Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (2 Viewers)

[Carver]

With all that's been said, let's remember one thing.Zimmerman never calls 911 or does anything if the kid is white.

I dunno... that crazy fark might of called the cops on the cops for responding too slow if Trayvon got away.

 

[GDogg]

How does it sound like Martin was a "punk kid?" I don't know anything about him other than the few things that have been put out in the media. Of those things, it sounds to me like Martin is a pretty average 17 year old.

If that's "average"...GOD HELP US ALL!

No kidding, I mean, he has tattoos!!!! GOD HELP US ALL!!!!

Did you read the linked article? DO you really think the "average kid" gets suspended from school four times? Smokes weed regularly with his friends? Talks like a gangster? Carries womens jewelry around in a backpack? ALL OF THE ABOVE!!!???? REALLY????? That's average?

Clearly he deserved to die. We should give Zimmerman a medal for saving society from Martin.

Tattoo artists all across America should sue Zimmerman for loss of business.

I'm hoping I can board my plane on Tuesday with my hoodie, but it shouldn't be a problem since I'm white.:rocky:

Don't assume anything. If you have your hood on, have smoked weed in the past and have used a lot of slang, it could get dicey.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I've been 5 fights in my life - 2 as a young teenager - typical school boy stuff, talking smack, pushing/shoving, throw down. Once I got jumped at a HS football game, not a particularly fair fight, and one I did not instigate, and I did not win, but it was a few minutes, not a real beatdown. One from an on-field incident at a college soccer game, that spilled over after the game, and once in a college bar fight.

For the four I was a willing participant, I can look back and say I made an immature decision to put myself in those positions. Maybe its typical of youthful indiscretion, but I certainly carry some blame for those incidents. It may be explained away as boys-being-boys, but it does not change the fact that I contributed to those situations escalating.

I can see the same thing here with Martin. AT that age, it does not shock the conscience that a teenager would instigate, or participate in, a physical altercation with a shorter guy, who was a little older. I would have to think that in looking at both, Martin could have assumed that he could take Zimmerman in an altercation. I can see someone like Martin really be anti-authority, and be really pissed off if some random dude accused him of being a criminal, or having called the cops. So, I can definitely see Martin being the instigator of a fight here.

I don't see Zimmerman escalating this directly. One, he had a gun, why start a fist fight in that situation? And, two, he knew the police were on the way - I think his only goal was to make sure the police detained Martin. Now he likely escalated the situation verbally, and I could almost see him reaching out to grab Martin, but even that feels like a stretch.

 

[TobiasFunke]

How does it sound like Martin was a "punk kid?" I don't know anything about him other than the few things that have been put out in the media. Of those things, it sounds to me like Martin is a pretty average 17 year old.

If that's "average"...GOD HELP US ALL!

No kidding, I mean, he has tattoos!!!! GOD HELP US ALL!!!!

Did you read the linked article? DO you really think the "average kid" gets suspended from school four times? Smokes weed regularly with his friends? Talks like a gangster? Carries womens jewelry around in a backpack? ALL OF THE ABOVE!!!???? REALLY????? That's average?

Clearly he deserved to die. We should give Zimmerman a medal for saving society from Martin.

Tattoo artists all across America should sue Zimmerman for loss of business.

I'm hoping I can board my plane on Tuesday with my hoodie, but it shouldn't be a problem since I'm white.:rocky:

Don't assume anything. If you have your hood on, have smoked weed in the past and have used a lot of slang, it could get dicey.

I walk my dog after smoking weed with a hoodie on at least once a week. I assume I've lived this long because I don't particularly care for Skittles.

 

[parasaurolophus]

A 200+ lb 27 year old guy felt his life was endangered by a 140lb unarmed kid. How ridiculous, even if he was getting punched he was never in any danger of being injured badly.

He was a neighborhood watch wanna be cop guy looking for trouble and the opportunity to use his gun.

I hope he ends up 6 feet under.

28 year old sub 200 pound man felt threatened by a 6 foot 160 pound 17 year old. Not that it matters to you. You have made up your mind and will likely reply that it still didn't matter.Did you miss the link where I posted how the girl killed somebody with one punch? How bout the other links where other people were killed by a few punches?

It is fine to have the opinion that he shouldn't have been carrying a gun or put himself in that situation or even that you don't believe him at all. It is a whole different story to claim that you think there was no danger using false size statements and then not retract your statement when you learn the true size difference.

Why does this matter? Do you think most people, when they get into a fight (or get punched), think, "my life is in danger...that one little girl was killed in Long Beach by a punch...?" I don't.

Reading comprehension down?The girl didn't die. She was the killer. She punched a man in Illinois, once. He died.

Nope. Didn't read that story. I was referring to the incident where a little girl was killed by another little girl in Long Beach, California, in a fight with no weapons that lasted about a minute.Regardless, what does that matter? Unless you think most people will think about either story while in a fight or believe they are going to be killed by being in a fight, it doesn't matter.

They don't need to think about either story. If they are thinking about the blows that are hitting them in the face, stomach, chest, etc that is sufficient. The point of either story is to squash the neanderthal excuses being made that being in a fight is no big deal. Sorry but that is an idictment of character, and I am not talking about Zimmerman's. Being on top of somebody punching them is simply not acceptable behavior. If it did happen (which we honestly don't know) it is not something to be brushed off as no big deal. Martin was not a tiny child. He was not an innocent angel. It sounds like he was a punk kid. It sounds like Zimmerman had some issues himself. As is usual with most things in life we are not hearing the whole story.

The thing I care most about is whether or not what happened was lawful. I don't know either of these people or families. I feel bad that the parents lost a child. I care more about the legal process in our country. I think the media did a terrible job with this case from the get go. I think they had an agenda and they pushed it. They don't care about justice. I think the people calling for Zimmerman's head from day one had their own agenda.

I don't understand the people crying that he should have been arrested right away no matter what and let the courts decide. That is not the process, nor should it be. The same people calling for this are the same people that are bringing up Zimmerman's past arrest record. Anybody see the paradox there?

If they take their time, charge him, convict him. That will sit just fine with me.

No, it's not. Being in a fight is an indictment of character? If you truly think that, then literally every person I grew up with and am still friends with to this day has poor character, according to you, including me. And, I would love to have grown up in the world you apparently did. I've been in several fights, and probably started a couple that I shouldn't have. Most other times, I did not start them. And, I'm no fighter. Stuff happens in life.

I don't know if Trayvon is an innocent angel. I THINK I know that Trayvon was innocent of any wrongdoing up to the point that Zimmerman inserted himself into Trayvon's life.

Being on top of someone and punching them could be lots of things. It could be some guy beating the crap out of a defenseless person for no reason. Or, it could be someone who was the victim of a battery defending himself or herself or it could be something completely different. It is not, necessarily, an indictment of character and could absolutely be "acceptable behavior."

How does it sound like Martin was a "punk kid?" I don't know anything about him other than the few things that have been put out in the media. Of those things, it sounds to me like Martin is a pretty average 17 year old.

And, I'm a little surprised by your comments that you care more about the legal process than the death (or life) of a minor. I say this as someone who is in the legal system. I don't care more about the legal process in our country than I do about the life of a human being.

Those are some cold-blooded words, parasaurolophus.

You forgot the most important part of my statement so I bolded the rest for you. As far as thinking he was an average 17 year old, I don't think he sounds very average. We don't know for sure what is true, but if he was suspended three times, that isn't average. If he hit a bus driver, that isnt average. If he got angry at Zimmerman for following him and attacked him, that isn't average.

As for being cold blooded, I knew some people would categorize it that way. I think that is a discussion for another thread, but I firmly believe that if people are honest with themselves that this is a common feeling. There are so many tragedies each and every day that I think it is impossible to truly connect to each tragedy on any kind of deep level that it has to be about the macro in order to not live in misery every day.

 

[GDogg]

How does it sound like Martin was a "punk kid?" I don't know anything about him other than the few things that have been put out in the media. Of those things, it sounds to me like Martin is a pretty average 17 year old.

If that's "average"...GOD HELP US ALL!

No kidding, I mean, he has tattoos!!!! GOD HELP US ALL!!!!

Did you read the linked article? DO you really think the "average kid" gets suspended from school four times? Smokes weed regularly with his friends? Talks like a gangster? Carries womens jewelry around in a backpack? ALL OF THE ABOVE!!!???? REALLY????? That's average?

Clearly he deserved to die. We should give Zimmerman a medal for saving society from Martin.

Tattoo artists all across America should sue Zimmerman for loss of business.

I'm hoping I can board my plane on Tuesday with my hoodie, but it shouldn't be a problem since I'm white.:rocky:

Don't assume anything. If you have your hood on, have smoked weed in the past and have used a lot of slang, it could get dicey.

I walk my dog after smoking weed with a hoodie on at least once a week. I assume I've lived this long because I don't particularly care for Skittles.

Consider yourself lucky. You're one of the fortunate ones.

 

[Chaos Commish]

All we have is 911 tapes. We ever hear Zimmerman run.

If that's a question, my answer is, "yes sort of". He isn't running so hard he cannot speak fairly clearly to the dispatch, but he does sound like he's hustling.

How long was it between the end of the call to the struggle?

The police say they are missing one minute. When I tried to figure this out based on reported timing of 911 calls I came up with two missing minutes.

However, what we do have is the GF testimony. GF says that she told Trayvon to run, but he did not. Then she said she heard the first words spoken between the two. "Why are you following me?" Trayvon spoke first. "What are you doing around here?". Then she heard a physical confrontation. There was no other words spoken before the confrontation like... Don't touch or push me.

Leads me to believe there was no chase at all as Trayvon was not running. Could it be possible that Zimmerman tried to grab him and Trayvon ran at that time, and Zimmerman ran after him? Yes, although the GF did describe "a sound of pushing". That would be the key part of the case IMO.

The timing of things leads me to believe both happened. Trayvon ran at about the 2:08 mark of Zimmerman's call. Zimmerman told the dispatch as much and at this point had nothing to lie about. At 2:14 we hear Zimmerman's car door shut and he hustles after him. I'm guessing that was a brisk jog. Zimmerman, a little breathless admits as much. There was enough time for Trayvon to lose Zimmerman, for Zimmerman to turn back towards the scene of the crime, and for Trayvon to double back and approach him from behind to see what's up.

So he ran away to sneak up on him?

Strange, I know, but it seems like it. You don't have to word it like that though. He may have ran because some dude was trailing him in a big black SUV. That dude then got out and looked like a doughy 170 pound chump who turned back, so he went to see what dude's deal was.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Don't assume anything. If you have your hood on, have smoked weed in the past and have used a lot of slang, it could get dicey.

I walk my dog after smoking weed with a hoodie on at least once a week. I assume I've lived this long because I don't particularly care for Skittles.

Consider yourself lucky. You're one of the fortunate ones.

I dunno. Skittles are kinda gross. I'm suspicious of anyone who chooses them over Twizzlers, Starburst or any of the various chocolate options. Perhaps that is what motivated this Zimmerman fellow.

 

[SacramentoBob]

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

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

 

[GDogg]

A 200+ lb 27 year old guy felt his life was endangered by a 140lb unarmed kid. How ridiculous, even if he was getting punched he was never in any danger of being injured badly.

He was a neighborhood watch wanna be cop guy looking for trouble and the opportunity to use his gun.

I hope he ends up 6 feet under.

28 year old sub 200 pound man felt threatened by a 6 foot 160 pound 17 year old. Not that it matters to you. You have made up your mind and will likely reply that it still didn't matter.Did you miss the link where I posted how the girl killed somebody with one punch? How bout the other links where other people were killed by a few punches?

It is fine to have the opinion that he shouldn't have been carrying a gun or put himself in that situation or even that you don't believe him at all. It is a whole different story to claim that you think there was no danger using false size statements and then not retract your statement when you learn the true size difference.

Why does this matter? Do you think most people, when they get into a fight (or get punched), think, "my life is in danger...that one little girl was killed in Long Beach by a punch...?" I don't.

Reading comprehension down?The girl didn't die. She was the killer. She punched a man in Illinois, once. He died.

Nope. Didn't read that story. I was referring to the incident where a little girl was killed by another little girl in Long Beach, California, in a fight with no weapons that lasted about a minute.Regardless, what does that matter? Unless you think most people will think about either story while in a fight or believe they are going to be killed by being in a fight, it doesn't matter.

They don't need to think about either story. If they are thinking about the blows that are hitting them in the face, stomach, chest, etc that is sufficient. The point of either story is to squash the neanderthal excuses being made that being in a fight is no big deal. Sorry but that is an idictment of character, and I am not talking about Zimmerman's. Being on top of somebody punching them is simply not acceptable behavior. If it did happen (which we honestly don't know) it is not something to be brushed off as no big deal. Martin was not a tiny child. He was not an innocent angel. It sounds like he was a punk kid. It sounds like Zimmerman had some issues himself. As is usual with most things in life we are not hearing the whole story.

The thing I care most about is whether or not what happened was lawful. I don't know either of these people or families. I feel bad that the parents lost a child. I care more about the legal process in our country. I think the media did a terrible job with this case from the get go. I think they had an agenda and they pushed it. They don't care about justice. I think the people calling for Zimmerman's head from day one had their own agenda.

I don't understand the people crying that he should have been arrested right away no matter what and let the courts decide. That is not the process, nor should it be. The same people calling for this are the same people that are bringing up Zimmerman's past arrest record. Anybody see the paradox there?

If they take their time, charge him, convict him. That will sit just fine with me.

No, it's not. Being in a fight is an indictment of character? If you truly think that, then literally every person I grew up with and am still friends with to this day has poor character, according to you, including me. And, I would love to have grown up in the world you apparently did. I've been in several fights, and probably started a couple that I shouldn't have. Most other times, I did not start them. And, I'm no fighter. Stuff happens in life.

I don't know if Trayvon is an innocent angel. I THINK I know that Trayvon was innocent of any wrongdoing up to the point that Zimmerman inserted himself into Trayvon's life.

Being on top of someone and punching them could be lots of things. It could be some guy beating the crap out of a defenseless person for no reason. Or, it could be someone who was the victim of a battery defending himself or herself or it could be something completely different. It is not, necessarily, an indictment of character and could absolutely be "acceptable behavior."

How does it sound like Martin was a "punk kid?" I don't know anything about him other than the few things that have been put out in the media. Of those things, it sounds to me like Martin is a pretty average 17 year old.

And, I'm a little surprised by your comments that you care more about the legal process than the death (or life) of a minor. I say this as someone who is in the legal system. I don't care more about the legal process in our country than I do about the life of a human being.

Those are some cold-blooded words, parasaurolophus.

You forgot the most important part of my statement so I bolded the rest for you. As far as thinking he was an average 17 year old, I don't think he sounds very average. We don't know for sure what is true, but if he was suspended three times, that isn't average. If he hit a bus driver, that isnt average. If he got angry at Zimmerman for following him and attacked him, that isn't average.

As for being cold blooded, I knew some people would categorize it that way. I think that is a discussion for another thread, but I firmly believe that if people are honest with themselves that this is a common feeling. There are so many tragedies each and every day that I think it is impossible to truly connect to each tragedy on any kind of deep level that it has to be about the macro in order to not live in misery every day.

Nope, I addressed the bolded portion. I bolded that for your.I don't know if he hit a bus driver. I haven't seen one report of that. I saw one, single tweet from someone other than Trayvon Martin that was dug up that said that Martin didn't tell him he took a swing at a bus driver. For all we know, the response to that from Martin was, "I didn't tell you that because it didn't happen." Nothing indicates he actually hit one.

I do think it's average to get angry at an adult male for following you when you are a 17 year old boy in a neighborhood you don't live in. Or, maybe angry is the wrong word. I think it's not only average, but appropriate for a 17 year old boy to be frightened, freaked out and on heightened alert once he becomes aware that an adult male is following him first in a truck and second on foot. How he reacts to those emotions is up to the individual and the experiences that individual has had in life up that point.

If he was suspended three or four times, probably not average. I, myself, was suspended twice in high school. Once was because I was involved in a walk out when all of the teachers of our honors classes (who were the best teachers in the school) were laid off because they lacked tenure and another because of my reaction to getting an F from a teacher who lost the report I had done, which was a huge part of our grade (and which, per our school's rules, made me ineligible for basketball season). Being "suspended twice" sounds bad, but the facts behind them don't paint me as the hooligan that only the words "suspended twice" might otherwise.

I'll be honest. I care more about the life of any individual person than I do about any single law. And, I don't live in misery on any given day. I don't care more whether Zimmerman is right under Florida's stand your ground law than I do that Trayvon Martin is dead because Zimmerman acted like an idiot. Don't take that to mean I don't think he should have a valid defense if he has one. I just care more about Martin's death.

 

[urbanhack]

How does it sound like Martin was a "punk kid?" I don't know anything about him other than the few things that have been put out in the media. Of those things, it sounds to me like Martin is a pretty average 17 year old.

If that's "average"...GOD HELP US ALL!

No kidding, I mean, he has tattoos!!!! GOD HELP US ALL!!!!

Did you read the linked article? DO you really think the "average kid" gets suspended from school four times? Smokes weed regularly with his friends? Talks like a gangster? Carries womens jewelry around in a backpack? ALL OF THE ABOVE!!!???? REALLY????? That's average?

Clearly he deserved to die. We should give Zimmerman a medal for saving society from Martin.

Tattoo artists all across America should sue Zimmerman for loss of business.

I'm hoping I can board my plane on Tuesday with my hoodie, but it shouldn't be a problem since I'm white.:rocky:

Don't assume anything. If you have your hood on, have smoked weed in the past and have used a lot of slang, it could get dicey.

What if I'm smoking weed in the present?

 

[GDogg]

Don't assume anything. If you have your hood on, have smoked weed in the past and have used a lot of slang, it could get dicey.

I walk my dog after smoking weed with a hoodie on at least once a week. I assume I've lived this long because I don't particularly care for Skittles.

Consider yourself lucky. You're one of the fortunate ones.

I dunno. Skittles are kinda gross. I'm suspicious of anyone who chooses them over Twizzlers, Starburst or any of the various chocolate options. Perhaps that is what motivated this Zimmerman fellow.

Skittles are delicious. They are essentially Starburst with a hard shell.Please don't come to my neighborhood. I am afraid of what might happen if you see me with Skittles.

 

[timschochet]

For years I've heard conservatives ask, "why do we get so few votes from black people? There are great black conservatives out there, but 90-95% of African-Americans always vote Democrat! Why is that?"

If you really want to know the answer, you have no further to look than this case. With almost no exception, every well known conservative talk show host and/or personality has taken a position here which is either an explicit defense of Zimmerman, or, at best, a "let's wait and see" approach which gives Zimmerman's story the benefit of the doubt. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and all of the others are defending every possibility that Zimmerman might be innocent, while claiming neutrality.

So you have your answer. The average black person looks at Republicans and believes that they NEVER take "their side", that only non-blacks are the ones ever given the benefit of the doubt. They remember the OJ trial and other trials with blacks accused of crimes, and they notice that these same conservative personalities never seem to defend them, but when a white person (or in this case a Hispanic) is accused of an awful crime against a black person, somehow these same people ALWAYS come to the defense of the accused.

And no, I'm not trying to speak for black people. But this is my strong impression.

 

[GDogg]

How does it sound like Martin was a "punk kid?" I don't know anything about him other than the few things that have been put out in the media. Of those things, it sounds to me like Martin is a pretty average 17 year old.

If that's "average"...GOD HELP US ALL!

No kidding, I mean, he has tattoos!!!! GOD HELP US ALL!!!!

Did you read the linked article? DO you really think the "average kid" gets suspended from school four times? Smokes weed regularly with his friends? Talks like a gangster? Carries womens jewelry around in a backpack? ALL OF THE ABOVE!!!???? REALLY????? That's average?

Clearly he deserved to die. We should give Zimmerman a medal for saving society from Martin.

Tattoo artists all across America should sue Zimmerman for loss of business.

I'm hoping I can board my plane on Tuesday with my hoodie, but it shouldn't be a problem since I'm white.:rocky:

Don't assume anything. If you have your hood on, have smoked weed in the past and have used a lot of slang, it could get dicey.

What if I'm smoking weed in the present?

Then, it's clear cut. I hope you've got some armor on under that hoodie.

 

[GDogg]

For years I've heard conservatives ask, "why do we get so few votes from black people? There are great black conservatives out there, but 90-95% of African-Americans always vote Democrat! Why is that?"

If you really want to know the answer, you have no further to look than this case. With almost no exception, every well known conservative talk show host and/or personality has taken a position here which is either an explicit defense of Zimmerman, or, at best, a "let's wait and see" approach which gives Zimmerman's story the benefit of the doubt. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and all of the others are defending every possibility that Zimmerman might be innocent, while claiming neutrality.

So you have your answer. The average black person looks at Republicans and believes that they NEVER take "their side", that only non-blacks are the ones ever given the benefit of the doubt. They remember the OJ trial and other trials with blacks accused of crimes, and they notice that these same conservative personalities never seem to defend them, but when a white person (or in this case a Hispanic) is accused of an awful crime against a black person, somehow these same people ALWAYS come to the defense of the accused.

And no, I'm not trying to speak for black people. But this is my strong impression.

Well, they probably got that one right.

 

[BoneYardDog]

Don't be in a panic...

Acquit the Hispanic...

 

[timschochet]

For years I've heard conservatives ask, "why do we get so few votes from black people? There are great black conservatives out there, but 90-95% of African-Americans always vote Democrat! Why is that?"

If you really want to know the answer, you have no further to look than this case. With almost no exception, every well known conservative talk show host and/or personality has taken a position here which is either an explicit defense of Zimmerman, or, at best, a "let's wait and see" approach which gives Zimmerman's story the benefit of the doubt. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and all of the others are defending every possibility that Zimmerman might be innocent, while claiming neutrality.

So you have your answer. The average black person looks at Republicans and believes that they NEVER take "their side", that only non-blacks are the ones ever given the benefit of the doubt. They remember the OJ trial and other trials with blacks accused of crimes, and they notice that these same conservative personalities never seem to defend them, but when a white person (or in this case a Hispanic) is accused of an awful crime against a black person, somehow these same people ALWAYS come to the defense of the accused.

And no, I'm not trying to speak for black people. But this is my strong impression.

Well, they probably got that one right.

I think they did. But last night this black friend of mine pointed out, "I don't recall with OJ any of the conservatives saying, 'let's be patient and see what the evidence shows,' or 'let's let the process play out'. They were on him from day 1."To me, my friend has a point. She didn't mention, but I thought of the Duke LaCrosse case. As it turned out, of course, the lacrosse players were innocent. But weeks before anyone knew that, the right-wingers were defending the players while there was still no real information out there- a defense that, had the players been black, I am skeptical that they ever would have offered.

 

[Dvorak]

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

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

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

That final scream before the gunshots is chilling. To me, that is Travon seeing a gun pointed at him. But who knows

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

 

[wazoo11]

Update?

 

[timschochet]

Another undertone to this case which nobody on TV is talking about, but just sort of a feeling I'm getting: Hispanic vs. Black.

Hispanics in Florida tend to be more conservative than anywhere else in the country (partly because so many of them are Cuban), and there has always been a lot of tension between Hispanics and blacks. I was reading this CNN/Time article on the town of Sanford, and they interviewed a bunch of black people, and none of them trusted the Sanford police department- they cited case after case (not just this latest one) where they felt the police department has mistreated them, lied, been abusive, etc. But meanwhile Hispanics in the town said they had not witnessed any of this and that the police department (which apparently has plenty of HIspanics in it) is wonderful and blameless.

Nobody in the article stated any conflict between Hispanics and Blacks, but I'm just sensing it's there and that it's an important element of this incident...

 

[Tuco]

or, at best, a "let's wait and see" approach

Considering this is what should be done, I don't see the problem.

 

[humpback]

For years I've heard conservatives ask, "why do we get so few votes from black people? There are great black conservatives out there, but 90-95% of African-Americans always vote Democrat! Why is that?"

If you really want to know the answer, you have no further to look than this case. With almost no exception, every well known conservative talk show host and/or personality has taken a position here which is either an explicit defense of Zimmerman, or, at best, a "let's wait and see" approach which gives Zimmerman's story the benefit of the doubt. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and all of the others are defending every possibility that Zimmerman might be innocent, while claiming neutrality.

So you have your answer. The average black person looks at Republicans and believes that they NEVER take "their side", that only non-blacks are the ones ever given the benefit of the doubt. They remember the OJ trial and other trials with blacks accused of crimes, and they notice that these same conservative personalities never seem to defend them, but when a white person (or in this case a Hispanic) is accused of an awful crime against a black person, somehow these same people ALWAYS come to the defense of the accused.

And no, I'm not trying to speak for black people. But this is my strong impression.

Well, they probably got that one right.

I think they did. But last night this black friend of mine pointed out, "I don't recall with OJ any of the conservatives saying, 'let's be patient and see what the evidence shows,' or 'let's let the process play out'. They were on him from day 1."To me, my friend has a point. She didn't mention, but I thought of the Duke LaCrosse case. As it turned out, of course, the lacrosse players were innocent. But weeks before anyone knew that, the right-wingers were defending the players while there was still no real information out there- a defense that, had the players been black, I am skeptical that they ever would have offered.

I don't mean to interrupt your comical posting, but the evidence against OJ was overwhelming from the very beginning. Wasn't the case in the others.

 

[FavreCo]

Update?

A hispanic dude killed a black dude with a gun.

 

[timschochet]

or, at best, a "let's wait and see" approach

Considering this is what should be done, I don't see the problem.

Excep[t that you didn't post the rest of my sentence. It's not just a "let justice be done" position, it's a "let's wait and see" approach which presumes that Zimmerman's story has legitimacy. If you listen or watch these talk show hosts, every new aspect that gets reported on this story is viewed from a pro-Zimmerman perspective, while at the same time they piously proclaim their neutrality. Now there's nothing wrong with any of that. They're free to do what they want, and I'm not even going to say that it's wrong. But if you're looking for an explanation as to why blacks vote Democrat in such large numbers, there it is: they feel conservatives never take their side.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Update?

No forensics yet.

 

[identikit]

or, at best, a "let's wait and see" approach

Considering this is what should be done, I don't see the problem.

 

[ATC1]

Update?

A hispanic dude killed a black dude with a gun.

The black dude had a gun? Did the Hispanic dude go Jet Lee on his ###?

 

[SacramentoBob]

Update?

A hispanic dude killed a black dude with a gun.

The black dude had a gun? Did the Hispanic dude go Jet Lee on his ###?

Syntax is a #####.

 

[renesauz]

I've been 5 fights in my life - 2 as a young teenager - typical school boy stuff, talking smack, pushing/shoving, throw down. Once I got jumped at a HS football game, not a particularly fair fight, and one I did not instigate, and I did not win, but it was a few minutes, not a real beatdown. One from an on-field incident at a college soccer game, that spilled over after the game, and once in a college bar fight.For the four I was a willing participant, I can look back and say I made an immature decision to put myself in those positions. Maybe its typical of youthful indiscretion, but I certainly carry some blame for those incidents. It may be explained away as boys-being-boys, but it does not change the fact that I contributed to those situations escalating.I can see the same thing here with Martin. AT that age, it does not shock the conscience that a teenager would instigate, or participate in, a physical altercation with a shorter guy, who was a little older. I would have to think that in looking at both, Martin could have assumed that he could take Zimmerman in an altercation. I can see someone like Martin really be anti-authority, and be really pissed off if some random dude accused him of being a criminal, or having called the cops. So, I can definitely see Martin being the instigator of a fight here.I don't see Zimmerman escalating this directly. One, he had a gun, why start a fist fight in that situation? And, two, he knew the police were on the way - I think his only goal was to make sure the police detained Martin. Now he likely escalated the situation verbally, and I could almost see him reaching out to grab Martin, but even that feels like a stretch.

Exactly.

 

[timschochet]

For years I've heard conservatives ask, "why do we get so few votes from black people? There are great black conservatives out there, but 90-95% of African-Americans always vote Democrat! Why is that?"

If you really want to know the answer, you have no further to look than this case. With almost no exception, every well known conservative talk show host and/or personality has taken a position here which is either an explicit defense of Zimmerman, or, at best, a "let's wait and see" approach which gives Zimmerman's story the benefit of the doubt. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and all of the others are defending every possibility that Zimmerman might be innocent, while claiming neutrality.

So you have your answer. The average black person looks at Republicans and believes that they NEVER take "their side", that only non-blacks are the ones ever given the benefit of the doubt. They remember the OJ trial and other trials with blacks accused of crimes, and they notice that these same conservative personalities never seem to defend them, but when a white person (or in this case a Hispanic) is accused of an awful crime against a black person, somehow these same people ALWAYS come to the defense of the accused.

And no, I'm not trying to speak for black people. But this is my strong impression.

Well, they probably got that one right.

I think they did. But last night this black friend of mine pointed out, "I don't recall with OJ any of the conservatives saying, 'let's be patient and see what the evidence shows,' or 'let's let the process play out'. They were on him from day 1."To me, my friend has a point. She didn't mention, but I thought of the Duke LaCrosse case. As it turned out, of course, the lacrosse players were innocent. But weeks before anyone knew that, the right-wingers were defending the players while there was still no real information out there- a defense that, had the players been black, I am skeptical that they ever would have offered.

I don't mean to interrupt your comical posting, but the evidence against OJ was overwhelming from the very beginning. Wasn't the case in the others.

It wasn't. There were a lot of questions in the first weeks.

 

[timschochet]

I've been 5 fights in my life - 2 as a young teenager - typical school boy stuff, talking smack, pushing/shoving, throw down. Once I got jumped at a HS football game, not a particularly fair fight, and one I did not instigate, and I did not win, but it was a few minutes, not a real beatdown. One from an on-field incident at a college soccer game, that spilled over after the game, and once in a college bar fight.For the four I was a willing participant, I can look back and say I made an immature decision to put myself in those positions. Maybe its typical of youthful indiscretion, but I certainly carry some blame for those incidents. It may be explained away as boys-being-boys, but it does not change the fact that I contributed to those situations escalating.I can see the same thing here with Martin. AT that age, it does not shock the conscience that a teenager would instigate, or participate in, a physical altercation with a shorter guy, who was a little older. I would have to think that in looking at both, Martin could have assumed that he could take Zimmerman in an altercation. I can see someone like Martin really be anti-authority, and be really pissed off if some random dude accused him of being a criminal, or having called the cops. So, I can definitely see Martin being the instigator of a fight here.I don't see Zimmerman escalating this directly. One, he had a gun, why start a fist fight in that situation? And, two, he knew the police were on the way - I think his only goal was to make sure the police detained Martin. Now he likely escalated the situation verbally, and I could almost see him reaching out to grab Martin, but even that feels like a stretch.

Exactly.

Exept that there is not a single shred of evidence that Martin was the instigator, and plenty of evidence that Zimmerman was. Other than that small quantifier, I agree 100%.

 

[urbanhack]

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

I'm agreeing with Timi here. Yea, I said it.

 

[Sam Quentin]

For years I've heard conservatives ask, "why do we get so few votes from black people? There are great black conservatives out there, but 90-95% of African-Americans always vote Democrat! Why is that?"

If you really want to know the answer, you have no further to look than this case. With almost no exception, every well known conservative talk show host and/or personality has taken a position here which is either an explicit defense of Zimmerman, or, at best, a "let's wait and see" approach which gives Zimmerman's story the benefit of the doubt. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and all of the others are defending every possibility that Zimmerman might be innocent, while claiming neutrality.

So you have your answer. The average black person looks at Republicans and believes that they NEVER take "their side", that only non-blacks are the ones ever given the benefit of the doubt. They remember the OJ trial and other trials with blacks accused of crimes, and they notice that these same conservative personalities never seem to defend them, but when a white person (or in this case a Hispanic) is accused of an awful crime against a black person, somehow these same people ALWAYS come to the defense of the accused.

And no, I'm not trying to speak for black people. But this is my strong impression.

Well, they probably got that one right.

I think they did. But last night this black friend of mine pointed out, "I don't recall with OJ any of the conservatives saying, 'let's be patient and see what the evidence shows,' or 'let's let the process play out'. They were on him from day 1."To me, my friend has a point. She didn't mention, but I thought of the Duke LaCrosse case. As it turned out, of course, the lacrosse players were innocent. But weeks before anyone knew that, the right-wingers were defending the players while there was still no real information out there- a defense that, had the players been black, I am skeptical that they ever would have offered.

I don't mean to interrupt your comical posting, but the evidence against OJ was overwhelming from the very beginning. Wasn't the case in the others.

It wasn't. There were a lot of questions in the first weeks.

I don't recall any demand that OJ be arrested before he was actually arrested.

 

[ATC1]

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

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

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

 

[Tuco]

or, at best, a "let's wait and see" approach

Considering this is what should be done, I don't see the problem.

Excep[t that you didn't post the rest of my sentence. It's not just a "let justice be done" position, it's a "let's wait and see" approach which presumes that Zimmerman's story has legitimacy. If you listen or watch these talk show hosts, every new aspect that gets reported on this story is viewed from a pro-Zimmerman perspective, while at the same time they piously proclaim their neutrality. Now there's nothing wrong with any of that. They're free to do what they want, and I'm not even going to say that it's wrong. But if you're looking for an explanation as to why blacks vote Democrat in such large numbers, there it is: they feel conservatives never take their side.

At this point, we don't know if Zimmerman's story has legitimacy or not. That's why you need to wait and see. If people have a problem with that and want to express their displeasure with their vote, so be it.

 

[SacramentoBob]

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

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

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

I didn't say the person wasn't arrested, just that Zimmerman's done this before. For people who think that the physical confrontation couldn't have been started by Zimmerman because he was walking back to his car.

 

[humpback]

For years I've heard conservatives ask, "why do we get so few votes from black people? There are great black conservatives out there, but 90-95% of African-Americans always vote Democrat! Why is that?"

If you really want to know the answer, you have no further to look than this case. With almost no exception, every well known conservative talk show host and/or personality has taken a position here which is either an explicit defense of Zimmerman, or, at best, a "let's wait and see" approach which gives Zimmerman's story the benefit of the doubt. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and all of the others are defending every possibility that Zimmerman might be innocent, while claiming neutrality.

So you have your answer. The average black person looks at Republicans and believes that they NEVER take "their side", that only non-blacks are the ones ever given the benefit of the doubt. They remember the OJ trial and other trials with blacks accused of crimes, and they notice that these same conservative personalities never seem to defend them, but when a white person (or in this case a Hispanic) is accused of an awful crime against a black person, somehow these same people ALWAYS come to the defense of the accused.

And no, I'm not trying to speak for black people. But this is my strong impression.

Well, they probably got that one right.

I think they did. But last night this black friend of mine pointed out, "I don't recall with OJ any of the conservatives saying, 'let's be patient and see what the evidence shows,' or 'let's let the process play out'. They were on him from day 1."To me, my friend has a point. She didn't mention, but I thought of the Duke LaCrosse case. As it turned out, of course, the lacrosse players were innocent. But weeks before anyone knew that, the right-wingers were defending the players while there was still no real information out there- a defense that, had the players been black, I am skeptical that they ever would have offered.

I don't mean to interrupt your comical posting, but the evidence against OJ was overwhelming from the very beginning. Wasn't the case in the others.

It wasn't. There were a lot of questions in the first weeks.

It's really not even close.

 

[timschochet]

So where are we?

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

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

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

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

 

[Sam Quentin]

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

I'm agreeing with Timi here. Yea, I said it.

It seems some of the most vocal OJ accusers were liberal media people like Geraldo Rivera and not Tim's conservative bogeymen.

 

[SacramentoBob]

the evidence against OJ was overwhelming from the very beginning.

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

 

[GDogg]

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

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

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

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

 

[identikit]

the evidence against OJ was overwhelming from the very beginning.

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

But one was Jewish.

 

[timschochet]

i don't want to wander off into an OJ discussion because, I admit either I or my friend may be wrong about what happened there. After all, it was nearly 20 years ago. My point though is that this is how many black people see it: a double standard when it comes to conservatives. And this case is only confirming that perception.

 

[ATC1]

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

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

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

I didn't say the person wasn't arrested, just that Zimmerman's done this before. For people who think that the physical confrontation couldn't have been started by Zimmerman because he was walking back to his car.

Not arguing with you just making a point. Whenever this comes up I have made this point without anyone responding, so I keep mentioning it. We are creatures of habit. He did not do anything illegal in detaining the guy the previous time. Why would Zimmerman act any different in detaining Martin? It just gives Zimmerman a bit of credit that it maybe possible he did not instigate the fight or struggle. Prove it, no. Help his case, yes IMO.

 

[humpback]

the evidence against OJ was overwhelming from the very beginning.

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

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

 

[Sinn Fein]

So where are we?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ATC1]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

I didn't say the person wasn't arrested, just that Zimmerman's done this before. For people who think that the physical confrontation couldn't have been started by Zimmerman because he was walking back to his car.

Not arguing with you just making a point. Whenever this comes up I have made this point without anyone responding, so I keep mentioning it. We are creatures of habit. He did not do anything illegal in detaining the guy the previous time. Why would Zimmerman act any different in detaining Martin? It just gives Zimmerman a bit of credit that it maybe possible he did not instigate the fight or struggle. Prove it, no. Help his case, yes IMO.

For once I agree with you ATC. I think you're absolutely right about this.Part of the reason I would be forced to acquit Zimmerman is that right now there appears to be no motive for his act other than self-defense. Sure, some of the scenarios stated here, such as that he was pissed off this kid was getting away, or that he was angry he was losing a fight, or that he was just a dumb #### who pointed his gun one too many times and it went off, or that he was a racist who wanted to kill a black guy- sure, they're all possible, but I don't see how you prove any of them. And without the motive, how can anyone who is honest be sure what exactly this guy is guilty of? That's why, though I'm pretty sure he's guilty, I still say he should walk, based on what we know.