Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[renesauz]

I will repeat for the 100th time: based on what I know, I could not convict. No reasonable person, IMO, could. But we're not in a court of law here. This is an internet discussion forum. We can discuss what we THINK happened. And I simply cannot understand how you or anyone else can think that what Zimmerman says happened, happened. You can argue that it's possible. You can argue that there's no way to prove otherwise. You can argue that there's reasonable doubt. I agree with all of those points. But to take his story and say, "Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the way it went down-" no ####### way.

On this we agree.

 

[timschochet]

I never said that Zimmerman was hunting down Martin with the intent to kill. I said that he was the chaser, and Martin was the chasee. That remains, IMO, the only reasonable conclusion.

It's reasonable to conclude it started this way, but there's good reason (the 911 tapes, "I lost him", etc.) to think the roles may have reversed. Much like you can't shoot a robber who's already fleeing....you can't leave the aggressor labbel on Zimmerman if he was no longer chasing.

the fact that Zimmerman said he lost him (at least for a time) is not evidence that the roles were reversed. Nor as you say, is there "good reason" to think the roles have reversed. At least I haven't heard one. There is Zimmerman's testimony that the roles reversed. That's it.

 

[renesauz]

I never said that Zimmerman was hunting down Martin with the intent to kill. I said that he was the chaser, and Martin was the chasee. That remains, IMO, the only reasonable conclusion.

It's reasonable to conclude it started this way, but there's good reason (the 911 tapes, "I lost him", etc.) to think the roles may have reversed. Much like you can't shoot a robber who's already fleeing....you can't leave the aggressor labbel on Zimmerman if he was no longer chasing.

the fact that Zimmerman said he lost him (at least for a time) is not evidence that the roles were reversed. Nor as you say, is there "good reason" to think the roles have reversed. At least I haven't heard one. There is Zimmerman's testimony that the roles reversed. That's it.

HIs testimony, the timeline, the locations, and the 911 audio are all strong indicators that Zimmerman had broken off pursuit. There is NOTHING showing he re-started a pursuit. He might have, but it's almost equally possible that Martin came after him. I say that because there was obviously more than enough time for Martin to have arrived at his home and entered it. HE HAD ALREADY GOTTEN AWAY. Because of that, I would lean towards believing at least this part of Zimmermans story. At the very least, this part of his explanation is plausible.

 

[cstu]

BS.Zimmerman hunted Trayvon down.

Here's a perfect example of a poster who drew his conclusions early, set his assumptions, and won't even remotely consider any alternative explanations, even when reasonable conjecture and evidance exists to support a differant hypothesis.

Because it's still the only conclusion that makes logical sense. Zimmerman is the one following Martin. Zimmerman is the one who called in to the authorities, and who complained on the phone that "they always get away." And yet given this, we're supposed to believe that Martin's the one who chased Zimmerman down from behind? Sure it's possible, but it's hardly plausible. And I just don't understand those of you who believe this storyline actually happened. Sorry, but it just seems so absurd to me. BigSteelThrill writes with conviction because his conclusion is the only one which makes reasonable sense based on what we know.

If someone is hunting someone down with the intent to kill them then they certainly aren't going to talk to the police while they do it (or at least they'd do it in a smarter way). My belief is that Zimmerman thought he could talk to Trayvon without it becoming a fight but when it did it either got so out of control that he freaked or he was so angry about being attacked that he shot Trayvon. We haven't seen any evidence that proves what happened in the key final moments.

I never said that Zimmerman was hunting down Martin with the intent to kill. I said that he was the chaser, and Martin was the chasee. That remains, IMO, the only reasonable conclusion.

What do you make of Trayvon's girlfriend saying that he told her he wasn't going to run?

 

[JaxBill]

1. There is a police report (which may actually be a second police report) which says that Zimmerman was bleeding and received treatment from an EMT. Yet there are no photos of this. Zimmerman showed no signs of bleeding or blood or grass stains in the video. And he did not request hospital treatment for his injuries (supposedly a broken nose.) If this truly happened , then at some point a doctor will have treated Zimmerman for that nose and that doctor will testify (even that won't be conclusive for some, but it would go a long way toward convincing me.)

You do realize that not everybody who suffers a broken nose goes to the doctor, let alone ER, right? Although it makes more sense for Zimmerman to get his injuries documented, there's no guarantee that he would have seen a doctor for a broken nose.

 

[Fat Nick]

Zimmerman-Bono is not getting off scott free. His life is now a living hell. Worst case, he will be sued in civil court and lose. There is no best case for this guy. Cop wannabe ####ed up bad & life now sucks for him.

Worst case he'll get killed by some vigilante himself. Spike Lee's stupid ### tweeted an address supposedly belonging to Zimmerman, and it was wrong...and the people who lived there had to leave their home due to hate mail and threats...If that was the REAL Zimmerman, it could have been much worse. This guy's life is over, regardless of any outcome of this case.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

BS.Zimmerman hunted Trayvon down.

Here's a perfect example of a poster who drew his conclusions early, set his assumptions, and won't even remotely consider any alternative explanations, even when reasonable conjecture and evidance exists to support a differant hypothesis.

Because it's still the only conclusion that makes logical sense. Zimmerman is the one following Martin. Zimmerman is the one who called in to the authorities, and who complained on the phone that "they always get away." And yet given this, we're supposed to believe that Martin's the one who chased Zimmerman down from behind? Sure it's possible, but it's hardly plausible. And I just don't understand those of you who believe this storyline actually happened. Sorry, but it just seems so absurd to me. BigSteelThrill writes with conviction because his conclusion is the only one which makes reasonable sense based on what we know.

If someone is hunting someone down with the intent to kill them then they certainly aren't going to talk to the police while they do it (or at least they'd do it in a smarter way). My belief is that Zimmerman thought he could talk to Trayvon without it becoming a fight but when it did it either got so out of control that he freaked or he was so angry about being attacked that he shot Trayvon. We haven't seen any evidence that proves what happened in the key final moments.

I never said that Zimmerman was hunting down Martin with the intent to kill. I said that he was the chaser, and Martin was the chasee. That remains, IMO, the only reasonable conclusion.

What do you make of Trayvon's girlfriend saying that he told her he wasn't going to run?

You can only allow another person to "force" you into so much. At some point a man is going to refuse to be dictated to.

 

[jon_mx]

BST, The over the top part is when you boldly state that Zimmerman hunted Treyvan down. You are making a lot of assumptions such as all Treyvan did was walk home. You completely dismiss every part of Zimmerman's story. This is not even close to as one-sided as you wish to spin it to match your ridiculously slanted world view.

But Zimm had already gone against every bit of police officer advice and the rule-sets by this point.He is making woefully bad decision after bad decision. And he is INTENT on tracking this guy ... which is why I say hunting/stalking.As I stated earlier in the thread -- If Im Trayvon, I am in fear for my life at the point the altercation occurred. One person is being reasonable and one is not.

Unless Treyvan initiated the physical assault. Yes, Zimmerman was probably an ###, but that does not make attacking him justified. If Treyvan started the attack, all your spin about him just innocently walking home goes out the window. And at this point, we don't know, so making such definitive statements is very presumptuous. IMO, Treyvan was pissed this guy was watching him, so it is not out of the relm of reason possibilities he blind-sided Zimmerman.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Zimmerman-Bono is not getting off scott free. His life is now a living hell. Worst case, he will be sued in civil court and lose. There is no best case for this guy. Cop wannabe ####ed up bad & life now sucks for him.

Worst case he'll get killed by some vigilante himself. Spike Lee's stupid ### tweeted an address supposedly belonging to Zimmerman, and it was wrong...and the people who lived there had to leave their home due to hate mail and threats...If that was the REAL Zimmerman, it could have been much worse. This guy's life is over, regardless of any outcome of this case.

Spike Lee is an idiot. Who made stupid decisions that put other innocent peoples life at risk.

He is a Zimmerman clone, when it comes to his thought process and actions.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

but that does not make attacking him justified.

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

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[timschochet]

1. There is a police report (which may actually be a second police report) which says that Zimmerman was bleeding and received treatment from an EMT. Yet there are no photos of this. Zimmerman showed no signs of bleeding or blood or grass stains in the video. And he did not request hospital treatment for his injuries (supposedly a broken nose.) If this truly happened , then at some point a doctor will have treated Zimmerman for that nose and that doctor will testify (even that won't be conclusive for some, but it would go a long way toward convincing me.)

You do realize that not everybody who suffers a broken nose goes to the doctor, let alone ER, right? Although it makes more sense for Zimmerman to get his injuries documented, there's no guarantee that he would have seen a doctor for a broken nose.

Again. We're not in a court of law. The fact that he didn't go to any doctor doesn't prove that he lied about having a broken nose. But do I think it suggests he lied? I sure as Hell do.

 

[Joe Summer]

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

Black congressman violates dress code = escorted out of the building

White congressman violates dress code = no big deal

 

[BigSteelThrill]

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

Black congressman violates dress code = escorted out of the building

White congressman violates dress code = no big deal

Are you (and Cleaver) sure that the ... no big deal is for "whites"? or is it no big deal for everyone, typically?Never mind, I don't really care. Congress has gotten so bi-polar.

 

[jon_mx]

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

 

[Dvorak]

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

"if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"

 

[identikit]

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

 

[identikit]

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

"if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"

 

[Clinton]

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

Black congressman violates dress code = escorted out of the building

White congressman violates dress code = no big deal

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

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Hitler did it!!

 

[Zow]

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

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

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

 

[parasaurolophus]

BS.Zimmerman hunted Trayvon down.

Here's a perfect example of a poster who drew his conclusions early, set his assumptions, and won't even remotely consider any alternative explanations, even when reasonable conjecture and evidance exists to support a differant hypothesis.

Because it's still the only conclusion that makes logical sense. Zimmerman is the one following Martin. Zimmerman is the one who called in to the authorities, and who complained on the phone that "they always get away." And yet given this, we're supposed to believe that Martin's the one who chased Zimmerman down from behind? Sure it's possible, but it's hardly plausible. And I just don't understand those of you who believe this storyline actually happened. Sorry, but it just seems so absurd to me. BigSteelThrill writes with conviction because his conclusion is the only one which makes reasonable sense based on what we know.

If someone is hunting someone down with the intent to kill them then they certainly aren't going to talk to the police while they do it (or at least they'd do it in a smarter way). My belief is that Zimmerman thought he could talk to Trayvon without it becoming a fight but when it did it either got so out of control that he freaked or he was so angry about being attacked that he shot Trayvon. We haven't seen any evidence that proves what happened in the key final moments.

I never said that Zimmerman was hunting down Martin with the intent to kill. I said that he was the chaser, and Martin was the chasee. That remains, IMO, the only reasonable conclusion.

What do you make of Trayvon's girlfriend saying that he told her he wasn't going to run?

You can only allow another person to "force" you into so much. At some point a man is going to refuse to be dictated to.

This is a stupid statement. How about he just goes home and enjoys his iced tea and gives his brother the skittles?You make it sound like they were in a post apocalyptic labyrinth tourney.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Do yourself a favor and WATCH THIS VIDEO

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

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

also shows the crime scene, exactly where it happened.

 

[Thunderlips]

BS.

Zimmerman hunted Trayvon down.

Here's a perfect example of a poster who drew his conclusions early, set his assumptions, and won't even remotely consider any alternative explanations, even when reasonable conjecture and evidance exists to support a differant hypothesis.

Because it's still the only conclusion that makes logical sense. Zimmerman is the one following Martin. Zimmerman is the one who called in to the authorities, and who complained on the phone that "they always get away." And yet given this, we're supposed to believe that Martin's the one who chased Zimmerman down from behind? Sure it's possible, but it's hardly plausible. And I just don't understand those of you who believe this storyline actually happened. Sorry, but it just seems so absurd to me. BigSteelThrill writes with conviction because his conclusion is the only one which makes reasonable sense based on what we know.

If someone is hunting someone down with the intent to kill them then they certainly aren't going to talk to the police while they do it (or at least they'd do it in a smarter way). My belief is that Zimmerman thought he could talk to Trayvon without it becoming a fight but when it did it either got so out of control that he freaked or he was so angry about being attacked that he shot Trayvon. We haven't seen any evidence that proves what happened in the key final moments.

Zimmerman might have been within the law (with the current info).....but he really should be called to task for not even attempting to communicate with the kid.

 

[Zow]

BS.Zimmerman hunted Trayvon down.

Here's a perfect example of a poster who drew his conclusions early, set his assumptions, and won't even remotely consider any alternative explanations, even when reasonable conjecture and evidance exists to support a differant hypothesis.

Because it's still the only conclusion that makes logical sense. Zimmerman is the one following Martin. Zimmerman is the one who called in to the authorities, and who complained on the phone that "they always get away." And yet given this, we're supposed to believe that Martin's the one who chased Zimmerman down from behind? Sure it's possible, but it's hardly plausible. And I just don't understand those of you who believe this storyline actually happened. Sorry, but it just seems so absurd to me. BigSteelThrill writes with conviction because his conclusion is the only one which makes reasonable sense based on what we know.

It is plausible - although if I had to "bet" on what happened I'd guess something similar to cstu where this Zimmerman want-to-be-hero followed the kid closely, it irritated the kid, he probably intended to only yell at the kid, but a fight broke out. Nonetheless, all this is essentially irrelevant to the issue of whether Zimmerman lawfully exercised self defense.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Do yourself a favor and WATCH THIS VIDEO

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

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

also shows the crime scene, exactly where it happened.

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

 

[SacramentoBob]

Do yourself a favor and WATCH THIS VIDEO

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

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

also shows the crime scene, exactly where it happened.

Way to put the gigantic BREAKING NEWS banner over his ####### head.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

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

Sure he can, he can be criminally negligent. And that's before any violence ever occurs.

FWIW, I think Zimmerman is criminaly negligent...but I'm able to consider all the possibilites.

Cool.I am also (in regards to the arrest video) willing to consider that the video and clothes argument (against Zimm) is very incomplete.

On the interview with NBC/Lauer it is stated that the video is 4 hours after the altercation.

You can also seethe police officer inspecting the back of Zimmermans head, as if he notices something.

And finally Lauer states that the officer inspects tehback of his head again as they the exit the door.

Im not sure what happens to you after any kind of punch to the face or nose but as time goes on (4 hours? ) the swelling gets worse...im not seeing ANY swelling on zimmerman anywhere....strange

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Do yourself a favor and WATCH THIS VIDEO

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

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

also shows the crime scene, exactly where it happened.

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

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

 

[BigSteelThrill]

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

Sure he can, he can be criminally negligent. And that's before any violence ever occurs.

FWIW, I think Zimmerman is criminaly negligent...but I'm able to consider all the possibilites.

Cool.I am also (in regards to the arrest video) willing to consider that the video and clothes argument (against Zimm) is very incomplete.

On the interview with NBC/Lauer it is stated that the video is 4 hours after the altercation.

You can also seethe police officer inspecting the back of Zimmermans head, as if he notices something.

And finally Lauer states that the officer inspects tehback of his head again as they the exit the door.

Im not sure what happens to you after any kind of punch to the face or nose but as time goes on (4 hours? ) the swelling gets worse...im not seeing ANY swelling on zimmerman anywhere....strange

That's a different/new argument. He certainly doesn't look like hes been punched in the face at all - or suffered a broken nose at all.

And to make it worse, it happened for almost a minute according to his father.

 

[Joe Summer]

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

Black congressman violates dress code = escorted out of the building

White congressman violates dress code = no big deal

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

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

 

[Zow]

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

Sure he can, he can be criminally negligent. And that's before any violence ever occurs.

FWIW, I think Zimmerman is criminaly negligent...but I'm able to consider all the possibilites.

Cool.I am also (in regards to the arrest video) willing to consider that the video and clothes argument (against Zimm) is very incomplete.

On the interview with NBC/Lauer it is stated that the video is 4 hours after the altercation.

You can also seethe police officer inspecting the back of Zimmermans head, as if he notices something.

And finally Lauer states that the officer inspects tehback of his head again as they the exit the door.

Im not sure what happens to you after any kind of punch to the face or nose but as time goes on (4 hours? ) the swelling gets worse...im not seeing ANY swelling on zimmerman anywhere....strange

That's a different/new argument. He certainly doesn't look like hes been punched in the face at all - or suffered a broken nose at all.

And to make it worse, it happened for almost a minute according to his father.

I'd agree that video is very damaging to Zimmerman. He was likely cleaned up and there shouldn't be any bruising yet, but a juror could see that and probably not buy that this was a guy who very hours ago was supposedly getting his face smashed in. It doesn't necessarily kill his self defense claim (at least in the legal sense) but if he testifies at trial that he was being beaten for one minute and had no choice but to shoot, I think the prosecutor can argue the video attacks his credibility.ETA: I'd imagine, if Zimmerman is charged, both sides will consult with medical experts regarding whether his appearance could be consistent with his account of taking blows, if that is, in fact, HIS account and his defense and not just some hyperbolic claim made by a biased father.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

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

Probably not... but are only "whites" allowed to get away that infraction?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

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

Sure he can, he can be criminally negligent. And that's before any violence ever occurs.

FWIW, I think Zimmerman is criminaly negligent...but I'm able to consider all the possibilites.

Cool.I am also (in regards to the arrest video) willing to consider that the video and clothes argument (against Zimm) is very incomplete.

On the interview with NBC/Lauer it is stated that the video is 4 hours after the altercation.

You can also seethe police officer inspecting the back of Zimmermans head, as if he notices something.

And finally Lauer states that the officer inspects tehback of his head again as they the exit the door.

Im not sure what happens to you after any kind of punch to the face or nose but as time goes on (4 hours? ) the swelling gets worse...im not seeing ANY swelling on zimmerman anywhere....strange

That's a different/new argument. He certainly doesn't look like hes been punched in the face at all - or suffered a broken nose at all.

And to make it worse, it happened for almost a minute according to his father.

I'd agree that video is very damaging to Zimmerman. He was likely cleaned up and there shouldn't be any bruising yet, but a juror could see that and probably not buy that this was a guy who very hours ago was supposedly getting his face smashed in. It doesn't necessarily kill his self defense claim (at least in the legal sense) but if he testifies at trial that he was being beaten for one minute and had no choice but to shoot, I think the prosecutor can argue the video attacks his credibility.

And to add to that, if he had his head repeatedly slammed into the side walk... you would have some lumps on the back of that noggin?

 

[Slapdash]

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

Sure he can, he can be criminally negligent. And that's before any violence ever occurs.

FWIW, I think Zimmerman is criminaly negligent...but I'm able to consider all the possibilites.

Cool.I am also (in regards to the arrest video) willing to consider that the video and clothes argument (against Zimm) is very incomplete.

On the interview with NBC/Lauer it is stated that the video is 4 hours after the altercation.

You can also seethe police officer inspecting the back of Zimmermans head, as if he notices something.

And finally Lauer states that the officer inspects tehback of his head again as they the exit the door.

Im not sure what happens to you after any kind of punch to the face or nose but as time goes on (4 hours? ) the swelling gets worse...im not seeing ANY swelling on zimmerman anywhere....strange

I can buy that he may have been punched or even have his nose broken and not show any signs of it four hours later. But, if he was actually getting beat up on the ground for a minute (like his dad has claimed) such that he feared for his life, I think there would have to at least look like he had been in a fight. Not having any sign whatsoever makes it hard to believe that is how things happened.

 

[squistion]

Mark Fiore - Shoot-em-up Charlie cartoon:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/29/1078715/-Mark-Fiore-Shoot-em-up-Charlie?detail=hide

 

[Clinton]

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

Black congressman violates dress code = escorted out of the building

White congressman violates dress code = no big deal

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

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

No, it likely doesn't.From my experience, though, rules and some laws are seldom enforced if they do not cause the disturbance that the rules seek to prevent. For example, jay walking is meant to prevent traffic accidents. If you walk across the street when no cars are coming, 99% of the time you won't get a jay walking ticket. If you jay walk on a busy street, however, you're way more likely to get a jay walking ticket because you're creating the disturbance the jay walking law seeks to prevent.

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

 

[One]

Do yourself a favor and WATCH THIS VIDEO

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

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

also shows the crime scene, exactly where it happened.

Great clip, thanks for sharing. Zimmerman doesn't look like someone who's just been beaten. Though it wasn't as clear as a photo, I expected more of some visible wound on the front or back of his head. Plus, how on earth are you not covered in blood if you've just been punched, had your nose broken and then shot a man on top of you?

 

[Clinton]

Police surveillance video of Zimmerman may show head injury

w/ Photos

 

[bigbottom]

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

Black congressman violates dress code = escorted out of the building

White congressman violates dress code = no big deal

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

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

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Police surveillance video of Zimmerman may show head injury

w/ Photos

Watch the video Actually that photo is kind of backwards it is gray resolution.

The video shows his head as brown (dark) and there is a white streak on the back of his head.

:45 to 1:05 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/46887730#46887730

and at :53 you get a straight on look to the back of the head.

 

[FavreCo]

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

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

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

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

 

[mad sweeney]

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

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

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

 

[pantagrapher]

Police surveillance video of Zimmerman may show head injury

w/ Photos

Back. And to the left. Back. And to the left.

 

[Clinton]

Police surveillance video of Zimmerman may show head injury

w/ Photos

Watch the video of the same thing. That is very selective use of a shadow.You can see plenty of video time of the back of his head where you cant see that.

Yeah, I don't think we can definitively conclude that's a gash from just those pictures. And if it's a gash we can't definitively conclude it's from the attack as Zimmerman recounts it.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Police surveillance video of Zimmerman may show head injury

w/ Photos

Watch the video of the same thing. That is very selective use of a shadow.You can see plenty of video time of the back of his head where you cant see that.

That photo tells me that the same people who are in the zimmerman is innocent camp and are dismissing the police station video, are the same people who would be all over that video if it showed zimmerman beat up. You cant have it both ways , sorry.

 

[mad sweeney]

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

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

ZIMMERMAN LIED ...period

About what?

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

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

Sensationalist writing doesn't prove anything..

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

 

[Two Deep]

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

 

[badmojo1006]

Police surveillance video of Zimmerman may show head injury

w/ Photos

I would think if he had been beaten as badly as he said he was, the back of his head would be bandaged. A gash that large would not be healed in 4 hours

 

[identikit]

Do yourself a favor and WATCH THIS VIDEO

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

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

also shows the crime scene, exactly where it happened.

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