Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[TexanFan02]

Now he likely escalated the situation verbally, and I could almost see him reaching out to grab Martin, but even that feels like a stretch.

Pretty sure he chased someone down and detained them for the police before. It was linked in the thread a while ago.

The person Zimmerman "detained" was arrested and neighbors see Zimmerman as a hero. Zimmerman was not arrested for stalking, detaining, abusing, etc. He did not even get a warning from what we know. Was the perp physically detained? Did he have to chase this person down? Did he have to draw his weapon to detain him? Dunno. Whatever he did to detain him, why wouldn't he try to do the exact same thing again?

Because he's not a police officer, he's carrying a loaded weapon, he doesn't know all of the circumstances surrounding the individual he's pursuing, and an innocent person could end up dead (perhaps himself)?

When being questioned by the cops on the previous detained person. You don't think the cops would tell him what you are saying if he did not handle the situation as well as he could or should?

How do we know they didn't?

 

[timschochet]

So where are we?

We have strong reason to believe that Zimmerman instigated a confrontation. We have strong reason to believe that Zimmerman cold-bloodedly shot this unarmed teenager and killed him, without any provocation whatsoever. However, strong reason is not proof, and reasonable doubt, IMO, remains.

On the other hand, we have no reason or evidence to believe that Zimmerman was the one who was attacked, that Zimmerman was fighting for his life, and that Zimmerman killed Martin in self-defense. In fact, every bit of evidence that we know seems to suggest that this scenario is complete and total nonsense and that Zimmerman is lying about it to cover up his crime. However, this scenario must from a legal sense be considered at least plausible, however inprobable it really appears.

We also have good reason to believe that either the Sanford police deliberately lied in their investigation, or they told the truth, or they completely screwed up and are attempting to cover-up their screwups by lying and futher screwing up. Of the three options, by far the most difficult to believe is that they told the truth. I think screw up is the most likely explanation.

Unfortunately, I'd still have to vote to acquit this scumbag unless further evidence shows up...

Link?I thought the evidence was that the two were involved in a physical altercation, of unknown origin? When did it turn into Zimmerman hunting down and killing his prey?

Do you think Zimmerman was on top of Martin and shot him? That does not seem plausible - not saying it could not have gone down that way, but I'd need physical evidence to corroborate that story.

My evidence is that Zimmerman on the phone complains that these guys always get away. That's the single piece of evidence we have that indicates that Zimmerman is the one who chased Martin down. In order to assume the opposite, we have only Zimmerman's word.

 

[ATC1]

Now he likely escalated the situation verbally, and I could almost see him reaching out to grab Martin, but even that feels like a stretch.

Pretty sure he chased someone down and detained them for the police before. It was linked in the thread a while ago.

The person Zimmerman "detained" was arrested and neighbors see Zimmerman as a hero. Zimmerman was not arrested for stalking, detaining, abusing, etc. He did not even get a warning from what we know. Was the perp physically detained? Did he have to chase this person down? Did he have to draw his weapon to detain him? Dunno. Whatever he did to detain him, why wouldn't he try to do the exact same thing again?

Because he's not a police officer, he's carrying a loaded weapon, he doesn't know all of the circumstances surrounding the individual he's pursuing, and an innocent person could end up dead (perhaps himself)?

When being questioned by the cops on the previous detained person. You don't think the cops would tell him what you are saying if he did not handle the situation as well as he could or should?

How do we know they didn't?

I figured we'd hear about it by now. Everything else from their past has been dug up. A warning from the police about detaining people would be eaten up by Martin's lawyer.

 

[TexanFan02]

So where are we?

We have strong reason to believe that Zimmerman instigated a confrontation. We have strong reason to believe that Zimmerman cold-bloodedly shot this unarmed teenager and killed him, without any provocation whatsoever. However, strong reason is not proof, and reasonable doubt, IMO, remains.

On the other hand, we have no reason or evidence to believe that Zimmerman was the one who was attacked, that Zimmerman was fighting for his life, and that Zimmerman killed Martin in self-defense. In fact, every bit of evidence that we know seems to suggest that this scenario is complete and total nonsense and that Zimmerman is lying about it to cover up his crime. However, this scenario must from a legal sense be considered at least plausible, however inprobable it really appears.

We also have good reason to believe that either the Sanford police deliberately lied in their investigation, or they told the truth, or they completely screwed up and are attempting to cover-up their screwups by lying and futher screwing up. Of the three options, by far the most difficult to believe is that they told the truth. I think screw up is the most likely explanation.

Unfortunately, I'd still have to vote to acquit this scumbag unless further evidence shows up...

Link?I thought the evidence was that the two were involved in a physical altercation, of unknown origin? When did it turn into Zimmerman hunting down and killing his prey?

Do you think Zimmerman was on top of Martin and shot him? That does not seem plausible - not saying it could not have gone down that way, but I'd need physical evidence to corroborate that story.

My evidence is that Zimmerman on the phone complains that these guys always get away. That's the single piece of evidence we have that indicates that Zimmerman is the one who chased Martin down. In order to assume the opposite, we have only Zimmerman's word.

He also says he's following him. That's a pretty strong indication that he was following him.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Yeah, all conservatives are taking the "wait and see because he's probably innocent" stance.

Will you please just stop it? There are lots of prominent conservatives at NRO and elsewhere that have said from the beginning that Zimmerman is probably guilty. Of course, they're apparently evil because they have chastised those who are making it a straight race issue. If Zimmerman's last name was Rodriguez, would this even be a national issue?

I find it disgusting that there are now Democratic fundraisers using the "hoodie" as a means to raise money. It seems especially ironic considering Zimmerman was actually a registered Democrat.

I mean, the spin on this thing is ridiculous. Have you ever even heard the term "white Hispanic" used in the media before this? It's like a desperate attempt to continue the white vs. black narrative.

 

[TexanFan02]

Now he likely escalated the situation verbally, and I could almost see him reaching out to grab Martin, but even that feels like a stretch.

Pretty sure he chased someone down and detained them for the police before. It was linked in the thread a while ago.

The person Zimmerman "detained" was arrested and neighbors see Zimmerman as a hero. Zimmerman was not arrested for stalking, detaining, abusing, etc. He did not even get a warning from what we know. Was the perp physically detained? Did he have to chase this person down? Did he have to draw his weapon to detain him? Dunno. Whatever he did to detain him, why wouldn't he try to do the exact same thing again?

Because he's not a police officer, he's carrying a loaded weapon, he doesn't know all of the circumstances surrounding the individual he's pursuing, and an innocent person could end up dead (perhaps himself)?

When being questioned by the cops on the previous detained person. You don't think the cops would tell him what you are saying if he did not handle the situation as well as he could or should?

How do we know they didn't?

I figured we'd hear about it by now. Everything else from their past has been dug up. A warning from the police about detaining people would be eaten up by Martin's lawyer.

Oh, I disagree. I think there are a lot of things the police know and aren't telling. That info will come out at trial, if there is one.

For instance, the SFD people who treated Zimmerman in the back of a police car could probably confirm or deny his injuries, but not a peep from them.

 

[Clinton]

He also says he's following him. That's a pretty strong indication that he was following him.

Party admission

 

[cstu]

the evidence against OJ was overwhelming from the very beginning.

Correct. We knew that OJ was black and two white people died.

Or, we see a guy who takes a flight out of town shortly after the murders, has blood in his car, goes on a nationally televised car chase, sends suicidal messages and puts a gun to his head (plus a whole lot of other evidence).

Why are you jumping to conclusions? He had a flight planned, cut himself shaving, suffered from claustrophobia and was afraid of jail, and had very large hands.

 

[GDogg]

Now he likely escalated the situation verbally, and I could almost see him reaching out to grab Martin, but even that feels like a stretch.

Pretty sure he chased someone down and detained them for the police before. It was linked in the thread a while ago.

The person Zimmerman "detained" was arrested and neighbors see Zimmerman as a hero. Zimmerman was not arrested for stalking, detaining, abusing, etc. He did not even get a warning from what we know. Was the perp physically detained? Did he have to chase this person down? Did he have to draw his weapon to detain him? Dunno. Whatever he did to detain him, why wouldn't he try to do the exact same thing again?

Because he's not a police officer, he's carrying a loaded weapon, he doesn't know all of the circumstances surrounding the individual he's pursuing, and an innocent person could end up dead (perhaps himself)?

When being questioned by the cops on the previous detained person. You don't think the cops would tell him what you are saying if he did not handle the situation as well as he could or should?

I would guess that they probably did. If he did what he did with Trayvon (prior to shooting him), they may have appreciated the results, but my guess is they probably told him that while his actions were heroic and resulted in an arrest, in the future, please just call 911 and let the authorities handle it.This is what the police do. They will tell you not to confront or engage with the suspect.

 

[Clinton]

Yeah, all conservatives are taking the "wait and see because he's probably innocent" stance.

Will you please just stop it? There are lots of prominent conservatives at NRO and elsewhere that have said from the beginning that Zimmerman is probably guilty. Of course, they're apparently evil because they have chastised those who are making it a straight race issue. If Zimmerman's last name was Rodriguez, would this even be a national issue?

I find it disgusting that there are now Democratic fundraisers using the "hoodie" as a means to raise money. It seems especially ironic considering Zimmerman was actually a registered Democrat.

I mean, the spin on this thing is ridiculous. Have you ever even heard the term "white Hispanic" used in the media before this? It's like a desperate attempt to continue the white vs. black narrative.

You don't even have to go to NRO. There are Conservatives in this very thread that have taken the same approach -- acknowledged that Zimmerman is probably guilty while also raising the same issues about the media and politics that you've raised above.

 

[jon_mx]

Obama is our first white-African American President!

 

[GDogg]

Yeah, all conservatives are taking the "wait and see because he's probably innocent" stance.

Will you please just stop it? There are lots of prominent conservatives at NRO and elsewhere that have said from the beginning that Zimmerman is probably guilty. Of course, they're apparently evil because they have chastised those who are making it a straight race issue. If Zimmerman's last name was Rodriguez, would this even be a national issue?

I find it disgusting that there are now Democratic fundraisers using the "hoodie" as a means to raise money. It seems especially ironic considering Zimmerman was actually a registered Democrat.

I mean, the spin on this thing is ridiculous. Have you ever even heard the term "white Hispanic" used in the media before this? It's like a desperate attempt to continue the white vs. black narrative.

Yes. The initial big story in all of this was that an armed self-titled "Neighborhood Watch Captain," shot an unarmed black teen in his gated community. The hook was the armed neighborhood watch captain. I don't think it would have mattered if he was Latino or white. And, the fact that he is Latino has been beaten to death and the story is only getting bigger.

 

[jon_mx]

If they had this on video, they could probably get a conviction. But in a fight, the line between self-defense/manslaughter/murder is blurry. Without video or eye-witnesses who saw the whole thing close up, there is no way there can be a conviction. Zimmerman would have to self-incriminate himself. It is a tragedy, but only one man alive on this planet knows exactly how it went down, and all the internet speculation is not going to change that.

 

[jon_mx]

Yeah, all conservatives are taking the "wait and see because he's probably innocent" stance.

Will you please just stop it? There are lots of prominent conservatives at NRO and elsewhere that have said from the beginning that Zimmerman is probably guilty. Of course, they're apparently evil because they have chastised those who are making it a straight race issue. If Zimmerman's last name was Rodriguez, would this even be a national issue?

I find it disgusting that there are now Democratic fundraisers using the "hoodie" as a means to raise money. It seems especially ironic considering Zimmerman was actually a registered Democrat.

I mean, the spin on this thing is ridiculous. Have you ever even heard the term "white Hispanic" used in the media before this? It's like a desperate attempt to continue the white vs. black narrative.

Yes. The initial big story in all of this was that an armed self-titled "Neighborhood Watch Captain," shot an unarmed black teen in his gated community. The hook was the armed neighborhood watch captain. I don't think it would have mattered if he was Latino or white. And, the fact that he is Latino has been beaten to death and the story is only getting bigger.

Most people when they hear gated community probably picture rich white people. And in fact, Zimmerman was widely identified only as white early on by much of the media.

 

[StrikeS2k]

For years I've heard conservatives ask, "why do we get so few votes from black people? There are great black conservatives out there, but 90-95% of African-Americans always vote Democrat! Why is that?"If you really want to know the answer, you have no further to look than this case. With almost no exception, every well known conservative talk show host and/or personality has taken a position here which is either an explicit defense of Zimmerman, or, at best, a "let's wait and see" approach which gives Zimmerman's story the benefit of the doubt. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and all of the others are defending every possibility that Zimmerman might be innocent, while claiming neutrality. So you have your answer. The average black person looks at Republicans and believes that they NEVER take "their side", that only non-blacks are the ones ever given the benefit of the doubt. They remember the OJ trial and other trials with blacks accused of crimes, and they notice that these same conservative personalities never seem to defend them, but when a white person (or in this case a Hispanic) is accused of an awful crime against a black person, somehow these same people ALWAYS come to the defense of the accused.And no, I'm not trying to speak for black people. But this is my strong impression.

They defended Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, etc.But I know, they aren't "real" blacks. Right?

You're talking about well-known ideological conservatives.Can you give an example of a case like this one in which there are no known political ideologies involved, in which conservatives take the side of the black guy?(Or for that matter, can you find one where liberals take the side of the white guy? It goes both ways.)

Rodney King beating.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Yeah, all conservatives are taking the "wait and see because he's probably innocent" stance.

Will you please just stop it? There are lots of prominent conservatives at NRO and elsewhere that have said from the beginning that Zimmerman is probably guilty. Of course, they're apparently evil because they have chastised those who are making it a straight race issue. If Zimmerman's last name was Rodriguez, would this even be a national issue?

I find it disgusting that there are now Democratic fundraisers using the "hoodie" as a means to raise money. It seems especially ironic considering Zimmerman was actually a registered Democrat.

I mean, the spin on this thing is ridiculous. Have you ever even heard the term "white Hispanic" used in the media before this? It's like a desperate attempt to continue the white vs. black narrative.

Yes. The initial big story in all of this was that an armed self-titled "Neighborhood Watch Captain," shot an unarmed black teen in his gated community. The hook was the armed neighborhood watch captain. I don't think it would have mattered if he was Latino or white. And, the fact that he is Latino has been beaten to death and the story is only getting bigger.

The only reason it became a big story to begin with is because of all of the black activists that jumped on it and made it into one. It took almost 3 weeks before the story went national.If the neighborhood watch guy had been black, do you really think this would have become a national story with all the outrage?

 

[timschochet]

That's not what I remember, Strike. There were less talk show hosts in those days, but the conservative ones I heard were largely on the side of the police officers.

 

[StrikeS2k]

That's not what I remember, Strike. There were less talk show hosts in those days, but the conservative ones I heard were largely on the side of the police officers.

Of course not. It doesn't fit your world view. I remember it differently. I don't remember ANYONE from either side thinking it was appropriate to beat a man half to death.

 

[GDogg]

Yeah, all conservatives are taking the "wait and see because he's probably innocent" stance.

Will you please just stop it? There are lots of prominent conservatives at NRO and elsewhere that have said from the beginning that Zimmerman is probably guilty. Of course, they're apparently evil because they have chastised those who are making it a straight race issue. If Zimmerman's last name was Rodriguez, would this even be a national issue?

I find it disgusting that there are now Democratic fundraisers using the "hoodie" as a means to raise money. It seems especially ironic considering Zimmerman was actually a registered Democrat.

I mean, the spin on this thing is ridiculous. Have you ever even heard the term "white Hispanic" used in the media before this? It's like a desperate attempt to continue the white vs. black narrative.

Yes. The initial big story in all of this was that an armed self-titled "Neighborhood Watch Captain," shot an unarmed black teen in his gated community. The hook was the armed neighborhood watch captain. I don't think it would have mattered if he was Latino or white. And, the fact that he is Latino has been beaten to death and the story is only getting bigger.

Most people when they hear gated community probably picture rich white people. And in fact, Zimmerman was widely identified only as white early on by much of the media.

Sure. But, that's beside the point. The big headline was "unarmed black teen shot by 'Neighborhood Watch Captain." And, it's no longer early on and Zimmerman has now been identified as Latino and the media scrutiny is only getting more intense.

So, yeah, I think this story would have been big regardless of whether he was Rodriguez or Zimmerman.

 

[cstu]

I'm sure this has been covered in the 100 + pages here, but if some drunk frat guy starts a fight with you in a Florida bar can you kill him legally?

Better than that - you can pick a fight with a drunken frat guy and, if he starts beating the hell out of you and you feel that your life is in danger, you can kill him legally, unless I'm reading it wrong (possible, my headcold is screaming at me). Here's the statute (taken from Wikipedia):

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.

—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Common sense says it should be legal to save your own life, no matter who was the aggressor. The difficulty comes with proving that a kid could do enough damage to him through fighting (head on the sidewalk) or that he believed Trayvon would shoot him if he were to get his gun. What I'm having a hard time understanding is why Trayvon would be the one crying/whining for help right before the gunshot as people are claiming. Zimmerman would have had killed him execution-style for that to have happened.

I find it more likely that Zimmerman was crying for help because Trayvon was beating ♠his ### and then when nobody came he decided to shoot Trayvon to end the fight. I don't think he *needed* to shoot him to save his life (i.e. self-defense) but he didn't want the beating to continue and had the means to end it.

 

[TexanFan02]

I'm sure this has been covered in the 100 + pages here, but if some drunk frat guy starts a fight with you in a Florida bar can you kill him legally?

Better than that - you can pick a fight with a drunken frat guy and, if he starts beating the hell out of you and you feel that your life is in danger, you can kill him legally, unless I'm reading it wrong (possible, my headcold is screaming at me). Here's the statute (taken from Wikipedia):

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.

—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Common sense says it should be legal to save your own life, no matter who was the aggressor. The difficulty comes with proving that a kid could do enough damage to him through fighting (head on the sidewalk) or that he believed Trayvon would shoot him if he were to get his gun. What I'm having a hard time understanding is why Trayvon would be the one crying/whining for help right before the gunshot as people are claiming. Zimmerman would have had killed him execution-style for that to have happened.

I find it more likely that Zimmerman was crying for help because Trayvon was beating ♠his ### and then when nobody came he decided to shoot Trayvon to end the fight. I don't think he *needed* to shoot him to save his life (i.e. self-defense) but he didn't want the beating to continue and had the means to end it.

Would explain a lot.

 

[identikit]

That's not what I remember, Strike. There were less talk show hosts in those days, but the conservative ones I heard were largely on the side of the police officers.

Of course not. It doesn't fit your world view. I remember it differently. I don't remember ANYONE from either side thinking it was appropriate to beat a man half to death.

I'm sensing a new (old) thread topic picking up on this very point 3 years from now.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

That's not what I remember, Strike. There were less talk show hosts in those days, but the conservative ones I heard were largely on the side of the police officers.

Of course not. It doesn't fit your world view. I remember it differently. I don't remember ANYONE from either side thinking it was appropriate to beat a man half to death.

Except for the all white jury.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Yeah, all conservatives are taking the "wait and see because he's probably innocent" stance.

Will you please just stop it? There are lots of prominent conservatives at NRO and elsewhere that have said from the beginning that Zimmerman is probably guilty. Of course, they're apparently evil because they have chastised those who are making it a straight race issue. If Zimmerman's last name was Rodriguez, would this even be a national issue?

I find it disgusting that there are now Democratic fundraisers using the "hoodie" as a means to raise money. It seems especially ironic considering Zimmerman was actually a registered Democrat.

I mean, the spin on this thing is ridiculous. Have you ever even heard the term "white Hispanic" used in the media before this? It's like a desperate attempt to continue the white vs. black narrative.

Yes. The initial big story in all of this was that an armed self-titled "Neighborhood Watch Captain," shot an unarmed black teen in his gated community. The hook was the armed neighborhood watch captain. I don't think it would have mattered if he was Latino or white. And, the fact that he is Latino has been beaten to death and the story is only getting bigger.

Most people when they hear gated community probably picture rich white people. And in fact, Zimmerman was widely identified only as white early on by much of the media.

Sure. But, that's beside the point. The big headline was "unarmed black teen shot by 'Neighborhood Watch Captain." And, it's no longer early on and Zimmerman has now been identified as Latino and the media scrutiny is only getting more intense.

So, yeah, I think this story would have been big regardless of whether he was Rodriguez or Zimmerman.

He's not being identified as a Latino, he's being identified as a "white Hispanic."And do you really think this would be a national story if Zimmerman was black?

 

[cstu]

Why is that? Zimmerman's call to the police has Trayvon running away and Zimmerman not knowing where he was for at least a minute that he was on the phone. Trayvon's GF claims she heard him ask Zimmerman 'what are you following me for' and Zimmerman replied 'what are you doing around here?". After that Trayvon's headset comes off, which she thinks is from Zimmerman pushing him but is more likely from Trayvon punching him.

I'm with you up to that point. Why is that "more likely?"

Because in my experience it doesn't play out that way. It seems strange that guy asking 'what are you doing here?' would push someone at the same time. However, it makes more sense that the guy offended by the question would punch somebody. We're also hearing a biased story and the GF would likely lie if Trayvon had said anything back to Zimmerman before the earpiece fell out.

 

[TexanFan02]

Why is that? Zimmerman's call to the police has Trayvon running away and Zimmerman not knowing where he was for at least a minute that he was on the phone. Trayvon's GF claims she heard him ask Zimmerman 'what are you following me for' and Zimmerman replied 'what are you doing around here?". After that Trayvon's headset comes off, which she thinks is from Zimmerman pushing him but is more likely from Trayvon punching him.

I'm with you up to that point. Why is that "more likely?"

Because in my experience it doesn't play out that way. It seems strange that guy asking 'what are you doing here?' would push someone at the same time. However, it makes more sense that the guy offended by the question would punch somebody. We're also hearing a biased story and the GF would likely lie if Trayvon had said anything back to Zimmerman before the earpiece fell out.

Yeah, there's no way Zimmerman is biased.

 

[StrikeS2k]

That's not what I remember, Strike. There were less talk show hosts in those days, but the conservative ones I heard were largely on the side of the police officers.

Of course not. It doesn't fit your world view. I remember it differently. I don't remember ANYONE from either side thinking it was appropriate to beat a man half to death.

Except for the all white jury.

You must be using the ethnic definitions as defined by the media for big Z. LOL. They picked a horrible change of venue for that trial. Simi Valley has a large number of cops living there. Not a smart place to have a trial for other cops.

 

[GDogg]

Yeah, all conservatives are taking the "wait and see because he's probably innocent" stance.

Will you please just stop it? There are lots of prominent conservatives at NRO and elsewhere that have said from the beginning that Zimmerman is probably guilty. Of course, they're apparently evil because they have chastised those who are making it a straight race issue. If Zimmerman's last name was Rodriguez, would this even be a national issue?

I find it disgusting that there are now Democratic fundraisers using the "hoodie" as a means to raise money. It seems especially ironic considering Zimmerman was actually a registered Democrat.

I mean, the spin on this thing is ridiculous. Have you ever even heard the term "white Hispanic" used in the media before this? It's like a desperate attempt to continue the white vs. black narrative.

Yes. The initial big story in all of this was that an armed self-titled "Neighborhood Watch Captain," shot an unarmed black teen in his gated community. The hook was the armed neighborhood watch captain. I don't think it would have mattered if he was Latino or white. And, the fact that he is Latino has been beaten to death and the story is only getting bigger.

The only reason it became a big story to begin with is because of all of the black activists that jumped on it and made it into one. It took almost 3 weeks before the story went national.

If the neighborhood watch guy had been black, do you really think this would have become a national story with all the outrage?

No, it didn't.I'm not sure if it was the first national report or not, but it was on abcnews.com 9 days after the incident.

The initial report on this very thread went up 11 days after the incident (March 8, 2012) and it had gone national at that point because I was independently aware of the story when this thread was started.

Neither of these were close to three weeks.

Actually, it looks like there were several outlets that picked it up within that week.

If the neighborhood watch guy had been black, yes, I think this would have been a national story. Would there have been the same stories expressing outrage of racism? Uhh, no. Why would there be?

 

[Clinton]

Can you give an example of a case like this one in which there are no known political ideologies involved, in which conservatives take the side of the black guy?

Start at the 2:00 mark of the video. Every Conservative I know was completely rooting for Carl Winslow over the white guy.http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/46621058

 

[GDogg]

I'm sure this has been covered in the 100 + pages here, but if some drunk frat guy starts a fight with you in a Florida bar can you kill him legally?

Better than that - you can pick a fight with a drunken frat guy and, if he starts beating the hell out of you and you feel that your life is in danger, you can kill him legally, unless I'm reading it wrong (possible, my headcold is screaming at me). Here's the statute (taken from Wikipedia):

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.

—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Common sense says it should be legal to save your own life, no matter who was the aggressor. The difficulty comes with proving that a kid could do enough damage to him through fighting (head on the sidewalk) or that he believed Trayvon would shoot him if he were to get his gun. What I'm having a hard time understanding is why Trayvon would be the one crying/whining for help right before the gunshot as people are claiming. Zimmerman would have had killed him execution-style for that to have happened.

I find it more likely that Zimmerman was crying for help because Trayvon was beating ♠his ### and then when nobody came he decided to shoot Trayvon to end the fight. I don't think he *needed* to shoot him to save his life (i.e. self-defense) but he didn't want the beating to continue and had the means to end it.

Because if I'm screaming for help and crying/whining, I'm not stopping immediately after pulling the trigger. In fact, I think I'd still be crying and screaming after pulling the trigger. I certainly wouldn't go silent.

 

[humpback]

the evidence against OJ was overwhelming from the very beginning.

Correct. We knew that OJ was black and two white people died.

Or, we see a guy who takes a flight out of town shortly after the murders, has blood in his car, goes on a nationally televised car chase, sends suicidal messages and puts a gun to his head (plus a whole lot of other evidence).

Why are you jumping to conclusions? He had a flight planned, cut himself shaving, suffered from claustrophobia and was afraid of jail, and had very large hands.

Why bother looking at the evidence? All you need to know is skin color of those involved.

 

[GDogg]

Yeah, all conservatives are taking the "wait and see because he's probably innocent" stance.

Will you please just stop it? There are lots of prominent conservatives at NRO and elsewhere that have said from the beginning that Zimmerman is probably guilty. Of course, they're apparently evil because they have chastised those who are making it a straight race issue. If Zimmerman's last name was Rodriguez, would this even be a national issue?

I find it disgusting that there are now Democratic fundraisers using the "hoodie" as a means to raise money. It seems especially ironic considering Zimmerman was actually a registered Democrat.

I mean, the spin on this thing is ridiculous. Have you ever even heard the term "white Hispanic" used in the media before this? It's like a desperate attempt to continue the white vs. black narrative.

Yes. The initial big story in all of this was that an armed self-titled "Neighborhood Watch Captain," shot an unarmed black teen in his gated community. The hook was the armed neighborhood watch captain. I don't think it would have mattered if he was Latino or white. And, the fact that he is Latino has been beaten to death and the story is only getting bigger.

Most people when they hear gated community probably picture rich white people. And in fact, Zimmerman was widely identified only as white early on by much of the media.

Sure. But, that's beside the point. The big headline was "unarmed black teen shot by 'Neighborhood Watch Captain." And, it's no longer early on and Zimmerman has now been identified as Latino and the media scrutiny is only getting more intense.

So, yeah, I think this story would have been big regardless of whether he was Rodriguez or Zimmerman.

He's not being identified as a Latino, he's being identified as a "white Hispanic."And do you really think this would be a national story if Zimmerman was black?

Can you tell me what the difference is?Yes, I think this would be a national story if Zimmerman was black. The initial narrative was of a neighborhood watch person going vigilante. I had no idea what his ethnicity was when I read the first headline.

 

[timschochet]

That's not what I remember, Strike. There were less talk show hosts in those days, but the conservative ones I heard were largely on the side of the police officers.

Of course not. It doesn't fit your world view. I remember it differently. I don't remember ANYONE from either side thinking it was appropriate to beat a man half to death.

I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore because I'm sure nobody else reading this cares. But if you're interested, google Rush Limbaugh and Rodney King and see what he had to say about it.

 

[GDogg]

Why is that? Zimmerman's call to the police has Trayvon running away and Zimmerman not knowing where he was for at least a minute that he was on the phone. Trayvon's GF claims she heard him ask Zimmerman 'what are you following me for' and Zimmerman replied 'what are you doing around here?". After that Trayvon's headset comes off, which she thinks is from Zimmerman pushing him but is more likely from Trayvon punching him.

I'm with you up to that point. Why is that "more likely?"

Because in my experience it doesn't play out that way. It seems strange that guy asking 'what are you doing here?' would push someone at the same time. However, it makes more sense that the guy offended by the question would punch somebody. We're also hearing a biased story and the GF would likely lie if Trayvon had said anything back to Zimmerman before the earpiece fell out.

What experience is that? You've followed someone in a vehicle, got out on foot and followed them and then confronted them and asked them what they were doing there and didn't touch them? Or, you've been followed by someone in a vehicle, that person got out on foot and followed you and then confronted you, asked what you were doing there and didn't touch you?It's funny because it doesn't seem strange to me at all that a guy who is carrying a gun and is brazen enough to follow a person for several minutes closely enough that they can tell that the person they are following has noticed them, doesn't care about that, and is brazen enough to then exit his vehicle and follow said person, would touch that person (be it via push or by grabbing them). It doesn't at all seem out of place.

ETA: And, you think Trayvon's girlfried is biased and would likely lie for him? You don't think Zimmerman, the guy who could go to jail for murder would be biased and lie to protect himself? Yeah, he's the one whose word is going to be most objective...

 

[StrikeS2k]

Can you give an example of a case like this one in which there are no known political ideologies involved, in which conservatives take the side of the black guy?

Start at the 2:00 mark of the video. Every Conservative I know was completely rooting for Carl Winslow over the white guy.http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/46621058

Please change your quote so that I am not erroneously associated with a Timschochet post. TIA.

 

[StrikeS2k]

That's not what I remember, Strike. There were less talk show hosts in those days, but the conservative ones I heard were largely on the side of the police officers.

Of course not. It doesn't fit your world view. I remember it differently. I don't remember ANYONE from either side thinking it was appropriate to beat a man half to death.

I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore because I'm sure nobody else reading this cares. But if you're interested, google Rush Limbaugh and Rodney King and see what he had to say about it.

Please provide a link, either here or via PM. I want to know specifically what he said that you are referring to and not what I might come up with myself. TIA.

 

[Clinton]

Can you give an example of a case like this one in which there are no known political ideologies involved, in which conservatives take the side of the black guy?

Start at the 2:00 mark of the video. Every Conservative I know was completely rooting for Carl Winslow over the white guy.http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/46621058

Please change your quote so that I am not erroneously associated with a Timschochet post. TIA.

I didn't even notice that. Will do.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Yeah, all conservatives are taking the "wait and see because he's probably innocent" stance.

Will you please just stop it? There are lots of prominent conservatives at NRO and elsewhere that have said from the beginning that Zimmerman is probably guilty. Of course, they're apparently evil because they have chastised those who are making it a straight race issue. If Zimmerman's last name was Rodriguez, would this even be a national issue?

I find it disgusting that there are now Democratic fundraisers using the "hoodie" as a means to raise money. It seems especially ironic considering Zimmerman was actually a registered Democrat.

I mean, the spin on this thing is ridiculous. Have you ever even heard the term "white Hispanic" used in the media before this? It's like a desperate attempt to continue the white vs. black narrative.

Yes. The initial big story in all of this was that an armed self-titled "Neighborhood Watch Captain," shot an unarmed black teen in his gated community. The hook was the armed neighborhood watch captain. I don't think it would have mattered if he was Latino or white. And, the fact that he is Latino has been beaten to death and the story is only getting bigger.

The only reason it became a big story to begin with is because of all of the black activists that jumped on it and made it into one. It took almost 3 weeks before the story went national.If the neighborhood watch guy had been black, do you really think this would have become a national story with all the outrage?

The arguement is that if Z was black, he would have been arrested and no need for national outrage.

 

[moderated]

I'm sure this has been covered in the 100 + pages here, but if some drunk frat guy starts a fight with you in a Florida bar can you kill him legally?

Better than that - you can pick a fight with a drunken frat guy and, if he starts beating the hell out of you and you feel that your life is in danger, you can kill him legally, unless I'm reading it wrong (possible, my headcold is screaming at me). Here's the statute (taken from Wikipedia):

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.

—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Common sense says it should be legal to save your own life, no matter who was the aggressor. The difficulty comes with proving that a kid could do enough damage to him through fighting (head on the sidewalk) or that he believed Trayvon would shoot him if he were to get his gun. What I'm having a hard time understanding is why Trayvon would be the one crying/whining for help right before the gunshot as people are claiming. Zimmerman would have had killed him execution-style for that to have happened.

I find it more likely that Zimmerman was crying for help because Trayvon was beating ♠his ### and then when nobody came he decided to shoot Trayvon to end the fight. I don't think he *needed* to shoot him to save his life (i.e. self-defense) but he didn't want the beating to continue and had the means to end it.

Because if I'm screaming for help and crying/whining, I'm not stopping immediately after pulling the trigger. In fact, I think I'd still be crying and screaming after pulling the trigger. I certainly wouldn't go silent.

Immediately after the gunshot it goes silent. The person screaming was the one who got shot, who happened to be trayvon.

 

[cstu]

Why is that? Zimmerman's call to the police has Trayvon running away and Zimmerman not knowing where he was for at least a minute that he was on the phone. Trayvon's GF claims she heard him ask Zimmerman 'what are you following me for' and Zimmerman replied 'what are you doing around here?". After that Trayvon's headset comes off, which she thinks is from Zimmerman pushing him but is more likely from Trayvon punching him.

I'm with you up to that point. Why is that "more likely?"

Because in my experience it doesn't play out that way. It seems strange that guy asking 'what are you doing here?' would push someone at the same time. However, it makes more sense that the guy offended by the question would punch somebody. We're also hearing a biased story and the GF would likely lie if Trayvon had said anything back to Zimmerman before the earpiece fell out.

Yeah, there's no way Zimmerman is biased.

Of course he is but his story at that point goes with what Trayvon's GF said happened. Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon said 'do you have a problem?' and then said 'no' and reached for his phone to call the police. Then he said that Trayvon punched him, breaking his nose and knocking him to the ground.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Why is that? Zimmerman's call to the police has Trayvon running away and Zimmerman not knowing where he was for at least a minute that he was on the phone. Trayvon's GF claims she heard him ask Zimmerman 'what are you following me for' and Zimmerman replied 'what are you doing around here?". After that Trayvon's headset comes off, which she thinks is from Zimmerman pushing him but is more likely from Trayvon punching him.

I'm with you up to that point. Why is that "more likely?"

Because in my experience it doesn't play out that way. It seems strange that guy asking 'what are you doing here?' would push someone at the same time. However, it makes more sense that the guy offended by the question would punch somebody. We're also hearing a biased story and the GF would likely lie if Trayvon had said anything back to Zimmerman before the earpiece fell out.

Yeah, there's no way Zimmerman is biased.

Throw out both testemonies then.. What do you have left? Still not enough to know, and likely not enough to convict..

 

[Sinn Fein]

So where are we?

We have strong reason to believe that Zimmerman instigated a confrontation. We have strong reason to believe that Zimmerman cold-bloodedly shot this unarmed teenager and killed him, without any provocation whatsoever. However, strong reason is not proof, and reasonable doubt, IMO, remains.

On the other hand, we have no reason or evidence to believe that Zimmerman was the one who was attacked, that Zimmerman was fighting for his life, and that Zimmerman killed Martin in self-defense. In fact, every bit of evidence that we know seems to suggest that this scenario is complete and total nonsense and that Zimmerman is lying about it to cover up his crime. However, this scenario must from a legal sense be considered at least plausible, however inprobable it really appears.

We also have good reason to believe that either the Sanford police deliberately lied in their investigation, or they told the truth, or they completely screwed up and are attempting to cover-up their screwups by lying and futher screwing up. Of the three options, by far the most difficult to believe is that they told the truth. I think screw up is the most likely explanation.

Unfortunately, I'd still have to vote to acquit this scumbag unless further evidence shows up...

Link?I thought the evidence was that the two were involved in a physical altercation, of unknown origin? When did it turn into Zimmerman hunting down and killing his prey?

Do you think Zimmerman was on top of Martin and shot him? That does not seem plausible - not saying it could not have gone down that way, but I'd need physical evidence to corroborate that story.

My evidence is that Zimmerman on the phone complains that these guys always get away. That's the single piece of evidence we have that indicates that Zimmerman is the one who chased Martin down. In order to assume the opposite, we have only Zimmerman's word.

He also says he's following him. That's a pretty strong indication that he was following him.

My point was that it is a far cry from following him to cold-bloodedly killing him without provocation. The evidence seems to strongly suggest there was a physical altercation, which is the likely precursor to the shooting. I think it is equally as likely as to who escalated the verbal confrontation to a physical confrontation, meaning, in my mind, it is reasonable to think other could have been the instigator of the physical altercation.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I'm sure this has been covered in the 100 + pages here, but if some drunk frat guy starts a fight with you in a Florida bar can you kill him legally?

Better than that - you can pick a fight with a drunken frat guy and, if he starts beating the hell out of you and you feel that your life is in danger, you can kill him legally, unless I'm reading it wrong (possible, my headcold is screaming at me). Here's the statute (taken from Wikipedia):

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.

—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Common sense says it should be legal to save your own life, no matter who was the aggressor. The difficulty comes with proving that a kid could do enough damage to him through fighting (head on the sidewalk) or that he believed Trayvon would shoot him if he were to get his gun. What I'm having a hard time understanding is why Trayvon would be the one crying/whining for help right before the gunshot as people are claiming. Zimmerman would have had killed him execution-style for that to have happened.

I find it more likely that Zimmerman was crying for help because Trayvon was beating ♠his ### and then when nobody came he decided to shoot Trayvon to end the fight. I don't think he *needed* to shoot him to save his life (i.e. self-defense) but he didn't want the beating to continue and had the means to end it.

Because if I'm screaming for help and crying/whining, I'm not stopping immediately after pulling the trigger. In fact, I think I'd still be crying and screaming after pulling the trigger. I certainly wouldn't go silent.

Why would you still be screaming for help after the person who was attacking you was dead?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Why is that? Zimmerman's call to the police has Trayvon running away and Zimmerman not knowing where he was for at least a minute that he was on the phone. Trayvon's GF claims she heard him ask Zimmerman 'what are you following me for' and Zimmerman replied 'what are you doing around here?". After that Trayvon's headset comes off, which she thinks is from Zimmerman pushing him but is more likely from Trayvon punching him.

I'm with you up to that point. Why is that "more likely?"

Because in my experience it doesn't play out that way. It seems strange that guy asking 'what are you doing here?' would push someone at the same time. However, it makes more sense that the guy offended by the question would punch somebody. We're also hearing a biased story and the GF would likely lie if Trayvon had said anything back to Zimmerman before the earpiece fell out.

What experience is that? You've followed someone in a vehicle, got out on foot and followed them and then confronted them and asked them what they were doing there and didn't touch them? Or, you've been followed by someone in a vehicle, that person got out on foot and followed you and then confronted you, asked what you were doing there and didn't touch you?It's funny because it doesn't seem strange to me at all that a guy who is carrying a gun and is brazen enough to follow a person for several minutes closely enough that they can tell that the person they are following has noticed them, doesn't care about that, and is brazen enough to then exit his vehicle and follow said person, would touch that person (be it via push or by grabbing them). It doesn't at all seem out of place.

ETA: And, you think Trayvon's girlfried is biased and would likely lie for him? You don't think Zimmerman, the guy who could go to jail for murder would be biased and lie to protect himself? Yeah, he's the one whose word is going to be most objective...

Being a young punk once myself, I had been asked before what I was doing somewhere without having someone push, punch, or grab me... Also, I had seen other kids questioed by adults, attack the adult.. Thuggish behavior is pretty predictable.. I'm not saying Trayvon was a thug, but he could have been..

 

[Joe Summer]

Why would you still be screaming for help after the person who was attacking you was dead?

Because your nose is broken?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Why would you still be screaming for help after the person who was attacking you was dead?

Because your nose is broken?

Would you scream for help if your nose was broken? I wouldn't..

 

[GDogg]

I'm sure this has been covered in the 100 + pages here, but if some drunk frat guy starts a fight with you in a Florida bar can you kill him legally?

Better than that - you can pick a fight with a drunken frat guy and, if he starts beating the hell out of you and you feel that your life is in danger, you can kill him legally, unless I'm reading it wrong (possible, my headcold is screaming at me). Here's the statute (taken from Wikipedia):

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.

—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Common sense says it should be legal to save your own life, no matter who was the aggressor. The difficulty comes with proving that a kid could do enough damage to him through fighting (head on the sidewalk) or that he believed Trayvon would shoot him if he were to get his gun. What I'm having a hard time understanding is why Trayvon would be the one crying/whining for help right before the gunshot as people are claiming. Zimmerman would have had killed him execution-style for that to have happened.

I find it more likely that Zimmerman was crying for help because Trayvon was beating ♠his ### and then when nobody came he decided to shoot Trayvon to end the fight. I don't think he *needed* to shoot him to save his life (i.e. self-defense) but he didn't want the beating to continue and had the means to end it.

Because if I'm screaming for help and crying/whining, I'm not stopping immediately after pulling the trigger. In fact, I think I'd still be crying and screaming after pulling the trigger. I certainly wouldn't go silent.

Why would you still be screaming for help after the person who was attacking you was dead?

Why wouldn't I?Why would I immediately know that the person who was attacking me was dead the instant I pulled the trigger unless I'm a doctor? Also, why would I stop screaming if I was screaming my head off (presumably attracting a lot of attention) and then pulled the trigger on my gun and shot someone?

Hell, I'd probably be screaming after it happened if I simply watched this happen and wasn't involved.

 

[TexanFan02]

So where are we?

We have strong reason to believe that Zimmerman instigated a confrontation. We have strong reason to believe that Zimmerman cold-bloodedly shot this unarmed teenager and killed him, without any provocation whatsoever. However, strong reason is not proof, and reasonable doubt, IMO, remains.

On the other hand, we have no reason or evidence to believe that Zimmerman was the one who was attacked, that Zimmerman was fighting for his life, and that Zimmerman killed Martin in self-defense. In fact, every bit of evidence that we know seems to suggest that this scenario is complete and total nonsense and that Zimmerman is lying about it to cover up his crime. However, this scenario must from a legal sense be considered at least plausible, however inprobable it really appears.

We also have good reason to believe that either the Sanford police deliberately lied in their investigation, or they told the truth, or they completely screwed up and are attempting to cover-up their screwups by lying and futher screwing up. Of the three options, by far the most difficult to believe is that they told the truth. I think screw up is the most likely explanation.

Unfortunately, I'd still have to vote to acquit this scumbag unless further evidence shows up...

Link?I thought the evidence was that the two were involved in a physical altercation, of unknown origin? When did it turn into Zimmerman hunting down and killing his prey?

Do you think Zimmerman was on top of Martin and shot him? That does not seem plausible - not saying it could not have gone down that way, but I'd need physical evidence to corroborate that story.

My evidence is that Zimmerman on the phone complains that these guys always get away. That's the single piece of evidence we have that indicates that Zimmerman is the one who chased Martin down. In order to assume the opposite, we have only Zimmerman's word.

He also says he's following him. That's a pretty strong indication that he was following him.

My point was that it is a far cry from following him to cold-bloodedly killing him without provocation. The evidence seems to strongly suggest there was a physical altercation, which is the likely precursor to the shooting. I think it is equally as likely as to who escalated the verbal confrontation to a physical confrontation, meaning, in my mind, it is reasonable to think other could have been the instigator of the physical altercation.

I was actually responding to Tim's "one piece of evidence" statement.

 

[TexanFan02]

Why is that? Zimmerman's call to the police has Trayvon running away and Zimmerman not knowing where he was for at least a minute that he was on the phone. Trayvon's GF claims she heard him ask Zimmerman 'what are you following me for' and Zimmerman replied 'what are you doing around here?". After that Trayvon's headset comes off, which she thinks is from Zimmerman pushing him but is more likely from Trayvon punching him.

I'm with you up to that point. Why is that "more likely?"

Because in my experience it doesn't play out that way. It seems strange that guy asking 'what are you doing here?' would push someone at the same time. However, it makes more sense that the guy offended by the question would punch somebody. We're also hearing a biased story and the GF would likely lie if Trayvon had said anything back to Zimmerman before the earpiece fell out.

Yeah, there's no way Zimmerman is biased.

Of course he is but his story at that point goes with what Trayvon's GF said happened. Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon said 'do you have a problem?' and then said 'no' and reached for his phone to call the police. Then he said that Trayvon punched him, breaking his nose and knocking him to the ground.

None of his story agrees with what the girlfriend heard.

 

[GDogg]

Why is that? Zimmerman's call to the police has Trayvon running away and Zimmerman not knowing where he was for at least a minute that he was on the phone. Trayvon's GF claims she heard him ask Zimmerman 'what are you following me for' and Zimmerman replied 'what are you doing around here?". After that Trayvon's headset comes off, which she thinks is from Zimmerman pushing him but is more likely from Trayvon punching him.

I'm with you up to that point. Why is that "more likely?"

Because in my experience it doesn't play out that way. It seems strange that guy asking 'what are you doing here?' would push someone at the same time. However, it makes more sense that the guy offended by the question would punch somebody. We're also hearing a biased story and the GF would likely lie if Trayvon had said anything back to Zimmerman before the earpiece fell out.

What experience is that? You've followed someone in a vehicle, got out on foot and followed them and then confronted them and asked them what they were doing there and didn't touch them? Or, you've been followed by someone in a vehicle, that person got out on foot and followed you and then confronted you, asked what you were doing there and didn't touch you?It's funny because it doesn't seem strange to me at all that a guy who is carrying a gun and is brazen enough to follow a person for several minutes closely enough that they can tell that the person they are following has noticed them, doesn't care about that, and is brazen enough to then exit his vehicle and follow said person, would touch that person (be it via push or by grabbing them). It doesn't at all seem out of place.

ETA: And, you think Trayvon's girlfried is biased and would likely lie for him? You don't think Zimmerman, the guy who could go to jail for murder would be biased and lie to protect himself? Yeah, he's the one whose word is going to be most objective...

Being a young punk once myself, I had been asked before what I was doing somewhere without having someone push, punch, or grab me... Also, I had seen other kids questioed by adults, attack the adult.. Thuggish behavior is pretty predictable.. I'm not saying Trayvon was a thug, but he could have been..

Ok. Forgive me, but I'm trying to figure out the relevance of this.Were you walking down the street by yourself speaking on your cell phone and minding your own business? Did the adult follow you slowly in his vehicle? Did the adult get out of his vehicle after you noticed him? Did the adult pursue you and then did you run away? Did the adult have a gun?

If you're not saying that Trayvon was "a young punk" or "a thug" and that none of the above happened in your case, then, with all due respect, what does this have to do with anything?

ETA: That came off a little harsh and I didn't mean for it to. More to the point is that this is one instance and it doesn't mean that Zimmerman wouldn't have.