My Photo

« Why Is Measles a First World Problem? | Main | farm bill no food stamps »

July 14, 2013

Comments

This just in
Juror B37’s identity may still be a secret, but she’s already got an agent peddling her as-yet unwritten book.
On Monday, a literary agent in Washington state announced that she was representing one of the six female jurors who found George Zimmerman not guilty in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

“My hope is that people will read Juror B37’s future book, written with her attorney husband, and understand the commitment it takes to serve and be sequestered on a jury in a highly publicized murder trial and how important, despite one’s personal viewpoints, it is to follow the letter of the law,” Sharlene Martin, president of Martin Literary Management, said in a statement. “The reader will also learn why the jurors had no option but to find Zimmerman not guilty due to the manner in which he was charged and the content of the jury instructions.”

The statement was issued less than 48 hours after the controversial verdict was reached.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/15/3501867/zimmerman-juror-to-write-book.html

Marty: I have followed kids that weren't from my neighborhood until I determined where they were going or they left the neighborhood lots more than once in the last thirty years.

In the dark? If so, how did you know they weren't from your neighborhood in the dark? And, what constitutes "your neighborhood"?

Marty: It would involve staying on the main roads, not stopping but not running, and trying to establish if it was neighborhood watch if there was a well it corner. It would NOT involve cutting through other peoples yards as he runs away.

"Cutting through other peoples yards?" Seriously? So, run in a straight line?

Marty,

You write, "Coates gets it about right."(This, I take it, is meant as some kind of compliment? Some compliment.)

You then follow this with: ".....race did play a part. Trayvon was unreasonably (wtf?-ed) afraid of the creepy a$$ cracker, thus escalating (wtfII?-ed) the situation unnecessarily(wtfIII?-ed)."

One can only conclude that you did not either read or comprehend what Coates actually wrote, or you have disgorged some really poorly written parody.

Which is it?

Coates gets it about right.

As per usual.

At any point in any of the recorded conversations, during some of which Martin was at least within hailing distance, did Zimmerman identify himself as neighborhood watch?

How the hell would Martin have any idea who Zimmerman was, or what he was about?

How uncomfortable or freaked out ought he to have been, when some guy who he did not know and who did not identify himself first watches him from a car, pulls over and parks the car to continue watching him, then when he runs away, leaves the car to follow him?

I'm not 17, and that would freak me out more than mildly. I'd want to know WTF was going on.

I have no problem saying that Martin would have done well to just walk away and go home.

I have yet to hear anyone supportive of Zimmerman's actions or acquittal express any sense that he owns any responsibility for Martin's death.

Martin should have done X, Y, or Z. His parents should have told him there was a neighborhood watch and that he should respond to anyone following him around with politeness and respect. Martin shouldn't have been wearing a hoodie. Martin should have walked on the sidewalk.

Dig this: Zimmerman should have sat in his car and waited for the cops to come.

We actually have an account of the very beginning of the confrontation, in the form of Martin's friends cell phone conversation with him. According to her, it began as:

"What are you following me for?"
"What are you doing around here?"

That's not what Zimmerman reported as the initial exchange. Either she is lying, or he is. If he is, there's not one damned thing wrong with Martin's response. And, if she's telling the truth, Zimmerman is a damned liar, and in fact a perjurer.

He said, she said. The tie-breaking bit of information is lost to us, because the other witness is dead.

I can also tell you as someone who has lived in questionable neighborhoods, and been followed for unknown reasons by people I did not know and did not care to get to know, that the last freaking thing you do in that situation is go home. If you go home, person X now knows where you live.

So, there's that.

I have no idea what Martin was thinking when he confronted Zimmerman. None of us do, because he's not here anymore to let us know.

But by god the onus is not on Martin's ghost to freaking justify why he asked some random guy, who did not identify himself or apparently give any clue as to his motive, and who was first watching Martin from a car and then, after Martin clearly attempted to flee, followed him on foot, why he was following him.

Zimmerman could simply have replied, "I'm with the neighborhood watch, I did not recognize you, there have been some burglaries and I wanted to know who you were".

He did not.

Martin was 17 and Zimmerman was 28. It's not unreasonable to expect Zimmerman, Mr. Responsible Neighborhood Watch dude and cop wanna-be, to have acted like an adult.

Seriously, the kid is dead, and Zimmerman shot him. Any of your neighborhood watch buddies kill any kids lately?

Zimmerman was not, in my view, guilty of either murder or manslaughter, but he by god owns some responsibility for Martin's death.

In addition to Russell's points, would it be too much to ask that Zimmerman and company use rubber bullets in the weapons they so dearly need to conceal or brandish, or whatever lifts the skirts.

See here: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Vigilante_Nation

... for commentary about our vigilante culture in which you will find a further link to a brief news article reporting that 80 protestors of the Zimmerman verdict in L.A. were dispersed with rubber bullets for walking on the same path in the same direction as other people.

I would guess the fact that the word "rubber" is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights is why we can't have nice things.

It occurs to me that the politicians (liberal politicians should be armed at all times in this country) in the summer of 2010 who hosted public forums on the health care bill only to have armed vigilantes show up might have, like Zimmerman's paranoia about Martin, found the vigilantes' behavior suspicious, threatening, out of place in a civilized setting and therefore reason to monitor, follow, and confront and maybe those vigilantes would have ended up gunned down like f*cking vermin dogs for their untoward, irresponsible actions, because I have a feeling the vigilante individuals would have escalated things had someone gotten in their face, leading to their unfortunate but necessary slaughter.

You know what's scary? The utter predictability of this thread, that's what.

I am not "profiling" anybody here. I'm simply refusing to pretend that I did not foresee Brett, Marty, Slarti, or McTx viewing the case entirely differently from Russell, hairshirt, Laura, or the Count, to name but a few.

One thing we could all probably agree on is this: George Zimmerman is exactly the kind of person that all of us would call a "responsible gun owner".

--TP

Tony, that's why I called the whole thing a perfect Rohrschach test.

Btw, didn't you miss a "'nt" or do the quotes carry the meaning (or the 'responsible')? ;-)

Trayvon Martin was a 17-year-old "kid" (as Zimmerman called him) who had walked to a 7-11 store, purchased two items, and walked towards home carrying a can of fruit drink in a beige plastic 7-11 bag, all the while talking to a friend on his cell phone. He was wearing a dark gray hooded sweatshirt over a gray t-shirt, khaki plants, and white sneakers.

It was dark, because it was winter; otherwise, it was 7:00 on a Sunday evening, with intermittent rain showers and downpours. Once reaching the neighborhood, he walked in the street because there's very little street-side pavement; as is natural, he'd look around while walking (as Zimmerman would regularly do while walking his dog), and he'd stop, get out of the way, and watch as cars drove by.

He was walking "leisurely," "casually" in the rain, "looking around at the houses" (which later turned into "looking into the houses"); not particularly in a hurry to get out the rain, and, as Zimmerman later added, looking like he was picking up mail.

According to the friend he was speaking with, he took shelter in the covered mailbox kiosk (adjacent to the clubhouse) during a sudden downpour.

He then told his friend that a man was sitting in his truck and staring at him. He decided to continue walking home, cautiously passing the truck (and probably keeping an eye on the man staring at him), and walking faster when the man turned his truck to slowly drive behind him. Despite his friend telling him to run, he waited to do so until he reached a spot where a vehicle could not follow him.

Trayvon ran away from the man who had sat and stared at him, and who had driven close behind him. We have no idea which route Trayvon took; according to Zimmerman, he ran down the sidewalk between two grassy areas behind several rows of townhomes on both sides, heading southward. According to Trayvon's friend, he stopped running, breathing hard, and then slowly walked, from wherever he was, towards home. He noticed that the man, now on foot, was once again following him. Now tired and near home, he asked the man, "Why are you following me?;" to which the man demanded, "What are you doing here?" And then there was the sound of Trayvon hitting the ground, his earphones falling off and the sound of something hitting his Android phone, with the words "get off, get off."

72 seconds later Trayvon Martin was killed with a single shot to the heart.

Oh, look, Zimmerman ending up with a broken nose, two black eyes, and contusions to the back of the head elided.

Martin having contusions to the knuckles, and one gunshot wound, and no other injuries, elided.

Eye witness seeing Martin on top elided.

Martin hitting the ground added. Martin having grass stains only on his knees, Zimmerman having grass stains on back, elided.

Basically, what I see here, is an alternate history where Zimmerman attacked Martin, with all the evidence proving it's BS elided, and evidence supporting it fabricated out of whole cloth.

Now, I suppose this work of fantasy is sincerely believed, an absolutely incredible amount of work has gone into actively misleading the public about what happened here, in the interest of turning this into a hate crime by Zimmerman, and Martin into some kind of innocent victim. Because that has a lot of political use.

But a fantasy is what it is, and Zimmerman is a free man, (Albeit a free man under numerous death threats.) today because the defense systematically took that fantasy apart in the courtroom.

What he lacks is any way of disassembling it in the public square, alas.

and yet Brett still can't admit that Zimmerman started, precipitated, escalated and yes, caused, the entire incident. Brett insists the story starts in the middle, where meek innocent Zimmerman has to fight off the unprovoked and gleefully murderous assailant.

but at least he doesn't believe in a "fantasy".

I don't mean to interrupt Brett's fantasy here, but just a question: How does a guy who is pinned on his back getting the sh*t pounded out of him by his assailant raining down blow after blow from above, pull the pistol from wherever it is holstered? What was the GZ testimony on that? Anybody know?

Do carry on. Thanks.


Posted by: cleek

"and yet Brett still can't admit that Zimmerman started, precipitated, escalated and yes, caused, the entire incident. Brett insists the story starts in the middle, where meek innocent Zimmerman has to fight off the unprovoked and gleefully murderous assailant.

but at least he doesn't believe in a "fantasy"."

Brett is a wonder; every time I think that he's hit rock-bottom, he pulls out a drill and digs like a mutant gopher.

Because that has a lot of political use.

As opposed to, for instance, the narrative of Zimmerman as blameless neighborhood watch good neighbor and reluctant but righteous marksman.

EIther guy could have walked away. One guy was a 17 year old kid, one guy was an almost 30 year old married adult man. One guy was armed with an iced tea, one with a pistol.

One guy was minding his own business, and one was not.

I don't dispute the finding of not guilty on 2nd degree murder, or frankly on manslaughter. But the idea that Zimmerman has no responsibility for the death of Martin I find abhorrent.

What is Martin guilty of? Confronting and getting into a fight with a guy who stalked him around his father's neighborhood, a guy who did not identify himself or make clear to Martin, in any way, what he was about. That's what Martin is guilty of.

Why did Martin have grass stains only on the front of his pants, and Zimmerman on his back? Why did Zimmerman have more wounds?

Because Martin was kicking his @ss. Zimmerman picked the wrong kid to harrass. And, if certain details of the situation were slightly different, you all would find his actions righteous and would applaud them.

Zimmerman was not on a neighborhood watch patrol. He was going to the grocery store. He saw a kid walking through the neighborhood, and for Some Mysterious Reason, thought the kid was 'suspicious' and needed following. Because he was 'looking at houses'.

Or, you know, 'not walking on the sidewalk'. Or 'wearing a hoodie'. Something like that.

Had Zimmerman actually been on a neighborhood watch patrol, and actually followed neighborhood watch protocol, he would not have left his car, he would not have been carrying his firearm, he would not have gotten into a fight with Martin, and Martin would be alive. And, Zimmerman would not have spent the last year and some months wondering if he would spend some decades in jail.

It would have been a win/win.

But clearly, the entire responsibility for Martin's death lies with Martin.

Here's my plan, Brett.

I'm going to come to your neighborhood and follow your kid around. I will not address your kid at any point to explain what I'm doing or why I'm doing it, and if your kid is unnerved by this and runs away, I will follow your kid around on foot so I can see where your kid goes.

I'll do the same for Marty's kid, or McK's kid, or Slarti's kids. I'm gonna come to your neighborhoods and, without identifying myself or explaining what I'm doing or why, I'm going to follow your kids around. And they damned well better not wear hoodies or walk anywhere but on the sidewalk, especially if it's after dark.

I'm sure none of you will find anything objectionable in this.

Seriously, what kind of people are you all?

You all are so concerned that Martin not become the poster boy for some kind of politically correct BS that you find it impossible to acknowledge Zimmerman's responsibility here.

Martin was not some freaking Mau-Mau Black Panther gang-banging hoodlum. He was a kid walking home from the 7/11.

Zimmerman was not some 2nd Amendment neighborhood watch hero, defending his turf from some dire threat. He was a meddling stupid knucklehead cop wanna-be who had to dive in, in spite of clear direction from the 9-11 dispatcher that that was neither required nor wanted. And, as a neighborhood watch leader, he ought to have known that it was not proper protocol, or any kind of good idea.

He f***ed up and as a result he ended up killing a kid. If you can't acknowledge that simple, obvious, salient fact, I don't understand how your mind works.

Hartmut,

No, I didn't skip an "n't" -- I really do think both sides would call Zimmerman a responsible gun owner. I think he's the NRA's idea of a responsible gun owner, and I know he's my idea of a responsible gun owner.

Responsible gun owners sometimes, regrettably and regretfully, kill people. (Remember, "Guns, don't kill people ...") Sometimes, the NRA types tell us, responsible gun owners kill bad guys in self-defense. As a responsible gun owner, you never know when some black dude will start beating the crap out of you for no reason. As a responsible gun owner, you have the right to stalk bad guys in the dark, just like we all do. As a responsible gun owner, you can count on other responsible gun owners to see the inkblot exactly as you see it.

Responsible gun owner George Zimmerman did exactly what any responsible gun owner would do if he got into a fist-fight with the big, bad, black kid he was chasing. If any of our responsible gun owner friends care to dispute that, I welcome their input.

--TP

Even if I take Zimmerman's account of things, along with the 911-call records, Zimmerman is still a stinking pile of sh*t. No fantasy required.

Any aspects of what actually happened that deviate from Zimmerman's story can reasonably be assumed to make him even more of a stinking pile of sh*t, since he wouldn't lie, fabricate or fantasize to make himself look any worse.

The 5:34 AM comment above is taken entirely from Trayvon Martin's point of view - pehaps because his point of view was largely lost, with his being unable to describe it, being dead and all.

In any case, Trayvon Martin does not have to be entirely innocent for George Zimmerman to be in the wrong. So that particular fantasy is not one I personally have any need for to think what I think about Zimmerman. But thanks for attributing it to me, anyway, Brett.

POlitical use for what? Acknnowledging that we still have problems with race relations? Acknowledging that the stand your ground laws are stupid and dangerous?

Why would anyone NOT want to acknowlege those things?

Russell continues to express my opinions precisely.

Laura's comment reminded me of a question I asked much eariler in the thread, one I never got an answer to:

And, Brett, be honest. Do you think Zimmerman wouldn't have been arrested on the spot if he were black?

Well????

"EIther guy could have walked away."

It's unclear to me how Zimmerman was supposed to have walked away, after being knocked to the ground in a surprise attack. No doubt, there was a moment when, if he had walked away, the whole episode wouldn't have happened.

But why should he? Was he any place he wasn't entitled to be? No. Why is Martin allowed to take a walk at night, but Zimmerman is supposed to turn around and run like hell if he sees a black kid?

Here's the question: Why am I supposed to assume Zimmerman's account of what went down is wrong, when it has the advantage of being consistent with both the physical evidence, and testimony from the closest witness?

What I see are people grasping at any straw to avoid admitting that the black kid brought this on himself by assaulting somebody. That's just another form of predjudice.

Russell wrote:

"Zimmerman was not on a neighborhood watch patrol. He was going to the grocery store."

Speaking of elisions, this is a part of the story I missed.

First, I wonder if the grocery store he was heading to posted prohibitions on concealed carry in their establishment, as the law permits in Florida I believe, and I wonder if Zimmerman would have stowed his weapon in his car before entering.

I wish Zimmerman had not seen Martin on his way to my grocery store and the incident had not happened. Martin, unlike Zimmerman, to his credit, did not enter the convenience store to buy an iced tea and candy while bearing a loaded weapon.

No, I wish Zimmerman had made it to MY grocery store and I would hope I would notice the gun bulge on his person (maybe he would drop it clumsily on the floor as he bent over to grab a package of Skittles, perchance to shoplift). I would find the carrying of a gun on my property around my inventory and my employees to be highly suspicious, deeply threatening, and reason for an intervention, as in, "Sir, I notice you're carrying a weapon on my property. Is it loaded as well? Yes, well ... the law says what? F*ck that law and f*ck you. If you ever enter my establishment again, with or without a deadly weapon, you and I will retire to the grassy knoll across the street and I will have grass stains on the front of my clothes and you will have grass stains on your ample rear and the back of your head will meet the sidewalk with some force.

Did I just see your hand jerk towards that gun bulge as I explained your immediate future to you? Go ahead, pull that thing out, tough guy. Call the cops too and I suggest you follow to the letter their instructions.

What? You say the Founders gave you the right to carry in my establishment, sign or no sign? How bout this, I'll dress up like Samuel Adams and then kick your ass with my bare hands, because I find your suspicious and threatening.

Now, you have four seconds to remove yourself and your weapon from my establishment.

See here for the Florida concealed carry law:

http://www.usacarry.com/florida_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Read the comments and notice how many concealed carry afficianados admit to breaking the law at will in numerous states.

Even when they get what they want, a la States Rights and whatever other benchmark horsesh*t they require, they want more.

To me, a citizen, those are killable offenses, much as Zimmerman believed Trayvon's alleged offense was a wothry of execution.

I think I'd get off too.

shark, jumped.

What I see are people grasping at any straw to avoid admitting that the black kid brought this on himself by assaulting somebody. That's just another form of predjudice.

Then you're not f*cking reading what people are writing!

And why do you keep framing this sh*t in terms of whether or not Zimmerman had the "right" to be where he was? I have the "right" to let my kids play video games all the time, but it doesn't make it good parenting or leave me blameless if they grow up to be fat and stupid.

I have the "right" to walk into a biker bar and randomly ask people things like "Why are you dressed so stupidly? Are you f*cking retarded or something?" In some states I can do that with a loaded pistol on my person. In Florida, I guess I can shoot the guy who starts to knock the teeth out of my mouth for me.

To quote Francis from Stripes: "All I know is I finally get to kill somebody."

Actually, no. The Sanford 911 dispatcher is a civilian that works for all of the local emergency services. Which is why they ask you, starting out, whether you have a medical emergency.

The call in question was placed to the Sanford Police non-emergency number. No 911 dispatcher was involved.

The first words the dispatcher spoke to Zimmerman were: "Do you need police, fire or medical?"

They were actually "Sanford Police Department".

http://www.motherjones.com/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman

And we have no evidence whatsoever that Trayon threw the first punch

Except that there are no marks on Martin other than a bullet wound and there are multiple marks on Zimmerman. The bullet wound produced death. Martin could not hit Zimmerman after he was killed, ergo he must have hit Zimmerman before Zimmerman shot him. The physical evidence--known as "objective evidence"--is that Zimmerman's nonfatal injuries preceded Martin's fatal injuries. This is viewed by courts across the land as "some evidence".

This physical evidence was well known prior to trial. The evidence was insufficient to convict of murder or manslaughter. The state is not supposed to prosecute anyone when there is insufficient evidence to convict.

As for the notion that there is a bona fide fact dispute as to whether Martin was on top of Zimmerman raining down punches or vice versa, where is the physical evidence that Martin was hit in the face? There is no such evidence.

There are some unknown's: at some point, after being hit repeatedly, Zimmerman got his gun out and shot Martin. Had Martin disengaged and gotten up? How did that unfold? I don't have the ballistics, so it is unclear whether the bullet path--not always reliable--supports both men standing after having been on the ground or whether it supports a shot fired from the ground into a man standing or whether there was an artifact known as stipling which would indicate the shot was fired within six inches or so from Martin's chest, which would be consistent with Martin being shot while on top of Zimmerman but inconsistent with Martin's at-rest position. I think Martin was standing when he was shot.

Zimmerman was stupid to follow Martin because Martin turned out to be someone who found being followed and possibly confronted and questioned sufficiently offensive as to justify trying to beat someone up. Zimmerman was a busy body, probably a cop wanna-be and got in way over his head when Martin turned out to be a lot more aggressive than Zimmerman most likely expected. So, granted: Zimmerman was a rude, annoying and offensive busy-body. That justifies violence? If it does, then it invites escalation and a very bad outcome.

Since we are playing the skin game on this one: if Zimmerman had been black, this would be an unremarkable statistical blip. He wasn't. This was the rare occurrence of a man who appeared to be white but who unfortunately for the narrative turned out to be Hispanic (so he became a white Hispanic--a new ethnic category) shooting a black 17 year old. So, instead of a statistical blip, it becomes a cause celebre for the usual suspects who demand prosecution. And who now demand that the feds step in and try the white Hispanic a second time.

My take away, given the skin game, is this: going forward, by the logic of the left, if a young white male, 6'2", is being followed and questioned offensively by a smaller, older black male, the white male has sufficient provocation to beat the hell out of the black male and the black male, if armed and if he is otherwise unable to defend himself, may not shoot in self defense.

Because, you know, *following* and *rudeness* is inherently and justifiably provocative.

The difference between me and the left is that I'd let the guy getting beat up for what to me seems a grossly inadequate reason to shoot in self defense. Regardless of skin color.

Except that there are no marks on Martin other than a bullet wound and there are multiple marks on Zimmerman.

Just as a thought exercize, consider the following scenario. You are walking down the street. Some guy comes up and grabs you. You try to break free, but are unsuccessful. So you throw a punch to try and make him let go.

Now, how many bruises do you figure you will have at that point? Have you ever been grabbed and gotten noticible bruises from it? Often? Just asking....

My take away, given the skin game, is this: going forward, by the logic of the left, if a young white male, 6'2", is being followed and questioned offensively by a smaller, older black male, the white male has sufficient provocation to beat the hell out of the black male and the black male, if armed and if he is otherwise unable to defend himself, may not shoot in self defense.

your take away is your own. because it doesn't seem to reflect what anybody here is saying. but that's understandable, since you're complaining a grouping of unnamed (and possibly imaginary) people who hold an opinion you want to complain about: "the left".

what most people here seem to want is some acknowledgement that Zimmerman was not attacked out of the blue for unknown reasons; some admission that he acted recklessly, irresponsibly, aggressively, etc.. and you do a little of that in your comment, which is nice to see. but many of his defenders insist he did absolutely nothing wrong. and it's utterly despicable.

now maybe the law is incapable of dealing with Zimmerman's culpability here. but that doesn't mean he doesn't share some moral responsibility for what happened.

and as long as we're playing make believe:
imagine a man stalking a woman at night, at first in a car, then on foot. she runs away. he chases. they end up near each other. does she have the right to confront him? if they start to struggle and she gets the better of him, is the man justified in shooting her dead? and does he bear any moral responsibility for her death?

according to you, i think the answer is an unqualified, cheering, chest thumping, "FVCK NO!"

lemme modify...

according to you should be according to many of Zimmerman's defenders

I really do think both sides would call Zimmerman a responsible gun owner.

During a police interview shortly after the shooting, Zimmerman claimed that he had forgotten that he was carrying his firearm.

Nuff said.

(so he became a white Hispanic--a new ethnic category)

That's weird. I've sometimes wavered when filling out standard forms that include categories like "White (not Hispanic)" and "Hispanic (of any race)," only because I'm not really sure if I fit the definition of being "Hispanic." Those forms generally also have a category of "Black (not Hispanic)."

The fact that I'm not really sure if I'm white and Hispanic or just plain, old white with an insufficient amount of Latin ancestry to be considered a Hispanic white person has kept me aware of these categories on forms like surveys, tax returns, job applications, university admissions, etc. I've been filling out forms with these categories for decades, so it's news to me that "white Hispanic" is something new.

Because, you know, *following* and *rudeness* is inherently and justifiably provocative.

The difference between me and the left is that I'd let the guy getting beat up for what to me seems a grossly inadequate reason to shoot in self defense.

Leaving aside that Zimmerman's actions were not simply rude, but also threateningly weird, the argument (once again!) isn't that Martin was justified in beating Zimmerman up. It's that Zimmerman's actions over the course of several minutes before the final confrontation were unnecessary and precipitated his need for self-defense. I don't think anyone is claiming that, were Martin alive, he shouldn't have faced assault charges (as a juvenile, mind you) for beating up Zimmerman (the "adult").

And I don't think Zimmerman's body would have been quite so busy in the first place had he not been armed. His wanna-be-ness wouldn't have wanted to be quite so much if he weren't embolded by his carrying a loaded pistol.

With all that, I think you agree more than you think you do about Zimmerman's actions, since you're even willing to call him a busy-body and a wanna-be (you socialist, you).

At any point in any of the recorded conversations, during some of which Martin was at least within hailing distance, did Zimmerman identify himself as neighborhood watch?

And no creeper would ever lie about being a quasi-authority figure...

It would involve staying on the main roads, not stopping but not running, and trying to establish if it was neighborhood watch if there was a well it corner. It would NOT involve cutting through other peoples yards as he runs away.

So 1)it's possible that Martin didn't have a good spot to stop to identify Zimmerman, 2)I dont know how you flee a car while staying on the sidewalk, and 3)Martin may not have done the *optimal* things, but 17-year-olds sometimes do cut through yards, and this normally isn't considered punishable by death. Nor is this 'suspicious' when being tailed by a stranger.

That's not what Zimmerman reported as the initial exchange. Either she is lying, or he is. If he is, there's not one damned thing wrong with Martin's response. And, if she's telling the truth, Zimmerman is a damned liar, and in fact a perjurer.

Furthermore, her story is entirely consistant with the prosecution case and the situation up until the actual confrontation (ie that Martin was fleeing, Zimmerman was pursuing). Whereas the defense case is that Martin turned into the spree-killer of Brett's imagination, jumping Zimmermand repeatedly threatening to kill him. The funny part of that to me is that Zimmerman's self-defense case would still work if he had initially verbally confronted Martin and was attacked & feared for his life- so Brett's caricature spree killer "thug" (eg "You're gonna die tonight mfer") is both entirely unbelievable and unnecessary.
It also happens to be the most symapthetic story Zimmerman could tell, short of Martin wielding a lethal weapon of some kind that later evaporated.

Because Martin was kicking his @ss. Zimmerman picked the wrong kid to harrass.

That's the beauty of Zimmerman carrying a gun to this fight. If he wins the fight, he's the manly man who beat up the criminal. If he loses, BAM, and he's the only witness to testify about what happened.
That is, if Martin had the broken nose, this would never have made the newspaper.

Unless *Martin* has the gun. Then he shoots Zimmerman once they're off of the street, and Martin gets to tell the story as he wants to. And Brett would surely believe Martin 100% as long as his story was consistent with the physical evidence.

The first words the dispatcher spoke to Zimmerman were: "Do you need police, fire or medical?"

They were actually "Sanford Police Department".

When you find yourself making up facts and quotes, you should examine your motivations. And Id thought of you as a person who, when they quoted something, had more to go on then 'I bet it went something like this.'

"what most people here seem to want is some acknowledgement that Zimmerman was not attacked out of the blue for unknown reasons;"

No, it wasn't out of the blue. It was for grossly, mind bogglingly inadequate reason, but it's not like Martin picked somebody at random to beat the crap out of. There are reasons it was Zimmerman, and not somebody else.

Just not good enough reasons to make Zimmerman the bad guy in this.

Basically, what I see here, is an alternate history where Zimmerman attacked Martin, with all the evidence proving it's BS elided, and evidence supporting it fabricated out of whole cloth.

There is no physical evidence either way as to who escalated to an altercation. As has been pointed out to you before, there are dozens of ways to start a physical altercation and many don't leave huge marks eg a shove, a grab, a tackle/grapple, a missed or grazing strike, a punch to the body, a chest-bump, an attempt to lock up a joint (eg armlock).
If I start a fight with Floyd Mayweather, he will likely not have a stratch on him when its over. And by Brett's Rules of Evidence, this will mean Mayweather started the fight because he's black because Im the one beaten up at the end.

Why am I supposed to assume Zimmerman's account of what went down is wrong, when it has the advantage of being consistent with both the physical evidence

Lots of stories are consistent with the physical evidence. You pick the one that makes you happy (or, like russell, you admit that there are several possible stories). In this case, it makes you happy that the 17-year-old on a trip to the corner store is a "thug" who "picked" Zimmerman out to "beat to death". I wouldn't think you were a racist if you thought Zimmerman was innocent because Martin attacked him out of fear of being persistently followed by a stranger at night. But your invocation of words like "thug" and your implication that Martin *wanted* to kill Zimmerman are far beyond this.

The difference between me and the left is that I'd let the guy getting beat up for what to me seems a grossly inadequate reason to shoot in self defense.

The difference between you and the left is that we can imagine ourselves in either role: Zimmerman's or Martin's. Or one of our kids. So far you have only demonstrated the ability to empathize with Zimmerman's position and actions, to the point of demonizing Martin.
That is, you clearly have a side. Id think it was about defending the gun owner/user, but then there's the "thug" stuff that makes me think otherwise. Or maybe it's both. But you're clearly not able to imagine your kid being followed/chased by an armed stranger at night, then a fight started by someone, then your kid getting shot and killed.

I just want to say that if any of you are ever trying to get away from a creepy guy who is stalking you, you have my permission to cut through my yard. Please do.

you have my permission to cut through my yard. Please do.

Even if I'm wearing my grey hoodie?

They were actually "Sanford Police Department".

It turns out that you're right. CNN has had an incorrect transcript posted for over a year, now.

I am wrong on this particular point.

But the guy who answered the telephone is just one of many people (about 30, by his testimony) who answer non-emergency calls for various police, fire and medical services in the area.

As you might expect, his testimony was included in George Zimmerman's trial, and can be seen here, just for reference.

There are various recordings of the call available which I am sure that most of you have listened to. If not, I recommend giving one a listen. Zimmerman doesn't sound like someone hell-bent on accosting another person; he doesn't sound angry or even particularly tense other than he wants to keep this person, who was someone walking through his neighborhood that he didn't recognize, in sight. But this is mostly about perceptions, and yours probably is a different one.

Noffke's testimony (if you sit through it) was to the effect that dispatchers are not allowed to instruct people to take actions for liability reasons. So it seems that my point is made, here: this was not an instruction.

Which is my only point, here.

No skittles, though!

Cleek, I think the male/female dynamic changes a lot of things about this scenario, and I was mindful of that when I made my comments. The entire threat dynamic/paradigm shifts, which means your reply avoids my main point. Woman are far more vulnerable due to the inherent strength and sexual overlay. It would be interesting to know whether Zimmerman voluntarily closed the distance between him and Martin or whether he remained far enough away to not pose an immediate physical threat. We all have a 'space' that, if encroached by a stranger at night produces a completely different response than a stranger maintaining a respectable distance, whatever that might be.

I think Martin was a thug because of the evidence barred from the courtroom, and mostly omitted from news coverage, but which is none the less available to those interested. The loot from burglaries found in his school locker. The facebook postings. The contents of his cell phone. Martin was a thug. Not the angelic 12 year old of early media profiles. A thug.

Inconvenient, but that's the truth. He was exactly the sort of guy you WOULD expect to assault somebody. And probably walk off with their wallet afterwards.

But the guy who answered the telephone is just one of many people (about 30, by his testimony) who answer non-emergency calls for various police, fire and medical services in the area.

did Zimmerman know that, during the call?

if i call the police to report a situation in which i am actively engaged and the first thing i hear is "Pittsboro Police Department", i am going assume i'm talking with someone who knows a thing or two about the kinds of situations police deal with, and i'm going to do what they say unless the situation goes critical.

but that's just me.

Zimmerman was already more familiar with the police and they're procedures than i am.

they're = their, up there

"Just not good enough reasons to make Zimmerman the bad guy in this."

Posted by: Brett Bellmore

Wrong again, as usual. Zimmerman took a gun and went after a guy. If you're walking down the street and are confronted by an armed man, you have the right to defend yourself.

did Zimmerman know that, during the call?

How would I know that? Maybe, maybe not.

The guy didn't identify himself as Officer Sean, so my assumption would be not. But I am not George Zimmerman.

But my other guess would be that given Zimmerman had been a member of Neightborhood Watch for as long as he was, and given that he'd been on another ~45 such phone calls with the police, that he'd have some idea of the infrastructure he's dealing with.

Just my guesses; no particular relevancy.

Zimmerman doesn't sound like someone hell-bent on accosting another person; he doesn't sound angry or even particularly tense other than he wants to keep this person, who was someone walking through his neighborhood that he didn't recognize, in sight

He sounds like someone who thinks that Martin was on drugs, acting strangely, and reaching into his waistband (presumably for a weapon). That is, he sounds like someone prepared to make assumptions that this kid was a dangerous, drugged-up criminal based on almost zero evidence. And he emphatically does not want this dangerous drugged up criminal to 'get away with it' this time.
Of course, that's based on the *words* Zimmerman used, not some generous attempt to interpret his tone.

He was exactly the sort of guy you WOULD expect to assault somebody. And probably walk off with their wallet afterwards.

Certainly not because he had ever done anything like that before in his life (whereas Zimmerman does have a history of violence, yet you havent exactly called him a thug). So I assume by "exactly the sort" you mean "black", since there's no other explanation that I can see.

Martin was a thug.

You are a racist, plain and simple. Im kinda done with this cesspool of a conversation.

(presumably for a weapon)

sounds like a generous interpretation.

But I have a question for the non-rabid posters here. Zimmerman's attorney is now pronouncing Trayvon Martin as a gun runner and drug dealer. Can his parents take him to court for defamation? Is there any recourse at all from these kind of disgusting statements?

Unless Florida law is unusual in this respect too, there's no such thing as defaming the dead. I suspect these are warning shots about what will get spread around about Martin if the parents sue Zimmerman civilly for wrongful death.


I think Martin was a thug because of the evidence barred from the courtroom, and mostly omitted from news coverage, but which is none the less available to those interested.

Please spare us the suspense, Brett. I know you can post links.

Oh it's already spread around, by the likes of Brett right here. There may be no law against defaming the dead, but that wouldn't prevent us from banning him from ObWi, in defense of fundamental human decency, would it? Just asking.

sounds like a generous interpretation

I cannot think of a reason- other than the suggestion of a weapon- for Zimmerman to mention that Martin had a hand in his waistband. But by all means, just because I can't think of one doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
Maybe Zimmerman thought Martin would still have his hand in his waistband 10 minutes later when the cops rolled up, and that this detail would be useful for identifying him?

Please spare us the suspense, Brett.

It's much better as innuendo than fact:
-Martin (probably) smoked some pot
-Martin graffiti'ed a wall (or stood by while a friend did it- he was a party to it anyway)
-Martin had several watches and 'a burglary tool' (aka 'a screwdriver', apparently Ive got a basement full of burglary tools who knew). He wasn't charged with anything.
-Martin sometimes does not wear a shirt and allows his photograph to be taken. He even strikes poses or makes faces (aka 'menacing', if one is scared of teh blackness).

Zimmerman was arrested for assaulting a cop and had a girlfriend take out a restraining order after alleging domestic violence.

Brett thinks one of these people is a thug. But it's not based on skin color, oh no, it's based on how smoking weed and using a marker on a wall is symptomatic of a sick, violent, dangerous individual, a time bomb waiting to explode on innocent woman-hitter George Zimmerman.

McKinney speculates: My take away, given the skin game, is this: going forward, by the logic of the left, if a young white male, 6'2", is being followed and questioned offensively by a smaller, older black male, the white male has sufficient provocation to beat the hell out of the black male and the black male, if armed and if he is otherwise unable to defend himself, may not shoot in self defense.

Tex, come'on man. Try to be a little fair. The terms "sufficient provocation" and "otherwise unable to defend himself" are carrying a lot of weight here. I mean really. We have no independent way to evaluate an alleged "provocation" nor do we have any idea of the extent to which woeful George was able to defend himself. There are other options to just shooting somebody. Assuming the shot was not fired when he was pinned down (like you, I do not know the ballistics or even if there was a report), he could have simply ran away. He was not physically disabled by the terrible assault.

IMHO in response to your scenario: Given the circumstances you posit, shooting the other person is not justifiable. An attack by fist does not justify a death sentence. By anybody.

If I wanted to get snide, I'd say ,b>"the right's" logic would be to conclude that the little black guy could justifiably be lynched, because that's how you roll.

In this instance, I shall refrain from going there. Have a nice day.

For that matter, I know you can use a search engine. But I'll save you the trouble:

Trayvon Martin’s Involvement In Local Burglaries Covered Up By Media, School, Police, Prosecutors

Or, Gun, drug texts feature in new Trayvon Martin shooting evidence

No of this should come as a surprise to anybody who has followed the case enough to be entitled to an opinion.

I cannot think of a reason- other than the suggestion of a weapon- for Zimmerman to mention that Martin had a hand in his waistband.

Where I live, people walking around with their hands stuck in the waistband of their trousers would be viewed with much askance-ness. Normally hands-in-pants behavior is not considered polite in a public context.

Cultural norms may vary, but I live less than 30 miles away from Zimmerman's house, so I suspect that we share some sense of askance-ness at such behavior.

s/polite/"socially acceptable"

For that matter, I know you can use a search engine.

Sure, but I can't search for "stuff Brett's basing his opinion on." That, and you're the one putting forth characterizations of Martin based on things you already know.

In any case, I never had any need to believe Martin was some sort of angel to think that Zimmerman shouldn't have handled himself the way he did, mostly because Zimmerman had no way of knowing a damned thing about Martin's past.

And, frankly, Martin's past isn't such that I would consider him a thug, meaning someone of a particularly violent nature. He was no angel, but not a thug, either - not that it has any bearing on Zimmerman's culpability.

Mostly, I wanted you to show us what you had on him, so I would know whether or not it was the same weak sauce that I had already seen. As it turns out, it was.

Trayvon Martin’s Involvement In Local Burglaries Covered Up By Media, School, Police, Prosecutors

Yes, it's a big conspiracy on the part of every level of the Florida state government to cover up crimes committed by blacks.
OR, you're not just a racist, you're a gullible racist.

I mean, the evidence here includes things such as- he took a selfie flipping off the camera. That is part of your evidence that this kid was a walking time-bomb, a clear and present danger to every wife beater concerned citizen out there.

Where I live, people walking around with their hands stuck in the waistband of their trousers would be viewed with much askance-ness.

True, and that's why I think Zimmerman was either lying or mistaken when he said he saw that.

I mean, Martin did not have a gun. So there was no reason to be walking around with his hand in his wasteband. But Zimmerman thought Martin was a dangerous criminal and probably was worried that he'd be armed, so Zimmerman would be primed to expect a weapon, whether or not there was one. And he probably figured that if he said he saw that, the police would be more likely to respond.

Where I live, people walking around with their hands stuck in the waistband of their trousers would be viewed with much askance-ness. Normally hands-in-pants behavior is not considered polite in a public context.

You are now moving tangential to the point. The question was whether the hand-in-waistband was suggestive of a weapon. I said yes. You said maybe not. So how *common* it is is irrelevant. If Zimmerman isn't suggesting that Martin is armed, do you have another explanation for his mentioning this detail? All of his other details are relevant to the matter at hand (ie concerning risk factors, identifying factors, intercations, locations, etc). So afaict this was suggesting a weapon, or this was Zimmerman's one conversational break where he just starting saying whatever came into his mind. "Ok he's staring at me now... hey, you see season five of The Wire? Watched it last night, blew me away... ok, now he's running".

School officials searched Martin's backpack after he was caught writing 'WTF' on a locker.

They found 12 pieces of woman's jewelry, a watch, and a 'burglary tool'.

The 'burglary tool' was a flat-head screwdriver.

A photo and description of the jewelry was sent to police, in case it had been reported stolen. The jewelry did not match anything that had been reported stolen.

No other evidence supporting the claim that the jewelry was stolen, much less that Martin himself stole it, has been presented.

From the Boston Globe, which is of course Pravda on the Charles, so it's probably just a part of the Big Cover Up.

To pre-empt further attempts at maligning the dead, Martin was suspended for the graffiti incident, and again for cutting school and being tardy, and again for holding some weed.

Thug life, fa realz.

Really Brett, you may not be a total ass, but you certainly know how to play one.

True, and that's why I think Zimmerman was either lying or mistaken when he said he saw that.

I agree- just like thinking Martin was on drugs, acting "wrong", up to no good, casing houses, etc. Zimmerman was clearly eager to classify Martin as a dangerous armed criminal, and his observations sound like what he expected to see rather than what he was actually seeing.

Also, this, in response to Brett's earlier contention that Zimmerman would've certainly been killed or crippled by the attack had it continued:

"[Zimmerman's injuries] were not life-threatening. They were very insignificant," Rao told the Seminole County criminal court jury.... medical examiner Rao said Zimmerman's injuries did not involve great force and were consistent with one blow to the face and one impact with the concrete.

She's probably just another part of the vast government conspiracy protecting black people.

"Where I live, people walking around with their hands stuck in the waistband of their trousers would be viewed with much askance-ness. Normally hands-in-pants behavior is not considered polite in a public context.

Cultural norms may vary, but I live less than 30 miles away from Zimmerman's house, so I suspect that we share some sense of askance-ness at such behavior."

Posted by: Slartibartfast |

You're a great dancer, Slart - you've shimmied from a justification for armed pursuit and confrontation to 'not considered polite'.

The whole incident was a horrible misunderstanding.

The whole incident was a horrible misunderstanding.

I'd venture to say it still is......

Over here defaming the dead can get you up to two years behind bars. But don't forget, Germany is a fascist police state not a bastion of liberty like Florida.

That's right, Hartmut, and don't forget it. Over here you can't get in trouble for telling the TRUTH about the living or the dead. Not even the inconvenient truth.

AL SHARPTON!

You can, however, get in serious trouble for buying Skittles and wearing a hoodie. To the applause of multitudes, Brett included.

Just to be fair, I followed up Brett's links. From which:

"Is the defense trying to prove Trayvon deserved to be killed by George Zimmerman because (of) the way he looked?" Crump said in a statement released Thursday.

"If so, this stereotypical and closed-minded thinking is the same mindset that caused George Zimmerman to get out of his car and pursue Trayvon, an unarmed kid who he didn't know."

But Brett knows better. Kid flipped the bird on camera, deserves to die!! Especially since the Man With The Gun [tm] must have a reason for what he did. Axiomatic, to Brett.

Sheesh.

"Is the defense trying to prove Trayvon deserved to be killed by George Zimmerman because (of) the way he looked?"

Nah, they were trying, apparently successfully, to rid the jury of the notion being pushed by the media that Martin was an angelic 12 year old, and bring that perception into alignment with the actual evidence.

Let's just pretend that the trial was a weighing of evidence of guilt or innocence of the perp rather than a venue for passing judgment on the character of the victim.

Pretending that, there really isn't any grounds for introducing a picture of Martin that Zimmerman presumably never saw where Martin is flipping off the camera. Even Brett makes it clear that the purpose here was painting a picture of Martin that made his death acceptable- not proving that Zimmerman's unlikely story was true or that he feared for his life, but flat out smearing the victim with information completely unrelated to the incident at hand.

Apparently the Justice of Brett's imagination likes a peek over the blindfold to see if the victim is a n&$$^@ or not. And he's totally fine with that, that's the way it's supposed to be- I mean, you've got to put a finger on the scales against black people since the media and government are shilling for them at every opportunity.

If only America could see its way to giving an equal chance to the white man! Then all this fiddling with the scales wouldn't be necessary.

If wearing sweatshirts, holding weed, defacing school property, petty theft and vandalism, talking trash about girls, getting in dumb-ass fights, and flipping the bird to whatever camera is pointed at you makes you a thug worthy of death, I don't think I or a single one of my buddies from my teen years would be alive today.

Just saying.

Maybe Brett was always a good boy and never did any of those bad bad things.

Let's just pretend that the character of the dead guy is relevant to assessing the probability that he actually was the aggressor, and that if he were a choir boy just back from doing charity work for the blind, a rational person would be a bit more skeptical about Zimmerman's story.

imho, it's not really worth it getting angry at Brett. It merely has him google furiously for more evidence of thuggishness. It would be great if he realized why he is so implacably decided on the fact that Travyon was destined to die at the hands of George Zimmerman, but the event that would get him to reconsider would certainly not be any words he reads on a computer screen, it would be something so tragic and close to home in real life that I really wouldn't wish it on any one, no matter how much of an ass they are. Especially since wishing that sort of thing on people is really not conducive to any kind of mental equilibrium I would hope for.

http://mobile.thegrio.com/thegrio/#!/entry/71yearold-black-man-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-jury-rejects-stand,5124f9c5d7fc7b56703b5d2f

Standing his ground = guilty

cleek, that link only leads me to the main page not the story.

I got to it through the search option now. This sentence jumped at me:

...James had his hands around Dooley’s neck and was trying to reach for his gun.

Was James at least three handed? That's sounds as (cuttle?)fishy as GZ's story to me.

And I'm not particularly angry at you guys, I know nothing will cause you to care about the evidence of Martin's thugishness. Individual cases aren't about the individuals in your world, they're just interchangeable instances of the social phenomenon you care about.

So the near certainly that Martin attacked Zimmerman, and would still be alive today if he hadn't, just doesn't matter to you. Because it's not about Martin or Zimmerman, is it?

Zimmerman got in legal trouble before the trial for deliberately lying to the court about his assets. The man seems to have trouble telling the truth. Shouldn't that affect how we weigh his story? I mean, how many lies do we have to catch him in before we assume that he's untrustworthy?

Brett, I didn't claim you were angry with anyone. I told other people they shouldn't bother being angry with you. I have a suspicion that you keep staking out these extreme positions and refusing to acknowledge any points on the other side because you want people to take a swing at you and then you can portray yourself as a put upon minority and the only person who is thinking clearly, but that's just my feeling. But if you don't care for that speculation, you may want to stop speculating on what people on this board care or don't care about.

So the near certainly that Martin attacked Zimmerman

a.) Not proven, and certainly not even "anywhere near" a certainty.
b.) I'm curious as to why Zimmerman's testimony is pertinent to the case, but that testimony could not be cross examined. Perhaps one of you attorneys could tell me. McKinney?

I assume many here have now heard the interview with the juror. God help us.

Let's just pretend that the character of the dead guy is relevant to assessing the probability that he actually was the aggressor

Cool. Let's get into it.

Here's the public record I can find of Martin's propensity to violence, as captured from his cell phone and published by online conservative truth-tellers.

Watch them if you dare.

Martin referees a 'street fight', so called because it apparently occurs in a paved area.

Or this RARE VIDEO of Martin FIGHTING!!!! As in, boxing with a friend of his, with gloves on. They spar for a minute and then tap gloves. SCARY!!!!!

Or this EXPLOSIVE!!!! video of 'somebody Martin knew' 'fighting' a 'homeless man' over a bike, which someone else Martin 'may or may not have known' then rode away on, which (per Zimmerman's own attorneys, in a public exercise in crow-eating) turns out to be Martin's more or less random cell phone video of two random guys fighting in a fairly lame manner over a bike.

Zimmerman's history of aggressive behavior prior to the night of Martin's death:

Arrested for resisting arrest with violence and for battery of a police officer.

Restraining order granted by former fiancee for alleged domestic violence.

If we're going to evaluate the respective character of the folks involved, let's look at both.

By all means, dive in and explain how Zimmerman's history is not relevant, or not as it seems, or just a result of him being unfairly characterized as a hothead.

He didn't really mean to punch that cop!!

Really, if you want to keep wearing the dumbass hat, I'm happy to play as long as you like.

It'll be entertaining, for a little while longer anyway.

Individual cases aren't about the individuals in your world

What you know about my world would, perhaps, on a good day, fit in a thimble.

IMO, what you know about most anyone's world other than your own, likewise. Just my opinion, based on any and everything you've ever written here.

Sorry, here is the 'RARE VIDEO OF TRAYVON MARTIN FIGHTING!!!'.

Really, please watch it. It will make your blood run cold with fear.

I meant to follow up my long comment about Trayvon Martin with another about George Zimmerman.

Zimmerman lied about where he initially saw, and where he sat in his truck watching, Trayvon. Why?

Zimmerman failed to mention to the NEN dispatcher that he had moved his truck and was following behind Trayvon. He also initially failed to tell Inv. Singleton about this movement until she caught on to the omission. Why?

Zimmerman lied about why he left he left his truck, repeatedly stating that he'd done so to find a street sign or an address to give to the NEN dispatcher. Inv. Singleton finally caught him out when they listened to the NEN call - that, in fact, he left his truck immediately after saying, "Sh!t, he's running."

Zimmerman lied about why he failed to return to his truck after agreeing with the NEN dispatcher that he needn't follow 'the suspect.' (In his written statement, and later to Inv. Serino, he makes it clear that he understood the dispatcher to mean "Don't follow"). When asked why he didn't immediately return to his truck, he responded that he still wanted to get an address, and that he already knew the name of the street ahead of him.

Once again, Zimmerman lied about getting an address. There he was, allegedly standing amidst several homes on Retreat View Circle ("my street"), and he utterly fails to give one to the NEN dispatcher when he's finally asked for an address at which the incoming LEO can meet him. When he's first asked for an address at which his truck is parked, he simply answered that it was parked at a cut-through without an address. But, then he agreed to meet the LEO at his truck. After that, he agreed to meet the LEO at the mailboxes. Finally, he interrupted the dispatcher to ask that the LEO call him and "I"ll tell him where I'm at." Why?

All those addresses to choose from, and he doesn't mention a single one. Why?

Zimmerman lied about immediately returning to his truck; he could have done so when he agreed with the NEN dispatcher to not follow, after he said "He ran" with the implication that 'the suspect' had disappeared, and at anytime both during and after the NEN call ended.

Instead, Zimmerman continued to hunt for Trayvon. Why?

Zimmerman lied about Trayvon jumping out from behind bushes to summarily attack him. Why?

Zimmerman lied about how Trayvon punched him in the nose at the T, immediately got on top of him to repeatedly punch his face and bash his head, and cover his nose and mouth. Why?

Zimmerman elided the movement south of the T before he did the reenactment, when he muttered about somehow getting up at the T and moving past a tree, while seeming to swat at gnats behind him. He elided how he ended up 40 feet south of the T, near which was all the evidence except for one small flashlight attached to a key-ring (and which was on). Why?

More importantly, Zimmerman elided how, upon standing up (if he ever fell down in the first place) and upon being able to move unimpeded (he implied that Trayvon was behind him), he chose to move southward (towards Trayvon's destination) rather than westward to his truck. Why?

Zimmerman altogether lied, when he could get away with it, about following Trayvon in his truck, why he sought to follow on foot, why he remained in the area when he could have left to meet the LEO, how Trayvon allegedly approached and decked and battered him at the T, and why he chose to proceed with the 'struggle' when he could have very easily retreated to his truck.

But, yeah, let's believe Zimmerman.

About Zimmerman's injuries, the screams, and the gun shot.

We already know that Zimmerman lied about not looking for Trayvon, and about getting battered at the T.

His injuries consisted of abrasions and minor bruising on forehead and scalp; two tiny scalp lacerations (smallest 0.19 inch, largest 0.78 inch) requiring no sutures and no special treatment beyond soap and water; one scratch on the right side of his nose, one "likely" broken nose; and two small scratches on the tip of his nose.

Within 30 minutes of this wrestling match, alleged beating, the fear of his opponent reaching for his gun and telling him "You're gonna tonight, mother---er," Zimmerman's physical stats were absolutely normal - breathing and pulse, pupil reaction, skin color and temperature, etc. - with clear mucous membranes and having had no loss of consciousness and no pain in his neck and back. This according to the paramedic's report, who otherwise described the injuries as "minor."

EMTs cannot force a conscious person to go to the hospital, and Zimmerman refused to do so. He repeated this refusal when asked by police officers later at the station. He only went to his doctor late the next morning, after first going to his workplace, and did so only because his employer wanted a doctor's note.

His doctor noted those two small lacerations, and a "likely" broken nose. Zimmerman refused the ENT referral, which would have provided the correct diagnosis.

Could Trayvon have punched Zimmerman in the nose, either directly or in defense? Of course. We just don't know. Were there other possibilities for all injuries? Oh, yes; in the dark on wet pavement and grass, running and wrestling amidst bare tree branches, signage, sidewalks, utility covers, and sprinkler heads. Gun recoil in close quarters, shell casing ejection in close quarters (up and to the right).

What's not possible is the story Zimmerman told.

But, remember, it wasn't in reaction to his 'beating' that caused Zimmerman to reach for his gun. It was his 'feeling' that Trayvon had "seen or felt his gun" and began "reaching for it," with a phrase that comes right out of 70s blaxpoitation or Dirty Harry films.

Zimmerman's gun was holstered on his waistband in the small of his back. Unless he had previously showed or indicated its presence, Trayvon would not have been able to see or feel the gun, particularly in the dark, but even in sunshine with Zimmerman lying on it. Neither could Zimmerman have stopped Trayvon's right arm allegedly reaching across Zimmerman's torso with just his bicep. And Zimmerman could not possibly have reached for and retrieved his gun in the manner he described.

What Zimmerman's scenario doesn't take into account, besides its implausibility, is that Trayvon stretching his right arm and hand while mounted atop Zimmerman would leave his left arm and hand unable to cover Zimmerman's nose/mouth as Zimmerman described. The movement would also leave Trayvon unbalanced, with his weight leaning over to his left. Which would have made it even more impossible for Zimmerman to get his gun - and to fire it - as he portrayed.

Zimmerman, in his statements, confirmed that he had "wrist control" (pain compliance hold) of Trayvon, that he had time to worry about his own left hand that was holding onto Trayvon, and that he was able to "aim and fire."

None of this makes sense, except that it strongly tells us it was Zimmerman in physical control of the situation. So, who would be screaming? The guy who followed and hunted the teenager, who refused to go to his truck to meet the LEO when he had plenty of chances to do so, who repeatedly lied and made up an implausible story, who had physical control and was armed with a gun? Or the teenager who had run away from his follower/pursuer, who obviously sought to get away from his pursuer, who was being physically held, and who was facing a gun?

There is no evidence that Zimmerman was ever in reasonable fear of grave harm or death. There is evidence, however, that Trayvon was.

"Individual cases aren't about the individuals in your world, they're just interchangeable instances of the social phenomenon you care about."

Made in a general sort of way, that often happens when a particular case is made to stand for a social ill, so yeah, good point in that respect. I gather parts of the press really botched the coverage of the case in their desire to make it a super-simple morality play. Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler really tore into MSNBC on that account last year. I mostly stayed away from close coverage of the story, since I know in general that white racism is alive and well, and whatever the details of this story are won't change that. And I had no emotional reaction to the news of the verdict--maybe the jurors, given the evidence in front of them, did exactly the right thing. (I haven't seen the interview someone mentioned above).

But in this thread, Brett, it's clearly you who is focused in monomaniacal style on the flaws of the victim--people keep pointing out Zimmerman's own more dubious history and you keep ignoring it. It's like you've got a narrative in your mind that depends on Zimmerman being an honest guy just defending himself and Martin being the incarnation of white America's fears of young black men. Whereas I think a lot of your opponents are willing to grant that Martin wasn't an angel and Zimmerman should have been acquitted , but think he likely bears a lot of moral blame for what happened. It's a reasonable position, and you treat it like it's something radical. For you, treating these two people as individuals means elevating Zimmerman to blameless hero status and making Martin into a would-be killer.

I'm in decent shape for my age, but have no illusions about my fighting ability, and would be rather reluctant (setting aside all moral considerations and just considering my own personal safety) to follow around a teenage boy who was taller than me and probably in better shape, first by car and then by foot. I'd have the quite rational fear that teenage boys sometimes react in macho ways. Isn't this just common sense? Again setting aside the reasons why I might even want to do this in the first place, the only way I'd feel halfway confident is if I had a gun. Which means that if I followed him then I'd be thinking "Well, this is risky and might provoke a fight, but if it does I can shoot him." To me that would make me bear most of the blame for what happened, even if at the time I thought the boy was a possible burglar, because that fight could happen whether or not the boy was a possible burglar.

This is why ordinary citizens aren't supposed to follow around others if they think them suspicious, but report them to the police. Or anyway I thought that was how it was supposed to work. (And sapient, much as it no doubt pains you to hear this, I agree with your authoritarianism on this if not on some other issues.)

Where are you getting all this, nemerinys?

This is from MSNBC onlie news, but a year ago:
Court documents obtained by msnbc.com on Tuesday evening show that George Zimmerman, who fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, went to court in 2005 and 2006 for accusations of domestic violence, tussling with a police officer and speeding.

The three incidents took place in Orange County, Fla.
•In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program. Contemporaneous accounts indicate he shoved an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking at an Orange County bar.
•In August 2005, Zimmerman’s ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman counterfiled for a restraining order against Zuazo. The competing claims were resolved with both restraining orders being granted.

Why would it be "open-minded" for us to consider Trayvon Martin a thug, when it was Zimmerman who had the history of violent behavior?

Whereas I think a lot of your opponents are willing to grant that Martin wasn't an angel and Zimmerman should have been acquitted , but think he likely bears a lot of moral blame for what happened. It's a reasonable position, and you treat it like it's something radical. For you, treating these two people as individuals means elevating Zimmerman to blameless hero status and making Martin into a would-be killer.

Thank you! (Everloving Christ almighty, thank you...)

Sorry, here is the 'RARE VIDEO OF TRAYVON MARTIN FIGHTING!!!'.

Really, please watch it. It will make your blood run cold with fear.

I did that in the J Hall bathroom in high school - suburbanite, minivan-driving, father-of-four, engineer that I am. Yeah, scary stuff there.

And we have no evidence whatsoever that Trayon threw the first punch.

What we have is Zimmerman's statement to police on the scene:

----
" Yet, Zimmerman told Detectives that Martin punched him in the nose so hard that he "fell to the ground when he punched me the first time" and that he was "punched in the nose 25 to 30 times.""
----

and what we have is the autopsy report - http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/05/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf

which states at "Evidence of Injury" at page 3 - apart from the gunshot wound, Martin had a single small abrasion on his left fourth finger. You'll note that it is this which was blown up by wingnut misinformation as "bloody knuckles".

How exactly do you go about punching someone to the ground and raining 25 to 30 punches to their nose without taking damage to your hands?

What we have is evidence of Zimmerman lying to cops on the scene about the punching.


hairshirthedonist
- From discovery materials, FDLE lab reports, Zimmerman's physician report, NEN and 911 audio tapes, audio tapes of police interviews, videotape of reenactment, CCTV tapes, and maps.

Discovery materials include police reports and narrations, FDLE interviews with police officers and witnesses, Serino interviews and reports as well as capias, autopsy, EMT medical report, etc.

Where I live, adults do not have the right to be persistently on the six of adolescents, male or female. And if that stops just one child rape, while unleashing a plague of hoodie wearing locusts to plunder every single flat screen TV and i-everything from Cape Herschel to Point Pelee and from Cape Spear to Clayquot Sound, that's fine with me.

I don't thank my Creator every day that I live in Canada, not the US, but today I have a deep and abiding gratitude for our laws, particularly the gun laws that make most forms of armed self defence unlawful or impractical, for everybody.

"You know what's scary? The utter predictability of this thread, that's what.

I am not "profiling" anybody here. I'm simply refusing to pretend that I did not foresee Brett, Marty, Slarti, or McTx viewing the case entirely differently from Russell, hairshirt, Laura, or the Count, to name but a few."

I'd have to go back and look at all the posts and see, but in a sane world a responsible gun owner who believed in a citizen's right to self defense by handgun would want to distance themselves from Zimmerman--it's one thing to be walking along minding your own business and then be jumped and quite another to follow a 17 year old around, an action which might very well trigger a confrontation that most sensible people try to avoid. (Again, this is why we have that institution most conservatives support known as the police.) In that sane world what would be happening is that unscrupulous lefties would try to tar all conservatives and gun owners as potential Zimmermans and the conservatives and responsible gun owners would justifiably label this as a smear. In a crazy world the "conservatives" and "responsible gun owners" would embrace Zimmerman as one of their own.

So which world is this one? Like I say, I haven't been paying close attention.

"I did that in the J Hall bathroom in high school - suburbanite, minivan-driving, father-of-four, engineer that I am. Yeah, scary stuff there."

This, plus russells earlier exposition on what he and his friends did, means ya'll managed to grow up presumably without getting in a lot of trouble. It certainly doesn't mean they weren't wrong. Do you really justify those things as "everybody did them"?

I did my share of things that I remember as stupid, dangerous and wrong.

I don't care if he is a thug or a choirboy in this context, the mistakes he made here could have been made by either. But "I did that when I was a 17" is not a particularly strong argument against the likelihood he jumped Zimmerman for following him.

I have been thinking about what to say about the notion that has been floated to the effect that Trayvon was in fact some kind of street fighter who used his skills honed through repeated bouts to quickly debilitate and dominate Zimmerman.

And I have to say that people tend to overlook that any kind of bare-knuckle fighting will, through any repetition at all, result in scarred and calloused knuckles. You would not believe how much it hurts and damages your knuckles to punch something hard, as you would be punching someone in the face. And it takes practice, hitting something repeatedly so that you can hit where you want and how you want every time.

I would think such scarring on the knuckles would be dead obvious to a medical examiner, and so I think it means something that we didn't see any mention of it.

So. Make of that what you will. It's nothing new, and probably others have thought of it first.

My whole point here is that when considering evidence, planting your flag on some bit of information and pointing to it like it really means what you think it does is flat-out unwise (even when I do it) if done before competing facts are considered with due weight.

So, for instance, bringing up that George Zimmerman had a restraining order granted against him for domestic violence means something less, I say, when the fact that his restraining order against the other party in the altercation, for the same reasons, was also granted. Not that this means Zimmerman never had issues, just that maybe there were additional factors that merit consideration.

That's really my only point, here. Not: Zimmerman was completely justified in killing Trayvon Martin. Not: Zimmerman was a total racist that was aching to shoot him a black man. Maybe something more nuanced, if you will; maybe a point of view that considers and weighs all of the facts and not just the ones floated by the narrative I have fastened myself to.

It's what I'm trying for, and probably failing to achieve. But I don't see anything wrong with striving in that direction.

But "I did that when I was a 17" is not a particularly strong argument against the likelihood he jumped Zimmerman for following him.

The total destruction of a line of argument that nobody here has made is indeed a wonder to behold. Well done, Marty.

My last comment on the subject, it unlikely that anyone's description of the events is accurate. The key encounter lasted a very short time, Zimmerman was fighting and no one else had a good view.

One of the key points, that was covered on tv here in detail, after all the tape playing of what Zimmerman said, was that his story changed in minor ways, not in any meaningful way, over all of the interviews. While the prosecutors tried, as has been done in this thread, to paint him as an unreliable source, what most of the lawyers covering the trial got out of it was they failed.

Way back upthread Russell said that either Trayvon's friends version was wrong or Zimmerman was a perjurer. This simply doesn't have to be true. Each of those people are remembering what happened and can certainly remember and report it differently.

I also disagree that the list of people(Marty, Brett, McT,slarti) all see this the same. Or that none of those people are willing to assign any moral culpability to Zimmerman, I am. But, going back to the original post, This:

unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a criminal statute against being a raving wannabe mall cop asshole with a gun who needlessly provokes a fight and then kills the other guy. emphasis on unfortunately

assigns a level of one way blame that simply begs for an alternate view to be presented of Zimmerman, and Trayvon. We didn't start the discussion of "what kind of person" each of these people is, russell did.

He didn't say "gosh Zimmerman has to bear some blame for his part in what went on, he certainly made mistakes although probably not criminal". He called him some pretty nasty things while saying in his last sentence that if Trayvon had been white he would be alive.

Against all evidence actually presented he said Trayvon bore no responsibility except that he was black.

So, yes, there is another "side" to that set of statements and assumptions.

The comments to this entry are closed.