Latinos by definition, are a a multiracial ethnicity, they are a result of the large mix or Europeans, Africans, Asians, and Native Americans. So a Native American Latino, and African-Latino, and a Latino of European descent, will have completely different features. Therefore, rendering the idea of "Distinct Latino Features" invalid.
> 
> Whoops, I think I'm getting a little too off topic here.



fair enough 

Yeah we are off topic...

The point was irrelevant anyhow only the facts in this case matter and hate crime is hate crime for the "This is for Trayvon" beatings.


----------



## highlordmugfug

George Zimmerman&#8217;s MySpace Account Claims All Mexicans Are Knife Wielding Thugs (IMAGES) | Addicting Info
BUT HE CAN'T BE RACIST EVER, HE'S LATINO 

Joe G. on Myspace


----------



## Explorer

I haven't been following the case, figuring I'll read all about it after the verdict, but if the law in that area is anything like other places I've lived, the comments about the 911 center's advice are extremely relevant.

Basically, at the point where a situation ends, and where the assailant walks away, there is no way to claim that person is being the aggressor. It doesn't matter whether or not the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow, except that it indicates that the situation had ended. Anything which ensued is therefore the result of Zimmerman being the aggressor. 

And, being the aggressor, Zimmerman had the choice to walk away even after he pursued Martin. Instead, he pursued and provoked someone secure in the knowledge that he was armed... instead of walking away. 

----

I've been in a few situations where someone was being overly aggressive, and I genuinely felt threatened. When I had the chance to get away, I did... and I didn't keep following the person. Why not? Because I didn't want to die. 

So, if you have someone who says they're in fear for their life, but who don't leave the situation, and instead follow and create their own situation, it doesn't ring true for me. 

That's it. No racism issues, just someone who felt secure enough about a situation to pursue someone, and the chance happenstance that someone recorded him deciding to continue a situation after he wasn't in danger. 

If that's all they present at trial for the prosecution, I think there won't be much to deliberate.


----------



## ZEBOV

Just my 2 cents here.
I'll take a guess that Martin was looking around thinking something along the lines of "This is a beautiful neighborhood," while he was walking to his dad's house. Zimmerman was following him, was spotted by Martin, Zimmerman chased him down, Martin felt like he had to defend himself and probably did his best trying to do so, and Martin shot him.
There's a possibility he would have looked suspicious to any average person. If I see someone I'm not familiar with scoping out my neighborhood (it's kind of an up scale neighborhood), I'll be wondering what they're up to. But to deter a threat, I'll just be a friendly guy and be like "Hey, how's it going? I haven't seen you around here before. Can I help you find something." Such actions go a long way.


----------



## McKay

Am I the only person here who doesn't see 'being followed' as just provocation for violence? It wouldn't be particularly logical for Zimmerman to have initiated physical contact.

Is it really so hard to imagine that Treyvon attacked him?


----------



## Randy

McKay said:


> Is it really so hard to imagine that Treyvon attacked him?



For what purpose?


----------



## flint757

Why would he? Zimmerman being the night watch is the only one with motive to do anything. All he did was walk home. Even If Trayvon threw the first punch he wouldn't do so without being provoked. Based on the story told Zimmerman wasn't sucker punched in his car he was "looking" for Trayvon thus making him the initiator in anything further that happened irrelevant to who threw the first punch.

I've said it once and I'll say it again, if someone comes up to me, chasing me down and making me out as a criminal, and not politely, I'd knock there ass out too. Sometimes people are just asking to get their ass kicked. Should Trayvon hit him, no, but he is a teenager what would you expect. I'm almost 21 and still have rage issues. The issues is, in police terms, he used unnecessary force.


----------



## renzoip

flint757 said:


> Why would he? Zimmerman being the night watch is the only one with motive to do anything. All he did was walk home. Even If Trayvon threw the first punch he wouldn't do so without being provoked. Based on the story told Zimmerman wasn't sucker punched in his car he was "looking" for Trayvon thus making him the initiator in anything further that happened irrelevant to who threw the first punch.
> 
> I've said it once and I'll say it again, if someone comes up to me, chasing me down and making me out as a criminal, and not politely, I'd knock there ass out too. Sometimes people are just asking to get their ass kicked. Should Trayvon hit him, no, but he is a teenager what would you expect. I'm almost 21 and still have rage issues. The issues is, in police terms, he used unnecessary force.



Agree. 

Also, I have to ask: What does "self-appointed neighborhood watch men" mean exactly? I'm not familiar with the term. Did he take the duty of being an armed guard of a community which did not explicitly consent to him taking on such task? Or did he volunteer and the association in charge of that neighborhood grant him permission to take on such duty? 

I'm just asking because around my area, community watch groups require prior approval form either the local authorities, or from the association, and are observants who call 911 upon suspicion of criminal activity. But they do not get involved, and are certainly not allowed to go around the neighborhood carrying fire arms.


----------



## McKay

Randy said:


> For what purpose?



I've seen lots of people online say ridiculous things like 'he attacked Zimmerman in self defense' or 'Trayvon was using the stand your ground laws because he was being followed'.

It's really not that out of the ordinary for someone to assault another person when they're being followed. It's also very possible that Trayvon and Zimmerman argued and then fought.

The thing is, if someone provokes and follows and verbally abuses me I'll still be the one in jail if I assault them. Even if someone restrains me, if I slam their head into the ground causing visibile injuries then I'll get done for ABH or even GBH.

Ultimately it was Zimmerman having his head slammed into the pavement (as per witness statements). Even if Zimmerman had restrained Trayvon or even punched him without provocation, this wouldn't have been using reasonable force. Having your head slammed into concrete can kill you.


----------



## flint757

Actually there were no witnesses. Everybody said it was dark, no one actually saw his head getting smashed and to be honest the wounds he has looks more like he got punched in the nose and fell, hitting the concrete on the way down. That isn't the way he told it, but he is the only one saying that happened. Not saying you're wrong, but you are assuming that a murderer isn't lying too.


----------



## McKay

flint757 said:


> *Actually there were no witnesses.* Everybody said it was dark, no one actually saw his head getting smashed and to be honest the wounds he has looks more like he got punched in the nose and fell, hitting the concrete on the way down. That isn't the way he told it, but he is the only one saying that happened. Not saying you're wrong, but you are assuming that a murderer isn't lying too.



Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## highlordmugfug

McKay said:


> Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There's just as much there that supports there not being a scuffle, as there is that supports there being one.

Someone's cherry picking.


----------



## McKay

highlordmugfug said:


> There's just as much there that supports there not being a scuffle, as there is that supports there being one.
> 
> Someone's cherry picking.



There was definitely a scuffle, the details are disputed.


----------



## Randy

McKay said:


> *Ultimately it was Zimmerman having his head slammed into the pavement (as per witness statements).* Even if Zimmerman had restrained Trayvon or even punched him without provocation, this wouldn't have been using reasonable force. Having your head slammed into concrete can kill you.





McKay said:


> Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Your link. None of the witness statements mention anybody actually seeing Martin slamming Zimmerman's head into the ground. Infact, of the witnesses listed, the majority consensus of _non-discredited_ accounts list Zimmerman as dominating the altercation. 

You really are cherry picking.

As flint mentioned, there's just as much evidence that Zimmerman hit his head on the ground when he fell as there is to him having his head bounced off the ground... maybe more for the former. Also, being shot in the chest at close range can kill you.


----------



## engage757

I have to toss this in here.

I am going to preface this by saying that if you see a color at all, you are a racist. EVERYONE is a racist because of our world. In a hundred years, hopefully we won't notice different shades. Everyone has had a racist idea in their head at one point or another, and if they haven't then I am fairly sure they are lying. 

That being said, I am going to try to say this as nicely as possible. I am not very Politically correct, but I will try.

The media shows us all sorts of pictures of an innocent little 10 year old poor black boy with his eyes set on getting his mama out of the ghetto and with dreams of college etc. They have not portrayed that this kid was a little gangster wannabe. A gangbanger. Despite his age. We will never know the entire situation, and I am not about to try to decode that. 

But the big issue here in my opinion is Lily Burk.

Never heard of her have you? See, she was a 17 year old white girl that was killed by a black fellow. Was there rioting in the streets? Nope. Were white people screaming racism? Nope.

I am sorry, but the time has come for our society to make a major shift. It is my personal opinion that black America needs a leader with some balls. This kid was a gangster and he was killed by someone with a different skin color. Who fucking cares? Yet, the Blacks are rioting in the streets screaming racism! How many white kids have been killed by black kids? Oh, but that isn't racism, it is just an unfortunate, sad event. Obama is not leading anything right now with his statements. Black people are promoting racism right now by rioting in the streets. Black America needs to wake up. They are promoting racism a hell of a lot for people who bitch about it constantly. 

Look at the bigger picture. A Black kid can go to college for free in the USA, but I can't. Why? Racism. If I get fired, I got fired. If a Black person gets fired, he can claim racism. Racism. 

Noun:

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as...
*Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.*




Black America needs to stop worrying about racism and such travesties of injustice and raise their children to not be gangsters. Some of my close friends are black, but you know what? They understand that the reason there even IS racism is because people want a reason to be cared about more. Little bird syndrome. Everything is owed to me, I don't have to take responsibility for my actions. Oh wait, now my gangster kid is dead. Wow, let's go riot.

My point is that I don't care. One guy killed a gangster, nobody knows the whole story, and between the media and Black America, they are making this debaucle further increase the chasm of racism in this country.


----------



## synrgy

Wow..

I humbly suggest you go back and read the first page.

To my knowledge, there's no evidence to support claims that he was a gang member. Claims that he was appear to be predicated on racial profiling.


----------



## engage757

synrgy said:


> Wow..
> 
> I humbly suggest you go back and read the first page.
> 
> To my knowledge, there's no evidence to support claims that he was a gang member. Claims that he was appear to be predicated on racial profiling.




I saw the pictures.  The kid looked like a gangster. If he was wearing a business suit he may not appear that way. He was suspected of being a drug dealer and breaking into people's homes. A simple search of the internet uncovers that. He was on a ten day school suspension when he was killed. Supposedly his second of the year. Of course, we don't know why, because his lawyers had the parent's seal the files immediately. Have to portray him as a little angel. I am not saying Zimmerman was in the right by ANY means, but don't think this kid wasn't a little punk. Read his Twitter messages and check out the real pics of him. When he wasn't ten.


----------



## engage757

synrgy said:


> Wow..
> 
> I humbly suggest you go back and read the first page.
> 
> To my knowledge, there's no evidence to support claims that he was a gang member. Claims that he was appear to be predicated on racial profiling.




Oh yeah, and now they are saying he took a swing at a school bus driver. Again, Black America needs to stop with the racist bullshit. EVERYTIME someone is killed by someone of another color, it isn't a race-fueled killing. They are acting like Zimmerman was in the KKK or something, off on the hunt for black people, and that simply doesn't appear to be the case.


----------



## synrgy

Read my post again. You're making accusations that aren't supported by any evidence. Hearsay is not evidence, and typical teen misbehavior ("typical" being relative to the density and social status of one's population) does not directly translate to gang activity.

My point isn't that the killing was racially motivated. My point that is calling the kid a gangster without any empirical evidence to support the claim *is* racially motivated.


----------



## McKay

Randy said:


> Your link. None of the witness statements mention anybody actually seeing Martin slamming Zimmerman's head into the ground. Infact, of the witnesses listed, the majority consensus of _non-discredited_ accounts list Zimmerman as dominating the altercation.
> 
> You really are cherry picking.
> 
> As flint mentioned, there's just as much evidence that Zimmerman hit his head on the ground when he fell as there is to him having his head bounced off the ground... maybe more for the former. Also, being shot in the chest at close range can kill you.



It wasn't intentional cherry picking - the last time I followed the case that was what was mentioned. If it's not supported by the evidence available anymore then consider my opinion changed.

Yes, being shot in the chest can kill. I didn't claim otherwise, my intention was to play counterweight. A great deal of this discussion is pure conjecture, as I said much earlier, we don't know enough details about what happened to question Zimmerman's innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. It's amazing to me that people are saying things like 'he should go to jail anyway'.


----------



## Randy

engage757 said:


> Black America



You lose all right to objectively "take the high road" on a race debate if you're throwing that kinda stuff around.


----------



## Guitarman700

engage757 said:


> Oh yeah, and now they are saying he took a swing at a school bus driver. Again, Black America needs to stop with the racist bullshit. EVERYTIME someone is killed by someone of another color, it isn't a race-fueled killing. They are acting like Zimmerman was in the KKK or something, off on the hunt for black people, and that simply doesn't appear to be the case.



I think it would be best to stick to the marketplace section, unless you want to construct arguments not based entirely around weasel words and hearsay. "They" say a lot of things. Most of it untrue gossip fed through a rumor mill so large it distorts any semblance of fact.


----------



## flint757

Not only that, but you are saying they are racist, but then following that with their kids all growing up to be gang bangers. Way to remain neutral 

Not all minorities can go to school for free and most scholarships are private so go claim white suppression elsewhere please.

[EDIT]

Also, not a single argument in hear has been he is white/hispanic so he must have done it. There is just as much potentially bogus info on Zimmerman in a negative light as there is on Trayvon. You can not claim to being race neutral and then bash an entire race for something that most don't participate in. Do me a huge favor and grow up.


----------



## Waelstrum

engage757 said:


> It is my personal opinion that black America needs a leader with some balls.





I thought the leader of black America was also the leader of white America, hispanic America, Asian America, Jewish America, etc...

Is your view of America really one of such clearly defined segregation? I know that the great melting pot is taking a while to heat up, but I doubt that the various ethnicities really need/have their own leaders.

Whilst I'm sure you meant no racism in your post, can you see how it could be interpreted as being highly offensive?


----------



## Explorer

Just out of curiosity, and to get the opinions of logical members regardless of race... is there anyone who would argue, after Martin had walked away, that Zimmerman didn't go looking for a situation, secure in the knowledge he was armed? 

That seems like the one consistent fact in this, that he was the one who provoked the situation. 

It also seems that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin... and to me it sounds like he told the 911 dispatcher that he wasn't following Martin, but was.



> On the recording of the call, Zimmerman is heard commenting "these assholes, they always get away. ...When Zimmerman reported that Martin had started running the dispatcher asked him if he was following and he affirmed that he was. The dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman said "OK". Zimmerman said he couldn't tell the dispatcher the address of his current location, but tells him the numbers of his street address and then at 3:35 adds "Oh crap, I don't want to give it all out. I don't know where this kid is." Asked if he "wanted to meet with the officer" Zimmerman at first agreed to the dispatcher's suggestion that he meet the police by the mailboxes,then asked, "Actually, could you have him call me, and I'll tell him where I'm at?", to which the dispatcher replied, "no problem."


It also seems to me that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and laid his hands on Martin.



> According to Crump's statement, Martin's girlfriend said that he expressed concern about a strange man following him, and she advised him to run. She says she heard Martin say "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding "What are you doing here?" She said that she heard the sound of pushing and that Martin's headset suddenly went silent, leading her to believe that he had been pushed. She attempted to call him back immediately, but was unable to reach him.


According to the reported times of the calls and the calls' lengths... 



 7:09 - Zimmerman starts his four-minute call with the 911 dispatcher.
7:12 - Martin's girlfriend called him, and learned of the situation.
7:13 - Zimmerman got off the phone with 911, after telling the dispatcher that he didn't know where Martin was, and then rather than staying on with 911, he asked if they could call him back.
7:13 - Martin's girlfriend heard the sound of pushing, and Martin's phone went dead.
 
Anyone have any comments about the interlocking chronologies? Since those time records aren't really in dispute, I figure they carry more weight than witness statements, which can be notoriously unreliable.

Also please notice, none of this had any mention of race. *If you need to make the passage of time about black and latino timekeeping, you're probably on the wrong forum.*


----------



## TemjinStrife

engage757 said:


> I have to toss this in here.
> 
> I am going to preface this by saying that if you see a color at all, you are a racist. EVERYONE is a racist because of our world. In a hundred years, hopefully we won't notice different shades. Everyone has had a racist idea in their head at one point or another, and if they haven't then I am fairly sure they are lying.
> 
> That being said, I am going to try to say this as nicely as possible. I am not very Politically correct, but I will try.
> 
> The media shows us all sorts of pictures of an innocent little 10 year old poor black boy with his eyes set on getting his mama out of the ghetto and with dreams of college etc. They have not portrayed that this kid was a little gangster wannabe. A gangbanger. Despite his age. We will never know the entire situation, and I am not about to try to decode that.
> 
> But the big issue here in my opinion is Lily Burk.
> 
> Never heard of her have you? See, she was a 17 year old white girl that was killed by a black fellow. Was there rioting in the streets? Nope. Were white people screaming racism? Nope.
> 
> I am sorry, but the time has come for our society to make a major shift. It is my personal opinion that black America needs a leader with some balls. This kid was a gangster and he was killed by someone with a different skin color. Who fucking cares? Yet, the Blacks are rioting in the streets screaming racism! How many white kids have been killed by black kids? Oh, but that isn't racism, it is just an unfortunate, sad event. Obama is not leading anything right now with his statements. Black people are promoting racism right now by rioting in the streets. Black America needs to wake up. They are promoting racism a hell of a lot for people who bitch about it constantly.
> 
> Look at the bigger picture. A Black kid can go to college for free in the USA, but I can't. Why? Racism. If I get fired, I got fired. If a Black person gets fired, he can claim racism. Racism.
> 
> Noun:
> 
> The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as...
> *Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black America needs to stop worrying about racism and such travesties of injustice and raise their children to not be gangsters. Some of my close friends are black, but you know what? They understand that the reason there even IS racism is because people want a reason to be cared about more. Little bird syndrome. Everything is owed to me, I don't have to take responsibility for my actions. Oh wait, now my gangster kid is dead. Wow, let's go riot.
> 
> My point is that I don't care. One guy killed a gangster, nobody knows the whole story, and between the media and Black America, they are making this debaucle further increase the chasm of racism in this country.



Wow dude. Pot calling kettle, erm, ...black?

That's probably one of the more offensively ignorant posts I've read recently.


----------



## engage757

synrgy said:


> Read my post again. You're making accusations that aren't supported by any evidence. Here-say is not evidence, and typical teen misbehavior ("typical" being relative to the density and social status of one's population) does not directly translate to gang activity.
> 
> My point isn't that the killing was racially motivated. My point that is calling the kid a gangster without any empirical evidence to support the claim *is* racially motivated.




ok, and I agree, there is not any direct evidence that he was. But if you look at his lawyers sealing all his school and legal records, and then you look at the direction of their case, you can see that they are trying to paint the picture of an innocent little kid that was just minding his own business and killed for no apparent reason. Why else would they seal his records? If he was such an innocent little kid (hence the only pictures being circulated through the mainstream media) then why would they not allow the reasons for his second suspension from school this year alone and his police records to be public record? Like they are for most people in a highly publicized case?



Randy said:


> You lose all right to objectively "take the high road" on a race debate if you're throwing that kinda stuff around.



I did say I suck at being politically correct! Black America is actually the accepted vernacular currently. Here ya go:
Black America Web

It is NOT an unaccepted terminology. 



Guitarman700 said:


> I think it would be best to stick to the marketplace section, unless you want to construct arguments not based entirely around weasel words and hearsay. "They" say a lot of things. Most of it untrue gossip fed through a rumor mill so large it distorts any semblance of fact.




Which is all that this thread is. Speaking about a case based upon nothing but what you have heard from a source other than yourself. There is not a lot of factual evidence, hence why this has become such a huge case, that and the racial influence. 



flint757 said:


> Not only that, but you are saying they are racist, but then following that with their kids all growing up to be gang bangers. Way to remain neutral
> 
> Not all minorities can go to school for free and most scholarships are private so go claim white suppression elsewhere please.
> 
> [EDIT]
> 
> Also, not a single argument in hear has been he is white/hispanic so he must have done it. There is just as much potentially bogus info on Zimmerman in a negative light as there is on Trayvon. You can not claim to being race neutral and then bash an entire race for something that most don't participate in. Do me a huge favor and grow up.




Some of my very dear friends are Black american/African American, whatever phrase you choose to use to describe a given race of people. I totally agree that there is plenty of bogus info circulated on both sides of the case, and my personal opinion on this particular incident is that neither parties involved were angels. All that I meant by what I said that you addressed is the same thing my friends would agree to. And have! If you look at the people and the social setting that this kid was around, then you factor in all his issues at school and the legal issues they refuse to tell us about, it makes it fairly obvious (in my opinion) that this kid was not all about being sweet an innocent... Look at his Twitter Tweets (or whatever) that he used under the name "NO_LIMIT_NI$$A".RT @ReesyyLaTootieB: Hahaha Hoe u got USED fa yo loose ass p*ssy.! Tighten up.! #Literally​ RT @fukunurhoexxx: #youthetype of b*tch that give up your p*ssy for free and think its cool #p*ssyaintfree #fb​ RT @TheSoleManSB: We in need of some trees  Wea tha weed man​ RT @MisunderstoodC_: Get high to balance out the lows​ RT @___xMaxDee: I got game for you young hoes, dont grow to be a dumm hoe​ RT @Bombshelll_: @La_VidaBella: Ill beat the pu**sy up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up​ RT @iTeachSEXOLOGY: d*ck slipping out when you got her in doggy? Either u trying to long stroke wit a short d*ck or she need to arch tha ​ RT @Mitchell_Garcia: Ill slap a girl if she said suck my toes wtf, she must be giving some great dome
for some sh*t like that òÕ òÕ òÕ​ RT @ThatBitchJenny_: A f*ck n*gga is FOREVER a f*ck n*gga! Fu*ck em!​ RT @iAmCartoonFYF: 6 Pound 7 Pound 8 Pound #KUSH​ RT @GrandadJFreeman: You know you high AF when you stop at a stop sign and wait for it to turn green​ U WANNA SEE SUM CASH? WELL LEMME SEE SUM ASS​ RT @KissMeEndlessly: puss ass crackas .​ RT @TheyHATEShAHeED: Its crazy how i was jus pissed off,snappinthen i smoked..now im happy ha​ RT @stillblazingtho: If you dont like #weed. #YoureNotMyType​ RT @SheIs_UNdefined: & When Im On That SMOKE, Im Going Super-HAM!​ Its a new year lets make some changes f*ck dat wea da weedman at??​ RT @KimmyBtchhh: Some of yall need a Blunt!​ RT @stillblazingtho: R E T W E E T If you smoke #weed.​ RT @PrettyMeStarr: White People(s) Call Police , Black People(s) Call There Cousin


Here is the website that released them for reference:
20 Of Trayvon Martin&#8217;s Tweets That Stand Out (Language Warning) | Right Wing News


Despite the websites name, it can be found on many websites! 
​



Waelstrum said:


> I thought the leader of black America was also the leader of white America, hispanic America, Asian America, Jewish America, etc...
> 
> Is your view of America really one of such clearly defined segregation? I know that the great melting pot is taking a while to heat up, but I doubt that the various ethnicities really need/have their own leaders.
> 
> Whilst I'm sure you meant no racism in your post, can you see how it could be interpreted as being highly offensive?




Not really man honestly. Segregation is still very much a part of life. Racial bigotry is seen in everyday life. It may not be as bad as it was years ago, but I live in the South. I watched a group of several African Americans stop traffic in front of a local business because there was a Rebel flag in the window. About two-three weeks ago. There most definitely are leaders in Black society, people that are incredibly influential for their race, like Rev. Al Sharpton etc.





TemjinStrife said:


> Wow dude. Pot calling kettle, erm, ...black?
> 
> That's probably one of the more offensively ignorant posts I've read recently.




I could direct you to far worse.




My basic point is that the MEDIA has made this a racial circus. Another Rodney King-esqe situation. It has become VERY racially charged. At this point, it isn't about one man killing another. It is about the white guy shooting black guy. Which is a shame. Not to mention, the racism from the very beginning. Listen to the 911 call. The Dispatcher asks if the guy is Black or Hispanic. Terribly racist from the start. That is all I was trying to say, it shouldn't MATTER what the colors of the people involved were, but because of the media coverage, it HAS become a racial thing.


----------



## flint757

I agree color should be irrelevant to the case and I'm very much against the term hate crime for similar reasons, but honestly lets say he was a thug; do people who commit crimes go around doing so 24/7? Not usually so even if he was this terrible person it doesn't make Zimmerman's credibility any better. As per what has been reported Trayvon wasn't doing anything and was then hassled, harassed or whatever term you'd like to use by Zimmerman. If you thought someone was dangerous and then approached them you were asking for trouble. The only logical reason he had the balls to do so under any circumstances is he had a gun on him and new he could use it. Vigalante justice even in the right circumstances is looked at in a poor light in our society and IMO should be kept in a poor light. Like the dispatch said (essentially) leave it to the police. He didn't want to though because as he himself said they always get away which means (since he has no mean to restrain an unarmed citizen) he had intent to kill.


----------



## engage757

flint757 said:


> I agree color should be irrelevant to the case and I'm very much against the term hate crime for similar reasons, but honestly lets say he was a thug; do people who commit crimes go around doing so 24/7? Not usually so even if he was this terrible person it doesn't make Zimmerman's credibility any better. As per what has been reported Trayvon wasn't doing anything and was then hassled, harassed or whatever term you'd like to use by Zimmerman. If you thought someone was dangerous and then approached them you were asking for trouble. The only logical reason he had the balls to do so under any circumstances is he had a gun on him and new he could use it. Vigalante justice even in the right circumstances is looked at in a poor light in our society and IMO should be kept in a poor light. Like the dispatch said (essentially) leave it to the police. He didn't want to though because as he himself said they always get away which means (since he has no mean to restrain an unarmed citizen) he had intent to kill.




I actually totally agree with this post. He was out of line from the moment dispatch said to stop following him.


----------



## McKay

flint757 said:


> he himself said they always get away which means (since he has no mean to restrain an unarmed citizen) he had intent to kill



Good lord.


----------



## flint757

^^Amazing comeback 

The rest of my quote wasn't that long...

[EDIT]

To add he saw this kid who is taller and bigger than him, he is untrained, smaller and has no clue when the cops will be there, in fact he told the cop to call and ask where he was so if he got into a scuffle nobody would know the exact location. So the only factor, other than sheer stupidity, is the gun. It isn't far reaching to say, since he has no handcuffs, that he fully intended to kill someone. The only other option is he is a moron and based on what he did to his lawyers I may lean more in that direction.


----------



## The Uncreator

TemjinStrife said:


> Wow dude. Pot calling kettle, erm, ...black?
> 
> That's probably one of the more offensively ignorant posts I've read recently.




Actually its not all that ignorant. Typically what he is saying is unfortunately the case a lot time, its a sad truth that has been observed enough in recent decades to create a pattern of unintentional "promotion of racism". 

I do feel that there are many instances where people of a color other than white (not just black) tend to play that race card a bit carelessly.

But on topic, there is not a single reason why this case should get any national attention. There is quite literally nothing exceptional about this, far worse cases of injustice exist than this.


----------



## McKay

flint757 said:


> ^^Amazing comeback
> 
> The rest of my quote wasn't that long...
> 
> [EDIT]
> 
> To add he saw this kid who is taller and bigger than him, he is untrained, smaller and has no clue when the cops will be there, in fact he told the cop to call and ask where he was so if he got into a scuffle nobody would know the exact location. So the only factor, other than sheer stupidity, is the gun. It isn't far reaching to say, since he has no handcuffs, that he fully intended to kill someone. The only other option is he is a moron and based on what he did to his lawyers I may lean more in that direction.



Again, devil's advocate but he had a CCW, I highly doubt he was brandishing the gun around or even considering using it as a first resort. I've been chased by people for the same reasons he cites before, I highly doubt I was intended harm, they just thought I was a threat and wanted to protect themselves/their property.

I've even been restrained by a pub owner and brought in front of two police cars because he thought I'd stolen his sign (I hadn't). He didn't hurt me, he just restrained me (without a firearm - it's not actually that hard). It feels like the people who treat this like Zimmerman had serious intent to hurt Trayvon have never been in that kind of situation, on either side. Then again I'm looking at this from the perspective of a British dude, I'd imagine in America any violent situation always carries the threat of armed confrontation.


----------



## Explorer

McKay said:


> Again, devil's advocate but he had a CCW, *I highly doubt he was brandishing the gun around or even considering using it as a first resort.* I've been chased by people for the same reasons he cites before, I highly doubt I was intended harm, they just thought I was a threat and wanted to protect themselves/their property.
> 
> *I've even been restrained by a pub owner and brought in front of two police cars* because he thought I'd stolen his sign (I hadn't). He didn't hurt me, he just restrained me (without a firearm - it's not actually that hard). *It feels like the people who treat this like Zimmerman had serious intent to hurt Trayvon have never been in that kind of situation, on either side.* Then again I'm looking at this from the perspective of a British dude, I'd imagine in America any violent situation always carries the threat of armed confrontation.



I don't know if you read my previous post about the chronology of the two phone calls (Zimmerman with 911, Martin's girlfriend calling him), but your case is much different. Your guy wanted to get you to the police. Zimmerman hung up with 911 so the police wouldn't know what he was about to do. 

And, given the timing of the two calls, Zimmerman hung up right before starting a physical altercation with Martin... after the cops had told him to stop following Martin. 

There is every indication that Zimmerman was looking to start physical shit, and was attempting to hide that from the police. His hiding his continued pursuit of Martin from the police is evidence of premeditation of his intending to start something. If not, there would have been no reason for him to hide his actions and his location from the police, and to tell police to go to a different location to meet him.

Sorry, but I don't see your "pub owner taking someone to police" and Zimmerman's "hide his own actions from the police" as the same thing.


----------



## flint757

McKay said:


> Again, devil's advocate but he had a CCW, I highly doubt he was brandishing the gun around or even considering using it as a first resort. I've been chased by people for the same reasons he cites before, I highly doubt I was intended harm, they just thought I was a threat and wanted to protect themselves/their property.
> 
> I've even been restrained by a pub owner and brought in front of two police cars because he thought I'd stolen his sign (I hadn't). He didn't hurt me, he just restrained me (without a firearm - it's not actually that hard). It feels like the people who treat this like Zimmerman had serious intent to hurt Trayvon have never been in that kind of situation, on either side. Then again I'm looking at this from the perspective of a British dude, I'd imagine in America any violent situation always carries the threat of armed confrontation.



Have you tried restraining someone bigger and taller than you? Not easy and as far as I know he hasn't bee trained in any way to do so. Plus he chased him down because he thought he was there to steal which means he considered him dangerous/threatening. So what you are confirming is that Zimmerman wasn't intending to kill him, just incredibly stupid. 

It's like I said especially since he took the police out of the equation that he either was being dumb and not thinking his decisions through or he intended to kill him. A gun can make you pretty brave. In your mind it is a last resort, but if the dude has a physical advantage and you aren't trained in hand-to-hand combat or restraint training what are you really going to do other than get yourself in physical danger where your only option is to use the gun.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

engage757 said:


> Look at his Twitter Tweets



Have you listened to kids these days? I hear _far_ worse screaming into my ear when playing COD or Halo on XBox.


----------



## TemjinStrife

The Uncreator said:


> But on topic, there is not a single reason why this case should get any national attention. There is quite literally nothing exceptional about this, far worse cases of injustice exist than this.



There's not a single reason why this case should get national attention? How about the fact that a kid was shot dead by a "self-appointed neighborhood watchman" who initiated a confrontation despite being told not to. And, he wasn't arrested until weeks later.

I don't understand why cases like this don't get national attention more often, frankly. They're a lot more important to hear about than what restaurant Romney ate at or what Justin Bieber is doing with his chromed supercar.


----------



## flint757

^^my guess is the uncreator feels the same about beib's and Romney though 

I don't know I kind of agree at largest scope it is a Florida problem just like the Castle law case in Texas are only a Texas problem; someone in California shouldn't care because they don't know anyone involved (probably) and the result of this case will have no affect on their politics. No matter what happens in this case nothing will come of it at a national level.

Me personally I just enjoy talking about these things. I enjoy talking politics so I'm certainly not upset that it garnered enough attention to start this thread.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

flint757 said:


> ^^my guess is the uncreator feels the same about beib's and Romney though
> 
> I don't know I kind of agree at largest scope it is a Florida problem just like the Castle law case in Texas are only a Texas problem; someone in California shouldn't care because they don't know anyone involved (probably) and the result of this case will have no affect on their politics. No matter what happens in this case nothing will come of it at a national level.



The outcome will have effects beyond the borders and laws in the states in which they took place. To not think so is a little short sighted. 

The success and failure of laws in one state helps or hurts similar laws when other states look to pass legislation. Just because the states are separate doesn't mean they're in bubbles. 

When WI was looking into Concealed Carry Laws, they based much of their legislation on other states' existing laws. Both sides cited cases based on previous crimes in other states, some being favorable, and others not so much.


----------



## TemjinStrife

^ Exactly. There are other states looking at passing "Stand Your Ground" laws right now. What happens in Florida will affect their decisions.


----------



## flint757

All I'm saying is Castle law in Texas will remain no matter what (probably) and California and New York will remain buttoned up with their gun laws. I suppose for teetering states it will have more weight so I partially take back what I said. 

I was just looking from where he is coming from in terms of the who cares factor. Me personally I don't care in terms of new law legislation because like I said it will have little to no effect on gun legislation in Texas where I live, but I do care from a justice and curiosity perspective. I can say the national attention forces the judiciary branch in whatever state these events occur to actually do there job well and honorably. When the spot light is off a lot of the local judges in my experience could really care less about upholding the law. In a lot of cases they have a set opinion form past cases for all future cases the lower the profile and severity something is. (From my experience/knowledge base obviously)


----------



## MaxOfMetal

flint757 said:


> All I'm saying is Castle law in Texas will remain no matter what (probably) and California and New York will remain buttoned up with their gun laws. I suppose for teetering states it will have more weight so I partially take back what I said.
> 
> I was just looking from where he is coming from in terms of the who cares factor. Me personally I don't care in terms of new law legislation because like I said it will have little to no effect on gun legislation in Texas where I live, but I do care from a justice and curiosity perspective. I can say the national attention forces the judiciary branch in whatever state these events occur to actually do there job well and honorably. When the spot light is off a lot of the local judges in my experience could really care less about upholding the law. In a lot of cases they have a set opinion form past cases for all future cases the lower the profile and severity something is. (From my experience/knowledge base obviously)



Once again, I think you're being a little short sighted. 

At one point in time, I to didn't care about legislation taking place outside my home state, but then, after school, I started moving. I've lived in four states now, and care much more about what laws other states are passing. The company I work for has offices and facilities in over a dozen states, who knows if, when, or where I might be shipped off to next. 

It's easy to think you'll live in the same town or state for the rest of your life, and ten years ago that's how I thought, but you never know.


----------



## flint757

MaxOfMetal said:


> Once again, I think you're being a little short sighted.
> 
> At one point in time, I to didn't care about legislation taking place outside my home state, but then, after school, I started moving. I've lived in four states now, and care much more about what laws other states are passing. The company I work for has offices and facilities in over a dozen states, who knows if, when, or where I might be shipped off to next.
> 
> It's easy to think you'll live in the same town or state for the rest of your life, and ten years ago that's how I thought, but you never know.



Valid point. I actually have no intention on living in Texas even within the next 10 years so I probably should pay more attention to laws outside of my state, but that is a lot of different info to digest since most legislation goes unpublished on a national scale. 

Honestly could care less personally about gun legislation pro or against though. If I move it can't get much more open and available than where I live now and if it is tighter with gun laws then that's fine too since it only really matters if I intended to be a gun owner. I think I'd leave my guns with my pop's though since he's my hunting buddy anyways.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

flint757 said:


> Valid point. I actually have no intention on living in Texas even within the next 10 years so I probably should pay more attention to laws outside of my state, but that is a lot of different info to digest since most legislation goes unpublished on a national scale.
> 
> Honestly could care less personally about gun legislation pro or against though. If I move it can't get much more open and available than where I live now and if it is tighter with gun laws then that's fine too since it only really matters if I intended to be a gun owner. I think I'd leave my guns with my pop's though since he's my hunting buddy anyways.



In the internet age, there is no excuse to not be informed. All the info is a quick Google search away. 

This isn't strictly a gun issue though, it's not that simple. A gun was used, and that's certainly a factor, but this same case could apply to a knife, bat, etc.


----------



## flint757

Do you know every law in every state? Google or not I doubt it.

Yes I realize it isn't strictly a gun issue, but on a national level that will be all that is taken from it most likely. In the same state 2 similar situations one ending in a death the other not and 2 very different results are occurring. There is Zimmerman who used a gun and killed someone, almost got away with it (may still) and a woman who didn't shoot her husband who broke into her house (with a restraining order) and will probably go away for assault. So things really aren't as pervasive as you're making it seem if there is little correlation between something happening in the same state. Ignoring this last bit if you don't in fact know all laws and legislation happening in every state your first sentence is out of line because you are not following your own advice. If you do then congrat's  but I've got more immediate concerns involving my school, funding and local government agencies at the moment.

I am informed of national politic's and local/state politic's I doubt anyone on this forum knows everything going on in every state.


----------



## Explorer

Okay, since you just thought about people related to the gun aspect of this, let me advance this idea: There might be people who have been stopped wrongfully because they were driving or walking while a minority, or even just one of those who "get away" as Zimmerman put it, whatever you think he was referring to. (Any guesses?) There might also be people who only know people who have been stopped for something because they were either a minority or one of "those people" to whom Zimmerman referred in a non-determinate way.

So, there are likely people who relate to the situation the same way you did... and I'm not saying you're wrong to have related to what's been said from your perspective.

Are you saying it's wrong to relate to this based on their perspective?


----------



## flint757

^^Is that directed at me because I don't see the relevance if so. When i was talking about the gun issue I was referring to any national level result. (law wise) This case will not change racial profiling across the nation because there have been worse instances of profiling that have in fact done nothing to resolve profiling.

And I was also merely stating that people do not know all laws in existence and that knowing only local, state and national politics does not mean I am short sighted or uninformed because that is all most people know. Some may know a couple states worth of laws, but certainly not all 50.


----------



## McKay

Explorer said:


> I don't know if you read my previous post about the chronology of the two phone calls (Zimmerman with 911, Martin's girlfriend calling him), but your case is much different. Your guy wanted to get you to the police. Zimmerman hung up with 911 so the police wouldn't know what he was about to do.



That would seem pretty odd, considering he had just phoned the police. 



> And, given the timing of the two calls, Zimmerman hung up right *before starting* a physical altercation with Martin... after the cops had told him to stop following Martin.


Where's your evidence?



> There is every indication that Zimmerman was looking to start physical shit, and was attempting to hide that from the police. His hiding his continued pursuit of Martin from the police is evidence of premeditation of his intending to start something. If not, there would have been no reason for him to hide his actions and his location from the police, and to tell police to go to a different location to meet him.


Nothing you just posted constitutes evidence of the sort.



> Sorry, but I don't see your "pub owner taking someone to police" and Zimmerman's "hide his own actions from the police" as the same thing.


I've chased down scousers (they run the drugs down here) that had taken my drummer's phone and were blackmailing him for money, threatening that they had his address and photos of his friends/family. During that time I was in and out of phone calls to the police. I didn't tell them everything I did and I deviated from what I told them I would do, including the way I pursued and followed the scouser and his girlfriend. It doesn't mean my aim wasn't to have them arrested.

If Zimmerman intended anything else _why would he phone the police in the first place?
_


----------



## McKay

flint757 said:


> Have you tried restraining someone bigger and taller than you? Not easy and as far as I know he hasn't bee trained in any way to do so. Plus he chased him down because he thought he was there to steal which means he considered him dangerous/threatening. So what you are confirming is that Zimmerman wasn't intending to kill him, just incredibly stupid.



I didn't say he wasn't. Crafty concession there. 



> It's like I said especially since he took the police out of the equation that he either was being dumb and not thinking his decisions through or he intended to kill him. A gun can make you pretty brave. In your mind it is a last resort, but if the dude has a physical advantage and you aren't trained in hand-to-hand combat or restraint training what are you really going to do other than get yourself in physical danger where your only option is to use the gun.


To answer your post, yes I've taken on people much bigger than I am. And in bigger numbers. Not to mention the fact that Zimmerman was a security guard. I know they train how to restrain someone here in those jobs. It would make you a pretty useless guard if you couldn't.


----------



## flint757

He's an unofficial night watch not security guard. I've never met a trained night watch unless they were police officers to begin with, they don't train you. Honestly, the position is meant to have enough eyes on the street to have witness/call the police and the presence is just supposed to make it harder for crimes to be committed that is it. I don't recall what his day job was, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't a guard or police officer (maybe he was and that is in fact what you were saying ). My first point was merely stating that he is either dumb or a killer no middle road. He is clearly not as big of a badass like yourself. 

Or were you in fact confirming that he is a daytime security guard? Have you ever met a mall cop? Most couldn't restrain a stool and they qualify as security guards and are not distributed weapons for their job. That does confirm to some extent that he is probably a failed police cadet (working security) though. Here in the states security is not a hard job, you rarely get training unless your a bouncer or profession security and most who qualify as security are either ex con or failed the police academy. My point proves nothing more than yours which is nothing because everything involved in this case including their personal behaviors/abilities is not well known to begin with. I just see little justification in his favor personally.


----------



## McKay

flint757 said:


> I just see little justification in his favor personally.



Neither do I, only I don't see all that much to condemn him either. The whole situation seems extremely overblown to me, Zimmerman shouldn't have gone after Trayvon in the first place but he still has a right to self defense, which is what he claims (and we can't disprove).

Whether or not that right was necessary is another story, and one nobody has enough details on to call. That's pretty much the only reason I'm playing devil's advocate here - people are jumping to all kinds of conclusions rather than trying to view it from both sides. I've been on both sides before and had someone attacked me and put me in a position where I felt sufficiently threatened I would use a firearm in self defense (providing it was legal, which it was). It's not as simple as people seem to think it is.

I need to move to Nothern Ireland.


----------



## flint757

McKay said:


> Neither do I, only I don't see all that much to condemn him either. The whole situation seems extremely overblown to me, Zimmerman shouldn't have gone after Trayvon in the first place but he still has a right to self defense, which is what he claims (and we can't disprove).
> 
> Whether or not that right was necessary is another story, and one nobody has enough details on to call. That's pretty much the only reason I'm playing devil's advocate here - people are jumping to all kinds of conclusions rather than trying to view it from both sides. I've been on both sides before and had someone attacked me and put me in a position where I felt sufficiently threatened I would use a firearm in self defense (providing it was legal, which it was). It's not as simple as people seem to think it is.
> 
> I need to move to Nothern Ireland.



Yeah I don't think there is much dispute that under the law he is pretty much covered and will probably eventually go free. Even if what he did was illegal the "beyond reasonable doubt" would save his ass for sure.

Most of the dispute on this thread in particular is was he morally/logically justified in which I definitely think he wasn't.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

flint757 said:


> Do you know every law in every state? Google or not I doubt it.
> 
> Yes I realize it isn't strictly a gun issue, but on a national level that will be all that is taken from it most likely. In the same state 2 similar situations one ending in a death the other not and 2 very different results are occurring. There is Zimmerman who used a gun and killed someone, almost got away with it (may still) and a woman who didn't shoot her husband who broke into her house (with a restraining order) and will probably go away for assault. So things really aren't as pervasive as you're making it seem if there is little correlation between something happening in the same state. Ignoring this last bit if you don't in fact know all laws and legislation happening in every state your first sentence is out of line because you are not following your own advice. If you do then congrat's  but I've got more immediate concerns involving my school, funding and local government agencies at the moment.
> 
> I am informed of national politic's and local/state politic's I doubt anyone on this forum knows everything going on in every state.



Nowhere did I say that you needed to know all the laws. What I'm saying is that in this age of information we live in, keeping up on national news is far from difficult, and unless you only cherry pick the most sensationalized stories you'll see there is more news out there, especially when using various online news sources (hence the Google reference). 

I know that just about every time there is major legislation being passed there is news about it. It might not be on every TV station, but it's usually in the Politics or Justice section on major news sites. Around the time WI was looking to pass CCL there were articles all over, not just local. I knew about it while living back in AZ, and before that, when living in FL I knew about the immigration laws looking to be passed. 

All I'm saying is, keeping yourself relatively informed outside the "big stories" of the week isn't this herculean task. 

Dig the attitude though.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Explorer said:


> I don't know if you read my previous post about the chronology of the two phone calls (Zimmerman with 911, Martin's girlfriend calling him), but your case is much different. Your guy wanted to get you to the police. Zimmerman hung up with 911 so the police wouldn't know what he was about to do.
> 
> And, given the timing of the two calls, Zimmerman hung up right before starting a physical altercation with Martin... after the cops had told him to stop following Martin.
> 
> There is every indication that Zimmerman was looking to start physical shit, and was attempting to hide that from the police. His hiding his continued pursuit of Martin from the police is evidence of premeditation of his intending to start something. If not, there would have been no reason for him to hide his actions and his location from the police, and to tell police to go to a different location to meet him.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't see your "pub owner taking someone to police" and Zimmerman's "hide his own actions from the police" as the same thing.



I have to disagree with the majority of your statement, especially seeing as this section:



> There is every indication that Zimmerman was looking to start physical shit, and was attempting to hide that from the police. His hiding his continued pursuit of Martin from the police is evidence of premeditation of his intending to start something. If not, there would have been no reason for him to hide his actions and his location from the police, and to tell police to go to a different location to meet him.



Is opinion stated as fact. 

The phone call ended at 7:13.

Martin's girlfriend called at 7:12.

The shooting was at 7:19.

If the attack happened right after Zimmerman got off the phone, as you've stated, we've either got a six minute fight (which is a considerable amount of time for an average struggle) or some other events taking place. Plus, factor in the fact that the prosecution is saying Martin ran, and Martin's girlfriend was on the phone with him during the call around the time Zimmerman said he was running and he was refusing to run on the phone with her, and there is a lot of gray area. Please don't state things like fact when they're not yet proven.


----------



## Explorer

Sorry 757, I apparently was coming down with a fever (still have it, and am home from work). I'd have to go back and re-read at some point.

----

Regarding the timing of the calls, I got the call chronologies from Wikipedia, which links where the sources are for the times. Is there a reasonable doubt as to those?

Zimmerman's call lasted four minutes, starting at 7:09 and ending at 7:13 with Zimmerman saying he didn't know where he was (remember, unofficial neighborhood watch who was supposed to know the neighborhood) asking 911 to call him back, and changing his mind about going to meet the officers at the mailboxes. 

Martin's girlfriend called him at 7:12, and then the call ended with Martin getting shoved. 

Unless you have something to the contrary, I'm assuming Zimmerman was the one who caused Martin's call to end, and given Zimmerman getting off the phone, and then the Martin call being dropped, I'd be greatly interested in hearing your assumptions as to whom Martin was addressing when he asked "Why are you following me?" just before the call ended. 

No grassy knoll in evidence as far as I'm aware. 

7:13. Both calls ended, Zimmerman's voluntarily, Martin's not. It doesn't matter what time the bullet was fired, for purposes of knowing when the calls ended, and of knowing what the two parties were doing. 

If you combine those two chronologies, then you have to look for the reasonable answers for the reasonable doubts.

Why did Zimmerman say that this sort of person always gets away?

What did he mean by referring to Martin as a particular class of person?

Why did Zimmerman first agree to go to meet officers at the mailboxes... and then change his mind?

Why did Zimmerman, someone who supposedly knew the neighborhood (self-appointed neighborhood watch, no?), suddenly not know where he was?

If Zimmerman had been advised to not follow, why did he agree but then wind up following again?

Why did Zimmerman terminate the call... especially if he was in fear for his life?

How likely/reasonable is it to conclude that both calls ended around the same time just by coincidence?

How likely/reasonable is it to conclude that someone other than Zimmerman was the one to whom Martin spoke before his call was terminated by something physical?

To me, that's a chain of logic which follows from one link to the next. I'd be interested in hearing reasonable points (no grassy knolls) on the various parts.


----------



## flint757

MaxOfMetal said:


> Nowhere did I say that you needed to know all the laws. What I'm saying is that in this age of information we live in, keeping up on national news is far from difficult, and unless you only cherry pick the most sensationalized stories you'll see there is more news out there, especially when using various online news sources (hence the Google reference).
> 
> I know that just about every time there is major legislation being passed there is news about it. It might not be on every TV station, but it's usually in the Politics or Justice section on major news sites. Around the time WI was looking to pass CCL there were articles all over, not just local. I knew about it while living back in AZ, and before that, when living in FL I knew about the immigration laws looking to be passed.
> 
> All I'm saying is, keeping yourself relatively informed outside the "big stories" of the week isn't this herculean task.
> 
> Dig the attitude though.



Yeah sorry for being snippy I had just gotten in an argument with someone not an hour before so i was a little hot headed probably took some of that too personally for no reason. I apologize 

It isn't hard you are correct, but even knowing current legislation doesn't help if you don't know where you're moving because chances are current laws and past legislation are going to affect you a lot more or just as much. 
For the most part I try and keep up with politics relative to my interests and life where ever they may be occurring.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Explorer said:


> ]
> 
> Regarding the timing of the calls, I got the call chronologies from Wikipedia, which links where the sources are for the times. Is there a reasonable doubt as to those?
> 
> Zimmerman's call lasted four minutes, starting at 7:09 and ending at 7:13 with Zimmerman saying he didn't know where he was (remember, unofficial neighborhood watch who was supposed to know the neighborhood) asking 911 to call him back, and changing his mind about going to meet the officers at the mailboxes.
> 
> Martin's girlfriend called him at 7:12, and then the call ended with Martin getting shoved.
> 
> Unless you have something to the contrary, I'm assuming Zimmerman was the one who caused Martin's call to end, and given Zimmerman getting off the phone, and then the Martin call being dropped, I'd be greatly interested in hearing your assumptions as to whom Martin was addressing when he asked "Why are you following me?" just before the call ended.
> 
> No grassy knoll in evidence as far as I'm aware.
> 
> 7:13. Both calls ended, Zimmerman's voluntarily, Martin's not.* It doesn't matter what time the bullet was fired, for purposes of knowing when the calls ended, and of knowing what the two parties were doing. *
> 
> If you combine those two chronologies, then you have to look for the reasonable answers for the reasonable doubts.
> 
> Why did Zimmerman say that this sort of person always gets away?
> 
> What did he mean by referring to Martin as a particular class of person?
> 
> Why did Zimmerman first agree to go to meet officers at the mailboxes... and then change his mind?
> 
> Why did Zimmerman, someone who supposedly knew the neighborhood (self-appointed neighborhood watch, no?), suddenly not know where he was?
> 
> If Zimmerman had been advised to not follow, why did he agree but then wind up following again?
> 
> Why did Zimmerman terminate the call... especially if he was in fear for his life?
> 
> How likely/reasonable is it to conclude that both calls ended around the same time just by coincidence?
> 
> How likely/reasonable is it to conclude that someone other than Zimmerman was the one to whom Martin spoke before his call was terminated by something physical?
> 
> To me, that's a chain of logic which follows from one link to the next. I'd be interested in hearing reasonable points (no grassy knolls) on the various parts.





It most certainly matters when the gun was fired. 

You would actually have a great point, if all three times--Zimmerman's call, Martin's call and the shooting--matched up. But for you to just _assume_ that you know the course of events because you can do math is ridiculous. 


See, you're doing what you tend to do a lot; taking a statement and making a long-winded rebuttal that has very little to do with what was actually stated. Your time-table is great--I had no arguments past the fact that, if Zimmerman was in the mindset of just going to "start physical shit" as you claimed, the times don't match up very well between the point when the calls end and when the gun is fired. Yes, this has a substantial impact on the case because it shows there was more to the case than you're "assuming." Namely, if Martin ran, there is no way in _hell_ soft, fat 38-year-old Zimmerman would have caught him. So, what happened for six minutes after these phone calls? You're trying to tell me that for six minutes, they duked it out? Or that those six minutes don't matter because you can't find a math equation to figure them in? Come on.

I'm not going to pick apart your questions because, honestly, they have nothing to do with the post you responded to: I'm not questioning guilt, I responded to your time table and your assumptions.


----------



## Randy

Zimmerman is 28 and not overweight.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Randy said:


> Zimmerman is 28 and not overweight.



Sorry typo. And unless he has lost weight since he got his bond (very well may have--last time I saw any video of him) he was definitely overweight. Note I didn't say obese.


----------



## Explorer

Sorry, then. I jumped to all that because I thought the claim has been advanced that he hadn't gone after Martin with premeditation.

Assuming that it hasn't, then I'm not sure why the point was brought up that the shot was fired later than the calls ended. In that case, what are the objections to the timeline?

If the claim *has* been made that he wasn't acting with clear premeditation:

When someone hides a possible course of action from the police, or lies to them about one's location, a reasonable person would conclude that the liar/concealer is lying/concealing the facts because they know they are about to do something which they wish to hide. (Sorry to be so basic about it, but I just want us to be using the same assumptions). 

If Zimmerman had said, "Oh, I found him. I'm at this location, which I know because I'm the unappointed neighborhood watch guy!," then that would be one thing.

He didn't. To me, that indicates he had decided to do something which he didn't want to inform the 911 dispatcher about. Classic premeditation. Given what happened next on Martin's call, a reasonable person would conclude that Zimmerman planned to jump Martin, and that's why he hung up just before interrupting Martin's call. 

So... if anyone is arguing that there wasn't premeditation in the legal sense, I'd be interested in knowing why not. Not just a "Well, it wasn't premeditated because I don't want to believe it," of course. I'm hoping for something which not only includes Zimmerman going after Martin, and also Zimmerman feeling the need to get off the phone with 911, and his having concealed his location, and his not heading to the mailboxes.

And, if the argument isn't about premeditation at all... I'm not sure what is being argued in terms of my posts and conclusions. I'm slow that way, so please don't worry that I'll be offended if someone breaks it down the way I broke down all the points which lead to premeditation and an attempt to hide information and courses of action.


----------



## pink freud

This is really all just wanking.

The important thing is that the case has finally entered the legal system, and hopefully the system will prevail and he will meet whatever fate the evidence shows he should get, whether it be acquittal or conviction.


----------



## flint757

Yeah all cases no matter how small or seemingly finished they seem should at the very least be reviewed by the judge. Police shouldn't have the authority to say any case isn't worth going to trial. That being said guilty or innocent they have practically nothing on him and even if they can make him seem guilty they can't do so beyond a reasonable doubt. Honestly I like that things are run this way like the mom who presumably killed her baby and was found not guilty. In that case they had no evidence either. Did she do it? probably, but that doesn't matter without concrete proof everything else is just conjecture.


----------



## engage757

MaxOfMetal said:


> Have you listened to kids these days? I hear _far_ worse screaming into my ear when playing COD or Halo on XBox.




I guess I haven't! Point is, he wasn't an angel or anywhere close, like this media circus is trying to paint the picture of. Far from it.



The Uncreator said:


> Actually its not all that ignorant. Typically what he is saying is unfortunately the case a lot time, its a sad truth that has been observed enough in recent decades to create a pattern of unintentional "promotion of racism".
> 
> I do feel that there are many instances where people of a color other than white (not just black) tend to play that race card a bit carelessly.
> 
> But on topic, there is not a single reason why this case should get any national attention. There is quite literally nothing exceptional about this, far worse cases of injustice exist than this.




And this is really exactly what I was trying to say, simplified. There is no difference between this and the Lily Burke Killing, except in this case a Black person died at the hands of a white person, not vice versa. The race card is being played in an unremarkable case, it is being made a media circus, stirring up races further against each other, over what? A killing. The same thing happens ever 5 minutes anywhere on the planet. You guys can neg rep the fuck out of me all you want, and blast me however much you want, but the truth is, I am 100% correct and so is Uncreator. this is an UNREMARKABLE CASE, and the media has used a race card for the ratings. No one gives a flying fuck about Trayvon Martin and they certainly don't give one about Zimmerman. You don't, and I don't. And the only reason you know their names is because of a racial fueled circus to gain ratings.


----------



## engage757

MaxOfMetal said:


> At one point in time, I to didn't care about legislation taking place outside my home state, but then, after school, I started moving. I've lived in four states now, and care much more about what laws other states are passing. The company I work for has offices and facilities in over a dozen states, who knows if, when, or where I might be shipped off to next.
> 
> It's easy to think you'll live in the same town or state for the rest of your life, and ten years ago that's how I thought, but you never know.




I agree. Precedent is a hard thing to overcome no matter where you live. If one state does something, it makes it all the more realistic that another will consider and so on and so forth. 

The Brady people are jumping for joy over this matter.


----------



## synrgy

engage757 said:


> ..the media has used a race card for the ratings. And the only reason you know their names is because of a racial fueled circus to gain ratings.



Wait, wait.. The media is at fault, now? I thought it was "Black America's" fault?



engage757 said:


> Again, Black America needs to stop with the racist bullshit. EVERYTIME someone is killed by someone of another color, it isn't a race-fueled killing. They are acting like Zimmerman was in the KKK or something, off on the hunt for black people, and that simply doesn't appear to be the case.



I propose that maybe neither are necessarily the issue:



engage757 said:


> I saw the pictures.  The kid looked like a gangster.





Also, it's difficult to balance this quote:



engage757 said:


> No one gives a flying fuck about Trayvon Martin and they certainly don't give one about Zimmerman. You don't, and I don't.



against this quote:


engage757 said:


> A simple search of the internet uncovers that. He was on a ten day school suspension when he was killed. Supposedly his second of the year. Of course, we don't know why, because his lawyers had the parent's seal the files immediately. Have to portray him as a little angel. I am not saying Zimmerman was in the right by ANY means, but don't think this kid wasn't a little punk. Read his Twitter messages and check out the real pics of him. When he wasn't ten.



For someone who doesn't "give a flying fuck", you seem to have put a considerable amount of time and consideration into the matter.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

engage757 said:


> I guess I haven't! Point is, he wasn't an angel or anywhere close, like this media circus is trying to paint the picture of. Far from it.



Smoking some pot, acting like a gangster, cursing, and getting suspended from school is astronomically far from actually being a violent individual prone to crime. 

Half the people in my high school graduating class fall into all of those things above. Hell, I myself have taken part in all of that, I was suspended a few times from school, have tried illicit drugs, curse like a sailor, and acted tougher than I really am. Does that mean that I should be viewed as a dangerous individual? 

As far as I'm concerned, as long as he hasn't legitimately committed violent crime, these days, he is an angel. We live in a world where 13 year old gang-bangers and child soldiers exist. He was closer to being an "angel" than many.

In fact, him having these flaws makes it hit even closer to home. He wasn't an angel, he was a regular Joe.


----------



## engage757

synrgy said:


> Wait, wait.. The media is at fault, now? I thought it was "Black America's" fault?
> 
> 
> 
> I propose that maybe neither are necessarily the issue:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, it's difficult to balance this quote:
> 
> 
> 
> against this quote:
> 
> 
> For someone who doesn't "give a flying fuck", you seem to have put a considerable amount of time and consideration into the matter.




I don't know how fast your internet connection is, but my Google search is pretty damn fast. 

The MEDIA has turned this into a racial circus, which, of course would inspire the race that feels wronged into a veritable frenzy. I don't really understand how you could possibly find that difficult to understand.

This case is getting FAR too much media attention. Far more than many other cases that may be similar.



MaxOfMetal said:


> Smoking some pot, acting like a gangster, cursing, and getting suspended from school is astronomically far from actually being a violent individual prone to crime.
> 
> Half the people in my high school graduating class fall into all of those things above. Hell, I myself have taken part in all of that, I was suspended a few times from school, have tried illicit drugs, curse like a sailor, and acted tougher than I really am. Does that mean that I should be viewed as a dangerous individual?
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, as long as he hasn't legitimately committed violent crime, these days, he is an angel. We live in a world where 13 year old gang-bangers and child soldiers exist. He was closer to being an "angel" than many.
> 
> In fact, him having these flaws makes it hit even closer to home. He wasn't an angel, he was a regular Joe.




I do see your point. And it is a very good one, but the things that I stated are just what we learned from his Twitter account. Lawyers have sealed the rest of his info from getting out. I think when the defense starts digging into this case a little more, it MAY come out even more that he wasn't just an innocent victim here. 

Then again, it may not. Maybe he was everything he is being portrayed as. It will be interesting to see as this progresses.


----------



## synrgy

Has anybody kept track of how many times the goal posts have moved in the last couple pages?


----------



## Explorer

Engage757, I am curious.

Regardless of whether he was a gang member, or an innocent child... do you believe that Martin sought out Zimmerman looking for a fight?

I know you keep going after people who care too much about this case (and, indicating that same level of interest yourself, have invested a huge amount of energy in that same case here). However, it seems like you keep arguing about a side issue.

Do you believe that Martin sought out a physical confrontation in his father's neighborhood, while walking to his father's house?

If so, do you think Martin's running away was part of Martin's grand strategy for physical confrontation?

This is your perfect opportunity to get away from move the discussion away from the wrongful focus you keep protesting. No "Black America," no wrongful focus of the media on a possible misapplication of justice, no stereotypes. 

Just what you want, or claim to want. 

Did Martin really go looking to rock the boat in a neighborhood where he wanted to visit his dad?

There would probably be a police record of his having done such before, no? At least some complaint on file, if he didn't give a shit about maintaining access to his dad's house. 

Then again, if he didn't care about visiting his dad... he probably would not have gone to visit his dad.

I*'m interested in hearing your views on who hunted down the other to start an altercation, without adding the racial bullshit you say you want others to avoid. 

Otherwise, it seems like your arguments are a little hypocritical, don't you think?*


----------



## Explorer

Gee, that was really ungrammatical on my part. Put it down to my finally putting this fever and cold behind me....


----------



## renzoip

I am also wondering what people here think Martin should have done after noticing he was being followed. How should he have handle the situation? Call 911? Call his dad? And then what? Do you think running would have been a better idea than confronting Zimmerman? I'm not sure if Zimmerman would have refrain from shooting Martin, had he ran instead of confronting him.


----------



## Waelstrum

^ If he had run, then Zimmerman could only have shot him in the back, which would make the trial much more straight forward. If Zimmerman is one to think that far ahead, then he wouldn't have shot him. I personally would run if I thought I was being followed, but that is largely because I'm a coward.


----------



## Explorer

renzoip said:


> I am also wondering what people here think Martin should have done after noticing he was being followed. ...Do you think running would have been a better idea than confronting Zimmerman? I'm not sure if Zimmerman would have refrain from shooting Martin, had he ran instead of confronting him.



Well... Martin did run. Zimmerman says so on his call to 911, upon which 911 advised him to not follow. 

And, in answer to your last question, Zimmerman apparently didn't refrain from pursuing him... after Martin avoided a confrontation. 

And after 911 told Zimmerman not to pursue. 

Instead, Zimmerman apparently lied to 911. 

Anyway, I'm waiting to hear engage757's take on this. and to see if engage757 believes that Martin sought out and forced the confrontation, or if Zimmerman did. 

I'm sure engage757 will welcome the opportunity to avoid people injecting race into the matter, thus allowing him the chance to also avoid it.


----------



## Waelstrum

^ If I understand correctly, at some point Martin stopped running, which I think is when he was shoved by 'someone'. At that point, we don't know exactly what happened, but we know that there was some sort of confrontation which ended when Zimmerman shot Martin. I think that renzoip was asking whether Martin should have tried to run away a second time, or stand his ground and confront his pursuer.


----------



## texshred777

BlackMesa said:


> Just to play devil's advocate. You guys do know that a 911 operator is not a police officer right? They are just a regular civilian. You dont have to follow any suggestion they give you.


 
No, we're not licensed peace officers. And you are absolutely correct that you do not HAVE to follow directions given. But a few points..

We(in my state) are licensed by the same agency that does licensing for police officers. We take many of the same training courses. We are also trained to give instructions on a number of emergency situations and save lives/avoid disasters through phone instruction. When we give pre arrival instructions(per police agency SOP) those directions are issued PER the police agency. That's not to say we have more authority, but we have training that the average "regular civilian" doesn't have. 

The fact is Zimmerman is not a licensed peace officer and had no authority to stop, question or detain Martin. Neighborhood watch has ONE purpose-observe and report. By ignoring the dispatcher and taking matters into his own hands he opened himself up to the consequences(both civil and criminal) of escalating the situation. The fact is, he was given direction by a trained professional. He didn't HAVE to listen-which is why he isn't also being filed on for disregarding said instruction-but I'm sure he wishes he had.

Zimmerman pursued Martin. What did he plan to do when he caught him? Again he had no authority to stop or detain-had he even grabbed him that would have been assault right off the bat. He didn't catch him breaking into a house. He saw him walking around.


----------



## Explorer

And it's never been my point that 911 had authority to tell Zimmerman what to do. However, I do point to the 911 call to show that the initial situation had ended, which would indicate that Zimmerman was not at that point in fear for his life or in a life-threatening situation.

And, if he was not in fear for his life, then his pursuit from that point means that he was instigating a situation and confrontation. Until someone manages to come up with a plausible third party, and to explain why Zimmerman didn't say that in his testimony, a reasonable person would assume that the "someone" Waelstrum refers to is in fact Zimmerman. 

Short version: 911 call shows that Zimmerman had lost contact with Martin, and then decided to pursue Martin after all claim of danger was passed.


----------



## flint757

That is the point being glossed over I think. He wasn't in any danger until he found Trayvon. 

This is not the minority report where you can accuse someone of a crime and treat them like a criminal before they've done anything which is basically what he did prior to the altercation. 

As texshred777 said if he restrained him he'd be arrested for assault since he has zero authority to do anything unless Trayvon was in the middle of doing something illegal which by all reports he wasn't. He was just walking even according to Zimmerman, had no stolen goods on him, no weapon and had family in the neighborhood. It is safe to say once Zimmerman decided to take action he would be in court either way.


----------



## engage757

Explorer said:


> Engage757, I am curious.
> 
> Regardless of whether he was a gang member, or an innocent child... do you believe that Martin sought out Zimmerman looking for a fight?
> 
> I know you keep going after people who care too much about this case (and, indicating that same level of interest yourself, have invested a huge amount of energy in that same case here). However, it seems like you keep arguing about a side issue.
> 
> Do you believe that Martin sought out a physical confrontation in his father's neighborhood, while walking to his father's house?
> 
> If so, do you think Martin's running away was part of Martin's grand strategy for physical confrontation?
> 
> This is your perfect opportunity to get away from move the discussion away from the wrongful focus you keep protesting. No "Black America," no wrongful focus of the media on a possible misapplication of justice, no stereotypes.
> 
> Just what you want, or claim to want.
> 
> Did Martin really go looking to rock the boat in a neighborhood where he wanted to visit his dad?
> 
> There would probably be a police record of his having done such before, no? At least some complaint on file, if he didn't give a shit about maintaining access to his dad's house.
> 
> Then again, if he didn't care about visiting his dad... he probably would not have gone to visit his dad.
> 
> I*'m interested in hearing your views on who hunted down the other to start an altercation, without adding the racial bullshit you say you want others to avoid.
> 
> Otherwise, it seems like your arguments are a little hypocritical, don't you think?*




Ok, my opinion on this rather unremarkable case? One person, who was a little jumpy, in the wrong from the moment the dispatcher told him to back off the subject, continued on in pursuit of the subject and in the midst of some kind of altercation, one was killed. We really don't know what happened in the altercation. We haven't seen ballistics tests yet(to my knowledge), so I have no idea about angle, trajectory or distance of the shot, and that will probably prove helpful in this case. My opinion? No one knows if the victim was doing anything wrong, maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But someone thought he was. We really don't know what went down, but someone died, my personal opinion is that it will come out in trial that there was significant fault on both parties involved. I don't think Zimmerman was in the right, but we don't know enough about what happened yet to prove he was the only one in the wrong.


----------



## engage757

Explorer said:


> .
> 
> Short version: 911 call shows that Zimmerman had lost contact with Martin, and then decided to pursue Martin after all claim of danger was passed.




And this is where the ultimate sketchiness starts.


----------



## Explorer

engage757 said:


> My opinion? No one knows if the victim was doing anything wrong, maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But *someone thought he was.*



You mean the guy who decided to hide his own actions from 911 and the police? All we know is that Zimmerman said, "these assholes, they always get away."

However, as far as we know, Zimmerman didn't witness Martin doing anything wrong. If he had, it's very likely Zimmerman would have said so to 911. 



engage757 said:


> ...I don't think Zimmerman was in the right, but we don't know enough about what happened yet to prove he was the only one in the wrong.



Actually, at the moment we can only prove that Zimmerman was the only one in the wrong. 

However, that's an interesting way to look at it, and to phrase things. I don't think I normally think, oh, my friend's convertible got slashed because someone thought he was a "towelhead" (true story!), but we don't yet know know what my friend did to provoke that attack. I hear "towelhead" or "these assholes" and, to me, there is no provocation necessary beyond being a towelhead, or whatever makes someone one of those "assholes who always get away" to Zimmerman, for someone to decide to go to wrongful action, to slash the car, to hide their actions from the cops, to seek confrontation. 

To me it sounds like you are hoping that something comes out to prove that Martin was also in the wrong. Why you have energy invested in that, unremarkable as you declare this case to be, is beyond me.

Going just a little bit further to put your fears to rest though, if Zimmerman *had* at any point pulled his weapon and threatened Martin with it, Martin could not have done *any* wrong until he had taken the weapon from Zimmerman, thanks to the "Stand Your Ground" law. 

*I also like that, for all the time and energy you've put into this, you attempt to say it's unremarkable. Speaking plainly, you've had so many remarks about it that I feel you should drop the act.*


----------



## McKay

Explorer said:


> You mean the guy who decided to hide his own actions from 911 and the police?



_By phoning them and telling them he was pursuing him?_



> I also like that, for all the time and energy you've put into this, you attempt to say it's unremarkable. Speaking plainly, you've had so many remarks about it that I feel you should drop the act.



The case isn't remarkable but the storm it stirred up is. That you can't differentiate between the two is remarkable itself.


----------



## Necris

Person Creates &#8216;Trayvon Martin&#8217; Gun Range Targets That Sell Out In Two Days | Addicting Info

'murica.


----------



## Explorer

McKay said:


> The case isn't remarkable but the storm it stirred up is. That you can't differentiate between the two is remarkable itself.



Although I hadn't really looked at the case initially, here's what I see as the key points. 

One person sought out another, started a confrontation and shot and killed the other. 

The instigator had also commented about the deceased being an asshole of the sort who "always gets away" with certain kinds of behavior.

The instigator had also hidden his motives and actions from the police.

After having done all that, the instigator was let off because chasing that person down was considered "standing his ground." 

From those things, I find it a little frightening that such a person getting let off, even initially, would be considered "unremarkable." 

If for some this kind of thing is business as usual, that doesn't say great things about their expectations about the rule of law. To equate hunting someone down and getting away with it to "business as usual" is an odd thing to me. 

Anyway, at this point all of this is just an internet forum. It will be interesting to see how this goes in real life.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Explorer said:


> Although I hadn't really looked at the case initially, here's what I see as the key points.
> 
> One person sought out another, started a confrontation and shot and killed the other.
> 
> The instigator had also commented about the deceased being an asshole of the sort who "always gets away" with certain kinds of behavior.
> 
> The instigator had also hidden his motives and actions from the police.
> 
> After having done all that, the instigator was let off because chasing that person down was considered "standing his ground."
> 
> From those things, I find it a little frightening that such a person getting let off, even initially, would be considered "unremarkable."
> 
> If for some this kind of thing is business as usual, that doesn't say great things about their expectations about the rule of law. To equate hunting someone down and getting away with it to "business as usual" is an odd thing to me.
> 
> Anyway, at this point all of this is just an internet forum. It will be interesting to see how this goes in real life.



You didn't read the case but argued it, hence why I didn't respond to your first response (you were arguing two sides, clearly stating that everything you were arguing was an assumption), then decided to look it up and try and argue it some more and keep the same standpoint based off of assumptions 

There is no proof that the defendant went out looking to fight/kill anyone.

He was talking about the string of robberies, saying that "these assholes (the people who had been robbing his neighborhood, in case you didn't know) always get away" which, while the asshole part isn't fact, the person/peoples comitting the robberies continually getting away was fact. Under the impression that the victim was possibly one of these people, he made these statements. 

He didn't hide anything from the police--he told the dispatcher he was following the victim. 

I believe Zimmerman guilty of murder, as I've stated repeatedly, but also find your term "hunting down" a little extreme, given that you, yet again, have nothing but your assumptions to back your claim.


----------



## McKay

George Zimmerman Medical Report Sheds Light on Injuries After Trayvon Martin Shooting - ABC News



> A medical report compiled by the family physician of accused Trayvon Martin murderer George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.


----------



## flint757

So I was right he punched him in the face after acting like a complete douche 

That doesn't prove he was beaten it proves he broke his nose (which gives you black eyes) and that would make you fall. Hitting the concrete can certainly do the rest of his injuries...


----------



## McKay

flint757 said:


> So I was right he punched him in the face after acting like a complete douche
> 
> *That doesn't prove he was beaten* it proves he broke his nose (which gives you black eyes) and that would make you fall. Hitting the concrete can certainly do the rest of his injuries...



In the UK it would at the very least be abh, probably gbh (actual bodily harm vs grevious bodily harm - different tiers of assault).

Not sure how else you're supposed to define 'beaten'.


----------



## flint757

McKay said:


> In the UK it would at the very least be abh, probably gbh (actual bodily harm vs grevious bodily harm - different tiers of assault).
> 
> Not sure how else you're supposed to define 'beaten'.



Being punched once versus getting head smashed repeatedly in concrete. I don't consider getting punched getting beaten, but it doesn't validate his story is more or less my point.


----------



## highlordmugfug

U.S. News - Trayvon Martin killed by single gunshot fired from 'intermediate range,' autopsy shows

It sure sounds like Trayvon hit him once and then got shot.


----------



## Explorer

Again, it sounds like Zimmerman hunted down Martin, started a physical altercation, took a punch, and then killed Martin.

Since people keep positing situations which aren't supported by evidence (Martin started it, Martin was being aggressive, etc.), let me give a situation which isn't ruled out by the evidence.

An assailant, who had previously pursued Martin through the neighborhood, jumps Martin, causing the call with Martin's girlfriend to terminate. The assailant pulls his gun (which fits with the witnesses who say that Martin cried out for help). Martin, in self defense (and standing his ground while in fear for his life from the drawn weapon) attempts to knock out his armed assailant. His assailant then uses the drawn weapon to shoot Martin in the chest, ending his life. 

I know, a lot of people think that someone getting away with this is unremarkable, and shouldn't cause any reaction. I disagree.


----------



## Treeunit212

I'm with the Turks on this one.

The same thought Cenk ends the video with occurred to me this morning; even if Martin did hit him, why is it that Trayvon doesn't get his own "stand your ground" defense? 

I see no answer other than because it's apparently still the year 1876 in Florida.


----------



## flint757

Because with stand your ground the gun holder seems to get the benefit and no one else same with if someone is killed versus injuring/not shooting, but threatening. It is totally backwards and there isn't a single state's version that I think works well. Texas Castle law is just as flawed...


----------



## Randy

How about non-lethal weapons like a taser?


----------



## synrgy

Without opening up a completely different can of worms, there are certainly documented cases in which the (improper) use of a taser has caused fatalities. As always, virtually anything _can_ be a lethal weapon, in the hands of one who intends to use it as such. 

In other words, if the hypothetical person in the "aggressor" position of this type of altercation was armed with a taser instead of a gun, who's to say their eventual rage-mode would not still have ended in murder?


----------



## Treeunit212

Randy said:


> How about non-lethal weapons like a taser?



Only if you agree to get tazed repeatedly before getting your license. 

Seriously though, it is not fun.


----------



## flint757

My problem with those laws is it puts power into untrained hands and then doesn't even have clear guidelines to follow. It's so murky (like many laws except this one involves someone being murdered). Worst part about the way laws are done is that for complicated laws you don't know what you're doing is legal or not until you've already done it. The information is there, but it isn't given in a weekly breakdown or anything like that (which would be nice for busy people like myself).

Not sure if a tazer would count or not because it can definitely kill. Wouldn't be too hard to either especially if someone had any electronic body parts like a pacemaker or a mechanical heart or something.


----------



## Treeunit212




----------



## Treeunit212

Update:



If I was the defense, I would reiterate that witness testimony is the lowest form of evidence.

Except in the Legal system. Of course.


----------



## flint757

Yeah witnesses are too tainted and if they switch their opinion down the road when it is least fresh on their minds I have to be against this...


public info has probably influenced the switching of opinions and mind you I think he is guilty.


----------



## TemjinStrife

Witnesses can be impeached (their credibility can be called into question) by prior inconsistent statements.

And, sadly, while our legal system places enormous emphasis on testimony and cross-examination, witness memory and testimony is incredibly inaccurate.


----------



## SenorDingDong

flint757 said:


> Yeah witnesses are too tainted and if they switch their opinion down the road when it is least fresh on their minds I have to be against this...
> 
> 
> public info has probably influenced the switching of opinions and mind you I think he is guilty.



If it holds up in court... 



I think that there are a number of factors that can cause witnesses to change their stories, the _least_ of which is public info.


----------



## flint757

I've been in a car accident before where initially I thought one thing happened, down the road I thought about it and came to a different conclusion. While my second theory could be more accurate it is also the least reliable. 

There are definitely plenty of reasons for a change in opinion, but I honestly do think public slant has some affect on this if not most.

Well considering more than one has changed their opinion it does seem plausible that it could be accepted just depends on how big the discrepancy.


----------



## Randy

George Zimmerman&#8217;s bond revoked, must surrender


----------



## TRENCHLORD

That does damage his crediblity even farther, even though it's not incident related.
Man, I bet Zimmerman sure wishes he could rewind and just take the ass-kickin and go on with life.
Some people just can't mentally handle getting their ass kicked though, especially by a teenager lol.


----------



## TemjinStrife

TRENCHLORD said:


> That does damage his crediblity even farther, even though it's not incident related.
> Man, I bet Zimmerman sure wishes he could rewind and just take the ass-kickin and go on with life.
> Some people just can't mentally handle getting their ass kicked though, especially by a teenager lol.



Hopefully the shit-slinging and example made by this trial teaches future Neighborhood Watch members and other gun-toting idiots to be more careful when they point and shoot the damn things.


----------



## Explorer

TRENCHLORD said:


> Man, I bet Zimmerman sure wishes he could rewind and just take the ass-kickin and go on with life.


 
Hopefully, he would instead wish he hadn't lied to the cops, and then jumped out of his car to deliver an ass-kicking, secure in the knowledge he was armed.


----------



## flint757

Yeah the better comment would have been man I bet he wishes he NEVER got out of his vehicle in the first place.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

flint757 said:


> Yeah the better comment would have been man I bet he wishes he NEVER got out of his vehicle in the first place.


 
I'm sure that's true.
Also, I'm betting Martin wishes (if he was alive to wish) that he'd have either been submisive and allowed himself to be detained by a fellow citizen (however degrading that seems),
or just ran like hell (I'm quite certain Zimmerman would not have caught him or fired the weapon into martins back.

I think we got two guys with too much macho both.
Unfortunately we now have one guy with too much macho.


----------



## flint757

I can agree with that, too much testosterone for sure. It is a shame things turned out the way they did...


----------



## Explorer

TRENCHLORD said:


> I'm sure that's true.
> Also, I'm betting Martin wishes (if he was alive to wish) that he'd have either been submisive and allowed himself to be detained by a fellow citizen (however degrading that seems),
> or just ran like hell (I'm quite certain Zimmerman would not have caught him or fired the weapon into martins back.


 
There's no evidence that Zimmerman was asking Martin to be submissive. The only evidence so far is that Zimmerman jumped him right after Zimmerman lied to the cops and got off the phone.


----------



## TemjinStrife

TRENCHLORD said:


> I'm sure that's true.
> Also, I'm betting Martin wishes (if he was alive to wish) that he'd have either been submisive and allowed himself to be detained by a fellow citizen (however degrading that seems),
> or just ran like hell (I'm quite certain Zimmerman would not have caught him or fired the weapon into martins back.
> 
> I think we got two guys with too much macho both.
> Unfortunately we now have one guy with too much macho.



At the same time, if some guy with no badge or source of authority came over to me and started yelling at me and threatening me, I'd either think he was going to mug me or attack me. So, I'd either run, or fight back. I don't think it's an absurd reaction on the kid's part, especially if he was 17.

If you're going to carry a gun or act as neighborhood watch, you need to show great responsibility in how you use said gun and said authority.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TemjinStrife said:


> If you're going to carry a gun or act as neighborhood watch, you need to show great responsibility in how you use said gun and said authority.


 
 x100

As a gun owner, and someone who has participated in a neighborhood watch program in the past, it's folks like this, who lack proper responsibility and respect for the power that a firearm holds, that makes us all look like wackos.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Explorer said:


> There's no evidence that Zimmerman was asking Martin to be submissive. The only evidence so far is that Zimmerman jumped him right after Zimmerman lied to the cops and got off the phone.


 
True, but my point was just that if it had been handled differently by either party (and I'm on the side of "Zimmerman was a reckless, overzelous, douchbag, cowboy cop wannabe who is a very poor example of a responsible gun owner") the outcome would most likely have been much more acceptably different.

I'm just saying that it's a shame Martin didn't just run like hell, or even have turned around and said "can I help you, what seems to be the problem sir (you asshole wannabe cop)?.

Of course that should not have been Martin's obligation to do so, but it just might have saved his life. 

And if it was the case that Zimmerman just charged without warning, then Martin would have been better to take his chances running (as proven by the outcome).

edit; common sense would hold that there was some sort of verbal exchange prior to it getting physical, but i haven't even been following it close enough to know if there were any witness reports of yelling or commotion prior to the deadly scuffle.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TRENCHLORD said:


> And if it was the case that Zimmerman just charged without warning, then Martin would have been better to take his chances running (as proven by the outcome).



Kinda hard to outrun a bullet.



> common sense



Something Mr. Zimmerman seems to lack in large doses.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

MaxOfMetal said:


> Kinda hard to outrun a bullet.


 
Better chance running than standing in one spot , (as proven by the outcome)


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TRENCHLORD said:


> Better chance running than standing in one spot , (as proven by the outcome)



By that logic I have a better shot at a Playmate by simply being named "Hugh".


----------



## TRENCHLORD

MaxOfMetal said:


> By that logic I have a better shot at a Playmate by simply being named "Hugh".


 
Possibly, although I think Max would actually work better (sounds more masculin lol), but you would certainly have a better shot at a playmate by not running, vs running.

And you'd have a much better shot(n.p.i.) avoiding a bullet by running, vs not running.

edit; fight or flight? looks like they both chose wrong. And too bad, Zimmy had the makings for a splendidly dirty cop (sarcasm 100%).


----------



## tommychains

honestly, i just have one thought

If they didn't convict Casey Anthony, what makes anyone think Zimmerman will?


----------



## flint757

Where was Casey's trial? If it wasn't Florida that is a moot argument. There are similarities though like lack of evidence in both trials.


----------



## TemjinStrife

Different juries, different circumstances, different lawyers.

Completely different case.


----------



## Necris

tommychains said:


> honestly, i just have one thought
> 
> If they didn't convict Casey Anthony, what makes anyone think Zimmerman will?





TemjinStrife said:


> Different juries, different circumstances, different lawyers.
> 
> Completely different case.


This. 
This comparison has to be one of the stupidest I've seen in a while, are you honestly implying that because you _felt_, like many other people did, that she was guilty and she was found not guilty the same will be true for this case? You seem to be overlooking or conveniently forgetting just how terrible of a job the prosecution did in that case.
Even then, where is the connection? The fact that they both caused a media circus?


----------



## Waelstrum

There is a theory that when a case gets a lot of media attention, in an attempt to be impartial, there is a bias to go against whatever the media is saying. So people drawing connections between the two cases might be thinking something along those lines.


----------



## BlindingLight7

People still care about this?


----------



## TemjinStrife

BlindingLight7 said:


> People still care about this?



Yes, because someone was killed in his own neighborhood as a result of a paranoid idiot with a loaded gun disobeying the police. It's kind of a big deal.


----------



## Randy

Jailhouse calls show George Zimmerman telling wife to buy bulletproof vests for them, attorney - The Washington Post


----------



## Explorer

As that news story illustrates, Zimmerman hiding facts from the court, conspiring to hide funds from the court, and so on, definitely show Zimmerman holding a certain cavalier attitude towards sworn statements, and his ability and willingness to lie when convenient for him will likely damage how his sworn statements are regarded.

All through his own actions, of course.


----------



## SenorDingDong

The fact that people threaten him, his wife and his attorney is just ridiculous--how can people speak of a free country with equal rights without supporting all people, regardless of their alleged crimes, having equal opportunity to appeal a criminal conviction and receive fair representation?


----------



## TemjinStrife

SenorDingDong said:


> The fact that people threaten him, his wife and his attorney is just ridiculous--how can people speak of a free country with equal rights without supporting all people, regardless of their alleged crimes, having equal opportunity to appeal a criminal conviction and receive fair representation?



He is required to have fair representation (which he does), and he is free to waive his right to a jury trial (relying on a judge) if he feels that a jury trial would be unfair.

People are angry. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but if people weren't able to talk about trials like this, it would be another infringement on freedoms. Look at the OJ Simpson case. Media and people will speculate and get involved no matter what; muzzling the media and arresting people for having an opinion about the case simply don't work.


----------



## SenorDingDong

TemjinStrife said:


> He is required to have fair representation (which he does), and he is free to waive his right to a jury trial (relying on a judge) if he feels that a jury trial would be unfair.
> 
> People are angry. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but if people weren't able to talk about trials like this, it would be another infringement on freedoms. Look at the OJ Simpson case. Media and people will speculate and get involved no matter what; muzzling the media and arresting people for having an opinion about the case simply don't work.



Talking about a case and sending threats are two whole different things. You can't just lump the two together under the category of speculation. I was specifically talking about the fact that they were threatening him, his wife and his attorney. 

Sure, you can speak your mind and say he is guilty. But sending a threat goes beyond freedom of speech. It's a crime.


----------



## TemjinStrife

Your post asked about equal rights to representation and appeals and complained about the judgment "the court of public opinion." My response showed that he is in fact granted equal rights to representation and appeals, and is not entitled to a fair trial in "the court of public opinion" as that would abridge freedom of speech.

However, death threats specifically are illegal in many cases; that's fairly obvious, and thus why I didn't comment upon it.


----------



## Randy

SenorDingDong said:


> But sending a threat goes beyond freedom of speech. It's a crime.



Threats and implied violence have gone both ways in this case (ie. Florida Distributor Sells Trayvon Martin Gun Range Targets Online | NewsFeed | TIME.com). The point you're arguing is already part of the narrative, so considering, the timing and placement of your outrage seems... disingenuous.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Zimmerman&#8217;s Post-Murder Interview Goes Public | Addicting Info


----------



## Murdstone

highlordmugfug said:


> Zimmermans Post-Murder Interview Goes Public | Addicting Info



I guess the people writing this article couldn't give the littlest shit about being completely biased.


----------



## Necris

^ 
The site itself is so biased I actively avoid linking it as support for any opinion I have. I'd sooner cite Wikipedia than use their site to support my viewpoint. I absolutely despise AddictingInfo, and I'm the extreme left-wing liberal (according to other people) who should absolutely love it. They go into histrionics over the rhetoric and bias from conservatives and then rather than counter it by rising above it and providing facts and well reasoned arguments in response they throw extremely biased articles filled with rhetoric and outright ad hominem attacks back at them. I don't care if they agree with me at times, they're fucking hypocrites.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Anyone still following this case? A lot of interesting facts have surfaced, and seeing as the star witness was just proven to have been lying under oath, the case is looking a lot less one-sided.


----------



## flint757

The most unreliable evidence is eyewitnesses so I'm hardly surprised. I haven't kept up with it though. What new things have surfaced?


----------



## TRENCHLORD

There's no doubt that Zimmy is a shadey cat, but really there's just too much reasonable doubt to convict him of murder/manslaughter, but then again this is Florida we're talking about so who knows.


----------



## Shredderboy1658

TRENCHLORD said:


> There's no doubt that Zimmy is a shadey cat, but really there's just too much reasonable doubt to convict him of murder/manslaughter, but then again this is Florida we're talking about so who knows.



you're right, here in florida it's almost like russia. everything is different.


----------



## SenorDingDong

flint757 said:


> The most unreliable evidence is eyewitnesses so I'm hardly surprised. I haven't kept up with it though. What new things have surfaced?



A lot about Martin's past, and (at the time of the murder) present, which could hold bearing on the outcome of the case. There is such an influx of articles on-line, it's hard to wade through them find the info (my internet history is set to automatically delete each day at 3:00 pm).

Some of the evidence, though, included a video Martin took of homeless men fighting(sounds pretty silly, but shows enjoyment of violence); an early police report alleging that the reporting officer <i>heard</i> Zimmerman's cries for help; texts from Martin's phone about fighting, and his love for it; a picture on Martin's phone of (allegedly) Martin holding a firearm; texts between Martin and a friend discussing procuring a firearm, down to the very calibre, and about Martin having been kicked out of his home by his mother the day of the shooting: a lot of evidence pertaining to character, the same sort of evidence that Martin's family fought against being used, and was used against Zimmerman.

I've gotten a lot of flack for it, but I've always maintained that there was a lot more to the case than that loud mouth Al Sharpton, who hops on the racist train every time it slows, got a lot of people to believe they were racist if they thought.


----------



## tommychains

I've been watching the trial on breaks and lunches at my job, I'm pretty confident the verdict will be not guilty. Lots of holes in witness testimonies, along with a good amount of the prosecution's witnesses siding with zimmerman.

In regards to my post all those months ago, I meant that most highly covered trials get a "trial by media" to the point that noone's got a completely unbiased opinion, botching the jury pool and any hopes of a fair trial. (Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman, Scott Peterson, etc.)


----------



## flint757

Truth is, guilty or not, if there isn't enough evidence or the evidence isn't convincing enough he shouldn't be convicted. I feel that way about Casey Anthony, OJ, Zimmerman, etc. I still think they are guilty, but for the law to maintain objectivity it cannot prosecute someone without absolute or very convincing proof IMO.


----------



## flexkill

flint757 said:


> Truth is, guilty or not, if there isn't enough evidence or the evidence isn't convincing enough he shouldn't be convicted. I feel that way about Casey Anthony., OJ, Zimmerman, etc. I still think they are guilty, but for the law to maintain objectivity it cannot prosecute someone without absolute or very convincing proof IMO.


I agree in theory, but man OJ was a slam dunk! For them to not convict that man of first degree murder is one of the biggest black eyes on our justice system EVER IMHO. How much more proof A) could you need and B) could you provide besides a video of him in the act!?

I am being very serious about this....If you can/could not convict OJ on the proof provided of murder, then IMHO no one can be convicted without an actual eyewitness or video tape evidence of a person in the act. That man is as guilty as it gets and he walked!!! I am as appalled today as I was when they read the verdict.....freaking disgusting.


----------



## flint757

Money talks, bullshit walks. Maybe OJ was a bad example, but the point itself still stands.


----------



## Explorer

Does anyone know if Zimmerman's previous calls to 911, the lead-ups to his comment about those "....ing assholes" who always get away, were admitted? 

Judge in Trayvon Martin case weighs whether to admit Zimmerman's previous calls to police | StarTribune.com



> SANFORD, Fla. &#8212; Several times in six months, neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman called police to report suspicious characters in the gated townhouse community where he lived. Each time, when asked, he reported that the suspects were black males.
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, the judge at Zimmerman's murder trial in the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin listened to those five calls and weighed whether to let the jury hear them, too. Prosecutors want to use them to bolster their argument that Zimmerman was increasingly frustrated with repeated burglaries and had reached a breaking point the night he shot the unarmed teenager.
> 
> 
> The recordings show Zimmerman's "ill will," prosecutor Richard Mantei told Judge Debra Nelson.
> 
> 
> "It shows the context in which the defendant sought out his encounter with Trayvon Martin," Mantei said.
> 
> 
> Defense attorney Mark O'Mara argued that the calls were irrelevant and that nothing matters but the seven or eight minutes before Zimmerman fired the deadly shot into Martin's chest.
> 
> 
> The judge did not immediately rule on whether to admit the recordings as evidence.




I would see those calls, combined with the call(s) on the night Trayvon Martin was shot, definitely put that night's even into an interesting context. Clearly the defense doesn't want jurors to have that context.


What happened with this?


----------



## flexkill

The thing is, until people stop hiring people who are not highly trained enough to handle themselves in situations like this WITHOUT the use of deadly force, these types of deadly encounters are going to keep happening. Why is a grown man who is put in the position of PROTECTING people not able to handle a 17 year old UNARMED kid without shooting him? If this person is a trained professional he should easily be able to handle this young man and cuff him. It all comes down to the lack of training and professionalism. These folks hiring these guys have to seek higher qualified people to do this work....period. I don't need or want a guy who was selling cars/flipping burgers the week before put in charge of protecting me or my loved ones.


----------



## tommychains

Zimmerman found NOT GUILTY on all charges!


----------



## flint757

Not all that surprised given the laws in place at the time of the incident and the overall lack of solid evidence.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

I wonder if there will be riots.


----------



## tommychains

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I wonder if there will be riots.



waiting for it...


----------



## flint757

Well, it is an all around tricky situation. Even if he is in the 'wrong' the laws in Florida leave enough wiggle room that guilt isn't nearly as cut and dry. Couple that with lackluster evidence and even I would have a hard time saying he's guilty if I were on the jury. 

What he is guilty of IMO is overconfidence and a lack of proper training that meant he should have never even tried to do what HE did to begin with. It'd be like if I carried a gun around and started calling people names until they got fed up and fought me. Then I lost because I can't fight putting myself in a situation where I need to 'defend' myself. That's my take on what happened, but legally that isn't necessarily a crime where 'castle' laws are in place.


----------



## MikeH

Seriously...


----------



## Chuck

Zimmerman should probably move to an island somewhere in the Philippines to be safe.


----------



## larry

Guess this means I can chase down people I don't like, piss 'em off into fisticuffs and then empty on them without so much as a slap on the wrist.


----------



## flint757

The law has spoken. I honestly hope nobody stirs shit up. All it does is weaken the argument and make entire communities look bad. The 'this is for Trayvon' shit that was going on when all this started was juvenile and asinine and to continue doing so after a jury of his peers ruled him not guilty would be completely hypocritical. It is what it is and people just need to move on with their lives.


----------



## flint757

larry said:


> Guess this means I can chase down people I don't like, piss 'em off into fisticuffs and then empty on them without so much as a slap on the wrist.



This is definitely one of my main concerns pertaining to the outcome of this case as it does in some way give it a green light. Then again this has been going on for about 16 months so I suppose that serves as its own deterrent. 

[EDIT]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

This concerns me greatly, however, as it screams double standard. Forgetting the Zimmerman case all together, firing a gun and not killing someone getting you 20 years is ludicrous considering how little you can get doing things far worse.


----------



## larry

yeah, i'm not too optimistic about how this law's shaping up.. I mean, I don't exactly feel good about carrying a firearm... and now that a good number of folks are going to take current events as a literal green light, I might have to pack to avoid becoming a statistic since running away with my hands up is more likely to get me killed than shooting first.

when I was told during my ccwp course to 'not miss, because dead men tell no tales' I thought it was just a joke in poor taste. turns out its actually the difference between incarceration or going home.


----------



## flint757

Nope, not a joke at all sadly. The police tell you the same thing here in Texas if someone, as an example, breaks into your house. Not because you can get in trouble (although I'm sure you could), but because they can sue you if they are clever enough to consider it. Crazy world we live in that's for sure.

In most places the law needs a serious rework.


----------



## Stealthtastic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF-Ax5E8EJc


I agree'd pretty much until the obama thing, then it got slightly absurd. But ohwell 

EDIT:embed fail. Kill me now.


----------



## flint757

Stealthtastic said:


> I agree'd pretty much until the obama thing, then it got slightly absurd. But ohwell
> 
> EDIT:embed fail. Kill me now.




Fix'd

I'm sorry, but he is attempting to come across as neutral and is totally failing. Especially when he is listing merely conjecture for a good half of the beginning and then claiming it is irrelevant info. 

I especially love how he says in the middle how saying he could have stayed in his car is merely 'causal change of effect', but when he talks about what Trayvon could have told Zimmerman he acts like it is 100% viable (which he could have in fact told him (although I do doubt it)).

That being said he does make some good points. Although I'm not sure what he was getting at towards the end.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

He should hook up with Casey Anthony now lol. It's sad, but together they could probably buy their own island with their book deal money.


----------



## Jakke

This is indeed tricky... I should preface with that I am not a lawyer, or an expert of Florida's laws, but I do feel that there just wasn't enough evidence. Most of the evidence provided was circumstantial, and while circumstantial evidence can convict someone, it has to be a lot of it.
Since our first, and foremost principle of justice is the presumption of innocence, then you should not be convicted when there is insufficient evidence. I also kind of feel that this became a partisan battle from the start, this was important to the conservatives since it touched on gun laws, while it was important to the democrats and the progressives since it concerned a poor black kid (we all know it, and it's ok, since I know you would also be concerned had a rich white kid been killed, just not *as* concerned). The US is also very sensitive to race, so I knew this was going to be made to be about racism (and I'm not saying it wasn't, just that it don't have to be).

It's really the same thing about the feminist claim how courts uphold the "rape-culture", since not everyone accused of rape is convicted for it. That is however just a sign that courts are working, and that they have acquitted people where there was insufficient evidence for a conviction. But don't get me going on that.

I also felt that since a kid got killed, Zimmerman was going to be found guilty in the court of public opinion, regardless of the real verdict. This is of course problematic, since the public is usually a group of panicky mouth-breathers. A court cannot convict someone just because everyone thinks they're guilty, they have to do their job, they did it, time to come to terms with that. If further evidence surfaces to convict the guy; great! But until then, I would have to say that the court probably made the right decision.


----------



## Carver

ahh media...


remember, a kid was shot, a mother and father lost a son. Dont care how or why that happened, but respect should be paid to the family, not to the fallen.


----------



## Stealthtastic

flint757 said:


> Fix'd
> 
> I'm sorry, but he is attempting to come across as neutral and is totally failing. Especially when he is listing merely conjecture for a good half of the beginning and then claiming it is irrelevant info.
> 
> I especially love how he says in the middle how saying he could have stayed in his car is merely 'causal change of effect', but when he talks about what Trayvon could have told Zimmerman he acts like it is 100% viable (which he could have in fact told him (although I do doubt it)).
> 
> That being said he does make some good points. Although I'm not sure what he was getting at towards the end.




His whole arguement was geared towards bringing all available facts to the table and whether or not it seeems biased might only be due to the fact that the evidence that is brought forward that isn't tainted and twisted by the media is slightly more overwhelming than what seems to be available from the news.

The end is kind of stupid though, yes.


----------



## flint757

Stealthtastic said:


> His whole arguement was geared towards bringing all available facts to the table and whether or not it seeems biased might only be due to the fact that the evidence that is brought forward that isn't tainted and twisted by the media is slightly more overwhelming than what seems to be available from the news.
> 
> The end is kind of stupid though, yes.



Well yes and no. He spends the beginning only bringing up two distasteful thing about Zimmerman and essentially dismisses it (they weren't small things either and he does this several times throughout the presentation). Then goes on to talk about pure conjecture for the context about Trayvon (like when he talks about 'lean' and him being a dealer). He is pulling the oldest trick in the book of tainting the listener by claiming he is neutral and throwing out 'facts', but omitting or adding information that essentially guides the viewer to what he actually thinks (which is confirmed by his summation). There was a lot more conjecture and taking Zimmerman at his word than actual hard fact in his presentation. It could be true, but that doesn't change the fact that he is not presenting the information in a neutral manner. 

He is right, though, that the news has been seriously race baiting this case and painting an imbalanced picture. He goes too far in trying to bring the balance back by using only speculation.

He didn't get off because he is innocent, but because there simply wasn't convincing enough evidence and the prosecution did a terrible job. There is something wonky going on in Florida considering he got off scott free while a Florida woman got 20 years for firing a warning shot at a man she had a restraining order against. 

[EDIT]

The last 5 minutes or so make me question his motives/intentions as well honestly.


----------



## Stealthtastic

flint757 said:


> Well yes and no. He spends the beginning only bringing up two distasteful thing about Zimmerman and essentially dismisses it (they weren't small things either and he does this several times throughout the presentation). Then goes on to talk about pure conjecture for the context about Trayvon (like when he talks about 'lean' and him being a dealer). He is pulling the oldest trick in the book of tainting the listener by claiming he is neutral and throwing out 'facts', but omitting or adding information that essentially guides the viewer to what he actually thinks (which is confirmed by his summation). There was a lot more conjecture and taking Zimmerman at his word than actual hard fact in his presentation. It could be true, but that doesn't change the fact that he is not presenting the information in a neutral manner.
> 
> He is right, though, that the news has been seriously race baiting this case and painting an imbalanced picture. He goes too far in trying to bring the balance back by using only speculation.
> 
> He didn't get off because he is innocent, but because there simply wasn't convincing enough evidence and the prosecution did a terrible job. There is something wonky going on in Florida considering he got off scott free while a Florida woman got 20 years for firing a warning shot at a man she had a restraining order against.
> 
> [EDIT]
> 
> The last 5 minutes or so make me question his motives/intentions as well honestly.




Although there's not many negative things to be said about zimmerman that have been brought out in general, where as many obviously large negative things about martin are very easily observable from any viewpoint in the case. Although, I do agree with the fact that there aren't many negative things being said about zimmerman, it's easy to say that there aren't many negative things to be found that can be said about him.


----------



## flint757

I don't know. It was just the way he presented it. He completely dismissed the domestic violence charge brought against Zimmerman and then took less damning evidence of violence for Trayvon as more factual (then conveniently taking it all back at the end of each statement to remain 'neutral'). He also said there were 'dozens' of robberies unreported (how convenient). On both sides most of the evidence isn't hard fact or 100% damning and most of it is mere speculation. If I knew nothing about the case and just took his presentation for what it is I'd come away thinking Trayvon 'deserved' it. That's why he is not neutral. 

To remain neutral you do not spin stories or scenarios, you don't use conjecture, you don't use hearsay, you present the hard facts that are available. He did not do that. As soon as you start spinning 'what if' scenarios there is subjective bias at play. Couple that with the last bit in the video and it is obvious he was working towards a goal.


----------



## pink freud

One thing that has become apparent in the aftermath: Many people don't know the difference between "Found not-guilty because of reasonable doubt" and "He's innocent so obviously the scenario played out like blah blah blah."

Confirmation bias runs rampant.


----------



## drgamble

The important thing about this case is: if you see someone suspicious call police and do not engage the suspicious person, also if someone is following you do not engage them, run away and call the police. If either party had followed these simple rules we wouldn't be talking about this. I don't think it is right to shoot someone because you are getting your ass kicked, at the same time I don't think FL proved 2nd degree murder or manslaughter having watched the trial and reading the jury instructions. At the end of the day, this was a terrible tragedy that could have been a avoided if somebody in this case would have used a little sense. For Trayvon, it's never good to be dead right. After watching the trial, I think George followed Trayvon and was attacked. This case is the perfect example of the wrong personality types getting caught up in conflict. If George had stayed in his car this wouldn't have happened. If Trayvon had not engaged the person following him, this would not have happened. All in all, this was a really bad situation and is tragic that a young man lost his life because of it. Concealed weapons permits are issued in my state and from news reports, I assume that everyone is packing heat and conduct myself in that manner. Let the police sort it out, it's not worth it. George Zimmerman may not be in jail, but he is far from a "free" man.


----------



## flexkill

The one thing that bothers me is that my Twitter blew up with comments by folks like "If it would have been Trayvon who had killed the white man Trayvon would be in jail for life or even the death penalty." That is just racist thinking in my book. Most of these people who think this way thought the justice system was great when it got OJ free.


----------



## CrashRG

It became a race issue when the media, the martin family, and the prosecution made it one. 

Don't get me wrong, I feel sorry for the Martin Family. They lost a child, and no one should have to feel that pain. But I want the prosecution investigated. The state attorney's IT guy testified on the stand that the prosecution team removed evidence from Trayvon's cell phone that would be "damaging" to their case. 

These are the things I want looked into. But at the same time I feel this wouldn't have been the media circus it turned out to be if zimmerman had shot a white/chinese/hispanic/alien kid. And in my personal experiences, blacks tend to be WAY more racist than whites. That's not saying there's not exceptions.

Look up the tragic case of Jonathon Paul Foster sometime.


----------



## Explorer

flexkill said:


> The one thing that bothers me is that my Twitter blew up with comments by folks like "If it would have been Trayvon who had killed the white man Trayvon would be in jail for life or even the death penalty." That is just racist thinking in my book. Most of these people who think this way thought the justice system was great when it got OJ free.



Doesn't Florida have a history of wrongful convictions? I think there was even something in the news recently about an officer who was linked to two wrongful convictions. Am I remembering that correctly?

And I'm white. Oops! Doe knowing about Florida's wrongful convictions make me racist? *laugh*

It will be interesting when the civil trial comes around for Martin's wrongful death. It won't be the same standard, but only what a reasonable person would assume. Did he previously call 911 to complain about black males? That will make it in. His willingness to lie to the cops on so many matters? Similarly allowed. 

Not beyond a reasonable doubt. By a preponderance of the evidence. 

Bringing up OJ is a great example of someone who got off in the criminal trial, but lost out big in the civil trial. Thanks for the reminder!


----------



## tacotiklah

flexkill said:


> The one thing that bothers me is that my Twitter blew up with comments by folks like "If it would have been Trayvon who had killed the white man Trayvon would be in jail for life or even the death penalty." That is just racist thinking in my book. Most of these people who think this way thought the justice system was great when it got OJ free.



No that's pretty much how it would go down. Here's a good test of racial profiling when it comes to crimes:
Know Anyone Who Thinks Racial Profiling Is Exaggerated? Watch This, And Tell Me When Your Jaw Drops.

The fact is, someone saw a black teenager at night, assumed they were doing something criminal, called the cops and was instructed to not engage or talk to the teenager, ignores the dispatchers instructions, gets out and shoots the kid after the kid tries to defend himself.

The truth is that if Martin was a white or hispanic teenager, Zimmerman wouldn't have bothered with them at all. Media and television are brainwashing us into believing that all young black boys are "hoods", "thugs", or criminals. We will go out of our way to make sure they pay for their supposed crimes, but if a person of any other race were caught doing the same thing, they would get off more lightly (white teenagers getting the most leniency of course). 

It's not easy to realize that we as a society are still racist, but that it is just manifesting itself in different forms nowadays. The first key step to recognizing any problem is to first admit that there is, in fact, a problem.


----------



## flexkill

ghstofperdition said:


> No that's pretty much how it would go down. Here's a good test of racial profiling when it comes to crimes:
> Know Anyone Who Thinks Racial Profiling Is Exaggerated? Watch This, And Tell Me When Your Jaw Drops.
> 
> The fact is, someone saw a black teenager at night, assumed they were doing something criminal, called the cops and was instructed to not engage or talk to the teenager, ignores the dispatchers instructions, gets out and shoots the kid after the kid tries to defend himself.
> 
> The truth is that if Martin was a white or hispanic teenager, Zimmerman wouldn't have bothered with them at all. Media and television are brainwashing us into believing that all young black boys are "hoods", "thugs", or criminals. We will go out of our way to make sure they pay for their supposed crimes, but if a person of any other race were caught doing the same thing, they would get off more lightly (white teenagers getting the most leniency of course).
> 
> It's not easy to realize that we as a society are still racist, but that it is just manifesting itself in different forms nowadays. The first key step to recognizing any problem is to first admit that there is, in fact, a problem.


I respect your opinion....but I disagree. I know damn good and well how the system works, I have found out the hard way....believe me and I am not proud of it either. This guy could not be convicted of murder with the evidence or lack there of provided. To much grey area on both sides. The system is what it is and for what it is....it worked as it was built to work. Does this mean I think Zimmerman is a great guy.....no. I do not believe the verdict would have been any different for whomever it would have been with the case provided. Again....look at OJ... he killed TWO white folks and he was set free.


----------



## Explorer

Flexkill, what was your reaction to the video which ghstofperdition posted? 

If you're going to talk about someone being racist when they assume that whites get a pass when blacks do not, is that because you think such things don't happen?

If you do think it happens, then what's racist about acknowledging that demonstration of racism?

Sorry, but I'm just not understanding your viewpoint. Straighten me out!


----------



## flexkill

Explorer said:


> Flexkill, what was your reaction to the video which ghstofperdition posted?
> If you're going to talk about someone being racist when they assume that whites get a pass when blacks do not, is that because you think such things don't happen?
> 
> If you do think it happens, then what's racist about acknowledging that demonstration of racism?
> 
> Sorry, but I'm just not understanding your viewpoint. Straighten me out!


 
Not falling in to any traps here. Read my above post, it clearly states my thoughts.  I think if you take a white person and stick them in a predominately black area you would see the same type of reactions. Racial profiling happens to all of us, not just black folks. I hope no one is getting the impression or is trying to imply I am racially prejudice....because it couldn't be further from the truth.

Explorer, so you think the verdict is wrong? You think with the evidence provided that Zimmerman should have been convicted of first degree murder? With the evidence provided their is NO DOUBT in your mind that Zimmerman was 100% guilty of flat out murder? If the case against Zimmerman was about bad decision making....then yes he is guilty. First degree murder I'm not so sure if I am sitting on that Jury. 


EDIT: Also that video is the sort of thing that pisses me off honestly. People should realize not to believe or trust everything they see on TV by now. If they put that white kid in a flipped around ball cap and baggy pants like the black kid.....I guaran-damn-tee you he gets as harassed as the black kid. Also why no pretty black female in this test??? Only a pretty blonde white girl??? Is it maybe the fact that man, and his history of thinking with his penis first, would have shown NO BIAS????

EDIT: Also Explorer, Do you think anyone gives a shit about the Civil case???? Pfffft jail threat is over take my money bitches I am FREE!!!!!! The Civil case is a pat on the head from the justice system for the loser of the trial. If he loses the Civil case....we don't know yet.


----------



## flint757

Explorer said:


> Flexkill, what was your reaction to the video which ghstofperdition posted?
> 
> If you're going to talk about someone being racist when they assume that whites get a pass when blacks do not, is that because you think such things don't happen?
> 
> If you do think it happens, then what's racist about acknowledging that demonstration of racism?
> 
> Sorry, but I'm just not understanding your viewpoint. Straighten me out!



Where in his post does he call ghst a racist or deny racism exists (lot of assumptions taking place there my friend)? His point was the law has worked on both sides of the spectrum in the past. That is neither denial or approval of anything, but a mere observation (kind of irrelevant too for that to be your focus).

The main point being made is that as much as even I think Zimmerman is guilty as fvck the prosecution didn't do a very good job, the 'eyewitnesses' were proven unreliable and most everything else was speculation with each party putting their own spin on what happened. His not guilty verdict doesn't mean anyone, including the jury, thinks he's innocent (although I'm sure some do). It means there is reasonable doubt. I don't want to be a part of a society where idol speculation and opinions are enough to throw someone away for a long time personally.

Racism is definitely a potential factor, but I don't think it had much to do with him getting off. I do, however, think that his irrational pursuit and antagonization of Martin was quite a bit racist.

I do wonder if Marissa Alexander was treated differently for either racist or sexist reasons though. At the very least reasonable doubt should have applied in that trial as well, especially with the lack of deaths and a restraining order. Then again, unlike the Zimmerman trial, living people can defend themselves in court so that could be the only factor. It blows my mind that there wasn't enough doubt for her to get off, especially considering the charges didn't fit the 'crime' IMO.


----------



## Explorer

What I'm responding to, in view of the racist component in wrongful convictions, the number proven so far of wrongful convictions in Florida, and even that video in the link, is flexkill's assertion that thinking there would be a racial component which would lead to Trayvon being convicted in Florida where Martin was not is racist.

In other words, given the facts which demonstrate racism, it's racist to think that racism exists. 



flexkill said:


> The one thing that bothers me is that my Twitter blew up with comments by folks like "If it would have been Trayvon who had killed the white man Trayvon would be in jail for life or even the death penalty." *That is just racist thinking in my book.* Most of these people who think this way thought the justice system was great when it got OJ free.


 
Did I just make any assumptions which you feel were unjustified? I'd be interested in knowing what they are.


----------



## flexkill

Explorer said:


> What I'm responding to, in view of the racist component in wrongful convictions, the number proven so far of wrongful convictions in Florida, and even that video in the link, is flexkill's assertion that thinking there would be a racial component which would lead to Trayvon being convicted in Florida where Martin was not is racist.
> 
> In other words, given the facts which demonstrate racism, it's racist to think that racism exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Did I just make any assumptions which you feel were unjustified? I'd be interested in knowing what they are.


You think that there is not wrongful imprisonment of people of all races in the USA??? Or only black folks? I want every time a crime that involves more than one race ...for racism not to be the first damn thing that comes out of people mouths and focus on the facts in the case at hand! Is that racist Explorer? You come off as naive Explorer about this subject. Are you telling me that the only outcome allowed for this case to NOT be racist is that Zimmerman be found guilty????

Explorer maybe to you it would be so easy to condemn a man....me....I wan't NO DOUBT about the man, whatever the color, I am putting away for life!



flexkill said:


> The one thing that bothers me is that my Twitter blew up with comments by folks like "If it would have been Trayvon who had killed the white man Trayvon would be in jail for life or even the death penalty." That is just racist thinking in my book. Most of these people who think this way thought the justice system was great when it got OJ free.



My point is that until this type of reaction stops....racism will NEVER go away....we are stuck at square one. This thinking of it's "Us against Them" bullshit has to stop!

Also lets make sure we don't throw out common sense while we "fight" for equality. Infringing on someone else's rights or freedoms to make it "fair" in others eyes is not the route we should be taking IMHO.


----------



## Randy

Chiming in simply because I was so heavily involved with this thread before the trial.

My feelings on what happened and how it should have been handled have already been clearly stated. All things considered, I found the final decision to be a disappointment however, the evidence was presented, everybody got to make their case and the decision was handed down by an agreed upon jury of George Zimmerman's peers. If we're not happy with the system that allowed for this outcome then, by all means, work to change it but as it stands, it is what it is.

At this point, I think it's time the public move on with their lives.


----------



## flint757

Explorer said:


> What I'm responding to, in view of the racist component in wrongful convictions, the number proven so far of wrongful convictions in Florida, and even that video in the link,* is flexkill's assertion that thinking there would be a racial component which would lead to Trayvon being convicted in Florida where Martin was not is racist.*
> 
> In other words, given the facts which demonstrate racism, it's racist to think that racism exists.



Trayvon and Martin are the same person.  It isn't necessarily racist, but it is a huge leap. Guilt is found by a jury of ones peers. I've been summoned for jury duty once in my entire life so I think it is safe to assume that each case has had a different selection of jurors. 

Now, wrongful convictions is kind of irrelevant as Zimmerman wasn't convicted and race is kind of moot as he is a minority himself. Just scrolling through a list of wrongful convictions in Florida plenty of white people are mentioned too so it doesn't seem to be exclusively racially driven either. Before you jump on that boat, I'm not saying racism isn't alive and well nor that racism doesn't play a factor ever. With no fact or proof and without an identical trial prosecuting Martin in an imaginary timeline it is ludicrous to assert things would definitively turn out different.



Explorer said:


> Did I just make any assumptions which you feel were unjustified? I'd be interested in knowing what they are.



Well considering that outcome can never be tested and 2 timelines do not exist it would be asinine and indeed a little racist to assume that if things were the other way he'd definitely be in jail.


----------



## Gresh

I guess I'd like someone to explain to me how race is even a part of the discussion..not the discussion in this thread here, but nationally, relative to this case. 

GZ could have been the Grand Wizard of the KKK and still not been convicted based on the case presented by the prosecution. Any discussion of racial profiling or whatever ended when Martin's fist hit GZ's head. Up until that point, no crime (for which there was evidence) had been committed on either side. 

Outside of the case, sure discuss away...but by making this case about race, the desired and only tolerable outcome for those proposing that narrative would be to convict GZ. That is sacrificing the entire rule of law on the alter of politics. In order to get there, the sheriff and states attorney had to be fired since they refused to charge GZ with crime they knew couldn't be proven. DOJ put the wheels in motion and forced this to trial, partly through suppression of evidence (the surfacing of that got another person on the prosecution side fired). 

Was race involved in GZ's actions...I don't know, and more importantly, neither does anyone else. It is assumed to have been simply because Martin was black, end of story, and that's where we are in this country. It's to the point where you can't even disagree with a black person without being labeled a racist. I welcome a debate on that, at a national level. But to abuse the sanctity of our criminal justice system for the purpose of supporting a false (or at best un-prove-able) narrative says more to me about the state of our union than anything else. GZ's life and the Martin's lives are ruined for this. The media circus and the misapplication of the criminal justice system only exacerbated an already horrific situation.


----------



## Randy

You make it sound like the 'role race played in this' argument was only coming from one side but it wasn't. Hate to break it to you.


----------



## Gresh

You are right, it goes both ways and all sides abuse it. Didn't mean to imply that anyone has a corner on that market. My point was more about the abuse of the criminal justice system to push it further when there was no evidence to support it. Or at least that was my intended point.


----------



## flint757

Well, honestly, they need to hold trials for even obscure cases, especially when you know all parties involved. Otherwise we are promoting an environment of "as long as you leave as little evidence/witnesses as possible you can get away with murder". Cases are a good place for more evidence to be discovered.

With what was discovered/available the right decision was made though (from an objective POV). This case shouldn't have taken so long either, but that is the nature of our legal system I suppose.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Black Man Shoots White Teen, Jury says Self Defense. And Nobody Cares | The Truth About GunsThe Truth About Guns


There are other similar cases, many of them, but every time I see something about this case, and how huge it has gotten, and how it has turned into a black vs. white thing, I hate Al Sharpton just that much more. 

I still have no idea what I believe, but this "He got away with it because the kid was black, if the tables had been turned it would be a complete different outcome" thing is a pile of bullshit the likes of which I'd die happy without ever having to smell again.


----------



## McKay

I don't get how anyone can say they're 'disappointed' with the acquittal? It implies you already made up your mind that Zimmerman was guilty, before the trial had started, despite having less evidence at your disposal than the jury.


----------



## Jakke

^That's a very good point


----------



## Explorer

McKay said:


> I don't get how anyone can say they're 'disappointed' with the acquittal? It implies you already made up your mind that Zimmerman was guilty, before the trial had started, despite *having less evidence at your disposal than the jury.*



Well... I'm still curious as to whether GZ's previous calls to 911, complaining about black males, were allowed into evidence. I'm also curious as to whether his previous lies in statements to police (I don't recall if he's actually perjured himself under oath) were admitted to the trial.

So, if such things were omitted from trial, then those who know about them might have *more information at their disposal than the jury*.


----------



## flexkill

Explorer said:


> Well... I'm still curious as to whether GZ's previous calls to 911, complaining about black males, were allowed into evidence. I'm also curious as to whether his previous lies in statements to police (I don't recall if he's actually perjured himself under oath) were admitted to the trial.
> 
> So, if such things were omitted from trial, then those who know about them might have *more information at their disposal than the jury*.



What if they where legitimate complaints about "black males"??? What about his proven history of helping, on many occasions mind you, black folks in need? You sound like you have your pitchfork out for Zimmerman? 



Explorer said:


> I'm still curious as to whether GZ's previous calls to 911, complaining about black males, were allowed into evidence. I'm also curious as to whether his previous lies in statements to police (I don't recall if he's actually perjured himself under oath) were admitted to the trial.



I wish you would let me in on what calls and lies previous you are referring to????


----------



## straightshreddd

I agree with the neutral folks. Trayvon clearly was a teenage kid with a chip on his shoulder, but he did not deserve to be killed nor should he have attacked someone who was walking up to him and asking why he was there. 

I don't care if FL has strict laws against concealed weapons; if a man steps out of a vehicle and is walking towards you, you do not engage immediately and act like a badass. If you're going to stand your ground, maintain a clear distance between him and try to figure out what's going on.

With that said, I think Zimmeran f*cked up big time when he approached Trayvon. Was he racist? Maybe. But, the error of approaching Trayvon was huge, regardless of Trayvon's race. I think he's one of those guys that just couldn't get things right in life and desperately wanted to be "that guy" that stops crime and took it too far. 

For all the people heavily riding the racism train, I'm Puerto Rican and have lived in predominantly black projects my entire life and still do at the moment. I'm not going to stereotype because not all of them are like this, but a lot of black people and hispanics in my experience are the MOST racist people I've ever met. And not just towards whites. Mexicans, Indians/Middle Eastern, Asian, etc. Even a lot of my family members are ignorantly racist.

In my neighborhood, black kids and teenagers regularly bully the passive hispanic and white teens and kids for fun. The hispanic kids don't really mess with them because of numbers, but the adults constantly call them racial slurs. It's pretty despicable. 

Racism comes from anywhere. I'm not saying a lot of white people aren't racist, I'm just providing some input for those climbing the racism bandwagon because CNN said so.

PS: It's hilarious that Zimmerman's half-white side is the deciding factor to the racism argument. haha If he was fully hispanic with a name like "Jorge Marquez", NO ONE would care. lol

I hate racism and prejudices and I also hate when people use racism as a crutch.


----------



## RevelGTR

I think that George Zimmerman is an idiot. But people who want to think of Trayvon as an innocent little kid are just plain wrong. This is not based on race, but I bet most people who are out there "honoring Trayvon" would have thought he was a juvenile delinquent had they met him in life. He certainly did not deserve death, but he did have a strong interest in firearms, fighting, and other gang related activities, which has been shown in some of his texts.


----------



## SenorDingDong

flexkill said:


> What if they where legitimate complaints about "black males"??? What about his proven history of helping, on many occasions mind you, black folks in need? You sound like you have your pitchfork out for Zimmerman?


 

+1


Every post I've read of yours in this thread, Explorer, has just seemed like you made up your mind beforehand and are cherry-picking which "evidence" suits you. I've called and complained about several "black males" in the past because I lived in an area where they just happened to be the ones dealing drugs. It's entirely situational, you can't jump to the conclusion that he's some deranged racist because you only know that the subject of his call was black. And as pointed out, he also has a proven history of helping out people of the very same skin colour.


----------



## Randy

SenorDingDong said:


> he also has a proven history of helping out people of the very same skin colour.



Link?


----------



## Rev2010

Randy said:


> Link?



*I'm referring to this from memory so if I'm wrong with any of these my bad:

I think he's likely referring to the Sherman Ware incident. It's said Martin was so outraged toward the police department that he printed out fliers calling for justice and handed them out around black community churches. In case you don't know the incident a homeless black man was sucker punched by an officer or something to that effect. He also went on, and this was actually recorded, to tell the community council about his ride along with the Sanford police department, it was quite negative.


Rev.


----------



## flint757

He also may be referring to this:

Ama Yawson: I Am George Zimmerman

Take that for what it is. Whether it is true or means anything will never be known honestly (since I don't actually know the man ). I'd say it is irrelevant info anyhow. IMO the trial was not whether he was being racist, but whether he was justified in killing another person. At least that is what it should have been about.

Legally it would seem he is since he was let go and now everyone else is just left deciding for themselves if he was or ever could be justified in doing so.


----------



## SenorDingDong

I'm not on my home computer right now so I can't find all the articles I'd like, but here's one about Zimmerman and Sherman Ware. Feel free to do some extra research, it won't hurt:


http://wreg.com/2012/07/12/report-zimmerman-worked-to-help-black-man-in-beating-case/

In 2010


----------



## flint757

SenorDingDong said:


> I'm not on my home computer right now so I can't find all the articles I'd like, but here's one about Zimmerman and Sherman Ware. Feel free to do some extra research, it won't hurt:
> 
> 
> http://wreg.com/2012/07/12/report-zimmerman-worked-to-help-black-man-in-beating-case/
> 
> In 2010



Seems like one can draw the conclusion that he 'took action' because he didn't trust the police. Couple that with anger management issues and paranoia (albeit somewhat justifiable) leads to a jumpy dude doing something incredibly stupid.

I personally think he is in the wrong on the level that his stupid decision and another person even more stupid decision ended with someone dead (and he was the one who pulled the trigger). Legally he did nothing wrong though.

This case has been blown way out of proportion either way. It most definitely didn't deserve the amount of attention it has received. I do find it more than coincidental, though, that he got charges brought against him for hitting a stranger under, what sounds like, similar circumstances (withstanding details proving otherwise).


----------



## Explorer

flexkill said:


> I wish you would let me in on what calls and lies previous you are referring to????



Regarding the previous calls:



Explorer said:


> Does anyone know if Zimmerman's previous calls to 911, the lead-ups to his comment about those "....ing assholes" who always get away, were admitted?
> 
> Judge in Trayvon Martin case weighs whether to admit Zimmerman's previous calls to police | StarTribune.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SANFORD, Fla.  Several times in six months, neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman called police to report suspicious characters in the gated townhouse community where he lived. Each time, when asked, he reported that the suspects were black males.
> 
> On Tuesday, the judge at Zimmerman's murder trial in the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin listened to those five calls and weighed whether to let the jury hear them, too. Prosecutors want to use them to bolster their argument that Zimmerman was increasingly frustrated with repeated burglaries and had reached a breaking point the night he shot the unarmed teenager.
> 
> The recordings show Zimmerman's "ill will," prosecutor Richard Mantei told Judge Debra Nelson.
> 
> "It shows the context in which the defendant sought out his encounter with Trayvon Martin," Mantei said.
> 
> Defense attorney Mark O'Mara argued that the calls were irrelevant and that nothing matters but the seven or eight minutes before Zimmerman fired the deadly shot into Martin's chest.
> 
> The judge did not immediately rule on whether to admit the recordings as evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would see those calls, combined with the call(s) on the night Trayvon Martin was shot, definitely put that night's even into an interesting context. Clearly the defense doesn't want jurors to have that context.
> 
> What happened with this?
Click to expand...


Regarding the lies:

I was wrong. George Zimmerman wasn't charged with perjury. His wife is, due to actions she undertook and lied about, with George's direction.

George Zimmerman's wife charged with perjury

Those actions were designed to avoid triggering notice of money being transferred, as well as directing his wife to use money donated for his defense to pay off their credit cards.



> "Most importantly, though, is the fact that (George Zimmerman) has now demonstrated that he does not properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process," Lester wrote.



In my personal life, I have managed to narrow my circle of friends to those whose honesty doesn't rely on technicalities. I supposed I see the world in that way as well.


----------

