Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[identikit]

A teen boy stupid enough to have drug paraphenalia with him at school?

When I was in high school, I bought drugs off a couple other students many times. I wasn't a thug or a bad kid.

Christ, my entire high school was high every single day, i think some of the teachers were also. We graffitied and vandelized and drank. Just like all normal kids.

Was this your school:My link

 

[BustedKnuckles]

A teen boy stupid enough to have drug paraphenalia with him at school?

When I was in high school, I bought drugs off a couple other students many times. I wasn't a thug or a bad kid.

Christ, my entire high school was high every single day, i think some of the teachers were also. We graffitied and vandelized and drank. Just like all normal kids.

Was this your school:My link

More like this

 

[Redwes25]

1. No matter what, Zimmerman's history matters.

2. Martin's history does not matter, unless you can prove that (a) Martin violently attacked Zimmerman as Zimmerman is claiming and (b) there are elements in Martin's history which are suggestive of this sort of violence.

So far, I don't think there's any evidence which proves 2 (a), though others disagree with me. There is certainly no evidence which proves 2 (b). And not only that, the "evidence" which HAS been produced is a slimy attack on the character of this kid- and yes it has racial overtones as well. It plays into the stereotype of the dangerous, gangsta black youth which people like Zimmerman (and presumably the rest of us) should be afraid of.

You're using a double standard here. Defacing school property, drug paraphenalia, highly suggestive evidance of theivery...these things suggest this kid was capable of commiting crimes....including attacking Zimmerman first. At best...their histories are a wash.

There is a goood reason that prior criminal history is never raised in a case. It is prejudicial and has no bearing on the facts at issue.

 

[Clinton]

There is a goood reason that prior criminal history is never raised in a case. It is prejudicial and has no bearing on the facts at issue.

Rule 404(b) disallows "[evidence] of other crimes, wrongs, or acts [offered] to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith."

Rule 404(b), however, makes an exception for evidence of prior acts offered to show some other rationale, such as "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident." Because these rationales are offered to prove something other than bad character, they are the means by which prior acts come into evidence.

 

[Redwes25]

There is a goood reason that prior criminal history is never raised in a case. It is prejudicial and has no bearing on the facts at issue.

Rule 404(b) disallows "[evidence] of other crimes, wrongs, or acts [offered] to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith."

Rule 404(b), however, makes an exception for evidence of prior acts offered to show some other rationale, such as "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident." Because these rationales are offered to prove something other than bad character, they are the means by which prior acts come into evidence.

He is using it for character in which case it is not allowed.

 

[Zow]

There is a goood reason that prior criminal history is never raised in a case. It is prejudicial and has no bearing on the facts at issue.

Rule 404(b) disallows "[evidence] of other crimes, wrongs, or acts [offered] to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith."

Rule 404(b), however, makes an exception for evidence of prior acts offered to show some other rationale, such as "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident." Because these rationales are offered to prove something other than bad character, they are the means by which prior acts come into evidence.

I'm assuming he is taking issue with your "never" claim. He's technically right in that it can be used as evidence via 404 and also to impeach (depending on the prior). Nonetheless, you're correct that they often are not allowed and always need to be run through a 403 analysis (whether the mentioning is so prejudicial towards the defendant that any probative value is substantially outweighed). As I stated before, this thread is a great example of why 403 would keep out both these guys' criminal histories.

 

[jonessed]

There is a goood reason that prior criminal history is never raised in a case. It is prejudicial and has no bearing on the facts at issue.

Rule 404(b) disallows "[evidence] of other crimes, wrongs, or acts [offered] to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith."

Rule 404(b), however, makes an exception for evidence of prior acts offered to show some other rationale, such as "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident." Because these rationales are offered to prove something other than bad character, they are the means by which prior acts come into evidence.

He is using it for character in which case it is not allowed.

Martin was hanging out in Florida while his parents and school were in another state. Even if the giant void of why that was isn't filled, the void itself is going to be somewhat obvious I would think. It's not like they can fill it with a lie.

 

[timschochet]

Lindsay Lohan's probation has just been completed! Her 4 and 1/2 years of court appearances are now over!

This means that the courts can move on now and deal with this Zimmerman/Martin issue.

 

[Zow]

There is a goood reason that prior criminal history is never raised in a case. It is prejudicial and has no bearing on the facts at issue.

Rule 404(b) disallows "[evidence] of other crimes, wrongs, or acts [offered] to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith."

Rule 404(b), however, makes an exception for evidence of prior acts offered to show some other rationale, such as "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident." Because these rationales are offered to prove something other than bad character, they are the means by which prior acts come into evidence.

He is using it for character in which case it is not allowed.

Martin was hanging out in Florida while his parents and school were in another state. Even if the giant void of why that was isn't filled, the void itself is going to be somewhat obvious I would think. It's not like they can fill it with a lie.

Why would his actual place of residence be relevant? I believe it is uncontroverted that he was in the neighborhood visiting someone. It was also night time. The State should easily be able to keep his truancy out.

 

[Carver]

There is a goood reason that prior criminal history is never raised in a case. It is prejudicial and has no bearing on the facts at issue.

Rule 404(b) disallows "[evidence] of other crimes, wrongs, or acts [offered] to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith."

Rule 404(b), however, makes an exception for evidence of prior acts offered to show some other rationale, such as "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident." Because these rationales are offered to prove something other than bad character, they are the means by which prior acts come into evidence.

He is using it for character in which case it is not allowed.

Martin was hanging out in Florida while his parents and school were in another state. Even if the giant void of why that was isn't filled, the void itself is going to be somewhat obvious I would think. It's not like they can fill it with a lie.

Wait... wut?

 

[Joe Summer]

Cartoonist fired for questionable drawing

In before "Whatever happened to freedom of the press"

 

[BustedKnuckles]

There is a goood reason that prior criminal history is never raised in a case. It is prejudicial and has no bearing on the facts at issue.

Rule 404(b) disallows "[evidence] of other crimes, wrongs, or acts [offered] to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith."

Rule 404(b), however, makes an exception for evidence of prior acts offered to show some other rationale, such as "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident." Because these rationales are offered to prove something other than bad character, they are the means by which prior acts come into evidence.

He is using it for character in which case it is not allowed.

Martin was hanging out in Florida while his parents and school were in another state. Even if the giant void of why that was isn't filled, the void itself is going to be somewhat obvious I would think. It's not like they can fill it with a lie.

Wait... wut?

me too

 

[jonessed]

There is a goood reason that prior criminal history is never raised in a case. It is prejudicial and has no bearing on the facts at issue.

Rule 404(b) disallows "[evidence] of other crimes, wrongs, or acts [offered] to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith."

Rule 404(b), however, makes an exception for evidence of prior acts offered to show some other rationale, such as "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident." Because these rationales are offered to prove something other than bad character, they are the means by which prior acts come into evidence.

He is using it for character in which case it is not allowed.

Martin was hanging out in Florida while his parents and school were in another state. Even if the giant void of why that was isn't filled, the void itself is going to be somewhat obvious I would think. It's not like they can fill it with a lie.

Why would his actual place of residence be relevant? I believe it is uncontroverted that he was in the neighborhood visiting someone. It was also night time. The State should easily be able to keep his truancy out.

For some reason I thought he lived in another state, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[mad sweeney]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Says the guy who dismisses the 13 year old kid's and otherr witnesses' (note Hustler, that there is an apostrophe here to show possession) statements simply because they're black and therefore bias (btw, it's biased, not bias as you constantly write). Jesus Herbert Humphries Christ you're a typing hypocritical dynamo-mess jonnay.

 

[jonessed]

There is a goood reason that prior criminal history is never raised in a case. It is prejudicial and has no bearing on the facts at issue.

Rule 404(b) disallows "[evidence] of other crimes, wrongs, or acts [offered] to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith."

Rule 404(b), however, makes an exception for evidence of prior acts offered to show some other rationale, such as "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident." Because these rationales are offered to prove something other than bad character, they are the means by which prior acts come into evidence.

He is using it for character in which case it is not allowed.

Martin was hanging out in Florida while his parents and school were in another state. Even if the giant void of why that was isn't filled, the void itself is going to be somewhat obvious I would think. It's not like they can fill it with a lie.

Wait... wut?

I was just thinking something through on how to keep it away from a jury without indicating the reason wasn't something normal. Perhaps it won't be that hard.

 

[mad sweeney]

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

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

A wash.

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

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

Yeah, they're not even close. When I was 15-17 I was obsessed with death to the point of writing Slayer and Metallica and Megadeth lyrics on the margins of my notes and also flashed my balls and buttocks constantly but wasn't a killer or sex offender (other than not having enough of it). I guess I DO have a history of violence having played football, as well as having played HS soccer as if it were football (hey, I was bigger than everyone and we were at the age when the club kids were learning to dive so after awhile of getting whistles for dives, I made sure that if they went down there was a reason). Then again, I was never arrested for resisting arrest, much less twice, nor for domestic battery regardless of whether my judge dad got the charges thrown out I was or wasn't ultimately charged. But obviously, a teenage boy trying to act tough on the internet has a much larger violence potential than a guy who's been arrested several times...

 

[Smack Tripper]

How are the Zimmerman defenders explaining the fact he looks fine in the police survailence video after allegedly having his head bashed in and a bloody nose?

 

[TexanFan02]

How are the Zimmerman defenders explaining the fact he looks fine in the police survailence video after allegedly having his head bashed in and a bloody nose?

Poorly.

 

[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.

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

ZOMG, he talked like his musical heroes talk?!?!?! You can't tell a damn thing about someone's internet claims, unless you actually believe what people say online. If so, I have a bridge to sell you... Once again, a lot of people engage in spurious teenage behavior (including my dork-### self who has a longer criminal history than Martin), but that doesn't mean for a single second that these people are NOT good or innocent. It's patently absurd to suggest it. If people took what I said about death in HS seriously, based on the music I listened to, I'd have been institutionalized. This was pre-internet too.Look, I don't think either of them were bad people. Georgy boy is a terminal do-gooder who reminds me of Jim Carrey's Cherub of Justice skit. Seriously, calling the police over kids playing in the street?! Even my dork ### self would be leery of letting a complete stranger follow me all the way to my house and if I felt threatened enough, I'd confront them. And if a physical altercation happened and I got the upper hand, I'd be damned sure to make sure the guy stalking me wasn't conscious enough to reach into his trousers to grab a gun. None of this would've happened if George listened to the 911 operator, none of this would've happened if George identified himself as neighborhood watch instead of treating Martin like a criminal, none of this would've happend if George could've handled himself in a fight. Sorry, but I don't consider getting your ### kicked, without a bruise, cut or scrape to show for it, and especially not when the person you're following has a legit reason to be scared that you're following them, to be enough of a reason for killing someone. Mess with the bull, get the horns. I guess that's why the NRA hasn't popped their head into this mess, because clearly the fact that George had a gun turned this from a beating to a gunshot death.

 

[mad sweeney]

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

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

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

Really? Zimmerman went out of his way to welcome and help his neighbors. Trayvon speaks like a punk on his twitter and fb page...including talking about doing drugs.We don't have to agree on the significance of the "evidance" on character for either party, but ignoring all negative evidance aginst Trayvon is flat wrong.

I'm not ignoring negative evidEnce about Martin. I'm chalking it up to being a stupid male teenager whose musical inspirations also talk tough but rarely walk the talk and acting tougher than you are, something even 40 year olds can do on the internet. George is a busybody who stuck his nose into everyone's business and did so while carrying a gun. He didn't identify himself to a kid he'd been following for 15 minutes and he acted like he was in some authority position over Martin. I'd be scared to death if I were Martin and if I had the chance to get the jump on a guy who clearly doesn't have my best interests in mind, I'll pound him til he can't draw a gun on me (assuming he had one, which in this case he did). That's why I don't buy the "slamming his head into the sidewalk" with no visible evidEnce routine.

 

[mad sweeney]

Neither of their histories matter.

Of course their histories matter. In this case, the history of neither of them provides any definitive indication of capacity though, at least IMHO.Zimmerman was a hot head according to his history, capable of an irrational act in the heat of the moment. Trayvon was not a perfectly innocent kid who'd "never been in any trouble", as was first reported. The idea that he couldn't possibly have initiated the physical part of a conflict is ridiculous.

I'm not sure who's said exactly that, but once again, if you're being followed enough to start fearing for your safety, what's the difference in self defense mode than losing a fight you essentially initiated by convincing someone you don't mean them any good?

 

[mad sweeney]

the US %$^%& congress drug paraphenaliaAlthough not proven, it's pretty easy to see this when couple with the other stuff such as the women's jewelry"evidance" on charactersome evidance but not proof.The evidance is strongerbut so is the evidance

Trayvon speaks like a punk

 

[cstu]

How are the Zimmerman defenders explaining the fact he looks fine in the police survailence video after allegedly having his head bashed in and a bloody nose?

He's Wolverine.

 

[mad sweeney]

1. No matter what, Zimmerman's history matters.

2. Martin's history does not matter, unless you can prove that (a) Martin violently attacked Zimmerman as Zimmerman is claiming and (b) there are elements in Martin's history which are suggestive of this sort of violence.

So far, I don't think there's any evidence which proves 2 (a), though others disagree with me. There is certainly no evidence which proves 2 (b). And not only that, the "evidence" which HAS been produced is a slimy attack on the character of this kid- and yes it has racial overtones as well. It plays into the stereotype of the dangerous, gangsta black youth which people like Zimmerman (and presumably the rest of us) should be afraid of.

You're using a double standard here. Defacing school property, drug paraphenalia, highly suggestive evidance of theivery...these things suggest this kid was capable of commiting crimes....including attacking Zimmerman first. At best...their histories are a wash.

Oh bull####. Nothing there suggests violent behavior in the least. Most absurd statement you've made.

 

[squistion]

1. No matter what, Zimmerman's history matters.

2. Martin's history does not matter, unless you can prove that (a) Martin violently attacked Zimmerman as Zimmerman is claiming and (b) there are elements in Martin's history which are suggestive of this sort of violence.

So far, I don't think there's any evidence which proves 2 (a), though others disagree with me. There is certainly no evidence which proves 2 (b). And not only that, the "evidence" which HAS been produced is a slimy attack on the character of this kid- and yes it has racial overtones as well. It plays into the stereotype of the dangerous, gangsta black youth which people like Zimmerman (and presumably the rest of us) should be afraid of.

You're using a double standard here. Defacing school property, drug paraphenalia, highly suggestive evidance of theivery...these things suggest this kid was capable of commiting crimes....including attacking Zimmerman first. At best...their histories are a wash.

Oh bull####. Nothing there suggests violent behavior in the least. Most absurd statement you've made.

 

[mad sweeney]

We cleared 100 no problem...O/U on 200 pages? 300 pages?Time frame?Countdown to another Rodney King verdict?Floridians start hiding everything

Just don't riot from April 16-25!!!!

 

[mad sweeney]

Attacking first isn't necessarily a crime. ftr.

Unless you have very good reason to expect the other person to attack you.....yes...actually, it is a crime. If Zimmerman lost Tayvon, and then Trayvon blindsided him....yes, that's a crime. Note that I used "If" ...we don't know what happened to start it...but Zimmerman following Marti is not enough all by itself, ESPECIALLY if he lost Martin and had given up the "chase."I think Zimm's an idiot and likely guilty...I'm just pointing out that his story, to this point, is plausible.

And IF Martin lost Z and Z reappeared then jumping Z before Z jumped M is perfectly plausible and in fact is something I'd likely do to protect myself. Unless Z identified himself as neighborhood watch (no caps) and thus had a reason to be following me. Unfortunately, Z didn't feel like that was a good idea...

 

[Carver]

How are the Zimmerman defenders explaining the fact he looks fine in the police survailence video after allegedly having his head bashed in and a bloody broken nose?

According to his dad.

 

[mad sweeney]

1. No matter what, Zimmerman's history matters.

2. Martin's history does not matter, unless you can prove that (a) Martin violently attacked Zimmerman as Zimmerman is claiming and (b) there are elements in Martin's history which are suggestive of this sort of violence.

So far, I don't think there's any evidence which proves 2 (a), though others disagree with me. There is certainly no evidence which proves 2 (b). And not only that, the "evidence" which HAS been produced is a slimy attack on the character of this kid- and yes it has racial overtones as well. It plays into the stereotype of the dangerous, gangsta black youth which people like Zimmerman (and presumably the rest of us) should be afraid of.

You're using a double standard here. Defacing school property, drug paraphenalia, highly suggestive evidance of theivery...these things suggest this kid was capable of commiting crimes....including attacking Zimmerman first.

Attacking first isn't necessarily a crime. ftr.

Neither is following someone suspicious black males to make sure they don't burglarize a house or worse.

FYP

GZ's calls to the police were listed earlier in this thread. you can see a pattern over the course of the last 9 months where something like 6 out of 8 calls were about suspicious black males, the other 2 calls were about a garage and a dog, I believe. strangely, no suspicious white males were ever called on.

The problem with this is it doesn't really list times when non-black males were doing the same thing and not being reported. I've never alleged racism in this thread towards Z, though I am convinced he said "coons" in the audio. But based on the fact that he called the police as much as he did, I would say being black wasn't a huge factor in his suspicion. It may be, especially if he calls them coons, but it's never been an issue to me in this. The police dept, maybe, but not Z.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Says the guy who dismisses the 13 year old kid's and otherr witnesses' (note Hustler, that there is an apostrophe here to show possession) statements simply because they're black and therefore bias (btw, it's biased, not bias as you constantly write). Jesus Herbert Humphries Christ you're a typing hypocritical dynamo-mess jonnay.

 

[mad sweeney]

How are the Zimmerman defenders explaining the fact he looks fine in the police survailence video after allegedly having his head bashed in and a bloody broken nose?

According to his dad.

Who heard it from his son.

 

[jon_mx]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Says the guy who dismisses the 13 year old kid's and otherr witnesses' (note Hustler, that there is an apostrophe here to show possession) statements simply because they're black and therefore bias (btw, it's biased, not bias as you constantly write). Jesus Herbert Humphries Christ you're a typing hypocritical dynamo-mess jonnay.

Two idiots laughing at something I have never commented on. You idiots just make crap up every thread. Pathetic really.

 

[FavreCo]

How are the Zimmerman defenders explaining the fact he looks fine in the police survailence video after allegedly having his head bashed in and a bloody nose?

He's Wolverine.

It's either that or he was pummelled so badly that he now looks like Chaz Bono's twin brother.

 

[FavreCo]

How are the Zimmerman defenders explaining the fact he looks fine in the police survailence video after allegedly having his head bashed in and a bloody broken nose?

According to his dad.

Who heard it from his son.

And is looking like an idiot in his latest interview.

 

[Christo]

Do yourself a favor and WATCH THIS VIDEO

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

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

also shows the crime scene, exactly where it happened.

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

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

I thought you said this proved there was no blood.

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

Four hours isn't enough time to clean up a little blood?

 

[mad sweeney]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Says the guy who dismisses the 13 year old kid's and otherr witnesses' (note Hustler, that there is an apostrophe here to show possession) statements simply because they're black and therefore bias (btw, it's biased, not bias as you constantly write). Jesus Herbert Humphries Christ you're a typing hypocritical dynamo-mess jonnay.

Two idiots laughing at something I have never commented on. You idiots just make crap up every thread. Pathetic really.

So you didn't dismiss at least two black folks' descriptions of the scene because they were bias(ed)? Interesting.

 

[badmojo1006]

Do yourself a favor and WATCH THIS VIDEO

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

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

also shows the crime scene, exactly where it happened.

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

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

I thought you said this proved there was no blood.

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

Four hours isn't enough time to clean up a little blood?

Sure and they took him to Old Navy for a new T-Shirt and pair of jeans

 

[jon_mx]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Says the guy who dismisses the 13 year old kid's and otherr witnesses' (note Hustler, that there is an apostrophe here to show possession) statements simply because they're black and therefore bias (btw, it's biased, not bias as you constantly write). Jesus Herbert Humphries Christ you're a typing hypocritical dynamo-mess jonnay.

Two idiots laughing at something I have never commented on. You idiots just make crap up every thread. Pathetic really.

So you didn't dismiss at least two black folks' descriptions of the scene because they were bias(ed)? Interesting.

I have yet to comment on any of the witnesses

 

[Christo]

Neither of their histories matter.

Of course their histories matter. In this case, the history of neither of them provides any definitive indication of capacity though, at least IMHO.Zimmerman was a hot head according to his history, capable of an irrational act in the heat of the moment. Trayvon was not a perfectly innocent kid who'd "never been in any trouble", as was first reported. The idea that he couldn't possibly have initiated the physical part of a conflict is ridiculous.

Neither of their histories matter.

 

[Christo]

1. No matter what, Zimmerman's history matters.

No, it doesn't.

 

[jon_mx]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Says the guy who dismisses the 13 year old kid's and otherr witnesses' (note Hustler, that there is an apostrophe here to show possession) statements simply because they're black and therefore bias (btw, it's biased, not bias as you constantly write). Jesus Herbert Humphries Christ you're a typing hypocritical dynamo-mess jonnay.

Two idiots laughing at something I have never commented on. You idiots just make crap up every thread. Pathetic really.

So you didn't dismiss at least two black folks' descriptions of the scene because they were bias(ed)? Interesting.

So you admit you just make up crap with no idea what you are talking about....it is about time.

 

[Christo]

You guys are doing a wonderful job of illustrating why evidence rule 403 would keep their histories out of keep.

Quit being such a lawyer. We're talking about our unfounded beliefs based upon incomplete evidence.

 

[jon_mx]

Neither of their histories matter.

Of course their histories matter. In this case, the history of neither of them provides any definitive indication of capacity though, at least IMHO.Zimmerman was a hot head according to his history, capable of an irrational act in the heat of the moment. Trayvon was not a perfectly innocent kid who'd "never been in any trouble", as was first reported. The idea that he couldn't possibly have initiated the physical part of a conflict is ridiculous.

Neither of their histories matter.

I am pretty sure what happened that night is what matters. But others want to judge on other factors.

 

[Christo]

Sanford Police threatened to arrest members of the media who approach or ask questions off the clock.

A press release sent out Wednesday said police would arrest journalists who attempt to make contact with city employees during non-working hours. They asked to not approach, call or email the city employees at home.

Some city staffers have been "followed or approached at their home or in settings outside of working hours," the release said.

"Law enforcement officials will not hesitate to make an arrest for stalking."

However, the Florida statute on stalking does not include language that would provide special protection to city officials or prevent media from asking questions.

Sanford police did not immediately return any calls Wednesday and Thursday morning.



wouldnt what zimmerman did the night in question be considered stalking when he was following trey? This police force is screwed up from top to bottom.

No.

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

© “Credible threat” means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.

(d) “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.

(7) Any person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(8) The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5).

History.—s. 1, ch. 92-208; s. 29, ch. 94-134; s. 29, ch. 94-135; s. 2, ch. 97-27; s. 23, ch. 2002-55; s. 1, ch. 2003-23; s. 3, ch. 2004-17; s. 3, ch. 2004-256; s. 17, ch. 2008-172.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html

 

[Christo]

Do yourself a favor and WATCH THIS VIDEO

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

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

also shows the crime scene, exactly where it happened.

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

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

I thought you said this proved there was no blood.

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

Four hours isn't enough time to clean up a little blood?

Sure and they took him to Old Navy for a new T-Shirt and pair of jeans

 

[jonessed]

Do yourself a favor and WATCH THIS VIDEO

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

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

also shows the crime scene, exactly where it happened.

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

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

I thought you said this proved there was no blood.

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

Four hours isn't enough time to clean up a little blood?

Sure and they took him to Old Navy for a new T-Shirt and pair of jeans

He lives right there. I wouldn't be surprised if they let him change. Perhaps they even have his original shirt as evidence. How would any of us know?This video really doesn't change the fact that very little is known about what evidence the police and the FBI actually have. We are hypothesizing about stuff that I'm pretty sure they already know and I really doubt that this grand police/state conspiracy everybody is keen on has slipped right by the FBI and the justice department. The idea that anyone would be sure of anything right now seems rather silly.

 

[Tuco]

CNN showing the video of Zimmerman at the Police Station and enhancing an image of the back of his head. Seems to show an injury. Eye witness saying "Zimmerman looked beat up".

I don't think some people understand that receiving medical attention can help your appearance.

 

[Ranethe]

1. No matter what, Zimmerman's history matters.

2. Martin's history does not matter, unless you can prove that (a) Martin violently attacked Zimmerman as Zimmerman is claiming and (b) there are elements in Martin's history which are suggestive of this sort of violence.

So far, I don't think there's any evidence which proves 2 (a), though others disagree with me. There is certainly no evidence which proves 2 (b). And not only that, the "evidence" which HAS been produced is a slimy attack on the character of this kid- and yes it has racial overtones as well. It plays into the stereotype of the dangerous, gangsta black youth which people like Zimmerman (and presumably the rest of us) should be afraid of.

You're using a double standard here. Defacing school property, drug paraphenalia, highly suggestive evidance of theivery...these things suggest this kid was capable of commiting crimes....including attacking Zimmerman first. At best...their histories are a wash.

Oh bull####. Nothing there suggests violent behavior in the least. Most absurd statement you've made.

Have you followed this whole thread? This guy's made a bunch. I think one even made it into a sig.

 

[Clinton]

The idea that anyone would be sure of anything right now seems rather silly.

Joe Scarborough seems rather sure that you're stupid for suggesting that:""It has been very regrettable, shameful in some cases, for some who have decided that they're going to step out and try to blame this tragedy on a young African-American man who weighed a hundred pounds less -- weighing a hundred pounds less than the man who was chasing him through the streets with the 9millimeter gun while Trayvon Martin was carrying iced tea and Skittles," Joe Scarborough said on Thursday's broadcast of "Morning Joe."

"I would just suggest to those who continue to adopt this twisted line for whatever reason you will look foolish in the end, or worse," he warned.

"Do not defend, you know -- you defend who you want to defend, but if you're attacking a young man who was minding his own business carrying Skittles and iced tea through a neighborhood trying to get home and yet he was chased through a neighborhood when the authorities were telling Zimmerman to get out of the way, a man with a 9 millimeter gun. It is -- your defense of the guy with a 9 millimeter gun and your attempts to try to turn the victim in this case, the clear victim in this case, into the aggressor is nothing short of shameful. You look stupid or worse," Scarborough said.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/29/scarborough_to_those_blaming_trayon_you_will_look_foolish_in_the_end.html

Of course, when that young lady was found dead in Joe's office, Joe didn't seem to want people jumping to conclusions then.

 

[Clinton]

CNN showing the video of Zimmerman at the Police Station and enhancing an image of the back of his head. Seems to show an injury. Eye witness saying "Zimmerman looked beat up".I don't think some people understand that receiving medical attention can help your appearance.

Blown up pictures show what appears to be a rather large gash in the back of his head, but it's difficult to confirm that it's actually a gash.