Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (4 Viewers)

[pantagrapher]

What i find funny is ive been saying since my first post, that zimmerman murdered treyvon martin and he didnt have to. Now that ive seen the arrest video im more convinced than ever that zimmerman has lied at every turn to save his ### from going to prison. If he WAS covered in blood and had a broken nose and the back of his head was as injured as he claimed, i would have said i was wrong . I would have said Treyvon was beating him and he shot trey in self defense. I still would say he inadvertanly caused it by following trey , but he shot trey in self defense. Why cant the defenders of zimmerman watch that video and say maybe zimmerman was lying and is full of crap. Its right there in color. Is it pride?

So you think it's murder because Zimmerman didn't bleed enough.

ZIMMERMAN LIED ...period

About what?

Newly released video of George Zimmerman at the Sanford Police Department the night he shot Trayvon Martin to death show the neighborhood watch volunteer without blood on his clothing or bruises on his face or head. His clean-shaven picture seems to contrast with the violent beating he told police he endured at the hands of Martin, 17, who Zimmerman said attacked him from behind.The video, obtained by ABC News, appears inconsistent with Zimmerman’s recently leaked statement to police that he was in a death struggle with Martin before Zimmerman shot him in the chest in self-defense. Zimmerman told investigators that Martin jumped him from behind, punched him in the nose and pounded his head into a sidewalk, according to a police report first described by the Orlando Sentinal.

Zimmerman told police he got out of his vehicle to follow Martin, but lost sight of him. As he walked back to his vehicle, Martin attacked him from behind, punched him in the nose, knocked him down and began smashing the back of his head into the sidewalk, police reports say Zimmerman told officers. During the tussle, Zimmerman pulled the 9 mm handgun he carried and shot Martin in the chest, he told police.

Sensationalist writing doesn't prove anything..

That's not sensationalism, that's objectivity. It would be sensationalist if they didn't have qualifiers in the sentences.

Exactly. He's actually leaving room for the possibility that the video is misleading.

 

[mad sweeney]

I don't think that any reasonable person viewing this from afar (which most of us are) can be sure of anything at this point.

I am sure that Zimmerman didn't heed any of the best police advice or his own affiliations rules that he was given.And it cost a person his life as a direct result.

He is not a member of the Neighborhood Watch organization. He was the (self appointed?) captain of his version of the neighborhood watch.

 

[FavreCo]

I heard Zimmerman sh!+ himself during the beat down.

If this really happened, the SPD would ahve taken pictures of #### pants.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I don't think that any reasonable person viewing this from afar (which most of us are) can be sure of anything at this point.

I am sure that Zimmerman didn't heed any of the best police advice or his own affiliations rules that he was given.And it cost a person his life as a direct result.

He is not a member of the Neighborhood Watch organization. He was the (self appointed?) captain of his version of the neighborhood watch.

If true, that's much worse for his defense.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I don't think that any reasonable person viewing this from afar (which most of us are) can be sure of anything at this point.

I am sure that Zimmerman didn't heed any of the best police advice or his own affiliations rules that he was given.And it cost a person his life as a direct result.

He is not a member of the Neighborhood Watch organization. He was the (self appointed?) captain of his version of the neighborhood watch.

If true, that's much worse for his defense.

And this threads title needs a serious update.

 

[mad sweeney]

But Zimmerman's previous arrests for violent crimes don't seem to matter.

They matter. I argued before that a single incident didn't, especially when it was a dropped domestic violence charge...but there's more than one.Unfortunately...the ones on the kid matter too. Not only is the kid NOT squeaky clean, but there's at least anecdoctal evidance that he might have a predisposition towards violence also.

It's kind of a wash leaving us nowhere closer to the truth.

My impression of Zimmerman is that he's a hothead whose heart was in the right place. He genuinely cared about his neighbors and was trying to do the right thing.But...he was still a hothead who had the potential to blow something up and cause trouble.

My impression of the kid is that he probably was a punk. He apparently had a thing against authority and was heading down the wrong path.

These are just my impressions....hardly proof of either, although evidance exists to suggest both impressions are correct.

Put the two together and you have a tinderbox. Neither one likely to back away from a fight.

A wash.

So, where's that anecdotal evidence of Martin's proclivity towards violence?

 

[FavreCo]

But Zimmerman's previous arrests for violent crimes don't seem to matter.

They matter. I argued before that a single incident didn't, especially when it was a dropped domestic violence charge...but there's more than one.Unfortunately...the ones on the kid matter too. Not only is the kid NOT squeaky clean, but there's at least anecdoctal evidance that he might have a predisposition towards violence also.

It's kind of a wash leaving us nowhere closer to the truth.

My impression of Zimmerman is that he's a hothead whose heart was in the right place. He genuinely cared about his neighbors and was trying to do the right thing.But...he was still a hothead who had the potential to blow something up and cause trouble.

My impression of the kid is that he probably was a punk. He apparently had a thing against authority and was heading down the wrong path.

These are just my impressions....hardly proof of either, although evidance exists to suggest both impressions are correct.

Put the two together and you have a tinderbox. Neither one likely to back away from a fight.

A wash.

So, where's that anecdotal evidence of Martin's proclivity towards violence?

He played football. It's a violent sport.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Do yourself a favor and WATCH THIS VIDEO

some very interesting points brought up, such as top level people going to this crime scene.

http://www.msnbc.msn...887730#46887730

also shows the crime scene, exactly where it happened.

May have missed it (had a phone call during the video), but I didn't see anything of the crime scene.

at the 8:03 mark...its an arial photo with an arrow that says shooting scene. If nothing esle you can see where in that maze of buildings this went down and how far from the street it was.

 

[mad sweeney]

Let's make it even simpler:

1. If you KNEW that there had been a struggle between the two, would you agree that there's no way to convict Zimmerman, and therefore no point in charging him?

2. If you KNEW that there was no struggle between the two, would you agree that Zimmerman is lying and should be convicted of murder or manslaughter?

Why would a struggle mean you cannot convict Zimmerman?

Fair question. If there is proof of a struggle, then there's no way for me to discount the possibilty that Zimmerman felt his life was in danger. I don't see how any reasonable person could discount this possibilty. The question of who began the struggle, and whether or not Zimmerman precipitated the whole thing by ignoring the advice of authorities and chasing Martin- all that is irrelevant IMO to the basic question: at some point during the struggle, could Zimmerman come to believe that his life was threatened? I don't see how we could ever prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. And if the answer is yes, then the law as I understand it in Florida justifies Zimmerman's use of deadly force in that situation. So if you prove struggle to me, I would not only acquit Zimmerman, I would go so far as to say he should not even be arrested, because there's no honest means to convict him.

That's BS. Zimmerman precipitated this encounter exactly because he did all the thing you say are irrelevant. That's why the 911 operator told him not to follow (in a non-commanding way). That's why the cops don't want citizens to do what Zimmerman did. That's why the Neighborhood Watch doesn't let it's members carry guns or detain people. Because it's too easy for something ####ed up like this to happen to trained officers (who identify themselves), much less wannabe guardian angels. And that is what I was talking about Hustler, that you asked me to explain earlier. THis situation is EXACTLY why citizens should let the cops handle things like this.

 

[Clinton]

Congressman says Republicans were selectively enforcing dress code when hoodies were banned from Capitol

Black congressman violates dress code = escorted out of the building

White congressman violates dress code = no big deal

“You see during late-night votes, people stand in the back with jeans and no jackets and no ties” Cleaver told Fox. Do you think that standing in the back of the room, off-camera, and not addressing Congress is the equivalent of taking the podium and addressing Congress while wearing a hoodie?

Do the rules make those distinctions? In any event, if discretion were to be exercised, I'd actually be more lenient with Bobby Rush as he was wearing the hoodie to express a political point, as opposed to the other example where people are likely disrespecting the rule simply because they're lazy and don't feel like changing.

Dress Code: Members should dress appropriately which has traditionally been considered to include a coat and tie for male Members and appropriate attire for \ female Members. Members should not wear overcoats or hats on the Floor while the House is in session.That's the full dress code rule. There's mention of tradition. If they traditionally allow Reps to stand in the back of the room during late hours out of dress code without recourse, then I see it as akin to my above jay walking example. I'm assuming that some minority Reps have also taken part in this traditional relaxing of the rule for the back of the room during late hours.

An accurate comparison in assessing whether the dress code rule has been applied differently due to race would be to see if any white Rep has taken the podium and addressed Congress out of dress code and what the result was. Without that we're merely comparing apples to oranges.

Finally, it should be noted that Rush's hoodie may fall under the explicitly stated "no hat" rule. Whereas Rep. Cleaver makes mention of relaxed attire, but makes no mention of hats being worn.

 

[Slapdash]

But Zimmerman's previous arrests for violent crimes don't seem to matter.

They matter. I argued before that a single incident didn't, especially when it was a dropped domestic violence charge...but there's more than one.Unfortunately...the ones on the kid matter too. Not only is the kid NOT squeaky clean, but there's at least anecdoctal evidance that he might have a predisposition towards violence also.

It's kind of a wash leaving us nowhere closer to the truth.

My impression of Zimmerman is that he's a hothead whose heart was in the right place. He genuinely cared about his neighbors and was trying to do the right thing.But...he was still a hothead who had the potential to blow something up and cause trouble.

My impression of the kid is that he probably was a punk. He apparently had a thing against authority and was heading down the wrong path.

These are just my impressions....hardly proof of either, although evidance exists to suggest both impressions are correct.

Put the two together and you have a tinderbox. Neither one likely to back away from a fight.

A wash.

So, where's that anecdotal evidence of Martin's proclivity towards violence?

He played football. It's a violent sport.

Not for the last 3 years or so.

 

[identikit]

Do yourself a favor and WATCH THIS VIDEO

some very interesting points brought up, such as top level people going to this crime scene.

http://www.msnbc.msn...887730#46887730

also shows the crime scene, exactly where it happened.

May have missed it (had a phone call during the video), but I didn't see anything of the crime scene.

at the 8:03 mark...its an arial photo with an arrow that says shooting scene. If nothing esle you can see where in that maze of buildings this went down and how far from the street it was.

Thanks.

Would like to see a closer view at some point.

 

[mad sweeney]

What evidence was there that Martin had a predisposition towards violence?

The twitter accounts of him swinging on a bus driver. Although not proven, it's pretty easy to see this when couple with the other stuff such as the women's jewelry (or do you really buy the story his friend gave him that stuff?)Again...it's my impression...some evidance but not proof. BUt we can say the same on Zimmerman's side. The evidance is stronger, but so is the evidance that his heart was in the right place.A wash.

You've got a ####ed up scale there.

 

[SacramentoBob]

For those who didn't watch the video, the father claims that police told him that Zimmerman stated Martin held his arms down with his knees, covered his mouth with one hand and beat him with the other.

 

[FavreCo]

For those who didn't watch the video, the father claims that police told him that Zimmerman stated Martin held his arms down with his knees, covered his mouth with one hand and beat him with the other.

If he is that big of a #### he deserves a beatdown on the scale of the one that really never happened.

 

[Joe Summer]

Alright, I answered your question. Now please answer my question regarding whether you see the difference between the two dress code violations and why one was taken more seriously.

Of course *I* see a difference. Then again, I also think that a hooded sweatshirt is not a hat.It's a bit hypocritical to defend Republicans for strictly interpreting a particular rule, while simultaneously defending Republicans for loosely interpreting the same rule.

 

[Zow]

BST is easily winning the battle for the most ridiculously over the top postings.

Christo took that award long ago. 'Police would not necessarily have taken photos of Zimmerman's injuries' and the classic, 'Trayvon also has a history of violence due to the fact that he plays in a violent sport - football.' Paraphrased of course.

I agree the football thing is silly, but why is this first statement over the top?

As a self proclaimed lawyer or whatever he is, he should know that. If there were really injuries they would have been documented. Pictures would have been taken.

As a real, actual criminal lawyer I can tell you that cops don't always take pictures of or document everything they should. Crime scenes are often frantic and crazy and the police are, well, humans proned to some sort of error.

 

[FavreCo]

BST is easily winning the battle for the most ridiculously over the top postings.

Christo took that award long ago. 'Police would not necessarily have taken photos of Zimmerman's injuries' and the classic, 'Trayvon also has a history of violence due to the fact that he plays in a violent sport - football.' Paraphrased of course.

I agree the football thing is silly, but why is this first statement over the top?

As a self proclaimed lawyer or whatever he is, he should know that. If there were really injuries they would have been documented. Pictures would have been taken.

As a real, actual criminal lawyer I can tell you that cops don't always take pictures of or document everything they should. Crime scenes are often frantic and crazy and the police are, well, humans proned to some sort of error.

Worst cops ever in that calm booking shown in the video. Or it never happened. It's not like a cut on the back of his head is going to heal in 4 hours. It either didn't happen (which is what I beleive) or it is an inexcusable lack of investigating.'a picture is worth a thousand words'

 

[timschochet]

Tim, why do you always assume alternative motives of people who come to a different conclusion than you? You almost always drag racism into it.

Sorry, but this really pisses me off.Not only have I NOT assumed racism, if you bother to read me in this thread I have come to the defense of just about everyone who has been accused of racism. I'm getting sick and tired of being pigeonholed by you; you have no idea what you're talking about.As far as alternative motives: it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that those who are politically conservative tend to be more sympathetic to Zimmerman, and those who are politically progressive tend to be more sympathetic to Martin's family. There are reasons for this beyond the facts of the case, and I don't think racism is a major part of those reasons (though the question of race in society certainly is). I tried to give what I thought were the reasons for this. If you don't like what I wrote, too ####### bad.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Seems Serino made the rounds , he told the mother of the 13 yo kid(witness who was walking his dog) the same thing he told treys father at the GF house. This is a bit odd that he would be saying these things during an investigation. I wonder what his agenda was or is? Now coming out public like he did the other day makes it even stanger.Like i said before , im starting to think that hes trying to distance himself from the higher ups that made the decision to not charge zimmerman after he wanted to. The justice dept is closing a net i bet.

Investigator Chris Serino

The police officer who came to Martin’s girlfriend’s house to meet with him was Investigator Chris Serino. He was the one who told Martin the version of events that took place. “The whole story didn’t sit well with me,” Martin said. Apparently, the story didn’t sit well with Serino either. According to ABC News, the detective “filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night that Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, that stated he was unconvinced [by] Zimmerman's version of events.”

 

[timschochet]

Let's make it even simpler:

1. If you KNEW that there had been a struggle between the two, would you agree that there's no way to convict Zimmerman, and therefore no point in charging him?

2. If you KNEW that there was no struggle between the two, would you agree that Zimmerman is lying and should be convicted of murder or manslaughter?

Why would a struggle mean you cannot convict Zimmerman?

Fair question. If there is proof of a struggle, then there's no way for me to discount the possibilty that Zimmerman felt his life was in danger. I don't see how any reasonable person could discount this possibilty. The question of who began the struggle, and whether or not Zimmerman precipitated the whole thing by ignoring the advice of authorities and chasing Martin- all that is irrelevant IMO to the basic question: at some point during the struggle, could Zimmerman come to believe that his life was threatened? I don't see how we could ever prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. And if the answer is yes, then the law as I understand it in Florida justifies Zimmerman's use of deadly force in that situation. So if you prove struggle to me, I would not only acquit Zimmerman, I would go so far as to say he should not even be arrested, because there's no honest means to convict him.

That's BS. Zimmerman precipitated this encounter exactly because he did all the thing you say are irrelevant. That's why the 911 operator told him not to follow (in a non-commanding way). That's why the cops don't want citizens to do what Zimmerman did. That's why the Neighborhood Watch doesn't let it's members carry guns or detain people. Because it's too easy for something ####ed up like this to happen to trained officers (who identify themselves), much less wannabe guardian angels. And that is what I was talking about Hustler, that you asked me to explain earlier. THis situation is EXACTLY why citizens should let the cops handle things like this.

I agree 100% with eveything you wrote here. It's part of the reason that I am convinced that Zimmerman is at fault here, even if there was a struggle.But that's not the question. The question is whether or not a struggle would preclude me from convicting Zimmerman, not on an internet thread, but in a court of law. My answer is that it would, because no matter how convinced I am, there would also be some doubt in my mind due to the struggle. I just can't say beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is at fault. And so- not guilty.

Now, if there is no struggle, then it becomes easy. Guilty as charged.

 

[identikit]

Tim, why do you always assume alternative motives of people who come to a different conclusion than you? You almost always drag racism into it.

Sorry, but this really pisses me off.Not only have I NOT assumed racism, if you bother to read me in this thread I have come to the defense of just about everyone who has been accused of racism. I'm getting sick and tired of being pigeonholed by you; you have no idea what you're talking about.As far as alternative motives: it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that those who are politically conservative tend to be more sympathetic to Zimmerman, and those who are politically progressive tend to be more sympathetic to Martin's family. There are reasons for this beyond the facts of the case, and I don't think racism is a major part of those reasons (though the question of race in society certainly is). I tried to give what I thought were the reasons for this. If you don't like what I wrote, too ####### bad.

So you don't want to be pigeonholed for pigeonholing other people with differing viewpoints than your own.Vintage stuff.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

For those who didn't watch the video, the father claims that police told him that Zimmerman stated Martin held his arms down with his knees, covered his mouth with one hand and beat him with the other.

Totally un####ing believable.

 

[Christo]

This is my first comment in this thread but I have a hard time believing Zimmerman suffered those injuries and was still taking into custody. I also have a hard time believing Martin said what was quoted by Zimmerman's father.

Zimmerman being injured enough that he felt the need to use deadly force and his refusal to be treated at a hospital for said injuries just doesn’t add up for me.

The standard is "to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" not "I've been injured enough."

 

[timschochet]

Tim, why do you always assume alternative motives of people who come to a different conclusion than you? You almost always drag racism into it.

Sorry, but this really pisses me off.Not only have I NOT assumed racism, if you bother to read me in this thread I have come to the defense of just about everyone who has been accused of racism. I'm getting sick and tired of being pigeonholed by you; you have no idea what you're talking about.As far as alternative motives: it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that those who are politically conservative tend to be more sympathetic to Zimmerman, and those who are politically progressive tend to be more sympathetic to Martin's family. There are reasons for this beyond the facts of the case, and I don't think racism is a major part of those reasons (though the question of race in society certainly is). I tried to give what I thought were the reasons for this. If you don't like what I wrote, too ####### bad.

So you don't want to be pigeonholed for pigeonholing other people with differing viewpoints than your own.Vintage stuff.

I never pigeonholed anyone. I was trying to discuss with thoughtful conservatives and thoughtful progressives other reasons why they might feel the way they do about this case. Very few people come into the case without any biases, and that includes me.You'll notice though that I used the word "thoughtful". That should be a clue that you needn't fear I was referring to you.

 

[SacramentoBob]

For those who didn't watch the video, the father claims that police told him that Zimmerman stated Martin held his arms down with his knees, covered his mouth with one hand and beat him with the other.

Totally un####ing believable.

This is like triple hearsay or something.

 

[Christo]

Martin was a thug, he attacked Zimmerman, they both went after Zimmerman's gun after Martin started beating him up and Martin lost...

We went over this yesterday, all supported by witnesses, that's why no charges were files, that's why the "stand your ground" defense will not be used and Zimmerman if charged will be acquitted because he was attacked and defended himself...

All he is guilty of is being stupid, maybe...

No it's not.

The attack on Zimmerman was most definitely supported by witnesses, the thug part was my addition, wait to see how this all unfolds, bet I am a lot closer than you ...Explains the injuries the first 911 call and no evidence to charge Zimmerman...

Which on site witnesses are you looking at???

The girlfriend is absolutely unreliable and Martin has his reputation and Zimmerman has his from many, many previous instances...

Almost all of what you wrote is pure speculation. One witness said he saw them fighting. That's it. You think Martin was a thug because he was young and black and you're old and white and prejudiced.

Don't forget to look at his school history and his facebook postings...Besides we determined your status yesterday...

Yeah, teenagers never put stupid stuff on facebook or goof off at school. And I think we determined your status a long time ago.

Suspended from school 3 times, drug paraphernalia at school... Yea.. Everybody does that Trayvon's school record does not equate to "Goofing off at school"... And no, not everybody does that. Kid was definitely headed down the wrong road..

But Zimmerman's previous arrests for violent crimes don't seem to matter.

I called this reaction about 20 pages ago.

Neither of their histories matter.

 

[identikit]

Tim, why do you always assume alternative motives of people who come to a different conclusion than you? You almost always drag racism into it.

Sorry, but this really pisses me off.Not only have I NOT assumed racism, if you bother to read me in this thread I have come to the defense of just about everyone who has been accused of racism. I'm getting sick and tired of being pigeonholed by you; you have no idea what you're talking about.As far as alternative motives: it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that those who are politically conservative tend to be more sympathetic to Zimmerman, and those who are politically progressive tend to be more sympathetic to Martin's family. There are reasons for this beyond the facts of the case, and I don't think racism is a major part of those reasons (though the question of race in society certainly is). I tried to give what I thought were the reasons for this. If you don't like what I wrote, too ####### bad.

So you don't want to be pigeonholed for pigeonholing other people with differing viewpoints than your own.Vintage stuff.

I never pigeonholed anyone. I was trying to discuss with thoughtful conservatives and thoughtful progressives other reasons why they might feel the way they do about this case. Very few people come into the case without any biases, and that includes me.You'll notice though that I used the word "thoughtful". That should be a clue that you needn't fear I was referring to you.

Doing it again.You just can't help yourself.It's cool.

 

[bigbottom]

Congressman says Republicans were selectively enforcing dress code when hoodies were banned from Capitol

Black congressman violates dress code = escorted out of the building

White congressman violates dress code = no big deal

“You see during late-night votes, people stand in the back with jeans and no jackets and no ties” Cleaver told Fox. Do you think that standing in the back of the room, off-camera, and not addressing Congress is the equivalent of taking the podium and addressing Congress while wearing a hoodie?

Do the rules make those distinctions? In any event, if discretion were to be exercised, I'd actually be more lenient with Bobby Rush as he was wearing the hoodie to express a political point, as opposed to the other example where people are likely disrespecting the rule simply because they're lazy and don't feel like changing.

Dress Code: Members should dress appropriately which has traditionally been considered to include a coat and tie for male Members and appropriate attire for \ female Members. Members should not wear overcoats or hats on the Floor while the House is in session.That's the full dress code rule. There's mention of tradition. If they traditionally allow Reps to stand in the back of the room during late hours out of dress code without recourse, then I see it as akin to my above jay walking example. I'm assuming that some minority Reps have also taken part in this traditional relaxing of the rule for the back of the room during late hours.

An accurate comparison in assessing whether the dress code rule has been applied differently due to race would be to see if any white Rep has taken the podium and addressed Congress out of dress code and what the result was. Without that we're merely comparing apples to oranges.

Finally, it should be noted that Rush's hoodie may fall under the explicitly stated "no hat" rule. Whereas Rep. Cleaver makes mention of relaxed attire, but makes no mention of hats being worn.

Fair enough. But it should also be pointed out that Cleaver didn't say that the dress code had been applied differently due to race.

 

[Christo]

Obama

That's your addition to this thread?

His addition is to keep posting Daily Caller links that imply this kid deserved to be killed because he had acted like a "thug".

You see the cop who got suspended in Mississippi or thereabouts for tweeting that Martin deserved it?

Yeah...an idiot who deserved suspension. This kid was probably a punk...but he didn't deserve to die. A lot of punk thugs his age turn out OK in the long run.

He didn't even deserve to be confronted.

Maybe he confronted Zimmerman. I think the evidence supports that.

BS.Zimmerman hunted Trayvon down.

This confrontation should have never happened.

Don't ever change, BST!

 

[Christo]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/46890073#46890073Zimmermans lawyer seems kind of clueless at times . He had just watched the police station video.

I wouldn't want him defending me for a traffic ticket at this point.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/46890073#46890073Zimmermans lawyer seems kind of clueless at times . He had just watched the police station video.

I wouldn't want him defending me for a traffic ticket at this point.

His lawyer and his dad are massive liabilities. Well then again, so's Zimm himself.

 

[Christo]

True. Based on that your comment is true. But that isn't the legal issue of who confronted who and who initiated violence. Zimmerman acted foolishly, but that isn't illegal.

Goes to his history of bad judgment.

I'll stipulate all of that and still defend Zimmerman if Trayvon tracked him back towards his truck and kicked his ###.

Other than the killer's statement, there is no proof of that.

and the pyhsical proof (video) doesnt back up that ### beating he supposably took.

There's nothing in that video. If that officer had seen something on the back of his head, he would have photographed it as evidence. He saw nothing cause there was nothing.

exactly...im in your camp Favreco

I know. I was just pointing out to the crowd that their ain't jack #### in that video to back a punch let alone an ### beating.

And there's nothing to disprove it either.Carry on.

 

[Clinton]

Congressman says Republicans were selectively enforcing dress code when hoodies were banned from Capitol

Black congressman violates dress code = escorted out of the building

White congressman violates dress code = no big deal

“You see during late-night votes, people stand in the back with jeans and no jackets and no ties” Cleaver told Fox. Do you think that standing in the back of the room, off-camera, and not addressing Congress is the equivalent of taking the podium and addressing Congress while wearing a hoodie?

Do the rules make those distinctions? In any event, if discretion were to be exercised, I'd actually be more lenient with Bobby Rush as he was wearing the hoodie to express a political point, as opposed to the other example where people are likely disrespecting the rule simply because they're lazy and don't feel like changing.

Dress Code: Members should dress appropriately which has traditionally been considered to include a coat and tie for male Members and appropriate attire for \ female Members. Members should not wear overcoats or hats on the Floor while the House is in session.That's the full dress code rule. There's mention of tradition. If they traditionally allow Reps to stand in the back of the room during late hours out of dress code without recourse, then I see it as akin to my above jay walking example. I'm assuming that some minority Reps have also taken part in this traditional relaxing of the rule for the back of the room during late hours.

An accurate comparison in assessing whether the dress code rule has been applied differently due to race would be to see if any white Rep has taken the podium and addressed Congress out of dress code and what the result was. Without that we're merely comparing apples to oranges.

Finally, it should be noted that Rush's hoodie may fall under the explicitly stated "no hat" rule. Whereas Rep. Cleaver makes mention of relaxed attire, but makes no mention of hats being worn.

Fair enough. But it should also be pointed out that Cleaver didn't say that the dress code had been applied differently due to race.

You're right, Cleaver didn't say that. Joe Summer implied it.

 

[Christo]

Do yourself a favor and WATCH THIS VIDEO

some very interesting points brought up, such as top level people going to this crime scene.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/46887730#46887730

also shows the crime scene, exactly where it happened.

It was IMMEDIATE?It was stated by NBC this morning that it was 4 HOURS after the incident.

who knows , but if it was 4 hours later that works against zimmerman. There is this thing the human body does after an injury like a blow to the face ...its called swelling. I see no sign of any swelling.

I thought you said this proved there was no blood.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Do yourself a favor and WATCH THIS VIDEO

some very interesting points brought up, such as top level people going to this crime scene.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/46887730#46887730

also shows the crime scene, exactly where it happened.

It was IMMEDIATE?It was stated by NBC this morning that it was 4 HOURS after the incident.

who knows , but if it was 4 hours later that works against zimmerman. There is this thing the human body does after an injury like a blow to the face ...its called swelling. I see no sign of any swelling.

I thought you said this proved there was no blood.

huh ?what? did someone say something? must be my imagination, i must have been having a bad dream that christo was still acting like a defense lawyer again...hmmm...oh well no biggie i guess. On with my day,la la la

 

[timschochet]

Think Progress asks some pretty good questions, IMO:

1. What was the purported "conflict" that required the initial prosecutor to step down? On March 22 after several weeks on the job state attorney Norm Wolfinger stepped down from his role as prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case. Wolfinger relinquished his post after meeting with Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi. He said it was necessary for him to step aside to preserve "the integrity of this investigation," adding he wanted to avoid "the appearance of a conflict of interest." He did not explain why his continued involvement would damage the integrity of the case or explain the potential conflict he was seeking to avoid. Did anyone at the prosecutor's office know Zimmerman or his family? [Orlando Sentinel]



2. Why did the prosecutor ignore the recommendations of the lead homicide investigator? ABC News reported that Chris Serino, the lead homicide investigator on the Trayvon Martin case, recommended that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter on the night of the shooting. Serino filed an affidavit that night stating "he was unconvinced Zimmerman's version of events." As the lead homicide investigator, Serino was: 1. In the best position to evaluate Zimmerman's credibility, and 2. Intimately familiar with Florida law. Why was he ignored? [ABC News]

3. Why did then-Police Chief Bill Lee make public statements directly contradicting the official recommendations of the police department? On the day the Sanford Police concluded their investigation and handed over the case to the prosecutor, then-Police Chief Bill Lee stated publicly that there was no "probable cause" to arrest or charge Zimmerman. (Lee has subsequently "temporarily" stepped down from his post.) But the Miami Herald reports that on the same day the Sanford Police formally requested that the prosecutor charge Zimmerman, something known as a "capias" request. [ThinkProgress]

4. Who leaked Trayvon Martin's school records? As public outrage increased, Zimmerman's sympathizers launched a smear campaign against Trayvon Martin. This included details of several occasions where Martin was suspended for minor infractions (defacing a locker, possessing an empty "marijuana baggie.") None of the information seemed to have any particular relevance to the night Trayvon Martin was shot to death. Was this a ham-handed attempt by the police or the prosecutor to defend their lack of action against Zimmerman? The Sanford City Manager announced he would launch an independent investigation into the source of the leak. [Miami Herald; NBC12]

5. Why was Trayvon Martin's body tagged as a John Doe? The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart notes a police report "that was completed at 3:07 a.m. on Feb. 27 lists Trayvon's full name, city of birth, address and phone number." But yet, Trayvon's body was reportedly "tagged as a John Doe" and his father wasn't informed of his death until after he filed a missing person report later on the 27th. Why weren't Trayvon Martin's parents contacted immediately after the police confirmed his identity? [Washington Post]

 

[jon_mx]

I also sense that there's a lot of people choosing to defend Zimmerman here for certain reasons unrelated to the specifics of the case:1. They don't like the "mob mentality" in these situations (FWIW, I don't like it either.)2. They despise the way so-called "Black leaders" like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson take advantage of these racially charged situations for their own benefit.3. They don't agree with the liberal notion that we live in a racist country, and that stories like this tend to help liberals and attack conservatism in some general manner.4. They don't like the anti-gun sentiment which is a definite undertone to much of the national discussion.5. They don't like the way that the media twists facts without giving each individual their due, and always shouts racism at the drop of a hat, much as they did in the Duke LaCrosse case. Not that I agree with all of these positions, but I think they all have reasonable validity as a point for further discussion, and I can understand why some of them or all of them tend to anger many conservatives and make them want for Zimmerman to be innocent. Likewise I can also understand the sentiment on the part of many progressives and especially African-Americans, who view this story within the prism of the continuing poor treatment of blacks by legal authorities, who want Zimmerman to be guilty. Both sides are understandable. But that doesn't make either side right.The only thing that should matter to THIS case is whether or not Zimmerman committed a crime. That's all. The rest of it is important and good for discussion, but it shouldn't frame one's judgment. Sadly, too often it does.

Tim, I did not mean to piss you off or pifeon hole you, but the reason this post did not generate discussion is your premise that those who defend Zimmerman from being lynched is they are motivated by something other than the truth or the upholding the law in a fair manner. People's biases may give them a different perspective on points and how they weigh them, but I don't think it is fair to say they hold those values as more important than the truth.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

What evidence was there that Martin had a predisposition towards violence?

The twitter accounts of him swinging on a bus driver. Although not proven, it's pretty easy to see this when couple with the other stuff such as the women's jewelry (or do you really buy the story his friend gave him that stuff?)Again...it's my impression...some evidance but not proof. BUt we can say the same on Zimmerman's side. The evidance is stronger, but so is the evidance that his heart was in the right place.A wash.

You've got a ####ed up scale there.

It's a wash, except for one of them killed someone. Other than that? Even Steven.

 

[timschochet]

I also sense that there's a lot of people choosing to defend Zimmerman here for certain reasons unrelated to the specifics of the case:

1. They don't like the "mob mentality" in these situations (FWIW, I don't like it either.)

2. They despise the way so-called "Black leaders" like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson take advantage of these racially charged situations for their own benefit.

3. They don't agree with the liberal notion that we live in a racist country, and that stories like this tend to help liberals and attack conservatism in some general manner.

4. They don't like the anti-gun sentiment which is a definite undertone to much of the national discussion.

5. They don't like the way that the media twists facts without giving each individual their due, and always shouts racism at the drop of a hat, much as they did in the Duke LaCrosse case.

Not that I agree with all of these positions, but I think they all have reasonable validity as a point for further discussion, and I can understand why some of them or all of them tend to anger many conservatives and make them want for Zimmerman to be innocent. Likewise I can also understand the sentiment on the part of many progressives and especially African-Americans, who view this story within the prism of the continuing poor treatment of blacks by legal authorities, who want Zimmerman to be guilty. Both sides are understandable. But that doesn't make either side right.

The only thing that should matter to THIS case is whether or not Zimmerman committed a crime. That's all. The rest of it is important and good for discussion, but it shouldn't frame one's judgment. Sadly, too often it does.

Tim, I did not mean to piss you off or pifeon hole you, but the reason this post did not generate discussion is your premise that those who defend Zimmerman from being lynched is they are motivated by something other than the truth or the upholding the law in a fair manner. People's biases may give them a different perspective on points and how they weigh them, but I don't think it is fair to say they hold those values as more important than the truth.

Agreed, and I never wrote that. What I wrote is that these biases should be examined on BOTH sides to see how they influence perspectives. I think that it's worthy, in following this discussion, to note that progressives are generally looking at this case one way, while conservatives are looking at it another way. That is not true just here, but everywhere. It seems that who you are has just as much to do with determining your positon on this matter as the facts do, especially in a case like this where the facts remain so cloudy to most of us. I think the reasons why progressives and conservatives feel the way they do are worth exploring.

 

[jon_mx]

And BTW Tim, I did not say you accused anyone of racism. You normally do defend individuals against that charge. But what you do do is often times make racism a central part of the discussion, which in this case it is an issue, but it is an issue which shapes the left's perspective much more than it does the rights.

 

[Zow]

Think Progress asks some pretty good questions, IMO:

1. What was the purported "conflict" that required the initial prosecutor to step down? On March 22 — after several weeks on the job — state attorney Norm Wolfinger stepped down from his role as prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case. Wolfinger relinquished his post after meeting with Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi. He said it was necessary for him to step aside to preserve "the integrity of this investigation," adding he wanted to avoid "the appearance of a conflict of interest." He did not explain why his continued involvement would damage the integrity of the case or explain the potential conflict he was seeking to avoid. Did anyone at the prosecutor's office know Zimmerman or his family? [Orlando Sentinel]



2. Why did the prosecutor ignore the recommendations of the lead homicide investigator? ABC News reported that Chris Serino, the lead homicide investigator on the Trayvon Martin case, recommended that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter on the night of the shooting. Serino filed an affidavit that night stating "he was unconvinced Zimmerman's version of events." As the lead homicide investigator, Serino was: 1. In the best position to evaluate Zimmerman's credibility, and 2. Intimately familiar with Florida law. Why was he ignored? [ABC News]

3. Why did then-Police Chief Bill Lee make public statements directly contradicting the official recommendations of the police department? On the day the Sanford Police concluded their investigation and handed over the case to the prosecutor, then-Police Chief Bill Lee stated publicly that there was no "probable cause" to arrest or charge Zimmerman. (Lee has subsequently "temporarily" stepped down from his post.) But the Miami Herald reports that on the same day the Sanford Police formally requested that the prosecutor charge Zimmerman, something known as a "capias" request. [ThinkProgress]

4. Who leaked Trayvon Martin's school records? As public outrage increased, Zimmerman's sympathizers launched a smear campaign against Trayvon Martin. This included details of several occasions where Martin was suspended for minor infractions (defacing a locker, possessing an empty "marijuana baggie.") None of the information seemed to have any particular relevance to the night Trayvon Martin was shot to death. Was this a ham-handed attempt by the police or the prosecutor to defend their lack of action against Zimmerman? The Sanford City Manager announced he would launch an independent investigation into the source of the leak. [Miami Herald; NBC12]

5. Why was Trayvon Martin's body tagged as a John Doe? The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart notes a police report "that was completed at 3:07 a.m. on Feb. 27 lists Trayvon's full name, city of birth, address and phone number." But yet, Trayvon's body was reportedly "tagged as a John Doe" and his father wasn't informed of his death until after he filed a missing person report later on the 27th. Why weren't Trayvon Martin's parents contacted immediately after the police confirmed his identity? [Washington Post]

Those are all pretty stupid, completely irrelevant, and mean nothing. 1. There are plenty of legal reasons for this - some which may require some confidentiality. Probably best no reason was given. Also, this isn't terribly relevant because there is still plenty of time to charge and there's no evidence this guy messed anything up.

2. Bill Lee is not a lawyer. His job is to gather facts, not makes legal calls. While he may be very informed and be a smart dude, he does not have comparable legal training to the prosecutor. It's not his call to make. Prosecutors ignore cops' charging "recommendations" on a daily basis.

3. Because the prosecutor told him there was no PC yet. Duh.

4. Pretty sure this is all public record so anybody someone competent could get them. Suggesting the police did it vindictively is simply irresponsible and biased.

5. Different people do the bagging than do the investigating. Someone probably got his name and didn't tell the coroner until after he had been tagged John Doe. I agree they should have probably tried to contact his parent sooner, but the fact he was tagged as "John Doe" doesn't suggest anything at all. Also, the police notified his parents so it's again irresponsible to suggest they had some sort of reluctance to do so. At works, the cops were just slightly incompetent.

 

[renesauz]

but that does not make attacking him justified.

According to the law, it certainly can make it justified.According to good conscience, I would agree.

I'm quickly coming to believe you're insane

 

[Neofight]

Honest question: What is Zimmerman's motivation to kill Martin, if not in self defense?

"These #######s always get away" ~ G. Zimmerman "He was made as he'll and wasn't going to take it anymore." ~ F. Taaffe, friend of G. Zimmerman when asked about Zimmerman's state of mind following the killing.

 

[Slapdash]

Think Progress asks some pretty good questions, IMO:

1. What was the purported "conflict" that required the initial prosecutor to step down? On March 22 — after several weeks on the job — state attorney Norm Wolfinger stepped down from his role as prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case. Wolfinger relinquished his post after meeting with Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi. He said it was necessary for him to step aside to preserve "the integrity of this investigation," adding he wanted to avoid "the appearance of a conflict of interest." He did not explain why his continued involvement would damage the integrity of the case or explain the potential conflict he was seeking to avoid. Did anyone at the prosecutor's office know Zimmerman or his family? [Orlando Sentinel]



2. Why did the prosecutor ignore the recommendations of the lead homicide investigator? ABC News reported that Chris Serino, the lead homicide investigator on the Trayvon Martin case, recommended that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter on the night of the shooting. Serino filed an affidavit that night stating "he was unconvinced Zimmerman's version of events." As the lead homicide investigator, Serino was: 1. In the best position to evaluate Zimmerman's credibility, and 2. Intimately familiar with Florida law. Why was he ignored? [ABC News]

3. Why did then-Police Chief Bill Lee make public statements directly contradicting the official recommendations of the police department? On the day the Sanford Police concluded their investigation and handed over the case to the prosecutor, then-Police Chief Bill Lee stated publicly that there was no "probable cause" to arrest or charge Zimmerman. (Lee has subsequently "temporarily" stepped down from his post.) But the Miami Herald reports that on the same day the Sanford Police formally requested that the prosecutor charge Zimmerman, something known as a "capias" request. [ThinkProgress]

4. Who leaked Trayvon Martin's school records? As public outrage increased, Zimmerman's sympathizers launched a smear campaign against Trayvon Martin. This included details of several occasions where Martin was suspended for minor infractions (defacing a locker, possessing an empty "marijuana baggie.") None of the information seemed to have any particular relevance to the night Trayvon Martin was shot to death. Was this a ham-handed attempt by the police or the prosecutor to defend their lack of action against Zimmerman? The Sanford City Manager announced he would launch an independent investigation into the source of the leak. [Miami Herald; NBC12]

5. Why was Trayvon Martin's body tagged as a John Doe? The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart notes a police report "that was completed at 3:07 a.m. on Feb. 27 lists Trayvon's full name, city of birth, address and phone number." But yet, Trayvon's body was reportedly "tagged as a John Doe" and his father wasn't informed of his death until after he filed a missing person report later on the 27th. Why weren't Trayvon Martin's parents contacted immediately after the police confirmed his identity? [Washington Post]

Number 5 is interesting. I would presume number 1 has something to do with Zimmerman's dad being a judge.

 

[renesauz]

Congressman says Republicans were selectively enforcing dress code when hoodies were banned from Capitol

Black congressman violates dress code = escorted out of the building

White congressman violates dress code = no big deal

“You see during late-night votes, people stand in the back with jeans and no jackets and no ties” Cleaver told Fox. Do you think that standing in the back of the room, off-camera, and not addressing Congress is the equivalent of taking the podium and addressing Congress while wearing a hoodie?

Does the dress code make exceptions for people who are off camera?

So...you really don't see/understand the distinction??????? You really think the US %$^%& congress is the proper forum for this kind of display during an ongoing investigation? REALLY??????

 

[timschochet]

And BTW Tim, I did not say you accused anyone of racism. You normally do defend individuals against that charge. But what you do do is often times make racism a central part of the discussion, which in this case it is an issue, but it is an issue which shapes the left's perspective much more than it does the rights.

I think it shapes both:1. The left generally believes that there is an institutionalized racism that exists in our society which expresses itself in the mistreatment or singling out of African-Americans by police authorities. This case is an example of that- not in the shooting itself, but in how law enforcement chose to handle the matter.2. The right generally believes that these concerns are overstated or misguided, are used by the left to pursue a leftist agenda, and are generally bogus- our society is not anything like it was, and this sort of thinking only drags minorities down.I think there is some truth to both sides, though in general I lean toward the left on this issue. And yes, it shapes my thinking on this case and makes me biased.

 

[Clinton]

Think Progress asks some pretty good questions, IMO:

1. What was the purported "conflict" that required the initial prosecutor to step down? On March 22 — after several weeks on the job — state attorney Norm Wolfinger stepped down from his role as prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case. Wolfinger relinquished his post after meeting with Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi. He said it was necessary for him to step aside to preserve "the integrity of this investigation," adding he wanted to avoid "the appearance of a conflict of interest." He did not explain why his continued involvement would damage the integrity of the case or explain the potential conflict he was seeking to avoid. Did anyone at the prosecutor's office know Zimmerman or his family? [Orlando Sentinel]



2. Why did the prosecutor ignore the recommendations of the lead homicide investigator? ABC News reported that Chris Serino, the lead homicide investigator on the Trayvon Martin case, recommended that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter on the night of the shooting. Serino filed an affidavit that night stating "he was unconvinced Zimmerman's version of events." As the lead homicide investigator, Serino was: 1. In the best position to evaluate Zimmerman's credibility, and 2. Intimately familiar with Florida law. Why was he ignored? [ABC News]

The conflict in Point #1 is likely what's mentioned in Point #2. The prosecutor removed himself from the case because there was criticism of him overruling the lead investigator. They probably decided it was better to appoint a different prosecutor to the case than the one who initially decided not to charge Zimmerman to get rid of the appearance of a prosecutor who's already concluded that Zimmerman will be found not guilty.

 

[Zow]

Think Progress asks some pretty good questions, IMO:

1. What was the purported "conflict" that required the initial prosecutor to step down? On March 22 — after several weeks on the job — state attorney Norm Wolfinger stepped down from his role as prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case. Wolfinger relinquished his post after meeting with Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi. He said it was necessary for him to step aside to preserve "the integrity of this investigation," adding he wanted to avoid "the appearance of a conflict of interest." He did not explain why his continued involvement would damage the integrity of the case or explain the potential conflict he was seeking to avoid. Did anyone at the prosecutor's office know Zimmerman or his family? [Orlando Sentinel]



2. Why did the prosecutor ignore the recommendations of the lead homicide investigator? ABC News reported that Chris Serino, the lead homicide investigator on the Trayvon Martin case, recommended that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter on the night of the shooting. Serino filed an affidavit that night stating "he was unconvinced Zimmerman's version of events." As the lead homicide investigator, Serino was: 1. In the best position to evaluate Zimmerman's credibility, and 2. Intimately familiar with Florida law. Why was he ignored? [ABC News]

3. Why did then-Police Chief Bill Lee make public statements directly contradicting the official recommendations of the police department? On the day the Sanford Police concluded their investigation and handed over the case to the prosecutor, then-Police Chief Bill Lee stated publicly that there was no "probable cause" to arrest or charge Zimmerman. (Lee has subsequently "temporarily" stepped down from his post.) But the Miami Herald reports that on the same day the Sanford Police formally requested that the prosecutor charge Zimmerman, something known as a "capias" request. [ThinkProgress]

4. Who leaked Trayvon Martin's school records? As public outrage increased, Zimmerman's sympathizers launched a smear campaign against Trayvon Martin. This included details of several occasions where Martin was suspended for minor infractions (defacing a locker, possessing an empty "marijuana baggie.") None of the information seemed to have any particular relevance to the night Trayvon Martin was shot to death. Was this a ham-handed attempt by the police or the prosecutor to defend their lack of action against Zimmerman? The Sanford City Manager announced he would launch an independent investigation into the source of the leak. [Miami Herald; NBC12]

5. Why was Trayvon Martin's body tagged as a John Doe? The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart notes a police report "that was completed at 3:07 a.m. on Feb. 27 lists Trayvon's full name, city of birth, address and phone number." But yet, Trayvon's body was reportedly "tagged as a John Doe" and his father wasn't informed of his death until after he filed a missing person report later on the 27th. Why weren't Trayvon Martin's parents contacted immediately after the police confirmed his identity? [Washington Post]

Number 5 is interesting.

No, it's not.

 

[renesauz]

But Zimmerman's previous arrests for violent crimes don't seem to matter.

They matter. I argued before that a single incident didn't, especially when it was a dropped domestic violence charge...but there's more than one.Unfortunately...the ones on the kid matter too. Not only is the kid NOT squeaky clean, but there's at least anecdoctal evidance that he might have a predisposition towards violence also.It's kind of a wash leaving us nowhere closer to the truth.

No, it's not really a wash. Having 2 violence related arrests (son of a judge not charged, go figure) is way different than a teen boy acting like a teen boy. I must've missed the anecdotal evidence of Martin's violent past, I assume you're not talking about playing football.

A teen boy stupid enough to have drug paraphenalia with him at school? to be videotaped vandalizing school property? to be carrying a bag full of wqomens jewelry and have ZERO explanation for where/how he got it? His twitter account reads like a gang-banger, and suggests he took a swing at his bus driver. This was NOT a good or innocent kid. He may have done nothing on the night in question, but his past suggests he ws certainly capable of having done something, despite the earlierst media reports depicting him as a saint. He was anything but.A wash...at best