Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[TobiasFunke]

Stop robbing and killing people and people will stop thinking you're likely to rob and kill people.

Not a good posting at all. Icon may have not had a good upbringing, but it's silly for him to compare himself to most black teens. Neither he nor I nor any white person can truly understand what it's like to be black in this country.And while it's true that blacks have a responsibility to improve themselves and stop violence, we as a society also have a responsibility to remove racism from our police and judicial system where it continues to exist.

There have been great strides socially to help combat racism that has opened many doors for blacks in the workforce.

Culturally, black acceptance in society as a whole has come MASSIVE distances over the last 40 years.

However, blacks account for as high (or higher) a percentage of crime as they ever have.

It's easy to live in "Timmay's Fantasy Land" and say "We just need to eliminate racism and everything will be okay. However, at this point the bulk of the blame here is on black America. If they start doing their part, the rest of society can continue the progress they've made thus far. Until then... they are the primary force holding themselves back. Period.

Do you think wealthy blacks commit violent crimes at a higher rate than poor whites?

 

[timschochet]

A lot of you continue to accept Zimmermans tale as if it were Gospel. For the umpteenth time: there's no evidence that Martin initiated the fight. There's no evidence that Martin did serious damage to Zimmerman. There's no evidence that Zimmerman was ever in fear for his life. In fact, all of the evidence we have argues against these points. So please stop arguing as if these points were true. We have no idea if they are true or not, and never will. His acquittal doesn't make them any more true.

The evidence that no one is disputing is that Trayvon turned around to go confront GZ instead of going into his house. We don't know what happened after that but it's highly unlikely that he went back only to tell him "Sir, I noticed your were following me earlier and I came back to tell you I didn't appreciate it".

There is no evidence of this. It is all conjecture based on timeline. We have no idea whatsoever that Trayvon turned around, and never will.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

yes if you had grown up black, you would perceive these events very differently. If you had been followed before by someone who was suspicious of you because you were black and nothing else, you would perceive these events very differently.

Be thankful that the reaction in the black community is so foreign to you that you do not understand how someone could react that way. That means you're privileged in this culture.

Anyone would be annoyed by someone following/watching them, but it is called a neighborhood watch for a reason. It had to do with a stranger wandering around suspeciously then it did skin color. Anyone who thinks it has to do with skin color must be a mind reader, but Zimmerman never made it a point.

I love how everyone turns a blind eye to the underlying reason for the the suspicion.

Look... does it suck that the situation exists that black people are under increased suspicion due to their race? Yes... it's a damn shame to be honest. However black people have as much or more to blame for this predicament than the people who cast a wary eye in their direction. Stop engaging in criminal activity at a rate that is orders of magnitude above any other race, and perhaps you won't be viewed as a race with a predisposition toward crime.

It's an unpopular thing to say... but it's the reality of the situation.

There's no way that this could be because we look for criminal activity more often and more closely among black men than any other group?

War on drugs criminalizing behavior that is prevalent in poor areas, which usually means minority areas have anything to do with this?

How about the fact that MEN engage in criminal activity at an order of magnitude above any other gender (ie women). Should we view ALL men as predisposed towards crime and treat them as such?

 

[RCon]

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Martin was the aggressor on starting the fight. You can argue that Zimmerman provolked it by watching/following. But there is zero percent chance Zimmerman initiated the fight.

This is simply not true. What evidence do we have as regards who started the fight? (Rich, this is in response to you too.)

Here's what we KNOW:

1. Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious, and complained that these guys "always get away."

Here's what we THINK we know:

1. Zimmerman was following Martin, and stepped out of his car to do so.

2. Martin was heading home, but refused to run home, despite the urging of Rachel.

Based on this evidence, (which admittedly is pretty slight) it is more likely that Zimmerman was the initiator. EVERYTHING else is complete conjecture, or based on Zimmerman's self-serving narrative of events.

I really don't understand how you get from the bolded to the underlined/italicized. That seems to contradict all rules of logic. You could say "based on the evidence in the bolded section, we don't know who initiated the fight", but it makes no sense to say "it is more likely Zimmerman was the initiator".

 

[timschochet]

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Martin was the aggressor on starting the fight. You can argue that Zimmerman provolked it by watching/following. But there is zero percent chance Zimmerman initiated the fight.

This is simply not true. What evidence do we have as regards who started the fight? (Rich, this is in response to you too.)

Here's what we KNOW:

1. Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious, and complained that these guys "always get away."

Here's what we THINK we know:

1. Zimmerman was following Martin, and stepped out of his car to do so.

2. Martin was heading home, but refused to run home, despite the urging of Rachel.

Based on this evidence, (which admittedly is pretty slight) it is more likely that Zimmerman was the initiator. EVERYTHING else is complete conjecture, or based on Zimmerman's self-serving narrative of events.

No sane individual would engage in a fist fight when armed. Martin already approached Zimmerman once. Martin had to be hiding. Martin approached and asked a question, with an obvious chip on his shoulder (maybe justified, but still pissed at the crazy-### cracker). Martin was the one who displayed the most rage and was the one who initiated the fight. There is no other logical conclusion.

1. I don't know that this is true.

2. That's according to Zimmerman- completely unproven.

3. No evidence of this either.

4. No evidence of this either.

5. No evidence of this either.

Your "only logical conclusion" is based wholly on surmise and Zimmerman's narrative, just as I wrote earlier.

 

[jon_mx]

yes if you had grown up black, you would perceive these events very differently. If you had been followed before by someone who was suspicious of you because you were black and nothing else, you would perceive these events very differently.

Be thankful that the reaction in the black community is so foreign to you that you do not understand how someone could react that way. That means you're privileged in this culture.

Anyone would be annoyed by someone following/watching them, but it is called a neighborhood watch for a reason. It had to do with a stranger wandering around suspeciously then it did skin color. Anyone who thinks it has to do with skin color must be a mind reader, but Zimmerman never made it a point.

I love how everyone turns a blind eye to the underlying reason for the the suspicion.

Look... does it suck that the situation exists that black people are under increased suspicion due to their race? Yes... it's a damn shame to be honest. However black people have as much or more to blame for this predicament than the people who cast a wary eye in their direction. Stop engaging in criminal activity at a rate that is orders of magnitude above any other race, and perhaps you won't be viewed as a race with a predisposition toward crime.

It's an unpopular thing to say... but it's the reality of the situation.

There's no way that this could be because we look for criminal activity more often and more closely among black men than any other group?

War on drugs criminalizing behavior that is prevalent in poor areas, which usually means minority areas have anything to do with this?

How about the fact that MEN engage in criminal activity at an order of magnitude above any other gender (ie women). Should we view ALL men as predisposed towards crime and treat them as such?

It could be, but deaths are investigated in all cases and the numbers there are undeniable.

 

[TobiasFunke]

yes if you had grown up black, you would perceive these events very differently. If you had been followed before by someone who was suspicious of you because you were black and nothing else, you would perceive these events very differently.

Be thankful that the reaction in the black community is so foreign to you that you do not understand how someone could react that way. That means you're privileged in this culture.

Anyone would be annoyed by someone following/watching them, but it is called a neighborhood watch for a reason. It had to do with a stranger wandering around suspeciously then it did skin color. Anyone who thinks it has to do with skin color must be a mind reader, but Zimmerman never made it a point.

I love how everyone turns a blind eye to the underlying reason for the the suspicion.

Look... does it suck that the situation exists that black people are under increased suspicion due to their race? Yes... it's a damn shame to be honest. However black people have as much or more to blame for this predicament than the people who cast a wary eye in their direction. Stop engaging in criminal activity at a rate that is orders of magnitude above any other race, and perhaps you won't be viewed as a race with a predisposition toward crime.

It's an unpopular thing to say... but it's the reality of the situation.

There's no way that this could be because we look for criminal activity more often and more closely among black men than any other group?

Or because they are, on average, much poorer and much more likely to come from single parent families?

That kind of detailed and thoughtful analysis is hard, though. Racism is much easier. "Those darn black people and their rap music and guns and drugs!"

 

[jon_mx]

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Martin was the aggressor on starting the fight. You can argue that Zimmerman provolked it by watching/following. But there is zero percent chance Zimmerman initiated the fight.

This is simply not true. What evidence do we have as regards who started the fight? (Rich, this is in response to you too.)

Here's what we KNOW:

1. Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious, and complained that these guys "always get away."

Here's what we THINK we know:

1. Zimmerman was following Martin, and stepped out of his car to do so.

2. Martin was heading home, but refused to run home, despite the urging of Rachel.

Based on this evidence, (which admittedly is pretty slight) it is more likely that Zimmerman was the initiator. EVERYTHING else is complete conjecture, or based on Zimmerman's self-serving narrative of events.

No sane individual would engage in a fist fight when armed. Martin already approached Zimmerman once. Martin had to be hiding. Martin approached and asked a question, with an obvious chip on his shoulder (maybe justified, but still pissed at the crazy-### cracker). Martin was the one who displayed the most rage and was the one who initiated the fight. There is no other logical conclusion.

1. I don't know that this is true.

2. That's according to Zimmerman- completely unproven.

3. No evidence of this either.

4. No evidence of this either.

5. No evidence of this either.

Your "only logical conclusion" is based wholly on surmise and Zimmerman's narrative, just as I wrote earlier.

1. Of course it is true. If an armed person sees someone dangerous, you don't start a fist fight. Never.

2. It is on the phone call. It was live. There is no reason to lie to create a story for an event which has not even happened. Zimmerman would have to be some kind of fortune teller in your reality.

3. Martin should have been long home.

4. You think 'they alway get away' equates to motive for murder, but creepy-### cracker shows love??????????? Come on Tim. It it pointless.

 

[renesauz]

If GZ was actually white instead of "more or less white" would media coverage have been different?

No, because it was his attitude to assume a young black man in his neighborhood was suspicious that kicked this case into the realm of "how race matters in America in 2013". It is his reason for noticing Martin in the first place, not his skin color/heritage that made this into such a controversial case.

So let me get this straight.....

We are more worried about how a Hispanic man wrongly profiled a young black man...than we are about how that young black man doubled back and started a fight.

The first step in stopping "improper profiling" is to NOT do things wrong which tend to reinforce the profiling. IE: TMs actions legitimized GZs suspicion...the kid WAS a problem. TM would have ended up in jail or dead based on the path he was on. The difference here is that an older Hispanic man killed him instead of another young black man in a gang related fight.

AAs need to stop whining about profiling and get their kids off drugs, out of gangs, and into school. Teach them how to talk to people with respect, and to avoid violence instead of resorting to it at the drop of a hat. Until these kids commit murders and other violence at a rate consistent with other races, there is no grounds for complaining about racial profiling, no matter how unethical it is. 15% of the population is committing over half the murders, and something like 80% of those are against other AAs. Wrap your head around that for a second...how can we as a society avoid racial profiling with statistics so warped? Better yet...WHY WOULD WE? (we being society at large...including AAs, who racially profile just as quickly)

 

[cstu]

A lot of you continue to accept Zimmermans tale as if it were Gospel. For the umpteenth time: there's no evidence that Martin initiated the fight. There's no evidence that Martin did serious damage to Zimmerman. There's no evidence that Zimmerman was ever in fear for his life. In fact, all of the evidence we have argues against these points. So please stop arguing as if these points were true. We have no idea if they are true or not, and never will. His acquittal doesn't make them any more true.

Let's see, should I believe Tim the internet expert or Dr. Vincent Di Maio, the leading forensic expert in the world. Tough call.

Maio never testified that Zimmerman suffered serious damage. He never testified to any of the three points I just listed.

He did however say that Trayvon was shot while on top of Zimmerman. How many people with someone on top of them hitting them aren't scared? I'll argue that he was too quick to go for his gun instead of trying to get Trayvon off of him but he was reasonably scared for serious bodily injury while in that position.

 

[timschochet]

It is pointless.

Jon, that's probably the only part of your analysis you got right. You have your version of what happened, I have mine. We're never going to agree with each other. And we're never going to know what happened.

All I'm asking is that you stop pretending that your narrative is based on anything other than conjecture and Zimmerman's story. It isn't.

 

[Billy Bats]

"Stand up and stop looking for somebody to blame" ~Bill Cosby

 

[renesauz]

What do people that want "Justice for trayvon" actually think is justice in this case?

Young black men no longer being considered "suspicious" in our society simply because they are young black men.

Not even if break ins in the neighborhood have all been by young black men?

So its ok to hassle to members of a group because of actions of other members of that group?

Nope...it isn't. But it's pretty natural and logical, and doesn't deserve the outrage it gets based on the statistics available. This is a problem which can not, and will not be fixed until young AAs are closer to the national average on violent crimes. As much as you would like to, you can't disconnect the two.

 

[timschochet]

A lot of you continue to accept Zimmermans tale as if it were Gospel. For the umpteenth time: there's no evidence that Martin initiated the fight. There's no evidence that Martin did serious damage to Zimmerman. There's no evidence that Zimmerman was ever in fear for his life. In fact, all of the evidence we have argues against these points. So please stop arguing as if these points were true. We have no idea if they are true or not, and never will. His acquittal doesn't make them any more true.

Let's see, should I believe Tim the internet expert or Dr. Vincent Di Maio, the leading forensic expert in the world. Tough call.

Maio never testified that Zimmerman suffered serious damage. He never testified to any of the three points I just listed.

He did however say that Trayvon was shot while on top of Zimmerman. How many people with someone on top of them hitting them aren't scared? I'll argue that he was too quick to go for his gun instead of trying to get Trayvon off of him but he was reasonably scared for serious bodily injury while in that position.

We don't know this. They might have been wrestling around, and at the time Zimmerman reached for his gun, Martin might have been on top- for a brief moment of time. Certainly based on the state's ME, Zimmerman's injuries did not warrant anything close to fear for his life.

 

[Spanky267]

In the end this whole thing is a tragedy. Two people crossed paths on that rainy February evening. They both made huge and ultimately incorrect conclusions about each other. Some sort of altercation ensued and everything changed in an instance. A family grieves for the son they lost and a man has to live for the rest of his life with the knowledge that he took a life in the defense of his own.

They both made epic lapses in judgement that led us to where we are today. But this wasnt murder.

I pray for healing for both families and for our nation.

Well said

What "epic lapse in judgment" did Martin make?

If you are being followed by someone who is "creepy" you dont typically confront them if you can evade them. At some point these two individuals were no longer in sight of each other. At least, according to testimony, Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin. In hindsight it was an epic lapse to not go home and inform your parents that some "creep" was following you. We'll never know exactly what happened. But based on testimony and the evidence presented it appears that Martin could have gone home and none of this would have happened. Or he could of told the "creepy" man following him that he was going to go into his home and call the police.

I grew up in the inner city. If I was alone at night and being followed, my goal was evasion, not confrontation.

 

[Billy Bats]

A lot of you continue to accept Zimmermans tale as if it were Gospel. For the umpteenth time: there's no evidence that Martin initiated the fight. There's no evidence that Martin did serious damage to Zimmerman. There's no evidence that Zimmerman was ever in fear for his life. In fact, all of the evidence we have argues against these points. So please stop arguing as if these points were true. We have no idea if they are true or not, and never will. His acquittal doesn't make them any more true.

Let's see, should I believe Tim the internet expert or Dr. Vincent Di Maio, the leading forensic expert in the world. Tough call.

Maio never testified that Zimmerman suffered serious damage. He never testified to any of the three points I just listed.

He did however say that Trayvon was shot while on top of Zimmerman. How many people with someone on top of them hitting them aren't scared? I'll argue that he was too quick to go for his gun instead of trying to get Trayvon off of him but he was reasonably scared for serious bodily injury while in that position.

We don't know this. They might have been wrestling around, and at the time Zimmerman reached for his gun, Martin might have been on top- for a brief moment of time. Certainly based on the state's ME, Zimmerman's injuries did not warrant anything close to fear for his life.

Well if what GZ said was true, that TM told him tonight is the night you're going to die, then yeah he was probably fearing for his life.

 

[renesauz]

.... They both made huge and ultimately incorrect conclusions about each other. ...

Martin may have made many mistakes, but how was his characterization of Zimmerman incorrect?

How was Zimmermans? This kid was already a criminal, who bragged about his streetfighting. Yet, we are supposed to believe GZ started the physical altercation?

Come on....use your head.

 

[TobiasFunke]

If GZ was actually white instead of "more or less white" would media coverage have been different?

No, because it was his attitude to assume a young black man in his neighborhood was suspicious that kicked this case into the realm of "how race matters in America in 2013". It is his reason for noticing Martin in the first place, not his skin color/heritage that made this into such a controversial case.

So let me get this straight.....

We are more worried about how a Hispanic man wrongly profiled a young black man...than we are about how that young black man doubled back and started a fight.

The first step in stopping "improper profiling" is to NOT do things wrong which tend to reinforce the profiling. IE: TMs actions legitimized GZs suspicion...the kid WAS a problem. TM would have ended up in jail or dead based on the path he was on. The difference here is that an older Hispanic man killed him instead of another young black man in a gang related fight.

AAs need to stop whining about profiling and get their kids off drugs, out of gangs, and into school. Teach them how to talk to people with respect, and to avoid violence instead of resorting to it at the drop of a hat. Until these kids commit murders and other violence at a rate consistent with other races, there is no grounds for complaining about racial profiling, no matter how unethical it is. 15% of the population is committing over half the murders, and something like 80% of those are against other AAs. Wrap your head around that for a second...how can we as a society avoid racial profiling with statistics so warped? Better yet...WHY WOULD WE? (we being society at large...including AAs, who racially profile just as quickly)

Who do you think is more likely to commit a crime- a wealthy black man raised by a married couple or a poor white man raised by a single mother?

 

[timschochet]

If GZ was actually white instead of "more or less white" would media coverage have been different?

No, because it was his attitude to assume a young black man in his neighborhood was suspicious that kicked this case into the realm of "how race matters in America in 2013". It is his reason for noticing Martin in the first place, not his skin color/heritage that made this into such a controversial case.

So let me get this straight.....

We are more worried about how a Hispanic man wrongly profiled a young black man...than we are about how that young black man doubled back and started a fight.

The first step in stopping "improper profiling" is to NOT do things wrong which tend to reinforce the profiling. IE: TMs actions legitimized GZs suspicion...the kid WAS a problem. TM would have ended up in jail or dead based on the path he was on. The difference here is that an older Hispanic man killed him instead of another young black man in a gang related fight.

AAs need to stop whining about profiling and get their kids off drugs, out of gangs, and into school. Teach them how to talk to people with respect, and to avoid violence instead of resorting to it at the drop of a hat. Until these kids commit murders and other violence at a rate consistent with other races, there is no grounds for complaining about racial profiling, no matter how unethical it is. 15% of the population is committing over half the murders, and something like 80% of those are against other AAs. Wrap your head around that for a second...how can we as a society avoid racial profiling with statistics so warped? Better yet...WHY WOULD WE? (we being society at large...including AAs, who racially profile just as quickly)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. In order to bolster your overall argument, you take a part of Zimmerman's narrative and simply assume that it's true. But it's completely unproven, without any evidence to support it.

 

[derek245583]

A lot of you continue to accept Zimmermans tale as if it were Gospel. For the umpteenth time: there's no evidence that Martin initiated the fight. There's no evidence that Martin did serious damage to Zimmerman. There's no evidence that Zimmerman was ever in fear for his life. In fact, all of the evidence we have argues against these points. So please stop arguing as if these points were true. We have no idea if they are true or not, and never will. His acquittal doesn't make them any more true.

Let's see, should I believe Tim the internet expert or Dr. Vincent Di Maio, the leading forensic expert in the world. Tough call.

Maio never testified that Zimmerman suffered serious damage. He never testified to any of the three points I just listed.

He did however say that Trayvon was shot while on top of Zimmerman. How many people with someone on top of them hitting them aren't scared? I'll argue that he was too quick to go for his gun instead of trying to get Trayvon off of him but he was reasonably scared for serious bodily injury while in that position.

We don't know this. They might have been wrestling around, and at the time Zimmerman reached for his gun, Martin might have been on top- for a brief moment of time. Certainly based on the state's ME, Zimmerman's injuries did not warrant anything close to fear for his life.

I dont know wall the laws, but he doesnt need to fear for his life....Fear for his life or bodily harm is good enough. Could be wrong though.

I would fear for bodily harm in the situation.

 

[RCon]

It is pointless.

Jon, that's probably the only part of your analysis you got right. You have your version of what happened, I have mine. We're never going to agree with each other. And we're never going to know what happened.

All I'm asking is that you stop pretending that your narrative is based on anything other than conjecture and Zimmerman's story. It isn't.

But didn't you just base your narrative on nothing but conjecture (and disdain for Zimmerman)?

 

[timschochet]

A lot of you continue to accept Zimmermans tale as if it were Gospel. For the umpteenth time: there's no evidence that Martin initiated the fight. There's no evidence that Martin did serious damage to Zimmerman. There's no evidence that Zimmerman was ever in fear for his life. In fact, all of the evidence we have argues against these points. So please stop arguing as if these points were true. We have no idea if they are true or not, and never will. His acquittal doesn't make them any more true.

Let's see, should I believe Tim the internet expert or Dr. Vincent Di Maio, the leading forensic expert in the world. Tough call.

Maio never testified that Zimmerman suffered serious damage. He never testified to any of the three points I just listed.

He did however say that Trayvon was shot while on top of Zimmerman. How many people with someone on top of them hitting them aren't scared? I'll argue that he was too quick to go for his gun instead of trying to get Trayvon off of him but he was reasonably scared for serious bodily injury while in that position.

We don't know this. They might have been wrestling around, and at the time Zimmerman reached for his gun, Martin might have been on top- for a brief moment of time. Certainly based on the state's ME, Zimmerman's injuries did not warrant anything close to fear for his life.

Well if what GZ said was true, that TM told him tonight is the night you're going to die, then yeah he was probably fearing for his life.

Do you believe this happened? Because if so you're the first person that I know of in this thread who actually believes this, and that includes many people who are VERY pro-Zimmerman.

 

[renesauz]

I didn't watch the trial. I've only read accounts of it. Because I didn't watch it, I'm asking you, specifically, what is the evidence that Zimmerman started the fight? That seems to go against everything I've read.

He got out of his car.

Right...and getting out of your car to look for a suspicious character in your neighborhood means murder.

 

[timschochet]

It is pointless.

Jon, that's probably the only part of your analysis you got right. You have your version of what happened, I have mine. We're never going to agree with each other. And we're never going to know what happened.

All I'm asking is that you stop pretending that your narrative is based on anything other than conjecture and Zimmerman's story. It isn't.

But didn't you just base your narrative on nothing but conjecture (and disdain for Zimmerman)?

Sure. But I don't state my unproven opinions as facts.

 

[3C's]

yes if you had grown up black, you would perceive these events very differently. If you had been followed before by someone who was suspicious of you because you were black and nothing else, you would perceive these events very differently.

Be thankful that the reaction in the black community is so foreign to you that you do not understand how someone could react that way. That means you're privileged in this culture.

Anyone would be annoyed by someone following/watching them, but it is called a neighborhood watch for a reason. It had to do with a stranger wandering around suspeciously then it did skin color. Anyone who thinks it has to do with skin color must be a mind reader, but Zimmerman never made it a point.

I love how everyone turns a blind eye to the underlying reason for the the suspicion.

Look... does it suck that the situation exists that black people are under increased suspicion due to their race? Yes... it's a damn shame to be honest. However black people have as much or more to blame for this predicament than the people who cast a wary eye in their direction. Stop engaging in criminal activity at a rate that is orders of magnitude above any other race, and perhaps you won't be viewed as a race with a predisposition toward crime.

It's an unpopular thing to say... but it's the reality of the situation.

20 yo Interpol data is the best you can do? At least use something more current and based on US stats. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43

 

[Spanky267]

What do people that want "Justice for trayvon" actually think is justice in this case?

Young black men no longer being considered "suspicious" in our society simply because they are young black men.

When you loiter or act suspiciously then you draw attention to yourself regardless of your race. I am involved in a youth sports organization. I am suspicious of single men that I dont recognize loitering around our facility. I am not a cop but I am responsible for almost 300 children and their safety on a daily basis. If I follow a middle aged man, regardless or race, who doesnt look like he belongs in my park am I doing something wrong? I am trained by the county to profile such individuals. Is that wrong? I will often ask what they are doing at our facility. If they can explain why they are there my level of suspicion doesnt disappear but it is reduced. If they can't then they are asked to leave.

 

[timschochet]

A lot of you continue to accept Zimmermans tale as if it were Gospel. For the umpteenth time: there's no evidence that Martin initiated the fight. There's no evidence that Martin did serious damage to Zimmerman. There's no evidence that Zimmerman was ever in fear for his life. In fact, all of the evidence we have argues against these points. So please stop arguing as if these points were true. We have no idea if they are true or not, and never will. His acquittal doesn't make them any more true.

Let's see, should I believe Tim the internet expert or Dr. Vincent Di Maio, the leading forensic expert in the world. Tough call.

Maio never testified that Zimmerman suffered serious damage. He never testified to any of the three points I just listed.

He did however say that Trayvon was shot while on top of Zimmerman. How many people with someone on top of them hitting them aren't scared? I'll argue that he was too quick to go for his gun instead of trying to get Trayvon off of him but he was reasonably scared for serious bodily injury while in that position.

We don't know this. They might have been wrestling around, and at the time Zimmerman reached for his gun, Martin might have been on top- for a brief moment of time. Certainly based on the state's ME, Zimmerman's injuries did not warrant anything close to fear for his life.

I dont know wall the laws, but he doesnt need to fear for his life....Fear for his life or bodily harm is good enough. Could be wrong though.

I would fear for bodily harm in the situation.

This is correct. But Zimmerman stated to the police that he feared he was going to die. He also stated that Martin told him he was going to die. If Zimmerman feared bodily harm, then he (Zimmerman) is also a liar, which should make any rational person think his entire story is full of bs. Given this and the ME testimony, I reasonably conclude that Zimmerman neither feared for his life or great bodily harm. But that is only my opinion; I don't offer it as fact nor can I remove the possibility of reasonable doubt.

 

[renesauz]

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Martin was the aggressor on starting the fight. You can argue that Zimmerman provolked it by watching/following. But there is zero percent chance Zimmerman initiated the fight.

This is simply not true. What evidence do we have as regards who started the fight? (Rich, this is in response to you too.)

Here's what we KNOW:

1. Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious, and complained that these guys "always get away."

Here's what we THINK we know:

1. Zimmerman was following Martin, and stepped out of his car to do so.

2. Martin was heading home, but refused to run home, despite the urging of Rachel.

Based on this evidence, (which admittedly is pretty slight) it is more likely that Zimmerman was the initiator. EVERYTHING else is complete conjecture, or based on Zimmerman's self-serving narrative of events.

Tim....the known history of both men suggests this. GZ had reported dozens of suspicious characters as the watch, and never engaged in an altercation. Meanwhile, TM flashed gang signs and bragged about street-fighting. It isn't proof, but it more than backs up GZs story and is more than enough for reasonable doubt. It is in fact. more than reasonable doubt as it is the PROBABLE chain of events. Arguing it as anything less than PROBABLE is just silly.

 

[renesauz]

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Martin was the aggressor on starting the fight. You can argue that Zimmerman provolked it by watching/following. But there is zero percent chance Zimmerman initiated the fight.

This is simply not true. What evidence do we have as regards who started the fight? (Rich, this is in response to you too.)

Here's what we KNOW:

1. Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious, and complained that these guys "always get away."

Here's what we THINK we know:

1. Zimmerman was following Martin, and stepped out of his car to do so.

2. Martin was heading home, but refused to run home, despite the urging of Rachel.

Based on this evidence, (which admittedly is pretty slight) it is more likely that Zimmerman was the initiator. EVERYTHING else is complete conjecture, or based on Zimmerman's self-serving narrative of events.

WOW...head in the sand ignoring more compelling info.

 

[Spanky267]

If GZ was actually white instead of "more or less white" would media coverage have been different?

No, because it was his attitude to assume a young black man in his neighborhood was suspicious that kicked this case into the realm of "how race matters in America in 2013". It is his reason for noticing Martin in the first place, not his skin color/heritage that made this into such a controversial case.

Was his suspicion of Martin based solely on his race? Was there anything that had been going on in the neighborhood in recent months that may have led Zimmerman to be suspicious?

 

[Bigboy10182000]

If a certain race or group is known for certain crimes you'd be silly to ignore the signs wouldnt you?

So as you assert that it would be silly to not be prejudice, what other signs should we look for with you?

Before investigating a situation?

It would be silly to not to report you to the authorities as a suspect for "hate crimes" as otherwise would be to ignore the signs.

I need to leave for work, so you get the last word for a while. Will you dig yourself in deeper or wiggle out?

Going a little overboard here...

 

[RCon]

It is pointless.

Jon, that's probably the only part of your analysis you got right. You have your version of what happened, I have mine. We're never going to agree with each other. And we're never going to know what happened.

All I'm asking is that you stop pretending that your narrative is based on anything other than conjecture and Zimmerman's story. It isn't.

But didn't you just base your narrative on nothing but conjecture (and disdain for Zimmerman)?

Sure. But I don't state my unproven opinions as facts.

Actually, yes you did.

A lot of you continue to accept Zimmermans tale as if it were Gospel. For the umpteenth time: there's no evidence that Martin initiated the fight. There's no evidence that Martin did serious damage to Zimmerman. There's no evidence that Zimmerman was ever in fear for his life. In fact, all of the evidence we have argues against these points. So please stop arguing as if these points were true. We have no idea if they are true or not, and never will. His acquittal doesn't make them any more true.

You stated that it is a fact that ALL of the evidence we have argues against the idea that Martin initiated the fight.

However, you can't actually point to one single piece of evidence backing that up. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I don't know, and neither do you.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Martin was the aggressor on starting the fight. You can argue that Zimmerman provolked it by watching/following. But there is zero percent chance Zimmerman initiated the fight.

This is simply not true. What evidence do we have as regards who started the fight? (Rich, this is in response to you too.)

Here's what we KNOW:

1. Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious, and complained that these guys "always get away."

Here's what we THINK we know:

1. Zimmerman was following Martin, and stepped out of his car to do so.

2. Martin was heading home, but refused to run home, despite the urging of Rachel.

Based on this evidence, (which admittedly is pretty slight) it is more likely that Zimmerman was the initiator. EVERYTHING else is complete conjecture, or based on Zimmerman's self-serving narrative of events.

WOW...head in the sand ignoring more compelling info.

That is another reason why tim is LHUCKS Jr.

 

[Billy Bats]

A lot of you continue to accept Zimmermans tale as if it were Gospel. For the umpteenth time: there's no evidence that Martin initiated the fight. There's no evidence that Martin did serious damage to Zimmerman. There's no evidence that Zimmerman was ever in fear for his life. In fact, all of the evidence we have argues against these points. So please stop arguing as if these points were true. We have no idea if they are true or not, and never will. His acquittal doesn't make them any more true.

Let's see, should I believe Tim the internet expert or Dr. Vincent Di Maio, the leading forensic expert in the world. Tough call.

Maio never testified that Zimmerman suffered serious damage. He never testified to any of the three points I just listed.

He did however say that Trayvon was shot while on top of Zimmerman. How many people with someone on top of them hitting them aren't scared? I'll argue that he was too quick to go for his gun instead of trying to get Trayvon off of him but he was reasonably scared for serious bodily injury while in that position.

We don't know this. They might have been wrestling around, and at the time Zimmerman reached for his gun, Martin might have been on top- for a brief moment of time. Certainly based on the state's ME, Zimmerman's injuries did not warrant anything close to fear for his life.

Well if what GZ said was true, that TM told him tonight is the night you're going to die, then yeah he was probably fearing for his life.

Do you believe this happened? Because if so you're the first person that I know of in this thread who actually believes this, and that includes many people who are VERY pro-Zimmerman.

IF. I didn't say it was gospel. But IF GZ heard that then started getting pummeled, well the fear for his life would be heightened. Wouldn't it?

 

[timschochet]

What do people that want "Justice for trayvon" actually think is justice in this case?

Young black men no longer being considered "suspicious" in our society simply because they are young black men.

When you loiter or act suspiciously then you draw attention to yourself regardless of your race. I am involved in a youth sports organization. I am suspicious of single men that I dont recognize loitering around our facility. I am not a cop but I am responsible for almost 300 children and their safety on a daily basis. If I follow a middle aged man, regardless or race, who doesnt look like he belongs in my park am I doing something wrong? I am trained by the county to profile such individuals. Is that wrong? I will often ask what they are doing at our facility. If they can explain why they are there my level of suspicion doesnt disappear but it is reduced. If they can't then they are asked to leave.

Sorry, but you just don't seem to get it, and neither do many people here. Yes it's true that white kids dressed like gangbangers who act suspiciously or loiter are going to get treated suspiciously by police. But it's not on the same level. Black kids get treated suspiciously pretty much no matter what they do. They are subjected to a level of scrutiny by the police which white kids have never have to endure. It is simply not the same thing, and it is wrong for you to pretend that it is.

 

[Witz]

If GZ was actually white instead of "more or less white" would media coverage have been different?

No, because it was his attitude to assume a young black man in his neighborhood was suspicious that kicked this case into the realm of "how race matters in America in 2013". It is his reason for noticing Martin in the first place, not his skin color/heritage that made this into such a controversial case.

So let me get this straight.....

We are more worried about how a Hispanic man wrongly profiled a young black man...than we are about how that young black man doubled back and started a fight.

The first step in stopping "improper profiling" is to NOT do things wrong which tend to reinforce the profiling. IE: TMs actions legitimized GZs suspicion...the kid WAS a problem. TM would have ended up in jail or dead based on the path he was on. The difference here is that an older Hispanic man killed him instead of another young black man in a gang related fight.

AAs need to stop whining about profiling and get their kids off drugs, out of gangs, and into school. Teach them how to talk to people with respect, and to avoid violence instead of resorting to it at the drop of a hat. Until these kids commit murders and other violence at a rate consistent with other races, there is no grounds for complaining about racial profiling, no matter how unethical it is. 15% of the population is committing over half the murders, and something like 80% of those are against other AAs. Wrap your head around that for a second...how can we as a society avoid racial profiling with statistics so warped? Better yet...WHY WOULD WE? (we being society at large...including AAs, who racially profile just as quickly)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. In order to bolster your overall argument, you take a part of Zimmerman's narrative and simply assume that it's true. But it's completely unproven, without any evidence to support it.

The girlfriend testified:

Jeantel said she advised him to run, but that Martin said he was not going to run and that he was "right outside" his house.

The altercation did not occur right outside his house but much farther away. That is why folks refer to Martin as doubling back.

 

[renesauz]

yes if you had grown up black, you would perceive these events very differently. If you had been followed before by someone who was suspicious of you because you were black and nothing else, you would perceive these events very differently.

Be thankful that the reaction in the black community is so foreign to you that you do not understand how someone could react that way. That means you're privileged in this culture.

Anyone would be annoyed by someone following/watching them, but it is called a neighborhood watch for a reason. It had to do with a stranger wandering around suspeciously then it did skin color. Anyone who thinks it has to do with skin color must be a mind reader, but Zimmerman never made it a point.

I love how everyone turns a blind eye to the underlying reason for the the suspicion.

Look... does it suck that the situation exists that black people are under increased suspicion due to their race? Yes... it's a damn shame to be honest. However black people have as much or more to blame for this predicament than the people who cast a wary eye in their direction. Stop engaging in criminal activity at a rate that is orders of magnitude above any other race, and perhaps you won't be viewed as a race with a predisposition toward crime.

It's an unpopular thing to say... but it's the reality of the situation.

There's no way that this could be because we look for criminal activity more often and more closely among black men than any other group?

War on drugs criminalizing behavior that is prevalent in poor areas, which usually means minority areas have anything to do with this?

How about the fact that MEN engage in criminal activity at an order of magnitude above any other gender (ie women). Should we view ALL men as predisposed towards crime and treat them as such?

ON the first...no. The numbers are too dramatically different on murder rates to be the result of closer inspection...and to suggest so is ridiculous.

ON the second....men ARE looked at more closely when looking for perpetrators of crimes, and nobody is whining about it because it's true they do more crime.

 

[[icon]]

Stop robbing and killing people and people will stop thinking you're likely to rob and kill people.

Not a good posting at all. Icon may have not had a good upbringing, but it's silly for him to compare himself to most black teens. Neither he nor I nor any white person can truly understand what it's like to be black in this country.And while it's true that blacks have a responsibility to improve themselves and stop violence, we as a society also have a responsibility to remove racism from our police and judicial system where it continues to exist.

There have been great strides socially to help combat racism that has opened many doors for blacks in the workforce.

Culturally, black acceptance in society as a whole has come MASSIVE distances over the last 40 years.

However, blacks account for as high (or higher) a percentage of crime as they ever have.

It's easy to live in "Timmay's Fantasy Land" and say "We just need to eliminate racism and everything will be okay. However, at this point the bulk of the blame here is on black America. If they start doing their part, the rest of society can continue the progress they've made thus far. Until then... they are the primary force holding themselves back. Period.

Do you think wealthy blacks commit violent crimes at a higher rate than poor whites?

Wealthy blacks commit murder at a MUCH higher rate than even poor whites... the evidence is damning that income is a FAR less important factor than race. Don't try to deflect the facts. Hell, while the rest of society has made significant strides in acceptance/assistance of blacks...the murder rates across nearly EVERY income demographic have gotten WORSE among blacks.

The black community needs to meet the rest of society halfway. Period. Stop deflecting blame, you're only helping the problem get worse.

 

[Two Deep]

We should point the finger in the direction of ignorance not race. I feel pretty confident that most people, black or white look past race....The only people who can't are the ignorant. I'm sure all of you like people and are tolerant of people regardless of the color of their skin. But I'm also sure that all of you have no tolerance for the ignorant dumb ###, regardless of the color of their skin. It was ignorance that caused Zimmerman to feel the need to confront Martin and it was ignorance that caused Martin to go physical......As a side note take away the gun and all you have is two ignorant people in a fist fight.

 

[Da Guru]

If GZ was actually white instead of "more or less white" would media coverage have been different?

No, because it was his attitude to assume a young black man in his neighborhood was suspicious that kicked this case into the realm of "how race matters in America in 2013". It is his reason for noticing Martin in the first place, not his skin color/heritage that made this into such a controversial case.

Was his suspicion of Martin based solely on his race? Was there anything that had been going on in the neighborhood in recent months that may have led Zimmerman to be suspicious?

Yes there were some break-ins and home invasions. No it was not race based. Zimmerman had called the police 45 times in the previous 12 months on whites, hispancins, blacks..males..females..whoever he felt did not belong in the gated community. Zimmerman called on everybody..but that is what the community wanted him to do,

 

[TobiasFunke]

yes if you had grown up black, you would perceive these events very differently. If you had been followed before by someone who was suspicious of you because you were black and nothing else, you would perceive these events very differently.

Be thankful that the reaction in the black community is so foreign to you that you do not understand how someone could react that way. That means you're privileged in this culture.

Anyone would be annoyed by someone following/watching them, but it is called a neighborhood watch for a reason. It had to do with a stranger wandering around suspeciously then it did skin color. Anyone who thinks it has to do with skin color must be a mind reader, but Zimmerman never made it a point.

I love how everyone turns a blind eye to the underlying reason for the the suspicion.

Look... does it suck that the situation exists that black people are under increased suspicion due to their race? Yes... it's a damn shame to be honest. However black people have as much or more to blame for this predicament than the people who cast a wary eye in their direction. Stop engaging in criminal activity at a rate that is orders of magnitude above any other race, and perhaps you won't be viewed as a race with a predisposition toward crime.

It's an unpopular thing to say... but it's the reality of the situation.

20 yo Interpol data is the best you can do? At least use something more current and based on US stats. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43

You know what would be the best response to this? If a group of black people organized a "neighborhood watch" that would hang out around the bars at night, and then follow any white person who leaves the bar and goes to their car, and then call the cops on suspicion of DUI. That would be hilarious. Maybe a couple of them could even follow the drunk drivers home and get out of their cars to talk to them. And if anyone criticizes, they can just point to the statistics showing white people are predisposed to driving drunk, and blame white people culture for the problem.

 

[timschochet]

It is pointless.

Jon, that's probably the only part of your analysis you got right. You have your version of what happened, I have mine. We're never going to agree with each other. And we're never going to know what happened.

All I'm asking is that you stop pretending that your narrative is based on anything other than conjecture and Zimmerman's story. It isn't.

But didn't you just base your narrative on nothing but conjecture (and disdain for Zimmerman)?

Sure. But I don't state my unproven opinions as facts.

Actually, yes you did.

A lot of you continue to accept Zimmermans tale as if it were Gospel. For the umpteenth time: there's no evidence that Martin initiated the fight. There's no evidence that Martin did serious damage to Zimmerman. There's no evidence that Zimmerman was ever in fear for his life. In fact, all of the evidence we have argues against these points. So please stop arguing as if these points were true. We have no idea if they are true or not, and never will. His acquittal doesn't make them any more true.

You stated that it is a fact that ALL of the evidence we have argues against the idea that Martin initiated the fight.

However, you can't actually point to one single piece of evidence backing that up. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I don't know, and neither do you.

I can't point to a single bit of evidence that proves Zimmerman started the fight, but I can point to a few pieces of evidence which SUGGEST he did, which is all that I wrote. Those pieces of evidence are (1) Zimmerman complained that these guys always get away (2) Zimmerman stepped out of the car. Flimsy? Yes. Inconclusive? Sure. But it's also ALL OF THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE, which makes my statement correct.

 

[3C's]

yes if you had grown up black, you would perceive these events very differently. If you had been followed before by someone who was suspicious of you because you were black and nothing else, you would perceive these events very differently.

Be thankful that the reaction in the black community is so foreign to you that you do not understand how someone could react that way. That means you're privileged in this culture.

Anyone would be annoyed by someone following/watching them, but it is called a neighborhood watch for a reason. It had to do with a stranger wandering around suspeciously then it did skin color. Anyone who thinks it has to do with skin color must be a mind reader, but Zimmerman never made it a point.

I love how everyone turns a blind eye to the underlying reason for the the suspicion.

Look... does it suck that the situation exists that black people are under increased suspicion due to their race? Yes... it's a damn shame to be honest. However black people have as much or more to blame for this predicament than the people who cast a wary eye in their direction. Stop engaging in criminal activity at a rate that is orders of magnitude above any other race, and perhaps you won't be viewed as a race with a predisposition toward crime.

It's an unpopular thing to say... but it's the reality of the situation.

20 yo Interpol data is the best you can do? At least use something more current and based on US stats. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43

You know what would be the best response to this? If a group of black people organized a "neighborhood watch" that would hang out around the bars at night, and then follow any white person who leaves the bar and goes to their car, and then call the cops on suspicion of DUI. That would be hilarious. Maybe a couple of them could even follow the drunk drivers home and get out of their cars to talk to them. And if anyone criticizes, they can just point to the statistics showing white people are predisposed to driving drunk, and blame white people culture for the problem.

I'd get followed A LOT.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Stop robbing and killing people and people will stop thinking you're likely to rob and kill people.

Not a good posting at all. Icon may have not had a good upbringing, but it's silly for him to compare himself to most black teens. Neither he nor I nor any white person can truly understand what it's like to be black in this country.And while it's true that blacks have a responsibility to improve themselves and stop violence, we as a society also have a responsibility to remove racism from our police and judicial system where it continues to exist.

There have been great strides socially to help combat racism that has opened many doors for blacks in the workforce.

Culturally, black acceptance in society as a whole has come MASSIVE distances over the last 40 years.

However, blacks account for as high (or higher) a percentage of crime as they ever have.

It's easy to live in "Timmay's Fantasy Land" and say "We just need to eliminate racism and everything will be okay. However, at this point the bulk of the blame here is on black America. If they start doing their part, the rest of society can continue the progress they've made thus far. Until then... they are the primary force holding themselves back. Period.

Do you think wealthy blacks commit violent crimes at a higher rate than poor whites?

Wealthy blacks commit murder at a MUCH higher rate than even poor whites... the evidence is damning that income is a FAR less important factor than race. Don't try to deflect the facts. Hell, while the rest of society has made significant strides in acceptance/assistance of blacks...the murder rates across nearly EVERY income demographic have gotten WORSE among blacks.

The black community needs to meet the rest of society halfway. Period. Stop deflecting blame, you're only helping the problem get worse.

Is this for real? Come on. The data stops almost 20 years ago and used such a small sample size that it found an impossible from among the poorest 10% who are white from 8.4 (not sure if that's a % or per 1000 or not, because again the data gives no indication or context) to 0.4. It doesn't even say if the percentages for income are across all races or divided by race.

Sorry, but you're gonna have to do better than 20 year old data with no context, attribution or explanation.

 

[renesauz]

If GZ was actually white instead of "more or less white" would media coverage have been different?

No, because it was his attitude to assume a young black man in his neighborhood was suspicious that kicked this case into the realm of "how race matters in America in 2013". It is his reason for noticing Martin in the first place, not his skin color/heritage that made this into such a controversial case.

So let me get this straight.....

We are more worried about how a Hispanic man wrongly profiled a young black man...than we are about how that young black man doubled back and started a fight.

The first step in stopping "improper profiling" is to NOT do things wrong which tend to reinforce the profiling. IE: TMs actions legitimized GZs suspicion...the kid WAS a problem. TM would have ended up in jail or dead based on the path he was on. The difference here is that an older Hispanic man killed him instead of another young black man in a gang related fight.

AAs need to stop whining about profiling and get their kids off drugs, out of gangs, and into school. Teach them how to talk to people with respect, and to avoid violence instead of resorting to it at the drop of a hat. Until these kids commit murders and other violence at a rate consistent with other races, there is no grounds for complaining about racial profiling, no matter how unethical it is. 15% of the population is committing over half the murders, and something like 80% of those are against other AAs. Wrap your head around that for a second...how can we as a society avoid racial profiling with statistics so warped? Better yet...WHY WOULD WE? (we being society at large...including AAs, who racially profile just as quickly)

Who do you think is more likely to commit a crime- a wealthy black man raised by a married couple or a poor white man raised by a single mother?

The white man. But what's the point? We aren't analyzing all the WHYs behind the disparity. I'm trying to get you and some others to recognize that the disparity itself is so large that it's unreasonable to expect society to ignore it. FWIW, I think economics play a large role, but that AA urban culture plays a bigger one. Young AA men are teaching others that violence is the answer, and that respect comes with physical power and intimidation. CULTURE is the problem, not skin color.

 

[timschochet]

If GZ was actually white instead of "more or less white" would media coverage have been different?

No, because it was his attitude to assume a young black man in his neighborhood was suspicious that kicked this case into the realm of "how race matters in America in 2013". It is his reason for noticing Martin in the first place, not his skin color/heritage that made this into such a controversial case.

So let me get this straight.....

We are more worried about how a Hispanic man wrongly profiled a young black man...than we are about how that young black man doubled back and started a fight.

The first step in stopping "improper profiling" is to NOT do things wrong which tend to reinforce the profiling. IE: TMs actions legitimized GZs suspicion...the kid WAS a problem. TM would have ended up in jail or dead based on the path he was on. The difference here is that an older Hispanic man killed him instead of another young black man in a gang related fight.

AAs need to stop whining about profiling and get their kids off drugs, out of gangs, and into school. Teach them how to talk to people with respect, and to avoid violence instead of resorting to it at the drop of a hat. Until these kids commit murders and other violence at a rate consistent with other races, there is no grounds for complaining about racial profiling, no matter how unethical it is. 15% of the population is committing over half the murders, and something like 80% of those are against other AAs. Wrap your head around that for a second...how can we as a society avoid racial profiling with statistics so warped? Better yet...WHY WOULD WE? (we being society at large...including AAs, who racially profile just as quickly)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. In order to bolster your overall argument, you take a part of Zimmerman's narrative and simply assume that it's true. But it's completely unproven, without any evidence to support it.

The girlfriend testified:

Jeantel said she advised him to run, but that Martin said he was not going to run and that he was "right outside" his house.

The altercation did not occur right outside his house but much farther away. That is why folks refer to Martin as doubling back.

We don't know where Martin was when he made that comment of being "outside his house." But more importantly, Martin's refusal to run actually argues against the "4 minute mile" argument the defense made at closing. None of this indicates that Martin doubled back.

 

[Todd Andrews]

This is a racial OUTRAEG!!1!

Instead of trying to calm the unarmed teenagers, or simply locking his doors and waiting for the police, Mr. White grabbed an unlicensed pistol and stormed out of his house to confront the teenagers, Mr. Chalifoux said.

The prosecutor acknowledged that the teenagers used epithets, but called Mr. White and his lawyers disingenuous in invoking a racial defense, noting that they missed few chances to embellish testimony with inflammatory references, and he said they used the “lynch mob” strategy to distract the jury from the charges.

He cited trial testimony that indicated that Mr. White fanned the gun menacingly at each teenager and that Daniel did not lunge, but rather defiantly slapped the gun away, with Mr. White retraining it on him, then shooting him point-blank in the face.

Let's see if we can spot differences in the case beyond race.

OK, what are some differences?

 

[renesauz]

If GZ was actually white instead of "more or less white" would media coverage have been different?

No, because it was his attitude to assume a young black man in his neighborhood was suspicious that kicked this case into the realm of "how race matters in America in 2013". It is his reason for noticing Martin in the first place, not his skin color/heritage that made this into such a controversial case.

So let me get this straight.....

We are more worried about how a Hispanic man wrongly profiled a young black man...than we are about how that young black man doubled back and started a fight.

The first step in stopping "improper profiling" is to NOT do things wrong which tend to reinforce the profiling. IE: TMs actions legitimized GZs suspicion...the kid WAS a problem. TM would have ended up in jail or dead based on the path he was on. The difference here is that an older Hispanic man killed him instead of another young black man in a gang related fight.

AAs need to stop whining about profiling and get their kids off drugs, out of gangs, and into school. Teach them how to talk to people with respect, and to avoid violence instead of resorting to it at the drop of a hat. Until these kids commit murders and other violence at a rate consistent with other races, there is no grounds for complaining about racial profiling, no matter how unethical it is. 15% of the population is committing over half the murders, and something like 80% of those are against other AAs. Wrap your head around that for a second...how can we as a society avoid racial profiling with statistics so warped? Better yet...WHY WOULD WE? (we being society at large...including AAs, who racially profile just as quickly)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. In order to bolster your overall argument, you take a part of Zimmerman's narrative and simply assume that it's true. But it's completely unproven, without any evidence to support it.

WOW. The evidence supports it. A cursory look at the history of both supports it. You are pre-disposed to disbelieving GZ and refuse to acknowledge probabilities.

 

[Two Deep]

If GZ was actually white instead of "more or less white" would media coverage have been different?

No, because it was his attitude to assume a young black man in his neighborhood was suspicious that kicked this case into the realm of "how race matters in America in 2013". It is his reason for noticing Martin in the first place, not his skin color/heritage that made this into such a controversial case.

So let me get this straight.....

We are more worried about how a Hispanic man wrongly profiled a young black man...than we are about how that young black man doubled back and started a fight.

The first step in stopping "improper profiling" is to NOT do things wrong which tend to reinforce the profiling. IE: TMs actions legitimized GZs suspicion...the kid WAS a problem. TM would have ended up in jail or dead based on the path he was on. The difference here is that an older Hispanic man killed him instead of another young black man in a gang related fight.

AAs need to stop whining about profiling and get their kids off drugs, out of gangs, and into school. Teach them how to talk to people with respect, and to avoid violence instead of resorting to it at the drop of a hat. Until these kids commit murders and other violence at a rate consistent with other races, there is no grounds for complaining about racial profiling, no matter how unethical it is. 15% of the population is committing over half the murders, and something like 80% of those are against other AAs. Wrap your head around that for a second...how can we as a society avoid racial profiling with statistics so warped? Better yet...WHY WOULD WE? (we being society at large...including AAs, who racially profile just as quickly)

Who do you think is more likely to commit a crime- a wealthy black man raised by a married couple or a poor white man raised by a single mother?

The white man. But what's the point? We aren't analyzing all the WHYs behind the disparity. I'm trying to get you and some others to recognize that the disparity itself is so large that it's unreasonable to expect society to ignore it. FWIW, I think economics play a large role, but that AA urban culture plays a bigger one. Young AA men are teaching others that violence is the answer, and that respect comes with physical power and intimidation. CULTURE is the problem, not skin color.

No ignorance is the problem. There are plenty of dumb ### white people teaching their sons violence as well.

 

[Witz]

It is pointless.

Jon, that's probably the only part of your analysis you got right. You have your version of what happened, I have mine. We're never going to agree with each other. And we're never going to know what happened.

All I'm asking is that you stop pretending that your narrative is based on anything other than conjecture and Zimmerman's story. It isn't.

But didn't you just base your narrative on nothing but conjecture (and disdain for Zimmerman)?

Sure. But I don't state my unproven opinions as facts.

Actually, yes you did.

A lot of you continue to accept Zimmermans tale as if it were Gospel. For the umpteenth time: there's no evidence that Martin initiated the fight. There's no evidence that Martin did serious damage to Zimmerman. There's no evidence that Zimmerman was ever in fear for his life. In fact, all of the evidence we have argues against these points. So please stop arguing as if these points were true. We have no idea if they are true or not, and never will. His acquittal doesn't make them any more true.

You stated that it is a fact that ALL of the evidence we have argues against the idea that Martin initiated the fight.

However, you can't actually point to one single piece of evidence backing that up. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I don't know, and neither do you.

I can't point to a single bit of evidence that proves Zimmerman started the fight, but I can point to a few pieces of evidence which SUGGEST he did, which is all that I wrote. Those pieces of evidence are (1) Zimmerman complained that these guys always get away (2) Zimmerman stepped out of the car. Flimsy? Yes. Inconclusive? Sure. But it's also ALL OF THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE, which makes my statement correct.

1. Martin was speaking negatively and racially about Zimmerman

2. Martin was not where he said he was in relation to the altercation

3. Martin was the first to interact with Zimmerman

All three of these things were testified to by Martin's girlfriend - the person you claimed was a credible witness.

It's NOT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE.