Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[TexanFan02]

Every part of every story the Zimmerman camp has put out is falling apart. I'm starting to have some hope that this guy might do time after all.

I wouldn't go that far. It could be the most important part of Zimmerman's story, other than being attacked, is that he turned back and Trayvon came after him (or backtracked or whatever). There's some pretty strong support for that. Martin's attorneys are going to have to deal with that and remove reasonable doubt. So far, afaik, they are denying it.

No there's not.

 

[Clifford]

How about a personality test? Pick the man you most admire:

Mahatma Ghandi

George Washington

Dirty Harry

Benjamin Franklin

Martin Luther King

Everyone who picks Dirty Harry is barred from ever owning a gun for life.

 

[cstu]

Was Clinton assaulted by an angry mob of black kids a while back? Holy #### dude. You bring this thing up in every ####### thread. My god.

He trots these out at least once a week but in both incidents he cites, the police are on record as saying there was no racial component or racial motivation - and he can't provide one credible link to prove otherwise. Oddly he never talks about black mobs attacking latinos, just whites and asians (I guess that is because blacks and latinos live in perfect harmony everywhere).

This credible enough?

 

[bigbottom]

I want him arrested. Given all the conflicting accounts, the police misconduct, the coercion of witnesses, can you think of a single reason he should not be arrested?Stop the drama. All I have said is that his claim of self-defence, given that he was claiming it against an unarmed man smaller than him, should not have been enough to prevent an arrest.

If the police investigation reaches the conclusion that he acted in self-defense under the stand your ground law, they can't arrest him (by my reading of the statute).

 

[HellToupee]

I don't give a crap about the law.

scot-free .

 

[squistion]

Was Clinton assaulted by an angry mob of black kids a while back? Holy #### dude. You bring this thing up in every ####### thread. My god.

He trots these out at least once a week but in both incidents he cites, the police are on record as saying there was no racial component or racial motivation - and he can't provide one credible link to prove otherwise. Oddly he never talks about black mobs attacking latinos, just whites and asians (I guess that is because blacks and latinos live in perfect harmony everywhere).

This credible enough?

No because the police have specifically stated that the attacks were not racially motivated.

 

[renesauz]

“Usually he was just a cool guy. He liked to drink and hang with the women like the rest of us,” he said. “But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude snapped, he snapped.”

Until something definitive comes out, I'm going to assume Zimmerman shot Trayvon because he was pissed about getting attacked by a punk kid. While it's possible that he shot Trayvon while he thought he life was in danger, I believe it's more likely he snapped again and decided to kill him.

More than about race, this case illustrates the problems with concealed carry. I support it, but I think the bar needs to be raised on who is allowed to carry. Even a single arrest for a violence-related crime should be enough to disqualify someone.

I tend to believe in this take, but can see a real problem proving he snapped vs. he was in reasonable fear for his life. I think Martin doubled back and surprised him, starting the physical fight. I think that "fact" (if it were proven or at least shown as highly plausible via the evidance) would make a murder charge impossible, and a manslaughter charge almost as hard, but shouldn't be a free pass negating all possible charges. Zimmerman was an idiot and should be held accountable...criminal negligance...I dunnno (not a lawyer), but he's not innocent...morally so if not legally.

 

[timschochet]

I don't give a crap about the law.

Most of the rest of us do, though. I believe, as you do, that Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter. But they'd better be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. People like you scare me, because from the beginning of this case there has been a populist element to those who are demanding justice. You don't want justice, you want a result which will emotionally sastisfy you, and legal rights be damned.Despite my near-certainty that Zimmerman is a murderer, I would much rather see him walk away scot-free than see him imprisoned based upon public pressures rather than a fair trial. That has always been my position with the prisoners held in Guantanamo, and that's my position here.

I want him arrested. Given all the conflicting accounts, the police misconduct, the coercion of witnesses, can you think of a single reason he should not be arrested?Stop the drama. All I have said is that his claim of self-defence, given that he was claiming it against an unarmed man smaller than him, should not have been enough to prevent an arrest. Had an arrest been made at the time, there is a good chance this would not be getting the attention it is, and Zimmerman would stand a much better chance of receiving a fair trial.What about that scares you? I mean, believe whatever you want but that is all I have been saying the whole time. Do I think he's guilty of manslaughter? Hell yes. Do I think my opinion should determine the outcome of the trial, if there ever is one? Hell no.You're creating a false choice of walking scot free or being convicted unjustly. Really all that has been said by anyone at this point is that he should be arrested and this should be settled in a court of law. I thought that one day one and I still think it on day 34.

That's fair enough. I probably responded a little more harshly than I wanted to, because of some of the other posts I've seen in this thread, such as "String him up!" or "I want to see him 6 feet under, etc."And don't get me wrong, I understand your anger, and I sympathize with it. Even more, I sympathize with the anger of some of my black friends, who are REALLY pissed about this in a way I haven't seen since Rodney King. I mean, they are EXTREMELY angry. And I get it, I do. I would just hate to see that anger result in a miscarriage of justice, that's all.To answer your question, I haven't the foggiest clue as to why he hasn't been arrested long since. Maybe they're waiting for the Grand Jury for political reasons? If so, this will go on until April 10, when the Grand Jury convenes. But it seems to me like there's enough to arrest him without having to go the Grand Jury.

 

[bigbottom]

Don't forget the Congressional Black Caucus.

The exact quote was:

"I never foresaw so much hate coming from the President, The Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP... Every organization imaginable is trying to get notoriety from this or profit in some way."

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/03/29/454729/robert-zimmerman-obama/?mobile=nc

Where's the hate again:

Question: Mr. President, may I ask you about this current case in Florida, very controversial, allegations of lingering racism within our society — the so-called do not — I’m sorry — Stand Your Ground law and the justice in that? Can you comment on the Trayvon Martin case, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m the head of the executive branch, and the Attorney General reports to me so I’ve got to be careful about my statements to make sure that we’re not impairing any investigation that’s taking place right now.

But obviously, this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through. And when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids. And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.

So I’m glad that not only is the Justice Department looking into it, I understand now that the governor of the state of Florida has formed a task force to investigate what’s taking place. I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen. And that means that examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident.

But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon. And I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and that we’re going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.

Thank you.

Yeah, I don't really see hate either. I think it's a parent getting defensive and protecting their child.I will say, though, that I find it exceptionally interesting that Obama interjected in the Louis Gates matter, a local matter he didn't need to interject himself into, and was partial toward the black "victim". Here, Obama is once again weighing in on the Trayvon matter and is appearing more sympathetic to one side and saying that we need to give this matter the "seriousness it deserves". Yet, over the course of the past couple years when there have been many well-documented black mob attacks on white and Asian victims (notably the Wisconsin Fair incident where hunderedd of young black men attacked innocent white people), Obama did not say a word. These attacks apparently did not deserve Obama's seriousness.

I'm not the only one who has noticed this interesting inconsistency Obama has in addressing matters involving race.Some Brits are in a twit over it.

Obama was asked a direct question about the Trayvon case and allegations regarding race. Was he asked a direct question about particular black mob attacks on whites and asians? And as for his comments "appearing more sympathetic to one side" (I think they expressed sympathy to the grieving parents while maintaining neutral on the investigation itself), why don't you compare Obama's remarks to those of Rick Santorum?:

“It’s a horrible case, and it’s chilling to hear what happened,” Santorum said. “And of course the fact that law enforcement didn’t immediately go after and prosecute this case is another chilling example of horrible decisions made by people in this process.”

He continued: “I think it’s pretty clear the problems we’re seeing in this case, and hopefully the state Attorney General and local community is reacting and responding, and hopefully this matter will be an example of what law enforcement has to do in a case like this.”

How come Zimmerman's dad and you aren't taking shots at Santorum? Do you find Santorum's comments "exceptionally interesting?"

I didn't mention Santorum because I was responding to a direct question about Obama. I was not posed a direct question about Santorum. Didn't you just establish the principle that you should only weigh in on matters that you're asked direct questions about?

Good point. And it completely undermines your point about the relevance of Obama not commenting on particular cases he was never apparently asked about. Looks like we can move on to other issues.

That's gonna sting for a while.

Quite the opposite. I was showing bigbottom the ridiculousness of him saying that Obama needed to be asked a direct question about a matter before speaking on it. If Obama doesn't need to address serious matters he's not directly asked about, why should I have had to address superfluous matters I wasn't directly asked about?

But to now answer his question after my little lesson, I think Santorum is an tool and his comments are much more partial to than Obama's. My point, though, wasn't about specifics of the varying cases cited, but rather about the inconsistency in addressing such matters which appears to fall along lines of the race of the "victim" in the matter. I don't recall Santorum speaking out on comparable previous matters so I have nothing to compare Santorum's present assinine statements against to see if Santorum has stayed consistent.

Cool. Let's make a deal. Unless you are asked a direct question about black mob violence against whites and asians, don't bring it up. That would be awesome.

 

[Clinton]

Was Clinton assaulted by an angry mob of black kids a while back? Holy #### dude. You bring this thing up in every ####### thread. My god.

Shocker, good buddy, but this thread and this case has a lot to do with race, race relations, and the portrayal of those relations in the media. My point is a legitimate one about how we often address these matters inconsistently. Your personal attack on me is a reflection of your own discomfort with race matters. If it makes you feel that uncomfortable, good buddy, please allow people who are mature enough to discuss it because it is an important matter. Thanks in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

 

[NCCommish]

Was Clinton assaulted by an angry mob of black kids a while back? Holy #### dude. You bring this thing up in every ####### thread. My god.

He trots these out at least once a week but in both incidents he cites, the police are on record as saying there was no racial component or racial motivation - and he can't provide one credible link to prove otherwise. Oddly he never talks about black mobs attacking latinos, just whites and asians (I guess that is because blacks and latinos live in perfect harmony everywhere).

This credible enough?

Not really. They issued that statement before any investigation had really taken place. And they have a history of voting against programs that would affect all these black community issues that these white guys are so expert on.

 

[cstu]

Was Clinton assaulted by an angry mob of black kids a while back? Holy #### dude. You bring this thing up in every ####### thread. My god.

He trots these out at least once a week but in both incidents he cites, the police are on record as saying there was no racial component or racial motivation - and he can't provide one credible link to prove otherwise. Oddly he never talks about black mobs attacking latinos, just whites and asians (I guess that is because blacks and latinos live in perfect harmony everywhere).

This credible enough?

No because the police have specifically stated that the attacks were not racially motivated.

Surprising that the people in charge of maintaining the peace would say things publically that helps maintain the peace.

 

[squistion]

Was Clinton assaulted by an angry mob of black kids a while back? Holy #### dude. You bring this thing up in every ####### thread. My god.

He trots these out at least once a week but in both incidents he cites, the police are on record as saying there was no racial component or racial motivation - and he can't provide one credible link to prove otherwise. Oddly he never talks about black mobs attacking latinos, just whites and asians (I guess that is because blacks and latinos live in perfect harmony everywhere).

This credible enough?

Not really. They issued that statement before any investigation had really taken place. And they have a history of voting against programs that would affect all these black community issues that these white guys are so expert on.

 

[GDogg]

interesting post on the case. please read.

great link

What did you find great about it?

 

[ericttspikes]

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

 

[cstu]

Was Clinton assaulted by an angry mob of black kids a while back? Holy #### dude. You bring this thing up in every ####### thread. My god.

He trots these out at least once a week but in both incidents he cites, the police are on record as saying there was no racial component or racial motivation - and he can't provide one credible link to prove otherwise. Oddly he never talks about black mobs attacking latinos, just whites and asians (I guess that is because blacks and latinos live in perfect harmony everywhere).

This credible enough?

Not really. They issued that statement before any investigation had really taken place. And they have a history of voting against programs that would affect all these black community issues that these white guys are so expert on.

Was even a single black person attacked?

 

[NCCommish]

Was Clinton assaulted by an angry mob of black kids a while back? Holy #### dude. You bring this thing up in every ####### thread. My god.

He trots these out at least once a week but in both incidents he cites, the police are on record as saying there was no racial component or racial motivation - and he can't provide one credible link to prove otherwise. Oddly he never talks about black mobs attacking latinos, just whites and asians (I guess that is because blacks and latinos live in perfect harmony everywhere).

This credible enough?

Not really. They issued that statement before any investigation had really taken place. And they have a history of voting against programs that would affect all these black community issues that these white guys are so expert on.

Was even a single black person attacked?

Yes it was reported that trouble started as black teen on black teen violence in the midway.

 

[RBM]

Was Clinton assaulted by an angry mob of black kids a while back? Holy #### dude. You bring this thing up in every ####### thread. My god.

He trots these out at least once a week but in both incidents he cites, the police are on record as saying there was no racial component or racial motivation - and he can't provide one credible link to prove otherwise. Oddly he never talks about black mobs attacking latinos, just whites and asians (I guess that is because blacks and latinos live in perfect harmony everywhere).

Not the thread for this....but of course there was a racial component. Dont be an idiot.

 

[squistion]

Was Clinton assaulted by an angry mob of black kids a while back? Holy #### dude. You bring this thing up in every ####### thread. My god.

He trots these out at least once a week but in both incidents he cites, the police are on record as saying there was no racial component or racial motivation - and he can't provide one credible link to prove otherwise. Oddly he never talks about black mobs attacking latinos, just whites and asians (I guess that is because blacks and latinos live in perfect harmony everywhere).

This credible enough?

No because the police have specifically stated that the attacks were not racially motivated.

Surprising that the people in charge of maintaining the peace would say things publically that helps maintain the peace.

OK, then provide us with any article from a mainstream credible source that states the attacks were racially motivated - the only place you find that claim is from far right wing sources and sites

 

[TexanFan02]

Wow this is frustrating. So...y'all still FIRMLY believe this kid was an innocent angel?

I was IN NO WAY suggesting this kid was trash. I'm saying that his past ruins the perception of an angel incapable of doing wrong, as was clearly implied in all the earliest reports. Quit reading more into my statements than is there.

there's that word 'clearly' again. I don't remember the perception of an angel incapable of doing wrong. what I do recall was an unarmed kid minding his own business being followed and then shot dead. I don't care if he was dealing MJ on the side, or spray painted his initials on a school wall, or even if he stole some jewelry as you implied. in this instance, he was walking home from a store doing nothing wrong and an over-zealous wanna-be cop followed him with a gun and ended up shooting him. and the guy wasn't even arrested and the cops didn't even try to notify the kids parents. I don't care that the media didn't start trashing the kid the day after he was killed for this stupid stuff when it doesn't matter.

The fact that he likely had stolen jewelry backs up Zimmerman's case that he was suspiciously checking out houses.

Well as long as we are covering the past:

George Zimmerman lost job as party security guard for being too aggressive, ex-co-worker says

George Zimmerman was fired from his job as an under-the-table security guard for "being too aggressive," a former co-worker told the Daily News.

Zimmerman, at the center of a firestorm for shooting an unarmed black teenager a month ago, worked for two different agencies providing security to illegal house parties between 2001 and 2005, the former co-worker said.

"Usually he was just a cool guy. He liked to drink and hang with the women like the rest of us," he said. "But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude snapped, he snapped."

The source said Zimmerman, who made between $50 and $100 a night, was let go in 2005.

"He had a temper and he became a liability," the man said. "One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted," he said. "It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out."

The year 2005 was a bad one for Zimmerman: he was arrested for fighting with a cop trying to arrest his friend for underage drinking, and he and his ex-fiancée took out protective orders against each other.

The former co-worker, who is no longer in touch with Zimmerman, said he was shocked to hear what happened Feb. 26 in a gated community in Sanford, Fla.

"He definitely loved being in charge. He loved the power. Still, I could never see him killing someone. Never," he said.

NY Daily News

Yeah, but Trayvon was a stoner. WASH!

Not you too!? I neer saw this report before...kind of confirms the suspicion that Zimmerman's a hothead.

Just having fun with you renesauz. I do think, though, that the attacks on Trayvon Martin's character are slimy. It would be one thing if somebody could link him to violence of some sort- that might help us give more credibility to Zimmerman's amazing story. But smoking pot? Graffiti? "Suspicious" jewelry? It stinks. It's not a wash, it's not even on the same planet as beating up police officers and your girlfriend.

Swinging at a bus driver down? If I'm Zimmerman, I'm thinking I want to be arrested right now to get this process started instead of the increase in uproar, lawyers being lawyers and media spin. Does anyone really think if the new witness' interview on CNN would hold up as testimony in court? It can be spun to help Zimmerman by the right lawyer, the right questioning, etc. I doubt we ever find the real truth, so we will continue to look back on the past history of the two people involved to fill in the blanks.

Link? What's amazing to me in this thread is that someone will post something as speculation and 5 pages later it's the gospel truth.

 

[Clinton]

Cool. Let's make a deal. Unless you are asked a direct question about black mob violence against whites and asians, don't bring it up. That would be awesome.

We'll agree to disagree. Bigbottom, I would stop talking about the mob attacks this instance if people, particularly many here, did not constantly try to dismiss them, diminish them, or treat them as though they're lesser than other racist violence. We've seen this even in the last several posts in this thread. It's so simple -- once people acknowledge these mob attacks are a problem, I'll shut up about them. If people keep dismissing the problem, though, than I'll keep raising it. The ball is in the court of the dismissers. They can decide the course. Until then, you won't get me to agree to stop speaking the truth and having justice applied equally no matter how much some of you guys desire that end. Many also wanted MLK, Mandela, and Gandhi to shut up against the injustices perpetrated against their people. I'm glad they didn't shut up.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

So according to the girlfriend Treyvon asked Zimmerman, "why are you following me?" And Zimmerman replied, "what are you doing here."

Both immediately before the scuffle broke out.

I know she's black and also sleeping with a known gangbanger, but that makes it pretty hard for Zimmerman to claim he was jumped from behind.

Actually it doesn't make it hard for him to 'claim' it I suppose. But it should make it hard for a fair-minded person to accept the claim.

 

[squistion]

Was Clinton assaulted by an angry mob of black kids a while back? Holy #### dude. You bring this thing up in every ####### thread. My god.

He trots these out at least once a week but in both incidents he cites, the police are on record as saying there was no racial component or racial motivation - and he can't provide one credible link to prove otherwise. Oddly he never talks about black mobs attacking latinos, just whites and asians (I guess that is because blacks and latinos live in perfect harmony everywhere).

Not the thread for this....but of course there was a racial component. Dont be an idiot.

I meant a racial component meaning as being synonomous with a racial motivation or cause - should have used a better choice of words.

 

[squistion]

Cool. Let's make a deal. Unless you are asked a direct question about black mob violence against whites and asians, don't bring it up. That would be awesome.

We'll agree to disagree. Bigbottom, I would stop talking about the mob attacks this instance if people, particularly many here, did not constantly try to dismiss them, diminish them, or treat them as though they're lesser than other racist violence. We've seen this even in the last several posts in this thread.

It's so simple -- once people acknowledge these mob attacks are a problem, I'll shut up about them. If people keep dismissing the problem, though, than I'll keep raising it. The ball is in the court of the dismissers. They can decide the course.

Until then, you won't get me to agree to stop speaking the truth and having justice applied equally no matter how much some of you guys desire that end. Many also wanted MLK, Mandela, and Gandhi to shut up against the injustices perpetrated against their people. I'm glad they didn't shut up.

Comparing yourself to MLK, Mandela and Gandhi.

 

[jomar]

Wow this is frustrating. So...y'all still FIRMLY believe this kid was an innocent angel?

I was IN NO WAY suggesting this kid was trash. I'm saying that his past ruins the perception of an angel incapable of doing wrong, as was clearly implied in all the earliest reports. Quit reading more into my statements than is there.

there's that word 'clearly' again. I don't remember the perception of an angel incapable of doing wrong. what I do recall was an unarmed kid minding his own business being followed and then shot dead. I don't care if he was dealing MJ on the side, or spray painted his initials on a school wall, or even if he stole some jewelry as you implied. in this instance, he was walking home from a store doing nothing wrong and an over-zealous wanna-be cop followed him with a gun and ended up shooting him. and the guy wasn't even arrested and the cops didn't even try to notify the kids parents. I don't care that the media didn't start trashing the kid the day after he was killed for this stupid stuff when it doesn't matter.

The fact that he likely had stolen jewelry backs up Zimmerman's case that he was suspiciously checking out houses.

no, the fact that he MAY have had stolen jewelry (months?) before innocently walking home from a store does not back up Z's case that he was suspiciously checking out houses. if Z caught him looking in windows or something, maybe. but this kid was just walking down the street and Z found him suspicious for what exactly?

THIS IS STILL ASSUMED. We don't KNOW that's all the teen was doing. And this original assumption was based primarily on the report that he was an angel who was never in any trouble. It could be true....but it is a bad assumption.

don't you think George would have mentioned it in his phone call to the police if he was doing something other than just walking down the street? he didn't, so I think I'm safe by saying he wasn't doing anything other than just walking down the street. to argue that maybe he was doing more is asinine once you hear the call from Z.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I don't give a crap about the law.

Most of the rest of us do, though. I believe, as you do, that Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter. But they'd better be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. People like you scare me, because from the beginning of this case there has been a populist element to those who are demanding justice. You don't want justice, you want a result which will emotionally sastisfy you, and legal rights be damned.Despite my near-certainty that Zimmerman is a murderer, I would much rather see him walk away scot-free than see him imprisoned based upon public pressures rather than a fair trial. That has always been my position with the prisoners held in Guantanamo, and that's my position here.

I want him arrested. Given all the conflicting accounts, the police misconduct, the coercion of witnesses, can you think of a single reason he should not be arrested?Stop the drama. All I have said is that his claim of self-defence, given that he was claiming it against an unarmed man smaller than him, should not have been enough to prevent an arrest. Had an arrest been made at the time, there is a good chance this would not be getting the attention it is, and Zimmerman would stand a much better chance of receiving a fair trial.What about that scares you? I mean, believe whatever you want but that is all I have been saying the whole time. Do I think he's guilty of manslaughter? Hell yes. Do I think my opinion should determine the outcome of the trial, if there ever is one? Hell no.You're creating a false choice of walking scot free or being convicted unjustly. Really all that has been said by anyone at this point is that he should be arrested and this should be settled in a court of law. I thought that one day one and I still think it on day 34.

People do understand that the court system has next to nothing to do with guilt or innocence right? Its all about who puts on the best show, who can convince others that they are the ones to believe. Who can cast enough doubt on the other side. That was never more evident than in the O.J trial. So lets just arrest this jackwagon and let the lawyers put on a show and see what happens.

 

[jomar]

One of the few FACTS that we know, is that Trayvon at least attempted to run away from Zimmerman at one point. So one minute he is attempting to run away (FACT) and the next (ALEDGEDLY) he is chasing Zimmerman down from behind to assault him??

It is just as much fact that Zimmerman said "OK, I lost him anyway", and he ALLEGEDLY found and went after the teen again.

this is not the first time someone in this thread has posted that these words come out of Z's mouth. check out the transcripts from the call to the police and you'll see it didn't happen. if you can show me otherwise, I'd love to see it.

 

[renesauz]

So according to the girlfriend Treyvon asked Zimmerman, "why are you following me?" And Zimmerman replied, "what are you doing here."Both immediately before the scuffle broke out.I know she's black and also sleeping with a known gangbanger, but that makes it pretty hard for Zimmerman to claim he was jumped from behind.Actually it doesn't make it hard for him to 'claim' it I suppose. But it should make it hard for a fair-minded person to accept the claim.

Good point, does it show who swung first?FWIW...I think this a key point showing some culpability on Zimmerman. Not proof per se...but it's enough to show Zimmerman (the adult) had at least one moment where the right kind of word/response could have possibilty avoided the fight....IE:Negligence.

 

[renesauz]

don't you think George would have mentioned it in his phone call to the police if he was doing something other than just walking down the street? he didn't, so I think I'm safe by saying he wasn't doing anything other than just walking down the street. to argue that maybe he was doing more is asinine once you hear the call from Z.

Really? Do you have kids? Ever watch the way they stand, walk, move, talk when they've done something wrong vs. when they haven't? I have a very hard time buying that Zimmermman called for no reason other than "this kid is walking down the street". IN fact...listen again...he said the kid was acting strangely....not criminally, but strangely. I would want my neighborhood watch to take a minute or two to watch someone acting strangely, even if they were not at that moment acting criminally.

 

[jomar]

So according to the girlfriend Treyvon asked Zimmerman, "why are you following me?" And Zimmerman replied, "what are you doing here."Both immediately before the scuffle broke out.I know she's black and also sleeping with a known gangbanger, but that makes it pretty hard for Zimmerman to claim he was jumped from behind.Actually it doesn't make it hard for him to 'claim' it I suppose. But it should make it hard for a fair-minded person to accept the claim.

Good point, does it show who swung first?FWIW...I think this a key point showing some culpability on Zimmerman. Not proof per se...but it's enough to show Zimmerman (the adult) had at least one moment where the right kind of word/response could have possibilty avoided the fight....IE:Negligence.

I agree. Z's story of the verbal exchange makes no sense, while this girls does. If Z answers the question, THEN asks 'why are you here?', there's a good chance nobody dies. but from Trayvon's POV, someone's following him, they end up face to face, and he asks a good question but doesn't get an answer. he may have then feared for his life enough that he felt he had to knock this guy out before he pulls a gun or a knife on him.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Cool. Let's make a deal. Unless you are asked a direct question about black mob violence against whites and asians, don't bring it up. That would be awesome.

We'll agree to disagree. Bigbottom, I would stop talking about the mob attacks this instance if people, particularly many here, did not constantly try to dismiss them, diminish them, or treat them as though they're lesser than other racist violence. We've seen this even in the last several posts in this thread. It's so simple -- once people acknowledge these mob attacks are a problem, I'll shut up about them. If people keep dismissing the problem, though, than I'll keep raising it. The ball is in the court of the dismissers. They can decide the course. Until then, you won't get me to agree to stop speaking the truth and having justice applied equally no matter how much some of you guys desire that end. Many also wanted MLK, Mandela, and Gandhi to shut up against the injustices perpetrated against their people. I'm glad they didn't shut up.

As a fellow white man, I'd like to thank you for your courage in standing up to all the ills that our prejudiced society brings down upon our heads. It's about time someone was willing to take a stand against these injustices. America, do not pretend to know our pain until you have walked a mile in our Crocs and New Balance trainers.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Good point, does it show who swung first?

Why would it need to do that?If Zimmerman is proved to be lying once the jury is free to believe that all his testimony is a lie.And I'm guessing that when the current investigators are done there will be plenty more holes in George's story.

 

[GDogg]

Wow this is frustrating. So...y'all still FIRMLY believe this kid was an innocent angel?

I was IN NO WAY suggesting this kid was trash. I'm saying that his past ruins the perception of an angel incapable of doing wrong, as was clearly implied in all the earliest reports. Quit reading more into my statements than is there.

there's that word 'clearly' again. I don't remember the perception of an angel incapable of doing wrong. what I do recall was an unarmed kid minding his own business being followed and then shot dead. I don't care if he was dealing MJ on the side, or spray painted his initials on a school wall, or even if he stole some jewelry as you implied. in this instance, he was walking home from a store doing nothing wrong and an over-zealous wanna-be cop followed him with a gun and ended up shooting him. and the guy wasn't even arrested and the cops didn't even try to notify the kids parents. I don't care that the media didn't start trashing the kid the day after he was killed for this stupid stuff when it doesn't matter.

I understand all of that. The problem is that there is an underlying assumption that the kid was 100% innocent of any wrongdoing on the night in question. At the very beginning, he was portrayed as a GOOD kid who was NEVER in ANY kind of trouble. His school suspension was for being late to school, etc. etc. yada yada. The gist of that was that the kid would never have started a fight. And that was all a lie, or at least, incredibly misleading. The kid WAS in trouble. If he took a swing at a bus driver, then we can no longer say he couldn't possibly have swung at Zimerman first.Zimmerman's story is that the kid started the physical fight. Regardless of how any of us feel about Zimmermans actions to that point in time....this point is crucial to the point of manslaughter vs. murder...negligence vs. manslaughter, etc. The kid's history doesn't paint the picture of a kid incapable of swinging first or backtracking to confront his "stalker", as was claimed. If it's fair to look at Zimmerman's history to say he could have started the fight, then it's certainly reasonable to look at the kids and say the kid could have started the (physical) fight.

If Martin has no physical damage to it on his face, bruised ribs, etc, but we do have reports and evidence of a bloody and/or broken nose and a cut to the back of the head on Zimmerman, then the visual evidence supports that Martin was the aggressor. Now, can it be possible Zimmerman can still be trial for manslaughter at that time? Sure. That is where the actual "struggle" comes into play.

To say that "an unarmed kid minding his own business being followed and then shot dead" is just wrong. When we don't have his side of the story, his prior history as a young kid will certainly be used. The first thing out his parents mouth is that he was a "good kid". Of course Zimmerman supporters will point out he was not as good as you would like to think as further evidence he could have attacked Zimmerman.

Why would evidence of a bloody and/or broken nose and a cut to the back of the head of Zimmerman be visual evidence that supports that Martin was the aggressor? All it supports is that Zimmerman was injured somehow the night of the shooting. It doesn't speak to who was the aggressor in any way.

 

[jomar]

don't you think George would have mentioned it in his phone call to the police if he was doing something other than just walking down the street? he didn't, so I think I'm safe by saying he wasn't doing anything other than just walking down the street. to argue that maybe he was doing more is asinine once you hear the call from Z.

Really? Do you have kids? Ever watch the way they stand, walk, move, talk when they've done something wrong vs. when they haven't? I have a very hard time buying that Zimmermman called for no reason other than "this kid is walking down the street". IN fact...listen again...he said the kid was acting strangely....not criminally, but strangely. I would want my neighborhood watch to take a minute or two to watch someone acting strangely, even if they were not at that moment acting criminally.

I have 3 boys and you have to kidding to think you can tell by watching them walk down the street if they've done something wrong.the other reason he called is that he was black and wearing a hoodie. and George couldn't think of any other possibilities why this guy was walking down the street other than he was up to no good. if all he did was take a minute or two to watch him, there's no problem. but we all know that's not what George did so why go there? he called the cops, grabbed his gun, and left his car to follow. all because he was 'acting strangely'? this is what you want from your NW guy? I'll pass on that.

 

[TexanFan02]

don't you think George would have mentioned it in his phone call to the police if he was doing something other than just walking down the street? he didn't, so I think I'm safe by saying he wasn't doing anything other than just walking down the street. to argue that maybe he was doing more is asinine once you hear the call from Z.

Really? Do you have kids? Ever watch the way they stand, walk, move, talk when they've done something wrong vs. when they haven't? I have a very hard time buying that Zimmermman called for no reason other than "this kid is walking down the street". IN fact...listen again...he said the kid was acting strangely....not criminally, but strangely. I would want my neighborhood watch to take a minute or two to watch someone acting strangely, even if they were not at that moment acting criminally.

Oh come on. He called 911 on a fedex guy because he was black.

 

[Mister Martie]

don't you think George would have mentioned it in his phone call to the police if he was doing something other than just walking down the street? he didn't, so I think I'm safe by saying he wasn't doing anything other than just walking down the street. to argue that maybe he was doing more is asinine once you hear the call from Z.

Really? Do you have kids? Ever watch the way they stand, walk, move, talk when they've done something wrong vs. when they haven't? I have a very hard time buying that Zimmermman called for no reason other than "this kid is walking down the street". IN fact...listen again...he said the kid was acting strangely....not criminally, but strangely. I would want my neighborhood watch to take a minute or two to watch someone acting strangely, even if they were not at that moment acting criminally.

Looking at he list of calls this dude made to the police, you would have a hard time believing he would overreact to activity in his neiborhood?

 

[Topes]

Zimmerman's dad: "I never foresaw so much hate coming from the President, the NAACP, everyone".

Say what???

If that's a direct quote, it sure is interesting that he singles out the President and the NAACP from everyone else.

It's a direct quote. I've heard it repeated now several times.

Not quite. It misses one iteration of uppity."I never foresaw so much hate coming from the president, the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP"

Some people say that those are the kinds of phrases you hear in only certain kinds of households.

I think Zimmerman would be in a far better position (in the public eye) if nobody from his camp had ever spoken up.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Posted this before, but it's worth bringing up again. Guilty or innocent, Zimmerman should have refused to talk to the police. You can never help yourself by talking to the police if you're a suspect.

Brilliant video IMO.

 

[TobiasFunke]

don't you think George would have mentioned it in his phone call to the police if he was doing something other than just walking down the street? he didn't, so I think I'm safe by saying he wasn't doing anything other than just walking down the street. to argue that maybe he was doing more is asinine once you hear the call from Z.

Really? Do you have kids? Ever watch the way they stand, walk, move, talk when they've done something wrong vs. when they haven't? I have a very hard time buying that Zimmermman called for no reason other than "this kid is walking down the street". IN fact...listen again...he said the kid was acting strangely....not criminally, but strangely. I would want my neighborhood watch to take a minute or two to watch someone acting strangely, even if they were not at that moment acting criminally.

Looking at he list of calls this dude made to the police, you would have a hard time believing he would overreact to activity in his neiborhood?

Link?I ask not because I care or don't believe you, but because it sounds hilarious.

 

[timschochet]

Wait. Hold on a minute. Did Clinton really just compare himself to MLK, Gandh, and Mandela?

 

[renesauz]

Good point, does it show who swung first?

Why would it need to do that?If Zimmerman is proved to be lying once the jury is free to believe that all his testimony is a lie.And I'm guessing that when the current investigators are done there will be plenty more holes in George's story.

Who the physical agressor is would go a long way towards determining what level of charge is appropriate. If George starts the physical fight, he's guilty of at least manslaughter, even if the kid tried to pull his gun out to shoot him. If the kid does, then George is still an idiot, and culpable, but of a lesser charge (if any...I honestly don't know, but would consider him at least still morally responsible) like criminal negligence.I don't buy the "semi-legal" opinion that following the teen would be enough to justify the the teen physically attacking Zimmerman (allegedly). This opinion seems to be the basis of why many in the hang Z crowd don't seem to think it matters.

 

[renesauz]

Why would evidence of a bloody and/or broken nose and a cut to the back of the head of Zimmerman be visual evidence that supports that Martin was the aggressor? All it supports is that Zimmerman was injured somehow the night of the shooting. It doesn't speak to who was the aggressor in any way.

Agreed...all it would prove is that there was an actual physical fight instead of Z simply pulling a gun and shooting in cold blood.

 

[TobiasFunke]

don't you think George would have mentioned it in his phone call to the police if he was doing something other than just walking down the street? he didn't, so I think I'm safe by saying he wasn't doing anything other than just walking down the street. to argue that maybe he was doing more is asinine once you hear the call from Z.

Really? Do you have kids? Ever watch the way they stand, walk, move, talk when they've done something wrong vs. when they haven't? I have a very hard time buying that Zimmermman called for no reason other than "this kid is walking down the street". IN fact...listen again...he said the kid was acting strangely....not criminally, but strangely. I would want my neighborhood watch to take a minute or two to watch someone acting strangely, even if they were not at that moment acting criminally.

Oh come on. He called 911 on a fedex guy because he was black.

I saw Carver mention this also. I am pretty sure that was a "joke" post after Zimmerman's calls were listed.

"Fictitious Calls to the Police Made by George Zimmerman" would actually make a spectacular thread. Until it crossed the line and got locked. So maybe ten minutes.

 

[ATC1]

I don't give a crap about the law.

Most of the rest of us do, though. I believe, as you do, that Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter. But they'd better be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. People like you scare me, because from the beginning of this case there has been a populist element to those who are demanding justice. You don't want justice, you want a result which will emotionally sastisfy you, and legal rights be damned.Despite my near-certainty that Zimmerman is a murderer, I would much rather see him walk away scot-free than see him imprisoned based upon public pressures rather than a fair trial. That has always been my position with the prisoners held in Guantanamo, and that's my position here.

Might be Tim's best post ever. Although I'm not ready to say with near-certainty that he is a murder.

 

[renesauz]

don't you think George would have mentioned it in his phone call to the police if he was doing something other than just walking down the street? he didn't, so I think I'm safe by saying he wasn't doing anything other than just walking down the street. to argue that maybe he was doing more is asinine once you hear the call from Z.

Really? Do you have kids? Ever watch the way they stand, walk, move, talk when they've done something wrong vs. when they haven't? I have a very hard time buying that Zimmermman called for no reason other than "this kid is walking down the street". IN fact...listen again...he said the kid was acting strangely....not criminally, but strangely. I would want my neighborhood watch to take a minute or two to watch someone acting strangely, even if they were not at that moment acting criminally.

Looking at he list of calls this dude made to the police, you would have a hard time believing he would overreact to activity in his neiborhood?

No..I wouldn't. He almost certainly DID over-react...but that over-reaction was hardly a criminal act. Irresponsible, but not criminal.

 

[NCCommish]

Wait. Hold on a minute. Did Clinton really just compare himself to MLK, Gandh, and Mandela?

Yes he did.

 

[Clinton]

Report: Zimmerman Described As “Jekyll And Hyde”

MIAMI (CBSMiami/CBS News) –The man who shot and killed Miami Gardens teen Trayvon Martin is now being described as a “Jekyll and Hyde” by one of George Zimmerman’s former co-workers.

The New York Daily News reported Friday that Zimmerman was fired in 2005 from his job as a party security guard for being too aggressive, quoting a former anonymous co-worker as saying that “usually he was just a cool guy … But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude snapped, he snapped.”

The former co-worker also told the newspaper that Zimmerman “loved being in charge… loved the power” and could become violent.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/30/report-zimmerman-described-as-jekyll-and-hyde/

 

[ATC1]

Swinging at a bus driver down?

If I'm Zimmerman, I'm thinking I want to be arrested right now to get this process started instead of the increase in uproar, lawyers being lawyers and media spin. Does anyone really think if the new witness' interview on CNN would hold up as testimony in court? It can be spun to help Zimmerman by the right lawyer, the right questioning, etc. I doubt we ever find the real truth, so we will continue to look back on the past history of the two people involved to fill in the blanks.

Link? What's amazing to me in this thread is that someone will post something as speculation and 5 pages later it's the gospel truth.

Listen to the media much? This is exactly what happens when things stir long enough. http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/was-trayvon-martin-a-drug-dealer

It was posted on Twitter by his friends. It was mentioned in here before. I thought it relevant because it would question a violent behavior.

 

[Mister Martie]

don't you think George would have mentioned it in his phone call to the police if he was doing something other than just walking down the street? he didn't, so I think I'm safe by saying he wasn't doing anything other than just walking down the street. to argue that maybe he was doing more is asinine once you hear the call from Z.

Really? Do you have kids? Ever watch the way they stand, walk, move, talk when they've done something wrong vs. when they haven't? I have a very hard time buying that Zimmermman called for no reason other than "this kid is walking down the street". IN fact...listen again...he said the kid was acting strangely....not criminally, but strangely. I would want my neighborhood watch to take a minute or two to watch someone acting strangely, even if they were not at that moment acting criminally.

Looking at he list of calls this dude made to the police, you would have a hard time believing he would overreact to activity in his neiborhood?

No..I wouldn't. He almost certainly DID over-react...but that over-reaction was hardly a criminal act. Irresponsible, but not criminal.

Wat? You just said you would have a hard time believing he would call for no reason. I'm not saying it was a criminal act - no one is.

 

[cstu]

Was Clinton assaulted by an angry mob of black kids a while back? Holy #### dude. You bring this thing up in every ####### thread. My god.

He trots these out at least once a week but in both incidents he cites, the police are on record as saying there was no racial component or racial motivation - and he can't provide one credible link to prove otherwise. Oddly he never talks about black mobs attacking latinos, just whites and asians (I guess that is because blacks and latinos live in perfect harmony everywhere).

This credible enough?

Not really. They issued that statement before any investigation had really taken place. And they have a history of voting against programs that would affect all these black community issues that these white guys are so expert on.

Was even a single black person attacked?

Yes it was reported that trouble started as black teen on black teen violence in the midway.

Separate incidents:

The trouble at the fair started around 7 p.m. Thursday in the midway area, where amusement rides are located, when fights broke out among black youths, said Tom Struebing, chief of the State Fair Police. Those fights did not appear to be racially motivated.

Then around the closing time of 11 p.m., witnesses told the Journal Sentinel, dozens to hundreds of black youths attacked white people as they left the fair, punching and kicking people and shaking and pounding on their vehicles.