Democrats & Liberals Archives

A Failure of Proper Balance

Newt Gingrich should open up a charm school, at this rate. The President’s response to this tragedy was a model of both restraint and sympathy. Gingrich, by contrast, plays on the very racial tensions he claims to want to diffuse.

Most people recognize what the President said as a statement of sympathy, that Obama could be the grieving parent. He was more or less saying "This could be my child on a slab somewhere."

This is somebody's boy, somebody who never knew his kid to get into trouble over being violent. This is somebody's boy whose killer followed him to the fatal altercation over his suspicion of the boy, despite the advice of the police, despite the fact that he didn't even have evidence of a crime.

President Obama could have gone that far, but he'd learned his lesson the last time there was a racially fraught police matter. He confined his remarks to saying that there should be a full investigation, making no promises about the outcome.

Yet Gingrich says, merely interjecting that the boy could be anything like a son introduces race into it. Well, I'm sorry, Mister Gingrich, but race already entered into it. When appearance and suspicion based on appearance is your main method of determining that somebody might be committing a crime, or be a criminal up to no good, And most of your calls since September of last year centered on suspicious black people, then it really strains common sense to allege that the shooter wasn't at least biased against black people when it came to who he reported. I mean, conservatives make a big deal out of the diversity of this gated community, so how come that diversity doesn't show up in the records of the people Zimmerman reports as suspicious?

Race already entered into it. Why was Zimmerman given the benefit of the doubt so quickly, despite the fact that he pursued the kid despite the advice of the police? Why was it simply assumed that no crime had been committed?

It may not be anything so aggravated as folks parading around in white pointy hoods, but it is still racism that people are not given the benefit of the doubt, that suspicion, rather than probable cause becomes the standard under which even life and death can be determined.

The proper balance cannot be pretending that nothing is wrong when the regular experience of blacks and other minorities is greater levels of scrutiny, profiling, beyond what other people have to endure. Some may argue with the personalities who use these incidents to create further controversy and attention-getting publicity, but they should not be arguing with the fact that differential treatment is part of what fuels the interest and the emotion that those people exploit. We cannot pretend that there isn't such trouble, just because some make a cause celebre out of it.

We shouldn't even be arguing the matter simply on the basis of statistics, about whether a certain group has more crimes committed in its ranks or not, because that badly misses the point: The fourth amendment is not applied on a statistical basis. You are not supposed to be subject to search and seizure, arrest and detainment, simply because you're part of a group that's more likely to be involved with a crime. We prove crimes and involvement in them on a case by case basis, and must do that because the alternative is a standard of justice built on the unconstitutional basis of personal suspicion.

The question that people in the black community, in Florida and elsewhere, are asking is this: is there one set of laws for them, and another for everybody else? Are they still stuck in the days of separate and unequal, or are they part of the integrated community?

Newt Gingrich treats Obama's identification with the child as a prejudicial statement. For him as a black man, he doesn't ask that question in prejudice. Trayvon could indeed look just like the son he didn't have. For others, though, the question is, what if Trayvon was your son?

We need a full investigation. The suspicious and convoluted circumstances of the crime demand it. Mere suspicion on account of a young man's appearance should not lead to a chain of events that ends in death.

Proper balance here isn't based on some assumption that all the circumstances are equal. Proper balance settles on a fulcrum of fact, and how we have promised to deal with such facts. If we dismiss grievances simply because responding to them would require us to get off our dead butts and go the extra mile to fix things up, when we haven't truly balanced anything. Balance doesn't merely rely on weight, it relies on leverage. The fulcrum is not always dead center. Less weight can balance more weight if the leverage is adjusted accordingly.

Put simply, the majority, being what it is, can always throw its weight around to move things. It doesn't need the levers of government to work so powerfully for it, it's own weight will do most of the work. Minorities, especially those who the majority has allowed itself to hold down for significant lengths of history, need more help to attain the equal outcomes of justice. Prejudice and cultural rivalries don't just go away spontaneously, just because we outlaw them. Time will heal some wounds, others will need stitches.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2012 10:45 AM
Comments
Comment #339555

Let me see if I can answer this praise Obama essay in just a few words: it’s all about dividing America through racism and it’s all about re-election, period…

Posted by: Frank at March 25, 2012 4:10 PM
Comment #339561

Oh? I see, that’s why Obama was going on about those racist mother****er honkies and their inbred children.

Seriously. Quote me what’s so virulently racist about what he said. Oh, by the way: he was asked. He didn’t volunteer this. He didn’t even go so far as to make any public remarks disparaging the police this time. He practically has to avoid the whole subject, given your standard, in order not to get branded a racist.

Me, I think that’s something of a double standard, and I wonder why it’s getting applied to Obama. You can claim racism at work here, but I don’t think you can prove your claim.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2012 6:21 PM
Comment #339565

So it’s Obama who is interjecting race into this case? That’s rich.

Maybe it’s the guy who hunted a boy down despite police orders to stop. Then murdering the boy while he pleads for his life. Or perhaps the Sanford police who released this man despite ordering him to stop pursuit, 911 call clearly showing this boy pleading for his life not attacking as the shooter claimed. Then doing nothing until public outrage put the spotlight on their negligence. Maybe Geraldo Rivera placing partial blame on the boy’s decision to wear a hoodie.

No you blame the president. The man who issued a statement to extend sympathy to the parents of the murdered boy careful not to judge the shooter while the investigation is ongoing. I thought the same thing, that this kid could be my son. A middle class kid who was just going to the store to get some candy and becomes prey for a wannabe cop predator. When I heard about this all I could think of is “what if it were my kid.”

Posted by: tcsned at March 25, 2012 7:05 PM
Comment #339567

President Obama’s statement was incomplete. It could have been any of our sons killed. That is why it is a tragic case. It is not a case that actually involves race, either Obama’s, the victim’s or the shooter’s.

Posted by: C&J at March 25, 2012 7:16 PM
Comment #339570

C&J-
The shooter, since he joined up, overwhelmingly reported strangers in the neighborhood who were black, even one as young as seven or nine.

Put another way, there was clear evidence that there was a particular kind of person that this Neighborhood watchman was on the lookout for, why else the disproportionate reporting?

If his attention was particularly partial to one set of people, then there’s no reasonable argument that people of any race were equally likely.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2012 7:59 PM
Comment #339573

Stephen

Please give reference for your belief about the shooter’s bias but if it is Sharpton or Jackson, don’t bother.

It would be remarkable indeed if we had access to accurate statistics you mention, or if this individual had made enough reports to permit an accurate statistical analysis. In fact, I would find it a bit frightening if the authorities had so much data.

Also, you need to be careful with that proportional thing. If you were going after actual criminals, you would find that young men were overrepresented and old women under. That would not be a bias.

Speaking of statistics, the only crime that we can actually be reasonably sure is reported is murder. Blacks make up around 12% of the population. Do you think that the proportion of murders committed is also 12%?

Posted by: C&J at March 25, 2012 8:12 PM
Comment #339578

C&J-
It’s in the second article cited in the post above, and no it doesn’t come from either of those two, though I should point out that they danger of such a dismissal, as I learned with Andrew Breitbart, is that even the people we loathe can be right.

The relevant section:

But starting in 2011, Zimmerman’s calls increasingly focused on what he considered “suspicious” characters walking around the neighborhood—almost all of whom were young black males.


On April 22, 2011, Zimmerman called to report a black male about “7-9” years old, four feet tall, with a “skinny build” and short black hair. There is no indication in the police report of the reason for Zimmerman’s suspicion of the boy.


On Aug. 3 of last year, Zimmerman reported a black male who he believed was “involved in recent” burglaries in the neighborhood.


And on Oct. 1 he reported two black male suspects “20-30” years old, in a white Chevrolet Impala. He told police he did “not recognize” the men or their vehicle and that he was concerned because of the recent burglaries.

As for keeping statistics, why would you be shocked or dismayed that police keep records of the calls that send them out? First, people are volunteering information to the police, so fourth amendment concerns are not a problem. Second, the call is part of any subsequent case made based on it. Of course they would keep records. Third, if they have to demonstrate that somebody’s a nuisance caller, how else are they to do it?

As for proportion? What I hear is that seventy percent of burglars are white. Are seventy percent of calls after he became watchman against suspicious whites?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2012 8:33 PM
Comment #339580

Oh, this is great: Stephen Daugherty believes that Zimmerman, who volunteered his time as a security watch in a gated community; when he reported suspicious activities to the police, he should have told the police they were white guys instead of telling them they were black. Now, that is some real logic. By Stephen Daugherty’s logic, if I was a witness to a bank robbery, committed by a black man, when the police asked me for a discription I should say he was a white guy, because if I told the truth and said he was black…I would be a racist. Am I getting this right SD?

Posted by: Frank at March 25, 2012 8:46 PM
Comment #339581
Please give reference for your belief about the shooter’s bias

Look at Stephen’s link to the Daily Beast. Mr. Zimmerman called the police 46 times. Most of the calls were about young black males. However, I think it is entirely reasonable for one to make prejudiced decisions when encountering strangers in setting where a crime might take place. I’ve spent a good enough portion of my time travelling in certain neighborhoods of Boston & New York to know when extra vigilance is necessary. At this point, I feel this case is becoming less about race and more about incompetence. Not only with regards to the local law enforcement, but also with regards to the bonehead FL legislators who created the “stand your ground” law in the first place.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 25, 2012 9:01 PM
Comment #339582

Stephen

“As for proportion? What I hear is that seventy percent of burglars are white. Are seventy percent of calls after he became watchman against suspicious whites?”

Do we have the total data set? You give three incidents. The paper has a total of six, or which the three are black. The other incidents do not feature race data. They do not keep recordings.

Take a coin out and flip it six times. Did you come up with exactly three heads and exactly three tails? Hitting the statistical norm with a sample size of six just is not valid.

“The question that people in the black community, in Florida and elsewhere, are asking is this: is there one set of laws for them, and another for everybody else? Are they still stuck in the days of separate and unequal, or are they part of the integrated community?”

If anybody is asking this question based on the data available in this case, they just don’t understand statistics. More likely the question is based on the paranoia and bias trumped up by Sharpton.

Remember his role in the Brawley hoax and the Duke debacle. Of course, he was only tangentially related to the OJ trial. Should the OJ verdict have let people to ask if there is one law for them and another for rich minorities?

Posted by: C&J at March 25, 2012 9:03 PM
Comment #339584

Frank,
He chased down and killed someone who, from the 911 calls, was obviously not attacking. Who gives a flip if he was a volunteer? Does that make this any less of a horrendous act? There was nothing about Zimmerman’s call, the 911 call with the fatal gunshot, or the call to Martin’s girlfriend that sounded anything other than this was a boy going to the store for a snack. I’m sorry that Zimmerman’s life is over. I’m sure he regrets what he did. But, he was the one who made the bad decisions, not Martin. Killing someone is something that people do not ever get over which is why you should never do it. He did it, and the victim was innocent. Unless he’s a total sociopath he’s feeling a lot of remorse. He chose poorly and a boy is dead because of it.

You people just want to pounce on anything Obama says and does, I know. So pounce away. That story is pretty stale and meaningless since it’s obviously not fact-based.

Posted by: tcsned at March 25, 2012 9:11 PM
Comment #339590

tcsned,
Not only did Zimmerman chase an unarmed man, despite being warned by the 911 officer not to confront; Zimmerman shot the young man to death in the street. As if that weren’t bad enough, the police let Zimmerman walk away without charging him with a crime, as if this were a justifiable act of self-defense. A young man died at Zimmerman’s hands. Two cell phone conversations record cries for help and someone saying “No, don’t…” Zimmerman deserves his day in court. It’s ludicrous that a person could be allowed to walk away from shooting another human being to death in the street without so much as an investigation.

And as usual, we can always count on Newt Gingrich to bring out the ugliest side of conservatism.

I don’t understand the objections to Obama’s statements of sympathy, other than to note the obvious; namely, that he needs to be very careful about not making statements prejudicial to the carrying out of justice.

Posted by: phx8 at March 25, 2012 9:32 PM
Comment #339591

Just out of curiosity, since the left has brought it up a couple of times, did Martin call his girfriend or did the girlfriend say he called her? I mean, there are such things as cell records. It’s getting hard to tell the difference between liberal hype and what actually happened. Do liberals have a direct line to what really happened? Or is there a link at Obama’s web site that keeps all liberals up to date on the ongoing murder investigation?

Posted by: Frank at March 25, 2012 9:39 PM
Comment #339593

tcsned

You fact and fantasy mixed up and you don’t know which is which.

All you lefties, never fear, Eric Holder is near. He will move ahead with full speed. Not like BP agent Terry. Not like the Black Panther Party in Phila.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 25, 2012 10:06 PM
Comment #339595

“J. Christian Adams a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department resigns in utter disgust over the mishandling and subsequent dismissal of the case. Here he tells the story from the inside. If you have any sense of decency, fair play and respect for equal rights under the law you should demand for all involved to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This injustice should NOT be allowed to be swept under the Obama thugOcracy rug!”

Adams also said Holder was interested in racism, but only when it was white on black; he said to not investigate black on white racism.

http://ironicsurrealism.com/2010/06/26/bombshell-doj-official-resigns-over-dismissal-of-new-black-panther-voter-intimidation-case/

Posted by: Frank at March 25, 2012 10:17 PM
Comment #339596

Eric Holder? Huh? The case of the FL shooting has been kicked from the local to the state level, as it should be, due to the local level failed to conduct an adequate investigation. This case has nothing to do with the Federal AG. Eric Holder is the Attorney General of the United States. Not Florida.

Sorry tom humes. Sorry Frank. Chasing another person on the street without cause, confronting them, and shooting them to death when all they have in their possession is an iced tea and a bag of skittles, is simply unacceptable.

Posted by: phx8 at March 25, 2012 10:30 PM
Comment #339598

If I’m not mistaken phx8 the FBI is part of the federal justice system. They to are investigating this case or aiding in the investigation. I agree what Zimmerman did was ignorant after calling 911 he should have left it to the local police. But he does have a permit to carry. We don’t have all the facts related to what actually happened so unlike you progressives I’ll wait for all the facts before I comment on guilt or innocense.

Posted by: KAP at March 25, 2012 10:43 PM
Comment #339599
did Martin call his girfriend or did the girlfriend say he called her

According to ABC news, Martin called her.

However, Martin’s lawyer has not released cell records to the public so we are taking his word on this one.

Frank,

That news is almost 2 years old and only tangentially relevant to the discussion. We’ve debated the despicable NBP behavior in Philadelphia before and we’ll most likely talk about it later, but not today.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 25, 2012 10:48 PM
Comment #339602

KAP,
Thanks for the info. I didn’t know the FBI was investigating this case as a hate crime. I have never agreed with the legal concept of a hate crime in the first place. Crime is crime. Hatred as a motivation can take many forms, but the fact remains, a crime is a crime, and that is what is illegal.

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. He claims to have suffered a broken nose, scrape, and he supposedly had grass stains on his shirt after the confrontation with the young man. The local authorities simply took his word about standing his ground, and they walked. However, there seems to be a lot of other evidence that gainsays Zimmerman’s account. Other accounts consistently give a different version from the one given by Zimmerman. That demands an investigation.

I’m not black. I’m not sure racism had anything to do with what happened in this case. However, I do realize that I might be singing a very different tune if I were black. It’s certainly easy to see how blacks might perceive this case as an example of racism, and the killing of the young man as a hate crime, and the lack of interest on the part of local authorities as an example of gross injustice based upon racism.

Maybe it’s not. But it certainly doesn’t look good.

Posted by: phx8 at March 25, 2012 11:01 PM
Comment #339607

KAP-
This is about the legal nature of self-defense, not his right to carry, which I’m not disputing. There’s a difference between a weapons violation and homicide, and we’re focused on the homicide here. The question is whether this homicide is murder, that is, an unlawful homicide, and some of the critical components here seem to point towards the man following and posing a threat himself to the young man, which would then have justified Trayvon’s efforts to defend himself.

The devil is in the details here, though, and justice delayed is justice denied. Was Zimmerman on drugs at the time? We’ll never know, they didn’t bother to figure it out. Did Zimmerman tell the truth about where he was, and what he was doing. His own 911 call has him agreeing to stop pursuit, but sounding damn well like he was still moving pretty fast.

You don’t get to claim self-defense if you’re throwing yourself into a life-threatening situation or pursuing the person you feel threatened by. Unless you’ve got some real sense that a third person is at risk (think a man getting up after getting beaten to shoot a man who’s walking away because he’s threatened believably to go kill his wife), self-defense is hard to prove when you’re acting like the aggressor.

C&J-
Let me put it this way: at the very least this seems to indicate that his view of who could be a suspect was rather selective, that he was profiling according to stereotypes. There are also allegations concerning a possible ethnic slur on the tape. To some it’s clear as day, but my audio-visual background tells me to be careful about that. Still, something to think about. Being hispanic doesn’t prevent people from being racially biased. Nor does being in a well-integrated gated community. These are erroneous, unreliable methods of argument that you have used to argue his innocence of being a bigot.

Don’t get me wrong: the guy could very well be just somebody who watched too much television. Or he could have genuine animus. The source I quoted cited three specific examples, but said nearly all his calls since becoming Watchmen concerned black men. I’m pretty sure they can add, so I don’t think they are pitching as low a number as you would want to have us believe.

This isn’t a merely statistical matter. Coins when flipped don’t make decisions as to how to land. You could make five flips of the coin, and your sixth would still have a fifty-fifty probability. I’m not relying on a statistical argument, I’m arguing something from the unlikeliness of picking out several black people as suspicious for being simple random choice.

He doesn’t have to be an overblown bigot, but he can have a bias as to who was up to no good.

Frank-
If you want to talk ironic surrealism, then let’s go with Obama getting blamed with the Bush Administration’s decision not to prosecute, a decision justified in that they couldn’t find anybody who claimed to be intimidated. The Obama Administration sought civil sanctions ordering them to keep away from polling places.

Long story short, this is another child of the Conservative media that ran out to catch the bus before it realized it forgot to get its pants on first.

As far as your accusations that he should report other than the race of the people he saw?

Well, hold your horses there, son. I said nothing of the sort. The trouble here is that this guy had a tendency of simply reporting suspicious people, which is another way of saying, folks he was suspicious of. The real question was whether he was open minded of who he was suspicious of, or whether he chose to believe that certain people were more suspicious than others, on grounds other than simple behavior.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 26, 2012 8:55 AM
Comment #339609

Stephen, I’m focused on getting all the facts before making a judgement. This reminds me of something that happened some 6 years ago when you and others had some Marines guilty before the investigations were even started, you remember August of 2006 we can go back in the archives and pull a few quotes from you and others. Were you at the scene Stephen do you have info others don’t or are you making assumptions based on the media?

Posted by: KAP at March 26, 2012 10:14 AM
Comment #339610

So here we go again, Stephen Daugherty throws another piece of factual evidence into the quandary:

“The devil is in the details here, though, and justice delayed is justice denied. Was Zimmerman on drugs at the time? We’ll never know, they didn’t bother to figure it out.”

Perhaps Stephen could tell us where he got this latest talking point? Did he come up with it all by himself or did he read it on some liberal blog site? Oh, wait a minute, I Googled it and found that Stephen is repeating the talking points of ABC and the LA Times.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-family-seeks-fbi-investigation-killing/story?id=15949879

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-20120320,0,1508238.story

In case you don’t know this Stephen, if Zimmerman was on drugs it would be a felony to carry a concealed weapon. His CCW would be null and void. Nice try Stephen, trying to throw more BS into the ring. Is there any depth you won’t go to, in order to prove your point? Again, disgusting.

Posted by: Frank at March 26, 2012 10:21 AM
Comment #339611

By the way Stephen, if your going to use someone elses ideas, shouldn’t you give them credit. Isn’t this what you told Bill?

Posted by: Frank at March 26, 2012 10:23 AM
Comment #339612

Frank,
A cop would have to be incompetent, or a moron, or both…..not to ask for an alcohol/drug test when a life has been taken with a firearm. When any life is taken there are certain formalities to be followed. Police officers have to turn their weapon in and are assigned desk duty following a shooting. After ANY marine accident anyone involved is tested for alcohol/drugs. I wonder if Florida requires testing after incidents like this? We’ll find out……

So why did the cops just let Zimmerman walk on his own say-so
Best case, they look incompetent. Worst case? We’ll see.

Posted by: steve miller at March 26, 2012 10:42 AM
Comment #339616

There’s a lot of misinformation in this thread. It was a rainy day, very common for Sanford. Martin was taking cover in places, which looked suspicious to Zimmerman. The community is gated for a reason. Sanford is full of open air drug markets and a persistent loitering problem. It’s a “racially” mixed area, so people aren’t in segregated parts of town where they never see people of different “races”.

Zimmerman should have approached the guy and talked to him to find out what he was doing. He knew most of his neighbors. Even a person who might be looking for a buyer for his wares, or a place with an open door to grab something, isn’t necessarily the personification of evil. There have been almost a hundred similar cases like this in Florida since “stand your ground” became law.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 26, 2012 12:32 PM
Comment #339617

Also, a gated community might not agree that the child of a resident’s boyfriend or girlfriend is allowed access. Access is usually by vehicle, which would have a bumper or window sticker or front license plate. Gated communities are very common in Florida.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 26, 2012 12:58 PM
Comment #339618

It seems that SD and WR have no concept of what a gated community is or how they operate. They are gated for the purpose of keeping intruders out. There are gated communities all over Florida. The Villages covers a 3 county area and almost every Village community is gated, with guards.

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 26, 2012 1:43 PM
Comment #339619

I admit that gated communities are a bit foreign to me; in New England we do not fear our fellow Americans like you do in Florida. Nevertheless, Trayvon Martin was the guest of his father in that community and had every right to be there.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 26, 2012 2:18 PM
Comment #339623


I believe it was C&J that first suggested the the scene of the incident was in a mixed race community. So, are there black people living in that gated community or not? If there are, then why so many calls about suspicious blacks?

Warped, New England is not immune, at least not Boston. Remember how many black men were rounded up and held in custody when a white man shot his wife and himself then blamed it on a black man? Mass hysteria?

It is not inappropriate to think that had Zimmerman been black and the teenage victim white, there would have been a different reaction on the part of the police.

Is paranoia a legal defence?

Posted by: jlw at March 26, 2012 3:06 PM
Comment #339624
New England is not immune

Maybe not immune, but these things are extremely rare in Massachusetts. I was only 6 weeks old when Charles Stuart commited suicide, so my only knowledge of the incident is from historical sources.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 26, 2012 3:30 PM
Comment #339626

The Gated community trend spread from retirement communities to other places. Elderly people felt rather defenseless against intruders. Many communities have their own private police, not just neighborhood watchers. Trayvon Miller may not have had any right to be where he was, depending on what the community allows, but it isn’t a death penalty crime to be there. From what I read, his father’s girlfriend is the resident, not his father.

There are a lot of suspicious people in Sanford, and a lot of other places. To people that work, people that hang around all the time are all suspicious. They become less suspicious if you actually talk to them, but some individuals can be very persistent and annoying.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 26, 2012 4:27 PM
Comment #339628

Warped and jlw;

I believe there are gated communities in LA, Hollywood. Who do the movie actors fear? Warped, if you get out of that little bubble you live in you would find the world is a very dangerous place. Most of the States now have CCW laws, and growing numbers of men and women are getting their conceal carry license. That’s because these people live in the real world, they don’t live with mommy and daddy, and they certainly can’t count on the police to protect them. Since you know so much about Mass, perhaps you could tell us if the Kennedy clan live in gated communities, or if they have personal guards?

“I believe it was C&J that first suggested the the scene of the incident was in a mixed race community. So, are there black people living in that gated community or not? If there are, then why so many calls about suspicious blacks?” jlw

jlw, we are talking about Florida retirement communities, not Hollywood. Perhaps the elite Hollywood rich people would have a problem with blacks living in their communities, but not here. You may find this hard to believe but we have Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, and white people all living in Florida’a retirement communities. The only ones who seem to be worried about race, is the left. In fact, on WB alone, every single time race is brought up, it is brought up by liberals. Who brought race into the Zimmerman/Martin case?

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 26, 2012 5:18 PM
Comment #339629

The community may have been “gated” in the sense that there was a distinct entrance to a common development. However, I doubt that it was a true gated community. In a true gated community the streets are not publicly owned and are owned and maintained by the community. In that case, the community has the right to restrict access to property owners. In this case, there seems to be no issue of trespass on private property. There was no discussion on the 911 tapes of his rights to be walking the streets. That appeared to be a given. In most Florida developments, the developers give the streets to the public government in order to reduce the long term costs to the community.

Posted by: Rich at March 26, 2012 5:48 PM
Comment #339630

It’s a townhouse community. The streets are not significant. Trayvon was walking in between buildings because it was raining. From what I read he entered the community through a gap in a fence, which would also look suspicious.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 26, 2012 6:17 PM
Comment #339631

An interesting report on the psychology of race-based reactions by Scientific American. Essentially, even non-racists were quicker to accidentally shoot an unarmed black man, simply on account of being aware of the stereotypical tropes.

Frank-
What disgusts me is when people rely on character attacks to try and combat good points. Why not investigate thoroughly? If you want to catch the real criminals, and exonerate those who are truly innocent, rather than reduce everything to a political fight, you need to search out the facts.

Unfortunately, whatever was in Zimmerman’s system at the time, whether it’s caffeine from an energy drink, THC from his Mary-J, or Ethanol from his dry Martini is lost. Ironically, an affirmative defense of diminished capacity is put beyond his reach, because nobody can prove what kind of chemicals were in his system. If drugs or alcohol were a factor, he might now get a harsher sentence than what he might have gotten if the investigation was more thorough.

The truth is not defined by what different sides in a debate believe is true. A failure to investigate may leave some better able to make up stuff as they go along to suit their own purposes, but it also sets up secrets and unknown troubles to come back to haunt all those involved, like a time-bomb waiting to unsettle everything. I’m sure that many of those involved with the shooting and its investigation thought they had an open and shut case. Unfortunately, what they thought they could wrap up tidily with only a cursory investigation is now a national controversy, because of how badly they mishandled everything.

As for ideas? You can’t copyright them. You can patent inventions, Trademark symbols, slogans, characters Articles, blog entries, movies and other works like that are copyrightable.

Ideas, though, can’t be copyrighted. You can tell people about the contents of an article without citation. What you can’t do is pass off somebody’s work as your own, or copy it unless they’ve given you permission to do so.

I try to do attribution, though, even if I don’t have to, so that people have a trail to follow, and Republicans can embarrass themselves by trotting out tired old attacks on the sources, but if I’ve cited something enough, or it’s general enough knowledge, I save myself the time.

How that is tantamount to copying something wholesale, I don’t know, but some people are willing to grasp at straws to attack others.

Billinflorida-
Wow. You could have asked whether I knew what a gated community was from the outset, and you would have discovered that I’ve seen several around where I live, and I know what the basic concept is. But hey, that would have reduced your response time in getting your attack out, so never you mind there.

Me? For all the crime problems that might come of it otherwise, I much prefer open neighborhoods. It strikes me as somewhat claustrophobic to wall yourself in. I grew up in a neighborhood where there were several ways out, and never knew anything different for much of my life. Funny enough, though, it seems like the folks in those gated communities still have a crime problem despite having guards and everything. What gives?

As for your second comment? Jeez, man, you hate those hollywood types, don’t you!

Personally, I think the problem is, the more fearful you get, the more you isolate yourself. Communities are important to crime prevention. When people are stakeholders, they take care of what they got.

As for relying on guns and yourself for defense? I think that’s a fantasy, for the most part, and it can be a dangerous one, too, when you’re not by yourself with acres of space around you. Guns don’t equal security. Everybody had a gun in Saddam’s Iraq, and nobody was free.

No, part of being free is having the reliable rule of law, of having a disinterested police force who protects the community as a whole. Now I don’t object to people having guns in the home to protect themselves, but you need the law to make people respect the common code everybody’s expected to live by.

The alternative is having a system where everybody’s at each other’s throats.

As for that last part?

Funny how any time race is brought up, folks like you are trying to bash it back down. I think what we’re seeing here is that the lid isn’t staying shut on what the effects of cultural and law enforcement profiling have been, where an entire class of people have been treated as automatically more suspect than others, absent evidence.

I will bring it up, not because I’m a white black supremacist who hates his own race, but because I’m a believer in real and lasting equality who thinks that a young man minding his own business ought not to get chased down and shot when there is no rational reason for that to happen. Race was there in the issue from the start.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 26, 2012 6:20 PM
Comment #339632

ABC reports that Zimmerman is saying that Trayvon attacked him and tried to take his gun. Trayvon lives in Miami with his mother, 250 miles away from Sanford, but there was some problem there at school with another bag that he was carrying.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 26, 2012 6:25 PM
Comment #339633

“The streets are not significant.”

Orealy,

The status of the streets is significant. Martin was walking down a public street at night. He was committing no crime. That is not an issue. The only factual activity that Zimmerman stated to 911 supporting suspicious activity was that Martin was walking on a public street in the rain. Wow! Have you ever lived in an urban area? Martin was from the inner city of Miami.

Zimmerman followed him in an unmarked vehicle contrary to the request of the 911 dispatcher. Despite information that police were responding to investigate his report of “suspicious” activity, Zimmerman, nonetheless, stalked him down and got out of his vehicle to confront Martin in a dark alley at night. Zimmerman was not uniformed nor did he have any police or security identification. Martin knew that Zimmerman had been following him from his cell phone call to his girlfriend and had been trying to elude him. He knew that he had been targeted and was trying to get away from him.

It was the perfect storm. Well meaning stalker confronts young urban man in alley at night who knows that the person has been following him. In addition, from your report, Martin also seemed to know that Zimmerman had a gun. A fight ensues. Martin is killed.

Who was the perpetrator and who was the victim. Who was truly “standing his ground?” Who was defending his rights?

Posted by: Rich at March 26, 2012 7:43 PM
Comment #339634

Martin was walking down a public street at night.

I don’t think that is a factual statement. He did not enter from the street, or walk solely on the street. I think you’re putting streets and alleys where there aren’t any. Zimmerman was doing what he perceived to be his duty, to help protect his friends and neighbors. The problem is that he should not have been carrying a weapon capable of killing someone.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 26, 2012 8:23 PM
Comment #339635

Sorry Rich, but I live in the Villages and as I said, they cover 3 counties. And the public is not allowed to pass the gates or enter the streets unless they live there or have permission to be there. I have no idea what kind of gated community you are talking about that has public streets. That would defeat the purpose of “gated community” wouldn’t it?

SD, I am just interpreting from your comments that you have no idea what a gated community is. Why would I want to ask you; I would just have to read pages and pages of your comments to find out you really don’t know as much as you think you do. And who cares what you think about living in a gated community?

“As for relying on guns and yourself for defense? I think that’s a fantasy, for the most part, and it can be a dangerous one, too, when you’re not by yourself with acres of space around you. Guns don’t equal security. Everybody had a gun in Saddam’s Iraq, and nobody was free.”

This is an ignorant comment; you have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t have the time or space to list for you the lives that have been saved by people who are armed. If CCW wasn’t successful, there would be a whole lot less states which have the law. So I will just mark this up to your ignorance of the subject and let it go at that.

“No, part of being free is having the reliable rule of law”

The first part of your comment is true, the rest is BS. Let me tell you what is going to happen Stephen: Zimmerman will walk; they will find no evidence against him. But thanks to people like you, Sharpton, Jackson, Obama, and Mohamad (the head of the NBP) there will be race riots and looting. Cities and businesses will be destroyed, it will cost taxpayers just as it cost to clean up after the civil unrest of the OWS bunch; but you don’t care…you don’t care if people are hurt.

Re/Rich’s Comment #339633

I will tell you what rich, why don’t you call the FBI, State Police, or Obama’s AG and tell them you figured it all out. No need for an investigation, rich has it figured out. I’m sure you heard the cell phone call to his girlfriend, or perhaps you have an official record that a cell call was made. You must have, since you have it all figured out.

Perhaps we could put you and SD in for a Nobel Peace Prize, for figuring it all out. In fact, let’s cancel the Grand Jury, it’s a waste of taxpayer’s money: SD and rich have it all figured out.

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 26, 2012 8:50 PM
Comment #339636

Ohrealy,

Come on, there is a detailed discussion on the 911 tapes between Zimmerman and the dispatcher as to where Martin was walking at the time of the 911 call. There is nothing odd, suspicious or illegal about where Martin was walking. Zimmerman never even suggested that Martin was in an area of the development that was on private property or inappropriate. Martin was also trying to allude Zimmerman who he had no idea as to the motive for following him.

You fail to answer the question. Who was the aggressor? Who instigated the unfortunate confrontation? Who stalked who? If you have ever lived in an urban area, you would appreciate the significance of discovering that someone has been following you that is not clearly identified as a law enforcement officer. You would appreciate the apprehension upon discovering that the stalker has cornered you after having tried to allude them, particularly in a dark alley. If you become aware that this person has a gun, what are you to conclude?

Posted by: Rich at March 26, 2012 8:51 PM
Comment #339637

Billinflorida,

Congratulations for living in a true gated retirement community. But, sorry, you are mistaken about the majority of developments in Florida, including this one, about the nuances of ownership and responsibility for the roads in the community. There is absolutely no issue of trespass for simply walking on the roads and alleys of the development. They are public roads. The 911 dispatcher had no qualms about entering the development. They don’t have jurisdiction without clear evidence of a crime. It is private property. Geez, don’t you conservatives have any respect for private property rights?

As for my having it all figured out, I don’t. It appears to be a tragic confluence of events and law that resulted in the killing of a young man.

Posted by: Rich at March 26, 2012 9:11 PM
Comment #339638

Rich, you need to stick to what you know and stop trying to picture this happening where you live instead of where it happened. Sanford is a very old town by Florida standards, and I don’t recall ever seeing any such thing as an “alley” in any of the hundred times that I’ve been there. The development where Trayvon’s father was staying with his girlfriend was specifically designed to keep people out, perfectly reasonable and desirable in Sanford, Florida. Being able to keep intruders out in Sanford would make the property more valuable.

Who was the aggressor? Zimmerman might have argued that Trayvon was the aggressor. I could speculate about what a kid from Miami might think about a hispanic looking guy in Sanford trying to stop him.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 26, 2012 9:12 PM
Comment #339640

Rich says; “You fail to answer the question. Who was the aggressor? Who instigated the unfortunate confrontation? Who stalked who?”

Sounds to me like you gat it all figured out.

By the way, I told what gated communities are like in the Villages. I never said they were all like that. But it sounds like you are making a deucton of what Zimmerman;s community was like, based on the dispatchers language.

Do you actually know anything about the community in question? Real facts and not something you read on a liberal blog.

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 26, 2012 9:29 PM
Comment #339641

Stephen

You are becoming unmoored from reality. A racial slur that only some people can hear? Sort of like the racial slur they claimed the Tea Party made that none of the tapes contained. On drugs? Is there any basis to make this statement.


I am perplexed by this. When we had actual terrorists in Guantanamo, you and others were quick to point out that the evidence against them was circumstantial and that it was shameful to make assumptions. Now you are doing that to an American citizen. Is it true that only terrorists are worth defending by liberals?

What we know is that there was an altercation that left a young man dead. It seems to have been a situation that got out of hand.

We have absolutely no indication of racism involved. We have no indication of drugs.

So what are those clowns Jackson and Sharpton doing there?

Should we not condemn race baiting where we find it?

Posted by: C&J at March 26, 2012 10:01 PM
Comment #339642

“Rich says; “You fail to answer the question. Who was the aggressor? Who instigated the unfortunate confrontation? Who stalked who?”

Billinflorida,

I asked the question. Do you wish to answer? I think that there was an unfortunate confrontation between an aggressive “watch captain” and an unsuspecting urban teenager who didn’t know why he was being followed. The teenager tried to get away from his follower but was eventually was trapped by the “watch captain.” A fight ensued. The teenager was shot. Like I said earlier, the perfect storm.

Posted by: Rich at March 26, 2012 10:06 PM
Comment #339643

Trayvon should have been or more likely was aware of the security protocols of the place where he was visiting. It’s pretty obvious if the place has a gate, which probably has a guard shack or a call box where you have to enter a security code or phone in to get the gate opened.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 26, 2012 10:26 PM
Comment #339645
I believe there are gated communities in LA, Hollywood. Who do the movie actors fear?

California is the land of Reagan & Nixon, I don’t know what point you are trying to make.

perhaps you could tell us if the Kennedy clan live in gated communities, or if they have personal guards?

From what I know, the Kennedy compound is only lightly secured. Read this for more info.

Generally, Bay Staters are quite reserved people. We don’t have much flashy glitz and we don’t have much of a crime problem. I guess there’s probably a gated community somewhere around where I grew up, these sorts of arrangements are quite rare.

As an example of the trust that exists in Massachusetts, I’ll also cite the fact that Michael Dukakis routinely rode the subway from Brookline to Beacon Hill. In this photograph you can see that he regularly mingled with his fellow commuters.

That’s because these people live in the real world, they don’t live with mommy and daddy, and they certainly can’t count on the police to protect them.
Although I grew up in Massachusetts, I’ve recently been renting an apartment on Long Island near where I work and go to school. Although I respect other people’s right to bear arms, I do not feel a need for concealed carry myself at the moment.
we are talking about Florida retirement communities
I hardly believe the 28-year-old Zimmerman was living in a retirement community.
Who brought race into the Zimmerman/Martin case
C&J put the word “racism” right in the title of the article they posted.
If CCW wasn’t successful, there would be a whole lot less states which have the law.
Textbook example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.


Let me tell you what is going to happen Stephen: Zimmerman will walk; they will find no evidence against him.

Oh, I see you have it all figured out. No need for Zimmerman to be acquitted or convicted by a jury. Billinflorida knows everything and has it all figured out.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 26, 2012 10:33 PM
Comment #339653

Billinflorida-
I find it very interesting the different defense mechanisms you use to try and back away from your claim of my ignorance. Just tell me where I’m wrong, don’t try to claim I’m ignorant in advance. You might end up making another mistaken assumption.

As for your huffiness about self-defense, I would have, thanks to the far greater proportion of people who never fire a gun in self-defense, perceived or actual, a far more difficult time listing all the people who never get to use the gun as they mean to use it. Or are you not going to concede that far more people own guns than are ever forced to use them in defense?

As for your predictions? Well, I suppose anything could happen, but the fact is that much of the information that casts such a dismal light on Zimmerman was not used by the police in their first encounter with him on the night of the killing. So, if your argument is that they saw all of the evidence and made a reasoned judgment that no crime was committed, you would be wrong. He might not be convicted, the law being what it is, but his days of being a free man are numbered, and with good reason.

Oh, by the way, if you bother us about having supposedly prejudged his case, without a trial or anything, we’ll have to throw your prediction right back in your face. You’ve already made your decision, and I think the fact that a) Nationally known black activists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have gotten involved, b) that President Obama sounds sympathetic to them, and c) the outcome of the case could pose a threat to your idealized vision of a nation where everybody carries a gun and has showdowns with properly intimidated criminals, have a lot to do with which way you see this case.

I think it was sadly predictable from the start how too many on the right would react. For my part, I think if you can’t step back and rationalize your position from an ordinary standpoint, in ordinary language free of political jargon, then you’ve gone too far.

We have the police for a reason: because other, unofficial people trying to take the law into their own hands would often be taking their lives into their own hands, too, and people seem somewhat touchy about things like life and death.

I’d say that it only works to have self-defense laws on the books if they discourage violent confrontations, rather than encourage them, and when folk’s suspicions can lead to them taking such drastic actions and claiming self-defense, it’s hard to say that the law isn’t encouraging people to take the law into their own hands, with mortal consequences for themselves or others.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2012 8:39 AM
Comment #339654

WR and SD; we are seeing news reports on the local news that are not showing up on the national news. National news competes against each other for the most sensational stories. Local news does not. I live 40 miles from Sanford and believe me, we are hearing different stories than you.

Yes, I make a bold prediction; but it is based on the information at hand. Unlike your predictions that are based on race and sound bites from Sharpton, Jackson, Obama, Mohammad, a mysterious cell call to his girlfriend, or even SD’s insinuation that Zimmerman was on drugs; my predictions is based upon the law. Zimmerman was legally armed, he was legally volunteering as a watch in his gated neighborhood, he was legally within the law to defend himself if he felt his life was in danger, and there was a witness that he was being attacked by Martin. The sole purpose of the left is to make a race issue out of thia for political reasons, of which Obama would love.

Answer me this, if the police had showed up before the shooting and found 6’3” 170 lb football player Martin on top of Zimmerman, a community security watch, and punching him in the face, who would the police have arrested?

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 27, 2012 9:12 AM
Comment #339655
Local news does not.

If you believe local news doesn’t suffer from the same trend toward sensationalism, then you are very naive. Nevertheless, I’ll accept that the local media is probably better able to present the facts as they become availible.

Just so you know, the wonders of the internet enable me to read the Orlando Sentinel just as easily as you do. Zimmerman told the police that Martin attacked him as he was returning to his SUV. Fine. However, we must not dismiss Trayvon Martin’s right to “stand your ground” and use deadly force against a man who gave Martin definite reason to fear for his life.

race and sound bites from Sharpton, Jackson, Obama, Mohammad
If you seriously think either Stephen or I are getting opinions from the NBP then you need to get your head reexamined. I will also say that I have not read or listened to anything said by Shaprton, Jackson or Obama apart from what may have been quoted in the headlines.
a mysterious cell call to his girlfriend
Zimmerman’s own claims are uncollaborated just as much as her claims are. If the Sanford PD had done their jobs, Zimmerman & this girlfriend could appear in court and the jury could decide, but the Sanford police still refuse to enforce the law. The Sanford police did not give Trayvon Martin the presumption of innocence that he deserves under our justice system. Instead, they tried and convicted him before obtaining all the facts.
if the police had showed up before the shooting and found 6’3” 170 lb football player Martin on top of Zimmerman, a community security watch, and punching him in the face, who would the police have arrested?

I don’t know about the Sanford police because they seem to think its OK for an armed man to follow an unarmed kid before shooting him. If the police were competent, then they’d probably forecbly end the fight. Mr. Martin would tell them that Zimmerman was pursuing him with a gun and claim he was defending himself against bodily harm. The police would certainly arrest Zimmerman, but they’d probably arrest Martin as well. That way the local prosecuters would have the flexibility to determine who to file charges against. Martin would probably have to defend his self-defense claims in court.

If the police showed up 30 seconds earlier and found an armed Zimmerman pursuing an unarmed kid 2/3 of his size who would they arrest?

it is based on the information at hand

Please do share if I am missing something.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 27, 2012 10:33 AM
Comment #339657

Is it the goal of the left to argue, just for the sake of arguing?

1st, I am glad you concede that we may get a little more information from the local news.

“Zimmerman’s own claims are uncollaborated just as much as her claims are. If the Sanford PD had done their jobs, Zimmerman & this girlfriend could appear in court and the jury could decide, but the Sanford police still refuse to enforce the law.”

The killing took place almost a month ago; at what point did the girl tell the police about the phone call? Was it before the police’s initial investigation or after? Did the police find a record of the phone call or not? Was the girl lying about the phone call? It would be easy to check, but I have heard nothing.

“I don’t know about the Sanford police because they seem to think its OK for an armed man to follow an unarmed kid before shooting him.”

Zimmerman was legally armed, what don’t you understand about that?

“If the police were competent, then they’d probably forecbly end the fight. Mr. Martin would tell them that Zimmerman was pursuing him with a gun and claim he was defending himself against bodily harm.”

You’re assuming that Zimmerman had his gun out; wrong assumption. If Zimmerman had his gun out while pursuing Martin, it would be in direct opposition to conceal carry rules and training. Conceal carry rules require the gun to be concealed and you are making a supposition that he had his gun out, with no proof to back it up. Have you or SD ever gone through CCW training?

“The police would certainly arrest Zimmerman, but they’d probably arrest Martin as well. That way the local prosecuters would have the flexibility to determine who to file charges against. Martin would probably have to defend his self-defense claims in court.”

You’re basing your conclusion that the police would have arrested Zimmerman on the supposition that he had his gun out. You have no evidence that it was out.

“If the police showed up 30 seconds earlier and found an armed Zimmerman pursuing an unarmed kid 2/3 of his size who would they arrest?”

Again, you don’t know at what time Zimmerman headed back to his car; did he do it after the police told him to back off or was it later? You don’t know, and even if the police had showed up 30 seconds earlier and found Zimmerman still following Martin, they would not have arrested him because he was legally carrying a weapon and within his rights as a community watch to keep an eye on the guy. You need to get the idea that he was armed out of your head; Zimmerman had as much right to be armed as the police did.

“it is based on the information at hand”

What I have said is based on the information at hand, your conclusion is based on what you think is legal or illegal.

“Please do share if I am missing something.”

If the police had shown up before the shooting and found Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating him, as the witness has said, Martin would have been arrested. Sorry, but those are the facts. As usual, the left looks at things like this through the eyes of emotion, rather than logic.

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 27, 2012 11:49 AM
Comment #339659

This article http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/was-trayvon-martin-a-drug-dealer might shed some additional light on Trayvon from researching social media.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 27, 2012 12:06 PM
Comment #339662

ohrealy, this has to be propaganda; we all know Trayvon was an innocent little boy with a bag of Skittles. This has to be the most racist attempt to paint him as a troubled teen, right? Come on lefties, defend this kid.

Posted by: Thomas at March 27, 2012 12:31 PM
Comment #339666

Funny that a Stephen D showed up in the comments section of that Wagist article with comments that sound very familiar.

Should Trayvon’s mother try to get an endorsement deal for Skittles? Those things are awful, corn syrup covered with sugar and food coloring.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 27, 2012 2:13 PM
Comment #339670

Billinflorida-
Come on. In the absence of positive proof, I would readily admit that there was no proof he was on drugs of any kind, even no-doz. That would not mean he wasn’t, but I’m not about to rest a heavy edifice of an argument on top of an argument from ignorance.

Even so, what if the new investigations indicate things that contradict the claims of self-defense? You tell me, are you mature enough here to accept results that don’t fit with your expectations?

Let’s say evidence comes that he downed several beers before he went out. Then he shouldn’t have had that gun on him. Let’s say that a new witness or security video shows Trayvon trying to get away from the guy?

Nobody knows everything. I’ll readily admit it. There are scenarios under which this killing is justified. The problem here was that the conclusion was come to in a sloppy fashion, with only a perfunctory investigation. Because of that, there’s ambiguity where there should be clarity, and people are just able to fill in whatever suits their sensibilities.

You may not have respect for institutions that come to conclusions that are not dependent on your political beliefs, but I am. What we need is justice here, and justice depends on the facts.

You can blather on about what we want. It seems every version you come up with becomes more outlandish than the next. Everything we do, in your view, seems to be “for the evulz”. What’s next, the competitive puppy punting competition?

And now you have people trying to paint him as a drug dealer, trying the victim’s character in an effort to excuse the lack of good judgment on everybody’s part, and the lack of trust in the rule of law.

Lastly, let me ask you folks a question here: If one person having a gun and another means nothing in terms of self defense, then why do you guys fight like the bloody hell to keep your guns?

Fact of the matter is, the person who drew that gun escalated that situation. I mean, has anybody established whether the gun might have been struggled for, or whether the injuries to his head and face came before or after the introduction of the gun into the fight?

It may very well be that each of these people exchanged roles as aggressor and victim, the anger and adrenaline driving both. What matters is who was the aggressor when Trayvon was shot, because unless the law applies inequally to Trayvon, he had as much right to stand his ground, being legally there as a minor under his father’s care, as Zimmerman did, and as much right to defend himself from the threat of lethal force.

The folks on the Right here are not considering Trayvon’s right to self defense, and that is telling. They have already made the assumption that Trayvon was some sort of thug and got what was coming to him, and that Zimmerman was merely following the law. That he might have a right to fight back doesn’t occur to these people, even if he is every bit as gangsta as they want folks to believe.

There are plenty of people who wear clothing like him, who project an appearance like him, who are nonetheless law abiding citizens. The threshold for officers of the law to act is probable cause, not suspicion based on appearance. In the course of my life I have encountered plenty of punks, gangstas and goths who are reasonable sorts of people. They shouldn’t be subject to arrest, or in this case to being chased by a civilian who’s been told to lay off by polices, simply because of how he looks.

A reasonable conversation could have saved a life here.

Many people confuse the concept of self-defense with an aggressive, pre-emptive pursuit of perceived enemies. There’s a difference between finding yourself in trouble, and defending yourself, and getting yourself in trouble, and I believe Zimmerman, whatever his intentions, got himself in trouble.

Thomas-
I think there are people who need to defend policies that haven’t exactly had the results they promised, so degrading the reputation of the dead, unarmed victim of a shooting seems the better alternative to a discussion on the merits.

Nobody’s disputing that Zimmerman had the gun, and Trayvon did not.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2012 4:09 PM
Comment #339671

Thomas, How can you defend him if all the facts are still being investigated. IMO you lefties need to wait until the special prosecuter has all the facts and makes a ruling weather to prosecute or not. The point is not to jump to a judgement and then have it bite you in the A** later.

Posted by: KAP at March 27, 2012 4:13 PM
Comment #339672

Stephen, read comment 339671 refers to you to.

Posted by: KAP at March 27, 2012 4:16 PM
Comment #339674

ohrealy-
Not funny. Those are my comments. I’m not about to go, “Oh, there’s this Stephen D. guy on this site who agrees with me” and sockpuppet myself.

As for the endorsement deal, one of the things that’s constantly surprising me nowadays is the depths to which some will go to win a debate.

It pains me. Tell me, what kind of a country are you pushing for? There seems to be this attitude that if the cause is just, it doesn’t matter what you do to achieve that. Unfortunately for you, it does matter. I read what you write, and I wonder, what kind of a person promotes this kind of kneecapping of other people’s reputations?

Besides, if you really examine the evidence, neither set of facts are relevant to the case. They are relevant to trying to sour public opinion on people. You know what, though? You’ve already lost, and I have a feeling you’re not going to do your self much more good trying to trample the victim’s reputation, and that of the family.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2012 4:51 PM
Comment #339677

KAP, I am a conservative. I was being facetious. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Posted by: Thomas at March 27, 2012 5:08 PM
Comment #339678

Stephen Daugherty, the ignorance is on your part for even suggesting Zimmerman was on drugs, and I might add, with absolutely no evidence. But this is how the left works; never have a debate on the subject, just attack the person.

“Even so, what if the new investigations indicate things that contradict the claims of self-defense? You tell me, are you mature enough here to accept results that don’t fit with your expectations?”

Unlike you Stephen, I have no problem letting the law run its course. If Zimmerman is guilty, then so be it.

“Let’s say evidence comes that he downed several beers before he went out. Then he shouldn’t have had that gun on him. Let’s say that a new witness or security video shows Trayvon trying to get away from the guy?”

If he was drinking, he was in violation of his CCW permit.

What is it with you Stephen, you come on here making these “IF” scenarios. I do not have a problem with the law being enforced and the law being followed. On the other hand, I don’t believe you, Sharpton, Jackson, Mohamad, Obama, and now the Democrats in Congress to create a race issue where there is none. I have determined from some of your statements on WB that you feel guilty that you are white and privileged, so you have determined to live your life calling all white people racist. Tell me I’m wrong?

“You may not have respect for institutions that come to conclusions that are not dependent on your political beliefs, but I am. What we need is justice here, and justice depends on the facts.”

I have all respect for lawful institutions, but you don’t. It wasn’t me who called the local police department a bunch of racist buffoons, it was you Stephen. I have confidence in the original police call and it will be seen to be right.

Re/ guns…blah, blah, blah

Now let me ask you a question Stephen Daugherty; if Zimmerman is found innocent and acting in self defense, will you be willing to apologize for calling him a racist, on drugs or drunk, and admit he was within his Constitutional legal rights to defend himself?

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 27, 2012 5:09 PM
Comment #339680

There seems to be this attitude that if the cause is just, it doesn’t matter what you do to achieve that. Unfortunately for you, it does matter. I read what you write, and I wonder, what kind of a person promotes this kind of kneecapping of other people’s reputations?

That’s exactly what you do all the time, for years. You pose here as a liberal, but really you’re an opportunist who is trying to create a reputation for himself by latching on to the president’s bandwagon. You say anything and repeat anything that will serve your agenda, whether or not you believe a word of it. Just because the people farther to the right keep attacking you, doesn’t make you into a spokesperson for the left. I’ve seen it all before.

You can’t change the reality that Trayvon was a punk and Zimmerman sounds like a reasonable guy, and supposedly a registered democrat, so why aren’t you defending him instead of attacking him? Because the president says that Trayvon looks like him?

Posted by: ohrealy at March 27, 2012 5:17 PM
Comment #339683

Billinflorida-
It seems to me that you’re talking in talkingpointese, a language where every statement seems to be the predictable product of focus grouped testing.

I will take you at your word that you want a thorough investigation, you having said that. Take me at my word, and we’ll have an understanding.

I pose hypotheticals as a way of indicating the need to think about the law not in overarching melodramatics, but in terms of the different tests and standards the law provides. I think we need to understand that good law cannot merely be well intended, it has to be written well, so those who are guilty of real offenses aren’t let off the hook, and those who aren’t don’t get railroaded.

As far as everything else goes, let me just comment that I will accept the results of a thorough investigation. That doesn’t mean, though that I or others like me won’t go and try and get the law changed, or vote out those whose decisions we disagreed with. It won’t mean that I get left with a lasting good feeling about George Zimmerman. But I will accept as binding law and legal decisions that are counter to my own, and which survive legal challenge.

I know that sounds like a lawyer’s answer, but I’m trying to parse something out here. You’re trying to phrase things almost as if I have to admit the virtue of the other position in order to concede the legal matters. That, I would say, is where you, not I, have become confused.

The law isn’t about feelings. Feelings are vague, subjective. Laws need to be precise in their language precisely because the limits they provide are tested on their logic and not merely their intended meaning.

I’ve done research on self-defense, and gone to class for a semester, and both sources of information on the subject emphasized that the best way to defend yourself from a dangerous situation is not to put yourself in that position in first place. A person who goes out of their way to put themselves in that position shoulders more of the blame for the situation, especially in the eyes of the law, than somebody who goes out of their way to avoid it.

Now, unfortunately, that law down in Florida may define self-defense so broadly that it’s perfectly possible to provoke somebody into self-defense, kill them, and you get off scott free because you’re the last person alive apart from the witnesses, to who shot, stabbed, or whatever first.

Now if that’s what your law is encouraging, it’s not doing law and order a favor.

I bring the hypotheticals in to make sure people know the outcomes under the law isn’t merely some matter of right thinking, opinion-wise, but also a matter of how the facts interact with the law and its logic. I mean, we could succeed in seeing him arrested and convicted, only to see things overturned because we screwed up on some point of law,and that would be a shamed. If he can be convicted of murder under current law, we have to do it right.

Just as I would say that the police have to get their investigation right, because otherwise the law isn’t fully and rightly carried out. You need to understand that I can separate my opinion and my preferences from the question of what the right course to take in dealing with the law, its interpretation and its execution. I understand the process is complicated, and it doesn’t revolve around me.

If more people understood politics that way, the discussion would be better on all sides.

ohrealy-
Hmmm. I complain about how your character assassinations make you look, and you respond with another ad hominem argument. Damn! Don’t make it so easy!

I don’t say things I don’t buy myself. I’m very much in the moderate/liberal orbit of the president, and I very much like and appreciate his approach to politics. That’s the honest truth!

As for an agenda? If only you knew me. You would understand just how difficult it is for a person like me to be that duplicitous. Again, I don’t support things I don’t like.

And lastly, what reality? That’s just your opinions, presented as facts! Trayvon was a seventeen year old kid. Was he a punk? Perhaps. But even in Florida, being a punk doesn’t justify homicide. And Zimmerman? He doesn’t sound reasonable. He sounds like somebody who wanted to play hero, and thought he had the right to do that.

The fact that he’s a registered Democrat means ****-all to me, and to the millions of Democrats who have come down against him. Why should I defend him on such irrelevant grounds? I don’t defend Trayvon Martin because he’s black, I defend him because he an unarmed young man who got shot, and whose killer walked away with a far too perfunctory investigation, for whatever reason. That’s why over three quarters of Americans support the arrest of his killer.

The nuances of the case may made a difference, but overall, it’s hard to summon sympathy for the guy who shot an unarmed man after having chased him down.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2012 6:30 PM
Comment #339686

You haven’t done your research again. There have been nearly a hundred cases like this one in Florida since the law came into effect. The fact that the media has jumped on this one and others are capitalizing on it, while stating things that they don’t know to be true at all, or know to be untrue, as you just did, doesn’t alter the reality.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 27, 2012 7:45 PM
Comment #339689

“The law isn’t about feelings. Feelings are vague, subjective. Laws need to be precise in their language precisely because the limits they provide are tested on their logic and not merely their intended meaning.”

Good point Stephen, but this exactly how the left has approached this whole case; through the prism of feeling and emotion.

I personally don’t give a rat’s ass if you take me at my word or not. I told you I would accept whatever the law decides, which is much more than the mumbo-jumbo you came out with. You want to change the laws? Why don’t you start with Texas, your home state, and see how far you get with gun laws?

I believe I asked you if you had gone through CCW training and your answer was:

“I’ve done research on self-defense, and gone to class for a semester, and both sources of information on the subject emphasized that the best way to defend yourself from a dangerous situation is not to put yourself in that position in first place. A person who goes out of their way to put themselves in that position shoulders more of the blame for the situation, especially in the eyes of the law, than somebody who goes out of their way to avoid it.”

So, the short answer is: NO you have not, and NO you have no military training. So in other words, you don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Your theories are BS.

You bring in hypotheticals because that is what liberals do. Instead of dealing in hypotheticals, why don’t you try reality? I will repost what I said in the red column, so you might get a better understanding of Florida law:


The reason the Florida AG would not have Zimmerman arrested and charged is because he could not win the case, and the AG stated this in Rich’s link. The “Stand Your Ground” law in Florida, also known as the Castle Doctrine, is not restricted to home or auto. The law applies to any place you may be. It doesn’t matter if a dispatcher told him to back off, it’s not relevant. It is seen as nothing more than a suggestion and does not have to be obeyed. You liberals just can’t seem to grasp the CCW law either. He had a gun on him because he could have a gun on him. He was legal and it doesn’t matter how you feel about it, it’s the law. I have a CCW and I carry ALL the time, I do so because I want to and because I can and it’s the same with Zimmerman. Now you can get all emotional and whine and cry all you want, but Zimmerman was well within his rights to be where he was and carrying a weapon. Now concerning the arrest; Zimmerman claimed it was self defense and he felt his life was threatened. You may not like that, and you may call him a liar, but that’s how it is. Under Florida SYG law, it is the responsibility of the State to prove his life WAS NOT in danger. If they cannot prove he is lying, they do not have a case. Every one of you liberals calling for Zimmerman’s head are basing your argument on emotion and not the law. The Florida State AG knew that he didn’t even have a case of manslaughter. It doesn’t matter if Martin was 17 or 27 years of age.

The reason Sharpton, Jackson, Obama, Mohammad (of NBP), and all the left and MSM are crying hate crime and racism is for the purpose of getting Eric Holder to go after Zimmerman. This is a back door attempt to hang Zimmerman. The problem is that Zimmerman is Hispanic and lives in a completely integrated neighborhood. To top that off, he has black friends who are coming to his defense, including a former CNN reporter (Bryant) who is a close friend. The witness who testified to the police was also black and he testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him in the face. He testified that Zimmerman was calling for help. You may not like any of this, and you may cry foul, and whine and cry, but it’s what happened. Anything else is nothing more than BS. Unless the authorities can come up with anything else, Zimmerman will be exonerated.

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 27, 2012 8:22 PM
Comment #339690

ohrealy, the left has only one reason for publicising this case and that is politics. They jumped on this when the heard the name Zimmerman and thought he was a white guy. A white guy kills a black guy; now this is good for exciting the black base to vote for Obama. The problem is, Zimmerman is a registered Democrat Hispanic. The wedge Obama is trying to drive in between people may be between blacks and Hispanics, which could hurt him. Obama stuck his nose into it hoping to divide the nation and excite his base. Do you honestly think he cares about a black kid in Florida; he didn’t even give a shit about his own black uncle in America, or his poverty ridden black family in Kenya.

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 27, 2012 8:30 PM
Comment #339717

ohrealy-
Look, if you’re going to talk about reality, offer facts, not merely opinions, because reality to me is evidence, is conclusions backed by credible information. It is your opinion that he’s a punk. Some folks might allege he’s a drug dealer or a drug user, but the kid had no record, had no drugs on him at the time of his homicide, and most importantly, no drugs in him.

That’s reality. Additionally, there are no reports of him actually committing a crime.

I think what got people’s attention in this case was the disregard for the victim and his family. The police seem to have quickly sided with Zimmerman, even going so far as to tell witnesses who reported hearing Martin that they were actually hearing Zimmerman. Well, the police weren’t there, so why are they clarifying things for witnesses? Martin’s family remained ignorant of their son’s fate for three days, while Zimmerman, despite quite a bit of troubling evidence, went free. Much of what spurred the controversy wasn’t even investigated by police before it was brought up elsewhere.

At the very least, it seems to me that the police were negligent, if not supportive of the killer.

Now, you can pretend that nobody’s should feel anything about this, but people are emotional creatures. The question is, does logic and fact constrain their beliefs. I find it interesting that the title of the article that got cited above is a leading question, in and of itself: Is Trayvon Martin a Drug Dealer?

The problem is, it’s not even a relevant question, based on the evidence. You have no evidence on or in Martin that he was selling or consuming drugs. You have no convictions whatsoever for drug offenses on his record. Zimmerman’s got more of a record than him. Lastly, there’s absolutely no evidence that Martin was dealing drugs there, which might make him a legitimate target for suspicion.

So, he could be a fricking kingpin for all we know, and it wouldn’t matter to this case one bit, because he didn’t have drugs, didn’t have them in his system, and he certainly wasn’t dealing them in that neighborhood. Its meant to turn people against the victim, but it’s irrelevant, and that makes it prejudicial appeal, rather than an important element to the case.

The responses of those on the right has not been to produce evidence that fundamentally proves Zimmerman’s case, it’s been to produce speculation that makes the victim look bad, to undermine people’s sympathy for the victim. If you look at it as a matter of law, though, it wouldn’t matter one whit. It’s just the usual game of character assassination that goes on, in the defense of political objectives.

Billinflorida-
No, I haven’t been through concealed carry training, but there’s a problem with trying to nail me on that fact: I wasn’t really resting my argument on the concealed carry element in the first place. I wasn’t arguing that Zimmerman didn’t have the legal right to be armed, however wise or unwise that was, I was arguing that his arguments for the killing being in self-defense are clouded at best.

I have, though, taken self-defense courses, and I recounted what they said about various consequences for one’s actions. Nowhere is self-defense a simple matter. That argument doesn’t depend on any concealed carry training, so your argument that it invalidates my point is itself invalid.

As for the hypotheticals? You know what, this is like giving Obama crap for teleprompters. It’s a common form of argument, and you can’t really have much of a worthwhile conversation about the law without it, since it’s all about what the possible consequences of the law are. For example, Justice Kagan asked the Solicitor General today, that if somebody paid the mandate penalty rather than get insurance, would they have to say yes if they were asked whether they’d ever broken a federal law? (the answer was no, so long as they paid the tax)

If you want to cripple your discourse just so you can attack liberals, fine by me. But if we’re going to have conversations about the law, I’m going to bring in cases and hypotheticals so we can talk about the consequences.

I find it interesting that you keep on refering back to the Concealed carry law. Why are you doing that? It’s not really a matter in great dispute. The real question is whether he was right to shoot that gun, not if he was right to carry it? Is it Zimmerman you’re really trying to protect?

And really, self-defense laws pretty much stop being relevant once the person is no longer a threat. If Zimmerman had a gun on Martin, and Martin, seeing a gun out, stopped trying to beat on him, or reacted to escape, then no castle doctrine, no Stand Your Ground law can help him.

As for the rest? Obama’s not trying to drive a wedge between anybody. Zimmerman isn’t being troubled over the fact that he’s Hispanic. Nor is the race of the friends important. It all seems to be a “I’ve got black friends” defense, which does ****-all to invalidate any claim that he might have a certain racial bias when it comes to his reports and his suspicions. After all, many racists out there make a distinction between good blacks and n*****s, saying they only hate the latter. Living in an integrated neighborhood does not mutually exclude people carrying biases personally, only that those biases are so strong that the person couldn’t stand to live in a diverse neighborhood.

A lot of your logic works like this. You want us to confuse likely and unlikely with certainty and impossibility.

As for your claims about the prosecutors. Funny you should mention that. The lead detective for the case recommended that he be charged with manslaughter. Seems he felt that Zimmerman’s account had some serious inconsistencies.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 28, 2012 8:46 AM
Comment #339721

Stephen Daugherty, your comments to ohrealy:

“Look, if you’re going to talk about reality, offer facts, not merely opinions, because reality to me is evidence, is conclusions backed by credible information. It is your opinion that he’s a punk. Some folks might allege he’s a drug dealer or a drug user, but the kid had no record, had no drugs on him at the time of his homicide, and most importantly, no drugs in him.”

You have not dealt with facts in any post you have made. You show outrage at news articles questioning whether Martin was a drug dealer, and yet you are the one who introduced the idea that Zimmerman was on drugs or drinking.

“I find it interesting that you keep on refering back to the Concealed carry law. Why are you doing that? It’s not really a matter in great dispute. The real question is whether he was right to shoot that gun, not if he was right to carry it? Is it Zimmerman you’re really trying to protect?”

I go to this point because you and your liberal friends have said Zimmerman had no right to have a weapon on him, or that he was violating the law in using it. When a person gets a CCW, they have to go through training, not the Mickey Mouse self defense training you went through, but training with a weapon and how and when to use it. Your training simply tells you how to run; CCW training teaches you how to de-escalate a situation, but that pulling the weapon is a last resort.

This next statement is ignorant and inflaming and you have absolutely no proof of what you say:

“And really, self-defense laws pretty much stop being relevant once the person is no longer a threat. If Zimmerman had a gun on Martin, and Martin, seeing a gun out, stopped trying to beat on him, or reacted to escape, then no castle doctrine, no Stand Your Ground law can help him.”

Tell me Stephen, do you have evidence that Zimmerman pulled the gun on Martin before Martin broke his nose and knocked him to the ground? Or is this just more of your bull shit hype? I am beginning to believe another writer who says you are simply a liberal plant on WB for the purpose of promoting a liberal agenda. You don’t make any sense.

“As for the rest? Obama’s not trying to drive a wedge between anybody. Zimmerman isn’t being troubled over the fact that he’s Hispanic. Nor is the race of the friends important. It all seems to be a “I’ve got black friends” defense, which does ****-all to invalidate any claim that he might have a certain racial bias when it comes to his reports and his suspicions. After all, many racists out there make a distinction between good blacks and n*****s, saying they only hate the latter. Living in an integrated neighborhood does not mutually exclude people carrying biases personally, only that those biases are so strong that the person couldn’t stand to live in a diverse neighborhood.”

Tell me Stephen, was it Zimmerman who said he had black friends, or was it his black friends who came to his defense. Your theory of “I’ve got black friends” is baseless. Just another liberal trick. He worked for the neighborhood, therefore being integrated does matter. He was working for all families in the neighborhood.

And finally, your last stupid statement:

“As for your claims about the prosecutors. Funny you should mention that. The lead detective for the case recommended that he be charged with manslaughter. Seems he felt that Zimmerman’s account had some serious inconsistencies.”

So Stephen, who determines if the prosecutors have a case? Is it the prosecutor or is it the investigator? You point is moot and means nothing. It doesn’t matter what the investigator “felt”; which once again proves that liberals are emotional and deal with feely/touchy issues. Who cares what he felt? The question is the evidence and the prosecutor did not believe it was there.

Funny you should try to bring up the SCOTUS and obamacare. Are you trying to change the subject?

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 28, 2012 9:47 AM
Comment #339728

Martin’s family remained ignorant of their son’s fate for three days

They may not even have known that he was in Sanford, since they apparently weren’t looking for him there. Use logic and reason.

It’s just the usual game of character assassination that goes on, in the defense of political objectives

That’s a little bit too long to be your new motto, better make it more concise.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 28, 2012 12:59 PM
Comment #339730

What was he doing visiting his father’s girlfriend in Sanford with out his dad being there? In fact, no one knew where he was, as ohrealy said.

Posted by: Frank at March 28, 2012 1:05 PM
Comment #339735

Billinflorida-
What is it with you and hypotheticals? We’re discussing a homicide here. Note I don’t say murder outright. Why? Because Homicide is a legal term that accompasses any killing, justified or not. If we’re discussing whether it was a justified homicide or not, then we have to discuss matters of judgment, and the police ought to be examining the suspect and testing them to be sure of their sobriety and ability to tell right from wrong.

It’s only logical. But you stretch that discussion on my part into an actual claim that he was drunk or otherwise intoxicated. I didn’t say that. In fact when you first accused me of that, I had little problem in disclaiming any assumption that he was intoxicated.

But as is typical, you ignored what I said, and proceed to bash me for what I haven’t said.

Meanwhile, you use that as a means to justify the bringing of that loathsome character assassination into play. Only you aren’t using it hypothetically, you’re trying to establish it as fact.

But even if you succeed, It will never be relevant to the case! He was not caught dealing drugs. In fact, Zimmerman would have no idea about it. Trayvon did not have any drugs in his system, so it doesn’t bear on his actions. He didn’t have any drugs on his person, so it doesn’t justify treating him as a suspicious person within the rational bounds of what George Zimmerman could have seen or observed. As even Florida law doesn’t permit shooting people simply for looking like thugs or punks, however he appeared is irrelevant. There’s a difference between plugging somebody for being pyschologically threatening to you, and them being an actual threat to life and limb.

As for being a liberal plant? Man. I’m not that much of a joiner, and I was asked to blog for Watchblog. I planted my ass here, nobody else. But it would be convenient for your argument if things were otherwise. You could state that you have to pay somebody to believe what we say, you could also dismiss anything and everything I say as being a talking point (not that it would make much difference at this point).

Notice that I’ve never accused you of anything of the sort. The absence of such tactics comes from the fact that I think they’re cheap and do very little to actually persuade people. You rely on Rush Limbaugh-style vilification and disqualification to convince people you’re right, and your opponents are wrong. You rely on telling people they’ve lost the argument, that they’re this or that, rather than getting to the real business of where the facts are, and where they aren’t.

On the subject of “black friends”, again you’re misreading what I wrote. The issue is whether it’s logically necessary that somebody who has black friends be without the taint of racial bias. Of course, many people who say or do racist things cite having friends of other races as being a clear sign that they aren’t biased, so really, it’s a dead horse argument that’s already been beaten to death. I have been clear in saying, additionally, that Zimmerman doesn’t need to be a completely hostile racist for it to be a problem for him. He only has to have enough of a bias to nail a teenager in a hoodie as a likely criminal, and sadly that’s not an uncommon level of bias. Unfortunately, Zimmerman combined that with a tendency to want to play hero by going after that young man, rather than leaving it for police to accomplish.

As for the last part? Look, the guy who was the lead investigator on the case basically believes that he should be charged with manslaughter. In other words, the lead cop doesn’t buy the self-defense argument. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t a major tenet of Zimmerman’s supporters defense been that the police in all their wisdom decided not to charge him with a crime? Well, doesn’t this kind of blow that out of the water?

I guess that leaves you saying that the prosecutor in all their wisdom didn’t think he was guilty of anything… except the prosecutor doesn’t have the job of saying whether or not a crime has been committed, but rather of convicting somebody on that beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a much higher standard.

Speaking of higher standards, if I wanted to deflect attention onto another subject, I do have the ability to write a blog entry. I provided an example of a hypothetical being used by a Supreme Court Justice as part of an example defending the use of hypotheticals as legitimate

Frank, ohrealy-
Long story short, I think most of Trayvon’s supporters would consider what they did awful, and not at all helpful. What, are you trying to character assassinate his supporters just as you are doing him? There’s no point in defending the actions of those few.

Trayvon’s doesn’t have to be a saint, free from discipline problems, for him to be able to defend his own life. You accept one version of the story, I tend to believe another, but we both have to be prepared for the investigation to yield up a considerably different conclusion than we expect.

For my money, the fact that the detectives recommended manslaughter charges, rather than considering it a justified killing speaks volumes as to Zimmerman’s credibility problems, and why people looking at the case, by a strong majority, shake their heads about why the guy wasn’t arrested. In fact, according to the legal expert who spoke on the clip accompanying my source on the detectives, if it weren’t for that “stand your ground” law, he believes the man would already have been charged with manslaughter.

As for the rest? I think questions like those miss some obvious points: kids run away, or end up with friends, and just because they didn’t call police immediately doesn’t mean that they didn’t care. The article also answers another question which your side has made the most cynical interpretation of, concerning the trademarks: Trayvon’s mother wished to prevent others from exploiting her son’s memory. Since a trademark does function to restrain others from doing business with the given slogan or symbol, that is a legitimate use. How she uses the trademarks will tell us which interpretation is true.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 28, 2012 5:02 PM
Comment #339747

Evidently the broken nose story is just that: a story. One very big lie exposed…..what’s next?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/george-zimmerman-police-surveillance-16024475

Posted by: steve miller at March 28, 2012 8:23 PM
Comment #339748

One problem with the video, Where is the time/date stamp on it? All police videos I ever saw had a time/date stamp on them for verification. Could it be that through some magic ABC erased it and used an older tape?

Posted by: KAP at March 28, 2012 8:42 PM
Comment #339749

steve miller-
While I would say that the video seems to undermine his claims, I would have to say as a person with a degree in video that the shot is not close enough, or in high enough resolution to absolutely determine such things.

I would say, though, that he does not look, to the eye of the camera, all that messed up or broken up. If what the camera seems to show us is true, then it undermines his “fight of his life” claims, and his self-defense claims with them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 28, 2012 8:45 PM
Comment #339751

www.mysanfordherald.com/view/full_story/17920337/article-Chief-Bill-Lee-answers-questions-about-investigation-into-shooting-of-17-year-old-Trayvon-Martin?instance=news_page

Posted by: ohrealy at March 28, 2012 8:55 PM
Comment #339756

That was not the face of a man with a broken nose. End of story.

What else did he lie about?

Posted by: steve miller at March 28, 2012 10:15 PM
Comment #339758

Stephen Daugherty, I said you introduced the idea that Zimmerman was on drugs or drinking. Go back and check your first comments. You are the one who introduced it.

Re/black friends; again Stephen, you were the one to introduce the statement that Zimmerman had black friends as a way of not being a racist. But it was his friends who came to his defense.

“Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t a major tenet of Zimmerman’s supporters defense been that the police in all their wisdom decided not to charge him with a crime? Well, doesn’t this kind of blow that out of the water?”

What are you smoking Stephen? Where is this little world you live in where you just imagine things? I haven’t read any such thing, but I have read that the prosecuting attorney refused to bring charges because he didn’t have a case.

“I guess that leaves you saying that the prosecutor in all their wisdom didn’t think he was guilty of anything… except the prosecutor doesn’t have the job of saying whether or not a crime has been committed, but rather of convicting somebody on that beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a much higher standard.”

In the little world of Stephen Daugherty he says it is the job of the police to determine if there is a crime committed, and by Stephen’s own testimony he said the lead investigator said it looked suspicious and a charge of manslaughter should be made…Hmmmm….correct Stephen, now what??? What is the next step, does the lead investigator arrest the man and does the lead investigator act as prosecutor at the trial???? NO, he doesn’t Stephen; it is the prosecuting attorney who prosecutes the case and when the prosecuting attorney says he don’t have a case where does that leave us??? Why it leaves us with a case of false arrest.

Stephen, I’m glad your not the prosecutor in this case. We would just through the Constitution out the window.

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 28, 2012 10:16 PM
Comment #339836

Billinflorida-
Weaker terms, now, eh? Before you were saying I claimed something, now you’re saying I introduced something. What, are the readers incapable of understanding that I did not believe him intoxicated? If you want a common sense check on your claim that I somehow wanted to smear him further in that way, look at a few things.

First, do I make the claim outright? No. Second, do I rest my argument against him on intoxication? No. Third, if I was really being cynical here, and just trying to smear him, what comes off worse, him shooting Trayvon drunk or stoned, or him doing so with all his faculties as his own deliberate choice?

You can go back and check: the discussion was in the context of affirmative defenses, defenses where he would be saying, “Yes, I shot and killed Trayvon Martin, here’s why it’s not a crime/not as serious a crime/why I should be treated in a psychiatric institution instead of being punished for doing this.”

The discussion of drugs came in the part where I cited the need to investigate thoroughly so both the accused and the victim could see justice, the victim by having the facts of the case that would prove their killer’s guilt, the accused in that whatever exculpatory or mitigating evidence would be gathered as well.

If Zimmerman was intoxicated, it makes him less culpable, less able to tell the difference between good and bad. He would have been punished less fiercely for the killing. But as I admitted several comments ago, I don’t know or believe that. I don’t know it or believe it, since I have no evidence to demonstrate that it’s true.

As for me smoking something?

Let me be clear: the man investigating him did not buy his defense. He recommended charges be filed. The DA overruled him, but there are any number of reasons that happens. John Gotti didn’t get to be the Teflon Don because he wasn’t actually a criminal, and was innocent of everything. Take note, our justice system has “Not guilty”, rather than “Innocent” as a plea. Why?

Because however we screw it up in the vernacular, our courts do not require proof of innocence to avoid a conviction. Zimmerman doesn’t have to prove that he wasn’t the aggressor in this case. The DA does. This distinction between reasonable doubt of guilt and proof of innocence is part of why we’re always seeing verdicts that leave us scratching our heads. Our culture leads us to believe that successful defenses require exonerating evidence, when in reality, a successful defense only requires the introduction of sufficient doubt to avoid conviction.

So, I’m not smoking something, I’m merely more savvy than you are about the legal system.

Now, the DA’s judgment isn’t necessarily infallible. A more thorough investigation may turn up leads they missed the first time around, making his guilt more certain. The DA may have been trying to avoid political backlash from voters with sympathies to Zimmerman, or a jury loaded with such sympathizers. He might also have been sympathetic himself, leading him to an overly generous interpretation of the law.

In short, you’re reading too much certainty and exoneration into your side of the story, and neglecting certain facts. First is that he’s on thin ice already, since nobody’s disputing his status as the killer. Absent a defense, there’s no reasonable doubt that he killed him. Since there’s no evidence that Trayvon was armed himself, things get trickier for Zimmerman, since self-defense gets tougher to prove when you literally outgun your opponent.

With surveillance video of him after his arrest, he might have a problem. All caveats about video resolution aside, if he doesn’t look that injured, if the kid wasn’t giving him such a beating that he feared for his life, then he has a credibility problem on his defense. You can’t pull out a gun merely because you’re on the losing side of a fight and shoot somebody. His pursuit doesn’t help him, nor does the confrontation. You want to believe that somehow he’s got the best case, and that’s why the DA chose not to charge him, but the reality is, his salvation is that so far they haven’t come up with an independent witness or evidence that can tell us what happened between him and Trayvon.

If, by the way, proving himself innocent was the burden, he’d have been prosecuted long ago. Just look at his situation, all the things that tell us he got himself into this trouble, and that Trayvon was the victim.

Zimmerman’s only saving grace is the ambiguity surrounding the fight, and that video just removed a lot of that in people’s minds, and not in his favor. Zimmerman’s case looks damning, and if it weren’t for this stand your ground law, with a unarmed minor shot without any evidence that he was breaking a law, he’d already be prosecuted.

That’s the thing you fail to understand. Without it, Zimmerman would have had the much harder job of proving that his judgment that he was stopping a crime was correct, with no crime, and a young man without a criminal record. Look at the charges that were filed in the police report.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2012 8:46 AM
Comment #339840

Stephen Daugherty, I don’t even know where to begin. It is evident that you don’t have the ability to understand or to comment on any subject, and since you want to parrot my statement to go back and check the record, and yet refuse to do it, I will. If you can find anything written on this subject that shows I am wrong, would you please quote it? Let’s look at what was said, beginning with your last statement:

Comment #339836
“Billinflorida-
Weaker terms, now, eh? Before you were saying I claimed something, now you’re saying I introduced something. What, are the readers incapable of understanding that I did not believe him intoxicated?”

I believe the readers will be able to see who is full of shit. Now, let’s look your first comment pertaining to Zimmerman and drugs:

Comment #339670
“Billinflorida-
Come on. In the absence of positive proof, I would readily admit that there was no proof he was on drugs of any kind, even no-doz. That would not mean he wasn’t, but I’m not about to rest a heavy edifice of an argument on top of an argument from ignorance…

Even so, what if the new investigations indicate things that contradict the claims of self-defense? You tell me, are you mature enough here to accept results that don’t fit with your expectations?

Let’s say evidence comes that he downed several beers before he went out. Then he shouldn’t have had that gun on him. Let’s say that a new witness or security video shows Trayvon trying to get away from the guy?”

To which I responded:

Comment #339678
“Stephen Daugherty, the ignorance is on your part for even suggesting Zimmerman was on drugs, and I might add, with absolutely no evidence. But this is how the left works; never have a debate on the subject, just attack the person….

If he was drinking, he was in violation of his CCW permit.
What is it with you Stephen, you come on here making these “IF” scenarios.”

You will notice I used the term you suggested Zimmerman was on drugs. At this point you return with this comment, justifying you “IF” senerios:


Comment #339683
“I pose hypotheticals as a way of indicating the need to think about the law not in overarching melodramatics, but in terms of the different tests and standards the law provides….

I bring the hypotheticals in to make sure people know the outcomes under the law isn’t merely some matter of right thinking, opinion-wise, but also a matter of how the facts interact with the law and its logic.”

No you propose hypotheticals in order to cast a cloud over Zimmerman and to which I responded:

Comment #339689
“You bring in hypothetical’s because that is what liberals do. Instead of dealing in hypotheticals, why don’t you try reality?”

Your original use of hypothetical’s was when you introduced Zimmerman’s drug and alcohol use. To which you responded by introducing Obama and a teleprompter, which makes no sense:

Comment #339717

“As for the hypotheticals? You know what, this is like giving Obama crap for teleprompters. It’s a common form of argument, and you can’t really have much of a worthwhile conversation about the law without it, since it’s all about what the possible consequences of the law are.”

To which I responded and again you will notice I said you “Introduced” the idea that Zimmerman was on drug or alcohol:

Comment #339721

“You have not dealt with facts in any post you have made. You show outrage at news articles questioning whether Martin was a drug dealer, and yet you are the one who introduced the idea that Zimmerman was on drugs or drinking.

To which you again responded:


Comment #339735
“Billinflorida-
What is it with you and hypotheticals? We’re discussing a homicide here. Note I don’t say murder outright. Why? Because Homicide is a legal term that accompasses any killing, justified or not. If we’re discussing whether it was a justified homicide or not, then we have to discuss matters of judgment, and the police ought to be examining the suspect and testing them to be sure of their sobriety and ability to tell right from wrong.
It’s only logical. But you stretch that discussion on my part into an actual claim that he was drunk or otherwise intoxicated. I didn’t say that. In fact when you first accused me of that, I had little problem in disclaiming any assumption that he was intoxicated”

Stephen, unless you can prove differently, you were the one who introduced Zimmerman and drugs. Then I responded:

Comment #339758
“Stephen Daugherty, I said you introduced the idea that Zimmerman was on drugs or drinking. Go back and check your first comments. You are the one who introduced it.”

Which brings us to your last statement:

Comment #339836
“Billinflorida-
Weaker terms, now, eh? Before you were saying I claimed something, now you’re saying I introduced something.”

Am I by myself, or is there anyone else on WB that believes Stephen Daugherty is losing it. I never once claimed anything other than SD introduced Zimmerman’s use of drugs and alcohol. The purpose for this introduction was to muddy the waters. It is a time tested tactic of the left. Rather than deal with the issues; make accusations or attack the person. Clinton did it successfully against multiple women, Obama has done it for 4 years against Bush, and now SD continues the same tactic, and then denies that he did it.

“What, are the readers incapable of understanding that I did not believe him intoxicated? If you want a common sense check on your claim that I somehow wanted to smear him further in that way, look at a few things.

First, do I make the claim outright? No. Second, do I rest my argument against him on intoxication? No. Third, if I was really being cynical here, and just trying to smear him, what comes off worse, him shooting Trayvon drunk or stoned, or him doing so with all his faculties as his own deliberate choice?”

Stephen, you try to smear Zimmerman by implying he was on drugs; if not, why did you bring it up?

“The discussion of drugs came in the part where I cited the need to investigate thoroughly so both the accused and the victim could see justice, the victim by having the facts of the case that would prove their killer’s guilt, the accused in that whatever exculpatory or mitigating evidence would be gathered as well.”

So now you admit you brought it up. Then you go on to use the “if he was drunk, he would have an excuse tactic”:

“If Zimmerman was intoxicated, it makes him less culpable, less able to tell the difference between good and bad. He would have been punished less fiercely for the killing. But as I admitted several comments ago, I don’t know or believe that. I don’t know it or believe it, since I have no evidence to demonstrate that it’s true.”

That is not what you admitted; you suggested or implied that Zimmerman was on drugs or drunk by questioning what the police should have done, in your opinion. But, we know that Stephen Daugherty is an expert on EVERYTHING; thus, he is also an expert on law enforcement and investigations.

Then Stephen Daugherty continues his nonsense by going after the prosecutor:

“Now, the DA’s judgment isn’t necessarily infallible. A more thorough investigation may turn up leads they missed the first time around, making his guilt more certain. The DA may have been trying to avoid political backlash from voters with sympathies to Zimmerman, or a jury loaded with such sympathizers. He might also have been sympathetic himself, leading him to an overly generous interpretation of the law.”

So tell me Stephen, do you find everyone incompetent unless they are a liberal democrat? From this statement; we can deduce that if Zimmerman is found innocent, contrary to your earlier post of accepting the results; you will never accept the results. And we can also deduce that your racist views outweigh the ability to think rationally.

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 29, 2012 10:22 AM
Comment #339841

Billinflorida, I to find it perplexing that supposed educated people will jump to conclusions and come up with some of the most outlandished statements ever concocted. It’s amazes me that with all the crime against blacks 90% of all murders of blacks is by blacks yet those civil rights leaders such as Sharpton and Jackson never show up and try to bring peace amongst their own. I’ll bet Martin Luther King is rolling over in his grave because to think all of what he did has come to this Sharpton and Jackson and Sharpton’s partner on msnbc Ed Shultz instigating violence. Talk about who is racist IT’S THE ONES WHO ARE BRINGING IT UP THAT ARE THE TRUE RACIST.

Posted by: KAP at March 29, 2012 10:40 AM
Comment #339842

Bill,

Despite your screed to the contrary, you haven’t shown where exactly Stephen actually implied Zimmerman was intoxicated.

Was he impaired? We cannot know whether he was or wasn’t because we don’t know if a sobriety test was taken, and if it wasn’t we will never know.

You make the statement that if Zimmerman was intoxicated that it would violate the CCW law.
Well, jeepers, apparently Zimmerman is as pure as the driven snow, and has never broken any law… ever.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 29, 2012 10:56 AM
Comment #339845

Billinflorida-
Look, you haven’t deduced crap. In fact, you’ve gone against the obvious deduction, the one the facts would support. The outright claim isn’t there. I don’t even go so far as to do a Glenn Beck style, “I’m just spitballing” sort of argument.

All you have to go on are obvious hypotheticals, used to illustrate points based on the contingent nature of the law. The facts guide how the law is applied and interpreted. I have also disclaimed any implication you might have read into it along time ago, explicitly telling people that’s a false interpretation of my words.

I’m not even using that “Bob Saget raped and murdered a nine year old girl in 1990” style argument either (where you keep on introducing a charge time and time again within the context of another phrase that nominally defuses the slanderous nature of the statement).

It’s BS. You’re doing a much better job of making sure I repeatedly reference it than I am. meanwhile, I’ve introduced several lines of evidence in an non-hypothetical sense, but no, we’re back to the “introduced” argument, again and again.

You can talk about deductions, but you seem unwilling to accept the conclusion the facts would deductively lead you to: that I have no desire to paint him as a drug used, and do not believe him such without evidence to say otherwise.

Meanwhile, it’s hard to characterize your responses as anything but attacks. Few of your premises begin without taking some kind of potshot at me, for claiming I’m an expert (which I haven’t), for claiming Zimmerman is a druggie (which I didn’t, and have subsequently explicitly denied), or for being some kind of political operative (which I’m not), planted in what you must admit is a relatively minor political blog for some odd reasons.

Your arguments are built on your claims of my failings as a person, or on the low character of Zimmerman’s accusers. I look at at it, and the question that comes to my mind is where is there an actual factual point to discuss?

KAP-
Trayvon’s killing was no ordinary event. An unarmed minor was killed by a man with a gun, whose behavior towards him, up until the confrontation could be considered fairly provocative. The killer is on record as having fixed on him on stereotypical grounds, and the police, at least to the appearance of those on the outside, seem to have swept the killing under the rug and even helped him somewhat with his defense.

Additionally, as others have said, this relates to a law that is confirming the worst fears of many who opposed it, a law which gives excessive latitude to people to claim self-defense in cases where they are clearly going beyond simple self-defense.

But we’re racists for bringing this case up? Funny how that works.

Maybe if you and Billinfloridat got together and thought more thoroughly about what you’re actually saying, you could avoid this kind of overheated rhetoric. Instead, most of your arguments are about trying to browbeat people out of actually discussing matters.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2012 2:14 PM
Comment #339846

KAP, what would happen if whites killed each other at the same ratio as backs kill blacks? We would live in a country of blood and slaughter. But, you are correct; no one cares if it is blacks killing blacks.

Sharpton and Jackson are irrelevant and seek relevancy. They are in it for the purpose of making themselves seem important and for riches. As long as they have race problems in America, they will be able to preach their vitriol. The day race does not matter is the day they become non-existent.

“Bill,
Despite your screed to the contrary, you haven’t shown where exactly Stephen actually implied Zimmerman was intoxicated.

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 29, 2012 10:56 AM

Then, the only thing I can say to you Rocky is that your mental capability is no better than SD’s.


Stephen Daugherty:

Perhaps we need to ask some simple questions, because discussion of the subject is simply to difficult for you to understand:

1. Who first associated Zimmerman with drugs or alcohol?
2. Did I say “Stephen insinuated or introduced Zimmerman and drugs into the subject” or did I say SD said” Zimmerman was on drugs or alcohol”?


Stephen, you come on here blowing your bazoo about God only knows what you are saying. Why don’t you just answer the 2 simple questions I asked? I don’t expect you to, because you are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the liberal left. You talk in circles and never say anything. If I am wrong, then prove it with my quote, but if you can’t, then I have won the argument, simple as that…

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 29, 2012 2:32 PM
Comment #339848

Stephen

“An unarmed minor was killed by a man with a gun,”

Agreed.

“whose behavior towards him, up until the confrontation could be considered fairly provocative.”

How so? Neighborhood Watch watches the neighborhood for suspicious activity and a person walking around the neighborhood with a hood on is suspicious, especially at night. Add this to the fact that the community had been recently experiencing a rash of burgleries, and such suspicion seems like a normal reaction by the residents.

What evidence do you have of Zimmermans behavior towards Martin up until the confrontation? All I have seen so far is Zimmermans 911 call where he was trying to follow a hooded figure attempting to allude him and then said “ok” to the dispatcher when told he didn’t need to do that. Zimmerman then says he broke off the chase.
What evidence do you have that Zimmerman is lying? What evidence do you have that Zimmerman ‘stalked’ and ‘hunted’ down the guy just so he could kill him?

“The killer is on record as having fixed on him on stereotypical grounds,”

I had not heard this. The last I had heard was that he had recently started reporting black teens in the neighborhood and had even came upon some who were burglarizing a condo.

“and the police, at least to the appearance of those on the outside, seem to have swept the killing under the rug”

He was immediately handcuffed and questioned, and then transported to the station and interogated. What proof has come out that shows police are withholding evidence or testimony?


“and even helped him somewhat with his defense.”

I had not heard this. Interesting and possibly damaging if true.

“Additionally, as others have said, this relates to a law that is confirming the worst fears of many who opposed it, a law which gives excessive latitude to people to claim self-defense in cases where they are clearly going beyond simple self-defense”

Proof that he “clearly” went beyond simple self-defense? Are you sure you are not basing your judgment on a pre-determined belief that, despite the lack of evidence so far, Zimmerman instigated everything so he deserved to be assaulted?

Look, Zimmerman could be the biggest racist in the world and everything could have happened just like the left wants it to have happened. But shouldn’t we all want the facts to prove that, rather than the political charged opinions of people?

Posted by: kctim at March 29, 2012 3:40 PM
Comment #339849

Stephen, Trayvon’s killing was no ordinary event, so I suppose 90% of blacks killing blacks is an ordinary event. I suppose blacks killing whites is an ordinary event. I find it curious that every time a black gets killed by a white it’s labeled a racist event but nothing is made of a black killing a white being a racist event. Stephen, unlike you and some of the others on this blog I wait for the facts before determining guilt. So far all that has been said is speculation especially by the left wing media and idiots like Shultz, Sharpton and Jackson. A tape comes out that doesn’t show anything clearly but the left plays it over and over, the guy was treated by paramedics before being transported, maybe it wasn’t a broken nose just a bloody nose. If he did have a gash on the back of his head the paramedics could have used butterfly closeures on it. Lots of things we don’t know about yet but you and all your infinite liberal left wing wisdom know everything.

Posted by: KAP at March 29, 2012 4:17 PM
Comment #339850

Billinflorida-
Your implication fails on the grounds that a rate and a ratio are not the same thing. The ratio of blacks killed by blacks to all blacks murdered could go up or down without affecting the murder rate in general. They are not logically connected.

That seems to be a problem with you. You’re trying to nail me on associating a negative with him, but you know what? It all comes back to you blathering on about MY intentions, MY motivations. Just how are you in a position to be an authority on that?

I have made NO statement claiming him to be on drugs, merely hypotheticals exploring the need to determine the state of mind of an admitted killer that you’ve taken into custody, and to make points about the law concerning what happens if they find this out or that out about the crime.

I have made no statement implying even that his being on drugs is a strong possibility. In fact, I have explicitly said that absent any evidence, it’s not a safe assumption, nor a good basis for any argument.

I did the same with a video. Based on my knowledge of video, I judged that while superficially the video backed claims that he didn’t really break his nose or get his head bashed, the resolution and clarity were not enough to allow that point to be definitively made.

However, I can turn around, though, and made some arguments based on probability. If you watch the video, what’s important isn’t so much what you see, as what you don’t.

When I was eight, a friend of mine went ninja with one of those junior golf clubs, and clocked me one on the head. It really wasn’t much, but it gave me and my mother a scare because the damn thing bled so much. It was all over the pillow at the emergency room, and it required stitches. I’ve gotten a few socks to the nose, and some nosebleeds before, and those suckers bleed, too.

And it’s only logical that if you shoot somebody in the chest, and they die from this, they’ll likely bleed a lot, and gravity will tend to channel things downward.

So, where is the blood on his clothes? You can clean the back of somebody’s head, stitch it up, plug up their noses and clean that up, and you can certainly clean blood spatter from the killing off somebody, but where is all the blood from this life threatening fight?

See, that’s where I would pick things apart, not based on something that I couldn’t prove at all.

kctim-

“whose behavior towards him, up until the confrontation could be considered fairly provocative.”

How so? Neighborhood Watch watches the neighborhood for suspicious activity…

And report it to police, who then take care of it instead of civilians. Neighborhood Watchmen are not supposed to stop criminals themselves, or try and arrest them. They’ve got police, or minus that, the security guards to do that for them. You know, folks people say “officer, what seems to be the problem” to, rather than “Why are you following me, you crazy nut?”

What evidence do you have of Zimmermans behavior towards Martin up until the confrontation?

The 9/11 calls, for one thing. In the case of where he’s pursuing him, in sounds like he’s putting forward the effort, and the dispatcher tells him to lay off… and the noise from his motion doesn’t change a bit. The fact that he got out of the car, followed him on foot, that he complained to the operator about the [donkey]holes always getting away forms an profile of somebody who was out to catch the crook.

Another pattern of behavior is seen in the calls, where he reports black people again and again, after he gets the watch position, as suspicious characters, in fact disproportionately to anybody else. Regardless, Trayvon was never seen actually committing a crime, so there’s nothing else to motivate what he was doing. he was going off the suspicion that a black young man with something in his hand was a criminal with a weapon.

Reports have come out of witnesses being told that they had things wrong concerning who was screaming, even though they were fairly sure it was the boy. There were no drug tests, and officers are seen examining Zimmerman’s clothes without gloves on to protect evidence.

As far as instigation goes, if he had just left things to police, Trayvon would be alive. As it is, he pursued Martin, most likely with non-lethal intentions, but looking to stop a criminal.

The important thing to understand is that self-defense relies on the idea that you are in danger, and you do what it takes to end that danger to yourself and others. If you pursue somebody, well then the question becomes, didn’t you make the first move, impinging on that person’s space, threatening them?

Another element is that bringing a weapon into the altercation is an escalation on whoever does it. It Trayvon had started bashing Zimmerman’s head with the can, then he’s taken the violence up a notch, owing to the weapon. So what happens when Zimmerman brings a gun into a fistfight? This is where he has to be very careful: if there was no real cause to believe that Trayvon was trying to kill him, bringing the gun out alone is a problem, much less shooting him. This is why the tapes showing him moving fairly easily, without visible blood spatter undermines his argument. For one, if the severity of the beating wasn’t that great, it undermines the need to draw the weapon. If he’s standing up and backed away from Trayvon, pointing the gun at him, that indicates he has the upperhand, and therefore no longer needs to threaten him.

If Trayvon’s screaming at him not to shoot? Well, things get worse.

I have no objection to working off of the facts. The trouble, I think, is not everybody understands what facts are significant and why.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2012 4:45 PM
Comment #339852

KAP-
Okay, I can buy and even concede the possibility of treatment. Even so, head wounds tend to be bloody, concussions should have had him taken to a hospital, and even a simple bloody nose can leave traces on clothing, if it’s coming from somebody being punched in the nose.

The question is, where’s the blood on that clothing? If we’re talking reasonable doubt here, the clothing is evidence that he was beaten soundly. if we don’t see any blood on the clothing, then we need an explanation why if we’re going to conced a life-threatening beating.

You pride yourself on the facts, but all too often you lead with inflammatory rhetoric and irrelevant comments like those on Jesse Jackson and the others. I mean, really, their involvement is a sideshow to the real matter at hand. I just ignore them, to be honest with you.

What makes Trayvon’s death galling to so many is that one, the guy wasn’t actually doing anything wrong, that he was followed on account of his clothing, and that when he was killed, the bias wasn’t towards dealing with the victim and what happened to him, but instead letting his killer walk.

It may not entirely be a logical thing, but for many people, Trayvon’s case presents a rather vivid reminder of other instances of profiling, where suspicious associations land people under the scrutiny of the authorities in disproportionate numers.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2012 4:53 PM
Comment #339853

Stephen, He was in a gated community 250 miles from his own home, if he was visiting his father why didn’t his father report that to the community watch group or his father’s girlfriend report it. Walking around in a place where no one actually knows you, especially after a rash of burglaries, you are a suspicious person especially walking around with a hoodie hiding your face. Granted Zimmerman should have let the police handle the problem and a tragedy occured by him doing what he should have let the police do, but that dosen’t mean that Trayvon is an innocent victim and maybe Zimmetrman’s account is true and I emphisize MAYBE. As far as blood on his shirt, maybe he had 2 on and the bloody one was removed, could it be that the police have the bloody one in evidence? See Stephen I can speculate to.

Posted by: KAP at March 29, 2012 5:32 PM
Comment #339855

Stephen

You are correct, NW members are supposed to report such behavior to the police, which Zimmerman did do. I’m curious, are you under the belief that NW members are supposed to just forget about a suspicious person and go home after they have notified the police? If you are, that is wrong.

How do you know Zimmerman believed Martin to be a criminal rather than just a suspicious person? How do you know Zimmerman tried to stop or arrest Martin instead of just follow him? Is it because there is proof of him trying to stop and arrest? Or is it because it sounds more diabolical because there is no law against following somebody?

“The 9/11 calls, for one thing. In the case of where he’s pursuing him, in sounds like he’s putting forward the effort, and the dispatcher tells him to lay off… and the noise from his motion doesn’t change a bit.”

Sounds like? I can agree that it “sounds like” he is trying to follow Martin, but didn’t Zimmerman also say “ok” when the dispatcher told him he didn’t need to keep following him when Martin started darting between and behind buildings? So, what proof have you seen or heard that says Zimmerman did not head back to his vehicle?
Fact is, you cannot clearly determine what he is doing from “the noise from his motion.” You can guess that he is still following somebody he lost, but guesses like that don’t support your argument.

“The fact that he got out of the car, followed him on foot, that he complained to the operator about the [donkey]holes always getting away forms an profile of somebody who was out to catch the crook.”

Yep, he probably should not have gotten out of his vehicle, but how do you know he wanted to “catch” the crook instead of just keeping him under observation? We don’t.

“Another pattern of behavior is seen in the calls, where he reports black people again and again, after he gets the watch position, as suspicious characters, in fact disproportionately to anybody else.”

Is that because he hates black people or because the increase in unknown black males in the neighborhood match up with the sudden increase of burglaries? Or maybe because he witnessed black males robbing a condo in the community?
What kind of “pattern of behavior” is he displaying by reporting what he is observing?

“Regardless, Trayvon was never seen actually committing a crime, so there’s nothing else to motivate what he was doing. he was going off the suspicion that a black young man with something in his hand was a criminal with a weapon.”

So, Martin walked right through the front gate and shouldn’t have been deemed as suspicious at all?
Tell me, did Zimmerman see Martin walk through the front gate or did he notice a guy wearing a hood as he drove up from behind him? It was dark, so wouldn’t Zimmerman have to be in a pretty good position to be able to determine what color Martin was at first?
Did Martin notice Zimmerman following him and then decide to run and hide? Should Zimmerman have known Martin was scared and decided to run and hide or should he have probably thought Martin was trying to allude him?
We don’t know yet, do we?

“Reports have come out of witnesses being told that they had things wrong concerning who was screaming, even though they were fairly sure it was the boy. There were no drug tests, and officers are seen examining Zimmerman’s clothes without gloves on to protect evidence.”

Racism or bad procedure? We don’t know and hopefully the investigation shines light on it. But is that enough to justify shouts of racism and putting bounties on people?

“As far as instigation goes, if he had just left things to police, Trayvon would be alive. As it is, he pursued Martin, most likely with non-lethal intentions, but looking to stop a criminal.”

Agree.

“The important thing to understand is that self-defense relies on the idea that you are in danger, and you do what it takes to end that danger to yourself and others. If you pursue somebody, well then the question becomes, didn’t you make the first move, impinging on that person’s space, threatening them?”

Who made the first move? Zimmerman by following Martin? Or Martin when he doubled back and attacked Zimmerman?
Following someone is not illegal, assaulting them is.
So, what makes you believe Zimmerman is a liar and instead believe a hypothetical scenario about Martin being innocent of all wrong doing? With the evidence known right now, I can’t say who did what.

It Trayvon had started bashing Zimmerman’s head with the can, then he’s taken the violence up a notch, owing to the weapon. So what happens when Zimmerman brings a gun into a fistfight? This is where he has to be very careful: if there was no real cause to believe that Trayvon was trying to kill him, bringing the gun out alone is a problem, much less shooting him.”

IF, Stephen. We don’t know, but yet you and others have already determined Zimmerman brought a gun to a fistfight because he wanted to kill a little black kid. Not a fair assumption at all.

“This is why the tapes showing him moving fairly easily, without visible blood spatter undermines his argument.”

Then it should be used against him in a court of law. Still does not prove racism was behind all this.

“For one, if the severity of the beating wasn’t that great, it undermines the need to draw the weapon. If he’s standing up and backed away from Trayvon, pointing the gun at him, that indicates he has the upperhand, and therefore no longer needs to threaten him.”

“If Trayvon’s screaming at him not to shoot? Well, things get worse.”

Again, IF. And again, you and others have already made up your mind that Zimmerman was in the wrong. Not on facts, but on assumptions of what “really” probably happened.

“I have no objection to working off of the facts. The trouble, I think, is not everybody understands what facts are significant and why.”

Maybe not, but everybody does know that you must have the facts before you can determine if they are significant or not.

Posted by: kctim at March 29, 2012 5:51 PM
Comment #339857

KAP-
1) Why should the man have to report the presence of his son to avoid having that son shot by the neighborhood watchman>

2) First, would everybody be as hyperaware of the burglaries as Zimmerman was, and second, would Trayvon actually be thinking, “You know, I might get mistaken for a burglar, walking down the street at night?”

3) It was raining. Plus, hoodies are not a uniquely racial piece of wardrobe. Plenty of white people who are both up to no good and mild mannered wear them, too.

4) Trayvon IS an innocent victim. He committed no crimes in the man’s sight. The man went after him just on suspicion.

5) He was handcuffed on the scene according to reports, an the report also says he was wearing a red jacket, which surveillance tape makes plain he’s still wearing at the police station. It’s simpler to believe that he was wearing what he was wearing at the crime scene, barring new information, than it is to believe that the police handcuffed him at the scene, took him home, uncuffed him, allowed him to change into new clothes, collected the old ones at evidence, and he arrived at the station wearing clothes resembling that which he was wearing at the crime scene.

Also, the video shows his clothes being examined by the arresting officers. If they weren’t his original clothes, that would make for some very fashion conscious police, wouldn’t it?

Yes, I can speculate on what’s most likely, but I tend to want to expand my speculation from points of known fact, rather than spin new possibilities from whole cloth.

I think what should be emphasized here is that the assumption that the man made was that Trayvon might be guilty of something, based on no more than odd behavior. I’ve seen my share of kids walking outside in my neighborhood on their cell phones, and I wonder how different they would seem from Trayvon.

The question is whether Zimmerman would have been so concerned if a pale, blonde kid was wearing the hoodie, instead of the black kid. The question that we should also ask is why we should accept that as sufficient grounds for suspicion.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2012 6:08 PM
Comment #339859

To my conservative friends, Stephen Daugherty is incapable of answering any questions posed to him. It is apparent that he is no more than a liberal democratic operative on WB solely for the purpose of protecting Obama and the liberal agenda. I doubt that he has ever backed down from any comment he has ever made. If backed into a corner, rather than admit he is wrong, he simply goes off on random rants about a myriad of topics, none of which make any sense or apply to the subject. It is a waste of time debating with him. Of course there is the possibility that when he was hit in the head with a golf club, it resulted in permanent damage. I believe I am finished talking with him; I have better things to do with my life than discuss politics with someone who believes God breaths words through his mouth. I have enough trouble dealing with Obama, who believes he is God’s gift to the world. I don’t believe I can handle another diva. At least there are some liberals like Warped Reality, who will discuss a topic, and will even admit when he is wrong. Stephen is never wrong.

Posted by: Billinflorida at March 29, 2012 6:40 PM
Comment #339860

kctim-

I’m curious, are you under the belief that NW members are supposed to just forget about a suspicious person and go home after they have notified the police? If you are, that is wrong.

I would presume they might need to do additional paperwork, but following the suspect? How many ways are there out of a gated community?

How do you know Zimmerman believed Martin to be a criminal rather than just a suspicious person?

References during the 9/11 call to “these [donkey]holes always getting away” Do you go to great lengths to follow people you merely view to be potential law-abiding citizens?

More later, I have to go.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2012 6:45 PM
Comment #339864

Stephen, In answer to your first Question, Telling the community watch group that the father is having a guest stay with him for awhile and possibly, if avaliable have a guest pass issued, will give the community watch a heads up that a person they may not know is in the area. second question refer to above answer. third refer to above answer. fourth refer to above answer. fifth the coat or jacket is red which would be hard to see blood stains, if wearing a shirt over a tee shirt he may have taken off the jacket and removed the blood stained shirt to give to police for evidence. Like I said Stephen we can both speculate but speculation is only an assumption and assumptions are the mother of all screw ups. Stephen, I live in an apartment complex and when my daughter and her family come to visit I notify the landlord so they know someone strange to them is visiting.

Posted by: KAP at March 29, 2012 7:46 PM
Comment #339866

People keep selecting the bits of information they want to fit with their preconceived notions about what happened. It was stated by the media broadcasting the tape of Zimmerman that this was four hours after the shooting. The community is a townhouse development with a very wide street at the entrance, and the buildings run in groups along the street. Trayvon was away from the street, ducking in between buildings, or Zimmerman would not have had any trouble following him. He had recently caught a guy in the community with laptops that he had just stolen from black and white people’s houses. People name Zimmerman are being singled out by someone as far away from the situation as Spike Lee.

Last year, I was stopped while wearing a hoody on a rainy day in Des Plaines, Illinois in daytime because the police thought I looked suspicious, and I’m a 60 year old white man.

A couple of years ago around Christmas there were a series of shootings in a quiet suburban community named Country Club Hills. Everyone thought that the shootings must have been related, part of a crime spree. They were all unrelated, but there was one thing in common, all the people involved were black.

Who says Trayvon was living there? He could have just arrived from Miami. People are stating things to be true that are based on conjecture only.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 29, 2012 7:55 PM
Comment #339881

The thing that grips me is today, I watched the night time idiots on MSNBC and never heard any outrage from them on the tweet by Spike Lee that turned out to be the address of an older couple when he thought he was tweeting Zimmerman’s address. I wonder what would have been said if they were killed. Also the High School kids that left school and ransaked a Walgreens near the school. This type of activity is outrageous and I blame those same MSNBC idiots of causing this type of trouble. It is time to let the justice system do what they know best and the Media to let them do it. The whole programing was on Zimmerman and proving him guilty before all the facts are brought out.

Posted by: KAP at March 29, 2012 11:36 PM
Comment #339883

Billinflorida-
You waste a ****load of time arguing about whether I’m worth debating, I have to wonder whether you have any real solid argument to fall back on, or whether you’re just aiming to distract people from the issue at hand.

You make these statements about my arguments, but the funny thing is, you never include any real analysis to show people just how I fail to argue things properly. Instead, you simply declare it, like an elitist King from on high. Oh, Stephen is incapable of answering, he is an operative, He never backs down, he never admits he’s wrong.

EVERYTHING but anything factual about the case. Or short of that, direct refutations of arguments. Everything is Stephen this, Stephen that. You attack my certainty, but never the grounds on which I base my opinion. You may not like my views, but if I am right, it’s not a matter of what you like, or feel is smart. Same thing the other way.

So, really, what am I obligated to concede to you? I’m not such a castrated wimp that I’m going to let you push that BS and get away with not arguing anything relevant at all.

KAP-
You may have a point about notification, but is a failure to notify worth somebody’s life? It’s a misunderstanding that can be cleared up far more easily and bloodlessly than it was.

As for the neighborhood watch guy? According to the materials provided by the Sanford, FL police department, Neighborhood Watch volunteers are not supposed to get physically involved or catch the suspect. I know some folks want to make them citizen cops, but they’re really supposed to stick to observing and reporting, and the guidelines for the national organization basically say this:

Patrol members should be trained by law enforcement. It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. MEMBERS SHOULD NEVER CONFRONT SUSPICIOUS PERSONS WHO COULD BE ARMED AND DANGEROUS.

He did just about everything wrong he could do, and somebody died, somebody innocent of any wrongdoing there and then. Incidents like this are precisely the reason for such guidelines.

As for changing his clothes, I really doubt it. For one thing, they need to preserve the evidence. Giving him the chance to change is giving him the chance to destroy or contaminate evidence. I really think it was unlikely he got to change.

kctim-
As far as the following thing goes, two points come right to mind:

1) As I’ve already noted from the national neighborhood watch organization, They’re not supposed to play hero or play cop. They’re supposed to hand things off to the cops, who are the ones both legally empowered and trained to do the job.

2)While it is not illegal to follow somebody, it is a provocative act, especially when you manage to corner somebody, and it can make somebody fear for their life, especially when somebody’s intentions are unknown.

Yep, he probably should not have gotten out of his vehicle, but how do you know he wanted to “catch” the crook instead of just keeping him under observation? We don’t.

You can’t know anybody’s intentions for sure, ever, but you can guess at their motivations. A person doesn’t mention the possibility of a person getting away while they keep on following. If they aren’t intent on doing something. And really, if the guy is readily willing to get out of the car to keep tabs on somebody, at the same time they’re carrying a gun, what do you think their intentions are?

As far as the pattern of behavior goes, it doesn’t have to be a hatred, just a strong bias that motivates him to go after this one in particular.

As far as the suspicion goes, I think it’s important to emphasize just how vulnerable people’s minds are to seeing things that aren’t there, and how many of the things cops and investigators do are meant to work their way past those fallibilities.

If you would like to assert that foolishness may be a better explanation than malice, I wouldn’t object. That happens, more often than people would care to admit on either side. One point I might add, though, is that there may be a question of whether the police on the scene profiled the victim they were dealing with, assuming that he was just another worthless street punk. Can you admit that this might have been their thinking.

Racism doesn’t have to be all or nothing, evil or good. It can be simple snap judgments made in the name of expedience- this time, ill-advised expedience. As far as following goes, there are laws against persistent stalking and everything, but not, so far as I can tell, against a one time pursuit. However, being followed by a stranger is rarely a pleasant thing

I don’t think he intended to kill the kid, but his actions made this seem less like an act of defense against a sudden act, and instead a fight he picked.

We can’t wait until we know everything to know what’s significant, but if you stick with teh who’s what’s and why’s you might be able to know some of the important things.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 30, 2012 12:58 AM
Comment #339901

In my eyes, even if Zimmerman had been attacked by Martin unprovoked, from *behind*…….pulling his gun out, pointing it at Martin, and holding him until the arrival of the police would have done the job nicely.

Zimmerman was hyped, he was ready for action. Do you expect me to believe that Martin approached him, THREATENED him, and then attacked him, without causing Zimmerman to draw his weapon and forestall any attack?

If I had a gun and someone threatened to kill me, I would most likely point the gun at them to stop it. If they were armed, and did not stop, well…..your SYG law would kick in, and the shooting would be lawful. Absent this……I don’t see it. The more I think about it, the less sense it makes.

I refuse to believe that after Zimmerman followed someone who he believed to be a bad guy, he would not pull his gun immediately upon Martin’s approach of him. I guess what I’m really getting at is that Zimmerman’s account makes less and less sense as we know the facts, seems less and less likely, and not more likely.

Anyone who is honest about it would have to agree that there was never any reason for shooting someone to death, ABSENT Zimmerman’s own actions.

Posted by: steve miller at March 30, 2012 7:52 AM
Comment #339902

I will wait for the evidence and will not be swayed by the radicals who have already tried him and found him guilty.

If Zimmerman walks on this one, it will be in spite of everyone, including Obama, who has prejudged him. If he walks, it will be because they have no evidence to convict him of murder. If he walks, all the talk and hysteria from the left, has made them look like complete fools.

Posted by: Frank at March 30, 2012 8:48 AM
Comment #339903

In the meantime, why don’t we discuss the fact that the SCOTUS is about to declare obamacare unconstitutional. The spinmysters are alrweady spinning the story if obamacare is struck down, it will be a win for Obama.

Posted by: Frank at March 30, 2012 8:52 AM
Comment #339907

Yes Stephen he did wrong by confronting Trayvon, but does that mean he’s guilty of murder if what he says is true? We have bits and pieces of info, let the investigator do her thing and come up with a decission of arrest or let him walk.

Posted by: KAP at March 30, 2012 9:54 AM
Comment #339908

Last evening, 2 men in hoodies shot 10 to 12 times into a convenience store killing one person and wounding 5 others ages 16 to 25. WHY?

I’m waiting to see “Trayvon Lives” graffiti, like the “Fred Lives” graffiti that was omnipresent decades ago.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 30, 2012 10:28 AM
Comment #339911

Stephen

There are many ways in and out of a gated community, but only one can not be viewed as suspicious.
Watch members observe and report until police arrive and assume control.

“Do you go to great lengths to follow people you merely view to be potential law-abiding citizens?”

It depends. When unknown people are outside property gates, they are “potential law-abiding citizens” and should just be monitored. But once they enter onto the property, they go from a “potential law-abiding citizen” to a potential law breaking citizen.

“They’re not supposed to play hero or play cop. They’re supposed to hand things off to the cops, who are the ones both legally empowered and trained to do the job.”

I am not disputing that. What I am saying is that the evidence so far does not show if Zimmerman was trying to play hero or if he was just trying to keep Martin under observation. You are making an assumption that Zimmerman is guilty and, IMO, this hasty assumption is based entirely on the race of Martin and the initially perceived race of Zimmerman.

“2)While it is not illegal to follow somebody, it is a provocative act, especially when you manage to corner somebody, and it can make somebody fear for their life, especially when somebody’s intentions are unknown.”

When did evidence come out that shows Zimmerman had Martin cornered? The last I heard was that people were watching out their windows as two people were fighting in a common area.

“You can’t know anybody’s intentions for sure, ever, but you can guess at their motivations.”

Exactly. So why are so many guessing that Zimmerman is a racist who is lying before they have all of the facts?

“A person doesn’t mention the possibility of a person getting away while they keep on following. If they aren’t intent on doing something.”

Sorry Stephen, but this is only speculation on your part. Not sure if it’s just to help justify a pre-determined judgement, or if because you simply do not know, but it is only speculation.
There are many factors that must be taken into account when following somebody, many more when chasing somebody. To keep it simple though, we have not seen evidence that shows what Zimmerman was intent on doing. Was he intent on harming Martin? Or was he intent on being able to tell police where Martin was so they could handle it?

“And really, if the guy is readily willing to get out of the car to keep tabs on somebody, at the same time they’re carrying a gun, what do you think their intentions are?”

From experience, I can tell you that it depends. Does he have the gun drawn and at the ready position? If he does, he is expecting a possible confrontation. If he doesn’t, he is more concerned with keeping the person in sight.
Did Zimmerman have his gun drawn when he got out of his vehicle? I honestly do not know, so I apologize if I missed that.
Doesn’t really matter though because as you said, we can only guess about what his intentions were.

“As far as the pattern of behavior goes, it doesn’t have to be a hatred, just a strong bias that motivates him to go after this one in particular.”

Does it matter what helped form that bias? IMO, it matters greatly.

“One point I might add, though, is that there may be a question of whether the police on the scene profiled the victim they were dealing with, assuming that he was just another worthless street punk. Can you admit that this might have been their thinking.”

Stephen, I would have no problem admitting that or with admitting Zimmerman is a racist who murdered an innocent guy, but I want the evidence to prove it. Destroying lives based on what one ‘thinks’ happened is wrong.

“Racism doesn’t have to be all or nothing, evil or good. It can be simple snap judgments made in the name of expedience- this time, ill-advised expedience.”

Snap judgments like white guy with gun + black person = racist white guy guilty of murder?
I agree, but I see it from two sides, not just one.

“I don’t think he intended to kill the kid, but his actions made this seem less like an act of defense against a sudden act, and instead a fight he picked.”

With the information we have at this time, I can understand why you think this. What so many people have a problem with is the automatic assumption of racism that has yet to be justified with facts.

“We can’t wait until we know everything to know what’s significant, but if you stick with teh who’s what’s and why’s you might be able to know some of the important things.”

It is our responsibility to wait for all of the facts, Stephen. We are talking about lives.
People went with the who’s: white guy and black child, both which turned out to be wrong.
They went with the what’s: white guy stalked and hunted down and happily murdered an innocent black child eating candy. That too turned out to be wrong.
They went with the why’s: white always means racist, black always means victim. Wrong again.

These are the “important things” that started all of this and look where that has brought us.

Posted by: kctim at March 30, 2012 10:58 AM
Comment #339912

kctim,

“What I am saying is that the evidence so far does not show if Zimmerman was trying to play hero or if he was just trying to keep Martin under observation.”

Martin could have been “observed” from within a locked vehicle.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 30, 2012 11:17 AM
Comment #339913

Frank-
Look, have you noticed how many of the people passing on stories about Trayvon threatening Zimmerman are proxies, friends and family members speaking out on his behalf?

And the stories change. In one story, he makes rather explicit threats in another, he’s beating the guy within an inch of his life. In ones after the videotapes showing him walking around normally, no visible blood on his clothing or visible signs of a beating, it’s grabbing for the gun that leads to the shooting.

You can talk about radicals being the folks who believe he’s likely guilty, but I think that’s just an attempt on your part to try and ward people away from that conclusion. You don’t like where it might take policy, so therefore, it’s a position for radicals.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 30, 2012 11:20 AM
Comment #339915

Zimmerman is a loose cannon…..had felony assault of police officer charges dropped. Because he got alcohol counseling. Then there’s this: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/30/former-co-worker-zimmerman-lost-security-guard-job-after-he-snapped/

Which itself proves nothing, yet starts to flesh out the picture of an unstable and vindictive man.

I wonder if you get to keep a carry permit after doing “alcohol education” to avoid felony assault charges?

Posted by: steve miller at March 30, 2012 11:43 AM
Comment #339916

“Martin could have been “observed” from within a locked vehicle”

Absolutely Rocky. And I have said that it was probably a bad choice to leave the vehicle.
Of course, it would have been hard to continue observing if the person were to take off running in between buildings and trying to hide.

Posted by: kctim at March 30, 2012 11:52 AM
Comment #339918

kctim-
It doesn’t take cardboard cutout victims or villains here to tell this story. My personal take on it is that the guy has just enough of a racial bias to make him certain he was looking at a likely burglar, mixed with an unrequited wish to be a police officer that translated into him repeatedly taking up jobs, educational opportunities and volunteer positions that would bring him closer to being able to go after the bad guys. Here he was able to go after somebody he thought was a bad guy, and he wasn’t going to lose him.

Only trouble was, he was wrong on several levels. Trayvon had no record, was committing no crime. He thought that the whole thing with catching crooks wouldn’t be that complicated. He wasn’t following the procedure most neighborhood watchpersons are given, either in getting out of the car to pursue the suspects himself, or in carrying a gun.

People can be wrong, and wrong with a gun means somebody gets hurt or killed. Cops are trained not only how to shoot, but how to avoid making the unfortunate, terrible mistake of shooting a civilian. What’s more, they’re also trained in how to satisfy the demands of our constitution, of the fourth amendment in particular, and given the power by the courts and states to carry out such warrants. The Watchpersons are not.

The tragedy of this is that despite his best intentions, Zimmerman’s behavior became a liability for justice, rather than an aid to it. Folk on the right, I think, are compounding the tragedy by insisting that nothing really went wrong, rationalizing serious mistakes on his part, rather than admitting them, and encouraging people to avoid them. This is part of the problem of the kneejerk way in which the right or any partisan group can rush to somebody’s defense without really looking at what they’re defending first. You can win more battles that way, but end up losing wars (sometimes literally) because defendng something becomes more important than determining what’s defensible. What common sense would tell people to let be, let fade, political compulsion pushes us to fight anyways, leaving us scrambling for justification as the facts rule out our favorite theories.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 30, 2012 3:35 PM
Comment #339921

Stephen
Most of the people on the right are saying ‘why not wait for the facts before passing judgment?’
And the “rationalizing of mistakes” as you say, is only in response to the rationalizing of what if’s and what probably ‘really’ happened theories, that are coming from those on the left.

Your personal take on all of this is based on what seems like a predetermined judgment instead of the known facts. A predetermined judgment that has had to be edited many times since the beginning of all of this.

It seems as if you yourself are failing to realize that those of you who rush to defend Trayvon without all of the facts, are also failing to really look at what you are defending first.
You are so intent on defending the black victim at all costs, that you are using personal opinions of what Zimmerman was thinking and what Martin was doing in order to create hypothetical scenarios to prove your point.

There is only one side that is scrambling for justification, and that is the side that has to keep changing its story of what “really” happened. That is why we have gone from evil white racist killing an innocent black child to a hispanic with a racial bias killing an innocent black man and to where we are now with the evil white racist police sweeping evidence under the rug because they hate black people.

Sorry Stephen, but the facts have only ruled out the favorite theories of the likes of Jackson and Sharpton.

Posted by: kctim at March 30, 2012 5:27 PM
Comment #339922

“Frank-
Look, have you noticed how many of the people passing on stories about Trayvon threatening Zimmerman are proxies, friends and family members speaking out on his behalf?
And the stories change. In one story, he makes rather explicit threats in another, he’s beating the guy within an inch of his life. In ones after the videotapes showing him walking around normally, no visible blood on his clothing or visible signs of a beating, it’s grabbing for the gun that leads to the shooting.
You can talk about radicals being the folks who believe he’s likely guilty, but I think that’s just an attempt on your part to try and ward people away from that conclusion. You don’t like where it might take policy, so therefore, it’s a position for radicals.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 30, 2012 11:20 AM

SD, you can’t let it rest can you. I said I would wait for the evidence, but you have to continue your liberal rant about racism and hang Zimmerman. Where are all these stories coming from Stephen? You’re going to have to eat a lot of shit, if he walks.

By the way SD, you are batting a thousand; Bill in Florida don’t want to talk with you anymore because you are a Democratic plant on WB and Thomas in the red column doesn’t want to talk with you because you lied about everything he said, and I read it and you did. I guess I’m the only conservative on WB who still has any respect for you…NAH.

Posted by: Frank at March 30, 2012 5:37 PM
Comment #339981

Frank-
You know, this Democratic Plant thing just shows how much you want to control the debate, rather than actually have it. I’ve never been employed as part of a political organization. But of course the reader would have a hard time checking that out. So, you get free dissonance on the whole thing, without having actually proved a thing.

That is, if people take you seriously, which I don’t think happens as much as you’d like to think. Billinflorida’s problem, like yours, is that you’re making too many of your choices of what to believe at a second-hand remove from the facts. So, you feel natural making this conversation about liberals instead of laws, about how awful I am, instead of how consistent the law enforcement is.

Why? Because you have been taught to deal with dissent on different subjects as a threat to yourself and that which you love. You’ve been taught to argue based on character, as you see their character.

But such subjective things don’t bind things together that well. You have to be in reasonably close agreement with people, and what may have been normal racial and ideological sentiments when Reagan got elected are now on a different side of the curve.

You can pretend that you speak for everybody here, but that’s all it’s going to be. You can try and intimidate me into believing I’m not on the right side, but I didn’t consult you or your dogmas when forming my opinions in the first place.

kctim-
You seem to kind of veer off to once side or another concerning what I say, rather than getting the moderation in my claims right.

First, let’s deal with the innocence before guilt thing. That’s a legal notion, something that largely works on a the level of what the courts do, and how they do it.

People form their own opinions. You can’t stop it. I mean, you can say, be balanced, unbiased, but that doesn’t happen. Even the most reasonable people sooner or later get lead to conclusions. We can say that we ought to be prepared to learn new things as investigations and trial go forward. Say that, and I agree. The question is, what theories and hypotheses do you form in the meantime, and why?

I may not have what you respect as a neutral opinion, but I try to justify where I am not neutral based on something in the real world. How head wounds and scalp wounds bleed, for example. The quandaries of the law and everything. I’m not keen on failing to see my theories vindicated, even if it means I have to take up an unconventional opinion for my politics.

I talk about a pattern, because even if a person’s mind is unknowable, what a particular phrase or comment reveals about their state of mind isn’t. I’m going to return to this in the morning, but let me just leave you with a few thoughts: If a man goes out with a gun holster at his side, is he expecting trouble? If he feels it necessary to follow a suspect, what outcome is he thinking of attaining at the end of that following.

And why this guy? What is it that convinces him that
Trayvon is a criminal?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 1, 2012 2:58 AM
Comment #339994

To all those upset with SD,

Here, on this blog, we are supposedly intelligent, thinking adults, who cherish the rights of others to have their own opinions. Without tearing them down on a personal level.
PLEASE TRY to REMEMBER THAT!!


Posted by: Highlandangel1 at April 1, 2012 2:55 PM
Comment #339997

This doesn’t look good for Zimmerman: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/01/forensic-experts-say-it-wasnt-zimmerman-screaming-for-help-audio/

Two different experts say Zimmerman was NOT the one crying for help. Could Zimmerman be a liar?

Posted by: steve miller at April 1, 2012 3:44 PM
Comment #340005

Zimmerman’s problem is a universal one, and part of why we have a system of laws rather than just having us all do what feels right. It’s not that people need to be taught entirely to empathize with others. Most of us naturally do that. Some of us, like myself, have difficulty seeing other’s points of view on an intuitive level, but we’re a relative rarity

The trouble is, even a person who is normal will not completely empathize with everybody else. People do fail to get along, or to see things all the same way.

The law is how we resolve things peaceably between ourselves. Government is how we hash out things between ourselves when the ability of individuals to hash things out between each other reaches its limits.

Without it, we can’t get past the tribal level.

So, here’s Zimmerman, pursuing the stranger through the neighborhood, something for which his brain, possessed of a strong sense of frontier justice, is rewarding him greatly for. What he’s doing feels right on a fundamental level, so he’s not considering that what he’s doing might not be the best choice.

And then there’s a confrontation. If there’s one thing you can do to disturb a person greatly, try following them We’re built to dislike being stalked.

Left to ourselves, things don’t always simplify, especially in a world which requires more than just intuitive social ordering, when we let people take the law into their own hands. Some folks think, “Oh, we just cap the criminals!”

Except not everybody we suspect is what we think, and this isn’t the kind of mistake that we poor mortals can undo. I could believe that Zimmerman is feeling very remorseful, even suffering post traumatic stress. Killing people isn’t easy, we’re built not to like it, for obvious reasons. Even so, part of what happened is that the fantasy of violence ran into the reality.

I remember the first time I got hit in the face, it took days for the black eye to go away. It was shocking for a kid brought up on movies where people slugged away at each other all day and didn’t end up looking like hamburger.

Everything I’ve heard about killing somebody registers the difference between doing it in a movie and doing it in real life. There’s a difference between watching an actor keel over after having been shot, and actually pulling the trigger on somebody and having the life drain out of a real body. I’ve seen three people laid to rest, at their viewings, and there is something uncanny, and all too still about them.

But there’s something else at work here: We need to minimize deadly misunderstandings, to end the cycles of revenge. Ironically enough, even though “an eye for an eye” (otherwise known as talonic law) has come to represent that cycle of violence, it’s intent was to stop the cycle.

Or put another way, instead of having somebody kill a murderer, and the murderer’s family comes back and kills them in turn, the law clarifies that the murderer’s family do not get come back and take vengeeance in turn.

Somebody said that this should have been passed to the grand jury, at the very least, rather than having been cut short. There needs to have been more concern for the victim’s rights, the victim’s family, etc.

Some scoff at the law being used to resolve social conflicts, but in reality, that’s its exact purpose.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 2, 2012 1:31 AM
Comment #340020

Stephen

The facts of this case are very confused.

We all agree that murder should not go unpunished. Most of us also agree that a person has a legitimate right of self defense. None of us knows if the conditions of this right were met.

We know that the police, after investigating the case, decided that there was not enough evidence to charge Zimmerman.

Up until now, no reasonable person disagrees.

Our problem and disagreement comes with motivations: Zimmerman’s, the police, the courts and the demonstrators.

Start with the last. The demonstrators assume, w/o any evidence, that race was a proximate cause. Their reasoning is that a Hispanic man shot a black man. At first they thought it was a white man. This is enough for them.

The demonstrators make a good case that a young man is dead and justice should be done. Unfortunately, thousands of young black men are killed, usually by other black men and many of those murders go unsolved or unpunished. These do not become international news. So why here?

The police made what they considered a good decision. We have no evidence that they were biased. It is likely that they did not do a very good job. Small towns are not good at this. When my son was beat into unconsciousness by a group of black thugs, the police did a poor job of investigating because it was a small town, unaccustomed to such violence.

Zimmerman was a very active guy. It looks like he took too seriously his neighborhood watch duties. He seems to have been overzealous. But we don’t know exactly what happened. We have no reason to believe racial animus was involved.

So what have we left?

A young black man is killed. This is the real story. Homicide rates have been dropping for white, Hispanic, Asians and females of all races, but have actually risen among black males. Most of the killers and most of the victims are black males. This is the real pathology. Jackson and Sharpton should address this if they really care about justice.

Why don’t they spend even a fraction of the time on the thousands of murders that they spend on this one?

Posted by: C&J at April 2, 2012 6:37 AM
Comment #340021

Stephen

Yes, people form their own opinions and no, we cannot stop that. But, what we can do is stop this nonsense of influencing opinions before all the facts are known. There are many people who are only relevant if they can convince people it is still the 1950s, and any violence resulting from this is on their heads, nobody else’s.

You yourself have formed an opinion not based on facts.
What proof do you have that he was seeking “frontier justice?” None. All you have is your opinion and that is based on him having a concealed carry permit and everybody knows that those who want to carry all dream of the wild west.

You pretend to know how both of them feel. Zimmerman in his quest for blood is not thinking of the possible ramifications of his actions and Martin is nothing but a young innocent child who feels scared to death.

Your use of words like ‘stalked’ instead of followed shows that you believe Martin is innocent of any wrong doing at all. A predetermined judgment that you had from the very beginning when you heard Zimmerman was white and Martin was black.

Despite the lack of evidence, you portray Zimmerman as a vigilante who was taking the law into his own hands, while totally disregarding the possibility that he could have just been following.

“Except not everybody we suspect is what we think, and this isn’t the kind of mistake that we poor mortals can undo.”

Then why was it ok to automatically suspect Zimmerman was a white racist? Why is now ok to suspect Zimmerman is a white Hispanic with a racial bias? Why is it now ok to suspect the police acted with racist intentions?
What happens if all of those are shown to be mistakes that cannot be undone? Violence and lives destroyed.

“Some scoff at the law being used to resolve social conflicts, but in reality, that’s its exact purpose.”

Then what is wrong with letting the law gather the facts before we determine what happened and who is at fault?

This rash jump to judgment has only two results:

IF you are proven right, then people like myself will say fine, let justice be served.
If the facts show you to be wrong, they will not be accepted and there will be violence.

Posted by: kctim at April 2, 2012 10:50 AM
Comment #340022

The police acted within the constraints of the law in Florida.

I had more sympathy for Trayvon and his family until I discovered that I was being manipulated by the media.

young black men are killed, usually by other black men and many of those murders go unsolved or unpunished. These do not become international news. So why here?

Because of the story that the media decided to sell. Those who are demonstrating also make it look like they think that black on black crime is acceptable. In Chicago, the guy that usually gets most involved with that is a white catholic priest with a black congregation.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 2, 2012 11:08 AM
Comment #340023


C&J, Jackson and Sharpton have their counterparts on the right. Who could forget the condemnation of Terri Schiavo’s husband and doctors by the right wing media and Republican politicians feeding the fear of liberals pulling the plug.

Do you think there would have been evidence for an arrest if Martin has wrestled the gun away and shot Zimmerman?

The black community has many reasons to not trust the police. Apparently some in white communities do as well.

Posted by: jlw at April 2, 2012 11:51 AM
Comment #340025

C&J-
First, a note: the police investigators recommended he be charged with Manslaughter.

Second, you can pretend race is not a factor, but then you have to explain why Zimmerman got the treatment he did, while Trayvon Martin laid on a slab three days without being identified or his parents notified, and his killer walked immediately despite a story that resembled swiss cheese. You also have to ignore the fact that his several previous calls as neighgborhood watch volunteer levelled suspicion disproportionately. Long story short, Trayvon was ASSUMED TO BE A CRIMINAL, and nothing else than his appearance led to this suspicion, was there to ensure that the treatment was different. He didn’t have a weapon, a crime, or anything else to justify this assessment of him.

Third, being non-white means nothing when it comes to whether a person has a racial bias. I wish you would quit saying “he’s hispanic, so he can’t be racist”. The very statement is racist itself, because it assigns qualities to other races that it does not assume for whites. He’s hispanic, and that doesn’t mean he can’t harbor prejudices towards those who look differently from him.

As far as justice for all those other people goes… Well, the problem there isn’t that the statement is racist, but rather that the injustice of other shootings is already being addressed. Folks investigated many of those cases, and people have been arrested, indicted, and convicted for many of them. It makes sense that Trayvon Martin protestors should have to wait until all those crimes are solved to demand justice for Martin. It’s a stalling tactic, and a sub rosa character attack, implying that people aren’t sufficiently outraged or concerned about crimes among themselves. Funny how the right is relying on so many of those kinds of arguments.

Trayvon Martin’s rights shouldn’t have to wait on absolute justice for every black crime victim, especially when the discrepancies in this case are so glaring.

Let me remind you that the police detective heading the case recommended Manslaughter charges, so if you’re praising their wisdom, consider what you’re praising is essentially what I and others are asking for: that a man with an inconsistent defense for a crime like this see his day in court.

As for the real story? The real story is that a black man was killed who had no reason to die, and a hispanic man who claimed self-defense under a certain law was permitted to simply walk on the charge, despite glaring inconsistencies in his story. The real story is that one man, white, black, or hispanic, or anything, was not afforded his full rights, and another was given rights beyond what the law says he should deserve. That imbalance is the conflict, not the mere fact that a black young man died by violence.

kctim-
All the facts? We’ll never have all the facts. We need as many of them as possible, but people, in order to function in daily life, need to start thinking about things before they know everything. Now the question is, do we maintain tentative opinions, such that we can change our opinions when new facts arrive? That’s the question.

The frontier justice thing? The man was practically hopping at every opportunity in his life to be an officer of the law, but fell short. He was making plenty of calls, he was working unofficial security at different places, etc. For some people, carrying a concealed weapon was primarily a matter of self-defense, but what this guy volunteered for, what he tried to do on a regular basis indicates that part of the reason he carried a gun was to stop criminals with it. His remarks while he was pursuing Trayvon indicate that was just his intent for following the young man.

I don’t know about quest for blood, or anything, and I don’t think Martin was entirely an innocent child, but he was not caught in the act of any crime, nor did he have a criminal record. He was cleaner in that respect than Zimmerman was. So, in a fairly substantive sense of the word, Trayvon Martin was an innocent victim. Without Zimmerman’s pursuit of him, Trayvon would not have, on his own, done Zimmerman any harm.

As far as him being a vigilante? Well, I think you should consider that he was going well beyond what neighborhood watchmen are advised to do, both in following him, and in getting into a physical confrontation with him. He did act beyond the scope of what neighborhood watchmen are supposed to do, from the start of his pursuit.

As far as suspicion goes? It’s not wrong to have suspicions, but how we act on them, and how much credibility we give them needs to be a matter of better-considered judgment. Your side seems to support a lot of snap judgments concerning civil and military threats, and then turn around and rationalize a lot of the fiascos that come about as a result of such a shoot from the hip attitude. It’s sort of a teenage rebellion against authority then rebellion against being held accountable for the screw-ups that come of it.

As far as the law in this case is concern, the concern is that those enforcing the law did not move fast enough or consistently enough to make sure justice was done, and people ought to be held accountable when they wield the authority they are given without sufficient fairness or firmness.

As for the violence? Why are you assuming that people will riot?

ohrealy-
It sounds to me like you are judging what’s going on more based on politics than you are the facts.

Why are people here insisting that the police cleared him when we have the lead investigator recommending charges? Is it just so good an argument you can’t bear not to use it, even if the premises of it are groundless?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 2, 2012 3:08 PM
Comment #340026

This is something I read on facebook that some of our liberal and progressive writers need to read, IF YOU DIDN’T HEAR IT WITH YOUR OWN EARS,OR SEE IT WITH YOUR OWN EYES…DON’T INVENT IT WITH YOUR SMALL MIND & SHARE IT WITH YOUR BIG MOUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at April 2, 2012 3:37 PM
Comment #340027

Update: Sanford Police DID Want Zimmerman Arrested

· The lead homicide detective in the fatal shooting says he asked for manslaughter charges.

· In complete contradiction to Bill Lee, the former Sanford police chief, evidence has emerged that local police asked for an arrest warrant from the local State Attorney’s office — but it was denied.

Sanford homicide detective Chris Serino told ABC News that he doubted George Zimmerman’s account of the events of February 26 and wanted him arrested.

The Miami Herald reports that a Sanford Police incident report shows the case was categorized as “homicide/negligent manslaughter.”


It’s a complete outrage that this case is currently being tried in the court of public opinion, because an arrest was denied and the evidence and facts weren’t gathered as they should have been. Yet, despite that fact, evidence still does exist — and IT MUST be followed up on.

Allow me to offer my two cents:

1. This case is murder rather than self-defense. Neither the Stand Your Ground Law nor the Castle Doctrine (the provision that allows for deadly force within one’s home) applies in this case. Because it was Zimmerman, not Martin, who was carrying a gun and pursuing, and thus he escalated the situation into one where Martin ended up being shot dead, at close range, directly in the chest.
Zimmerman lost the ability to claim self-defense the moment he actively pursued Martin with a gun while he was calling the police. And, after being told by the police dispatcher to stop following him, obviously he still did so. At that point Zimmerman was no longer acting on what constitutes the basis of the Stand Your Ground Law, because in that moment he became the aggressor — no matter WHAT Martin might have been doing there in his neighborhood.

This simple fact can be brought forward against Zimmerman in a court of law.

2. For weeks, the Sanford police refused to release the 911 tapes — claiming the case was still under investigation even though it doesn’t appear to have been since they collected no actual evidence. Why? What were they so afraid of? Only after they received a great deal of pressure from the media and the family to release the tapes, did the police finally release them.
In the 911 call, Zimmerman can be heard saying that he saw someone suspicious walking around, with his hand in his waistband. Zimmerman stated that he thought the suspect was black, in his late teens, and was acting as if he was “on drugs or something.” He said as he’s pursuing Martin that the “suspect” was looking at him and then started running. Zimmerman then says “These assholes always get away with it.” He continues talking to the dispatcher as he continues to pursue Martin. The dispatcher then asks if he was following this person, and Zimmerman says yes, and then the dispatcher says he didn’t need to do that.

Here is where Zimmerman’s father first told a lie. Because before the tapes were released, his father was claiming his son never pursued Trayvon Martin, yet, on the tape Zimmerman tells the dispatcher he was following Trayvon, and the dispatcher tells him not to.

The 911 tape of Zimmerman speaking to the police dispatcher can be used against him in a court of law.

The police chief’s treatment of Zimmerman, his refusal to take away his gun, and his refusal to arrest him in this case must also be questioned in a court of law — especially since Zimmerman was brought to the station in handcuffs, and because members of the police force were asking for him to be held and because the police incident report listed this as “homicide/negligent manslaughter.”

Btw, this is where gun advocates are seriously out of line — and are in fact, actually hurting their cause. If they had any sense at all, they’d be condemning the vigilantism and idiocy of George Zimmerman. Instead they are defending him and trying so hard to make a wannabe cop with a history of anger management issues and assault on a police officer into a “victim” who somehow had to shoot a seventeen year old kid with an iced tea and a bag of skittles because this is “a case of self-defense.” And they are attacking Martin, a dead kid who had absolutely no history of arrests. This is just bullsh*t.
Why do I say gun advocates out of line and hurting their cause? Because Zimmerman was not acting in any way, shape, or form like a responsible gun owner should be expected to act. Responsible gun owners would never instigate such a confrontation when they could definitely avoid it, nor do they go around trying to act like they’re cops when they haven’t had any actual police training. No, responsible gun owners might make a 911 call to report something, but then they would just leave it at that, allowing the police to follow up on that call and to do their job.

3. George Zimmerman’s nose was never broken in the confrontation with Martin. I know exactly what that looks like. When a persons nose is broken — even slightly broken — it will bleed a lot, and it will swell a lot. That is very clearly not what can be seen on the surveillance tape at the police statiion.
Nor could George Zimmerman’s head have been “repeatedly bashed” on the pavement either. There clearly aren’t any bruises or obvious cuts on his head in the surveillance video either.
So, Zimmerman is lying about that. And the police chief has been lying about that. And his father (lie #2) and brother and friends have also all been lying about that.

This video can be used against Zimmerman in a court of law.

4. The funeral director has now said that there were no signs of cuts, scrapes, or bruises on Trayvon Martin’s hands or knuckles.

A lack of these signs of struggle on Martin’s body is definitely some hard evidence that can be used against Zimmerman in a court of law.

5. On the one 911 call from the neighbor you can hear someone in the background screaming for help, and then you hear a gunshot — and then the screaming stops. Zimmerman claims that this was him yelling for help, and this is something that the police have attempted to corroborate. But now two experts who have examined the tape say that it could not have been Zimmerman because it doesn’t match his voice patterns closely enough.

This tape and the opinions of experts can be used as evidence against Zimmerman’s claims in a court of law.

6. It’s long past time to arrest George Zimmerman, and bring forward all this evidence in court.

It is an outrage and it is sad, but justice must be served and the American public must keep demanding it.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 2, 2012 3:38 PM
Comment #340028

From the interview with the police chief in the local newspaper posted above, “By Florida Statute, law enforcement was prohibited from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time.”

Posted by: ohrealy at April 2, 2012 4:28 PM
Comment #340029

ohrealy,
Who cares what that police chief is claiming? He was clearly a major part of the problem in this case. And the fact is, what he’s saying there is total horsesh*t! Indeed, the governor made Bill Lee step down amid all the accusations that his police department had completely bungled every bit of the investigation that should have taken place following the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. An “investigation” (or lack thereof) that was so clearly bungled that the investigator who was also tied to this case, State Attorney Norman Wolfinger, also had to agree to withdraw and someone else needed to be appointed.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 2, 2012 4:50 PM
Comment #340031

Stephen

Yes facts. And the eagerness some people jump on the ‘it’s racist’ bandwagon shows why facts are so important. To them, getting people to start thinking a certain way is more important than the facts. This is why opinions are so hard to change when new facts arrive.

A lot of people want to be an officer of the law, that doesn’t mean they think they are Wyatt Earp.
Neighborhood Watch members make calls, especially in an area that has had recent criminal activity.
Heaven forbid somebody work something as low as security instead of going on the government dole.
I am glad you can read minds and know that he wanted to use his weapon to stop criminals.

“His remarks while he was pursuing Trayvon indicate that was just his intent for following the young man.”

I must plead not up to date on this, sorry. What remarks did he say that shows he was following Martin with the intention and hopes of shooting him?

Yes, if we discount Zimmermans words, Martin was an innocent victim. The problem is that at this time, there is no proof yet that Zimmerman is lying or not. Personally, I think there is more to his story to still come out, but I’m not about to place a bounty on his head until it does.

“Without Zimmerman’s pursuit of him, Trayvon would not have, on his own, done Zimmerman any harm.”

True, but I’m curious, did the pursuit begin when Zimmerman first saw him or did it begin after Martin ran and tried to elude him?

“He did act beyond the scope of what neighborhood watchmen are supposed to do, from the start of his pursuit.”

The “pursuit” did not begin until he left his vehicle, so yes, I agree that he should not have left his vehicle.

“As far as suspicion goes? It’s not wrong to have suspicions, but how we act on them, and how much credibility we give them needs to be a matter of better-considered judgment.”

Why do you apply that logic to Zimmermans suspicions of Martin, but not to your suspicions of Zimmerman?
You have acted on your suspicions of Zimmerman by immediately labeling him as a racist who was out for blood.

“It’s sort of a teenage rebellion against authority then rebellion against being held accountable for the screw-ups that come of it.”

No, it is wanting to know what the “screw-up” actually is so that you know what the individual is to be held accountable for.

I’ve heard all this talk about “justice for Trayvon,” but how do you get justice when you don’t know what happened?

Posted by: kctim at April 2, 2012 5:44 PM
Comment #340033


If Zimmerman had done what he was told to do this would not have happened. Zimmerman is the responsible party and should be held accountable.

‘These people always get away.’ Who are these people?

Posted by: jlw at April 2, 2012 7:09 PM
Comment #340034

An innocent and unarmed young man is dead. His killer, armed with a gun, pursued the young man despite specific instructions from 911 not to pursue. It’s the very definition of murder. Right now, Zimmerman is obviously guilty in the public’s eye. He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Now it’s time for the justice system to make that determination.

Posted by: phx8 at April 2, 2012 7:36 PM
Comment #340035

People keep saying that Zimmerman pursued Trayvon and then what? He caught up with him? How would that even be possible in a foot chase? If Zimmerman is obviously guilty in the public’s eye, then he obviously can’t get a fair trial in Sanford, Florida or Portland, Oregon for that matter.

Everything that people are buying into based on this specific story all points in one direction> When a white person kills a black person it is a shameful thing. When a black person kills a black person, it’s just another news story that will be forgotten when the same thing happens the next day, or several times in that day.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 2, 2012 8:19 PM
Comment #340037

ohrealy,
The nature of the pursuit is irrelevant. Zimmerman initiated the pursuit despite instructions from 911 not to do so.

A change of venue might be necessary if this ever comes to court.

What makes this story different from various other acts of violence is that in this case, an innocent man was killed, and the killer was known, the police spoke with him at length, and yet no one prosecuted the murderer. Personally, I think race should be irrelevant, but this particular case gives every appearance of being an example of institutional racism.

Posted by: phx8 at April 2, 2012 8:41 PM
Comment #340039

kctim:

A lot of people want to be an officer of the law, that doesn’t mean they think they are Wyatt Earp.

Zimmerman was acting like he thought he was a cop — go listen to the 911 call he made and this becomes very clear.

Neighborhood Watch members make calls, especially in an area that has had recent criminal activity.

There was no “Neighborhood Watch” in this case. Just Zimmerman showing up at some community meeting and “volunteering” to appoint himself to this position in his community. No one voted for him to become an offical neighbor watchman. (Indeed, this gated community can now be held responsible if they didn’t tell Zimmerman not to take this upon himself.) Zimmerman took no training to become a neighborhood watchman. He wore no t-shirt or jacket that designated him to be the neighborhood watchman.
Thus, George Zimmerman was just some guy who independently decided to make himself the neighborhood watchman vigilante, who walked around armed with a loaded gun, and started making a shitload of paranoid calls to the police.
He was a murderer waiting to happen.

Heaven forbid somebody work something as low as security instead of going on the government dole.

Zimmerman worked under the table as “security” for illegal house parties. He had no guidelines or training to hold an actual security job at all. And, according to someone he worked with in that under the table job, he was fired from it for “being too aggressive,” and was a “Jekyll and Hyde” type of guy.

I am glad you can read minds and know that he wanted to use his weapon to stop criminals.

He was a self-appointed vigilante who was carrying a loaded gun — and disregarding the order of the police dispatcher, he followed and then shot and killed a seventeen year old kid at point blank range in the chest. Whether he “wanted to use his weapon to stop criminals” is immaterial. He did use his weapon. On an innocent kid. Who was not a criminal.

Yes, if we discount Zimmermans words, Martin was an innocent victim.

Trayvon Martin was an innocent, unarmed victim of George Zimmerman. Period.

The problem is that at this time, there is no proof yet that Zimmerman is lying or not. Personally, I think there is more to his story to still come out, but I’m not about to place a bounty on his head until it does.

Zimmerman MUST BE ARRESTED, and then he must go through a court trial — just like everyone else who shoots and kills someone.

I’m curious, did the pursuit begin when Zimmerman first saw him or did it begin after Martin ran and tried to elude him?

Zimmerman had no authority to pursue. Zimmerman had no authority over Trayvon Martin at all. Martin was being stalked by some delusional guy with a loaded gun — if only he had run and eluded him he might now still be alive.

The “pursuit” did not begin until he left his vehicle, so yes, I agree that he should not have left his vehicle.

He had no authority whatsoever to pursue anyone. After making his 911 call it was up to the police, NOT HIM to do ANYTHING.

Why do you apply that logic to Zimmermans suspicions of Martin, but not to your suspicions of Zimmerman? You have acted on your suspicions of Zimmerman by immediately labeling him as a racist who was out for blood.

Suspicions? Trayvon Martin was an innocent UNARMED victim who is now DEAD at the hands of George Zimmerman — the over-zealous self-appointed neighborhood vigilante with the loaded gun.

No, it is wanting to know what the “screw-up” actually is so that you know what the individual is to be held accountable for.

Screw up? Zimmerman stalking an unarmed kid with a loaded gun and then killing him — definitely a screw up, yes? The cops not arresting Zimmerman and letting him go free, with his gun, after shooting an innocent kid — another screw up, yes?

I’ve heard all this talk about “justice for Trayvon,” but how do you get justice when you don’t know what happened?

You’re damn right we need Justice for Trayvon Martin!!! And we’re not going to stop asking for it! Trayvon Martin didn’t deserve to be stalked and murdered by George Zimmerman. Period. We know that justice has not been served because Zimmerman was never arrested after stalking and then shooting and killing Trayvon Martin. Period. We know that justice has not been served because the police did not make an arrest, or investigate this crime as they definitely should have. Period. Simply deciding to take Trayvon Martin’s murderer’s word for everything is not justice served. Zimmerman must be arrested and face his day in court. Period.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 2, 2012 9:03 PM
Comment #340040

Jlw
Re having counterparts on the right – I suppose they do. Presumably you criticize them when they are doing something stupid and racists like Sharpton and Jackson.
“Do you think there would have been evidence for an arrest if Martin has wrestled the gun away and shot Zimmerman?” Don’t know. It would depend on the nature of the confrontation and the evidence available.

“The black community has many reasons to not trust the police.” Less reason than some might think. And it is the attitude in the black community that perpetuates much of the crime, depredations and homicides committed by other members of the black community. A young black man’s chance of getting killed by the police or a white man is very, very small compared to the odds of being killed by a brother black man. This is just the statistical fact. So a smart person would cooperate with the authorities.
Stephen

“I wish you would quit saying “he’s hispanic, so he can’t be racist”. If you find even one instance where I said that, I will send you $100. If you cannot, will you do the same for me?
I point out that he is Hispanic because it interferes with the racist narrative that the various race-baiter are accustomed to use. Of course, people of any race or ethnicity – black, white, Hispanic or others – can be racist. There is just no evidence in this case that there was racism.
Re justice for Martin – you assume it has not been achieved based on no evidence.

As for the many thousands of black youth murdered by other black youth, of course each is a sad case. But I think that Jackson and Sharpton are pushing this case to make money and build hatred, which fills their pockets with donations. They – and you – don’t care nearly as much about the thousands as this one. At least that is the evidence of the amount of time and energy devoted.

Re police wisdom – I am not praising or blaming it. I am just saying that the authorities made a determination based on evidence they had. You are reading about it in the media and coming to a different conclusion. You may be right, but there is no particular reason to substitute your judgment for that of the authorities.

Re riots - if they try Zimmerman and he is acquitted, experience with similar situations indicates there will be violence.

Posted by: C&J at April 2, 2012 9:04 PM
Comment #340041

ohrealy-
Quit with the concern trolling about black people killing each other. The point is not who kills whom. The point is whether the law treats both individuals, whether white, black, hispanic, rich, poor, or whatever, with equal regards to their rights. The authorities, or at least the folks at the top, treated the case like it was open and shut, Trayvon like he was a thug (despite no criminal record, criminal behavior observed, or weapon on his person), and treated Zimmerman with deference, despite the strong opposition of detectives on the case, and the profound disagreement of several witnesses and much of the evidence.

You can talk about media manipulation, but it sounds to me more like you are the victim of it, rather than the victor over it. You’re buying right-wing theories, and buying into their irrelevant, character-based attacks You’re even buying into that moronic, “oh look over there, it’s Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton rabble-rousing!” crap. Who cares? Them showing up doesn’t change who is right or wrong, and if that does change things for you, then your logic is crap. Who supports an idea doesn’t change its merits. The merits have to be decided on their own.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 2, 2012 10:57 PM
Comment #340042

S.D., you clearly don’t even understand the English language any more.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 2, 2012 11:14 PM
Comment #340046

Stephen

The reason people bring up Sharpton/Jackson and the pervasiveness of black young men killing others is that this is the part of the story that we disagree.

We all agree that it was terrible that this young man was killed. We could easily talk about the zealousness of Zimmerman w/o getting into heated discussion. We all agree that investigations should be made at any death. We disagree about the racial motives.

The racists have decided that this is a white-black thing and have acted accordingly. More evolved people see it as a bad situation gone worse, w/o significant racist elements.

Jackson/Sharpton are old fashioned men whose opinions have not evolved. They are stuck in the memory of a time that has passed. It will be better when such old men and old ideas also pass.

Posted by: C&J at April 3, 2012 6:42 AM
Comment #340047

Quit with the concern trolling about black people killing each other.

My concern is with the real world in which I live. Last week real black people were visibly upset about Trayvon. This week they’re over it. What happened? Trayvon is just one person. Many other killings have happened since then. The media inaccuracies have been revealed. People with cooler tempers are speaking.

Congrats on knocking Watchblog back off my bookmarks toolbar.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 3, 2012 8:54 AM
Comment #340049

C&J,

The Sharpton/Jackson element forced officials to initiate a more thorough investigation of the facts and the application of the relatively new SYG law to those facts.

In my opinion, their initial efforts had merit. A young black male, not engaged in any criminal activity, is shot to death by a white/hispanic, self appointed, “watch captain” who had identified him as suspicious and tracked him. The young man’s body lay unidentified for three days in the morgue despite the fact that he had a cell phone. The “watch captain” is released despite the sworn opinion of the lead homicide investigator that his story is inconsistent with the available facts on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to convict under the SYG law.

The case cried out for a more thorough investigation. Not simply to establish the facts but to test the application of the SYG law to these circumstances. The original sponsor of the SYG law has stated that it was never intended to apply to situations such as this one. “There is nothing in the castle doctrine as found in Florida statutes that authenticates or provides for the opportunity to pursue and confront individuals, it simply protects those who would be potential victims by allowing for force to be used in self-defense,” Baxley wrote in an opinion piece for Fox News. http://jumpshotjarrod.newsvine.com/_news/2012/03/25/10855909-republican-supporters-of-stand-your-ground-law-say-it-doesnt-apply-to-trayvon-martin-case-perhaps-someone-should-tell-them-that-it-already-did

This case may or may not have racial elements involved. It is a seemingly difficult case factually on the basis of what information has been released or leaked. But, we don’t know much about the forensic evidence with the exception that Martin was not on drugs. We don’t have much detail about witness statements or inconsistencies in those statements. What we do have is a lot of speculation at this time.

Thanks to the efforts of the Sharpton/Jackson element, the speculation will be resolved by a thorough, independent investigation. The outcome may be less than satisfactory to all parties. Some of the facts may remain in dispute or simply not be discoverable. It may highlight an unintended consequence of the SYG law. But, it will provide the families and the public with a full and complete review of the facts and conclusions as to the law. To me, that is a significant achievement.

Posted by: Rich at April 3, 2012 9:14 AM
Comment #340051

Aw, Adrienne. Here I was thinking you did a pretty good job sticking with what is now known in your first post and now you go and add biased opinions.

“Zimmerman was acting like he thought he was a cop — go listen to the 911 call he made and this becomes very clear.”

I have listened and there is no way to determine what he ‘thought’ he was and there certainly is no proof that he intended to use his weapon.

“There was no “Neighborhood Watch” in this case. Just Zimmerman showing up at some community meeting and “volunteering” to appoint himself to this position in his community. No one voted for him to become an offical neighbor watchman.”

So Wendy Dorival, the volunteer coordinator for the Sanford Police Department, is lying?

“Zimmerman worked under the table as “security” for illegal house parties.”

So have I Adrienne, they usually pay pretty well.
Don’t get me started on training for official security jobs. It is not at the level it should be
Look, if there is a pattern of a quick temper or something, it will be used against him in court, until then, you are only convicting him of what you think to be the case. Just as Jackson and Sharpton are doing.

“He was a self-appointed vigilante who was carrying a loaded gun — and disregarding the order of the police dispatcher, he followed and then shot and killed a seventeen year old kid at point blank range in the chest.”

A vigilante? Why would someone wanting to punish crime themself, call the police when they feel the police are not doing their job?
I’ll give you that Zimmermans actions led to the result, but there is no proof yet that he was a vigilante.

The dispatcher said ‘you don’t need to do that’ and Zimmerman said ‘ok.’ You are only speculating that he did not do as the dispatcher advised.

According to witnesses, he did not just follow and then shoot him at point blank range in the chest. There was a physical struggle between the two.

“He did use his weapon”

Yep, and finding out why is the reason for the investigation. The case would be over and done if we just guessed why as you all are doing.

“Trayvon Martin was an innocent, unarmed victim of George Zimmerman. Period.”

If the evidence points to that, then you are correct. If it shows Martin started the fight, then you are wrong. That is why it is important to know what happened for sure.

“Zimmerman MUST BE ARRESTED, and then he must go through a court trial — just like everyone else who shoots and kills someone.”

Sorry, but you are wrong here. In fact, there was just a story of a lady who shot a guy trying to rob her, she was detained and questioned and then released pending the investigation.
What you think should happen is not always how it is.

“Zimmerman had no authority to pursue. Zimmerman had no authority over Trayvon Martin at all.”

That is not being questioned. Zimmerman should not have left his vehicle in order to pursue on foot.

“Martin was being stalked by some delusional guy with a loaded gun — if only he had run and eluded him he might now still be alive.”

Sorry, but the 911 tapes you mentioned show Martin did run and that he did get away. It is doubtful Martin knew Zimmerman was armed and it has not been proven Zimmerman was delusional.
It is just as easy to say ‘if only Martin did not run, he would still be alive.’

“Why do you apply that logic to Zimmermans suspicions of Martin, but not to your suspicions of Zimmerman? You have acted on your suspicions of Zimmerman by immediately labeling him as a racist who was out for blood.”

“Suspicions? Trayvon Martin was an innocent UNARMED victim who is now DEAD at the hands of George Zimmerman — the over-zealous self-appointed neighborhood vigilante with the loaded gun.”

That is your opinion of Zimmerman and you are convicting him based on that. It is no different than Zimmermans opinion that Martin could have been another burglar looking for another innocent victim to terrorize.
People are profiling Zimmerman in order to condemned him for profiling Martin.

“Screw up? Zimmerman stalking an unarmed kid with a loaded gun and then killing him — definitely a screw up, yes? The cops not arresting Zimmerman and letting him go free, with his gun, after shooting an innocent kid — another screw up, yes?”

I was speaking of all crimes in general, not just what happened here. Sorry for not being more clear.
Facts, not opinions, should be used in all cases to determine guilt.
There is no proof he “stalked” him so he could shoot him. The facts show Zimmerman followed Martin, broke protocol by trying to follow him on foot, and that Martin was shot during a physical struggle between the two.
Using incriminating words to gain sympathy for your opinion does not automatically make your opinion valid.

As for the police, I am not up to date on how Florida police handle such situations, but previous actions by them show their actions were not unique here.

“You’re damn right we need Justice for Trayvon Martin!!! And we’re not going to stop asking for it!”

Then answer the question: What would the proper justice be?

Posted by: kctim at April 3, 2012 10:36 AM
Comment #340052
“So Wendy Dorival, the volunteer coordinator for the Sanford Police Department, is lying?”

I don’t know if she’s lying or not — indeed I’m not sure the Sanford Police Department can be trusted at all at this point. Supposedly Dorival helped “train” Zimmerman, yet it’s a fact that this community had no official, registered neighborhood-watch program. What this woman has has also stated is that that those involved in watch programs are intended to be “the eyes and ears” for the police, “not a vigilante.” Dorival also said, neighborhood watch members “are not supposed to confront anyone. We get paid to get into harm’s way. You don’t do that. You just call them from the safety of your home or your vehicle.”

This is not what George Zimmerman did. So if Dorival “trained” him, either he wasn’t listening, or he decided that her training didn’t apply to him. Additionally Dorival has said that carrying and using a gun on patrol violates protocols of neighborhood watch programs, so this is also something that Zimmerman did not heed from her training.

Moreover, the National Sheriffs’ Association — which is the sponsor of neighborhood-watch programs nationwide, is 100% clear in its manual on this point as well: “Patrol members do not carry weapons,” have no police power, and should “not attempt to apprehend a person committing a crime or to investigate a suspicious activity.” And, disregarding or not following the guidelines can result in consequences: “Each member is liable as an individual for civil and criminal charges should he exceed his authority.”

So, we know George Zimmerman exceeded his authority in following anyone with a loaded gun and shooting at them, and he is now liable as an individual — except it seems when it came to the chief of the Sanford Police who didn’t arrest him after he’d killed someone, and let him take the murder weapon with him.

I’ll give you that Zimmermans actions led to the result, but there is no proof yet that he was a vigilante.

Zimmerman is the very definition of a vigilante!

A vigilante is a private individual (or (pl.) group of individuals) who presumes to carry out extralegal punishment in defiance of existing law.
Look, if there is a pattern of a quick temper or something, it will be used against him in court,

Zimmerman was ARRESTED and LET GO without the Sanford Police Dept. doing ANY real investigation or evidence gathering. What needs to happen now is to bring him back into custody and more importantly CHARGE HIM FOR THE MURDER OF TRAYVON MARTIN. If this doesn’t happen, Zimmerman will NEVER have to face his day in court.
And, there is a statue of limitation here. Under Florida law if an individual is arrested but NOT CHARGED within 175 days the original arrest is expunged, any evidence will expire and that person CANNOT BE CHARGED FOR THAT CRIME EVER AGAIN IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. So, the clock is ticking here — and we see the Sanford Police department not taking Zimmerman into custody, and dragging it’s feet on their “investigation” while we know that that clock can run out.
Many people are beginning to suspect the very worst here — and I think it’s becoming more than obvious that this case really needs to be taken completely out of the hands of the Sanford Police Department.

Sorry, but the 911 tapes you mentioned show Martin did run and that he did get away.

NO, he didn’t get away. Zimmerman followed him (we know this because his cellphone records show that was talking to his girlfriend right up until just before he was shot. His girlfriend has said that Martin was telling her he was freaked out because he was being followed by someone) and the fact that Zimmerman followed him (in defiance of what the police dispatcher told him to do) is how he was able to shoot Trayvon Martin at POINT BLANK RANGE in the chest.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 3, 2012 12:47 PM
Comment #340053

Adrienne, now you are arguing against points not made and questioning the integrity of a woman you do not even know.

Nobody is arguing that the job of a watch program is to observe and report. And Dorival has given no reason to assume she is not telling the truth.
If anything, she is saying Zimmermans actions are not what she told them to do.

Again, NOBODY said the job of watch members is to catch criminals. That they should carry a weapon. That they should attempt to apprehend. Or that they are not responsible for their actions.

“So, we know George Zimmerman exceeded his authority in following anyone with a loaded gun and shooting at them”

Actually, we only know that Zimmerman, who has a CCW permit, was carrying that night. I honestly do not know if Neighborhood Watch is barred from carrying if they have a permit. So, whether carelessness or breaking the law, we will probably find out in court.
“Shooting at them” implies there was no struggle.

Again, NOBODY is saying he is not liable if he is found guilty of breaking the law.

“A vigilante is a private individual (or (pl.) group of individuals) who presumes to carry out extralegal punishment in defiance of existing law.”

Um, yeah, I know. But isn’t part of the purpose of the investigation to find out if Zimmermans intentions were to carry out extralegal punishment or if he acted in self-defense?

“Zimmerman was ARRESTED and LET GO without the Sanford Police Dept. doing ANY real investigation or evidence gathering….”

I believe that matter is part of the investigation, isn’t it?

“What needs to happen now is to bring him back into custody and more importantly CHARGE HIM FOR THE MURDER OF TRAYVON MARTIN. If this doesn’t happen, Zimmerman will NEVER have to face his day in court.”

Wouldn’t you want those charges to stick? Isn’t it possible that all they have now is only enough for charging him for the death of Martin? Do you have any idea how many people are set free because the case being made was weak or wrong on even the smallest of things?

“And, there is a statue of limitation here. Under Florida law if an individual is arrested but NOT CHARGED within 175 days the original arrest is expunged, any evidence will expire and that person CANNOT BE CHARGED FOR THAT CRIME EVER AGAIN IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.”

So, what has Zimmerman been charged with that he cannot be charged for after 175 days?
Isn’t part of your argument that he has not been charged with anything?

“Many people are beginning to suspect the very worst here —”

People suspected the very worst from day one. That is why we were told Zimmerman was white, that an innocent 13 year old black kid was stalked and shot for fun etc…

“NO, he didn’t get away. Zimmerman followed him (we know this because his cellphone records show that was talking to his girlfriend right up until just before he was shot.”

Then why did he say these ?s always get away? Why did he say ok when told he didn’t need to follow?
If only there was a process, like an investigation or something, to help clear up what occurred that night.

“…is how he was able to shoot Trayvon Martin at POINT BLANK RANGE in the chest.”

So you don’t believe the two fought? That Zimmerman just walked right up and shot Martin at point blank range?
Or are you saying they did fight, but Zimmermans actions justify any and all harm done to him?


Yet again: What would the proper justice be?

Posted by: kctim at April 3, 2012 1:46 PM
Comment #340054
Adrienne, now you are arguing against points not made and questioning the integrity of a woman you do not even know.

Actually, I’m questioning the integrity of the Sanford Police Department.

Nobody is arguing that the job of a watch program is to observe and report. And Dorival has given no reason to assume she is not telling the truth. If anything, she is saying Zimmermans actions are not what she told them to do.

Right. So, Zimmerman’s actions cannot be defended as a “neighborhood watchman.” Yet, after being arrested for homicide/negligent manslaughter he was allowed to leave and take his weapon with him, after he had stalked and murdered Trayvon Martin.
Did his relationship with Dorival at the Sanford Police Dept. have anything to do with his not being charged with that crime? Or, did his father the former Virginia Supreme Court judge know Chief of Police Bill Lee? Or State Attorney Norman Wolfinger?

Let’s cut the crap here, shall we Tim? Most people would not have been allowed to simply leave with their gun the way George Zimmmerman was after shooting and killing a seventeen year old kid with a point blank gunshot to the chest. So, there has to be a reason that they chose to make a special case out of the actions of George Zimmerman.

Again, NOBODY said the job of watch members is to catch criminals. That they should carry a weapon. That they should attempt to apprehend. Or that they are not responsible for their actions.

So then you agree that George Zimmerman should definitely have been held in custody and been charged at the Sanford police station, and should right now be awaiting the day of his trial?

Actually, we only know that Zimmerman, who has a CCW permit, was carrying that night.

And we also know that he shot and killed Trayvon Martin with that gun. And, how the hell is it that a man who had three previous arrests, including two for domestic violence and one that involved battery of a police officer ended up being allowed to have a concealed carry permit?! Is Florida law really that lax? People with criminal records are legally allowed to carry a gun on them at all times?!
If so, that might explain why Florida has for years had one of the highest crime rates in the country…

I honestly do not know if Neighborhood Watch is barred from carrying if they have a permit.

Well I honestly do know. I just read you what Dorival said about the law regarding neighborhood watch programs she trained people for, and what national law says about those programs. They aren’t allowed BY LAW to carry a gun while acting in that capacity.
The problem here is that there never seems to have been a moment where George Zimmerman wasn’t thinking of himself as law enforcement acting in that capacity — and was always carrying a gun.

So, whether carelessness or breaking the law, we will probably find out in court.

Try homicide/negligent manslaughter IF HE’S EVER CHARGED.

“Shooting at them” implies there was no struggle.

Since there were no cuts, scrapes, or bruises on Trayvon Martin’s hands according to the funeral director, there can’t have too strenuous a struggle — if there was any struggle at all. Personally, I hope that Trayvon Martin did try to struggle to defend himself — after all he was innocent, and being stalked by a zealous, paranoid nut with a loaded gun.

Again, NOBODY is saying he is not liable if he is found guilty of breaking the law.

The only way Zimmerman can be found guilty of breaking the law is IF HE IS CHARGED.

But isn’t part of the purpose of the investigation to find out if Zimmermans intentions were to carry out extralegal punishment or if he acted in self-defense?

WHAT INVESTIGATION? I don’t see any investigation. And, the governor must not have seen any investigation either since the Chief of Police and the State Attorney in charge of the investigation were both made to step down.
No, what I see instead is George Zimmerman being arrested and in handcuffs being lead into that police station, having not a drop of blood on him and no stains on his clothing, and then he was allowed to leave taking the murder weapon with him, and has never been charged with a crime — as the clock is ticking on whether if ever he will be charged before it becomes impossible to make him answerable for killing Trayvon Martin.
What I see is that Trayvon Martin being allowed to lay in drawer at the morgue for three days, even though they had his cell phone, before his parents were ever contacted and told that their son had been shot in the chest and killed.

What “investigation” do YOU see?

Wouldn’t you want those charges to stick? Isn’t it possible that all they have now is only enough for charging him for the death of Martin? Do you have any idea how many people are set free because the case being made was weak or wrong on even the smallest of things?

Oh bullshit, Tim. Despite the fact that the Sanford Police Dept. has tried their best to protect and cover for George Zimmerman (for whatever reason that might be), I still think there’s enough evidence that can be gathered to prove this was nothing but murder — IF HE IS CHARGED. But, without this being taken out of the hands of the Sanford Police Dept. it appears as though this evidence will never have a chance to be presented in court.

So, what has Zimmerman been charged with that he cannot be charged for after 175 days?

He was arrested but has been charged with nothing, and that’s the problem.
In this case he needs to be charged with the murder of Trayvon Martin. But in general in the state of Florida, any arrest where charges are not filed within 175 days means a person can never be charged with that crime.

Isn’t part of your argument that he has not been charged with anything?

Correct — has not been charged and needs to be, immediately.

People suspected the very worst from day one.

Rightfully so. The worst on the part of George Zimmerman. The worst on the part of the Sanford Police Department.

That is why we were told Zimmerman was white, that an innocent 13 year old black kid was stalked and shot for fun etc…

Zimmerman stalked, and murdered Trayvon Martin and was never charged with doing so by the Sanford Police Department. WHY? Is it because of his relationship with that police department? Or, his father’s connections in that community? Or, was it due to institutionalized racism? Whatever the reason, it is clear that justice has not been done.
Therefore we MUST NOT STOP DEMANDING THAT JUSTICE BE DONE for Trayvon Martin.

Then why did he say these ?s always get away? Why did he say ok when told he didn’t need to follow? If only there was a process, like an investigation or something, to help clear up what occurred that night.

Yeah, and this can be easily figured out too. By noting the time of Zimmerman’s 911 call, and time when Martin was still talking to his girlfriend on the phone, and telling her he was afraid because he was being followed by someone. I think it might be able to be proved that Zimmerman told the dispatcher “ok” when she told him not to follow Martin, even as he continued to follow (stalk) him anyway. But first, Zimmerman needs to be CHARGED WITH THIS CRIME.

So you don’t believe the two fought? That Zimmerman just walked right up and shot Martin at point blank range?

Like I said, I hope Martin did try fight for his life against this wannabe cop vigilante, even though there doesn’t seem to be any proof that a struggle took place left behind on his hands. However, whatever proceeded there, it’s a solid fact that Martin was shot by Zimmerman at point blank range.

Or are you saying they did fight, but Zimmermans actions justify any and all harm done to him?

Nothing justifies Zimmerman’s actions. NOTHING AT ALL. Supposedly he was told by Dorival not to be confrontational with ANY suspected person, and not to carry a gun while acting as a neighborhood watchman. Zimmerman did carry a gun — a loaded gun — and he did instigate this confrontation. Zimmerman was told by the police dispatcher not to follow Martin, and it appears likely that he did follow Martin — and ultimately shot and killed him.

Yet again: What would the proper justice be?

First of all CHARGE ZIMMERMAN WITH THE MURDER OF TRAYVON MARTIN. Let all the facts and evidence be closely examined and be presented in court.
Secondly, the government needs to do an in depth investigation of the Sanford Police Department — because everything about this case should inform us that something very rotten is going on there — otherwise we would never have seen such an outrageous, reprehensible travesty of justice take place.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 3, 2012 3:49 PM
Comment #340056

Adrienne
EVERYBODY is ‘questioning’ because we simply do not know, that is why people are saying to wait for the investigation to reveal the facts.
How can you blame Zimmerman for jumping to conclusions on one hand and then jump to your own conclusions to convict Zimmerman on the other hand?

If we are to “cut the crap here,” we must compare this case to other cases related and see how the police actions differ. You know, to prove they did indeed make a special case here.

I do not know how Florida handles their CCW permits, maybe it takes a felony conviction to forbid it.

“They aren’t allowed BY LAW to carry a gun while acting in that capacity”

The quotes you gave said “Patrol members do not carry weapons,” and that is from a manual, not a law. IF it is actually a law that states a private citizen cannot carry when acting as neighborhood watch, then that will be something that he can be charged with.

Witnessess on the 911 tapes you mentioned stated there was a fight going on.

“I still think there’s enough evidence that can be gathered to prove this was nothing but murder”

Then send this evidence to the lawyer. Maybe that way he will quit using the court of created public opinion to condemn without all the facts.

“In this case he needs to be charged with the murder of Trayvon Martin”

So you think this is really that cut and dry? That the police and prosecutor do not have to make a case justifying murder, that they have all they need. Open and shut? I’m pretty sure they need evidence of murder before they can charge murder, but I agree, IF they now have evidence of murder, they should present it and arrest and charge Zimmerman.

“Zimmerman stalked, and murdered Trayvon Martin and was never charged with doing so by the Sanford Police Department. WHY?”

Because with the known facts, Zimmerman followed, not stalked, Martin, and shooting someone in the middle of a fight is not automatically murder.

“Is it because of his relationship with that police department? Or, his father’s connections in that community?”

You forgot his friends connections to the CIA and that he was a right-wing 1%er.
Seriously though, if you guys all have Zimmerman figured out in just a few weeks, don’t you think the local police department would have had a clue in the time they have known him, seeing how they had a relationship and all? He could have snowed one or two police officers, but a whole department?
I know his father was a Magistrate in another state, but what connections to that community have been made known?

“Or, was it due to institutionalized racism?”

Because it’s ALWAYS racism in these kind of events, isn’t it. No way it can be incompetence or anything else.

“Nothing justifies Zimmerman’s actions. NOTHING AT ALL”

If Martin attacked Zimmerman then he was justified in shooting him. Doesn’t matter if Zimmerman was following him or not.
Your mind is made up, probably from day one when you heard about the race of each, but mine is not. I prefer to know the facts first.

I admit that you could be one hundred percent right about EVERYTHING, but I just don’t believe in convicting somebody on ‘could be,’ ‘might be’ or ‘probably.’

Posted by: kctim at April 3, 2012 5:49 PM
Comment #340059

Rich

“The young man’s body lay unidentified for three days in the morgue despite the fact that he had a cell phone.” - Wasn’t somebody looking for him? I hear people say this and I believe it is true, but don’t you think it is really strange? Was the family searching for three days w/o result? This would be a compelling story, but I have not heard details.

Re Jackson/Sharpton - they immediately took the racist angle. This is only my opinion, but I don’t believe either really gives a shit about the victim. They pay no attention to the thousands of young black men killed every year. Why was this different? My answer is that they saw the opportunity to increase their standing and their cash flow.

I just believe in the rule of law. We do not, should not, make our judgements by street protests and chanting. The local police made their investigation and decided not to charge. Maybe they were wrong. State and Federal authorities are now investigating. Maybe they will make a different finding. Maybe not.

The way the debate is working here is interesting. Most conservatives are arguing for the rule of law and pointing out that none of us knows all the facts. The liberals are arguing that Zimmerman is guilty (something none of them can know) and/or there is racism involved (which seems to go contrary to what we know).

The liberals want to get into a debate about who is guilty. Most conservatives are sticking to law and reason. Must be frustrating for my liberal friends that we refuse to fight on the irrational ground they have chosen.

Posted by: C&J at April 3, 2012 7:28 PM
Comment #340061
If Martin attacked Zimmerman then he was justified in shooting him. Doesn’t matter if Zimmerman was following him or not.

If Zimmerman (an armed man weighing 100+ lbs more than Martin) was following Martin, then Martin would reasonable conclude that he was imminent danger of serious bodily harm. Under FL law, Martin has the right to “stand your ground” and take whatever actions are necessary to eliminate the threat to his person. This would justify a non-lethal confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman.

It seems Zimmerman’s only hope for a not guilty verdict is to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not pursue Martin.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 3, 2012 8:37 PM
Comment #340065

kctim:

Because it’s ALWAYS racism in these kind of events, isn’t it. No way it can be incompetence or anything else.

A man who calls the police on a little kid who was 7-9 years old and playing in the street and happens to be black? Yeah, there appears to be reason enough to think that George Zimmerman may well have had a problem with black people, and that there could have been a racial element involved with him stalking and then shooting a seventeen year old kid to death because in his opinion: “These assholes always get away with it.”

And btw, don’t think you’re fooling anyone. It’s pretty obvious that your own particular bias is showing here. You’re defending Zimmerman — a man with a criminal record of twice beating up his girlfriend and of assaulting a police officer, and who killed Trayvon Martin — and all because he happens to be the kind of blowhard who always carries a gun.

If Martin attacked Zimmerman then he was justified in shooting him. Doesn’t matter if Zimmerman was following him or not.

Bullshit. The fact is, this “Stand Your Ground Law” can be applied to Trayvon Martin just as much as it can be applied to George Zimmerman — the overly suspicious, blowhard wannabe cop who stalked a kid walking down the street with an iced tea and a bag of candy — with his loaded gun which he ended up unloading directly into his chest.

Most conservatives are sticking to law and reason. Must be frustrating for my liberal friends that we refuse to fight on the irrational ground they have chosen.
Bullshit on this too, Jack. I don’t see why you’re even trying to frame this crime and the details surrounding it as a conservative vs. liberal issue when it really isn’t — or at least, it shouldn’t be. So just quit it with that stuff — it seems so stupid and nonsensical.

For anyone who might be interested: here’s an Atlantic article I read a little while back that raised a lot of pertinent questions about this case (let’s hope there will be some answers):
Trayvon Martin’s Killer Was Looking for Trouble—and Found It

Posted by: Adrienne at April 3, 2012 11:12 PM
Comment #340066

“The young man’s body lay unidentified for three days in the morgue despite the fact that he had a cell phone.” - Wasn’t somebody looking for him?”

The issue isn’t whether someone was looking for him. The issue is whether the police, morgue officials and the State Attorney’s office conducted a competent and responsible investigation. Any third grader could tell you how to trace the person from his cell phone. They didn’t waste any time drug testing the body but somehow couldn’t identify him. Why? Its so elemental that it raises questions about either their competency or veracity.

“The local police made their investigation and decided not to charge.

Not true.

The police did arrest Zimmerman and did want to charge. The lead homicide investigator filed a charging affidavit to that effect stating that Zimmerman’s story was inconsistent with the evidence. It was the State Attorney, responsible for actually filing the charge, that declined.

“Re Jackson/Sharpton - they immediately took the racist angle.”

No, they did not “immediately” take the racist angle. It was only after a substantial time had elapsed that they began their advocacy for a more vigorous investigation. Contrary to your allegations, both Sharpton and Jackson have spoken out against black on black crime in the past. http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/sharpton-decries-black-on-211997.html http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3911

“I just believe in the rule of law. We do not, should not, make our judgements by street protests and chanting.”

Who could disagree? Yet, it was the lack of a full investigation and the absence of a full disclosure as the nature of the original investigation that prompted the protests. These were protests requesting a complete investigation. The governor of Florida agreed and ordered the special prosecutor. Do you disagree with the Governor? Do you think that the original investigation was sufficient? Perhaps it was. If so, then simply release the details and let people make their judgments.

“Most conservatives are arguing for the rule of law and pointing out that none of us knows all the facts. The liberals are arguing that Zimmerman is guilty..”

Nobody is arguing that they know all the facts and that Zimmerman is guilty. How could they since only a small amount of investigative details and forensic evidence have been released or leaked. That is Florida law. Adrienne makes an important point about a criminal statute prohibiting bringing charges by the State Attorney after after 175 days post arrest. If true, that only highlights the importance of the protests prompting a special prosecutor to complete a timely and thorough investigation before the time period runs.

This is a factually difficult case, particularly as applied to the SYG law. How the SYG law will be interpreted on the facts of this case may ultimately present the dilemma of unintended consequences and a very hollow sense of justice.

In my personal opinion, this is a law enforcement and prosecutors’ nightmare regardless of any consideration of racial issues. As the sponsor of the SYG law has stated it was never intended to protect persons who for whatever reasons stalk an innocent person instigating a confrontation resulting in the death of the person stalked.

Posted by: rich at April 3, 2012 11:14 PM
Comment #340067

Rich, good points, well stated.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 4, 2012 12:13 AM
Comment #340068
Wasn’t somebody looking for him? I hear people say this and I believe it is true, but don’t you think it is really strange? Was the family searching for three days w/o result? This would be a compelling story, but I have not heard details.

They were looking. They were worried. Here’s the details of exactly how they heard that their son was dead and lying in a drawer the morgue:

Trayvon Martin: Before the world heard the cries

Posted by: Adrienne at April 4, 2012 12:36 AM
Comment #340070

Adrienne

You’re pretty selective in what you hear and read. You hear the dispatcher tell Zimmerman “he doesn’t need to do that” when he says he is following Martin and use that as proof that he was ‘stalking’ Martin, but you ignore Zimmerman acknowledging her with “ok.”
You hear Zimmerman say something like “these assholes always get away,” but you ignore the DISPATCHER asking Zimmerman if Martin is white, hispanic or black and Zimmermans response of “I THINK he is black.” Makes it kind of hard to justify the always popular evil whitey rhetoric if Zimmerman didn’t know Martin was black, doesn’t it. Do you know when Zimmerman was able to determine that Martin, who was wearing a jacket with the hood pull up over his head on a dark and rainy night, was black?
You also choose to ignore the recent history of robberies in the community.

I am not trying to fool anyone and you are right, I do have my “own particular bias” that should have been clear from the very beginning: that bias is for the facts, not a pre-determined judgment based on race and emotion.
This is why the pro-facts crowd sticks with what is known for their case, and the evil whitey crowd can only give opinions and hypotheticals for their case.

“and all because he happens to be the kind of blowhard who always carries a gun.”

Do you know these things as fact? No. You are simply profiling him, something you THINK Zimmerman did and condemn him for doing it.

“The fact is, this “Stand Your Ground Law” can be applied to Trayvon Martin just as much as it can be applied to George Zimmerman”

If you weren’t arguing with yourself, you would know that I agree. I’ll even do you one better, IF the facts show that Zimmerman attacked Martin, Zimmerman should have been the one who caught the bullet and died. Of course, we would have never heard about that case.

“with his loaded gun which he ended up unloading directly into his chest”

And there you go again. There has yet to be any proof that he stalked Martin and stating he unloaded his gun into Martins chest is nothing but an outright lie to gain sympathy and support for your opinion.

One side changes their opinion to suit the facts as they become known, and one side changes or ignores the facts to suit their opinion.
I’m going to stick with the former.

Posted by: kctim at April 4, 2012 10:34 AM
Comment #340072

After spending a few days on the road and not having access to the Internet; I come back to find the angry left still trying to lynch Zimmerman. Evidently the left has not gotten the memo; the MSM lied about videos and evidence, the case is in the hands of completely different people, a grand jury has been conveined, and still no arrest. The only ones still outraged and protesting are Jackson, Sharpton, NBP, and the left on WB. What a bunch of rectom holes.

Posted by: Billinflorida at April 4, 2012 12:03 PM
Comment #340075

How come no liberals have apologized for quoting the doctored MSM Zimmerman video and audios? It’s easy to do, just say, “I’m sorry I quoted the lies and misleading information of the corrupt MSM”.

Posted by: Frank at April 4, 2012 5:57 PM
Comment #340079

Kctim,

You claim to be biased toward the facts, yet the facts are that there are now four different accounts about what happened that night.
Trayvon Martin case: George Zimmerman’s evolving narrative

It’s not a good sign that the story keeps changing.

Also,George Zimmerman reportedly hires a criminal defense lawyer. Maybe he has now realized he’s going to need one?

Posted by: Adrienne at April 4, 2012 6:20 PM
Comment #340080

Frank,

No need for me to apologize since I only listened to the actual tapes which were fully available on numerous sites and media outlets.

Lets be clear about this issue. Zimmerman found the young man suspicious for what reason? Zimmerman first states his speculative conclusions about this young man to the police dispatcher: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.” The dispatcher asks for additional identification detail and he states that he “looks black.”

I don’t know if Martin’s racial status influenced Zimmerman’s conclusions that he was he was up to no good, on drugs or something.

What is crystal clear is that Zimmerman stated incorrect suspicions unsupported by any factual basis other than it was raining. Whether Martin’s racial status influenced his opinionated conclusions is a matter of conjecture.

Personally, it has never been a racial issue to begin with.

Posted by: Rich at April 4, 2012 6:44 PM
Comment #340083

Rich

You may have heard the tapes, but you misunderstood the grammar.

Zimmerman says that he thinks the guy is black in response to a direct question about description. This makes a big difference. Leaving this out is dishonest.

How would you answer if someone asked you to describe someone as black, white or Hispanic?

Re being suspicious - young men are always profiled. When I was a young man, I used to start work at 5am. I rode my bike to work in the early morning gloom carrying my lunch in a paper bag. On many occasions, I was stopped by the police They would ask, where I was going. I would tell them work. They would ask me what was in the bag, I would show them my lunch. They would tell me to move along.

I thought it was pretty stupid. They stopped me often and they must have known I was the same guy they bothered the day before.

When I was 17 my friends and I were walking around and we were accused of starting a fire because one of our busy-body neighbors told the cops that he “wouldn’t put it past them”. They asked us lots of questions and then told us to go home

This happens to young men, probably because young men are more likely to actually be up to something. Should we claim that society is anti-young man?

I am glad that you don’t see this as a race issue, since that is the one thing it seems not to be.

As I wrote many times, I don’t know if Zimmerman overstepped. It looks like he may indeed have done so, but I don’t know. The reason I jump on this is that I am anti-racist and the idea that some national figures want to introduce race hate into the issue is appalling.

Posted by: C&J at April 4, 2012 7:17 PM
Comment #340084

Here’s a video:
Tryvon Martin: A Walk Through The Shooting Scene

Posted by: Adrienne at April 4, 2012 7:53 PM
Comment #340705

Rich

The fact that he says he thinks the guy is black is separated by the other thoughts by full stops and the question by another person.

This is a tragic case. But the idea that this is evidence of a racist society is just plain stupid. The comparison that Jackson and others are making to Emmet Till is dishonesty stupid.

It is time - past time - that we identified racism where it is. It often resides in the civil rights movement, where people try to take the high moral ground by advancing the preposterous proposition that things are pretty much as they were in 1960, just hidden.

This whole profiling thing can be made absurd too. Of course everybody profiles. You and I make MOST of our decisions every day based on heuristics that are tantamount to profiling. The police profile young men. Why? Because young men commit more crimes than others relative to their numbers. Young men like you and me had to put up with the scrutiny. Young black men are much more likely, relative to their numbers, to commit crimes than are any other group in society. This is just statistically true. It certainly does not make any individual a criminal, but it gets absurd to ignore the overall facts.

If a cop approaches a crime scene and has the choice of stopping a young white man or a 80 year old black woman, which do you think he will do? Will that be racism? Indeed, IF he stopped the 80 year old, we would suspect either that he had some special information or that he was biased.

The fact is that in our society, young black men must fear other young black men much, much more than they need to fear whites of any kind. If we want to address society’s ills, the place to start would be with this verity.

Jackson/Sharpton specifically avoid this. That is what makes them hucksters who deserve our scorn, not our respect. They hide behind race. We should stop letting them.

Jackson used to be a respected leader. It is tragic that he has turned bad. Sharpton never was anything more than he is today. But both have turned into opportunist who feed on hatred and fear.

Re Zimmerman and investigations - everybody should understand that the mere act of investigating something will always turn up doubts. We never remember all the details and when asked repeatedly will get things wrongs. This is the nature of human memory. It is also possible to read all sorts of things into any statement.

The 9/11 tapes indicate that Zimmerman thought it was suspicious that a guy was walking around in the rain and seemed to be going nowhere in particular. Most people try to get out of the rain and/or walk purposefully to avoid being out too long. This is what seems to have caught his attention.

One more thing about profiling - Everybody profiled Zimmerman. It came as an unpleasant surprise to some that Zimmerman was Hispanic and not a good-old-boy white. The huckster and many people on these pages have profiled the police. I am always profiled because I am conservative. This is what humans do. It is even what higher animals do. We generalize. It is a way we survive. When our ancestors were walking the African plains, they didn’t have time to figure out if the leopard was hungry or not. They profiled all leopards as dangerous.

Profiling is bad in the legal sense if it is used as a specific procedure. But anybody who says that he/she does not profile every day in his/her life is either lying or very self-unaware.

Jackson and Sharpton profiled Zimmerman. So did almost everyone writing on this blog. Are they, you and we all racists? If so, we may need to modify the concept.

Posted by: C&J at April 5, 2012 6:14 AM
Comment #340707

Adrienne

“the facts are that there are now four different accounts about what happened that night”

Those words are my point Adrienne. All that is known now, was not known then.
There was one account and some information 2-3 weeks ago, today more information is known than was then. The more facts we have, the better a case can be made for and against Zimmerman.

That is how you hopefully achieve justice, not with pre-determined race based mob judgements.

Posted by: kctim at April 5, 2012 9:27 AM
Comment #340709

Jack:

It is time - past time - that we identified racism where it is. It often resides in the civil rights movement, where people try to take the high moral ground by advancing the preposterous proposition that things are pretty much as they were in 1960, just hidden.

This whole profiling thing can be made absurd too. Of course everybody profiles. You and I make MOST of our decisions every day based on heuristics that are tantamount to profiling. The police profile young men. Why? Because young men commit more crimes than others relative to their numbers. Young men like you and me had to put up with the scrutiny. Young black men are much more likely, relative to their numbers, to commit crimes than are any other group in society. This is just statistically true. It certainly does not make any individual a criminal, but it gets absurd to ignore the overall facts.

Smearing Trayvon Martin: The True Lie That Black Men Commit More Crimes Than Whites

Posted by: Adrienne at April 5, 2012 11:33 AM
Comment #340710

kctim:

Those words are my point Adrienne. All that is known now, was not known then. There was one account and some information 2-3 weeks ago, today more information is known than was then. The more facts we have, the better a case can be made for and against Zimmerman. That is how you hopefully achieve justice, not with pre-determined race based mob judgements.

The facts that are known aren’t adding up for Zimmerman.
Did you look at that video I put up? He had to have continued following Martin after the 911 call (in defiance of the dispatcher telling him not to), because he was at his truck when he made the 911 call (you can hear his truck door ringing as he opens it on the call), yet where the murder took place is far from the street where his truck was. Instead, it took place all the way around and behind the apartments. That means Zimmerman was stalking Martin — and thus, the Stand Your Ground Law no longer applies to him. That law does however, apply to Trayvon Martin having a right to try to defend himself from Zimmerman.

The Martin family’s lawyer are also raising some pretty shocking questions about what role Zimmerman’s father may have played in the fact that he was never arrested that night.

Also, Anthony Raimondo, first officer in charge of scene, was involved in a previous cover-up.

From the link:

Raimondo was at the center of a controversy that ensued when Justin Collison, the son of a Sanford police lieutenant and part of a prominent family, punched a homeless black man but was not arrested.

Local news station WFTV broke this story, which revealed that preferential treatment had been given to Collison by police after he attacked and broke the nose of his African-American victim, Sherman Ware.

Raimondo was the patrol sergeant in charge on the night Collison, who is white, was first detained. Raimondo made the decision not to press charges against Collison, which a former Sanford elected official told theGrio was at the behest of his superiors.

Just one more reason why this investigation needs to be taken out of the hands of the Sanford Police Department.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 5, 2012 12:05 PM
Comment #340712

One of my links isn’t working. Here it is again:
Martin Family Attorney Raises Questions About Zimmerman’s Father

Posted by: Adrienne at April 5, 2012 12:32 PM
Comment #340713

Adrienne

“The facts that are known aren’t adding up for Zimmerman.”

That are NOW known, Adrienne.

I would have no problem accepting that after 2 or 3 weeks of info, that people came to the opinion that things aren’t adding up for Zimmerman.
My problem is that people formed their opinion and condemned and convicted Zimmerman 2-3 weeks ago before the info was known.

Posted by: kctim at April 5, 2012 12:51 PM
Comment #340715
people formed their opinion and condemned and convicted Zimmerman 2-3 weeks ago before the info was known.

No one condemned and convicted Zimmerman 2-3 weeks ago. What people were saying then is still true today: the initial investigation by the authorities in Sanford was incomplete. Local officals came to the premature judgement that Zimmerman was within his rights to use deadly force without gathering all the facts.

If Zimmerman was arrested & charged last month, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. If his story panned out, he would be aquitted at his trial and continue along his merry away without the hoopla.

Somone in Florida made an error. Whether it was due to corruptive influence, raical amicus or just plain incopetence is unclear, but it has been clear from the beginning that this case was being mishandled by the local authorities.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 5, 2012 1:47 PM
Comment #340717

I think you better re read some of the comments Warped.

Posted by: KAP at April 5, 2012 2:35 PM
Comment #340718

Warped, the first time we heard about this incident, we heard Zimmerman was a white racist who murdered a little black kid was only walking down the street eating Skittles and drinking tea. We were led to believe and even told that Zimmerman was a murderer who was not arrested.

There have been and will continue to be marches calling for Zimmermans arrest for murder.


“If Zimmerman was arrested & charged last month, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. If his story panned out, he would be aquitted at his trial and continue along his merry away without the hoopla”

Is it police SOP to charge and arrest someone, and keep them in jail for up to 6 months, while they investigate what to charge and arrest them on?

There will be violence if Zimmerman is aquitted, not because people are pissed about the investigation, but because they have already condemned and convicted him from day one and any investigation that does not find him guilty is wrong.

Posted by: kctim at April 5, 2012 2:44 PM
Comment #340721

This is in response to Adrienne’s left wing link as evidence of something. About the editor of the Reid Report:

“Joy has worked as an Internet news editor for NBC affiliate WTVJ in Miami and hosted a talk radio show for Radio One. In 2004, she served as statewide deputy communications director for America Coming Together, which registered 50,000 voters in Florida, and in 2008, she worked on South Florida urban media outreach for the Barack Obama presidential campaign.”

http://blog.reidreport.com/about/

Since Obama has already convicted Zimmerman and since Obama believes it was a racially motivated murder; then what do you suppose an Obama supporter (Joy Reid) who is a reporter, would report?

“Young black men are much more likely, relative to their numbers, to commit crimes than are any other group in society. This is just statistically true. It certainly does not make any individual a criminal, but it gets absurd to ignore the overall facts.”

Smearing Trayvon Martin: The True Lie That Black Men Commit More Crimes Than Whites

Posted by: Adrienne at April 5, 2012 11:33 AM

Word games Adrienne: A higher ratio of young black men commit crimes, compared to young white men. This is why there much higher percentage of blacks in prison than whites:

http://www.isteve.com/Crime_Imprisonment_Rates_by_Race.htm

“No one condemned and convicted Zimmerman 2-3 weeks ago. What people were saying then is still true today: the initial investigation by the authorities in Sanford was incomplete. Local officals came to the premature judgement that Zimmerman was within his rights to use deadly force without gathering all the facts.” Warped Reality

This is not true; Jackson, Sharpton, and NBP’s Mohammad all convicted Zimmerman and called for punishment. Mohammad even offered a reward, dead or alive. All three of these people represent a large group of people.

Posted by: Billinflorida at April 5, 2012 3:21 PM
Comment #340722
the first time we heard about this incident, we heard Zimmerman was a white racist who murdered a little black kid was only walking down the street eating Skittles and drinking tea. We were led to believe and even told that Zimmerman was a murderer who was not arrested.

That’s quite a hyperbolic straw man. I first read about this on Ta-Nehisi Coates’ blog at the Atlantic. Nowhere is Zimmerman described as a racist or as a murderer. I dare you to cite an article from the mainstream media that declares Zimmerman as either a racist or a murderer. I understand that Zimmerman’s family released a statement on Thursday, March 15 to clarify Zimmerman’s partial Peruvian ancestry; before then, there were some erroneous reports that he was white, but those sorts of mistakes are far removed from actual accusations of racism.

Is it police SOP to charge and arrest someone, and keep them in jail for up to 6 months, while they investigate what to charge and arrest them on?
From the beginning, Zimmerman confessed to shooting Martin. Anyone with half a brain would realize from the facts given that there is a great deal of doubt with Zimmerman’s claims of self-defense. Proper procedure should have led to an arrest and manslaughter charges. Zimmerman may have posted bail in order to avoid waiting for his trial in jail. Further investigation may have warranted upgrading the charges to murder or dropping the charges. However, it seems the authorities decided not to probe the matter further. They trusted Zimmerman’s testimony as fact and let him go.
There will be violence if Zimmerman is aquitted, not because people are pissed about the investigation
Au contraire. If violence erupts after an acquittal, it will be precisely the result of the authorities’ mishandling of the case during the first 2 weeks after Martin’s death. By not charging Zimmerman with any crime, they have eroded the public’s trust in their institutions of justice. If violence occurs, it will be because the public no longer trusts their institutions of justice to operate in a fair & righteous manner.

Let me reiterate: If Zimmerman was charged at the beginning of March and later acquitted, none of this hoopla would have happened. Zimmerman would defend his actions at a trial with little media coverage. Afterwards, he would proceed on his merry way without any hoopla.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 5, 2012 3:58 PM
Comment #340723
Since Obama has already convicted Zimmerman and since Obama believes it was a racially motivated murder

Cut the BS. Obama has said nothing of the sort.

This is not true; Jackson, Sharpton, and NBP’s Mohammad all convicted Zimmerman and called for punishment. Mohammad even offered a reward, dead or alive. All three of these people represent a large group of people.

These guys’ opinions lie among the margins of American political discourse. This is especially true for the NPB who are classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The accusation you are making is that mainstream media convicted Zimmerman and called for punishment, which is false.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 5, 2012 4:19 PM
Comment #340724

Warped, spot on — both posts.

Billinflorida, I guess you’re saying that Reid just made up that map and then drew all over it without any accurate information? If so, you’d be wrong since that information is already common knowledge. I just posted that particular video because I thought it showed everything clearly.

Word games Adrienne: A higher ratio of young black men commit crimes, compared to young white men. This is why there much higher percentage of blacks in prison than whites

So, you didn’t read my link at all. Why am I not surprised?

Posted by: Adrienne at April 5, 2012 4:27 PM
Comment #340725
It is time - past time - that we identified racism where it is. It often resides in the civil rights movement, where people try to take the high moral ground by advancing the preposterous proposition that things are pretty much as they were in 1960, just hidden.

Latest billboard for 1960:

George Zimmerman supporter sprays ‘Long Live Zimmerman’ on the wall of Ohio State University’s Black Cultural Center

Posted by: Adrienne at April 5, 2012 5:36 PM
Comment #340726

Warped,

“I dare you to cite an article from the mainstream media that declares Zimmerman as either a racist or a murderer”

I like how you confine it to just the MSM when you know they aren’t going to just come right and say it. No, instead they make sure that we all know Zimmerman was white and Martin was black, and play the words of Sharpton and Jackson. This makes people go online and search for ‘the truth.’ Do I really need to post all the links to stories like “Zimmerman racist murder. Racist cops refuse to act.” which just so happens to be the first link to pop up with a yahoo search? Nope.

Truth of the matter is that this has been promoted as a case of racism from day one, and the chants of “justice for Trayvon” will only be satisfied with a murder conviction.

“Anyone with half a brain would realize from the facts given that there is a great deal of doubt with Zimmerman’s claims of self-defense.”

I’m not about to try and defend the actions of the police. I was not there during the response, the 5 hour interogation or the re-creation the following day, so I have no idea of the facts that were given.

“Proper procedure should have led to an arrest and manslaughter charges.”

Ok. I am not familiar with Florida law concerning all of this, so I will take your knowledge of them into account. Thanks.
Charging and arresting somebody before you know what to charge and arrest them for, just seemed weird to me.

Posted by: kctim at April 5, 2012 5:58 PM
Comment #340727

Adrienne

As often happens, your source doesn’t prove the point. The postulate is that more blacks indeed are in jail because the system is racist and put them there more often. You might believe this if you want. There could be a monumental conspiracy. It could be that more crimes are reported or more blacks are caught for things like possession.

Except for one big crime - murder. Unlike other crimes, murder is not subject to very much interpretation. Blacks are responsible for 49-53% of the murders in the U.S., according to FBI statistics.

With your mind set, you might imagine that whites are infiltrating black areas, killing black people and then blacks are blamed, all w/o being detected. It could happen. Maybe not a good idea to count on such low probability events.

Now recall that in some years more non-blacks kill than blacks. Note that non-black doesn’t always refer to whites. Your source tried to include “browns” among blacks, but the statistics don’t need to. But you must also recall that blacks make up only around 13% of the population. When 13% commit 50% of the murders, this is a significant over representation.

I really would prefer to engage in this tangential issue. It will just upset you. The statistics are abundantly clear. It is a serious problem and one reason we refuse to address it is because of racism, not the old fashioned kind, but the soft bigotry of low expectations and flexible values.

Posted by: C&J at April 5, 2012 6:05 PM
Comment #340728

“These guys’ opinions lie among the margins of American political discourse. This is especially true for the NPB who are classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The accusation you are making is that mainstream media convicted Zimmerman and called for punishment, which is false.”
Posted by: Warped Reality at April 5, 2012 4:19 PM

“The Million Hoodie March: Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson Address Trayvon Martin Tragedy”

http://voices.yahoo.com/the-million-hoodie-march-al-sharpton-jesse-jackson-11160808.html

Tell me Warped, would these people be in the march if Jackson and Sharpton were not there? They represent every black person in America who votes democrat; so their opinions are certainly not marginal. Secondly, Sharpton is on the payroll of MSNBC and therefore is supported by the MSM. If he were not, he would be fired by MSNBC, which he has not been.

Re/ NPB and hate group; since when has the left refused to support hate groups? If you or any other liberal on WB have defended Obama and his relationship to Bill Ayers or Rev. Wright, you have defended hate groups.

Posted by: Billinflorida at April 5, 2012 6:07 PM
Comment #340729

C&J, WR says prove the MSM is not guilty of convicting Zimmerman. Yet, as I said, Sharpton is on MSNBC payroll and he is not the only radical liberal on MSNBC to convict Zimmerman. Let’s try Ed Shultz and RAchel Maddow; this is all they have talked about for the past 3 weeks

WR needs to get out of his little bubble and see what’s really going on in the world. Perhaps someone could explain to me, where would Zimmerman go to get a fair trial? Would his lawyer be within his rights to not allow any black person on the jury? Would it also be considered racism for the lawyer to remove blacks from the jury? The left and the MSM have most definetly tried this case in the media.

Posted by: Billinflorida at April 5, 2012 6:18 PM
Comment #340731

Let’s see, quick update on how the conservative base is doing with various constituencies. Alienate blacks? Check. Alienate latinos. Check. Alienate gays? Check. Alientate women? Check. Nicely done. And hey, enjoy the upcoming election.

When alienating these groups, these same fine conservatives will cite the constitution and claim to promote liberty and freedom, yet they silently accept a 5-4 ruling by conservative Supreme Court justices that anyone can be strip searched for any misdemeanor- a violation of ‘reasonable search’ if ever there was one.

Posted by: phx8 at April 5, 2012 6:26 PM
Comment #340733

Alienate liberals? Check, alienate Constitution haters? Check.

So the liberals on WB have moved on to the next Obama administration talking point…attack the SCOTUS. Real original. Obama farts and liberal’s sniff.

Posted by: Billinflorida at April 5, 2012 6:32 PM
Comment #340735

http://www.foxtoledo.com/dpp/news/local/hate-fueled-weekend-beating-says-elderly-man

Let’s see if Obama is concerned about this old white guy. Let’s see if the FBI and Eric Holder investigate this racist hate crime? Don’t hold your breath…

Posted by: TomT at April 5, 2012 6:50 PM
Comment #340736

Jack:

The postulate is that more blacks indeed are in jail because the system is racist and put them there more often. You might believe this if you want.

I do believe this — and I know it to be true. That’s because I once lived for many, many years in a predominantly black neighborhood and have seen this first hand.

There could be a monumental conspiracy.

Oh, it’s not at all hidden. If one lives in a poorer neighborhood with many black folks the way I did, they’ll soon realize that the racism and classism of the entire American system is definitely right out there for everyone to see.

It could be that more crimes are reported or more blacks are caught for things like possession.

Black folks and poverty-stricken neighborhoods in general are targeted for police scrutiny for any kind of crime you could name, all across the board. Because Race and Class have always gone hand in hand when we’re talking about exactly who ends up going to jail in America.

Blacks are responsible for 49-53% of the murders in the U.S., according to FBI statistics.

The latest FBI statistics claim: 33.5 White, 37.4 Black, 1.6 Other, 27.5 Unknown
Here’s the link: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_03.html

The statistics are abundantly clear. It is a serious problem and one reason we refuse to address it is because of racism, not the old fashioned kind, but the soft bigotry of low expectations and flexible values.

To quote from my link:

As the old saying goes, “numbers lie and liars figure.” Or alternatively, the lazy recitation of statistics is a dumb person’s idea of how a smart person sounds.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 5, 2012 7:02 PM
Comment #340737
When alienating these groups, these same fine conservatives will cite the constitution and claim to promote liberty and freedom, yet they silently accept a 5-4 ruling by conservative Supreme Court justices that anyone can be strip searched for any misdemeanor- a violation of ‘reasonable search’ if ever there was one.

I’m really hoping one of you WB writers will write an article about that outrageous, and totally unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling! Clearly it’s time for all of us to contact our members of Congress so they can step in and craft some legislation against this, pronto!

Posted by: Adrienne at April 5, 2012 7:20 PM
Comment #340738

Adrienne

It is possible that more blacks are accused and convicted of crimes than white for social reasons. It would have to be a monumental number but it is possible for most crimes.

I don’t lie, but I can figure. Let me walk you through it.

You have the following numbers of murders- 33.5 - white 37.4 -black 1.6 - other 27.5 - unknown. The unknown race is … unknown. We have no basis to extrapolate that they are black or white. The safest thing is to leave it out. The next most logical thing would be to attribute to that group more or less the same characteristics as the known universe. We could not assume that they were all black or all white.

We could make a couple of silly arguements. We could argue either that only about 35.% of murders were committed by whites and others, leaving blacks committing 65% or we could say that blacks commit only a little more than 37% leaving 63% for others. We are not that stupid. At least I am not and I assume that neither are you.

You notice, however, that even if we make the silly assumptions above, blacks STILL murder at rates nearly three times as big as their numbers in the population.

What we have among the known figures is 37.4 + 33.5 + 1.6 = 72.5. Of the known killers around 51.6% are black. Which is around half.

There is no way around this, Adrienne. The source you gave me indicates that the lowest possible (although with a vanishingly small probably) is that black murder at three times their numbers in the population. The highest possible number (although equally unlikely) is that they kill at around five times their numbers in the population. The most likely figure is that around 50% or a little less than four times.

The corresponding rates for non blacks would a a low of around 0.4 times, a high of 0.72 times, with the most probable figure of around 0.57 times.

There are other ways you could figure this, but there is no way you can count, using the usual rules of math, that do not have blacks killing at multiples of their numbers in the population. AND, BTW, being killed by other black in similarly depressing numbers.

I believe that the source you linked in the first posting is both dumb and dishonest. The quotation you give from that article describes the article’s author. I can easily rip it apart using the FBI statistics you so conveniently supplied. Thank you again for supplying the information that proves your arguments false. Don’t you ever tire of doing this?

I did warn you that you should not to take up the cudgels on behalf of this topic because I was sure of the outcome. These statistics have been combed and sorted in all sorts of ways trying to avoid the truth. It just is too big to paper over or ignore. The black murder rate is just too high.

Posted by: C&J at April 5, 2012 7:57 PM
Comment #340763


The Republicans still have the white man vote.

The million hoodie march was inspired by the CSM Conservative Spin Media, rather than the MSM, and conservatives don’t just sniff, they have their whole head up in it.

Posted by: jlw at April 5, 2012 8:45 PM
Comment #340950

Adrienne,
I’d like to post articles on WB, but no longer can due to problems with the Movable Type Publishing site. It cannot recognize me, I cannot change the password, and no one has responded to e-mails from either WB or Movable Type (other than Adam Drucker, a fellow writer).

Anyway, I doubt the conservative Supreme Court justices okaying strip searches for virtually anything will receive much attention because there are so many bigger fish to fry. But I cannot understand what planet these people would have to come from in order to justify strip searches as ‘reasonable searches.’ I cannot understand how Americans can calmly accept such an outrageous decision. How can conservatives ignore something so extreme, so blatantly against our rights? It buggers the imaginiation.

Well, maybe it will receive more attention if the SCOTUS shoots down health care reform. We’ll see in June.

Posted by: phx8 at April 5, 2012 10:24 PM
Comment #340984

phx8

Try - editor@watchblog.com

Posted by: C&J at April 5, 2012 10:46 PM
Comment #341012

Thanks C&J!

Posted by: phx8 at April 5, 2012 11:44 PM
Comment #341033

Jack,
I’ll stand on what I’ve already said. You can quote all the statistics you want, but I know they’re an empty lie when what we’re really talking about is a rotten system that has been designed specifically to punish and profit off of rank racism and classism.

And btw, how the hell did you even land on this topic?! What does it have to do with the fact that Trayvon Martin, an innocent seventeen year old kid has been shot to death? What does it have to do with someone like Zimmerman, a delusional vigilante with a violent criminal past who thought he could play pretend-cop in his gated community since his wealthy, well-connected Daddy could always be counted on to get him out of having to pay for any kind of trouble he creates?

Posted by: Adrienne at April 6, 2012 2:23 AM
Comment #341129

Adrienne

I figured you would stand on what you said. Evidence is not particularly important to some people.

One of the challenges of communicating with the public is a fundamental innumeracy. This may not apply to you in particular, but it is generally true. That is why politicians, marketers and others can get away with so much.

I also do not discount the power of your personal experience, but you have to be careful with it. I walk around a lot in all sorts of neighborhoods. I have never been the victim of violent crime. I was pick-pocketed once in Spain, had a car stolen in Poland and somebody broke into my house in Brazil. My own experience would indicate that there is no crime in the U.S. but Spain has pickpockets, Poland has car thieves and Brazil has burglars. This would be a bias statistic, but like you I could stand by my statement with vigor and passion.

How did we get on this subject? I was putting this case in context especially regarding interest and passion expressed by Jackson and Sharpton and asking why they chose to make this case an international cause when similar murders happen every day and have been happening at appalling rates for decades.

I also told you a couple of posts up that I preferred not to get off on this tangent, but you pursued so I had to explain the statistics involved. You chose to use statistics. It was not a wise choice if your goal was to prove that there was no significant difference in crime rates.

The idea that America is a rotten system designed to punish and profit by racism is not supported by the evidence, statistical or even anecdotal. The contention survives because it once was true to some extent, makes a compelling narrative and lots of people profit by its perpetuation.

And the Florida case does not support the contention, which is the basis of most of the arguments in this and similar blog posts. It is the reason you are so passionately attacking Zimmerman, someone you would not have heard about if his victim has been white and if you had heard about it, you would probably now be defending the “Hispanic” against the white establishment.

Posted by: C&J at April 6, 2012 6:59 AM
Comment #341134

“Alienate blacks? Check. Alienate latinos. Check. Alienate gays? Check. Alientate women? Check.”

Sad times when you are seen as alienating somebody because you don’t support giving them special treatment.

“…yet they silently accept a 5-4 ruling by conservative Supreme Court justices that anyone can be strip searched for any misdemeanor- a violation of ‘reasonable search’ if ever there was one.”

Damn our conservative President for urging and agreeing with such a violation. Next thing you know, he will be urging government to search our persons, houses, papers, and effects to ensure we have health insurance, and fine (tax) us if we do not.
Damn conservatives.

Posted by: kctim at April 6, 2012 11:07 AM
Comment #341136

kctim,

I like how you confine it to just the MSM when you know they aren’t going to just come right and say it.

Conservatives on Watchblog have placed blame on the MSM. According to their narrative, the MSM is responsible for people “condemning and convicting” Zimmerman three weeks ago.

No, instead they make sure that we all know Zimmerman was white and Martin was black
I am not aware of any instances where Zimmerman is described as white after his family disclosed his Peruvian ancestry on March 15.
play the words of Sharpton and Jackson.
I agree that these men’s words are given way to much airtime. Unfortunately, “if it bleeds, it leads”. Uncivil rhetoric earns big ratings. This is nothing new; extremists on both the left and the right are given undue influence.
This makes people go online and search for ‘the truth.’ Do I really need to post all the links to stories like “Zimmerman racist murder. Racist cops refuse to act.” which just so happens to be the first link to pop up with a yahoo search? Nope./blockquote> I’ll agree that there are plenty of amateurs out there who made rash judgements when not all the facts were in. But this is true for both sides. There are plenty of right-wing sites that have condemned and convicted Trayvon Martin’s reputation and character without knowing all the facts. If we include the entire internet in our analysis were are guaranteed to get all sorts of crazy ideas that we all disagree with, which is why I limited my claims to the MSM because those organizations have standards of integrity greater than the rest of us.

Mainstream commentators justifiably criticized the local officials’ handling of the case. No one of any significance has advocated that Zimmerman be denied his due process or anything else. The only demand has been for a more thorough investigation and that was achieved when outsiders took over the case.

the chants of “justice for Trayvon” will only be satisfied with a murder conviction
Unfortunately, this is probably true. However, the fault lies mostly with the authorities in Sanford who failed to do their jobs and properly investigate this the first time around. The decision to let go a man in Zimmerman’s shoes should not be made lightly. The police & prosecutors should believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was acting wholly within the law. From what we know now, there are several reasons to question Zimmerman’s claim that he was attacked while standing next to his vehicle. The police never even bothered to contact Trayvon’s girlfriend, who was an earwitness for much of incident.

When institutions of justice commit errors, people lose trust in those institutions. Without the trust of the public, those institutions won’t be able to credibly make unpopular decisions without sparking riots/protests.

Ok. I am not familiar with Florida law concerning all of this, so I will take your knowledge of them into account. Thanks. Charging and arresting somebody before you know what to charge and arrest them for, just seemed weird to me.
I’m an amateur just like you. However, I had been under the impression that it wasn’t unheard of for people to be charged with a minimal crime initially, only to have the charges upgraded as more evidence came to light. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong, but it seems that from day 1, the Sanford police had enough evidence to charge Zimmerman of manslaughter. In fact, detective Chris Serino wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, but the prosecution never did.

Maybe there’s a piece of exonerating evidence that the police had on day 1 and have kept under a tight lock & key for the past 6 weeks, but I doubt it. Surely, it would have leaked by now. Absent such a revelation, it is abundantly clear that this case was mishandled.

Billinflorida,

Tell me Warped, would these people be in the march if Jackson and Sharpton were not there

No, they wouldn’t be marching. I’ve already said that Jackson and Sharpton are behaving extremely irresponsibly with regards to this matter. They are not interested in obtaining justice for Trayvon Martin, but simply inflating their own egos (and pockets).

They represent every black person in America who votes democrat
That’s absurd.
their opinions are certainly not marginal
They call for a million hoodie march and only a few thousand show up? That’s pretty marginal to me.
Secondly, Sharpton is on the payroll of MSNBC and therefore is supported by the MSM. If he were not, he would be fired by MSNBC, which he has not been.
Sharpton earns MSNBC plenty of money, that is the only reason why he is still employed. In an ideal world, MSNBC would fire Sharpton would be fired for his behavior, but the same would be true for the multitude of conservative commentators on FOX.

since when has the left refused to support hate groups? If you or any other liberal on WB have defended Obama and his relationship to Bill Ayers or Rev. Wright, you have defended hate groups.

Obama has never had any substantial relationship with Bill Ayers. Rev. Wright’s reputation was tarnished by 30 seconds taken out of context out of decades upon decades of sermons. Rev Wright has since migrated into the realm of hate speech, but this occurred well after his relationship with Obama ended.

WR says prove the MSM is not guilty of convicting Zimmerman. Yet, as I said, Sharpton is on MSNBC payroll and he is not the only radical liberal on MSNBC to convict Zimmerman. Let’s try Ed Shultz and RAchel Maddow; this is all they have talked about for the past 3 weeks
I don’t own a TV, so I cannot easily watch Shultz or Maddow. Can you please provide me with a specific example where they “convict Zimmerman”. Remember that this is different than simply calling for further investigation, but rather a call for Zimmerman’s right to due process to be ignored.
Perhaps someone could explain to me, where would Zimmerman go to get a fair trial? Would his lawyer be within his rights to not allow any black person on the jury? Would it also be considered racism for the lawyer to remove blacks from the jury?
Presumably, Zimmerman should be tried by his peers in the area around Sanford. If Zimmerman’s contention that he was not motivated by racial amicus were true, I don’t think he’d have any problem with African-Americans serving on his jury. The jury should reflect Zimmerman’s peers, and Florida has a significant population of African ancestry.
The left and the MSM have most definetly tried this case in the media.
Please cite evidence for this often claimed, but unproven allegation.
alienate Constitution haters? Check.
What? Why would the GOP alienate their base?

TomT

Let’s see if Obama is concerned about this old white guy. Let’s see if the FBI and Eric Holder investigate this racist hate crime? Don’t hold your breath…
If local authorities commit errors like the officials handling Zimmerman’s case did, then I am certain that the Federal Government will intervene. If the locals handle the case properly, then there is no need for Federal involvement.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 6, 2012 1:27 PM
Comment #341139

As far as racial profiling is concerned Sharpton, Jackson, et al use racial profiling. Pure and simple.

Testimony has been given to the extent that when the dispatcher advised Mr. Zimmernam to stop his pursuit, he then tried to return to his vehicle and then was set upon by Mr. Martin.

Adrienne

Your fact and fiction are so intertwined that truth could not possibly be made sense.

The NSA is not always in charge of the Neighboorhood Watch Program. There are cities and towns who have control and have written the program for such excercises.

You have convoluted the positions of Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Martin in such a manner that make it a mockery of any kind of justice for either side.

Lastly. I don’t even believe the page numbers in Atlantic.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at April 6, 2012 1:35 PM
Comment #341143


That is right, the Administrations DOJ argued in favor of the strip search ruling.

It is a government mandate, all persons arrested and placed in the general jail population will be strip searched, body cavities not excluded.

Another government mandate, all young men must register for the draft even though we have a volunteer army.

So, should we expect the Court to uphold the governments health care mandate with a 6 to 3 ruling?

Tom Humes, nearly everyone has convoluted the situation, left and right.

Poll: A majority of blacks think it was a racist episode, 2/3 of whites don’t.

Posted by: jlw at April 6, 2012 2:07 PM
Comment #341144

I am going to bring it up again.

How about this news story? A group of a dozen white men 20-25 years old drove more than 100 miles to come into a predominantly black area, where they attacked lone black men at random. In the worst case, they attacked a black man walking alone. They attacked from behind, hitting him with a bottle and then kicking him in the head an face, while hurling racial epitaphs. They were scared away by bystanders and drove off in a distinctive car painted with flames on the hood. Police later stopped this car for running a red light and arrested the occupants. Authorities were unable to convict or even charge the white men, because witnesses were unable to identify which of them had been involved. All agreed that at least three had been involved, but more than six were there. Since none of the men would inform on the others, all ended up going free.

Do you think Jackson and Sharpton should march for justice. Of course this didn’t happen the way I wrote.

My son was attacked completely at random by six black kids. I don’t know if they had hoodies or not. The beat him into unconsciousness and tried to disfigure maybe kill him. Fortunately, bystanders chased them away. Nobody marched for him. It never became more than local news and as far as I saw no news story brought up a race angle at all.

I am fairly certain race was a factor, but I would not use this incident to condemn a ingrained racism.

Posted by: C&J at April 6, 2012 2:07 PM
Comment #341147

Jack:

I figured you would stand on what you said. Evidence is not particularly important to some people.

Obviously you’re intent on missing my point. I don’t consider your statistical “evidence” in any way valid. Indeed, I understand that such statistics are compiled and constantly used as a way to reinforce a very sad, long history of institutionalized racism and classism in America.

I also do not discount the power of your personal experience, but you have to be careful with it. I walk around a lot in all sorts of neighborhoods. I have never been the victim of violent crime. I was pick-pocketed once in Spain, had a car stolen in Poland and somebody broke into my house in Brazil. My own experience would indicate that there is no crime in the U.S. but Spain has pickpockets, Poland has car thieves and Brazil has burglars. This would be a bias statistic, but like you I could stand by my statement with vigor and passion.

I think to put so much faith in those kind of statistics one would have to not only discount people’s personal experiences, but live in a bubble wherein those statistics are considered to be the ultimate and final word on American crime and who in America ends up going to jail.
But I don’t live in that kind of bubble, I live in the real world and fully understand how the deck has been intentionally stacked. A person living in the real world is forced to acknowledge that race and class are constantly used as an excuse to incarcerate too many people. A world where filling those jails means filling someone’s pockets with mountains of money. A world where innocent children just like Trayvon Martin get gunned down simply because they didn’t appear to belong in the minds of vigilantes like George Zimmerman in his wealthy gated community. A world where even highly educated black professionals who work at Harvard like Henry Gates end up being roughed up and arrested by the police simply because their front door became jammed and they were trying to get into their own home in a wealthy suburb of Cambridge.

How did we get on this subject? I was putting this case in context especially regarding interest and passion expressed by Jackson and Sharpton and asking why they chose to make this case an international cause when similar murders happen every day and have been happening at appalling rates for decades.

They chose to take this case directly to the American public so that justice might be served as soon as they saw that the Sanford Police had no intention of investigating and apprehending a murderer. Calling attention to injustice is exactly what Dr. King did, and they understand that this was and is often very successful. And I say, Bravo and well done to both gentleman! Because due to the resulting outcry an actual investigation was forced to begin!
The only reason that Jackson and Sharpton are so reviled by so many on the right is because they are completely unafraid to call out the racism and classism that is so endemic within our society, when the right much prefers to ignore or deny that such things exist at all.

I also told you a couple of posts up that I preferred not to get off on this tangent, but you pursued so I had to explain the statistics involved. You chose to use statistics. It was not a wise choice if your goal was to prove that there was no significant difference in crime rates.

Hilarious. You were the one who went off on this tangent, and you were the one who started trying to quote “statistics” to try to bolster your point, so don’t even bother to lie about this.

The idea that America is a rotten system designed to punish and profit by racism is not supported by the evidence, statistical or even anecdotal. The contention survives because it once was true to some extent, makes a compelling narrative and lots of people profit by its perpetuation.

Yes, it is. Not much has changed — but the new twist on racism is in reactionaries denying that institutionalized racism still exists in America.

And the Florida case does not support the contention, which is the basis of most of the arguments in this and similar blog posts. It is the reason you are so passionately attacking Zimmerman, someone you would not have heard about if his victim has been white and if you had heard about it, you would probably now be defending the “Hispanic” against the white establishment.

You don’t know too much about the state of Florida, obviously. I have a sister who lives there, so I know more. Here’s a link that can explain a few important factors that everyone needs to grasp in order to understand the cultural dynamics that exist in Florida:
The Killing of Trayvon Martin — A Call To Address White Privilege In Florida

Posted by: Adrienne at April 6, 2012 2:35 PM
Comment #341151

Adrienne

So you don’t believe statistics complied by the FBI and by every other respected institution that has done statistics. You do not think that thousands of young black men are being killed by other young black men. You do not believe that crime rates are higher in ghettos than in other parts of the city. And you arrive at this disbelief by means of some sort of revelation available to you but not others.

So you reject evidence in favor of emotion and maybe revelation.

You are not telling the truth. You supplied the statistics that I explained to you. If you believed them to be false, why did you use them as evidence?

Re Jackson and Sharpton - I dislike their methods because I consider them racists and I oppose racism.

Re Florida - I suppose that my statistics and information cannot possibly compete with the fact that you have a sister who lives in Florida. You really don’t see how silly that sounds?

What I read in your response is that you have abandoned logic and fact in order to indulge emotion and gut feelings based - sometimes - on the fact that you have a sister who lives in, and evidently speaks for, a state with more than 19 million other people. Do you think that some of them might have a different opinion than your sister? Are you sure your sister shares your opinion?

Adrienne - I enjoy talking to you. It can really be fun and it is enlightening. It helps me understand the dynamics of part of the population I rarely encounter. Most of the people I know are liberal or at least left-center, but your thinking process is different from theirs. I suspect that people like you - and perhaps your omniscient sister in Florida - make up a significant part of the Democratic electorate. I know that I will take heat from both sides, but IMO it is the counterpart to the die-hard Palin fans on the other end of the spectrum.

Posted by: C&J at April 6, 2012 3:33 PM
Comment #341159

I find it interesting that Adrienne cannot accept statistics or facts, but has no problem believing anything writen by a couple of racist radicals who write for the left, liberal HuffPost. What a joke.

Posted by: Billinflorida at April 6, 2012 4:51 PM
Comment #341161
So you don’t believe statistics complied by the FBI and by every other respected institution that has done statistics.

I view those statistics to only reflect the racism that is institutionalized and endemic in America.

You do not think that thousands of young black men are being killed by other young black men. You do not believe that crime rates are higher in ghettos than in other parts of the city.

I fully realize that black on black crime occurs, just as white on white crimes occur. And I understand that certain types of crimes are going to be high wherever a great deal of poverty is found. Just as I understand that other types of crimes are enormously high wherever wealth is found — such as the rampant crimes that are committed by Wall Street.

And you arrive at this disbelief by means of some sort of revelation available to you but not others.

No, disbelief in a system that punishes and profits off of racism and classism is open to anyone willing to do some actual thinking on the subject. But it’s true that most people shut off their brains and simply accept the narrative that is sold to them every single day by the propaganda machine of the status quo.

So you reject evidence in favor of emotion and maybe revelation.

I reject everything that tells only one side of the story. I reject the propaganda that is spoon-fed to the American people by the wealthy elites, because I have a mind of my own, and eyes to see.

You are not telling the truth.

Yes, I am. And trying to ridicule me for my viewpoint simply won’t work.

You supplied the statistics that I explained to you. If you believed them to be false, why did you use them as evidence?

I didn’t use them as evidence of anything that I personally consider valid. I only posted them because you were talking about them without ever providing a link. I also thought I’d give all of the current numbers the FBI has chosen to record since it seemed clear that all you wanted to focus on was the idea of black murder. I thought it best to remind you and everyone else that it is not just black people who commit murder.

Re Jackson and Sharpton - I dislike their methods because I consider them racists and I oppose racism.

People like Jackson and Sharpton would not have to do what they do, nor would they have such a high profile while doing it if there weren’t so much institutionalized racism in America.

Re Florida - I suppose that my statistics and information cannot possibly compete with the fact that you have a sister who lives in Florida.

Well, I’ve spent time there, and obviously you haven’t, since you don’t seem to understand that Hispanics are often treated as equals with white people there. Even though in other parts of the country Hispanics are frequently treated very differently, and are often subjected to racism.

What I read in your response is that you have abandoned logic and fact in order to indulge emotion and gut feelings

And what I read in your responses is that you like to think in strict, narrow-minded ways and that you seem incapable of opening your mind to the thoughts that other people might think. Instead, you insist that everyone must agree with the views and entrenched methods devised by the power structures of the wealthy status quo in America in order to control people, and keep real progress in from occurring.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 6, 2012 5:10 PM
Comment #341164
I view those statistics to only reflect the racism that is institutionalized and endemic in America.

I’m a bit confused. Are you arguing that institutional racism is interfering with the FBI’s ability to accurately record crime statistics?

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 6, 2012 5:33 PM
Comment #341165

Warped

The main stream media air that “uncivil rhetoric.” They aired those pictures of 12 year old Martin and convict Zimmerman, they aired doctored tapes etc…
Those who do not see how this caused people to ‘condemn and convict’ Zimmerman before the facts are known, are more concerned with race or politics than they are with the facts.

“I am not aware of any instances where Zimmerman is described as white after his family disclosed his Peruvian ancestry on March 15.”

Oh, that’s right, he’s described as a white hispanic now. My bad.

“The police & prosecutors should believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was acting wholly within the law.”

You don’t arrest until you can prove he didn’t act in self-defense. I also am not sure that the 175 clock does not start until after he is arrested or taken into custody for a crime.
Just a guess on my part though.


“From what we know now, there are several reasons to question Zimmerman’s claim that he was attacked while standing next to his vehicle”

‘Now’ is the key word.

Posted by: kctim at April 6, 2012 5:47 PM
Comment #341166

Warped:

Are you arguing that institutional racism is interfering with the FBI’s ability to accurately record crime statistics?

Yes I am, and as I said to Jack earlier:

Black folks and poverty-stricken neighborhoods in general are targeted for police scrutiny for any kind of crime you could name, all across the board. Because Race and Class have always gone hand in hand when we’re talking about exactly who ends up going to jail in America.

Btw, another reason not to give too much credence to how the FBI chooses to compile information can be clearly demonstrated by how the agency actually branded pacifist anti-war groups as worthy of being on the “terrorist” watchlist.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 6, 2012 5:52 PM
Comment #341170
The main stream media air that “uncivil rhetoric.”
If your argument was just about objecting to the megaphone given to the likes of Jackson & Sharpton then, I’d agree with you. However, this has been a longtime feature of the media. Extremists on both the left & right are given megaphones for the sake of “balance”.
They aired those pictures of 12 year old Martin
I’m familiar with the meme, but I don’t see any proof of malice. The media only had access to photos given to them by the Martin family. Obviously, the Martin family chose to release a photograph that would portray Martin in a postive manner. No proof has every been presented to show that photo as out-of-date. However, there are undeniably recent photos that also show him positively. Never mind the fact that the right-wing media has manufactured photo-shopped images of Trayvon Martin displaying gang symbols while wearing not-so-innocent looking attire & accessories. The fact of the matter is that Trayvon Martin was not a fully grown adult when he died, which matters quite a bit when we compare him to George Zimmerman who was 10 years older and weighed 100+ lbs more than Martin.
convict Zimmerman
Once again, I request proof that anyone “convicted” Zimmerman. Is there anyone who said his right to due process should be ignored? Or were people simply questioning the way Sanford authorities were handling the situation?
they aired doctored tapes
NBC has apologized for this mistake. They put profits ahead of journalistic excellence.
Oh, that’s right, he’s described as a white hispanic now. My bad.
In the past 3 weeks, I’ve almost only heard him described as Hispanic/Latino. On the other hand the white-hispanic description might be due to Florida’s racial culture where (mostly Cuban) Hispanics have long been considered on par with Whites. It might also serve to tell us that Zimmerman has substantial European ancestry as well as Peruvian, which means he might appear White under certain circumstances. Even in the original police report, Zimmerman was identified as White.
You don’t arrest until you can prove he didn’t act in self-defense.

Trayvon Martin’s body was found quite a distance from Zimmerman’s SUV in a region only accessible on foot. In order for Zimmerman to reach there to shoot Martin, he must’ve followed Trayvon. This is evidence enough to cast serious doubt on Zimmerman’s original story. His original story was that he dropped the pursuit when instructed by the police operator and proceeded back to the SUV when Trayvon Martin attacked him without provocation. The fact that the fight/shooting occurred away from the SUV means that Zimmerman at the very least followed Martin until the latter was provoked into attacking the former.

‘Now’ is the key word.
Yet, despite what we know now, Zimmerman has not been charged with any crime. What does that say about the authorities in Florida?

Adrienne,

Yes I am, and as I said to Jack earlier:

Black folks and poverty-stricken neighborhoods in general are targeted for police scrutiny for any kind of crime you could name, all across the board. Because Race and Class have always gone hand in hand when we’re talking about exactly who ends up going to jail in America.

That’s quite a conspiracy that you are alleging. I can accept that institutional racism might still be a problem in our criminal justice system. Americans of African ancestry are more likely to serve longer prison terms or face capital punishment for instance. However, it’s pretty outrageous to claim that African-Americans only commit a proportionate amount of the murders in this country. The FBI statistics claim that African-Americans are responsible for at least three times as many murders as one would expect from demographics alone. In order for this to be false on the order that you are describing it would require a conspiracy of monumental extent. Thousands of people murdered by European-Americans would have to be misattributed to African-Americans. Or, thousands of murders committed by European-Americans would need to be successfully covered up while thousands of homicides would have to be fabricated, each with an African American perpetrator.

The scale of this conspiracy is so immense that it renders itself unbelievable in my opinion.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 6, 2012 7:38 PM
Comment #341171

Adrienne

Who can argue with your logic?

Re Florida - you know I have spent time almost everywhere. Haven’t you noticed? It is kind of what I do. I have been to Florida several times and I can understand Spanish. I have noticed that Hispanics are often treated as whites, but this is not only in Florida. You have noticed that Asians are generally treated as whites (affirmative actions does that) and even many blacks are treated as whites. In fact, it tends to be much more behavior than race based.

There is an interesting permutation in Miami. Miami now has lots of Brazilians, who do not consider themselves Hispanic but are often considered as Hispanic by others. Their concept of race is different from ours.

Re my narrow mind - I have a classical education and a strong background in decision sciences and statistics. I do indeed tend to reject arguments that don’t fit into the categories I understand. It seems to me that conclusions should be based on evidence and that evidence should be available for all to examine and evaluate. I accept anecdotal evidence, but try to find collaboration. Your type of argument seems a lot like “spectral evidence.” You assert but there is no way to disprove what you say. You reject experience of others and statistical evidence.

Yes, my mind is closed to such things. In fact, over my life and career I have developed methods to detect those kinds of things and exclude them from consideration. I understand and respect faith-based arguments like those you are making, but since there is no way to act on them, I find them useless.

I am not trying to ridicule you. I cannot take seriously the types of arguments you are employing from the truth point of view, but I know that many people think as you do, so I take seriously what I consider a threat to rationality.

Posted by: C&J at April 6, 2012 7:45 PM
Comment #341199

Jack,

“I cannot take seriously the types of arguments you are employing from the truth point of view, but I know that many people think as you do, so I take seriously what I consider a threat to rationality.”

I have a tendency to agree with some of what Adrienne has written here, if only because I do think that perception has superseded reality in America.

This case is only the latest example.

I think that you and I can agree that once someone becomes President of America, for instance, the job requires that they move more toward the middle to actually serve all of the people. It doesn’t matter that their ideology leans right or left, ruling from either fringe would invite open revolution because the vast majority of the American people are more toward the middle.
That said, the perception that Obama wants to turn this country into a socialist gulag has been pushed consistently by those on the far right fringes, and from what I can see, nothing could be further from the truth.

I don’t truly believe in polls as they change like the weather, but this article rings true to me;

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46981884/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/

“The Trayvon Martin case is dividing the country racially, generationally, politically, and by economic status.”

Again, perception trumps reality.

All we have to do is read the posts in this thread to see that “We hold these opinions to be self evident” seems to be the rule of the day.

What we can all see in this case is that an unarmed teenager is dead, and the Florida law has allowed the police to gloss over the details.
The one thing Zimmerman is truly guilty of is poor judgement, and from what I have read about this case, it would seem that his poor judgement may have come from too much testosterone brought about by the knowledge he possessed lethal force, and that he would prevail no matter what.
Please note that I am not indicting everyone that chooses to legally carry a weapon, however some personality types shouldn’t allow their bravado to overwhelm their common sense.

Perhaps it’s time for the good people of Florida to re-visit this law and tighten it up a bit. Like some laws states have passed recently, this is a weak law, and is open to an interpretation that is far too broad.

Oh, and BTW, just because you have a right to do something doesn’t mean you need to exercise that right.

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 7, 2012 1:04 PM
Comment #341200

Warped:

That’s quite a conspiracy that you are alleging. I can accept that institutional racism might still be a problem in our criminal justice system. Americans of African ancestry are more likely to serve longer prison terms or face capital punishment for instance.

This doesn’t make much sense to me. If you can accept that we have institutionalized racism against black people in the criminal justice system in America, then this should automatically be considered a conspiracy against them. And indeed, it’s a conspiracy which it has been reported currently incarcerates 1 in 11 black Americans in this nation.

However, it’s pretty outrageous to claim that African-Americans only commit a proportionate amount of the murders in this country.

Well, you may find it outrageous, but I don’t think we truly know the factual numbers in this regard — not just due to the institutionalized racism and classism of the American criminal justice system, but also due to the fact that people who are poor cannot afford to hire good lawyers. I’m also aware that these underlying racist assumptions about Black people mean they are perpetually targeted by police for all forms of crime (indeed, as a result of living in poor neighborhoods I’ve seen first hand how black people are harassed by police in their neighborhoods, and frequently treated with a truly incredible amount of disrespect in an overall sense).

The FBI statistics claim that African-Americans are responsible for at least three times as many murders as one would expect from demographics alone. In order for this to be false on the order that you are describing it would require a conspiracy of monumental extent.

I think that incredibly high number is seriously questionable — for all the reasons I’ve already stated above.

Thousands of people murdered by European-Americans would have to be misattributed to African-Americans. Or, thousands of murders committed by European-Americans would need to be successfully covered up while thousands of homicides would have to be fabricated, each with an African American perpetrator.

I’m not talking about misattributions here. All I’m saying is if we were somehow able to remove the factors of institutionalized racism in the criminal justice system, as well as the inability of economically marginalized people to hire lawyers to represent them in court, what might the true numbers be? I’m of the opinion that it would be a lot lower.

The scale of this conspiracy is so immense that it renders itself unbelievable in my opinion.

Well, you’re free to believe whatever you wish, just as I am. As I’ve said to Jack, I don’t think such statistics reflect the complete reality, despite the fact that are always trotted out (especially by people on the right who tend to prefer to look at everything in a very simplistic fashion) and used as though they are the ultimate and final word on the subject.

Jack:

You reject experience of others and statistical evidence.

I understand and respect faith-based arguments like those you are making, but since there is no way to act on them, I find them useless.

There has been a great deal of research and study done on the American criminal justice system from the Black perspective, but I don’t expect you’d be interested in reading it. Just as our criminal justice system has long chosen to ignore this kind of research — yet another demonstration of endemic racism in America.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 7, 2012 2:41 PM
Comment #341201
This doesn’t make much sense to me. If you can accept that we have institutionalized racism against black people in the criminal justice system in America, then this should automatically be considered a conspiracy against them. And indeed, it’s a conspiracy which it has been reported currently incarcerates 1 in 11 black Americans in this nation.

When I used the word conspiracy, I meant a large-scale collective decision to intentionally manipulate crime data. I am not referring to cases where institutional racism provides for subtle influences in police behavior.

Well, you may find it outrageous, but I don’t think we truly know the factual numbers in this regard

We are talking about murders here. It is very difficult to manipulate those numbers. Either there is a dead body or there isn’t. I can accept the hypothesis that a little bit of manipulation may happen at the margins, but a murder rate 3x greater is very difficult to pull off.

also due to the fact that people who are poor cannot afford to hire good lawyers
So your hypothesis is that incompetent public defenders let their Black clients get convicted for murders committed by Whites? Never mind the fact that poor whites get the exact same lawyers that poor blacks get. Never mind the fact that poor whites outnumber poor blacks in this country.
these underlying racist assumptions about Black people mean they are perpetually targeted by police for all forms of crime (indeed, as a result of living in poor neighborhoods I’ve seen first hand how black people are harassed by police in their neighborhoods, and frequently treated with a truly incredible amount of disrespect in an overall sense).

I’m well aware of this as well. If we were talking about drug crime statistics or traffic violation statistics, you would probably be right, but murder is much harder to misattribute like that.

I’m not talking about misattributions here.
Then what are you talking about? The rest of your comment claims misattribution is commonplace.
All I’m saying is if we were somehow able to remove the factors of institutionalized racism in the criminal justice system, as well as the inability of economically marginalized people to hire lawyers to represent them in court, what might the true numbers be? I’m of the opinion that it would be a lot lower.

Again, if we were talking about non-violent crimes such as drug crimes or traffic violations, I’d agree that you have a point, but we are talking about murder here. Murder is very different. It is near impossible to conceal or fake a murder because there is inevitably a dead body involved at some point. The only way for institutionalized racism to inflate the Black murder rate would be to take murders committed by whites and misattribute them to Blacks. This would mean scores of innocent Black Americans are convicted while scores of guilty White Americans walk free.

what might the true numbers be? I’m of the opinion that it would be a lot lower.
I can accept that the system misattributes a handful of cases each year. However you are alleging something of a much greater scale. Your allegation is that at least two-thirds of the murders attributed to Black Americans are actually carried out by persons without African Ancestry. It would be impossible for this to happen without there being some kind of paper trail to show as evidence/proof.
I don’t think such statistics reflect the complete reality
They certainly don’t. However, there is magnitude of difference in the divergence you allege and what I find believable. At this point, I have to agree with C+J; you have succumbed to your own imagination here. Just keep in mind that this means your opinions very unconvincing for others.

At this point, your allegation is at the same level as the conservative allegation that Obama is a Muslim Kenyan-born anti-colonial socialist in bed with Black Liberation Theology.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 7, 2012 3:40 PM
Comment #341202

Warped,

I can see you wish to insult me simply because I don’t happen to agree with you. Fine, let me return the insult: you obviously choose to hold a very white, very bourgeois and sadly naive high regard and overconfidence in the fairness of the American criminal justice system.

Of course you’re far from alone in this. In fact, I used to hold that same kind of view when I was a lot younger and basically didn’t know any better.

But then I grew up, and was continually forced to acknowledge that the system is very unfair for poor Americans — and stacked against poor black Americans in particular.

One factor has a lot to do with the fact that police like being able to secure quick convictions — especially when it comes to murder cases. This often leads to a great deal of negligence, and sometimes it leads to outright fraud on the part of police departments and prosecutors.

Another factor is that the resources of our justice system are generally stacked against poor defendants, and this only becomes worse when a person is represented by incompetent and/or overburdened public defense lawyers. Lawyers who often fail to fully investigate, or fail to call witnesses, or fail to truly prepare for the trials of poor defendants. People represented by such lawyers are very often convicted — even when they are totally innocent of the crimes they’ve been accused of. Squeezed budgets and lack of full access to resources for court-appointed public defenders has continually made things worse.

Additionally, the lack of funding for accurate forensics is something that very often lands poor people in jail for crimes they did not commit — especially murders. Sometimes the forensics are improperly conducted, other times they’re simply inaccurately explained during testimony. In some cases, analysts hired to study crime forensics actually fabricate their results. All of these things happen far more often to poor people who are put on trial for murder, than they do to people who have the money to hire a private lawyer to represent them in court.

Anyway, I’m done here. Because I could go on and on about this, yet we’ve really so gone far off the actual topic and that just isn’t right.

This article has to do with Trayvon Martin: an innocent seventeen year old kid who was shot dead by a paranoid wannabe cop vigilante who walked around his neighborhood with a loaded gun — and hasn’t yet been charged with that crime.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 7, 2012 4:49 PM
Comment #341203

Rocky

I do think that perceptions has sometimes overtaken reality. I see that as a threat. This was the medieval curse we fought to overcome, the battle we fought against propaganda of totalitarians and even against racism, a place where perception greatly overtakes truth.

Fighting against this kind of propaganda has been my life’s work.

Re the precise facts of the case on hand. We are not talking about that most of the time. We should all agree that the facts are largely unknown by us.

The supposition that America is a racist society, at its core corrupt and evil is a horrible idea. It is contrary to facts.

So I insist on truth. I do not respect arguments based on individual perception based on nothing.

Adrienne

I believe that truth doesn’t have a white or a black perspective. It is just the truth.

When you send me links, I almost always go through them. Something I suspect you do not, BTW. I take into account what they say and compare the facts they use. I also follow the sources. So many times, I have demonstrated to you that the sources you give me or the sources on which they are based do not support the conclusions you draw

We play a three step game

1. You make an assertion and use some source to back it up.

2. I check your source and explain it to you, and why it doesn’t really say what you think it does and/or that the facts do not back up the assertions.

3. You reject your own source or the underlying evidence and appeal to some sort of special revelation available only to you or perhaps other left wing cognoscenti. It is some kind of protean mysticism that cannot be validated by anyone who doesn’t already believe. In other words, you don’t believe because you see, you see because you believe.

There is a forth step sometimes, when you get mad and claim that all the facts of the case are BS.

Let me try one more time. Simple logic and experience - both yours. You say to Warped that you disbelieve statistics about murder rates, “what might the true numbers be? I’m of the opinion that it would be a lot lower.”

How do you inflate dead? When I watch the news at night, I often see grieving families and the results of murders. These are very often black people. Now let’s try your own logic. Assume ours is a racist society and murder rates are similar in the black and white communities. Since 87% of the American population is not black, we would expect the number of non-blacks murdered to be about 7x bigger. Don’t you think you might have noticed? And if we are a racist society, wouldn’t we consider the murder of white victims at least as serious as black ones and maybe put it on the news?

You could be right about almost any other crime, but murder is just not subject to that much interpretation. In fact generally we have two choices: dead or not dead.

Re- “Anyway, I’m done here. Because I could go on and on about this, yet we’ve really so gone far off the actual topic and that just isn’t right. “

I warned you about this. I had assert truth to your hatred because you kept it up. I sincerely hope that you are “done here” but let’s see.

Posted by: C&J at April 7, 2012 5:02 PM
Comment #341204

Assert truth to MY hatred? The truth is that you insist on using statistics that tell only one side of the story — namely the side of the racist status quo system. That’s the elitist side you’re always on and you have always refused to acknowledge anything else that doesn’t square with those views. And, the way in which you uphold the half-truths of the status quo sounds so pompous and full of sh*t it isn’t even funny.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 7, 2012 6:17 PM
Comment #341205

Adrienne,

You’ve demonstrated in the last few comments an extreme sense of narrow-mindedness. Hopefully this will not be a feature of future discussions with you. Right now, I think you’ve realized that your assertions are baseless, but you are unwilling to admit error and retract them as you have failed to address the questions I raised in my previous comment.

Also, your wearerespectablenegroes source does not discuss murders which are what C+J raised.


You allege that institutional racism is responsible for flawed murder statistics. I understand that our criminal justice system is flawed in many respects. Police exercise different judgement when interacting with Black Americans than when interacting with White Americans. I will join you in condemning this and demand better behavior from the police in that regard. However, it is ludicrous to think that those differences are significant enough to erode a murder rate 3x greater.

Let me boil down in much simpler terms based off of the link you provided earlier with 2009 statistics.

In 2009 there were 15,760 homicides in the USA. From what I interpret from your writing, you do not contest this. If Americans of African descent committed murder at a rate in proportion to their population, they would commit 12.6% of this country’s murders. This implies about 2000 homicides every year attributed to African-American perpetrators. However, Law Enforcement has identified at least 5890 murders that they attribute to African-American perpetrators. This is three times as many as expected. In order for this to be the fault of racism, then racism would be the cause for roughly 4000 innocent innocent African-Americans being implicated for murder in 2009 alone. In order for your claim to add up, those 4000 homicides must have been committed by nonblacks and not by another African-American in order for your numbers to add up. Also, this implies that zero Americans of other races were implicated for murders actually committed by African-Americans. There are another 4339 where the perpetrator is of an unknown race; so this also assumes that all of those homicides were committed by Nonblack Americans.

I’m sorry, but these are extraordinary claims that merit extraordinary evidence in order to back them up. I have numerous contacts with a diverse group of friends, and from what many of them have told me, I can understand that many minorities are mistreated by police in this country. They are frisked in situations when a White American would be waved along; they are are pulled over and given a ticket when a white person would be unmolested; they are unfairly targeted for drug crimes; etc… However, homicide investigations are in a different realm. It is very difficult to believe that our criminal justice system is twice as likely to unjustly implicate an African-American as a murderer than to correctly implicate one.

I don’t think you even understand the scope of your claims.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 7, 2012 7:43 PM
Comment #341206

Adrienne, the left claims to be the author of civil rights, we know the left has promoted welfare, food stamps, and government housing for blacks. The cities, where these blacks conjugate, are run by democrats. Contrary to Democrat’s denials, there has never been a cut in inner city school spending, job training, or any other tax payer handout; and yet with all the help of the liberal Democrats and all the spending of tax dollars, blacks are in worse condition today than they were 50 years ago. Is the dropout rate because of spending? The family structure has disintegrated and has been replaced with a complete lack of personal responsibility.

With all the help of the liberal Democrats and all the tax dollars spent; why do the blacks still have a problem? Why are crime, drugs, and murder rampant among them? If whites killed each other in the same ratio as blacks do, the American people would be screaming for something to be done. Jimmy the Greek’s career was ruined because he told a politically incorrect truth; and the truth is that blacks, as a whole, may have been taken out of Africa, but they still cling to the tribal mentality. I know there will be cries from the left on WB; but in all honesty, the only difference between African tribes and black housing projects is the material of which their houses are made. And all of this can be laid at the feet of liberal Democrats. Tell me, why are blacks the only ones who are faced with these problems?

“The black community’s 72 percent rate eclipses that of most other groups: 17 percent of Asians, 29 percent of whites, 53 percent of Hispanics and 66 percent of Native Americans were born to unwed mothers in 2008, the most recent year for which government figures are available. The rate for the overall U.S. population was 41 percent.

This issue entered the public consciousness in 1965, when a now famous government report by future senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan described a “tangle of pathology” among blacks that fed a 24 percent black “illegitimacy” rate. The white rate then was 4 percent.

Many accused Moynihan, who was white, of “blaming the victim:” of saying that black behavior, not racism, was the main cause of black problems. That dynamic persists. Most talk about the 72 percent has come from conservative circles; when influential blacks like Bill Cosby have spoken out about it, they have been all but shouted down by liberals saying that a lack of equal education and opportunity are the true root of the problem.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39993685/ns/health-womens_health/t/blacks-struggle-percent-unwed-mothers-rate/

The interesting thing about this report is that it came from the liberal MSNBC, and that the claims were made by a liberal Democrat, and supported by a black man from Hollywood.

The second thing we find is that Hispanics (also on the government dole of liberal Democrats) and native Americans (also under the care of the government) are the second and third group of people with the same problems.

Asians have the smallest percentage and it turns out Asians are the most industrious and eager to work and gain wealth. Don’t you find it interesting?

Posted by: Dontufinditinteresting at April 7, 2012 8:30 PM
Comment #341208

Adrienne

Does anybody have better statistics? Again, we are talking about people who are dead or not. I expect that routine drug bust arrests may be influenced as you say. But murder is murder.

You say that you talk to lots of different people. Me too. You always assume that I live a sheltered life and I do in the sense that I am well off now. But I grew up poor and I still make it a habit to talk to all sort of people. Next time you are walking around in the less swanky parts of town, ask your new black friends their experience with violence. My experience is that they are eager to talk. Ask if they personally knew anybody who was murdered or the victim of a violent assault. Do the same with economically similar white populations and see if there is a difference.

There is nothing in race itself that accounts for the difference, but there is in behaviors. This is the point of leverage and people who talk about racism as a kind of excuse do nobody any favors. The interesting statistic (I understand you dislike numbers but what can I do) is that these neighborhoods were safer and the violence rate lower during the 1940s & 1950s, when racism was much more virulent.

I see, BTW, we have reached the fourth stage of the discussion. And actually, I think the way I deflect your anger is … funny. And I am always very civil to you, but you can call my way of thinking BS or sh*t if you like. What you won’t be able to do is fault the evidence.

But I don’t think this is funny anymore. I figure that you understand that you have overstepped, but cannot admit it. I will leave you alone here.

Posted by: C&J at April 7, 2012 9:53 PM
Comment #341210

Some people are racists and look for reasons to be angry. Adrienne is an angry person. But as the previous post said, it was the Democratic party that created the problem and like Adrienne, I believe they are afraid to admit they are wrong. It’s a terrible shock to realize the problems of a group of people are caused by the very people who say trust us.

Posted by: Frank at April 7, 2012 10:29 PM
Comment #341211

Warped,

I think the number of blacks who have been incarcerated for murder is simply too high to be credible. I also think the fact that 1 out of every 11 black Americans are right now in jail is also too high a number to be believable.

That being said, I do not claim to know what the accurate numbers should be, but I do think that institutionalized racism, along with the fact that it is incredibly easy to incarcerate poor people, must be factors that have contributed to those extraordinarily high numbers.
Those ‘unknown’ murder statistics which are currently listed as 27.5 of all crimes are obviously murders that have not been solved — and I suspect that the ‘unknown’ number is actually far higher, yet black Americans are often sent off to jail for crimes they don’t actually commit.

Why? Because as I said earlier, not only am I aware that police departments all across this country like being able to secure quick murder convictions, but I also know that wealthy, influential people who are invested in the privatized prison system need to fill their jails because when they do it automatically means putting more money in their pockets.

Ok, now I’m really done — and you can have the last word if you like.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 8, 2012 1:56 AM
Comment #341214
I also think the fact that 1 out of every 11 black Americans are right now in jail is also too high a number to be believable … I do think that institutionalized racism, along with the fact that it is incredibly easy to incarcerate poor people, must be factors that have contributed to those extraordinarily high numbers.

I can entertain the hypothesis that institutional racism could dramatically inflate the number of Black American prisoners, but this would be due to offences other than murder (mostly nonviolent drug crimes). Murder is another animal because it involves a dead body, which is pretty hard to fake.

Also, what’s your source for the 1:11 ratio? I have this which says there are 4347 incarcerated Black Americans for every 100000 Black Americans. This implies a ratio of more like 1:23 than a ratio of 1:11. Perhaps you are only talking about men aged from 20 to 40?

Nevertheless, it’s one thing to make extraordinary claims when one has the cold hard data to back it up, but it’s quite another to allege extraordinary claims in the absence of that evidence.

Those ‘unknown’ murder statistics which are currently listed as 27.5 of all crimes are obviously murders that have not been solved — and I suspect that the ‘unknown’ number is actually far higher, yet black Americans are often sent off to jail for crimes they don’t actually commit.
OK. But it cannot be at the scale you are describing. In order for your claims to make sense, absolutely zero of those murders with unknown perpetrators are committed by Black Americans. You are also claiming that two-thirds of the Black Americans implicated for murder are not only innocent, but that the actual perpetrator was non-black and not a different African-American.

You allegation means 4000+ nonblack Americans are walking free because the justice system incorrectly implicated an African-American and that zero Black Americans are walking free because the justice system incorrectly implicated a nonblack American.

Why? Because as I said earlier, not only am I aware that police departments all across this country like being able to secure quick murder convictions, but I also know that wealthy, influential people who are invested in the privatized prison system need to fill their jails because when they do it automatically means putting more money in their pockets.

You are confusing issues of racism with issues related to classicism and capitalism. The profit motive behind private prisons is color blind so that’s irrelevant. There might be racial animosity behind the operators of private prisons, but if there is, it certainly isn’t related to “putting more money in their pockets”.

Likewise, the desire to secure a quick murder conviction may result in many innocent people being incarcerated incorrectly, but this issue won’t necessarily work solely to convict Blacks of murders committed by non-blacks. Nonblacks should sometimes be implicated for murders committed by Blacks. I think it’s probably much more common for innocent African-Americans to be incorrectly convicted of murders committed by other African-Americans, but that does nothing to validate your claim that murder statistics are flawed.

If you want a good look into the violence that occurs in America’s inner cities, I encourage you and everyone else to watch the documentary The Interrupters

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 8, 2012 4:23 AM
Comment #341216

Warped:

I can entertain the hypothesis that institutional racism could dramatically inflate the number of Black American prisoners, but this would be due to offences other than murder (mostly nonviolent drug crimes). Murder is another animal because it involves a dead body, which is pretty hard to fake.

Crime in the United States: Homicide

Quote:

Because gang killing has become a normal part of inner cities, many including police, hold preconceptions about the causes of death in inner cities. When a death is labeled gang related it lowers the chances that it will be investigated and increases the chances that the perpetrator will remain at large. In addition, victims of gang killings often determine the priority a case will be given by police. Jenkins (1988) argues that many serial murder cases remain unknown to police and that cases involving Black offenders and victims are especially likely to escape official attention.
Also, what’s your source for the 1:11 ratio?

See link below.

You are confusing issues of racism with issues related to classicism and capitalism. The profit motive behind private prisons is color blind so that’s irrelevant. There might be racial animosity behind the operators of private prisons, but if there is, it certainly isn’t related to “putting more money in their pockets”.

Also answered in this link:

New York Times article regarding a Pew Study:
Prison Spending Outpaces All but Medicaid

Posted by: Adrienne at April 8, 2012 1:05 PM
Comment #341221

Adrienne

I thought you were done and were going to give Warped the last word. Sorry not to leave you alone (I guess I am as bad as you are with this) but you again sited something that contradicts your argument. To wit - “Jenkins (1988) argues that many serial murder cases remain unknown to police and that cases involving Black offenders and victims are especially likely to escape official attention.”

So that means if they escape attention, there are even MORE black on black killings than that stats imply.

You also missed Warped’s point about prisons and you have proved something nobody was contending. Warped pointed out that if prison investors were influencing courts and cops to put people in jail, it really would not matter if they were black or white.

This one really is very simple, Adrienne. You can argue that it was historical racism that made the kids bad, if you want. I think most of us would agree that it was a contributing factor. But you cannot argue that they are not doing the crimes.

Posted by: C&J at April 8, 2012 2:03 PM
Comment #341224
I thought you were done and were going to give Warped the last word.

He asked me for my source, so I decided to reply.

you again sited something that contradicts your argument. To wit - “Jenkins (1988) argues that many serial murder cases remain unknown to police and that cases involving Black offenders and victims are especially likely to escape official attention.”

So that means if they escape attention, there are even MORE black on black killings than that stats imply.

Very possibly there are. However, this can also mean several other things too. 1. It starkly highlights the institutional racism of the American criminal justice system. 2. It highlights the fact that black deaths are often less investigated, or not investigated at all by the police. 3. It highlights the fact that serial murderers are not being apprehended and are therefore free to commit more crimes and murders that other people might end up being charged with. And, 4. all of these factors point to increased odds that many black people who have been charged and put in prison for murder may well be innocent yet were convenient for police to finger for murder.

This one really is very simple, Adrienne.

No, actually it isn’t simple AT ALL — but many people on the right like view things as both simple and fully explainable by statistical lists of numbers that tell only half the story. This is because they tend to hold elitist viewpoints toward crime and punishment and are callous in their attitudes toward black people.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 8, 2012 3:25 PM
Comment #341225

Btw, Happy Chocolate Bunnies, Fun-colored Eggs, and Fluffy Marshmallow Peeps Day to one and All!

Posted by: Adrienne at April 8, 2012 7:29 PM
Comment #341235

Or, alternatively, Happy Passover, no bread for a week, gefilte fish with horseradish, borscht beet soup, and lots of matzo.

The arguments made by the former sockpuppet veritas vincit display the usual infinite lack of knowledge. In Florida, for example, they could never even arrest all the black guys selling drugs because there are already too many in jail. If you arrested everyone engaged in that trade in Sanford FL, and other places, they would simply be replaced by other individuals, until the source of people willing to earn money was exhausted, which would never happen. So most of the people engaged in the trade are left alone unless something violent happens, as it often does. A white person who commmits a very minor offense in FL is more likely to serve jail time because they need to put some white faces in the jail population, especially in counties with a large population of retired persons, otherwise the jails would be all black.

One of the biggest stories in Chicago today is the trial for the guy who is accused of killing Jennifer Hudson’s mother, brother, and nephew. Jurors are going to be expected not to know who Jennifer Hudson is. Hopefully Jennifer will get justice for her family. There are numerous unsolved murders in that area, some of which could be classified as serial killings, because of unwillingness to talk or be a witness in court.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 9, 2012 11:45 AM
Comment #341237

ohrealy:

otherwise the jails would be all black.


All you’ve done with this comment is reinforce my point about the racism of our criminal justice system.

Trayvon Martin Case Spotlights Florida Town’s History of ‘Sloppy’ Police Work

Posted by: Adrienne at April 9, 2012 6:27 PM
Comment #341262

Racists can now send their money to Zimmerman:

George Zimmerman launches website to raise legal funds

He actually used the “Long Live Zimmerman” graffiti that was spray painted on the University of Ohio’s black cultural center!
And if that’s not scummy and disgusting enough he’s also whining:

“On Sunday February 26th, I was involved in a life altering event which led me to become the subject of intense media coverage. As a result of the incident and subsequent media coverage, I have been forced to leave my home, my school, my employer, my family and ultimately, my entire life.”

He murders a seventeen year old kid, and now he’s crying about how it’s inconvenienced his “entire life”, and begging for money to keep his ass out of jail.
How Despicable.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 10, 2012 1:05 AM
Comment #341269

Adrienne, do you consider all who are calling for facts to be racists who are defending Zimmerman?

Posted by: kctim at April 10, 2012 9:05 AM
Comment #341270

The real racist are the ones trying to hang Zimmerman before all the facts are presented.

Posted by: KAP at April 10, 2012 10:21 AM
Comment #341271

She’s most likely being disingenuous. If the neighborhood watcher had been black, the outcome might not have been any different. Zimmerman is being singled out because he’s not black.

Obama won Florida last time. This one incident could cause him to lose it this time. You’d think his supporters would know enough to drop this issue.

Your comment submission failed for the following reasons: Too many comments have been submitted from you in a short period of time. Please try again in a short while.
Return to the original entry.

Say What?

Posted by: ohrealy at April 10, 2012 12:37 PM
Comment #341272


Look at what has happened to Mexico’s crime and murder rates in recent years. Mexico is primarily one large ghetto. American whites are responsible for much of the crime, both here, there and other places because they buy the majority of the illegal drugs.

Guatemala wants the U.S. to compensate it and other drug producing countries for the illegal drugs seized in the U.S. because we are the market and thus responsible for most of the havoc.

The money involved in the growing and selling of illegal drugs guarantees that no matter how many growers and dealers you bust and send to prison, there will always be someone willing to take over the business.

Posted by: jlw at April 10, 2012 2:46 PM
Comment #341273

Adrienne, I’m sure it’s no surprise that I wholeheartedly agree with all you’ve said. I know you don’t “need” any support to continue with the strength and conviction of your beliefs. I’ve just gotten so disgusted with some of the trolls on here that I had to come in for a minute.
I’ve been hoping that this “incident” in Florida would not only get the attention of, but manage to reach the brains of others who could understand what some of “us” live with day in and day out…..forgetting that one has to have a brain as well……and well, you know where I’m going winth that……..
This kids’ life ended for what seems to be no other reason than he was black….. Well, Zimmerman is ugly AND stupid, so there has to be punishment for that, too !!

Posted by: jane doe at April 10, 2012 2:48 PM
Comment #341276

Well, would anyone consider it strange that Zimmerman has disappeared??? His attorneys have lost track of him and the online site set up to collect $$$ for his defense, has also disappeared…….duhhhh

Posted by: jane doe at April 10, 2012 4:54 PM
Comment #341277

Jane Doe! Been wondering over your absence! Good to see you here. Thank you for the kind words — I couldn’t agree more.

kctim:

Adrienne, do you consider all who are calling for facts to be racists who are defending Zimmerman?

Oh, I think it’s more than clear that George Zimmerman is actively seeking to raise money off of all the racists who are supporting him. Otherwise he wouldn’t have posted a photo of that disgusting graffiti that defaced the black cultural center with what was a blatantly racist message on his website. And the same goes for the fact that he’s attempting to appeal to the racist element of the teaparty by using all that gigantic American flag symbolism on his website as well. One doesn’t need to be a genius to understand the signals he’s sending out. It’s incredibly easy to see exactly whose pockets he is attempting to empty to raise money for his defense.

And, Racists ARE supporting Zimmerman. This is why:
armed neo-Nazis are “patroling” the streets of Sanford. Even though Fox tried to describe them as a ‘Civil Rights’ Group.
It’s why we’ve seen that graffiti at the University of Ohio, and also why a Michigan highway sign was hacked so they could show hatred for Trayvon Martin.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 10, 2012 5:07 PM
Comment #341285

So, Zimmerman has gone missing and is now refusing contact with his lawyers. The lawyers claim that Zimmerman has been in contact with Sean Hannity. Thus, the signs of racism continue…

Posted by: Adrienne at April 10, 2012 6:25 PM
Comment #341288

Tell me Adrienne, how do you feel about the leader of the NBP calling for violence and offering a $10k reward for Zimmerman, dead or alive? Or calling for an armed militia to create havoc?

Posted by: Billinflorida at April 10, 2012 6:47 PM
Comment #341297

Martin legal team fears Zimmerman is a ‘flight risk’

Posted by: Adrienne at April 10, 2012 10:07 PM
Comment #341300

Adrienne,

Are you sure that website that Zimmerman supposedly set up is authentic?

It just seems a little too good to be true for him to include a photo of the vandalism in Ohio. From what I’ve read, Zimmerman never appeared to be much of a racist. He did have a habit of calling the police whenever a nonresident African-American visited his community, but that sort of behavior isn’t particularly surprising. Zimmerman did mentor an African-American child and many of Zimmerman’s neighbors and friends are African-American.

I always thought this case was about how the Sanford PD screwed up; it was either due to corruption, incompetence or racism.

I find it incredibly disturbing that the racist community in this country is rallying around Zimmerman. I find it just as disgusting as that NBP bounty.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 10, 2012 10:47 PM
Comment #341303

Warped,

It appears that it is authentic — at least that is what his lawyers have said. Maybe this is one factor that played into why they came out today and dropped him as a client?

Posted by: Adrienne at April 11, 2012 12:23 AM
Comment #341357

Adrienne, that is not what I asked. Let me try and be more clear.

Do you think that the people suggesting to wait for the facts before passing judgment, are defending Zimmerman and are racists?

The rest of what you wrote means nothing, sorry.
The NBPP are racists, the media have given them air time as if they are a civil rights group and they are “supporting” the Martin family.
Yes, vandals have spray painted and changed signs to disparage Martin. Ridiculous crap that has been condemned. But, people have also attacked a guy, looted stores, placed a bounty and shot up a police car so they could show their hatred for Zimmerman. Ridiculous crap that has been ignored or “explained” away.

It seems you only care about things like this when it comes from the “other side” of the situation.

Posted by: kctim at April 11, 2012 9:11 AM
Comment #341363

Adrienne is unable to objectively look at all the facts, because he/she appears to have a racial agenda.

Posted by: Frank at April 11, 2012 1:56 PM
Comment #341368

George Zimmerman to be charged in Trayvon Martin shooting, official says

It seems you only care about things like this when it comes from the “other side” of the situation.

That’s correct. Because it appears that “your side” is a wannabe cop with a loaded gun, and the “other side” was a seventeen year old kid armed with only an iced tea and package of skittles that he had bought for his little brother.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 11, 2012 4:33 PM
Comment #341373

AP: Zimmerman to be charged with second-degree murder

Quote:

SANFORD —

Neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman has been arrested and faces a charge of second-degree murder in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press Wednesday.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 11, 2012 6:02 PM
Comment #341374

SECOND DEGREE MURDER

Posted by: jane doe at April 11, 2012 6:07 PM
Comment #341375

Hey Adrienne…..great minds….and just 5 minutes apart…

Posted by: jane doe at April 11, 2012 6:10 PM
Comment #341376

Jane,
I consider Zimmerman being charged a big victory for People Power! Because without huge numbers of people taking to the streets to demand justice, nothing at all would ever have happened.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 11, 2012 6:28 PM
Comment #341377

I’ll bet a jury will not convict on 2nd degree, should have went for manslauter.

Posted by: KAP at April 11, 2012 6:33 PM
Comment #341379

That should be manslaughter

Posted by: KAP at April 11, 2012 7:09 PM
Comment #341380

So the charges indicate that the system is working. Now what happens with the verdict? If he is tried and found guilty, I will be content. If he is tried and found innocent, I will also be content. Would an innocent verdict after trial appease those who called for a trial? Or have they already decided?

Posted by: C&J at April 11, 2012 7:15 PM
Comment #341384

KAP,

I agree, manslaughter would have better unless the prosecution has damning evidence that has not been publicized yet.

C&J,

If Zimmerman is found innocent by his peers, then I will be content. By peers, I mean a jury that represents the diversity present in the Sanford FL area.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 12, 2012 12:15 AM
Comment #341385

I have to say, I was also slightly surprised by the second degree murder charge because I had also assumed manslaughter would be the charge. Yet, Corey said today that they are prosecuting: “on facts and the laws of the great sovereign state of florida, and that’s the way it shall be in this case. We do not prosecute by public pressure or by petition.” She then added: “We did not come to this decision lightly.” This implies that Corey and her investigators believe the prosecution does have enough evidence to convict for murder — otherwise they definitely would have gone with a manslaughter charge.

Maybe enough witnesses saw enough of what happened?

Anyway, second degree murder would mean several factors are being considered in evidence in this case. One of those would be a perpetrator acting out of ill-will, or spite, or hatred. (Such as deciding without any real facts that Martin was “up to no good,” and of being “on drugs or something,” of being a “real suspicious guy.” Of not heeding the dispatcher by leaving his vehicle to follow/creep up Martin because Zimmerman thought he had to be one of those “assholes that always get away”?) Another would be any person in possession of ordinary judgment would have had to be reasonably aware and/or certain that their actions could actually kill or cause another person a very serious injury. (Stalking Martin from behind while packing a loaded gun? Did he release the safety on his gun before following him?) Another would be that the act itself demonstrated an obvious indifference toward human life. (Was that Martin screaming for help? Did Martin confronting or attempting to fight back actually constitute the need for Zimmerman to draw his gun, release the safety, and shoot him in the chest?)

From what I can gather thus far, the state doesn’t actually need to prove that there was ‘intent to cause death’ in a second-degree murder trial.

I’ve read that Zimmerman is pleading ‘not guilty’ because he still wants to claim he acted only in self defense. But I personally wonder why any lawyer would encourage him to do so!

I mean, it just seems so stupid and nonsensical — an individual cannot cause the entire situation surrounding a confrontation and then turn around claim it was self defense! He would probably have a better chance at gaining juror’s sympathy by admitting to guilt — yet try to claim that what happened had mostly to do with how he got his brains totally scrambled during the altercation with Martin.
It’ll be interesting to know if he ever went to the hospital for any kind of treatment (I don’t mean a check-up here) following Martin’s murder. Because there really aren’t any signs of facial injuries on him now. A broken nose generally ends up looking a certain way after being reset, but I just looked at Zimmerman’s mug shot and he doesn’t look at all like a guy who has ever suffered a broken nose…

If Zimmerman is found innocent by his peers, then I will be content. By peers, I mean a jury that represents the diversity present in the Sanford FL area.

I’m thinking the trial will be taking place out of that particular jurisdiction.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 12, 2012 2:53 AM
Comment #341388

I agree Warped if they have evidence we haven’t heard about yet 2nd degree may fly bvut from what has been out manslaughter would be better.

Posted by: KAP at April 12, 2012 9:28 AM
Comment #341395

“Corey said today that they are prosecuting: “on facts and the laws of the great sovereign state of florida, and that’s the way it shall be in this case. We do not prosecute by public pressure or by petition.””

Damn, wish I could remember where I’ve heard that before.

Posted by: kctim at April 12, 2012 12:13 PM
Comment #341396
if they have evidence we haven’t heard about yet 2nd degree may fly bvut from what has been out manslaughter would be better.

We don’t have the testimony of all the witnesses, nor do we know what the coroners report said yet. The angle of the bullet might end up being of huge interest here if it doesn’t back up Zimmerman’s claims.

kctim,
Yeah, I think it’s pretty clear that the governor would not have appointed Corey to take over the investigation if not for public pressure as a result of the incompetence and inaction of the Sanford Police Dept.
In fact, it’ll be interesting to see what the DOJ will do as a result of how they mishandled this case. Also, it’s very possible that the SYG law may end up under federal scrutiny as well…

Posted by: Adrienne at April 12, 2012 12:55 PM
Comment #341398

This guy stood his ground……on his own property……..in front of witnesses. And is serving life in prison. KAP, BillinFlorida, etc……where were you guys when HE needed you? Or, is it different for a black man?


http://www.salon.com/2012/04/11/when_stand_your_ground_fails/

Posted by: steve miller at April 12, 2012 1:23 PM
Comment #341400

steve miller in answer to your question NO. I never heard about that case. But from your link I believe he was in the righgt to protect his property. By the way I have a step daughter who is married to a wonderful black man and have three grandchildren from that marriage which I think the world of.

Posted by: KAP at April 12, 2012 2:21 PM
Comment #341403

Adrienne
That has nothing to do with wanting to know the facts before passing judgement. You guys should have been protesting only for a proper investigation, not the head of Zimmerman.

And of course SYG laws are the new boogeyman. People have been led to believe that you can just shoot whoever you want under them.

Steve
Never heard of that case. For some strange reason the media didn’t feel the need to sensationalize it. I wonder why?

Posted by: kctim at April 12, 2012 3:07 PM
Comment #341405
That has nothing to do with wanting to know the facts before passing judgement.

What has nothing to do with wanting to know the facts? Please clarify.

You guys should have been protesting only for a proper investigation, not the head of Zimmerman.

People were protesting not only for a proper investigation, but for Zimmerman to be charged. Because he murdered an innocent kid and there was a clock ticking on whether he would ever be charged. Now that he has, people are relieved because now they know all the facts can be brought forward in court.

And of course SYG laws are the new boogeyman. People have been led to believe that you can just shoot whoever you want under them.

There is definitely too much latitude with the SYG law. And Zimmerman not being charged, and his word obviously being taken by the Sanford Police is proof of the fact that these laws are not sufficient or in any way reasonable.

It’s also clear proof of several other things too, in my opinion. It’s proof that we can’t have people out there claiming to be policing their neighborhoods just because they’ve been given a license for concealed carrying of guns. And, it’s clear proof that the societal vision preferred by the Tea-publican Party is utterly and completely dysfunctional. They’ve been demanding cuts for police and lack of funding for resources all across the board — because government is bad, and taxes are bad, and everyone should naturally be walking around packing loaded guns everywhere. But cases like this one show what an Epic Fail this vision actually is.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 12, 2012 3:48 PM
Comment #341408

Regarding “evidence we have not heard”; Adrienne, what evidence is that? The left leaning media, NBP, Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, and Holder have given us every possible scenario of the killing.

Regarding Warped Reality’s “diverse jury”; how would you like to face a diverse jury of blacks that had been to the Jackson/Sharpton lynching rallies?

Regarding 2nd degree murder vs. manslaughter: unless the trial becomes political (which it could do) the 2nd degree murder charge will be hard to prove.

Let’s throw another scenario in the hat: the FL Gov. (Republican) appointed the special prosecutor, who could have made the charge manslaughter (which would be easier to prove), but instead made the charge 2nd degree murder. Did she set up a scenario where Zimmerman could walk? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: Billinflorida at April 12, 2012 5:19 PM
Comment #341409

And how excited will you be, for the sake of justice, when you find out that the Black Panther Party will be charged with multiple charges concerning Mr. Zimmerman.

Of course, to get back to reality, no charges will be made by the Obama/Holder cadre.

Just wanderin’.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at April 12, 2012 5:20 PM
Comment #341419
Regarding Warped Reality’s “diverse jury”; how would you like to face a diverse jury of blacks that had been to the Jackson/Sharpton lynching rallies?

If the jury consisted only of people attending those rallies, then it would be very diverse, now would it?

Regarding 2nd degree murder vs. manslaughter: unless the trial becomes political (which it could do) the 2nd degree murder charge will be hard to prove.

I agree.

Let’s throw another scenario in the hat: the FL Gov. (Republican) appointed the special prosecutor, who could have made the charge manslaughter (which would be easier to prove), but instead made the charge 2nd degree murder. Did she set up a scenario where Zimmerman could walk? Inquiring minds want to know.

I’ve read recently that the jury will still have the option to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter instead of 2nd degree murder if that’s how they interpret the facts.

And how excited will you be, for the sake of justice, when you find out that the Black Panther Party will be charged with multiple charges concerning Mr. Zimmerman.

Of course, to get back to reality, no charges will be made by the Obama/Holder cadre.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think solicitation of kidnapping is a state crime, not a federal one, so Obama/Holder should not be involved. It will be the responsibility of FL officials to charge the NBP leaders.

When the NBP leaders are charged, my reaction will be the same as when Zimmerman was charged. I won’t be excited, but I will be glad that justice will be served and that the alleged criminals will get the due process they deserve.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 12, 2012 7:31 PM
Comment #341434

KCTim
Maybe the reason we haven’t ever heard of this case is that it’s not surprising that a black man defending himself on his own property in a state with a stand your ground law gets prosecuted and sent to jail for life……….while Zimmerman stalks an unarmed kid against procedure and the dispatcher’s warning, then shoots him to death, and goes free. Well, til now anyhow……..

Posted by: steve miller at April 12, 2012 9:44 PM
Comment #341444

“Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think solicitation of kidnapping is a state crime, not a federal one, so Obama/Holder should not be involved.” Warped Reality

Good point; but how come they got involved in the Martin/Zimmerman case?

Posted by: Billinflorida at April 12, 2012 10:00 PM
Comment #341500

Adrienne

“People were protesting not only for a proper investigation, but for Zimmerman to be charged.”

Which Corey said took three weeks for the team to get the facts, which is what people such as myself had been saying should be done all along in order to properly charge Zimmerman.
You however wanted Zimmerman charge without facts from an investigation because your opinion, based on race, was that “he murdered an innocent kid.”

Your damage is done, there will be violence if the facts do not turn out to support your opinion.

“It’s proof that we can’t have people out there claiming to be policing their neighborhoods just because they’ve been given a license for concealed carrying of guns.”

To bad the facts show that Zimmerman was patroling his neighborhood as part of a neighborhood watch, NOT because he had a scary gun.

“And, it’s clear proof that the societal vision preferred by the Tea-publican Party is utterly and completely dysfunctional.”

Funny thing is that that vision you fear is only dysfunctional in the liberal “societal vision”. You ever ask yourself why that is so? Why thousands of people like me can live in a free society without constant gun crimes, even though there is pretty much a gun in every house without? But yet, thousands of people living in liberal utopias that severly restrict rights are the one’s with the crime? That the one’s without SYG laws are the places with the most murders?

“But cases like this one show what an Epic Fail this vision actually is.”

Cases like this one only show that life isn’t perfect or fair, but that won’t stop people from trying to legislate by emotion.
Fact: Despite your fears, Florida is not the Wild West.
Fact: Incidents like this one do not only happen in states with SYG laws.
Fact: Despite your wishes, evil white men are not out there shooting little black kids for fun.

Posted by: kctim at April 13, 2012 12:38 PM
Comment #341501

Steve

We didn’t hear of this case because white did not kill black.

I am still looking for info on it, but right now it seems like a travesty of justice for McNeil.

Seeing how so many proclaim Zimmerman should have been immediately charged and arrested, it is interesting that it took a year to charge McNeil.

Posted by: kctim at April 13, 2012 12:57 PM
Comment #341506

Corey has released an affidavit that shows that she isn’t buying Zimmerman’s account of how he came to murder Trayvon Martin.

George Zimmerman Affidavit of Probable Cause

Posted by: Adrienne at April 13, 2012 2:12 PM
Comment #341507

kctim,
Your comments disgust me but I’m not going to reply to them because it would be like trying to argue with Glenn Beck — not worth the trouble.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 13, 2012 2:16 PM
Comment #342041

Eh, that’s ok Adrienne, I understand some people cannot handle facts very well. I’m sure it’s easier to live in your bubble than face the facts.

Posted by: kctim at April 18, 2012 12:53 PM
Post a comment