Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Dog Catches the Car

The aftermath of the verdict is going to get a whole bunch of attention, to be sure, but I think a point needs to be made: even if Zimmerman was completely correct, and his story wasn’t full of holes, his story is a cautionary tale for those who want to play cop, the exact sort of people this verdict, and the laws in question, encourage.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Zimmerman was completely correct about Trayvon Martin, that he truly was up to no good. He follows this criminal, follows a man he thinks might have a great deal of disregard for the law. The defenders of Zimmerman often called him a thug, so lets just say Travyon was a thug.

Okay, then. So This man follows a person he believes to be a thug, a punk, a criminal, and then gets jumped, and has to fight for his life, and then ends up shooting this thug, this punk, this criminal.

Every bit of this could have been avoided, had Zimmerman not pursued this criminal. The truer that Zimmerman's side oft he story is, the more obvious it should be that he should have stayed in the car, and never pursued Trayvon.

Even if, and especially if his story was true, George Zimmerman should NOT have been trying to chase the criminal, because his crowning success of pursuing and doing away with that thug is that he got his butt kicked and nearly got himself killed. If his story is true, of course.

And if not? If his story isn't true? It doesn't get any better.

If, as evidence tells us, Trayvon was not carrying any weapon, had no stolen property, was committing no crime, then George Zimmerman's pursuit was no more legitimate than anybody else pursuing a stranger. I know people say "it's not a crime to follow somebody", but let's not be naive here. There are quite legal things you can do and say that will provoke some people to act.

Little homework here. Stare at somebody. Let them know you're staring at you. Completely legal, right? Go to a bar. Find a couple. Call the woman a whore. See how long you stay out of a fight. Not satisfied? Find a pedestrian, when you're in a car. follow them through the neighborhood. Then get out on foot and walk after them. See if they don't start running, or turn around to chew you out, or worse.

That's with perfectly innocent, law abiding folks. That's all legal above, to a certain extent, but it's also very, very provocative. A person might get a lighter sentence, or you might get a heavier one for whatever fight you get into, because you did something to provoke the other person.

Which is not to say, that had Trayvon lived, he might not have faced legal repercussions. Victim or not, assault and battery is still a crime. But it may have ended up a "pox on both your houses" sort of situation; the courts don't look kindly on fights. The only fighting that's legal is that which is done in self-defense, and that which you do in order to get out of the fight, generally speaking.

There's a good question, which Trayvon isn't around to answer, about whether he was simply defending himself. After all, he could have simply thought that if he didn't confront the attacker, that he was going to end up dead. You could claim that he was close to home, close to safety, but that's assuming that rational, rather than emotional impulses were ruling a seventeen year old boy's judgment. Safe assumption, that!

The stand your ground law should matter for him, too, right? The hypocrisy of his supporters in insisting on the SYG laws applicability to Zimmerman is quite profound when they turn around say, "Why didn't Trayvon run for it?" The whole point of the law is that a person shouldn't have to try and get out of the situation in order to avoid prosecution. Would this law have been applied equally to Trayvon's defense, had he been the one who killed Zimmerman, rather than vice versa?

I think it's important to model the effects of the law in our mind from both sides, and realize that in essence, this law encourages both sides in deadly fights not to back down. Is that the kind of lawmaking that keeps the peace?

A young man is dead, irreversibly so, on account of Zimmerman's actions. That he was not committing any crime when this whole thing started makes that worse. We can accuse Trayvon of assault, but we don't know who started the confrontation, as far as the actual fight goes. Leaving aside the previous point of the stupidity of trying to confront somebody you might assume is an armed and dangerous criminal, it is perfectly possible that the real armed and dangerous criminal here was Zimmerman.

He was seeking out a confrontation. He wasn't content to leave things up to the police. he wasn't content to let them investigate, and let them determine if a crime was actually being committed. He had his gun on him, as he pursued Trayvon Martin. He knew it was there. Whatever you can say about the advisement by the dispatcher to break off pursuit, about whether he was legally obliged to do so, the fact remains, that with that gun on him, he continued to pursue him.

His track record as a citizen was not one of a person who knew how to keep their temper. His track record as a police officer wannabe isn't in question either.

The Florida law plays into the cinematic fantasies of law enforcement as a kind of war, where an enemy must be confronted, rather than a civil exercise constrained by the rule of law. It plays into the gunslinger fantasy that keeps people buying handguns which they firmly believe that they'll take out a bad guy with.

But let's get back to Zimmerman's story. He says he was blindsided. If he was, then his concealed handgun would have meant nothing. A club could have brained him, a blade could have stabbed him, a gun in Trayvon's hand could have taken him out from yards away. But if he wasn't? There is always a delay, between when you think to take out that weapon, and when you actually manage it.

The fantasy of confronting the bad guys with force is a dangerous one. If we judge right, we may not have the training to survive our experience confronting the crooks. If we judge wrong, we end up potentially being no better in effect than any thug we'd try to pursue. Either way, the fantasy breaks down, and it's obvious that we should discourage it.

We have a legal system not just to have a bunch of people around who can enforce the law, but also to have a separate, third-party set of people who are empowered and trained to do that job without partiality or prejudice. We need people who are trained and physicially capable of doing things the right way, and who are acknowledged to have the right to enforce the law. People should be able to keep and bear arms to defend themselves, but that should be a last result, and we shouldn't encourage it to be a consequence of their pursuit of trouble, rather than trouble's pursuit of them.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at July 15, 2013 12:51 PM
Comments
Comment #368201

Mr. Daugherty, your post is based on pure emotion and hypotheticals. Had Travon Martin killed George Zimmerman, he would have been well within his rights to claim a “stand your ground” defense. The stand you ground defense is for the one left standing, not the one killed. And to go even further, the Zimmerman lawyers did not use a “Stand Your Ground” defense. They used “self defense”, which is a defense that can be used in every state in America.

What I would like for you to do is, move away from the hypotheticals and emotion, and provide us a list of laws that George Zimmerman violated?

Your much talk means nothing unless you are going to look at this case through logic.

Secondly, I want you to tell us that the jury were a bunch of non-black racists. I want you to tell us they did not look at the evidence and that they let a Hispanic get away with murder. I want you to tell us that our judicial system broke down. This is what you are implying.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 15, 2013 2:08 PM
Comment #368203

Very interesting Stephen.

It seems as if you have given up on the “white guy hunted down and killed an innocent little black kid for fun” meme, and taken up the “it’s all Zimmermans fault because he got out of the vehicle” argument.

I didn’t think Zimmermans defense used the SYG argument?

Why is it that you bring up Zimmermans “track record” to make it seem like he was some kind of loose cannon “wanna be cop,” but ignore Martins track record showing him to be a loose cannon wanna be ‘gangsta?’

Why is it that you afford Martin the assumption that he was acting on “emotional impulses,” but don’t afford Zimmerman the same? Is it not possible that Zimmerman reacted on emotional impulse when he continued to follow a suspicious person who took off running from him?

There is no evidence whatsoever that showed Zimmerman wasn’t simply trying to keep Martin under observation, but was pursuing Martin and looking for a confrontation.

People much smarter than us have have presented their case against Zimmerman and the jury has ruled on the facts. Should we not respect those facts and the ruling instead of trying to pass opinion off as facts?

And I hate to burst your little anti gun talking point, but people who buy guns don’t sit around fantasizing about taking out the “bad guys.” Sheesh.

Posted by: kctim at July 15, 2013 2:42 PM
Comment #368211

Political hostage-
It’s not even just logic or hypotheticals I’m pushing here, it’s common sense, which your people seem to lack. He had no authority to go after Trayvon, but also, obviously, no training with which to do so in a safe and legally unambiguous manner.

He pushed his luck, and luck pushed back. If he was right, he almost got killed confronting a criminal. If he was wrong, he was a wannabe whose actions killed somebody without justification. Neither is an admirable outcome.

kctim-
My position hasn’t changed much, I’m just exploring a dilemma that became obvious to me just recently.

SYG was the main given reason for why they failed to take their detective’s reports under advisement and charge him. Interesting that he didn’t maintain that defense later on. Was he afraid it might not stand up in court, since he was doing far more than standing his ground? You can’t chase somebody and claim you’re defending yourself. You can’t be both aggressor and defender. At least not all in the same part of the story.

But if the tale did turn, and Trayvon turned from victim to aggressor himself, it still could only occur because Zimmerman got out of the car, made a deliberate decision to go after Trayvon on foot.

Trayvon’s track record matters less because, for one thing, this trial was about Zimmerman’s actions. Only the things that Zimmerman could know between when he first saw Trayvon and when he shot him would matter. Got that? If he posted a picture of a pistol somewhere? Well, if Zimmerman didn’t know it, it couldn’t have affected his decision making.

See what the criteria is? Simple, common sense, restrict things down to what lead to that decision or impulse to shoot. If he couldn’t know it, it’s not relevant.

Same thing with his decision to pursue. Why did he pursue? Belief that Trayvon was a criminal. What was his cause to think that? Oh… he was black and wearing a hoodie, making him look scary? Okay. Saw no crime, but in today’s police state society, no worries! So he was suspicious. So, did he call the police, tell the what was going on, and just leave it at that?

Or put another way, this guy who was suspicious enough to merit attention, did he just decide the situation was too dangerous for him, and leave it to the police?

No, he decided to pursue the guy he felt was a hardened criminal. Any thoughts you have as to why this would be a good idea for a civilian? I know you can say, oh, he was only trying this or that, but really, any teenager can justify a stupid act as a necessary one, what made this anything more than a stupid act on his part?

As for gun fantasies? The fact that hoodie targets started showing up after the Trayvon Martin controversy demonstrates in and of itself that you are wrong. Worse, it adds the element of cultural animus you’re so interested in avoiding.

Fact is, there are people with more imagination than good judgment out there. The are plenty of people who are convinced that in the next few years, liberals are going to come knocking down their doors to get their weapons.

If people can imagine stuff that incredibly stupid, thinking that getting a gun makes them an action here is possible for some. (and before you say it, I am not remotely saying that all over even most indulge either fantasy. But it doesn’t take much of any type of that person to cause some pretty bloody results, results that won’t reflect well on gun owners in general.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 15, 2013 4:01 PM
Comment #368215

SD
You cannot even get hindsight concerning the facts right. How should anybody consider believing what you put out on the compute?

Posted by: tom humes at July 15, 2013 4:15 PM
Comment #368217

I can think of no greater deprivation of liberty than having one’s life taken away. An armed stranger pursued a young man doing nothing wrong, despite being warned by Police not to pursue; confronted the unarmed youth; and after a fight, shot and killed him. There can be no greater violation of civil liberty than walking down the street, unarmed, doing nothing wrong whatsoever, and being murdered.

Two things strike me about this:

1) Where are the libertarians? Why wouldn’t they demand action to prevent such a murder from happening in the first place, or at least demand justice for the killilng of an innocent man?

2) Isn’t it interesting that conservatives seem to almost unanimously side with Zimmerman? Most of the explanations smack of rationalizations, as if it can ever be ok for an unarmed man walking down the street to be pursued, confronted, and after a fight, shot dead by a total stranger. Seriously. Why, after an innocent unarmed man is pursued, confronted, and eventually killed, would any rational person claim that a violation of law did not occur?

Part of the answer would seem to be a deep desire for conservatives to justify carrying a gun.

Maybe there is another reason. Can anyone think of one?

Posted by: phx8 at July 15, 2013 4:21 PM
Comment #368219

So, in other words, Stephen, stay at home with your doors locked, never venture outside and never answer the door. Then, maybe, you’ll be safe from being seen as a racist or having to fight for your life…

Sounds advice!

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 4:26 PM
Comment #368220

Without doing any research on such tragedies as this one, I expect that it is rare. Poor judgement was used by both parties and an unwarranted death occurred. Since I believe such situations are rare I see no reason to call for changes in any state’s laws.

If one is licensed to carry a handgun, one is held to very high standards concerning the use of that handgun. Zimmerman was in error by his actions which I believe contributed to the confrontation. It should never have gone that far. He made mistakes that led to a human death. However, his actions were not criminal as the jury correctly decided.

We can not plumb the depths of the mind of either man involved to ascertain for certain what their intentions were. I don’t believe either man expected or intended to kill or be killed at the outset of this misadventure.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 15, 2013 4:32 PM
Comment #368221

phx8 is once again wondering ‘where are the libertarians’ on this issue, yet when one explains it to him he ignores what is being said and continues to think he knows better about what libertarians think… It’s an interesting thought process, to be sure.

First, let me explain a few things to you, phx8.

1) Martin was NOT INNOCENT. He was physically assaulting someone. Apparently doing that is ok? Had he not been physically assaulting Zimmerman, which all of the evidence shows happened, then the ‘libertarians’ would definitely be screaming for him to be jailed for killing someone else. But, a person has the right to defend themselves from being killed.

2) It’s that simple. If Martin hadn’t assaulted Zimmerman, Zimmerman would have been in the wrong. But at the point where Martin jumped Zimmerman and initiated violence, escalating the incident beyond where it should have ended, he became guilty of assault and put Zimmerman’s life in danger. The fact that Zimmerman didn’t die from the initial blow to the back of the head on the pavement is chance. Not assaulting him would have been a sure thing.

Isn’t it interesting that conservatives seem to almost unanimously side with Zimmerman?

Actually, it’s more accurate that progressives unanimously side against Zimmerman. Conservatives, Libertarians and some progressives understand the facts of the situation and realize there is no politics at play here.

Part of the answer would seem to be a deep desire for conservatives to justify carrying a gun.

Nope, had he picked up a rock and killed him with it, used a knife, used a tazer, etc, it wouldn’t have changed the facts of the case. Zimmerman was in fear of his life and being beaten by another person, he has every right to defend himself from that action.

Maybe there is another reason. Can anyone think of one?

Yes, progressives are outraged because they think they can score political points based on perceived racism and aren’t concerned at all that an individual was beating another individual putting his life in real danger.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 4:38 PM
Comment #368223

tom humes-
That’s funny, if I were making your argument, I’d actually cite the facts I’m saying are false.

Rhinehold-
My argument was plain: If you see a suspicious guy you think’s a criminal, let the police take care of him, rather than following him, especially on foot, where you put yourself into a riskier position.

If you feel it necessary to exaggerate it, then I know I’ve hit the mark. If I really went too far with my argument, you would use that, rather than argue from false premises that I wanted people huddled in their homes.

Royal Flush-
If Zimmerman didn’t expect to kill or be killed, why carry the gun? As for the rarity of Senseless gun deaths… I’ll let statistics speak for me.

By the way, did you know he’s getting his gun back?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 15, 2013 4:44 PM
Comment #368225
Yes, progressives are outraged because they think they can score political points based on perceived racism and aren’t concerned at all that an individual was beating another individual putting his life in real danger.

Standing ovation.

2013 has been very hard on pseudoliberals. They’re beside themselves for not getting their way in politics.

This trail wasn’t about justice. It was about politics. Like the families of the victims of Newtown, Zimmerman and his family and Martin and his family are political props for Obama and pseudoliberals to push their political agenda.

Obama is calling for more gun control to “honor Trayvon.”

I question the humanity of the left. Do you have no respect for people at all?

Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2013 4:47 PM
Comment #368226
If you see a suspicious guy you think’s a criminal, let the police take care of him, rather than following him, especially on foot, where you put yourself into a riskier position.

And if that suspicious guy ends up raping a girl or killing someone during a botched robbery attempt, you can sleep well at night knowing you did nothing at all.

I’m sure Zimmerman wasn’t frustrated at all at the inability of the police to protect the neighborhood from the increasing burglaries that had being going on the previous few weeks.

Irregardless, doing what he did wasn’t a crime and didn’t deserve him to be assaulted. It’s like saying that a woman was raped because of what she was wearing. Yeah, had she not made herself up to be more attractive and wore less appealing clothes, maybe she wouldn’t have been raped, but is that how we are supposed to live our lives? :/

If Zimmerman didn’t expect to kill or be killed, why carry the gun?

He bought the gun specifically because he thought he was in danger. But he also thought that it was necessary because the neighborhood was becoming less safe and he felt he needed to do something about that. At worst, as I said before, he had a hero complex.

Would you like a list of the people who are thankful that others did exactly as Zimmerman did and thwarted a violent crime? You are wanting people to bury their heads in the sand and do nothing to protect their fellow citizens and their neighborhoods. Is that REALLY the kind of society you want to create? Because that is what you are doing here…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 4:55 PM
Comment #368227

Trial.

That “i” and “a” are so close together :-)

Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2013 4:58 PM
Comment #368228

Stephen

The dilemma that has become obvious is that as the facts became known, they did not support the initial outcry.

I have no idea why they chose SD over SYG and I won’t speculate.
From personal experience though, I do understand that observing suspicous activity does not make one an “aggressor.”

“But if the tale did turn, and Trayvon turned from victim to aggressor himself, it still could only occur because Zimmerman got out of the car, made a deliberate decision to go after Trayvon on foot.”

First, there is no proof that Zimmerman went after Martin for any reason other than keeping an eye on him so he could tell police where he was.
Second, even if he was pissed at being followed, that does not give him the right to attack the person who is watching him.

“See what the criteria is? Simple, common sense, restrict things down to what lead to that decision or impulse to shoot. If he couldn’t know it, it’s not relevant.”

Simple common sense says it is likely that a wannabe ‘gangsta’ who had trouble with rules and authority would feel ‘disrespected’ and do something stupid.

“Same thing with his decision to pursue. Why did he pursue?”

More than likely, because past experience showed the cops always got there too late, so when Martin took off running, he wanted to know where to tell police to look.
I know that doesn’t sound as evil as you want it to be, but you did say “simple common sense.”

“Or put another way, this guy who was suspicious enough to merit attention, did he just decide the situation was too dangerous for him, and leave it to the police?”

Nope, and he probably should have. Of course, the same thing can be said for Martin, word for word.

“No, he decided to pursue the guy he felt was a hardened criminal.”

We have no idea as to what Zimmerman felt. We also have no idea what Martin felt. Scared? Nervous? Disrespected? Angry?

“As for gun fantasies? The fact that hoodie targets started showing up after the Trayvon Martin controversy demonstrates in and of itself that you are wrong.”

No Stephen, it only demonstrates that you are willing to profile gun owners while at the same time condemning Zimmerman for profiling Martin.

“Fact is, there are people with more imagination than good judgment out there”

BS. If that were true, the stats would be in your favor. If that were true, urban areas would not be the center of all the gun violence.
Your fear and partisanship is showing my friend.

Posted by: kctim at July 15, 2013 4:58 PM
Comment #368230

You folks on the left should be honest. You don’t give a shit about Martin or his family. You care about Stand Your Ground and taking guns away from people. That’s what this is all about.

The left keeps bringing up SYG over and over and over again. Problem is, this case had NOTHING to do with SYG. Zimmerman waved a SYG hearing and went with self-defense. SYG did not apply in this case because he was on his back and could not retreat.

Obama is now calling for more gun control to “honor Martin.”

This was a show trial for politics.

Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2013 5:02 PM
Comment #368231

kctim makes a good point, we hear from the gun control lobby that we need gun control because we are near the top of gun deaths in the world. However, if you look at the statistics, if you remove 4 cities from the statistics, we are 4th lowest.

The issue is not ‘the US’. The issue is certain neighborhoods in large cities. I now live in an area of the country where I haven’t locked the doors of my house for four years. Previously, I was in a high crime neighborhood in one of the largest cities in the country and would never have thought of not locking my doors.

If you want to find the cause and possibly find a solution, look at the facts and follow them to the answer. If you want to push political agendas, ignore them and continue spouting ignorance and bile.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 5:09 PM
Comment #368233

Rhinehold,
Zimmerman pursued and initiated contact with a total stranger who was doing nothing wrong. He did so while armed, and specifically warned not to pursue by a police dispatcher. A person cannot do that, become engaged in a fight, and then claim ‘self-defense’ as justification for killing, even if Martin was ‘defending’ himself better than Zimmerman. Zimmerman became responsible- and foreign concept for libertarians- he became responsible for his actions and liable for the outcome as soon as he continued pursuit while armed.

It may or may not be 2nd degree murder. There was probably enough reasonable doubt surrounding that. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t 2nd degree murder. Just that there was reasonable doubt. It is certainly manslaughter.

Joseph,
Seriously? You saw no need for a trial? An innocent man walking down the street while doing nothing wrong was shot at point blank range by a total stranger. He was deprived of his life by another man, the most serious violation of personal liberty that is possible.

Posted by: phx8 at July 15, 2013 5:18 PM
Comment #368234
Seriously? You saw no need for a trial? An innocent man walking down the street while doing nothing wrong was shot at point blank range by a total stranger. He was deprived of his life by another man, the most serious violation of personal liberty that is possible.

Seriously? You are deliberately ignoring the facts of this case. Martin is responsible for his own death and Zimmerman acting in self-defense. Was Zimmerman stupid. In my opinion, yes. He is not guilty of murder.

Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2013 5:26 PM
Comment #368235

The jury found that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, which would be a defense against manslaughter as well. The state would have lost regardless because there’s not enough evidence to convict on either charge. Self-defense is self-defense.

This case isn’t about justice anyway. It’s about politics. It was a show trial to push the political agenda of the left against self-defense, Stand Your Ground and gun ownership. THe left doesn’t give a damn about Trayvon Martin nor does the left give a damn about Newtown or any other tragedy they use as political props.

Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2013 5:30 PM
Comment #368236

Phx8
There is no proof that Zimmerman initiated contact or that he kept on following Martin when the 911 operator said “we don’t need you to do that.”

Martin was not shot while doing nothing, he was shot while on top of another person during a fight.

And it’s funny how you disparage Zimmerman, and even Libertarians lol, for not being responsible, but yet go out of your way to ignore the facts to find Martin not responsible for anything.

Posted by: kctim at July 15, 2013 5:31 PM
Comment #368237

It’s clear at this point that the conservatives/libertarians have dropped any respect for our judicial system and they are simply picking fights to score political points.

The preponderance of evidence suggests that Martin only began bashing Zimmerman’s head when Martin felt his life was threatened (being pursued by a much larger, much older man who is armed is certainly life threatening). This would mean Martin’s assault was legally justified and Zimmerman was not justified to escalate even further to lethal force.

Zimmerman got away with this crime because he showed reasonable doubt in face of the preponderance of evidence. This is how our judicial system works. Occasionally the bad guy will get away with it and there is nothing we should do about it.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 15, 2013 5:32 PM
Comment #368238
initiated contact with a total stranger who was doing nothing wrong.

I’ll remember that next time I ask a person on the street for the time, they might start beating me and I would have no way to defend myself since I initiated the contact…

A person cannot do that, become engaged in a fight, and then claim ‘self-defense’ as justification for killing, even if Martin was ‘defending’ himself better than Zimmerman.

Again, I think you have some facts wrong. The ‘violence’ was initiated by Martin. And, even if it wasn’t, if for some reason the evidence we have is wrong and Zimmerman assaulted him first (which there *zero* evidence to support), it doesn’t matter. Once Martin had the upper hand he could have stopped and not gone for Zimmerman’s gun. He did not. He did not disengage and was putting Zimmerman’s life at risk.

Zimmerman became responsible- and foreign concept for libertarians- he became responsible for his actions and liable for the outcome as soon as he continued pursuit while armed.

Yes, it is foreign to ‘libertarians’ because we understand that people are responsible for their own actions. Zimmerman was not responsible for Martin choosing to assault him and bash his head into the ground. Apparently Martin was an unthinking mass of cells that has no responsibility for escalating the event to violate Zimmerman’s right to NOT DIE. At no time did Zimmerman put Martin’s life in danger right up to the point of using the gun as a means of self defense.

It is certainly manslaughter.

No, not by the legal definitions of manslaughter.

Let me try to explain again… Let’s say you are in a parking lot your car and you bump your car into someone else’s putting a debt in it. And let’s say you did it because you weren’t paying attention, or because you really hated the person in the other car. Does that then give the person in the other car the right to drag you out of your car and starting beating you to death?

WHY you rear ended them doesn’t really matter, when they start assaulting you, they have crossed the line and put your life at risk. The assault by Martin was not a valid response to being ‘followed’. Or being called a name. Or anything else that Zimmerman did (which is why even the prosecutor admits that Zimmerman did absolutely nothing illegal). He was overzealous in trying to bring peace and order to his neighborhood, but being a pernicious git is NOT a valid reason to be pummeled to death.

An innocent man walking down the street while doing nothing wrong was shot at point blank range by a total stranger.

Oh wow, that sounds pretty bad… when did this happen? I would be on your side of that situation, no one has that right. Now, let’s get back to the story at hand, shall we? The one where the ‘innocent man’ was beating another man to death?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 5:33 PM
Comment #368239
Zimmerman pursued and initiated contact with a total stranger who was doing nothing wrong. He did so while armed, and specifically warned not to pursue by a police dispatcher.

Your evidence that Zimmerman initiated contact is?

Your evidence that Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher is?

See a trend in your OPINIONS of Zimmerman’s conduct that night?

You and the left have no evidence, which is why Zimmerman is a free man.

Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2013 5:35 PM
Comment #368240
It’s clear at this point that the conservatives/libertarians have dropped any respect for our judicial system and they are simply picking fights to score political points.

Bullshit.

It’s clear at this point that “justice” to you means sending a man to prison for 30 years to life WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

Let’s just send people to prison based on our feelings and emotions. Nevermind facts. Emotions. That’s all we need.

Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2013 5:38 PM
Comment #368242
It’s clear at this point that the conservatives/libertarians have dropped any respect for our judicial system and they are simply picking fights to score political points.

Who’s calling for laws to be changed? Obama was on TV calling for more gun control laws. Those on the left in the media are calling for Stand Your Ground laws to be changed. Base on everything the left is doing, you think it’s conservatives/libertarians who are trying to score political points?

The left started this to change gun laws. Your accusation against conservatives/libertarians is laughable.

Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2013 5:47 PM
Comment #368243
The preponderance of evidence suggests that Martin only began bashing Zimmerman’s head when Martin felt his life was threatened (being pursued by a much larger, much older man who is armed is certainly life threatening).

Woah, what evidence where you looking at to suggest this? ‘much larger’? Zimmerman was not ‘much larger’ than Martin.

Zimmerman was 5’7”, Martin was 5’11”.

I’m not sure how that equates to ‘much larger’.

As for being armed, there is *NO EVIDENCE* that Martin had any clue that Zimmerman was ‘armed’. In any event, there was no reason that Martin had for not walking away, he was not being detained by Zimmerman, in fact the evidence presented showed that Martin jumped Zimmerman (meaning that Zimmerman didn’t know where Martin was at the time of the assault).

I sometimes wonder what people are smoking and why they aren’t sharing more…

On the evening of February 26, 2012, Zimmerman observed Martin as he returned to the Twin Lakes housing community after having walked to a nearby convenience store. At the time, Zimmerman was driving through the neighborhood on a personal errand.

At approximately 7:09 PM,[Note 4] Zimmerman called the Sanford police non-emergency number to report what he considered a suspicious person in the Twin Lakes community. Zimmerman stated, “We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there’s a real suspicious guy.” He described an unknown male “just walking around looking about” in the rain and said, “This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something.” Zimmerman reported that the person had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes. On the recording, Zimmerman is heard saying, “these assholes, they always get away.”

About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, “he’s running.” The dispatcher asked, “He’s running? Which way is he running?”

At this point, Zimmerman is still in his car. Martin ‘ran away’ from a guy in a car talking on the phone.

The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door. Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.

Meaning Martin was not being pursued by Zimmerman at this point as Zimmerman didn’t know where he was.

The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, “yeah,” the dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman responded, “Okay.”

At this point, Zimmerman may have continued looking for Martin, or he didn’t, we don’t know for sure. It is irrelevant as well.

Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location. Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.

After Zimmerman ended his call with police, a violent encounter took place between Martin and Zimmerman, which ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin 70 yards (64 m) from the rear door of the townhouse where Martin was staying.

Zimmerman testified that Martin jumped him from an unknown location and started beating him. We have no evidence, none, that this isn’t how it happened.

Why does this listing of facts not seem to add up to your portrayal of Zimmerman chasing Martin down the street with his gun pulled and pointed at Martin, cornering him at some point and leaving Martin with the only option of assaulting Zimmerman?

You say there was a ‘preponderance of evidence’, perhaps you could provide some of that evidence? More importantly, you should have given it to the prosecutors, they were way out in the deep water with no actual evidence of any wrongdoing on Zimmerman’s part, the prosecutor acknowledged that Zimmerman had done nothing wrong up to that point? I’m sure they would have welcomed such evidence as you say exists…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 5:47 PM
Comment #368245

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/opinion/thernstrom-trayvon-martin-obama/index.html?hpt=op_t1

Excellent article about Obama’s mistake on Trayvon Martin case:

Editor’s note: Abigail Thernstrom is the vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author, most recently, of “Voting Rights — and Wrongs: The Elusive Quest for Racially Fair Elections.”

(CNN) — Every American can make their own judgment about whether justice was served by the verdict in the George Zimmerman murder trial but one thing we should all recognize: President Obama’s interference in a local law enforcement matter was unprecedented and inappropriate, and he comes away from the case looking badly tarnished by his poor judgment.

“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” the president said when asked about the case in the Rose Garden on March 23, 2012, after many had called for Zimmerman’s arrest but several weeks before he was charged. “When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.”

In fact, if the president had a son, he would have been born to extraordinary privilege and raised with all the advantages of two very affluent and highly educated parents. He would have gone to tony private schools. His path in life would have been almost as dissimilar from Trayvon’s as one could imagine.

Yes, Obama’s hypothetical son and Trayvon would have shared the same brown skin color. Would that have made them interchangeable? Not unless all brown-skinned boys are the same. Does the president really believe that?

The president’s remarks created a clear impression that he was motivated by one of two factors, and we can only guess as to which, or what combination of the two, was at work here. One possibility is that this is merely another manifestation of the president’s well-known narcissism: No matter what the situation may be, it’s all about him.

The other, more troubling possibility is that the president surrendered to his political instincts. He wants disadvantaged Americans to believe that he and his family are one of them — despite their life of unparalleled privilege — and he wanted the prosecutors, judge and jury to believe that this was a case about race where justice demanded a guilty verdict.

If that was his motivation — and we cannot know, but reasonable people certainly may suspect — then Obama should be ashamed of his effort to stir America’s turbulent, dangerous racial waters. The president’s role is not to be a racial agitator, and the mark of a great civil rights leader has been a determination to reject the temptations of that approach. And not that long ago — in 2008, in Philadelphia — candidate Obama distanced himself from such agitators.

People such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson see white racism as endemic and elevate what’s wrong with America over all that is remarkably right. In his 2008 Philadelphia speech, Obama separated himself from activists of their ilk: the very people who today still hope to punish George Zimmerman.

On the campaign trail, Obama understood the sensibilities of the American people on these questions; in office, Obama seems to have lost that touch.

On Sunday, the president did once again separate himself from the voices of anger. “We are a nation of laws and the jury has spoken,” he said. But if his Justice Department brings civil rights charges against Zimmerman, as the NAACP has urged and which it is reportedly still considering, the ugly racial politics of this prosecution will be undeniable.

Let us hope it never comes to that, for at that point a double tragedy will have occurred. Trayvon Martin will be dead, and our hopes for a president whose judgment is unaffected by his race will have been thoroughly and irreparably dashed.

Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2013 5:59 PM
Comment #368247

Royal Flush-
If Zimmerman didn’t expect to kill or be killed, why carry the gun? As for the rarity of Senseless gun deaths… I’ll let statistics speak for me.

By the way, did you know he’s getting his gun back?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 15, 2013 4:44 PM

I believe Daugherty simply has a “brain fever” and can’t rationally digest and understand written material. No law-abiding citizen or other authorized gun carrying person (law enforcement) “expects” to kill or be killed. The weapon is for protection should the unlikely need arise.

I didn’t write “senseless gun deaths” as you suggest. I referred to incidents limited to those as in the case of Zimmerman.

What every person should be upset about, both left and right, is the injection of race and politics in a criminal trial. There is no evidence of any racial or political motives involved in this case. Yet, Daugherty and others appear anxious to insert such motives.

As for a person being acquitted of a crime and being restored to all previous rights (carrying a handgun) I can’t fathom any objection to that. Please explain your apparent objections.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 15, 2013 6:00 PM
Comment #368251

Since this is Stephen Daugherty’s post and since he has made certain claims and since he answers my questions with this comment:

Political hostage- It’s not even just logic or hypotheticals I’m pushing here, it’s common sense, which your people seem to lack. He had no authority to go after Trayvon, but also, obviously, no training with which to do so in a safe and legally unambiguous manner.

He pushed his luck, and luck pushed back. If he was right, he almost got killed confronting a criminal. If he was wrong, he was a wannabe whose actions killed somebody without justification. Neither is an admirable outcome.

I am waiting for you to give us ONE incident where Zimmerman broke the law. You cannot and unless you can stop your filibustering and give an answer, I am finished with the subject.

I might add, it was you who based this case on emotion, feelings, or even “common sense”. How about giving us some facts.

It’s clear at this point that the conservatives/libertarians have dropped any respect for our judicial system and they are simply picking fights to score political points.

How can you say that, when Obama, Holder, Sharpton, Jackson, and the liberal press have disrespected the judicial system by forcing Zimmerman be charged, even though they did not have a case. The grand jury was taken out of the equation because the grand jury would have never pressed for charges.

The preponderance of evidence suggests that Martin only began bashing Zimmerman’s head when Martin felt his life was threatened (being pursued by a much larger, much older man who is armed is certainly life threatening). This would mean Martin’s assault was legally justified and Zimmerman was not justified to escalate even further to lethal force.

This is untrue; Martin was the taller of the two by several inches and neither of them knew the age of the other; There was no evidence that Martin knew Zimmerman was armed and if he had, he probably would not have started the fight with Zimmerman; there was no evidence that Martin felt his life was threatened; and your conclusion that Martin’s assault was legally justified is based on false assumptions.

Zimmerman got away with this crime because he showed reasonable doubt in face of the preponderance of evidence. This is how our judicial system works. Occasionally the bad guy will get away with it and there is nothing we should do about it. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 15, 2013 5:32 PM

Zimmerman was found innocent of the crime because he showed reasonable doubt in the face of the lack of evidence presented by the prosecution.

In the closing arguments of the prosecution (which I listened to), the prosecutor tried to appeal to the emotions of the jury…to do what was right, from the heart. Tell me Warren Porter, how would you like to be tried for murder, not based upon the facts, but rather, based upon the feelings of the hearts of the jury? Trails are based upon facts and you have assaulted the credibility of the jurors by saying they made a mistake.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 15, 2013 6:35 PM
Comment #368256

Joseph-
The humanity of the left is that when we see an unarmed young man shot by a man who pursued him because he looked suspicious, we don’t let his case go untried.

The humanity of the left is that we don’t start mocking the unarmed young man who got shot by creating targets so people can symbolically shoot him over and over again to make a point of partisan political and social contempt about the matter.

And my humanity her is that I understand what folks like you refuse to: that there is a difference between the badasses we’d love to imagine we are, and the much weaker, much more fallible people we really are.

(Oh, by the way, real show trials don’t end in acquittals. That’s what makes them show trials, the convictions are just a formality in a process where the outcome was already decided.)

Rhinehold-
Power fantasy. It’s one thing to let somebody pass by if you’re Spiderman, or at the very least a cop. But if you’re a civilian? The worse the neighborhood, the less business you have trying to play hero, cheesy 80’s action movies notwithstanding

The only violent crime that one could suppose that Zimmerman thwarted was his own beating, which I’ve had worse than myself, without resorting to killing somebody in self defense.

I mean, really, if he had minded his own business, the overwhelming likelihood is that Trayvon would have minded his.

kctim-
He didn’t merely observe, like he was supposed to, he kept moving in his car, and got out on foot to pursue him. That’s more than just observation.

As for rights? There’s a difference between saying “following is not illegal”, and saying “following doesn’t scare people about the pursuer’s intentions.”

Now as for Trayvon, you say he was a wannabe gangster, but growing up as a member of my generations, that described a significant portion of my high school class, both black and white! Most, though, did not actually follow through on their façade!

That’s the thing, really. Identifying gangsta-like appearance, maybe twenty years ago, might have meant something. But these days, you can see a whole ton of teenagers that look exactly like Trayvon, but who are completely law abiding. That’s why this whole “looks suspicious” thing is such a poor reason to harass the kid.

And, with all due respect, Zimmerman didn’t seem to have much greater respect for authority.

Whatever reason, though, that Zimmerman had for pursuit, he did worse than the police in trying to catch the burglar. He managed to find somebody who was completely unrelated to the case, and shoot him, and that after he got beat up.

By the way, do you have a decent explanation for the hoodie targets? They do exist. It’s not profiling gun owners as being crassly insensitive about the matters if they’re buying or selling essentially Trayvon targets, reliving in fantasy what Zimmerman did in fact.

As for gun violence? Well, when people start to think that it’s time to take the law into their own hands, and get back at whoever shot their friend, more violence is exactly what occurs. Violence begets violence.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 15, 2013 7:05 PM
Comment #368258

Daugherty writes; “I mean, really, if he had minded his own business, the overwhelming likelihood is that Trayvon would have minded his.”

Hmmm…and on that premise a jury should enter a guilty verdict? SD would have our criminal justice system determine guilt on “what-if’s”?

Perhaps Daugherty can explain why the jury doesn’t agree with his assessment. What was wrong with this jury that they couldn’t see the truth as the left seems so able to do.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 15, 2013 7:14 PM
Comment #368259

Stephen et al

I believe in the rule of law. It is as simple as that. A jury listened to the evidence and concluded that Zimmerman was not guilty. That does not mean he is not morally culpable.

Killing anybody for any reason is a moral problem that takes some of the humanity of the person. But we are looking at the law, not what our emotions lead.

The fact that a Hispanic was the one who killed a black man is not really an issue in the law. But I wonder how different it might have been if Zimmerman had more clearly been identified as Hispanic from the start.

I feel emotionally bad for Martin. The young man did not deserve to die. But is was a tragic mistake. Zimmerman acted badly. But after the jury saw all the evidence, they decided it was not murder.

What is appalling is the attempt to make this racial. Are we going to have blacks versus Hispanics now? Or are we going to go with the rule of law?

Posted by: CJ at July 15, 2013 7:20 PM
Comment #368263
It’s clear at this point that “justice” to you means sending a man to prison for 30 years to life WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

I have stated numerous times that I don’t believe Zimmerman should be in prison. His defence team provided evidence of reasonable doubt regarding his guilt. I personally think he is culpable for the crime, but I also understand that this is how our judicial system works. We all prefer that 10 guilty men walk free than to convict a single innocent man.

Who’s calling for laws to be changed?
Conservatives keep trying to expand concealed carry laws and most importantly they try to infringe upon the tenth amendment by enforcing reciprocity regarding concealed carry permits across state lines.
Zimmerman was not ‘much larger’ than Martin.
Zimmerman weighed more than Martin.
At this point, Zimmerman may have continued looking for Martin, or he didn’t, we don’t know for sure. It is irrelevant as well.
Actually, this is the most relevant part. From the testimony of Rachel Jeantel, we know Martin was fearful for his life when Zimmerman was following him earlier. Martin’s first reaction to being followed was to run away, but Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that he intended to follow Martin. At this point, there is zero reason for Martin or Zimmerman to come into contact again unless Zimmerman continued to follow Martin; I simply cannot find a motive for Martin to turn around and meet a man he feared.
Zimmerman testified that Martin jumped him from an unknown location and started beating him. We have no evidence, none, that this isn’t how it happened.
Rachel Jeantel’s testimony directly contradicts Zimmerman’s claim. She said Zimmerman confronted Martin with a question, “What are you doing here?” and a scuffle ensued whereby the line went dark. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 15, 2013 7:41 PM
Comment #368264
The worse the neighborhood, the less business you have trying to play hero, cheesy 80’s action movies notwithstanding

And that is why we have the problem inner cities we have now. That very attitude…

The only violent crime that one could suppose that Zimmerman thwarted was his own beating, which I’ve had worse than myself, without resorting to killing somebody in self defense.

I can suppose a lot of things. The examples I gave were but a couple.

As for having worse yourself, you saying that “Zimmerman should have just taken his beating like a good spick then?”

If you had had a way to defend yourself from such a beating, would you have used it? Say you had a taser on you at that time, would you have used it to defend yourself from the beating, or would you have just taken it? You do know that tasers can kill people as well, right?

Even the Dali Lama has stated that using a gun to defend yourself is morally correct, apparently you are more of a pacifist than he is?

I mean, really, if he had minded his own business, the overwhelming likelihood is that Trayvon would have minded his.

Like I said, you are suggesting a society where everyone simply minds their own business and doesn’t look out for their neighbors. I am glad I don’t have you as a neighbor. If someone was acting suspicious around my house, I *KNOW* my neighbors would watch to find out what was going on. And I would do the same for them. We had some neighbors who had some kids who were disrespectful and miscreant. I saw one of them once walking along the back of my property and onto the property of my neighbor. You bet your ass I followed him and asked him what he was doing. And you would be right that I had a rifle in my hand at the time. And I would do it again.

According to you, had the kid attacked me and beat me, it would be my own fault and I should have just taken it like a good little mutt…

That’s why this whole “looks suspicious” thing is such a poor reason to harass the kid.

It wasn’t just that he was ‘wearing a hoodie’ that made Zimmerman suspicious, he reported that he was acting funny, looking at houses and darting his glance around. Like a person scoping out a house to break into would. Of course, it is possible that he was just lost since he was new to the neighborhood and didn’t know for sure which condo was the one he was going to, but that doesn’t make him look any less suspicious if you are looking for people who are breaking into houses.

You are so willing to try to ‘understand’ Martin that you are refusing to ‘understand’ Zimmerman. The only thing I blame Martin for was aggrivated assault on Zimmerman that led to Zimmerman shooting him in self defense. Everything else was a misunderstanding that would have been cleared up when police arrived had Martin not made the confrontation physical.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 7:51 PM
Comment #368265
Conservatives keep trying to expand concealed carry laws and most importantly they try to infringe upon the tenth amendment by enforcing reciprocity regarding concealed carry permits across state lines.

Are conservatives using the Zimmerman trial as a reason to change laws?

Are pseudoliberals using the Zimmerman trial as a reason for more gun control laws?

Your statement that conservatives are using this case to score political points remains false. Pseudoliberals are the guilty party of politicizing this case to expand gun control laws.

Trayvon Martin and his family are political props for the left.

Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2013 7:52 PM
Comment #368266
Killing anybody for any reason is a moral problem that takes some of the humanity of the person. But we are looking at the law, not what our emotions lead.

Very good point CJ.

When I was in the service and deployed to Afghanistan, I shot at people who were trying to kill my buddies. Killing a human in defense of your own life kills your youthful innocence and robs you of some of your humanity. Zimmerman is dealing with a trial in his own mind for killing a human.

The left, in their youthful inexperience, don’t understand. I applaud your rational commentary.

Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2013 7:58 PM
Comment #368267
Zimmerman weighed more than Martin.

I weigh more than any running back in the NFL, and about the same height. Would you assume from that that I am ‘much bigger’ than they are?

Jamal Charles is 5’ 11” and weighs 199. I am 5’ 10” and weigh 270.

Who do you think the ‘bigger person’ is here? Should I try to get into a fight with him you think?

Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that he intended to follow Martin.

Um, no… The conversation went like this according to the transcript:

Zimmerman gets out of his car and then loses sight of Martin. The dispatcher says ‘are you following him’? Zimmerman says ‘yes’. The dispatcher says ‘we don’t need for you to do that’. Zimmerman says ‘ok’. At this point Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin and didn’t know where he was, there is no evidence to say that Zimmerman continued to look for Martin after being told not to.

Zimmerman’s account is that he didn’t but was jumped by Martin.

At this point, there is zero reason for Martin or Zimmerman to come into contact again unless Zimmerman continued to follow Martin; I simply cannot find a motive for Martin to turn around and meet a man he feared.

Unless Martin, heading back to the condo he was staying in, simply came across Zimmerman. We also just have hearsay as to Martin’s state of mind, unlike the taped 911 call we have for Zimmerman.

But, as I said, it was irrelevant. How they came across each other’s paths is actually not relevant to the situation, at that time no physical altercation had taken place and nothing illegal had been done by either party.

FYI, choosing to follow someone after a 911 dispatcher says they don’t need to you do it isn’t illegal.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 8:06 PM
Comment #368271

I am still waiting for someone from the left to give us a list of things where Zimmerman broke the law.

All this chatter is BS; the left wants to talk about how they feel and the right talks about evidence and law.

One ignorant comment was made by someone on the left that conservatives and libertarians want to defend Zimmerman. How about conservatives and libertarians want to support the rule of law.

The rule of law won; the left’s feeling were hurt, get over it.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 15, 2013 8:30 PM
Comment #368274

I’m pretty sure the rule of law does not include shooting innocent people who are doing nothing more than walking down the street.

Posted by: phx8 at July 15, 2013 9:03 PM
Comment #368275

Make that ‘innocent UNARMED people’ walking down the street.

Posted by: phx8 at July 15, 2013 9:04 PM
Comment #368276

phx8, you’re an idiot, sorry, can’t say that, you’re comments are idiotic.

Posted by: DSP2195 at July 15, 2013 10:02 PM
Comment #368277

phx8
By now it should appear that you could have the facts of the case.
You apparanly have picked a point or two and ran with it.
And now that your ignorance has been exposed you have no excuses, much like those others on the left.

Posted by: tom humes at July 15, 2013 10:47 PM
Comment #368278

phx8, it’s been a tough year for you folks hasn’t it? You pseudoliberals just can’t get your way and you’re beside yourselves in disbelief.

Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2013 10:56 PM
Comment #368290
I’m pretty sure the rule of law does not include shooting innocent people who are doing nothing more than walking down the street.

It does, but we are talking about the Zimmerman/Martin case, not whatever case you are discussing. Please keep your comments on topic.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 11:46 PM
Comment #368293

BTW, those that are calling Zimmerman a racist or that this case has anything to do with race should read up a bit more on the facts…

In an open letter on March 15, 2012, Zimmerman’s father, Robert Zimmerman, defended his son against allegations that his actions were racially motivated, stating that Zimmerman was Hispanic, was raised in a multiracial family, and “would be the last to discriminate for any reason whatsoever,” saying that the portrayal of his son as a racist “could not be further from the truth.” According to his family, some of Zimmerman’s relatives are black.[54] Zimmerman’s former lawyer Craig Sonner stated that Zimmerman is not a racist, and that he had mentored black youths in the past.[310] Joe Oliver, a former television news reporter who is acquainted with Zimmerman,[311] noted “I’m a black male and all that I know is that George has never given me any reason whatsoever to believe he has anything against people of color.”[312]

In early April, an anonymous letter to the NAACP, which was signed “A Concerned Zimmerman Family Member,” said Zimmerman had been one of the few to take any action to protest the 2010 beating of Sherman Ware, a black homeless man, by the son of a Sanford police officer. Zimmerman reportedly distributed fliers in the black community trying to get others involved too, and helped organize a January 8, 2011, Sanford City Hall community forum to protest the incident.[313] Zimmerman’s father confirmed his son’s efforts on Ware’s behalf.[314]

In May, the Miami Herald secured an audiotape of the January 8, 2011, Sanford City Hall community forum. On the audiotape, Zimmerman was heard criticizing the conduct of the Sanford Police Department in the Ware case. Zimmerman criticized former chief, Brian Tooley, and said Tooley had engaged in a “cover-up” and that he should lose his pension. He also said he’d been on ride-alongs with Sanford police where he found them to be lazy. The Herald also reported that it had contacted five out of six black churches where Zimmerman was reported to have distributed fliers on the Ware beating, however no one recalled receiving them.[77]

On July 12, interviews conducted by the FBI were publicly released. The Sanford Police Department’s lead investigator, Chris Serino, told FBI agents that he believed Zimmerman’s actions were not based on Martin’s race, but instead on Martin’s attire, the circumstances of the encounter, and previous burglaries in the neighborhood. Zimmerman’s neighbors and co-workers were interviewed as well. Neighbors who knew Zimmerman had nothing derogatory to say about him, and his co-workers were complimentary of him.[131]

After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records released Thursday show.

Even the lead detective in the case, Sanford Det. Chris Serino, told agents that he thought Zimmerman profiled Trayvon because of his attire and the circumstances — but not his race.

Serino saw Zimmerman as “having little hero complex, but not as a racist.”

The Duval County State Attorney released another collection of evidence in the Zimmerman murder case Thursday, including reports from FBI agents who investigated whether any racial bias was involved in Trayvon’s Feb. 26 killing.

The evidence includes bank surveillance videos from the day of the killing, crime scene photos and memos from prosecutors.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 11:51 PM
Comment #368294

Royal Flush-
It’s a general statement of fact. There is nothing to indicate that Trayvon Martin was going to make himself anybody’s unwanted houseguest, no tools or paraphernalia for that purpose. He had stuff from a convenience store, he was going home.

If we want to ask, was the situation that George Zimmerman got into largely of his own making, the answer is yes. Without pursuit, there’s no fight. Without Zimmerman’s gun, nobody was likely to get killed.

It’s not a sin to disagree with jury verdicts in this country. I think there was plenty of evidence that the man got himself into this kind of trouble. But the verdict rendered, there’s another subject to bring up, now that people like you are going to claim he was right all along.

Which is what I brought up: what happened to George Zimmerman by his own account is that he tried to pursue a criminal, and the criminal ended up ambushing him from out of nowhere. Wow. Does that strike anybody else as a bit of misadventure? By his own account, he believe Martin was reaching for his gun. Credibility aside, concerning how Martin was both beating him senseless with both hands and somehow reaching for the weapon at the same time, let’s take for granted that was going to happen. Wow, does that strike anybody else here as a problem that could only have happened because he had his gun on him?

Jury verdict aside, if Zimmerman’s story is true, then the guy was absolutely incompetent. Yet people are holding him up as a hero, an example of a guy who took out a drug-crazed thug!

In all the propagandistic confusion, what people seem not to be adding up is a story of a man who took the law into his own hands and got beat up and almost shot with his own weapon. BY HIS OWN ACCOUNT. That’s the upper range of how good this turns out.

Lower? He went after somebody he thought was a burglar, who seems suspiciously like that punk he wanted to get, who always got away. But by the evidence, there was no evidence to confirm his belief. There was no paraphernalia on Trayvon consistent with him being a burglar. None has since turned up, so really, nobody’s disputing for any practical purposes the fact that Zimmerman fingered the wrong suspect, and then pursued that suspect despite being advised by the professionals, both in his training as neighborhood watchman, and also as the caller to a dispatcher, who spoke for the police, and told him not to follow.

Now you can talk about how he wasn’t obligated to stop pursuit. I’d like to clear up, if you don’t mine, whether people are saying he didn’t have to stop pursuit because he didn’t stop pursuit, or whether they’re saying this as merely an abstract point of law.

But in either case, however well we clear that question up, it was still sound advice, especially in light of what happened later. Had he not pursued in the first place, he might have avoided all the trouble he’s now been through.

Ah, but it all comes back to those talking points about jury verdicts and political correctness and whatnot. But y’all are missing that I am focusing as much on the real world wisdom and effect of what he did as I am on any legal question. I’m asking simple question about what exactly this represents.

Policy cannot simply be a political matter of what satisfies ideology, because ideology can peel from the backing of reality, and become it’s own unstable universe of delusion. We need politics tied back down to reality. To that purpose, I’m asking the question of whether the results the policies are encouraging merit the efforts to defend them. If what we’re doing is encouraging Amateurs to play cop, Guilty Verdict or Not Guilty, the results in this case seem to argue against encouraging people like him to pursue suspects and play cop.

It should not be a coincidence if the person you shot, who you couldn’t know much of anything about, turns out to be a criminal. That was the fallacy in the revelations about Trayvon’s extracurricular activities. Trayvon might, might have been less than an angel in real life, however, there’s no evidence he committed any crime in front of Zimmerman. He was only suspicious in a way that many Teenage boys are these days, wearing clothes that look like what the Rappers wear. It’s a bit like picking on people for wearing long hair in the seventies, grunge clothing in the nineties, or recently enough, mohawks in this day and age!

I mean, seriously, Mohawks used to be seen as punkish hairstyles, but nowadays, I see young boys whose parents decided their haircuts sporting them, and even in Conservative North Harris County, nobody bats an eye! Twenty years ago, the story would be different.

A boy should not be asking to be followed if he dresses like a Gangsta. That’s like saying you should watch mohawked kids nowadays to make sure they don’t beat up their classmates.

Teenagers like to look tough, like to look edgy and dark. Black teenagers take on the gangsta look, and start listening to rap, the same way young whites listen to heavy metal (or rap, as is also common). So on and so forth.

It’s not enough to merit death.

He shouldn’t have had to fear for his life, even if he shouldn’t have let himself get into a fight with Zimmerman.

When I was taught self defense, you know what the primary technique they taught us for defending ourselves? Don’t get yourself into that kind of situation in the first place. Don’t seek out, don’t borrow trouble.

Zimmerman borrowed trouble, and the interest on that will be a bitch, I bet.

Should we encourage more people to follow in his example, either by lionizing him and overlooking the graveness of his mistakes, or by writing policy to let people who act like him go unpunished? No. We should recognize that the law has created a major knot of a problem, and rewrite the law to undo it.

Rhinehold-
No, we have problem inner cities because a lot of wealth fled to the suburbs. Services and tax bases declined.

My point still stands. There wouldn’t have been a fight if Zimmerman hadn’t followed him. That’s simple logic. He didn’t need to take his beating like a good anything. He could have met fists with fists, struggled without using a gun.

I don’t object to people defending themselves with a gun. I object to folks failing to realize what a grave thing it is to shoot somebody, especially when the gunshot wound is lethal. I object to this political glorification of what is really one of the more horrible tools we have. It is what it is, and I respect that.

Yes, I’m aware a taser can probably kill somebody. Somehow I got the idea that electrocuting somebody isn’t always a healthy thing. Funny, that.

But the question we’re talking about here is what kind of threshold we set for such behavior, and how do we encourage people to take responsibility for it.

All Zimmerman had to do was observe, report, and then let the police take it from there. What he turned his situation into, through his refusal to adhere to watch rules and police procedure, was a tragedy.

I can understand Zimmerman’s mindset, the fantasy of being a badass who mows down bad guys with a gun. But where he tried to take his fantasies in the real world, I play video games and watch NCIS. I understand what belongs in the fantasy world, and what belongs in the real. Understanding Zimmerman, I cannot agree with what he’s done.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 16, 2013 12:19 AM
Comment #368295
phx8, you’re an idiot, sorry, can’t say that, you’re comments are idiotic.Posted by: DSP2195 at July 15, 2013 10:02 PM

Ah! Velly good, glasshoppah!

I’m pretty sure the rule of law does not include shooting innocent people who are doing nothing more than walking down the street.

Posted by: phx8 at July 15, 2013 9:03 PM

phx8, why do you keep repeating this? Are you trying to make us believe it?

Why did Martin start running? Zimmerman told the dispatch, “He’s running”. Where to?

After Zimmerman ended his call with police, a violent encounter took place between Martin and Zimmerman, which ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin 70 yards (64 m) from the rear door of the townhouse where Martin was staying.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 15, 2013 5:47 PM

It appears he wasn’t running to the safety of where he was staying, since it was only 70 yards away. It appears he ran toward Zimmerman in an effort to confront him.

Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.
http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/03/police_zimmerman_says_trayvon_knocked_him_down_slammed_his_head_into_sidewalk.html

This clearly puts Martin in the role of aggressor.

You’re drumbeat is without foundation, as is most of the Martin supporter arguments. You want to twist the truth to support your narrative by constantly repeating things that simply are not true.

Why are you doing that, phx8? Do you have an underlying motive that requires changing the facts to be credible?

Why don’t you have the courage to say what you really want to do? Why do you need to repeat lies and misinformation?

If you truly believe your convictions are the correct ones then just put them out there to stand the test of scrutiny. Don’t use subterfuge and deceit to get what you want.

Stand behind your convictions, phx8. Not lies.


Posted by: Weary Willie at July 16, 2013 12:19 AM
Comment #368296

Rhinehold-
Oh, so you get to decide what’s on topic and off topic in my post now!

Phx8 is only off topic because you’ve decided he is. Luckily for him, he’s commenting on my post, and I prefer to let people speak their opinions, rather than trying to stifle them according to what is my opinion.. I do have to remind some people, every now and then, what the boundaries are.

Don’t forget. ;-)

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 16, 2013 12:23 AM
Comment #368297

Weary Willie-
Except you’re taking just the word of the person who shot Trayvon. Trayvon isn’t there to offer his own testimony, tell his side of the story. I mean, it’s not like somebody who just shot somebody might not embellish his story for self-serving reasons.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 16, 2013 12:25 AM
Comment #368298

Rhinehold, Joseph, DSP, tom humes,
Poor things. You’re struck speechless when I call it like it is. An innocent, unarmed person walking down the street doing nothing wrong was pursued, confronted, and in the ensuing fight, the unarmed person was shot dead. The killer of the unarmed person plead self-defense and was not even charged with a crime for killing an innocent person.

There wasn’t even going to be a trial.

Well, that doesn’t match my concept of justice or the rule of law. According to one juror, that didn’t match the initial vote of half the jury, either. But as Warren Porter noted earlier in the thread, sometimes the bad guy gets away. Sometimes the system doesn’t work, and the killers of innocent people walk.

So, how is the conservative Republican effort to reach out to minorities working out these days?

Better thank your lucky stars the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. Now Florida will be able to suppress the vote more effectively in 2014 by doing away with early voting, Sunday voting, and limiting voting machines in certain neighborhoods- and boy oh boy, will conservatives need to keep minorities away from the polls this time!

Oh, and nice job on the Immigration Bill. Nothing spells love of latinos quite like demanding heavy-duty border security.

Also nice job with the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. That is one surefire way to attract that community of voters.

Finally, all those bills in various states shutting down health care clinics for women will be a hit with the ladies. Restricting abortion, closing Planned Parenthood, forcing women to have ultrasounds neither they nor their doctor want or need- now that’s paydirt! But wait! There’s more! Texas rejecting the state version of the Lily Ledbettor Fair Pay bill in Texas! The proverbial topper on the conservative ice cream sundae.

That will be a lot of votes to suppress in 2014. Better get crackin’ on those voter ID laws!

Posted by: phx8 at July 16, 2013 12:38 AM
Comment #368299

phx8-
They can’t help it at this point. Until some sort of generational shift occurs, they’ll be relying on the people who they sold the movement to. The folks they sold it to on the basis of the old, unintegrated society.

My people, my generation, we don’t remember a time before. We see it as a nightmare we’d just as soon leave in the past. We’d like to leave a lot of the mistakes of the last generation behind, too. We’ve seen in our parents lives the downward trajectory of the middle class, the way that giving in to the special interest’s siren song of keeping more jobs and having a better economy by screwing other priorities has sucked the happiness from much of American life.

The American Dream wasn’t merely about meeting some arbitrary goals. It was about securing happiness. A nice home, the ability to support a family with a decent wage, and a consumer economy that made life easier, less consumed by drudge work.

For somebody like Trayvon’s family, this is a betrayal of that, I think. You shouldn’t have to mourn your own son, because some fellow profiled him and decided he had to be the bad guy because of his appearance.

My thinking is that there is no good reason to treat an individual black man or black woman differently from any other citizen, not at least any that is consistent with our Constitutional rights. You should not be considered a suspect because of your appearance, but because of your actions. Trayvon’s actions were not criminal that evening, not until Zimmerman crossed his path.

And it’s still unclear who started what, so perhaps Trayvon’s actions were never criminal. That remains a possibility, despite whatever discipline problems or pot smoking he might have done in the recent past.

But with the verdict, it’s obvious that Zimmerman will never again be held accountable on a criminal level for what he did.

But even if that is the case, I think there should be a trial every time the circumstances are similar. Nobody’s life should be so little valued, on so little evidence.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 16, 2013 12:55 AM
Comment #368300

For those still following this issue, one juror has already given an interview:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/15/19488815-zimmerman-juror-he-shouldnt-have-gotten-out-of-that-car?lite

Although it is not mentioned in that article, supposedly that juror thought the change in the jury instructions due to the Stand Your Ground law left her no choice but to acquit; and supposedly that same law was the reason the Sanford Sheriff did not even bother to charge Zimmerman with murder. Zimmerman said ‘self-defense!’, so everyone just shrugged off the body of the innocent & unarmed teenager on the ground with a bullet through his heart.

Posted by: phx8 at July 16, 2013 12:59 AM
Comment #368301
It is certainly manslaughter.

Yes, it was at the very least, manslaughter.

The forensics showed that Martin didn’t attack Zimmerman the way that Zimmerman claims he did. But Zimmerman lied and lied and lied, and got away with murder. So now he is free to return to his nightly fantasy patrols.

But of course he got off. This is the south, after all. There might be less overt racism than there used to be there, but plenty of racists remain. And many would never convict any man for killing a black person for any reason at all. Thus, people get away with manslaughter with the right juries all the time. This particular jury was comprised of five white women and one Hispanic woman, and they chose to let Zimmerman walk.

Conservatives seem to think that people in America are no longer free to come out and simply say that racism is still a huge problem — because they claim it no longer exists. They’re just so good that kind of appalling but laughable, through-the-looking-glass sort of bullsh*t. They hate having anyone acknowledge that racism exists all over this country and that it is just as f*cking disgusting and despicable now as it ever was.

People admitting any of the above things will now earn themselves the label of “racist.” Well, because I’m not at all willing to act like their sick little game of denial is in any way credible, they can kiss my ass.

I’m pretty sure the rule of law does not include shooting innocent people who are doing nothing more than walking down the street.

George Zimmerman is going to be caught walking down a street one day. And everybody will know that he’ll be carrying his concealed, loaded gun, too. Which means someone is going to end up “standing their ground” against George Zimmerman. In fact, there might even be hordes of people who will now be waiting around for that chance.

It occurs to me that the conservatives really have gotten exactly what they wanted. Lots of Guns and violence and angry, paranoid people everywhere. Their Wild West Fantasy come true.

Right now, if I was the parent of a young black man in a state like Florida, I’d go out and buy them a handgun and teach them how to use it. Tell them to carry it around all the time — carefully concealed too, even if they don’t have a conceal-carry permit. Because now we all know that Stand Your Ground laws are clearly a license to kill.
The Zimmerman verdict proves beyond doubt that any racist fool who wants to stalk and shoot and kill can claim “self defense” and can avoid jail entirely.
I’d really want my kid to have half a chance, so I’d tell them to try to shoot first so they don’t end up dead like Trayvon did.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2013 2:01 AM
Comment #368306

phx8, this is also from your link:

She also said that none of the five fellow jurors believed race played a factor in the Feb. 26, 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Martin, who was African-American.

The juror said she had “no doubt” that Zimmerman feared for his life and was acting in self-defense when he shot Martin.

The woman said Zimmerman had a right to carry a gun, and did not take issue that he may be eligible to have it returned to him.

“I think it’s everybody’s right to carry a gun,” she said.

The left’s complaints is that this is about race; the jurors did not think so.

She also stated that Zimmerman shot is self defense, which is in agreement with the lie stress test he took on the night of the shooting.

Another leftist complaint was that he was carrying a gun, she agreed that he had a right to carry.

Although it is not mentioned in that article, supposedly that juror thought the change in the jury instructions due to the Stand Your Ground law left her no choice but to acquit; and supposedly that same law was the reason the Sanford Sheriff did not even bother to charge Zimmerman with murder. Zimmerman said ‘self-defense!’, so everyone just shrugged off the body of the innocent & unarmed teenager on the ground with a bullet through his heart.

You supply a link that has nothing to do with your accusations. Unless you can provide the link, this is nothing more than deception. A false statement.


Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 8:33 AM
Comment #368308

By the way, I’m still waiting on Mr. Daugherty to provide us with some evidence that Zimmerman violated the law. What’s the matter Daugherty, cat got your tongue. This is the first time I have ever seen you not able to write us an essay.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 8:36 AM
Comment #368311

phx8,

Better thank your lucky stars the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. Now Florida will be able to suppress the vote more effectively in 2014 by doing away with early voting, Sunday voting, and limiting voting machines in certain neighborhoods- and boy oh boy, will conservatives need to keep minorities away from the polls this time!

Florida wasn’t one of the States covered by the Voting Rights Act so what does Shelby v. Holder have to do with it?

Posted by: George in SC at July 16, 2013 10:01 AM
Comment #368312

Stephen

Observe and report is not spot, flee and call. You must be able to see a person in order to observe their actions, so when that person takes off running your instinct is to follow. If your area has been the target of crime recently, this instinct is only heightened.
Following is not pursuing with intent to do harm.

It doesn’t matter how scared Martin may have been, he was not cornered and had no reason to attack. From what we know, Zimmerman lost sight of Martin which gave Martin time to go home, tell his father and notify authorities.

“Now as for Trayvon, you say he was a wannabe gangster”

No Stephen, I said if Zimmerman was a rogue “wannabe cop” because of the way he acted, then it is fair to say Martin was a wannabe gangsta for the way he acted.

“Most, though, did not actually follow through on their façade!”

Many, many do Stephen, which is why our cities are warzones.

“That’s why this whole “looks suspicious” thing is such a poor reason to harass the kid.”

From what is known, his actions were what made him look suspicious. He was walking around in the rain looking at all the houses. He then stares at Zimmerman. He then begins approaching Zimmerman. Then he takes off running.
If you don’t want to look suspicious, don’t act suspicious.

“And, with all due respect, Zimmerman didn’t seem to have much greater respect for authority.”

Martin was in no position of authority that warranted any respect.

“Whatever reason, though, that Zimmerman had for pursuit, he did worse than the police in trying to catch the burglar.”

There is no proof that he was trying to “catch” anybody. That is only speculation on your part. Speculation you must do in order to somehow justify Marting attacking Zimmerman.

“By the way, do you have a decent explanation for the hoodie targets? They do exist.”

Yes, I do. A few dipsh*ts thought it would be funny or were p-offed at the witchhunt. That doesn’t make it right, but that also doesn’t mean every gun owner bought one.
You are painting with a very broad brush in order to justify the very hypocritical position you have taken here. I thought it didn’t matter because most won’t “actually follow through on their façade!”

“As for gun violence? Well, when people start to think that it’s time to take the law into their own hands, and get back at whoever shot their friend, more violence is exactly what occurs. Violence begets violence.”

So why don’t you concentrate your efforts on those most responsible, instead of those who live in peace 99.9% of the time?
You want to end violence? Stop blaming inanimate objects in order to be PC, and place the blame where it belongs. Stop making excuses and face the reality of the situation.

Posted by: kctim at July 16, 2013 10:07 AM
Comment #368314

No wonder some people are protesting the verdict, none of them know the facts or the law.
Instead of accepting the evidence, people create assumptions of what Zimmerman ‘really’ believed and what he was ‘really’ thinking. They pull out their crystal balls to tell us what ‘really’ happened.

IMO, people saw that a young black male was killed by a white male, knew the white male just had to be guilty, and jumped the gun in crying racism.
And now they are ignoring info and coming up with all these ridiculous and unfounded ‘what if…’ and ‘I believe…’ scenarios to keep their dreams of rampant racism alive.

What else can explain their lack of knowledge and constant use of misinformation despite being proven wrong over and over?

Posted by: kctim at July 16, 2013 11:34 AM
Comment #368317

So much distorton from phx8 an SD. The facts are there and are easy to access.
I conclude that you are either lazy or are twisting, distorting, and flat out lying about the situation.
You have no decency or integrity.
Some of your statements are so out of line. You probably got your sources screwed up by HLN/CNN and their hate
machine in full blown operation. All the lies and deceit have been rebutted by a number of those above, especially Rhinehold who has done a very thorough job showing the error of their ways and exposed the triune gods of the left.

Posted by: tom humes at July 16, 2013 12:04 PM
Comment #368318

George in SC,
You are correct about FL and the Voting Rights Act. Five counties were originally covered, but not the entire state. A sixth county, Escambia, was added later.

Meanwhile, The Onion is having a field day. Sometimes satire almost writes itself.

Nation Throws Hands Up, Tells Black Teenagers To Do Their Best Out There”

Following Saturday’s not guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman trial, an exasperated and speechless nation could reportedly do nothing other than wish black teenagers good luck out there, saying that they’re definitely going to need it.

“Yeah, I don’t know what to tell you other than keep your wits about you and hope for the best,” Alexandria, VA resident Michael Klein advised the nation’s 10 million African-American youths. “Honestly, I’d recommend just staying inside after sundown if you can.”

Posted by: phx8 at July 16, 2013 12:10 PM
Comment #368321

Political Hostage-
I believe you’re referring to the woman who had a book deal in place within 36 hours of the verdict, who claimed she didn’t trust the media, who got her news from the Today show, and said she heard about riots taking place in Sanford, when actually none occurred at all.

Y’all really know how to pick your sources. Oh, did I mention she referred to Trayvon as a “Boy of Color”?

Sometimes the satire writes itself. Let me ask you a question: why do you think it’s an extraordinary piece of evidence to pick one of the three jurors who bought into Zimmerman’s not guilty plea from the start of deliberations, and act like it’s big news that she, *gasp* considers him not guilty of the charge?

Good heavens above, what a shock! I think it would be far more interesting if one of the jurors came out and said she reconsidered the verdict.

But let’s be blunt about something here, putting the verdict and the juror aside: If I don’t want to snack, I don’t bring the box of Twinkies or the bag of potato chips, or whatever with me. If I don’t want to be bothered by phone calls in a certain place, I might just leave my cell phone at home.

The Neighborhood watch organizations strongly advise leaving firearms at home. Why? Because a gun lends people a kind of courage that makes them more likely to get into trouble, trouble of the exact kind that I point out Zimmerman’s own account shows him getting into.

If Zimmerman had left his gun at home, he might have been frustrated that it wasn’t so safe to follow Trayvon, but he sure as hell wouldn’t’ have killed somebody, and he also might have just stayed in the car and let the police deal with Trayvon, for what it was worth.

By the way, I’m still waiting on Mr. Daugherty to provide us with some evidence that Zimmerman violated the law. What’s the matter Daugherty, cat got your tongue. This is the first time I have ever seen you not able to write us an essay.

The body of an unarmed, dead, shot through the heart teenage boy that Zimmerman admitted to killing was good indication that Zimmerman might qualify as evidence he might have broken the law. Homicide is illegal unless you can offer an affirmative defense.

tom humes-
I love people who say “this person lies, distorts the fact, etc.” and then proceed to make no arguments based on what facts they got wrong, what distortions they actually made or whatever.

If I’ve lied, if I’m nothing so much as wrong, then you should have an easy enough time informing people of what is right, and proving me wrong. If you can’t do that, then your claims don’t have a leg to stand on.

kctim-
He didn’t have to flee. He could have calmly driven home, and let the police take care of matters. It was a gated community, no?

They distinctly tell neighborhood watch volunteers not to follow people. Following gets you in trouble. Rules like that are meant to counteract instincts , by the way. As for his intent to harm?

If a stranger follows you, you don’t know what their intent is.

As far as the wannabe gangster part goes? Look, Trayvon didn’t do any wannabe gangsta things out there. He didn’t steal anything, vandalize anything or have anything on him that was remotely like that.

Zimmerman, on the other hand, was armed and in pursuit of this guy, complaining that they get away. He spent quite a bit of time doing this, and even got out of the vehicle to follow him. The appellation fits. He was acting like he was some kind of cop.

Except a cop would have to have more than just suspicion to justify running down a suspect, getting into a fight with them, and then shooting them. He’d have to have probable cause.

There is no proof that he was trying to “catch” anybody. That is only speculation on your part. Speculation you must do in order to somehow justify Marting attacking Zimmerman.

Look, If I’m running after somebody and I’m complaining that the F-ing punk is always getting away, then I probably want to catch him. If Trayvon’s friend was right, then he did.

As for your labeling what happened to Zimmerman a Witch-hunt?

I’m sorry, he admitted at the scene that he shot the boy. When he was brought to trial, his charges were much in line with what the police recommended.

I see loads and loads of posts talking about the victim, who was not found to be involved in any criminal activity, labeling him a thug, congratulating Zimmerman for having killed him. If I paint with a bit of broad brush, it’s because you don’t use a kid’s watercolor brush to paint a wall.

As for Guns in general? Look, they are very effective tools that make the normally difficult job of killing a person much, much more easy. One shot was all it took to end Trayvon’s life. So many kinds of power you want constraint on, and some of the deadliest kind of power a civilian can purchase, you don’t want even the slightest bit of restraint on it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 16, 2013 1:08 PM
Comment #368324

Stephen Daugherty, this is your post and I have asked you repeatedly to give us some evidence of something…anything that George Zimmerman did that was illegal. You continue to spout nonsense about him being armed and a black boy being dead. This is not evidence of Zimmerman violating the law. I must just assume you are either worried that you will be caught in a trap; you have no evidence and just want to act like your in the know, or you are just plain stupid and cannot understand what I am asking for.

It’s all moot, since Rachel Jeantel came out on last night’s interview with Piers Morgan and admitted that her use of the word “Creepy Ass Cracka” and “Nigga” had nothing to do with race. Trayvon believed the guy following him was gay and she told Trayvon Martin to run because she thought George Zimmerman was a gay rapist and it freaked Trayvon out. So now we find out it had nothing to do with race, but instead was about “gay bashing” by Martin who though Zimmerman was gay. It’s a shame nobody, not the prosecution or the defense, could understand what Jeantel was talking about.

Of course, the jury said that race was not an issue.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 2:38 PM
Comment #368326

Stephen
Man, you guys are getting desparate.

No need to tell me how you think a neighborhood watch operates, I have done it many times. You don’t chase or confront, you observe and report. If you can observe in safety, you do so, you don’t calmly drive home and forget about it.
The evidence, not my opinion, shows Zimmerman was trying to keep Martin under observation. Yes, as most people have said, Zimmerman should not have tried to keep an eye on Martin on foot, because that can lead to you being attacked by, as you said, a thug, a punk, a criminal.
Remind me to not approve you being on any watch for the area I live in.

“If a stranger follows you, you don’t know what their intent is.”

If a stranger is acting suspicious, you don’t know what their intent is either. If that person starts approaching you with their hand in their waistband, you don’t know what their intent is. If a person takes off running, you don’t know what their intent is.
Face it Stephen, you have given Marting the benefit of the doubt from the very beginning simply because Martin was black.

“Except a cop would have to have more than just suspicion to justify running down a suspect, getting into a fight with them, and then shooting them. He’d have to have probable cause.”

No matter how often you and Phx8 repeat it, the evidence does not show Zimmerman ran anybody down or tried to confront them.

“Look, If I’m running after somebody and I’m complaining that the F-ing punk is always getting away, then I probably want to catch him.”

Or you are wanting to be able to let the police know his location. We do not know what Zimmerman was thinking and for you to base your theory on what you think he was doing is dishonest. Especially when the evidence does not support you.

“As for your labeling what happened to Zimmerman a Witch-hunt?”

Which was in response to your question if I had any idea why a few gun owners would make hoodie targets. Bringing a case to court due solely to protests of those who know nothing about the facts, could be seen as a witchhunt by some.
I really hope you hold the same disdain for the “Wanted Dead or Alive” Zimmerman crap.

“I see loads and loads of posts talking about the victim, who was not found to be involved in any criminal activity, labeling him a thug, congratulating Zimmerman for having killed him.”

Then I take it that you have also seen the loads and loads of posts talking about killing Zimmerman, the jury and white people?
Should I do as you and paint all black people as believing those things?
I don’t think so.

“As for Guns in general? Look, they are very effective tools that make the normally difficult job of killing a person much, much more easy.”

That has always been so.

“One shot was all it took to end Trayvon’s life”

Yep.

“So many kinds of power you want constraint on, and some of the deadliest kind of power a civilian can purchase, you don’t want even the slightest bit of restraint on it.”

Except that we have much more than “the slightest bit of restraint” on guns, now don’t we. So how about we stop pretending that any criminal can go and legally buy a gun anytime he wants one.

With that said, why should we agree to further restraint, when the people in large urban areas are the ones who are responsible for the majority of the violence?

You’re demanding more restraint from the wrong people Stephen.

Posted by: kctim at July 16, 2013 2:49 PM
Comment #368329

Perhaps someone could explain the rules of Watchblog for me, since I haven’t really commented here for very long; but when one of the writers (in the case Stephen Daugherty) makes a post and he posts fraudulent evidence, and when one asks for his evidence, shouldn’t he have to produce it?

Mr. Daugherty has repeatedly comment that it was the right thing to bring charges against Zimmerman and try him for Murder 2; but when asked what Zimmerman did that was illegal, Mr. Daugherty refuses to produce the evidence. His whole premise is based upon emotion and what is right.

The question I have for anyone is, is this standard procedure for Stephen Daugherty, or is this just a special case. If this is standard procedure, I find no reason to discuss anything with him again. It has become a one sided discussion; me asking and Mr. Daugherty changing the subject.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 3:16 PM
Comment #368333

Political Hostage,
How many times do people have to respond to you? Armed with a gun, Zimmerman pursued, confronted, engaged in a fight, and then shot an innocent and unarmed man dead. Zimmerman killed a young man who was doing nothing wrong, nothing suspicious, merely walking home. Zimmerman shot him through the heart.

That is murder.

By the way, has anyone noticed the NRA has said nothing about this case? One would think the NRA would demand- DEMAND!- that young black men arm themselves with guns. Oddly enough, the NRA has remained silent.

Wonder why? Gee, I can’t imagine why the NRA would not demand that young black men arm themselves. Any guesses?

Posted by: phx8 at July 16, 2013 3:37 PM
Comment #368334
Except you’re taking just the word of the person who shot Trayvon. Trayvon isn’t there to offer his own testimony, tell his side of the story. I mean, it’s not like somebody who just shot somebody might not embellish his story for self-serving reasons.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 16, 2013 12:25 AM

Is this how we conduct a trial now, Stephen Daugherty? Call the guy a liar, then convict him? You say Martin isn’t around to tell his side. You weren’t around to tell Zimmerman’s side either, Stephen Daugherty! If you want to call Zimmerman a liar, PROVE IT!

And since we are speaking for phx8 now, I want to thank you for sticking up for him. It sounds like he needs a mommy to back him up.

I’m sorry, he admitted at the scene that he shot the boy. When he was brought to trial, his charges were much in line with what the police recommended.

Not the case at all, Stephen Daugherty.
Sanford, Fla., Police Chief Bill Lee fired
These charges were politically motivated. But it’s your story, you tell it, Right Stephen Daugherty?

Don’t feel bad, Stephen Daugherty. Your ilk has done away with Double Jeopardy. You guys can try him again to get what you want. It isn’t about the law. It’s about a bunch of crying, little, children. Unrelenting ballbabies wailing until they get what they want. Isn’t it, Stephen Daugherty?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 16, 2013 3:40 PM
Comment #368335

phx8 and Stephen,

You know what I think might happen now? Black folks in SYG states are going to want to become more heavily armed than the Black Panthers circa 1966 — and I bet the racist conservatives are going to l-o-v-e that!

Wayne La Pierre and his gun lobby should be very pleased — more guns always means more bucks for their bangs!

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2013 3:45 PM
Comment #368336
Political Hostage, How many times do people have to respond to you? Armed with a gun, Zimmerman pursued, confronted, engaged in a fight, and then shot an innocent and unarmed man dead. Zimmerman killed a young man who was doing nothing wrong, nothing suspicious, merely walking home. Zimmerman shot him through the heart.

phx8, thanks for responding for Mr. Daughtery; but none of the things you listed are illegal.

Armed with a gun…legal

Pursued…legal

Confronted…no evidence of this, but would still be legal

Engaged in a fight…yes, but no evidence that Zimmerman started it.

Then shot an innocent and unarmed man…no evidence that Martin was innocent of the attack which led to the shooting, which was legal if Zimmerman felt his life was in danger.

So, once again, can any of you lefties provide evidence of anything Zimmerman did that was illegal?

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 3:53 PM
Comment #368338

This blue thread and the alternate red thread are a microcosm of every debate on this site, and the expanding philosophical divide in America and likely the world. The left makes their decisions and assumptions based on what “feels” good, and the right reacts and makes decisions on the evidence.

It feels good to take away guns from everyone in the name of safety, but the evidence shows otherwise.

It feels good to say Zimmerman was a racist, but the evidence shows otherwise.

It feels good to say “Zimmerman jumped Martin, who was whistling dixie and just minding his own business” but the evidence shows otherwise.

Everything the left advocates (almost universally) is based on stage one thinking. This “feels good” therefore it “must be good.”

At this point the left (excepting Warren Porter who to his great credit shares a pearl of wisdom above) is willing to literally discount the result and efficacy of our judicial system based ENTIRELY on their own assumptions and prejudices. You who advocate that Zimmerman was a racist, zealoted, wanna-be-cop do so in the face of ALL evidence to the contrary, and then you cite sources that base their evidence on more feelings and instincts.

Stephen shows his naivete when he attempts to distill gun carrying down to kill or be killed. When you wrongly believe that guns are the killers, and not the ones wielding them, then it makes sense for you to assume those are the only options. However…

Guns SAVE countless more lives than they take during the course of human events in a lawful society. A point that doesn’t fit into the emotional Colosseum of your thought processes, but is nonetheless true. They take lives, but through their existence, preserve far more. Every guy in a restaurant or theater who blasts one person in a fit of madness and is then cut down before he can blast another represents a great but untold number of lives saved. Every person who chooses to avoid a crime for fear of his life is saved. Every conflict via which the presence of a gun UNUSED ends the conflict is a life saved, but these are meaningless in your quest to feel good, and are therefore duly abandoned or altogether ignored.

Political Hostage, Joseph, George, kctim, et al, I marvel at your stamina in this fight. Over the past 8+ years I have routinely seen conservatives (to whom a logical case can be made and if it is indeed logical, can be convinved) cede points to the bloggers on the left. But when the framework of your experience of life starts and ends with their OWN feelings, and only those who share those same feelings, you throw pebbles at a fortress of foolishness. I cannot recall a genuine conversion to sanity by any blue blogger on this site, on ANY point, EVER.

But I commend you. I’m certain that many people who read but don’t write on WB, are indeed swayed, and it is to those intrepid souls you do your greatest service. I too easily tire of cyclical arguments without basis on something that CAN BE disputed, yet you display herculean stamina for the task.

Fight on brothers, fight on.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at July 16, 2013 3:58 PM
Comment #368340

phx8 — funny! I was writing my post when you were posting about the NRA! I’m sure those ghouls love this — they love death and guns and injustice. It makes them so rich.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2013 4:12 PM
Comment #368344
Fight on brothers, fight on. Posted by: Yukon Jake at July 16, 2013 3:58 PM

Oh how heartwarming and life affirming it must be how you can all find such camaraderie and take so much pleasure in the death of an unarmed seventeen year old kid getting shot for no reason, and take delight in the injustice of Zimmerman facing no jail time for his murder.
You all should arrange a casual get together with your brothers — you know, drink a few beers, light a cross, pull on your white hoods and do a big victory dance in celebration!

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2013 4:58 PM
Comment #368345

Who’s the racist?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 16, 2013 5:05 PM
Comment #368346

You appear to be projecting, Adrienne. It must be a hard life to see a KKK member and a murdering “cracker” behind every tree, around every corner.

Your posts project something that must originate in your mind because there is none of what you describe in any of the comments on this thread.

Perhaps you should get some of the sensitivity training your cohorts offer.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 16, 2013 5:08 PM
Comment #368347
Who’s the racist?

Those who are taking pleasure in the death of an unarmed seventeen year old kid getting shot for no reason, and taking delight in the injustice of Zimmerman facing no jail time for his murder.
It’s just SO obvious.

Did you think we didn’t know?
We know.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2013 5:09 PM
Comment #368348

Yukon Jake, I have also read some of your comments and congratulate you for your stand. I was just listening to Holder speak before the NAACP; he is telling them just what they want to hear, but it’s a lie. Holder spoke of when his dad had “The Talk” with him when he was a child. He was insinuating the talk was about the racism of white people and their goal to kill blacks as they walk down the street. Then he spoke of the fact that he would have to have “The Talk” with is 15 year old son, again, insinuating that nothing has changed in the past 50 years. He spoke of his intentions to go after Zimmerman on grounds of civil rights violations, and then he concluded with the SYG laws as being the culprit of whites shooting blacks. I never once heard him talk about the black on black murders that take place in every city in America everyday. What Holder has done is try to stir up riots and marches, he has lied to the black people, and he will never seek charges against Zimmerman. When he finally tells the blacks he is not pursuing charges, which he will, he will say it’s because Zimmerman was legal under the SYG law. He will not seek charges because there is no evidence of racism in the life of Zimmerman.

But it doesn’t matter because you will always have the low information crowd who are ignorant. Take Adrienne for example; her(or his) comments are nothing more than hate filled vitriol. She has no concept that the NRA has been around for a very long time; they have been, for decades, responsible for training children in gun safety, they have trained most of the police forces in America, they have trained the military instructors, and they are made up of all kinds of Americans…white, red, yellow, brown, and black like myself.

Yukon, I do find it depressing that liberals like Stephen Daugherty, continue with the same old liberal talking points, and are incapable of understanding logic or of understanding the law. He cannot give one single case where Zimmerman violated the law, but it doesn’t stop him from continuing to spout the same old taking points.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 5:12 PM
Comment #368349

What do you know? You and phx8 and Stephen Daugherty think you know, but it’s been proven you don’t. You’re making asterisks up and hope the choir chimes in.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 16, 2013 5:13 PM
Comment #368350

“George Zimmerman is going to be caught walking down a street one day. And everybody will know that he’ll be carrying his concealed, loaded gun, too. Which means someone is going to end up “standing their ground” against George Zimmerman. In fact, there might even be hordes of people who will now be waiting around for that chance.”

One could hope that the above writer was positioned in the direct line of fire since she appears to advocate revenge and senseless killing.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 16, 2013 5:18 PM
Comment #368351

“You all should arrange a casual get together with your brothers — you know, drink a few beers, light a cross, pull on your white hoods and do a big victory dance in celebration!”

Political Hostage, you would probably look really good in a white hood and drinking a beer with the good old boys, LOL.

Posted by: DSP2195 at July 16, 2013 5:18 PM
Comment #368352
What do you know?

I know that conservatives hate everyone who isn’t rich, male, white or white-acting, and that you love your guns.

You hate and despise everyone else in America. You and your leaders prove this in everything you say and do every single day.

Did you think most people wouldn’t notice?
People notice.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2013 5:24 PM
Comment #368353

Yes, LOL, my black ass would look good in a white hood. Adrienne, do you understand that the KKK wasted started by the Democrats. In fact, I have never read of a Republican politician who belonged to the Klan. I know there were Democrats who belonged to the Klan and later became Republicans, after they left the Klan.

It’s embarrassing to watch young men of my own race, using Trayvon Martin as an excuse to create mayhem. Destroying businesses and burning cars. And then they wonder why they are profiled.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 5:24 PM
Comment #368357

The Klan is now strictly on the right politically speaking.
Racists do not vote liberal or progressive, because these people know that the left has absolutely no respect for their racism, white supremacy and white nationalism.

And I’m sure that you’re aware of that, Uncle Tom.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2013 5:45 PM
Comment #368360

Political Hostage,
Zimmerman became responsible and legally liable for the outcome the moment he stepped out of his car, carrying a loaded weapon, and initiated a pursuit. Despite being advised not to pursue by a police dispatcher, Zimmerman followed Martin, all the while knowing he possessed lethal firepower. When Zimmerman pursued and eventually confronted Martin, he had already lost the claim to a ‘stand your ground’ defense because Zimmerman initiated the pursuit and confrontation. He followed and closed in on Martin enough that a physical fight was possible. Zimmerman was the aggressor because he followed and at some point came close enough to Martin for a fight to start. It does matter who threw the first punch or who was winning the fight. Zimmerman was the aggressor because he pursued Martin.

That Zimmerman got punched in the nose and knocked to the ground is irrelevant. He didn’t bring a gun to a knife fight- he brought a gun to a fist fight, and he knew it. He responded to getting punched and knocked to the ground with lethal force. Excessive lethal force.

That is illegal. That is murder.

Posted by: phx8 at July 16, 2013 5:53 PM
Comment #368361

Marley lion
17 year old innocent white boy/kid/adolescent shot by a black guy while sleeping in his SUV.

Jonathan Paul Foster
A real, actual 12 year old, kidnapped and murdered by a black woman. Body burnt with blowtorch and dumped in ditch

Jacqueline Gardner
24 year old white woman shot by three black men during robbery of 84$ in tips.

Where’s your outrage in these cases, Adrienne? Or are your posts simply racist rants?

You really should crawl back under your rock because you’re imbarassing yourself.


Posted by: Weary Willie at July 16, 2013 5:55 PM
Comment #368362

Poor Adrienne, a middle class white woman who yearns to be black and disadvantaged. It’s just so damn unfair.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 16, 2013 5:56 PM
Comment #368364

The Great Justice phx8 writes; “Zimmerman became responsible and legally liable for the outcome the moment he stepped out of his car, carrying a loaded weapon, and initiated a pursuit.”

Not according to the real judge in the case who gave entirely different instructions to the jury. I will go with the actual judge rather than the imaginings of justice phx8.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 16, 2013 6:01 PM
Comment #368365

“Despite being advised not to pursue by a police dispatcher, Zimmerman followed Martin”

As has been pointed out many tiresome times, the actual evidence shows otherwise.

“When Zimmerman pursued and eventually confronted Martin”

Again, no evidence shows Zimmerman was the one who confronted Martin.

“he had already lost the claim to a ‘stand your ground’”

SYG defense was not used.

“He followed and closed in on Martin enough that a physical fight was possible”

Assumption based on opinion, not facts.

“It does matter who threw the first punch or who was winning the fight.”

Yes it does. NO laws were broken until the assault occurred.

“That Zimmerman got punched in the nose and knocked to the ground is irrelevant. He didn’t bring a gun to a knife fight- he brought a gun to a fist fight, and he knew it. He responded to getting punched and knocked to the ground with lethal force. Excessive lethal force.”

Pure speculation and opinnion. NONE of which could be supported with actual evidence or convince a jury.

Posted by: kctim at July 16, 2013 6:06 PM
Comment #368366

Can you imagine a fat, 30 year old, guy chasing after a physically fit 17 year old? How long would that chase last?

Not long because it didn’t happen. phx8 is making asterisks up again, trying to get people to believe his lies so he can dominate the topic.

It isn’t working, phx8. Prove to us that Zimmerman chased down this 17 year old kid.

You can’t. Your debate is lost.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 16, 2013 6:07 PM
Comment #368367
Poor Adrienne, a middle class white woman who yearns to be black and disadvantaged. It’s just so damn unfair.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 16, 2013 5:56 PM\

Royal Flush, Be on guard. You’ll be accused of profiling!

That’s another non-crime the racists want you to think is illegal.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 16, 2013 6:12 PM
Comment #368368
Where’s your outrage in these cases, Adrienne?

I think those cases are terrible. But where is YOUR outrage over the senseless death of Trayvon Martin? I’ll tell you where it is: MIA

Or are your posts simply racist rants?

When the shoe fits. And in this case, it does.

Poor Adrienne, a middle class white woman who yearns to be black and disadvantaged. It’s just so damn unfair.

No, I yearn for a country that doesn’t have despicable people like YOU in it. A country capable of moving beyond all this racism and racial profiling horseshit and so damn much senseless violence and poverty and discrimination. What’s so damn unfair is that America can’t do that — because there are too many conservatives like you and all those who have been commenting in this thread who ruin everything in this nation for the vast majority of our people.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2013 6:17 PM
Comment #368369

Adrienne, did you just call me an Uncle Tom?

Here we go again, phx8 in his ignorance of the law, says:


Carrying a loaded weapon…legal

Initiated a pursuit. he was a neighborhood watch…legal

Advised not to pursue by a police dispatcher…even if he did, it was legal.

Zimmerman followed Martin…legal

Knowing he possessed lethal firepower…once again, legal

Zimmerman pursued and eventually confronted Martin…no evidence

He had already lost the claim to a ‘stand your ground’ defense…wrong, he could claim SYG if he wanted.

Zimmerman initiated the pursuit and confrontation… No evidence of pursuing and confronting

He followed and closed in on Martin enough that a physical fight was possible…no evidence

Zimmerman was the aggressor because he followed.it was legal and there is no evidence he was the aggressor

It does matter who threw the first punch or who was winning the fight…Zimmerman sustained the injuries and Martin had none, Zimmerman was legal to use force

Zimmerman was the aggressor because he pursued Martin…no evidence

That Zimmerman got punched in the nose and knocked to the ground is irrelevant… it is relevant because he qualified to protect himself

He didn’t bring a gun to a knife fight- he brought a gun to a fist fight… he was legal to carry and in fact, his weapon was given back to him b he police. I know you hate to hear this, but it is his Constitutional right to still carry a weapon

He responded to getting punched and knocked to the ground with lethal force. Excessive lethal force…excessive or not, irrelevant, he was legal

That is illegal…correct

That is murder… incorrect, he was found not guilty

But keep trying, you might find evidence of a crime I had not heard of.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 6:18 PM
Comment #368370

A Dumb Roadi Is Essentially No Nonsense Evil

Posted by: smartass at July 16, 2013 6:19 PM
Comment #368371

Have no fear Weary, I understand this person very well. For me, her writing is pure fiction meant for entertainment purposes only.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 16, 2013 6:22 PM
Comment #368372

I thought Adrienne was black like me. I’m sorry to see she is just a wanna be. I thought she had really suffered the injustices of being black (humm, walked in my shoes, so to speak), but alas, she is just concerned about my rights. Thank you Adrienne for your concern.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 6:29 PM
Comment #368373
Racists do not vote liberal or progressive

Um, LOTS of racists vote liberal and progressive. Sharpton, Farakhan, Van Jones, anyone trying to make this case about race. The policies of the Democratic party are there to keep black people down, keep them in their place, keep them NEEDING them in order to retain their political power…

Hell, pretty much anyone who thinks ‘race’ actually exists despite the evidence to the contrary does so because they are racist.

You can think that people can’t see that, Adrienne, but they do.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 16, 2013 6:29 PM
Comment #368374

kctim,
Here is the link for Zimmerman’s 911 call. Notice Martin is running away from Zimmerman. Notice the dispatcher tells Zimmerman he does not need to pursue. No physical altercation would have been possible without Zimmerman’s pursuit.

“Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: Ok, we don’t need you to do that.

Zimmerman: Ok.”

Obviously, we don’t have TV’s point of view, but according to the witness who was on the cell phone with him at the time, Martin said he was being followed by a ‘creepy cracker,’ and Martin joked that he might be a rapist.

By the way, FL law for jury instructions was changed by SYG law. Although it was not invoked in the trial, it did make a difference in the instructions received by the jury.

Posted by: phx8 at July 16, 2013 6:30 PM
Comment #368378

Forgot the link. There are numerous transcripts of the Zimmerman 911 call. Some of you might want to familiarize yourselves it.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

Posted by: phx8 at July 16, 2013 6:42 PM
Comment #368379

Political Hostage writes; “I thought Adrienne was black like me. I’m sorry to see she is just a wanna be.”

Yup…just a “wanna be”. She believes you and others can’t make it on your own and need the help of a wise white woman who knows what is really in your best interest. She’s an evangelists without a religion except for the doctrine of government.

She floats around the edges of injustice and seeks to do good without getting her hands dirty or her purse diminished. Her allegiance belongs to the shrillest voice advocating socialism and government dependence. She desperately wants to be in control of something and yet can’t even get her cat to purr.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 16, 2013 6:43 PM
Comment #368382

phx8 keeps pounding away after the trial has ended and a verdict rendered. He tells us he knows more about Florida law than the judge hearing the case and giving jury instruction does. My question is; why should we consider anything phx8 believes proves guilt when the jury didn’t?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 16, 2013 6:53 PM
Comment #368383
Notice the dispatcher tells Zimmerman he does not need to pursue. No physical altercation would have been possible without Zimmerman’s pursuit.

Actually, it would be very possible… Not in your closed mind of course, but when Martin fled it was when Zimmerman was in the vehicle. Once Zimmerman got out and Martin realized it was a short chubby man that he thought he could take, he could have decided to confront him.

In fact, that is what Zimmerman said happened and a ‘stress test’ taken the night of the incident states that Zimmerman was telling the truth (or what he believed to be the truth).

By the way, FL law for jury instructions was changed by SYG law. Although it was not invoked in the trial, it did make a difference in the instructions received by the jury.

Actually, no, the instructions to the jury are posted on the Florida Supreme Court website and are part of the basic self defense statutes that existed prior to SYG.

SYG had absolutely *NOTHING* to do with this case, I am still unclear why so many progressives can’t get that or seem to think it is some sort of issue to keep harping at.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 16, 2013 6:53 PM
Comment #368385

Royal Flush, LOL

phx8, once again you have led us through the infamous call to the dispatcher and for what? To say the dispatcher told him not to follow? Do you have proof he continued to follow or are you just imagining he followed. But the big question is…what if he did continue to follow…was it an illegal action? NO it wasn’t.

He was the neighborhood watch in his own neighborhood, and he could go anyplace he wanted, simple as that. Nothing illegal. Try again…

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 6:55 PM
Comment #368386

phx8,
It’s pearls before swine. They’re not interested in the actual facts — they never are.

Royal,
You don’t know shit about me or my life.

smartass,
Pretty poor attempt.
Some Muscle-heads Act Ridiculous, They Aren’t So Smart
Senseless Morons Are Racist, Thick-headed, Assholish, Stupid Soft-wits.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2013 6:57 PM
Comment #368387
He was the neighborhood watch in his own neighborhood, and he could go anyplace he wanted, simple as that. Nothing illegal. Try again…

Actually, being in the neighborhood watch and being in a neighborhood he lived in had nothing to do with it. He was legally allowed to walk and go where he wants as a US CITIZEN. Martin did too. That didn’t make Martin’s actions less suspicious to Zimmerman and it didn’t make Zimmerman’s actions less suspicious to Martin.

Of course, this is logic, reason and fact that I’m talking, I’ll let everyone get back to the conjecture, race-baiting and hatefilled vitriol they say they don’t want but continue to spout every chance they get.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 16, 2013 7:00 PM
Comment #368388

Rhinehold, the reason the left is so infatuated with the SYG laws is because it is the talking points of their leaders. And the leaders are talking about SYG because it allows them once again to revisit gun control. Remember, never waste a crisis.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 7:01 PM
Comment #368389

Rhinehold, you are correct. I understood that, but failed to include it.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 7:04 PM
Comment #368390

Royal,
You don’t know shit about me or my life.

smartass,
Pretty poor attempt.
Some Muscle-heads Act Ridiculous, They Aren’t So Smart
Senseless Morons Are Racist, Thick-headed, Assholish, Stupid Soft-wits.
Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2013 6:57 PM

I obviously know where your “goat” is tied…LOL

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 16, 2013 7:07 PM
Comment #368392

That the state of Florida, or any state for that matter, has a SYG law infuriates the left since is disagrees with their presumption of guilt whenever it pleases them. How dare a state have laws that disagree with their sense of justice.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 16, 2013 7:12 PM
Comment #368393

Adrienne, Are you 10 years old? Maybe you can get Stephen Daugherty to adopt you, also.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 16, 2013 7:13 PM
Comment #368395

Six little black boys, aged 13-14 beat a 46 year old white an to death, but thank God, it wasn’t a hate crime. So much for being a child:

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/6-black-teens-beat-white-man-to-death-no-hate-crime

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 16, 2013 7:19 PM
Comment #368396

Good think he didn’t have a gun or was able to defend himself, he might have killed six innocent children. He was right to just lay there and take it, as Stephen says he should have…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 16, 2013 7:21 PM
Comment #368402

I really, really, really hope Democrats attack Florida’s gun laws. It will really help you win elections down there. Trust me. Florida hates guns and loves them some gun control.

Posted by: Joseph at July 16, 2013 7:47 PM
Comment #368403

Yay! Sharpton’s group is putting together protests in Indy this Saturday to bring attention to the 45 black makes killed in the city since January 1st…

Oh what? Really? Oh, it seems he’s protesting something else… I guess those 45 black people don’t warrant a protest.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 16, 2013 7:50 PM
Comment #368404

I also hope Democrats continue to push gun control on the national level. It will help you in 2014. Trust me. Americans hate guns and love them some gun control. It’s a winning issue for Democrats.

Posted by: Joseph at July 16, 2013 7:52 PM
Comment #368405

JOseph, I can’t understand what you are writing.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 16, 2013 7:56 PM
Comment #368412

Stephen Daugherty has gone into complete shutdown. I hope PH is not looking for an answer to his questions. In about 3-4 days, Stephen will slip in and post some kind of stupid answer. I’ve seen him do it before when he don’t have a real answer. He likes to have the last word on record, hoping no one will see it.

Posted by: DSP2195 at July 16, 2013 9:03 PM
Comment #368425

DSP2195-
I’ve been Watching Seasons 4 of both Fringe and NCIS. That naturally takes some time, and is a great deal of fun for me. You know, unlike responding to a bunch of people who’ve taken after Rush Limbaugh in their venom and contempt for logic. I vastly prefer to be the kind of person who actually has some fun instead of boiling over in internet driven rage. Therefore, I have been cruelly depriving you of my presence. ;-) The internet will survive without my constant commentary, somehow!

The lack of logic still bothers me.

Take this argument that somehow because black people are killing white people, or black people black people that I should be outraged about these crimes.

Well, folks, I don’t recall saying that the people who are charged with these crimes shouldn’t be put on trial. I don’t recall saying I didn’t find these homicides objectionable. It’s just standard-issue missing of the point on conservative’s part to pretend that this is simply about the fact that a black kid got killed, bad as that is by itself.

It’s about the fact that the man almost never had to stand trial for it, for a killing that should, on the face of it, bring up red flags. I mean, unarmed? After the shooter pursued the person he got into a fight with? Perhaps he was defending himself, but the facts also fit a situation in which he was simply the aggressor!

Show me a similar situation with people of any color, and I’ll say the same thing. What brings race into it is the alarming and documented tendency for such egregiously imbalanced outcomes to happen when the shooter is white and the victim is a minority.

The argument is for equal justice. If you shoot somebody the way Zimmerman shot Martin, the case should go to trial.

That’s the point of a trial. You realize, don’t you that because of the Fifth Amendment, Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon Martin will never again come up as a subject of a trial, at least not on the state and local level. It’s a settled matter, according to the law.

Political Hostage-
Homicide is illegal. As for the other aspects? Damn do you subscribe to low standards! There’s is plenty that is quite legal and also quite ill-advised, quite stupid, quite obnoxious.

You don’t seem to register that half the point of my post is this: whether killing Trayvon or not was justified, Zimmerman was put in that position because he sought Trayvon Martin out. Had Martin been more the thug that Zimmerman imagined him, Zimmerman might be dead.

The Right is promoting a culture of going beyond the rule of law once again, encouraging violence and turning a blind eye to the racial elements of it, to the inequalities of how this defense is accepted and applied.

In the process, they are only encouraging more bloodshed, more tragedy. The law shouldn’t be written such that these are the results. It should be written to encourage more peaceful resolutions.

And culturally? If we base our system of laws on fears and anxieties, we can end up writing injustice and tragedy into the system. We need to be level-headed, consider real world consequences.

Well, this is going to be my last comment for a few hours. I have work to do, work to go to. Not everybody here can stay at home and collect a government check while bashing big government. ;-)

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 17, 2013 8:28 AM
Comment #368427

Phx8
Thanks for the reply, appreciate it. Rhinehold pretty much summed it up by posting the actual facts, so no need for me to repeat them.

Stephen

If this was all about Zimmerman standing trial, there wouldn’t be protests demanding a different kind of ‘justice,’ or shouts for Zimmermans death. Misinformed people would not be babbling about SYG or how its somehow now ok to kill black males for sport.

The initial findings showed there was no evidence to support the claims of racism. No proof that Zimmerman stalked, hunted, chased down, confronted or attacked Martin. But you all still got the trial you demanded. A trial that proved nothing except that the initial findings were correct.

From day one, it has been important to one group of people that this case be all about race. For the other group of people, it has been important that this case be all about facts and the law.

The facts and the law have spoken, it’s time to stop the twisting, the what-ifs, the mindreading, the protesting, the rioting, the threatening, the assaulting, and move on.

Posted by: kctim at July 17, 2013 10:21 AM
Comment #368428

Mr. Daugherty, thanks for the response, but you still fail to give any evident of a crime committed. Once again you are basing your conclusions on emotion or feelings. But you have made some interesting comments. Take this comment for example:

What brings race into it is the alarming and documented tendency for such egregiously imbalanced outcomes to happen when the shooter is white and the victim is a minority.

The shooter was not white (although the media jumped on to this lie from the beginning); the shooter is Hispanic and the last time I heard, considered a minority in America. Do you refer to President Obama as a white man, or do you refer to him as black? He shares the same amount of white blood as Zimmerman does, but your claim that Zimmerman is white gives credence to yours and the media’s claim of sensationalism that a white man killed a black man. This is disingenuous.

After the shooter pursued the person he got into a fight with? Perhaps he was defending himself, but the facts also fit a situation in which he was simply the aggressor!

Again, disingenuous, you are implying that Zimmerman pursued Martin for the purpose of confronting him. This is not true and was proved to be not true; Zimmerman was well within his legal rights to follow Martin. Again, disingenuous that he was the aggressor…you have no proof. The following of Martin by Zimmerman was legal and even if he had done it after the dispatcher told him not to (which he did stop), it would not have been illegal.

You bring up the fact that Zimmerman was armed once again, as if that somehow makes him a criminal…he was well within his legal rights to own and carry a concealed weapon. Do you have the slightest idea how many people you pass on the street are carrying concealed weapons? Which leads us to this statement:

The argument is for equal justice. If you shoot somebody the way Zimmerman shot Martin, the case should go to trial.

Equal justice is not just for Martin, it’s also for Zimmerman. You again insinuate that Zimmerman shot Martin in cold blood. He shot him in self defense and he was well within his legal rights to do so. The original prosecutor and sheriff found no reason to look at this case in any manner other than a case of self defense. It went to trial because the President of the United States, in an unprecedented manner, stuck his nose into a local state issue. He sent the DOJ through the use of taxpayer dollars, to fund Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, who set up protests with bussed in protestors, to put pressure on the state of Florida to bring this case to a trial. This case would never have been brought to trail based on the facts; it was purely political. The proof of this is found in the fact that Obama and Holder are still trying to insight riots and unrest among the American people. Holder is lying to the blacks; he is deceiving them by implying a case of violation of civil rights has occurred. He has no case and he knows it. Once again the left uses a tragedy to promote a political agenda. To go after SYG laws, which are the laws of 50% of the states. To go after gun control once again. There is also the attempt to gin up the left (blacks) and created a reason to get out the vote. Don’t you find it disgusting that the President of the United States would use a tragedy to promote his own political agenda.

The Right is promoting a culture of going beyond the rule of law once again, encouraging violence and turning a blind eye to the racial elements of it, to the inequalities of how this defense is accepted and applied.

This is an ignorant comment, worthy of the shrill Adrienne, but not you Mr. Daugherty. The DOJ, FBI, and the jury have found NO racial elements and no one is encouraging violence, unless you are speaking of the riots and beatings of whites and Hispanics taking place around the country in the name of Trayvon Martin.?

Mr. Daugherty, I am really disappointed. I thought for sure that you would come back with some evidence that George Zimmerman committed a criminal act. Once again, you talk, talk, talk, using the same old arguments based on emotion and feelings.

Do you have any evidence that Zimmerman committed a crime?

I feel sorry for the person charged who has you on the jury. It is evident that you could not come to an unbiased decision.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 17, 2013 11:24 AM
Comment #368429

kctim-
Nobody in a free society is obligated to be happy about a verdict, or to quit discussing it. People are angry that there seems to be a double standard in the justice system, and the statistics seem to support that. You are more likely to go to death row for the same crime. You are more likely to see your killer get off on a claim of self defense.

So on and so forth.

The point is, when things are like that, minorities won’t simply gloss over the fact in their minds. They will witness and experience the differential treatment, and guess what? They’ll feel, emotionally and rationally that this inequality is wrong.

One last thought: legal doesn’t mean wise, doesn’t mean right, doesn’t mean smart. Want an example? In most places, it’s not illegal to screw somebody else’s spouse. That said, there’s a considerable body of evidence that being caught doing that means that your lover’s spouse is more likely to kill you.

Against the law or not, there are actions that make it more likely that somebody’s going to want to hurt or even kill you. That’s simply the way things are. If you go chasing after a criminal, and end up getting beat up for your troubles, that’s a clear sign that you shouldn’t have been that eager to catch up with them in the first place, isn’t it?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 17, 2013 11:31 AM
Comment #368430

SD
“that’s a clear sign that you shouldn’t have been that eager to catch up with them in the first place, isn’t it?”

Still having trouble understanding the facts?

He was not in pursuit. He lost him. He was then set upon by Martin. This was after a 4 min delay that would have given him time to escape. He didn’t try. He died.

Posted by: tom humes at July 17, 2013 11:57 AM
Comment #368431

Stephen

When the facts disprove your argument, you accept them and move on.

If you go confront and attack someone for following and watching you, and end up getting shot for your troubles, that’s a clear sign that you shouldn’t have been so eager to confront them in the first place, isn’t it?

The facts and the verdict support my version, not yours. When the facts don’t support your argument, you don’t get to claim a double standard that is not there, or create an inequality that does not exist.

The more you fight for what isn’t, the less support you will have to fight what actually is.

That’s simply the way things are.

Posted by: kctim at July 17, 2013 12:05 PM
Comment #368432

Interesting article:

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2013/07/did_george_zimmermans_prosecut.html

Posted by: Adrienne at July 17, 2013 1:01 PM
Comment #368435

Let me guess, the prosecution didn’t want to win the case because of Bush? Cheney?
Holy crap, they don’t think it goes all the way to the top and Rove is behind all of this, do they?

Posted by: kctim at July 17, 2013 1:53 PM
Comment #368437

Clearly this is all a racist conspiracy of the TEA Party.

Posted by: Joseph at July 17, 2013 1:58 PM
Comment #368438
JOseph, I can’t understand what you are writing. Posted by: Royal Flush at July 16, 2013 7:56 PM

The left is throwing out so many asinine comments, I thought I would throw a few out for myself. Namely, gun control is a winning issue for Democrats, which is obviously not true. I was being sarcastic. Gun control is what this show trial was really about, and everyone from Obama to Democrats in Congress are trying to use Martin’s death to gin up support for failed gun control legislation. Stand Your Ground and conceal carry laws are the primary targets of Democrats.

This is a common theme for the Obama administration. First, they used the families of the Newtown tragedy as political props. Now the Obama administration is using Trayvon Martin as a political prop.

Posted by: Joseph at July 17, 2013 2:13 PM
Comment #368439

Hannity, (oh, my, did I say a bad word?) had a group interview of about 15 lawyers. Lawyers, I repeat. Lawyers.

About half of them raised their hand when asked if he should be convicted. When asked why he should be convicted their reasons boiled down to what they eventually said as a reason.

“BUT WE DON’T KNOW!”

They actually said that! Many times! These are lawyers!

phx8, Adrienne, and Stephen Daugherty must have got their training from these lawyers.

I think we should just presume that phx8, Adrienne, and Stephen Daugherty are all the same person with a personality disorder.

Because WE DON’T KNOW!

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 17, 2013 2:24 PM
Comment #368440

Weary Willie,
If you assemble 15 prosecutors, you will have 15 raise their hand to convict. If you have 15 defense lawyers, you will have 15 vote to acquit. Prosecutors are genetically programmed to believe everyone who goes to trial is guilty as hell, and defense lawyers the opposite.

kctim,
Look at Rhinehold’s comments more carefully. I present quotes from the transcript and testimony at the actual trial. Rhinehold has a lot of opinions and references to sources not included in the trial, but after one quote about the transcript, he throws up his hands and presents Zimmerman’s version from the Hannity interview.

In any case, these facts are not in question:
Zimmerman, armed with a loaded weapon, exited his vehicle and followed Martin. He followed a young man, at night, who was not engaged in any wrongdoing whatsoever. We know from testimony that Martin realized he was being followed by some “creepy *** cracker.” Zimmerman followed for about one hundred feet and at some point lost sight of him.

When Zimmerman exited his car to follow a stranger at night, armed with a loaded weapon, he became the aggressor. He become both responsible and liable for the outcome. It would not have been possible for a confrontation to occur without Zimmerman exiting his car. We also know Martin attempted to avoid contact with Zimmerman by “running away.” (In the Hannity interview, Zimmerman clarified that Martin was not actually running, but kind of skipping, walking fast).

Transcripts and testimony.

Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2013 4:09 PM
Comment #368442

phx8,
Here’s the link you provided:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

I suggest you click on it. Use the left button on the mouse so you read the stuff we’re talking about. Not the right button. Don’t read that.

Now, Twice Zimmerman said Martin was running. He told the dispatcher Martin was staring at him. He told the dispatcher Martin was coming towards him. He told the dispatcher Martin has something in his hands. He told the dispatcher he lost sight of him. He told the dispatcher he didn’t know where this kid is. He told the dispatcher to have the cops meet him at his truck. He gave the dispatcher directions to his truck.

phx8, at this point I would have to agree with DSP2195. As much as I don’t like to say this…

You are an Idiot.

If you get, from that transcript you yourself provided, that fat man Zimmerman was chasing down a 17 year old kid while having that discussion on the telephone…. You have to be an Idiot! Your reading comprehension skills place you in that category.

Admit you are lying, phx8. Admit you have an ulterior motive to insist we believe your drivel. Stand on your convictions, phx8! Don’t insist we are idiots just to make yourself believe you are right.


Posted by: Weary Willie at July 17, 2013 4:53 PM
Comment #368443

Phx8, You’re saying that Zimmerman broke the law when he exited car and followed Martin and therefore forfeited his right to self-defense. They were in semi-private community space, so I think you would have to prove stalking for that to be true. Stalking, however, requires repeated (two or more times) unwanted physical proximity. I do not believe there is any evidence that Zimmerman and Martin had any prior contact before the incident.

Absent a legal reason why Zimmerman couldn’t be in close proximity to Martin you don’t have any criminal basis to charge Zimmerman as being the aggressor just by being there. Essentially it’s not illegal for Zimmerman to be an asshole to Martin on first contact. It then goes back to a case of self-defense, and the physical evidence supports Zimmerman’s claim to that.

On a side the question of whether someone who broke the law can use an SYG defense is before the South Carolina Supreme Court right now (not Florida though). In the case in Columbia (a mile from my parents’ house) a man broke into another man’s house, argued with the owner, became afraid that the owner was going to shoot him, and then shot and killed the owner. Most people, including probably you, would think that he forfeited his right to self-defense when he broke into the man’s home, but the SC Supreme Court actually stopped the lower court trial to hear arguments on this very question. It will be interesting.


http://www.thestate.com/2013/07/10/2856356/sc-supreme-court-stops-murder.html

Posted by: George in SC at July 17, 2013 4:58 PM
Comment #368447

phx8

“When Zimmerman exited his car to follow a stranger at night, armed with a loaded weapon, he became the aggressor. He become both responsible and liable for the outcome.” He may indeed be liable and there may yet be civil court proceedings. But that does not mean that he is guilty of murder. That requires intent and a higher level of proof.

The more you all discuss this, the clearer it becomes that the jury made the right decision.

This discussion clearly shows that there is reasonable doubt among the reasonable people involved in this discussion. If you were actually on this jury, I suspect even you would have to vote against murder.

A charge on manslaughter might have had a chance if it had been used first. It is the fault of the racial establishment that such a charge was not the one brought.

Posted by: CJ at July 17, 2013 5:17 PM
Comment #368448

Cornell Belcher, a CNN contributor, was the Democratic National Committee’s pollster under Chairman Howard Dean in 2005 and worked on the 2008 and 2012 Obama campaigns.

“Don’t allow politicians who need the votes of our community to avoid addressing laws that will make this (Zimmerman acquittal) sort of profiling and murder more difficult in the future.

Define an agenda that starts with gun control and anti-profiling legislation and challenge politicians to sign on or get primaried. By the way, you will be surprised by how few votes you need to win most state senate races.

In politics we love to simplify complex political narratives with tags like “Soccer Moms” or “Nascar Dads” that defines an election cycle — Let’s bring organizing power to our protest so that 2014 is defined by the Trayvon voter!

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 17, 2013 5:23 PM
Comment #368449

Phx8

That is your biased interpretation of the facts. An interpretation that has been exaggerated to garner support for the idea that Martin was shot for simply being black.

“In any case, these facts are not in question:
Zimmerman, armed with a loaded weapon, exited his vehicle and followed Martin.”

AFTER observing Martin acting in a way he deemed suspicious enough to warrant a 911 call.

“He followed a young man, at night, who was not engaged in any wrongdoing whatsoever.”

A young man who’s behavior caused Zimmerman to call 911. Who stared at Zimmerman. Who began to approach Zimmerman. Who then took off. Who chose not to go home or call for help.

“Zimmerman followed for about one hundred feet and at some point lost sight of him.”

AND that Zimmerman replied “OK” when he was told “we don’t need you to do that.”

“When Zimmerman exited his car to follow a stranger at night, armed with a loaded weapon, he became the aggressor.”

I would actually agree with you IF you could prove that the weapon was drawn at the time and Martin was aware of the gun. There is also no proof that Zimmerman intended to do anything other than follow Martin. Plenty of weak assumptions to justify Marting attacking Zimmerman, but no proof.
Without any proof, the aggressor becomes the one who attacked first.

“We also know Martin attempted to avoid contact with Zimmerman by “running away.”

So why not run home?

Posted by: kctim at July 17, 2013 5:51 PM
Comment #368450

My guess is that Stephen Daugherty and phx8 know they are wrong but, being lifted up with pride, it is impossible for them to admit it. Hence, they will continue to revisit the same old arguments, which did not meet the evidence required to charge, did not meet the evidence required to convict, and will not meet the evidence required to support Holder’s lies to the NAACP.

You are correct Royal Flush; this is only about stirring up the base of the unlearned and gun control. I will not say this is a mistake by the left; but I will say that intelligent people will easily see through this charade. The left is not able to learn from past mistakes; the American people DO NOT want the government to mess with their gun rights. Yet they continue to try to trick us into dealing with gun control.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 17, 2013 6:01 PM
Comment #368451

Anytime a case goes to trial, the outcome is uncertain. That is why lawyers prefer to settle out of court. Trials are expensive, time consuming, and even when a case seems open and shut, once a jury becomes involved in interpreting the law, the outcome is never a sure thing.

It took two months and national attention for there to even be a trial. I find in itself that absolutely outrageous. Imagine if your own child were walking home to watch a basketball game with you, and a total stranger shot him dead, then claimed self-defense.

In any event, the jury gave its verdict. To me, it is clearly a case of manslaughter. As for the racial element, I think it played a role- most people do- but proving that in court beyond a reasonable doubt would extremely difficult.

From a larger perspective, several issues should be addressed. George in SC, thank you for the example of the SYG case. It is the fundamental problem with the law. One person shoots another, claims self-defense, and the dead person cannot defend themselves.

I could go on, but I have to go-

Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2013 6:08 PM
Comment #368454

I believe Political Hostage is correct. The underlying motive by the left in calling the Zimmerman verdict wrong is based upon their convoluted meaning of “racism” and their desire for taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.

I will ask the readers to 1) identify themselves if they believe they themselves are racists and 2) to indicate if they believe others on this blog are racists and 3) to indicate if they believe laws prohibiting any private citizen from gun ownership would reduce gun crime.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 17, 2013 6:27 PM
Comment #368455

George in SC posted a link regarding SYG being reviewed by the SC in SC. Here’s a quote from that link.

“The arguments the high court wants to hear apparently don’t involve the substance of the law – they involve at what point in a trial process a judge should hold a full hearing about whether evidence can be introduced about whether the defendant can assert that he enjoys immunity from prosecution because he was in fear for his life when he used deadly force. If a judge were to grant immunity, then a trial would not have to be held.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 17, 2013 6:39 PM
Comment #368456


George in SC, thank you for the example of the SYG case. It is the fundamental problem with the law. One person shoots another, claims self-defense, and the dead person cannot defend themselves.

Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2013 6:08 PM

It looks like we’re getting closer to phx8’s motive for is illogical lies.

And, again, phx8 ignores the facts in another case to make his point.
He ignores the fact that 3 people kicked down this guy’s door. He ignores the fact that 2 of them were armed. He ignores the fact that the intruders initiated a fight. He ignores the fact that the defense attorney introduced the SYG defense in the middle of the trial, which caused the judge to stop the trial.
Phx8 justs wants to do away with SYG laws in general and is willing to lie and instigate race hatred to get his way.

I hope to God he’s not a parent.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 17, 2013 6:49 PM
Comment #368458

phx8 will be happy now that he doesn’t have to stand by his assertions he made during this thread. Now that George has provided another instance phx8 will divert his attention to that case and start all over again.

He will no longer feel obligated to reveal and stand by his convictions or answer for his lies.

Typical Democratic.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 17, 2013 6:56 PM
Comment #368460

The governor of Florida just commented that a panel had reviewed the SYG laws in Florida and found them to be Constitutional. But I do love how the left wants to talk about the SYG law, which was not even used as self defense. Zimmerman chose to use the standard “Self Defense Law”, but perhaps phx8 and SD believe we should do away with the Self Defense Laws too.

I have an idea, why don’t we skip the laws and trails and just lynch the culprits based on emotional responses.

Re/Royal’s three questions:

1. Am I a racist…using the left’s standards, it would be impossible because I’m black and every liberal knows that blacks cannot be racists.

2. Are others on this blog racists…hmm…I must be serious on this one…I believe ALL Democrats are racists. I believe it was yesterday that Adrienne (the black wanna be) called me an Uncle Tom. I don’t believe she is my niece.

3. Will gun laws on private citizens reduce crime…hmm…it’s not working in DC, LA, Detroit, and last but not least Obama’s home town of Chicago…NO I don’t.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 17, 2013 7:19 PM
Comment #368461

Thanks for another good laugh PH.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 17, 2013 8:09 PM
Comment #368464
Look at Rhinehold’s comments more carefully. I present quotes from the transcript and testimony at the actual trial. Rhinehold has a lot of opinions and references to sources not included in the trial, but after one quote about the transcript, he throws up his hands and presents Zimmerman’s version from the Hannity interview.

I think perhaps YOU should look at my comments more carefully… Nothing I have stated wasn’t factual and evidence presented to the public.

The problem you have is that you are INFERRING things into the transcript that aren’t there.

“When Zimmerman exited his car to follow a stranger at night, armed with a loaded weapon, he became the aggressor.”

Perhaps in your opinion, but not legally. We are talking about the legal process, not about what your opinion is. We already know what you opinion is, you keeping on repeating it doesn’t change anything.

Legally, he was not ‘the aggressor’ when he exited his car and followed Martin. Being on the street with a gun is not aggression. Following Martin was not aggression. Even the prosecutor admitted that Zimmerman had broken no laws or done anything illegal up to the point of pulling the trigger on the gun. Your assertions and beliefs go beyond the legally agreed upon definition of aggression AND against the legal opinion of the prosecutor who was trying Zimmerman for Murder 2.

As for me ‘throwing my hands up’, that’s about as laughable as your assertion that Martin was innocent and did nothing wrong. Apparently in your mind, beating the life out of someone isn’t wrong in phx8 world… I’m glad I don’t live there.

It sounds like you are saying that “Zimmerman should have taken his beating like a good spick, it’s what he deserved for trying to identify what he felt was a suspicious person to the police.”?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 17, 2013 11:40 PM
Comment #368468

I do not understand the comments directed towards me re SYG. George in SC posted a comment about a controversial case. I had never heard of it, but it sounds appalling. Please direct your comments to him re this case.

Several times in this thread there have been comments that may or may not have been directed to me. In some cases, the comments may have been intended as insults. I can’t tell. Everyone understands that typos, sentence fragments, and such things happen… I usually do not ignore people. I’m not naming names. But seriously, folks, comments need to meet a minimal level of coherence for me to respond.

As for SYG laws-
The problem is obvious. In any conflict, one person can kill the other and then claim self-defense. The dead person cannot deny the claim. There are a lot of variations on SYG laws, but in general, it encourages people to escalate the level of violence to deadly force as fast as possible, in the name of self-defense. That is just a bad idea.

Posted by: phx8 at July 18, 2013 12:51 AM
Comment #368471

I think the comments were pretty straight forward. You lied to everyone when you repeated over and over that Zimmerman chased down Martin and shot him in cold blood. You said he chased him down with his gun drawn. You repeated it over and over like we were stupid and we’re expected to believe what ever you say. You contradicted your own link, for cryin’ out loud!

If anyone was insulted it should be the people you expected to believe your lies. If anyone is insulted it should be the people you think are stupid enough to fall for what you have been spouting during this entire thread.

Be honest with us, phx8. Be man enough to state your actual position instead of treating us like idiots and expecting us to believe your lies.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 18, 2013 3:21 AM
Comment #368472
In any conflict, one person can kill the other and then claim self-defense. The dead person cannot deny the claim.

In this case, however, we have eye witnesses and forensic data that shows that Martin was beating Zimmerman, closed fist and elbow blows about the face, as well as smashing the back of his head on the pavement. This isn’t a case of he said/he can’t say. Unless Zimmerman was using some mystical force to make Martin physically assault him, Zimmerman had every right to defend his life against that attack.

That’s it. Everything else is extraneous and irrelevant. How they got to that point is irrelevant. Even if Zimmerman had shoved or punched Martin first (which there is *ZERO* evidence of), at that point Martin had overpowered him and was beating him, each blow could have caused him to blackout or die. At that point he was fighting for his life, begging for help and used the weapon he had on him to stop the attack. That is straight up self-defense, it doesn’t get much more clear cut than that…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2013 4:56 AM
Comment #368475

tom humes-
You take Zimmerman’s story at face value, but there’s no evidence to support that. Nobody else, not at least alive, saw the start of the fight.

But he wouldn’t have lost him if he wasn’t going after him in the first place.

kctim-
Yes, if Martin did in fact double back and attack him, then he shouldn’t have done that. But that error in judgment is not mutually exclusive of Zimmerman’s. The trouble is, Zimmerman had a gun, and that meant his error in judgment didn’t leave somebody with a bloody nose and a scalp wound, it left somebody dead. That’s why taking out a weapon, in most states, represents an escalation of the fight, not to mention an argument against accepting a self-defense claim.

Something occurred to me: You’re saying that Martin should have tried to run away, and forfeited his right to claim self defense by not doing so.

Isn’t that precisely the opposite of what Zimmerman supporters are saying about their man? Didn’t Trayvon have the right to stand his ground? How and why did he lose it? And if he lost it, why didn’t Zimmerman? Trayvon had ever bit as much reason to think that Zimmerman was a danger to him as Zimmerman did, if not more, since the pursuit started with Zimmerman in a car. So why doesn’t Trayvon get to stand his ground?

Joseph-
The Stand Your Ground laws are the primary target, not guns. They’re dumb laws, simply put, because they reward people for staying in bad situations, getting back into the fights. Requiring somebody to try and get out of a bad situation makes the line clear between aggression and defense.

Your assumption is that it’s all about cynical politics, but this is people’s lives at stake, the peace of our communities.

Weary Willie-
Hmm. Hannity had a bunch of lawyers on… who he chose.

It’s not a question of what we don’t know, it’s a question of what we do know, which is that Zimmerman went out of his way to exaggerate the threat, to cover for the fact that he was the primary aggressor. The primary problem with the SYG laws is that they create reasonable doubt where there shouldn’t be. A person who puts an unarmed man on the slab after following them and pulling a gun on him should be up for manslaughter at least. SYG says that if you get yourself into that sort of situation, you have no need to act like you want out of it.

He would have been convicted under the old law, and rightly so.

George in SC-
Well, if you hear him on the tape, you can hear his steps. They never slow or change, not even when the Dispatcher tells him not to follow and he agrees. It sounds like somebody telling a person in authority what they want to hear, and then doing what he wants to do.

As for that case? Jesus. That shows the absurdity of SYG right there. If you can’t even maintain your own Castle defense against an intruder, then the system is badly out of balance. What folks aren’t registering here is that there is more than one side to each fight, and under SYG, it’s theoretically possible that either side could kill the other and then claim they were simply defending themselves.

Our rights can’t extend forever. There has to be a line where our aggression exceeds justification.

Political Hostage-
My guess is that you need to feel important about yourself, and therefore won’t admit that people just don’t agree with you.

The simple fact is, your people pushed a law that they didn’t bother to think through the full implications of, just so folks had more impunity in using their guns for self defense. But as George in SC’s case shows, there’s a bit of absurdity to the whole thing, because in the end, any idiot who gets themselves into a bad fight can claim that they felt, FELT that they were in danger, and the rest of us, not being psychic either have to take his word for it, or distrust him entirely.

Your whole legal position depends on feelings, and unfortunately, so does the law. Intentions and beliefs are notoriously difficult to prove.

I think overall, there’s a sense here where some people want the right to be aggressors, to take on the crime problem themselves. Problem is, this will mean many more people will get in over their heads, and the law will not punish them for their bad judgment or excess of aggression.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 18, 2013 8:37 AM
Comment #368480

SD
“My guess is that you need to feel important about yourself, and therefore won’t admit that people just don’t agree with you.”

You having trouble being original in your thought process? That comment is so laughable.

You continually want to deny the facts. That is your problem as well as a couple of others here. Facts are facts and the suppositions, and guesswork has no place here. When you claim a conviction based on some other idea, not fact, you have long ago lost your integrity. The facts have been covered here very thoroughly, particularly by Rhinehold. Most of us agree on those facts. But three of you, maybe more, but three of you are trying to blow smoke up where only shit happens. Go ahead lite one up for Holder et al. SD, Adrienne, phx8. The first initial for the triune gods of non-truth is SAP. Fitting.

Posted by: tom humes at July 18, 2013 11:25 AM
Comment #368484

Stephen

“Yes, if Martin did in fact double back and attack him, then he shouldn’t have done that. But that error in judgment is not mutually exclusive of Zimmerman’s.”

Many, many people have been saying BOTH of them did things they should not have. Only one group has been trying to say ALL fault lies with Zimmerman.

“The trouble is, Zimmerman had a gun, and that meant his error in judgment didn’t leave somebody with a bloody nose and a scalp wound, it left somebody dead.”

There is no telling where Martins error in judgment could have led. Brain damage? Coma? Death? We don’t know. All we know is that Zimmerman was fear of his life and shot in self defense.
You play down Zimmermans wounds and over emphasize the presence of a gun only to support what you want to have happened.

“That’s why taking out a weapon, in most states, represents an escalation of the fight, not to mention an argument against accepting a self-defense claim.”

From what we know, the weapon was not taken out until after the fight began and Zimmerman was in fear for his life.
You speculate that nothing may have happened if Zimmerman was not carrying. You speculate that Martin was trying to protect himself from the gun. You speculate Martin would have stopped beating Zimmerman if he was not carrying. You speculate Zimmerman should have taken his beating like a man.

“Something occurred to me: You’re saying that Martin should have tried to run away,”

Yep. You never know where a fight might lead. He would also be alive today if he had.

“and forfeited his right to claim self defense by not doing so.”

No, he forfeited his right to claim self defense when he confronted and attacked Martin. You are obviously aware of that Stephen, or you guys wouldn’t be running in circles saying Zimmerman initiated the confrontation and fight when there is no proof of that.

“Isn’t that precisely the opposite of what Zimmerman supporters are saying about their man?”

Zimmerman supporters? Their man? I assume you mean those of us who have been saying since day one that we should wait for the facts, the evidence, and see what that says before finding someone guilty. And in that case, people are saying Zimmerman had the right to act in self defense.

“Didn’t Trayvon have the right to stand his ground?”

Of course, IF he was in fear for his life. You said Zimmerman could have calmly driven home after reporting Martins suspicious behavior, so why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that Martin could have just as easily walked home?

“Trayvon had ever bit as much reason to think that Zimmerman was a danger to him as Zimmerman did, if not more, since the pursuit started with Zimmerman in a car.”

Then he should have went home.

“So why doesn’t Trayvon get to stand his ground?”

Against who? He had lost Zimmerman.
If a guy is watching a girl and she alludes him, does she have the right to go up that guy later, hold his hand, and claim he is trying to kidnap her?

Posted by: kctim at July 18, 2013 12:58 PM
Comment #368485

I don’t even know where to begin with this montage:

To Tom Humes,

You take Zimmerman’s story at face value, but there’s no evidence to support that. Nobody else, not at least alive, saw the start of the fight.

But he wouldn’t have lost him if he wasn’t going after him in the first place.

According to the law, Zimmerman’s testimony stands, unless there is evidence contrary to the fact; and there is none. Zimmerman is not required to give evidence that his story is true; it was the responsibility of the prosecution to prove his story was false, and they failed. It’s called “innocent until proven guilty”, and Stephen, it’s not just Florida law, its US law.

As for going after him, you have continued to state this over and over; can you sight us a law that says Zimmerman was not allowed to follow Martin? If not, quit talking about it, it makes you look really stupid.

To Joseph you say,

The Stand Your Ground laws are the primary target, not guns. They’re dumb laws, simply put, because they reward people for staying in bad situations, getting back into the fights. Requiring somebody to try and get out of a bad situation makes the line clear between aggression and defense.

They are “dumb” laws is your opinion and they say that a person does not have to retreat from the aggressor. But they are good laws based upon the fact that 50% of the states incorporate them. The SYG laws are merely extensions of the current “self-defense” laws found in all states. The SYG laws are designed to protect the shooter against civil law suits for wrongful death, and they are designed to shift the burden of proof to the state. The SYG laws have been successfully used in Florida for a higher percent of blacks than they have for whites. You can look up the stats for yourself; it would do you good to read Florida case law. And lastly, I want you to understand the SYG law was not used in the Zimmerman defense…it is a moot point…but you are correct; they are the primary target of the left, along with gun control. But get over it Stephen, the SYG laws will not be repealed; they have been proven to be successful.

To WW you write,

It’s not a question of what we don’t know, it’s a question of what we do know, which is that Zimmerman went out of his way to exaggerate the threat, to cover for the fact that he was the primary aggressor. The primary problem with the SYG laws is that they create reasonable doubt where there shouldn’t be. A person who puts an unarmed man on the slab after following them and pulling a gun on him should be up for manslaughter at least. SYG says that if you get yourself into that sort of situation, you have no need to act like you want out of it.

He would have been convicted under the old law, and rightly so.

What is your problem Mr. Daugherty, what “old law” are you talking about? You do realize that Zimmerman was tried under the claim of the “self defense” law, don’t you? Furthermore, you do not know that Zimmerman went out of his way to exaggerate the situation and you do not know that he was the primary aggressor. This is a figment in the mind of the left, who are upset that Zimmerman was found innocent based on the fact that the prosecutors failed to prove their case. In other words, sour grapes and childishness over losing a case. There is no primary problem with SYG laws; if there was, the courts would have struck them down and they would not be the law in 50% of the states. You use terminology like “puts an unarmed man on the slab” is simply meant to have an emotional effect. Your comment to me, “Your whole legal position depends on feelings, and unfortunately, so does the law”, is betrayed by your own goals of creating an emotional effect. Again, the SYG law have nothing to do with this case. But I understand your need to consistently bring it up because it is the talking points of Obama and Holder. You, being unable to think for yourself have to of necessity, parrot your masters.

To George in SC you write,

Well, if you hear him on the tape, you can hear his steps. They never slow or change, not even when the Dispatcher tells him not to follow and he agrees. It sounds like somebody telling a person in authority what they want to hear, and then doing what he wants to do.

As for that case? Jesus. That shows the absurdity of SYG right there. If you can’t even maintain your own Castle defense against an intruder, then the system is badly out of balance. What folks aren’t registering here is that there is more than one side to each fight, and under SYG, it’s theoretically possible that either side could kill the other and then claim they were simply defending themselves.

Our rights can’t extend forever. There has to be a line where our aggression exceeds justification.

Then you Stephen should have been an expert witness for the prosecution of what could be heard on the audio. Whether he continued to follow Martin or not does not matter, Zimmerman could have followed Martin to the front door of the house and it would not have been illegal.

And once again you go into the same rant against the SYG law. Get over it Stephen, it’s the law, and once again, was not used as a Zimmerman defense.

Then lastly, your comments to me,

Political Hostage- My guess is that you need to feel important about yourself, and therefore won’t admit that people just don’t agree with you.

Why would you even make an ignorant comment like this? We are in the blue column commenting on your post, and yet I find more people agreeing with my assessment than I do yours, phx8’’s, and Adrienne’s. My importance has nothing to do with it, but once again it shows your comments are based upon feelings because your concerned about me feeing important.

The simple fact is, your people pushed a law that they didn’t bother to think through the full implications of, just so folks had more impunity in using their guns for self defense. But as George in SC’s case shows, there’s a bit of absurdity to the whole thing, because in the end, any idiot who gets themselves into a bad fight can claim that they felt, FELT that they were in danger, and the rest of us, not being psychic either have to take his word for it, or distrust him entirely.

I don’t understand who “your people” is referring to; if you’re talking about the passing of SYG laws in 50% of the states, you better check the records and see how many democrats voted for these very laws.

Your whole legal position depends on feelings, and unfortunately, so does the law. Intentions and beliefs are notoriously difficult to prove.

I think overall, there’s a sense here where some people want the right to be aggressors, to take on the crime problem themselves. Problem is, this will mean many more people will get in over their heads, and the law will not punish them for their bad judgment or excess of aggression.

Again Stephen, you are ignorant to the SYG laws, feeling have nothing to do with it. You simply use the term “Feelings” to counteract the charges that the left’s decisions are based upon emotion and feelings. The standard of the SYG laws go back many years and is not something recent :

“In the United States, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first. The concept sometimes exists in statutory law and sometimes through common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the “stand your ground” law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit. The difference between immunity and a defense is that an immunity bars suit, charges, detention and arrest. A defense, such as an affirmative defense, permits a plaintiff or the state to seek civil damages or a criminal conviction but may offer mitigating circumstances that justify the accused’s conduct.

More than half of the states in the United States have adopted the Castle doctrine, stating that a person has no duty to retreat when their home is attacked. Some states go a step further, removing the duty of retreat from other locations. “Stand Your Ground”, “Line in the Sand” or “No Duty to Retreat” laws thus state that a person has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which he has a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. Under such laws, there is no duty to retreat from anywhere the defender may legally be.[1] Other restrictions may still exist; such as when in public, a person must be carrying firearms in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly.

“Stand your ground” governs U.S. federal case law in which right of self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was “on his premises” when he came under attack and “…did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm…was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground.”[2][3]

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (1921) (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)), a case that upheld the “no duty to retreat” maxim, that “detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife”.[4]”

Stephen, once again, you have failed to give any evidence that Zimmerman committed any crimes. You have failed to justify the cause of a trial by the Florida prosecutor other than anything but political. You have based all your comments upon emotional reasoning. You have attacked the outcome of a jury trial, thereby attacking the citizens who found Zimmerman innocent. You have attacked the law of 50% of the states as being unlawful based upon liberal theology. You have falsely incorporated the SYG laws in a case where the law was not used as a defense. And you have failed to explain to us the difference between the SYG laws, Castle Doctrine, and Self Defense Laws.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 18, 2013 1:04 PM
Comment #368489

I’ve been thinking about this; Stephen Daugherty writes posts on WB and from my understanding he also writes on the Dailykos. If he can’t be trusted to write truthful comments on a topic that is open and shut; how could he possibly be trusted to deal with any other subject? I find it alarming that he would blatantly write false material, not just once, but many times. JMHO.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 18, 2013 4:37 PM
Comment #368495

Weary Willie,
Tell you what… Rather than claim I say something, then denounce it, ‘cut and paste’ what I write in this thread and then, if you like, denounce it.

Do you know how to cut and paste? Let me know if you need help in quoting what I actually write.

Posted by: phx8 at July 18, 2013 6:24 PM
Comment #368519

tom humes-
Nice bitchout. Do you have any facts or figures to dispute?

Talk to you again when you have substance to speak of.

kctim-

“Yes, if Martin did in fact double back and attack him, then he shouldn’t have done that. But that error in judgment is not mutually exclusive of Zimmerman’s.”
Many, many people have been saying BOTH of them did things they should not have. Only one group has been trying to say ALL fault lies with Zimmerman.

There is a scenario in which Trayvon Martin is a completely innocent victim in this. If he was confronted by Zimmerman (The absence of objective facts leaves this a possibility) then the story is basically of a young man who was pursued on the basis of false suspicions, who committed no crime, and was then assaulted. Forced to defend himself by the man who caught up to him, he is then killed by that man because he’s too successful in fighting back.

Short of that, He had to follow Martin and get out of the car, two things no-one asked him or even recommended to him that he do, in order to get into what he claims was a life and death fight. He had to carry a gun into the fight in order to have the outcome a deadly one.

The beating could have turned deadly, carried far enough, but Trayvon would have had to have put a great deal of effort into that. Killing a person with your bare hands is not easy, barring an accident.

I don’t play down Zimmerman’s wounds. He does. After this horrendous beating he claims to have had, does he go to the hospital to get his head checked? No, he accepts treatment while seated in the open door of a police car, and that’s it. That’s the grievous injuries that he had up to that point.

I emphasize the presence of the gun for a reason: it makes it easier for one side to kill the other. The old phrase “Bringing a knife to a gunfight” illustrates the sense of it. It reverses who poses the actual threat. Who do you think has more power in the fight now? The unarmed man, or the man with the gun? Who is more likely to get killed, more justified in feeling their life is in danger?

A gun is not an interchangeable abstract.

As for what I speculate?

You speculate that nothing may have happened if Zimmerman was not carrying. You speculate that Martin was trying to protect himself from the gun. You speculate Martin would have stopped beating Zimmerman if he was not carrying. You speculate Zimmerman should have taken his beating like a man.

1)Yes, he might have avoided the choices of pursuit, of leaving the car, both of which were necessary for both the beating and the shooting.

2)No, I never said he was protecting himself from the gun. You might have confused that with the fact that self-defense laws tend to lean towards the unarmed party when self defense claims are made

3)It is known, known that the police arrived about a minute after Martin was shot. They would have likely shown up with the fight still in progress.

4)Again, no, I never said that. What I would say is that if he had defended himself with fists against Trayvon’s fists, there would be have been less question about self defense, since he was using force proportional to what was used against him. Getting out of the vehicle and following him still would have counted against him, but nobody would have likely died.

As for Martin running away?

“Something occurred to me: You’re saying that Martin should have tried to run away,” Yep. You never know where a fight might lead. He would also be alive today if he had. “and forfeited his right to claim self defense by not doing so.” No, he forfeited his right to claim self defense when he confronted and attacked Martin. You are obviously aware of that Stephen, or you guys wouldn’t be running in circles saying Zimmerman initiated the confrontation and fight when there is no proof of that.

You never know where chasing after a person you suspect of being a criminal might lead.

As for forfeiting rights? First, from what I’ve read, nobody forfeits their rights entirely. Whoever has the right of self-defense depends on whoever is the aggressor.

The fact is, Martin and Zimmerman don’t meet on that street unless Zimmerman first follows him. That’s what initiated the confrontation. The fight would have been equally impossible had Zimmerman not decided to get out of his car to further that pursuit. Then, finally, the fight would not have reached its deadly climax if Zimmerman hadn’t pulled the gun. There are physical ways to defend yourself from somebody getting in a fight with you, and if you don’t avail yourself of them first, self-defense becomes a less plausible claim. He claimed repeated attacks where doctors said he looked like he got no more than one or two good hits.

He refused additional medical attention, was never diagnosed with any concussion or anything like that.

You’re hanging onto superficial evidence, and claim that Zimmerman’s story is completely backed up. The truth is, Zimmerman’s verdict may have had more to do with the fact that the facts were unclear, rather than clearly in his favor.

Political Hostage-

According to the law, Zimmerman’s testimony stands, unless there is evidence contrary to the fact; and there is none. Zimmerman is not required to give evidence that his story is true; it was the responsibility of the prosecution to prove his story was false, and they failed. It’s called “innocent until proven guilty”, and Stephen, it’s not just Florida law, its US law.

If he doesn’t give evidence that his story is true, that takes the reasonable out of reasonable doubt, and what is left over, if his story is not true, is the acknowledged fact that he committed homicide. Zimmerman was not required to testify on his own behalf, and that’s just the breaks. But as one commentator pointed out, the fact that his lawyers didn’t want to call up the guy whose story was the basis of their defense to the stand speaks volumes to how trustworthy his story really was.

Oh, by the way, speaking of stories: The Conservative Media was too quick to jump to its conclusions, as usual. Only about half of White Victims see their killings justified under the law, while nearly eighty percent of blacks killed under the law get their killings ruled justified. I’d say that’s a significant discrepancy, but ignoring discrepancies seems to be popular on the right nowadays.

Furthermore, you do not know that Zimmerman went out of his way to exaggerate the situation and you do not know that he was the primary aggressor. This is a figment in the mind of the left, who are upset that Zimmerman was found innocent based on the fact that the prosecutors failed to prove their case. In other words, sour grapes and childishness over losing a case.

He claimed he was repeatedly punched, had his head dribbled like a basketball against the concrete. Trouble is, his injuries, and Trayvon’s for that matter, are not consistent with that. No concussion, Trayvon’s hands aren’t bloody messes, despite the fact he was punching a guy in one of the tougher places in the body.

Then you Stephen should have been an expert witness for the prosecution of what could be heard on the audio. Whether he continued to follow Martin or not does not matter, Zimmerman could have followed Martin to the front door of the house and it would not have been illegal.

So, rather than demonstrate I’m wrong, you mock what I say. As for following him all that way? Well, it’s not illegal, anymore than having a gun is illegal, but if you use a gun on an unarmed individual, you have to go to much greater lengths to prove that person was a danger to you than otherwise, because naturally, a gun confers killing power that it’s difficult for mere fists to defeat. My question would be whether he really was in sufficient danger, by any reasonable standard, to actually need to shoot him.

But you don’t care to measure things like that. Instead, it’s all feelings. Well, you know what, at the rate the Right is going these days, they’re going to start shooting Democrats and Liberals in the street by your standards. Fear can mutate in many ways beyond the bounds of good reason. We can’t merely pay lip service to reason and accountability, we need to practice it, and feelings make for poor measures.

I much prefer to say, “Look at these facts, and here’s my argument for what’s rational given them.” If the guy had a concussion and his face was hamburger, shooting the guy beating him makes more sense. If he’s got a broken nose and a laceration on his head, but he’s shot the other guy dead, it’s much more dubious.

We should also look at the real world implications of a law, the way it actually shakes out, rather than simply how we idealize it working. The incident George in SC talks about, where a man in his house is shot under a SYG justification tells us how absurd it can get. A man’s home should be his castle, not his attacker’s place to claim self-defense.

The real question is, who in a confrontation, if anybody, deserves to claim self-defense? If the sum result of these laws, despite your rose-colored glasses, is that aggressive behavior, pursuits and invasions are being justified, then the law should be changed.

As for this?

I’ve been thinking about this; Stephen Daugherty writes posts on WB and from my understanding he also writes on the Dailykos. If he can’t be trusted to write truthful comments on a topic that is open and shut; how could he possibly be trusted to deal with any other subject? I find it alarming that he would blatantly write false material, not just once, but many times. JMHO.

You must think you’re a marvelous debater, don’t you?

That tactic will only work to convince people just like you. But it’s not those people you actually need to convince. That is the underlying fallacy of much of modern Conservative commentary on politics. It’s all too much about selling to the people who have already bought into things.

So, congratulate yourself, somebody who likely already considered me a liar and an idiot now… Believes the same thing they did before. Good job!

Meanwhile, you look like a petty bully to just about everybody else. They read the venom, they see the hatefulness, but they don’t move much one way or another.

The wish to avoid this kind of stupidity is why I mainly hang my arguments on provable facts, things like the pace of somebody’s footsteps, the assessment of their injuries, and injuries on the victim.

I try to find arguments that do not require a person to sympathize with me to believe them. I mean, several conservative posters acknowledge that some of Zimmerman’s decisions were unwise, that he shouldn’t have left the car, among other things. I think there are likely a number of readers who, regardless of their politics would agree that if you go chasing after a criminal, and you end up getting beaten up when you chase them, then maybe you weren’t the best person in the world to be going after them.

I mean, I think I can successfully argue to much of our audience that private citizens should not be taking the law into their own hands, that when things like this occur, it’s likely in many cases that the civilian doing the “policework” will get it wrong, but being a civilian, others might feel compelled to defend themselves, rather than settle down and let it go as a mistake.

I think your problem, and the problem of many conservatives is that there is a space of outcomes that are perfectly possible with your policies that you nonetheless refuse to acknowledge because you don’t want to follow through on what the discrediting of one of your theories meant.

Trouble is, and this is what get me passionate about politics, and obstruction and everything is that at some point, we have to learn the lessons anyway so we can move on, not keep repeating the same mistakes, continue the wrongly plotted out courses.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 18, 2013 10:13 PM
Comment #368522

Stephen Daugherty, I don’t consider myself a great debater or a bully. I have simply asked you to provide only one piece of evidence that Zimmerman broke the law and after another lengthy dissertation, you still fail to provide it. Everything you have repeatedly said is either hypotheticals, supposition, or innuendo based on emotion and feelings. You are no better than the sorry prosecutors who presented the failed case.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 18, 2013 10:34 PM
Comment #368526
as if it can ever be ok for an unarmed man walking down the street to be pursued, confronted, and after a fight, shot dead by a total stranger. Seriously. Why, after an innocent unarmed man is pursued, confronted, and eventually killed, would any rational person claim that a violation of law did not occur?

Posted by: phx8 at July 15, 2013 4:21 PM


Zimmerman pursued and initiated contact with a total stranger who was doing nothing wrong.
An innocent man walking down the street while doing nothing wrong was shot at point blank range by a total stranger.

Posted by: phx8 at July 15, 2013 5:18 PM


As for the racial element, I think it played a role- most people do-

Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2013 6:08 PM


When Zimmerman exited his car to follow a stranger at night, armed with a loaded weapon, he became the aggressor. He become both responsible and liable for the outcome.

Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2013 4:09 PM


When Zimmerman pursued and eventually confronted Martin, he had already lost the claim to a ‘stand your ground’ defense because Zimmerman initiated the pursuit and confrontation. He followed and closed in on Martin enough that a physical fight was possible. Zimmerman was the aggressor because he followed and at some point came close enough to Martin for a fight to start. It does matter who threw the first punch or who was winning the fight. Zimmerman was the aggressor because he pursued Martin.

Posted by: phx8 at July 16, 2013 5:53 PM


Armed with a gun, Zimmerman pursued, confronted, engaged in a fight, and then shot an innocent and unarmed man dead. Zimmerman killed a young man who was doing nothing wrong, nothing suspicious, merely walking home. Zimmerman shot him through the heart.
That is murder.

Posted by: phx8 at July 16, 2013 3:37 PM


An innocent, unarmed person walking down the street doing nothing wrong was pursued, confronted, and in the ensuing fight, the unarmed person was shot dead.

Posted by: phx8 at July 16, 2013 12:38 AM


I’m pretty sure the rule of law does not include shooting innocent people who are doing nothing more than walking down the street.

Posted by: phx8 at July 15, 2013 9:03 PM

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 18, 2013 11:17 PM
Comment #368527

I’ve demonstrated I can cut and paste.

phx8, can you demonstrate you can read?


http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/02/911-call-shows-zimmerman-stopped-following-martin-after-dispatchers-request-corroborates-story/

Zimmerman can still be heard breathing into the phone until about 2:39, at which point the heavy breathing stops entirely, a mere 13 seconds after the dispatcher asked him to stop following. A very calm and collected Zimmerman then proceeds to give the dispatcher his own information, directions and a description of his location for another 1 minute and 33 seconds.


http://patdollard.com/2013/07/zimmerman-to-officer-i-stopped-following-when-911-told-me-to-trayvon-ambushed-me/

ZIMMERMAN TO OFFICER: I STOPPED FOLLOWING WHEN 911 TOLD ME TO, TRAYVON FOLLOWED ME, AMBUSHED ME BY MY CAR

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/04/03/narrative-fail-zimmerman-the-only-person-who-stood-up-for-homeless-black-man-beaten-by-cops-son-spent-countless-hours-trying-to-organize-black-community-to-seek-justice/

“You will recall the incident of the beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on December 4, 2010 by the son of a Sanford police officer. The beating sparked outrage in the community but there were very few that stepped up to do anything about it. I would presume the inaction was because of the fact that he was homeless not because he was black. Do you know the individual who stepped up when no one else in the black community would? Do you know who spent tireless hours putting flyers on the cars of persons parked in the churches of the black community? Do you know who waited for the church-goers to get out of church so that he could hand them flyers in an attempt to organize the black community against this horrible miscarriage of justice? Do you know who helped organize the City Hall meeting on January 8, 2011 at Sanford City Hall??
That person was GEORGE ZIMMERMAN.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/30/Sharpton-Civil-Disobedience

If only someone had warned NBC News that they were giving a prime-time platform to a vitriolic, race-hustling charlatan. Oh wait—we did. Even some journalists on the left did. Recently uncovered video from over twenty years ago has Al Sharpton, in his own words, bragging about his ability to manipulate the media to draw attention to his race-hustling agenda. And he’s playing out his blueprint to a T in Florida today.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 18, 2013 11:19 PM
Comment #368528

Wow. I really like what I wrote. Everything was exactly right, and there is not one thing I need to correct. Thank you for confirming my awesomeness.

Zimmerman did not testify at the trial. The transcript from the 9/11 call seems to indicate Martin stopped, but not at the time he was told by the dispatcher that ‘we don’t need you to do that.’ He was apparently about 100 feet from his car when the fight occurred. Did he intentionally or unintentionally corner Martin? Did Martin come back for some unknown reason? Exactly how the pursuit and confrontation turned into a physical conflict is unknown. But it could only occur because Zimmerman exited that car and followed Martin, armed with a loaded gun, and thereby becoming the aggressor. In the Hannity interview, Zimmerman said Martin “suddenly appeared.”

The moment Zimmerman stepped out of his car and followed a stranger, armed with a loaded weapon, he became the aggressor. He became both responsible and liable for what entailed. By exiting that car and following, he initiated the confrontation. It would not have been possible had he not exited the car to follow.

Re Zimmerman and the beating of a homeless man:
“While Zimmerman is not heard specifically mentioning Ware in the recording, the official minutes from the hearing state that citizen demands included “a full review of the Sherman Ware cover-ups on behalf of” Sanford police.”

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/justice/florida-teen-shooting

There is no independent evidence of this action by Zimmerman. It may be true. It may not. But that weaselzippers site is simply making stuff up, because no one knows for sure.

What does the Breitbart and Al Sharpton link have to do with the price of tea in China?

Posted by: phx8 at July 18, 2013 11:41 PM
Comment #368530
The moment Zimmerman stepped out of his car and followed a stranger, armed with a loaded weapon, he became the aggressor. He became both responsible and liable for what entailed.

You keep saying this, like a manta, but it isn’t factually correct, either logically OR by the rule of law.

The ‘aggressor’ was the person who was beating the other one into a bloody pulp. Up until violence ensued, there had been no ‘aggression’. Martin was unaware of Zimmerman having a weapon, so your repeating that fact is irrelevant. What Martin saw was a shorter, pudgy man that he decided he could take. And he could. So he attacked him MMA style.

That is when the aggression started.

As for Ware, Zimmerman spent time trying to get the community together to do something about it, he made up and passed out flyers.

“In May, the Miami Herald secured an audiotape of the January 8, 2011, Sanford City Hall community forum. On the audiotape, Zimmerman was heard criticizing the conduct of the Sanford Police Department in the Ware case. Zimmerman criticized former chief, Brian Tooley, and said Tooley had engaged in a “cover-up” and that he should lose his pension. He also said he’d been on ride-alongs with Sanford police where he found them to be lazy.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 19, 2013 12:43 AM
Comment #368531

If I only wanted to believe what I wanted to believe I could follow your logic, phx8. Ignorance is bliss, as he saying goes.

You obviously haven’t read your own links. You obviously haven’t listened to the tape of the 911 call. If you did you should come to the conclusion he discontinued his surveillance of Martin. If you can’t understand that then you simply don’t want to. You want to make another point.

What is that point, phx8? Why don’t you just come out and say it? Why are you hiding behind this facade? Are you ashamed of your convictions? Do you know that if you reveal them you will be soundly criticized for having them? Do you know you must use this subterfuge to get what you want?

I’m not ashamed to tell you my convictions. I experience most of you here criticizing them, but I put them forward. I don’t hide behind lies and subterfuge. I don’t make stuff up to make a point. I’m not a coward when it comes to expressing my convictions.

Al Sharpton is a disgraceful person. I don’t know why he has any credibility at all. He is using you and your ilk to further his agenda and you are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker. I call that gullible. It’s a shame gullible, ignorant, disingenuous people are running this country. Tearing it apart to get their own way, reducing this country to junk to get what they want. They justify reducing it to rubble because in the end they believe it will be their rubble.

It’s been done before, phx8. People have destroyed their country in order to gain control of it. They have used race, religion, the economy as weapons against the citizenry to destroy the fabric of their country and you and yours are falling for it. I truly doubt you will benefit from the results of your complicity the way you must think you will.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 19, 2013 12:49 AM
Comment #368532
There is a scenario in which Trayvon Martin is a completely innocent victim in this.

To believe that scenario, you would have to ignore the forensic evidence, Stephen. The evidence that shows Martin had no physical marks on him other than the gunshot wound.

Forced to defend himself by the man who caught up to him, he is then killed by that man because he’s too successful in fighting back.

Again, it doesn’t matter who ‘started’ the fight, when the fight puts one person in danger of their life, they have a right to defend themselves. I know you don’t ‘like it’ because of your pre-disposition, but we are talking about the evidence and law. Once Martin was on top of Zimmerman, he could very easily have either a) ran away or b) held Zimmerman down and waited for help. Continuing to pummel the man was not one of those options and it put Zimmerman’s life in danger.

The beating could have turned deadly, carried far enough, but Trayvon would have had to have put a great deal of effort into that. Killing a person with your bare hands is not easy, barring an accident.

I don’t play down Zimmerman’s wounds. He does. After this horrendous beating he claims to have had, does he go to the hospital to get his head checked? No, he accepts treatment while seated in the open door of a police car, and that’s it. That’s the grievous injuries that he had up to that point.

I don’t think you fully understand the damage that was done to Zimmerman during that encounter.

“ABC News reported that a medical report compiled by the family physician of George Zimmerman showed that, following the altercation with Martin, Zimmerman was diagnosed with a closed fracture of his nose, two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his head, a minor back injury, and bruising in his upper lip and cheek.”

A fracture of the nose could be fatal, as could just one pounding of someone’s head onto the ground. You can say that those were ‘minor injuries’, but people have died from less. The next blow could have been the one to kill him, whether you like that fact or not. Martin showed no concern at all for Zimmerman’s safety and was obviously intent on harming Zimmerman severely, it not killing him. Zimmerman was in fact in fear for his life and he should have been, it could have been just that.

As for not going to the hospital, I could easily see that. Having had serious injuries before, we want to tell ourselves it isn’t that bad. I was sure I was fine after a very serious car accident when I was much younger and refused to go to the hospital. I ended up at the doctor within two days with severe back damage and a concussion that I wasn’t aware of. The adrenaline at that point is very powerful. Couple that with the internal torment he must have been feeling for having taken another person’s life, him refusing hospital treatment and just wanting to go home makes perfect psychological sense.

Of course, even your defense of Martin works against you. You can only come up with one scenario that YOU think makes him the non-aggressor (it still doesn’t but in your mind I can see how you might come to that). However, there are many other scenarios that back up that he was. Couple that with the forensic evidence and the belief in a REASONABLE doubt makes the verdict the right one. It also backs up the reason why the police department didn’t want to arrest and try in the first place, there wasn’t enough evidence to reasonable suggest Zimmerman wasn’t justified in defending himself in that situation.

The law, thankfully, is supposed to be about facts and evidence, not emotion. Sure, Zimmerman made some errors in judgement that night, so did Martin. But only one of them instigated violence against the other. And the other one defended himself from being killed or seriously harmed.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 19, 2013 12:59 AM
Comment #368536

The problem here is that the left have been getting their way under Obama for the past 4 1/2 years. They think they are entitled to get their way. Except for gun control and amnesty, Obama has got everything he wants. This anger at not getting their way 100% of the time has led to this vitriolic attacks on the outcome of a jury verdict. They keep saying the same thing, over and over, and refuse to look at anything through logic, because this is what Obama and Holder are saying. They can’t comprehend the law of self defense. Zimmerman was armed (legally) and therefore he must have been at fault. In their minds, it’s about the right to bear arms, it’s about the right to defend ones self, and it’s about promoting race problems. Without race problems, the left is irrelevant. Their whole mantra is that they love the minority, as you would love a pet hamster in a cage. Without the love of the left, and the provisions made possible by the left’s big government, how would their pet minorities survive.?

So, no matter what proof, no matter what laws; the left’s goal is to make this about race, to do away with the 2nd amendment, and to create a scenario that leads to winning more elections.

I have repeatedly asked Stephen Daugherty to remove the emotional responses and give only one case where Zimmerman broke the law and he has failed to do so. His responses become lengthier and lengthier, yet he does not offer one single law that Zimmerman broke. The responses from phx8 and Adrienne are idiotic and easy to refute. The claim that Zimmerman was armed is not illegal, the claim that he was following Martin is not illegal, that claim that his injuries were not sufficient to warrant use of a weapon are not baseless. Their complaints are based on it wasn’t fair that Zimmerman used deadly force. “Fair” is not a reason to convict someone. They are having a real hard time accepting the verdict of the jury. They cling to every word out of Holder’s mouth, that he will pursue “Civil Rights” violations. It’s a lie; Holder will continue to trick the left and stir up the blacks, but in the end, no charges will be filed because there is no evidence of racism. The media started this by claiming Zimmerman was white and they continue to push the same thing. He is not white, he’s half white, just like Obama is half white; does the left say Obama is a white man because he is half white…no they don’t, he’s called a black man. Zimmerman, using the same logic, is Hispanic. But the race charge sounds much better if it is a white man who kills a black boy.

I press Stephen Daugherty for answers because this is his post. If he’s going to make claims, I believe he should back them up. And what do I get from Mr. Daugherty…he calls me a bully for asking the questions. This is standard procedure from the left when they can’t answer a question. He has shown himself to be a complete partisan hack who is not capable of rational thought, but is capable of carrying the water bucket for the left. With the rest of the left on WB it doesn’t really matter, but with Mr. Daugherty it does. He tries to present himself as an intellectual debater, but an intellectual, at some point, understands when his debate is lost and doesn’t resort to making the same baseless claims over and over. This is what Daugherty is doing.

But I am still waiting for a logical response from him.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 19, 2013 10:40 AM
Comment #368538

Political Hostage-
Does an action being legal now mean that it should be legal later? And the converse question: should illegality remain illegality?

Next question: Does legal equate to moral, wise, or smart? Do their exist lapses in judgment that are entirely legal?

Maybe it’s legal to follow a criminal and then shoot him after he gets into a fight with you for following him. But it sure doesn’t sound smart, and if we can change the legislation to discourage people from believing that getting themselves into this situation and out of it the way Zimmerman did, we’ll be doing society a favor in my opinion.

You can prattle on about it all being legal, but that’s a ridiculously low standard for good judgment in a free country like ours. We’re not allowed our freedom simply so we can settle to the bottom edge of acceptable behavior. It’s to give us a chance to be wiser and better, not to engage in some kind of adolescent rebellion against society.

Weary Willie-
“Actually, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?”

Zimmerman was assured that people were coming. He was also told that he didn’t need to chase after the suspect. More than that, though, that final line there tells us something. The original request of the dispatcher is that he meets them at the mailboxes. But he says, no, have them call me instead, and I’ll tell them where I’m at.

He doesn’t say, I’ll be by my car, at such and such an address, he says, call me, and I’ll tell you where I’m at.

The only reason he cannot tell them for sure where he’ll be at right then and there, knowing the neighborhood, is that he’s assuming that he’ll be following somebody whose movements he can’t predict. Otherwise, he could say for sure where he was going to be.

If he discontinued his surveillance (a nice, neutral word, which for most people denotes a certain level of paranoia) he could have simply agreed to meet the police somewhere. His car, the suggested mailboxes. Instead, he says, call me, I’ll tell you where I am when you call.

You’re nuts if you think people like me and phx8 want to destroy this country.

Rhinehold-
Zimmerman doesn’t look like a bloody pulp, much less somebody that was attacked MMA style. You know they actually don’t go for the head as much. It hurts to punch somebody there.

And no, the aggression didn’t start there. Legal or not, pursuing somebody is an aggressive act, not a defensive one. A person playing defense, unless they’ve got somebody real to save, will not tend to try and get back into the situation.

As for innocent situation?

Okay, you ever been pushed? did it leave much of a mark? I’ve been punched in the face before, and have taken a scalp injury. Mine bled much, much worse than his

You say Trayvon Martin was relatively unmarked. That’s funny. No scratches by a man trying to get somebody off of him? No bruises from Zimmerman fighting back on his arms or anything. I mean, really, the fact that there aren’t any defensive bruises or scratches on Martin, and that Zimmerman’s injuries were considered relatively minor, just tells you how quickly Zimmerman made this decision to shoot Trayvon Martin. Deadly force was not his last resort, it was his first response to getting in over his head.

A closed fracture of the nose, by the way, indicates that the fracture wasn’t bad enough to pierce the overlying skin. The dual black eyes are normal for broken noses.

As for your claim that people have died from less? Older, sicker people. Not anybody punched in the nose. That’s an old wives tale.

You get yourself confused in the next parts. You say in the adrenaline rush, he ignored his injuries. Except, you say, in that same fight, he also felt he was in danger for his life because of them. Which one? You say, as an example, that you got into a wreck, and because you didn’t quite feel your injuries and you were young (believeable) that you didn’t go see a doctor until two days later.

Except we don’t see any hospitalization for concussion or other injuries, just a doctor visit that yields the information about the nose and the head. Internal torment or not, if the guys bell had rung hard enough, he would have shown symptoms of it, and the damage would have shown up later, as it did with you.

I can come up with a scenario, which I openly admit is one of a number that the facts we know could support, where Trayvon Martin did nothing but defend himself. But there’s no scenario where Zimmerman didn’t have to follow Trayvon further in order to be at the scene.

,a href=”http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/01/george-zimmerman-trial-inconsistent-statements”>The inconsistences are profound. Trayvon’s body was found a hundred feet away from Zimmerman’s vehicle. Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon jumped out of bushes that don’t exist, and couldn’t tell prosecutors whether he was jumped from behind or in front.

He said Trayvon circled his car, something he didn’t mention on his 9/11 call while it was happening, and which conflicts with the fact that he was found a hundred feet away from the car. Unless they were doing some Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon sort of kung fu, that’s a lot of territory to cover in a fight between two people.

He claims he got out of the car because he couldn’t figure out what the right street was. Except the Subdivision had only three streets, and he was supposed to know that Gated community pretty well. In fact, listening to the 9/11 call, we can even hear him suggesting a gate for the community that he’s supposed to be heading for. As far as the time he spent running after he exited the vehicle, a good run can probably get you a hundred feet in that time.

We can talk about reasonable doubt, but there’s a lot of holes in his story, so my question is, what do you consider reasonable?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 19, 2013 10:58 AM
Comment #368539

Stephen

“There is a scenario in which Trayvon Martin is a completely innocent victim in this.”

Of course there is. In fact, despite the total lack of any evidence, this is the only scenario you are willing to accept. You hitched your wagon to this scenario on day and we all know why.

“He had to carry a gun into the fight in order to have the outcome a deadly one.”

No, there has to be an assault before a fight can have a deadly outcome.

“The beating could have turned deadly, carried far enough, but Trayvon would have had to have put a great deal of effort into that.”

A witness said Martin was on top of Zimmerman and was assaulting him. Martin didn’t accidently fall on top of Zimmerman and I sincerely doubt Zimmerman laid down on the ground, told Martin he was in the wrong and gave Martin permission to start wailing on him.

“I don’t play down Zimmerman’s wounds. He does.”

Let me get this straight. In your theory, you excuse Martins judgment and decisions, claimed his instincts took over, but you can’t see how somebody wouldn’t immediately go to the hospital after having to shoot somebody in self defense?
Never been in a real fight or suffered the consequences of one, have you.

“I emphasize the presence of the gun for a reason: it makes it easier for one side to kill the other.”

It also makes it easier for one to defend themselves. You may be fine with being a victim and HOPING for the best outcome, smart people aren’t that naive.

“It reverses who poses the actual threat. Who do you think has more power in the fight now? The unarmed man, or the man with the gun?”

The person with the gun. Kind of justifies why innocent law abiding people wish to carry for self-defense, doesn’t it?

1) This is why most openminded people say BOTH individuals made bad judgements.
2) My bad then. The ‘Martin was only protecting himself from an armed man’ rhetoric has been going around.
3) Nobody knows when the police would show up and to suggest Zimmerman should have been thinking his life would be saved by the police if he can just hold out for one more minute, is ridiculous.
4) So a woman should only use her fists to stop an unarmed rapist? Sorry, but I don’t think you honestly believe that.


likely died.

As for Martin running away?

“Something occurred to me: You’re saying that Martin should have tried to run away,” Yep. You never know where a fight might lead. He would also be alive today if he had. “and forfeited his right to claim self defense by not doing so.” No, he forfeited his right to claim self defense when he confronted and attacked Martin. You are obviously aware of that Stephen, or you guys wouldn’t be running in circles saying Zimmerman initiated the confrontation and fight when there is no proof of that.

“You never know where chasing after a person you suspect of being a criminal might lead.”

As I agreed to earlier.

“Whoever has the right of self-defense depends on whoever is the aggressor.”

Which is why all the talk about Martin doing nothing but walking home. About him being a scared little kid and his 12 year old picture being used. About him being “stalked” and “hunted” down.

“The fact is, Martin and Zimmerman don’t meet on that street unless Zimmerman first follows him.”

So everybody just ignores any suspicious activity in their neighborhood from now on. Or, IF they can absolutely verify the suspicious activity, they should call 911 and let the police handle it whenever they get there. 10, 20, 40 minutes later.

“That’s what initiated the confrontation.”

IF it is, it shouldn’t have. Following someone is not against the law.

“The fight would have been equally impossible had Zimmerman not decided to get out of his car to further that pursuit.”

More speculation. You can would of, could of, should have all you want, it doesn’t prove Zimmerman didn’t act in self defense.

“You’re hanging onto superficial evidence,”

No, I am looking at the actual evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever that backs up the theory that a crazy white man murdered an innocent little black kid doing nothing wrong.
There is however, evidence that shows that a hispanic man shot and killed a black male in self defense.

“and claim that Zimmerman’s story is completely backed up.”

I have not made that claim.

“The truth is, Zimmerman’s verdict may have had more to do with the fact that the facts were unclear, rather than clearly in his favor.”

MAY HAVE. That’s the beauty of our justice system Stephen, we aren’t supposed to be presumed guilty simply because some people think things MAY HAVE gone another way.

We don’t throw away our belief of ‘innocent until PROVEN guilty’ because of a law we don’t like, because of our fear of guns, because of race, or for political gain.

Posted by: kctim at July 19, 2013 11:14 AM
Comment #368540

Political Hostage-

The problem here is that the left have been getting their way under Obama for the past 4 1/2 years. They think they are entitled to get their way. Except for gun control and amnesty, Obama has got everything he wants.

So, what do you think about the filibusters? About the fact that so many of the people that Obama WANTED in his administration were blocked? Or about the 80% blockage of all bills in the Congress before the Republicans took ove the House? Or about the Debt Ceiling deal that was forced on Obama, or about this whole Sequester thing?

You bash me for not being logical, for arguing out of emotion, and the irony is here that I can’t see any other source of consistency for your argument. Only somebody who feels that the Right Wing Tea Party nuts not getting everything they want equates to Obama getting everything he wants would say that.

You’ve got this paranoid fear about Left Wingers taking your guns, and four and half years of that not happening hasn’t seemed to calm you any.

Without race problems, the left is irrelevant. Their whole mantra is that they love the minority, as you would love a pet hamster in a cage. Without the love of the left, and the provisions made possible by the left’s big government, how would their pet minorities survive.?

I don’t know. There are economic issues, there are national security and international law issues, there are issues concerning infrastructure, public health… I think we could be perfectly relevant without racial issues being so charged nowadays. But what about Republicans? How relevant would they be if they didn’t have the border issue, or the Xenophobia regarding Muslims and others from
Central Asia? Quite a bit less, is my guess. Too bad minorities are getting to be so numerous, since it makes all the thumbs to the eye you gave those people come back to haunt you.

I have repeatedly asked Stephen Daugherty to remove the emotional responses and give only one case where Zimmerman broke the law and he has failed to do so.

EMOTIONAL!!!!!!!

Buddy, we’re emotional creatures. Ah, but what you mean is more than that. You mean, I am not in command of my faculties! I’m being carried away, unable to understand or comprehend the supreme logical majesty of your argument!

Or, maybe the topic I brought up was about how even going beyond the verdict and the law, what Zimmerman did wasn’t very wise or smart. But you know, any critique on that gets a venomous rejection from you, which you tie into the second amendment as a cheap scare tactic, to try and make it seem like more than just a matter of whether we want to encourage people to escalate the fights they’re in.

You can go with all the pompous rhetoric you want to, but my approach here is to carve things down to a basic analysis of his actions and their results.

That’s what you don’t want, because deprived of all the partisan symbolism, Zimmerman, even if his account is true, is a wannabe cop who got in over his head trying to pretend to be something he was not. There’s plenty of evidence to show what he wanted to be. There’s plenty of evidence that he exaggerated his injuries, and gave inconsistent statements. When your claim is that somebody jumped out of the bushes at you, and the bushes don’t exist, and you can’t say which direction he came from, when you claim to be circling back to your car, but you’re a hundred feet from it when you shoot the man who’s supposed to have jumped you on the way back… well, it becomes pretty clear that the simplest, truest story is not the one he’s giving.

Your insults, your attempts to poison the well just demonstrate your lack of ability to parse and respond to a rational argument in kind.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 19, 2013 11:19 AM
Comment #368541

kctim-
Did Zimmerman attempt to put up a fight before he decided he need to shoot the boy? Did he even consider other options? Was the fight really deadly enough at that point to justify taking out the gun, or did this guy just lack the balls to defend himself that way?

There doesn’t seem to be a sense of proportion here. You claim that unless he is able to use the ultimate sanction of taking a life that he can’t defend himself. But I know for a fact, having been trained in self-defense myself, that there is more you can do in a fistfight to defend yourself. There are ways to break somebody’s hold on your head, ways to get somebody off the top of you.

But Zimmerman gets what doctors terms minor injuries, and all of a sudden he has to shoot the other guy.

Which is why all the talk about Martin doing nothing but walking home. About him being a scared little kid and his 12 year old picture being used. About him being “stalked” and “hunted” down.

The language is far from neutral, but the truth is, Zimmerman followed him based on suspicion, not based on witnessing him committing a crime.

So everybody just ignores any suspicious activity in their neighborhood from now on. Or, IF they can absolutely verify the suspicious activity, they should call 911 and let the police handle it whenever they get there. 10, 20, 40 minutes later.

They arrived, according to police reports, about a minute after Trayvon was shot. And nobody said to ignore it. The stuff about not pursuing is in the handbook that people like Zimmerman are handed.

Which brings up something. He was warned not to do this by the very organization he claimed to do this under. He didn’t break their rules out of ignorance, he broke them in reckless disregard for them. He knew the streets, there were only three of them, he didn’t need to get out to check them. Hell, he could have moved closer to the street sign in his automobile, entirely safe from being jumped.

IF it is, it shouldn’t have. Following someone is not against the law.

I took a turn in a bad neighborhood once, and a bunch of guys started following me. Not innocent fellas, by the look of it. I’m sure I should have just stopped and had a friendly chat with them, since, because following is perfectly legal, their intentions had to be completely benign.

Look, mister, I’m autistic, so the fact that such an argument strikes even me as naïve should tell you something.

And no, it’s not speculation to say that the fight would have been more unlikely had Zimmerman not gotten out of the vehicle. That’s a reasonable statement to make.

All in all, the tone of your response seems to be more about chiding me for taking the side of the person who got shot, rather than falling in line on the whole self-defense thing. Well, the thing is, I’ve taken a self-defense course, and researched the subject, and they tell you outright that the best form of self defense is not tempting fate.

Not kung fu moves, not weapons expertise, you just don’t seek out trouble, and when you find yourself in risky situations, you do your best to get out of them.

Zimmerman violated those principles, trying to play cop. That’s why I don’t buy his defense. He didn’t stumble into a confrontation with Trayvon, he drove and ran into it. He sought out trouble.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 19, 2013 11:43 AM
Comment #368542

SD, phx8, Adrienne
Here is a suggestion.

Go join unRev. Al Sharpton.

He has an overload of blather.

You will fit right in with Rev. Race Baiter.

SD
Why have we not heard about the “protesters” that tried to prohibit a woman from entering the hospital ER. A protester hit the SUV windshield and grabbed the grandmother by the arm. People were trying to enter her vehicle. This happened in your nghborhood.

Posted by: tom humes at July 19, 2013 12:27 PM
Comment #368546

Political Hostage- Does an action being legal now mean that it should be legal later? And the converse question: should illegality remain illegality?

Ah…YES

Next question: Does legal equate to moral, wise, or smart? Do their exist lapses in judgment that are entirely legal?

Well, I don’t know Mr. Daugherty, can you site us a case where a prosecutor charges and tries a person on moral, wise, or smart grounds?

Maybe it’s legal to follow a criminal and then shoot him after he gets into a fight with you for following him. But it sure doesn’t sound smart, and if we can change the legislation to discourage people from believing that getting themselves into this situation and out of it the way Zimmerman did, we’ll be doing society a favor in my opinion.

Mr. Daugherty almost makes a correct statement here, but immediately lapses into fantasy land by making comments he can’t substantiate. Then he goes on into a rant about the SYG laws, which had nothing to do with the Zimmerman case, and how they ought to be repealed.

Mr. Daugherty, why are you so infatuated with the SYG laws? Were they used in Zimmerman’s defense? 50% of the states have SYG laws, do you propose repealing them all, or would you rather just have the SCOTUS declare them unconstitutional?

You can prattle on about it all being legal, but that’s a ridiculously low standard for good judgment in a free country like ours. We’re not allowed our freedom simply so we can settle to the bottom edge of acceptable behavior. It’s to give us a chance to be wiser and better, not to engage in some kind of adolescent rebellion against society.

Oh yes, that pesky legal stuff, since when should legality ever get in the way of “good judgment”.

Then you go on into other comments justifying you emotional response to a finding of not guilty, of which I will not respond due to the fact it would be a waste of time. I will just ask you once again to provide one incident that Zimmerman did that was illegal.

I will conclude with this; what would happen if Stephen Daugherty’s scrawny little ass was on the concrete and a bigger black guy was on top, using moves that showed he was familiar with fighting and pounding Mr. Daugherty’s head into the concrete. How long would it take for Mr. Daugherty to start screaming like a little girl. Let’s say Mr. Daugherty had a weapon on his side, and let’s say Mr. Daugherty was afraid that the next time his head hit the concrete that he might black out. Let’s say that Mr. Daugherty was afraid if he blacked out, this aggressive black guy would take his own gun and shoot him with it. Let’s just say the Mr. Daugherty was in fear for his life…would Mr. Daugherty draw his weapon and protect himself, or would he say, with tears streaming down his face, “please don’t hurt me, I’m a liberal Democrat and I have fought for black people’s rights”? My guess is that Martin would laugh at Mr. Daugherty and continue to pound his scrawny ass into the concrete. But, alas, Mr. Daugherty is living in his all white neighborhood and he makes sure he don’t go to the black side of town. He sits behind his little computer screen, protected from the outside world, and Monday quarterbacks what happened in someone else’s life. My guess is that Mfr. Daugherty would be the first to reach for his weapon and it wouldn’t take long for him to do it, if he thought he was going to die.

Now, Mr. Daugherty will respond with another bunch of hypotheticals about what Zimmerman or Martin did or did not do. Hypotheticals, because Mr. Daugherty does not know what took place; but if Mr. Daugherty would have been on the jury, he would have found Zimmerman guilty of Murder 2 or Manslaughter, on the grounds that he knows more than the evidence provides. He would find Zimmerman guilty, based on the judgment that it just “ain’t fair”.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 19, 2013 3:07 PM
Comment #368547

Stephen Daugherty, I did mention gullible, didn’t I? Yes, I think I did.

I notice you don’t ever entertain the idea that Martin doubled back and ambushed Zimmerman like he said happened. You never entertain the idea that Martin was the aggressor. You never even consider the possibility that Zimmerman was telling the truth. Your first and only position is:
The guy with the gun is at fault. He had a gun, therefore he is wrong.
Why won’t you consider the facts? It’s obvious to me Zimmerman wasn’t following Martin at the time of the attack. Why isn’t it to you?
I think it’s because you have an agenda. Just like Sharpton and Jackson and Obama and Holder. You don’t care about Martin and what happened to him. You only care about making your political points and promoting your political point of view.

And to think this attitude isn’t destroying this country is just what I said it was: Gullible.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 19, 2013 3:20 PM
Comment #368548

You’re correct WW; Stephen has not looked at any of the evidence. It’s all about hypotheticals. It’s a shame, because it shows us just how partisan he really is, and how incapable he is of discussing any topic.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 19, 2013 3:49 PM
Comment #368552

Stephen

Sigh.
We don’t know what either of them attempted or considered, if Zimmerman “lacked the balls” or if Martin thought he was disrespect and has put that crazy cracker in his place.
What we do know is what witness and expert testimony told us and what the evidence appears to show.

“But I know for a fact, having been trained in self-defense myself, that there is more you can do in a fistfight to defend yourself.”

More you can do than what? We weren’t there so we don’t know what Zimmerman tried, and we cannot read Zimmermans mind so we don’t know if he really feared for his life or not.

“There are ways to break somebody’s hold on your head, ways to get somebody off the top of you.”

Then you also know it is not always possible. We don’t know if Zimmerman tried to get out from the bottom but the wet ground prevented him from doing so, or if he had the strength of a 5 year old girl or what. WE DON’T KNOW.
As I said before, could of, should of, would of, does not prove Zimmerman guilty.

“But Zimmerman gets what doctors terms minor injuries, and all of a sudden he has to shoot the other guy.”

Injuries to the head while in a compromised position. We weren’t there, we don’t know if he pulled the trigger too soon or if he did it once bounce away from being dead.

“but the truth is, Zimmerman followed him based on suspicion, not based on witnessing him committing a crime.”

Which is what everybody who favors the actual evidence says.

“They arrived, according to police reports, about a minute after Trayvon was shot.”

THIS time Stephen. Response times vary. And it is absolutely crazy to suggest either Zimmerman or Martin had a clue about when the police would arrive.

“…Hell, he could have moved closer to the street sign in his automobile, entirely safe from being jumped.”

Probably so, but that still doesn’t justify him being attacked nor does it negate his right to self defense if he is attacked.
Could of, should of, would of.

“I took a turn in a bad neighborhood once, and a bunch of guys started following me.”

I’ve lived and worked in bad neighborhoods more than I care to remember. Been followed, threatened and had all kinds of stuff thrown at me because “you in the wrong neighborhood white boy.”

“Not innocent fellas, by the look of it.”

Ok, so you profiled them and understood that they were probably bad news. Something tells me you didn’t doubleback and confront them though. I’m going to guess that you went home to safety.

“Look, mister, I’m autistic, so the fact that such an argument strikes even me as naïve should tell you something.”

Did I say Martin should have stopped and had a friendly chat? Could have sworn I suggested Martin could have just as easy calmly went home.

“And no, it’s not speculation to say that the fight would have been more unlikely had Zimmerman not gotten out of the vehicle. That’s a reasonable statement to make.”

Only if you also agree that a fight would have been more unlikely had Martin just went home.

“All in all, the tone of your response seems to be more about chiding me for taking the side of the person who got shot, rather than falling in line on the whole self-defense thing.”

Probably because I take the side of the actual evidence, instead of who is involved. I don’t make premature judgements based on the races of those involved, which is why I told you months ago that we should wait for the evidence before we make a judgement.

RE chiding you: You commented to me in another post that people always go off topic and get personal with you. We have been here together at WatchBlog a loooong time Stephen, I am simply trying to stay on topic and stick with the facts and trying to be respectful.

“Well, the thing is, I’ve taken a self-defense course, and researched the subject, and they tell you outright that the best form of self defense is not tempting fate.”

I have lived the subject and yes, if possible you avoid confrontation. The problem with your argument is that you are condemning one person for tempting fate and trying to justify they other person tempting fate.

“Zimmerman violated those principles, trying to play cop.”

Your biased opinion.

“That’s why I don’t buy his defense.”

BS. You don’t buy his defense because you used race to come to a premature verdict. And just like everybody else who did, now that the evidence and jurys verdict of not guilty has come, you are coming up with all these scenarios to justify Martin attacking Zimmerman.

“He didn’t stumble into a confrontation with Trayvon, he drove and ran into it. He sought out trouble.”

Another biased opinion based on emotion and the desire for this to be about race.
To top it off, it still does not take away Zimmermans right to self-defense.

Posted by: kctim at July 19, 2013 5:13 PM
Comment #368559

Does SD consider his training to be more important to him, than Zimmerman’s was to him? CCW training instructs not to pull the weapon unless it is necessary (fear of life) and if you pull it, be prepared to use it. Zimmerman did what he was trained to do.

Posted by: DSP2195 at July 19, 2013 6:31 PM
Comment #368576

Zimmerman looks like Stephen Daugherty with shorter hair to me. If the gunshot hadn’t killed him, Trayvon Martin could have been arrested for assault. “Poison the well” again? Same stuff, different year.

Posted by: ohrealy at July 19, 2013 10:47 PM
Comment #368601

Adrienne, you continue to show your ignorance. Zimmerman was found innocent and cannot be tried again. There is no mistrial when found innocent. But, keep digging, you may come op with something yet.

Posted by: DSP2195 at July 20, 2013 3:21 PM
Comment #368608

More of Adrienne’s grocery store scandal sheets. Adrienne I think you could do better or at least try.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 20, 2013 4:37 PM
Comment #368611

tom humes-
In my neighborhood? Well, whoever did it, according to both me, and shockingly enough the President, undermined the cause of justice.

And why haven’t I mentioned it? It could be because a) I don’t spend all my time on the internet, and b) I don’t spend all my time searching for isolated incidents with which to discredit my own cause.

Political Hostage-
You think you’re such hot ****, don’t you?

First, let me start by saying you missed the point of those questions. Let’s say you have a restaurant. You would like for them to go by state, local and federal law, and store their food at proper temperatures so you don’t bleed out your ass on account of your E. Coli infection. You would probably also not like to be competing for your meal with the cockroaches.

Even here in Texas, we like to keep some minimal legal standards. There was a reporter named Marvin Zindler, otherwise famous for busting open the Chicken Ranch brothel scandal, whose regular beat on the local news was a rat and roach report which he often used his popular catchphrase “Slime in the Ice Machine!” to accompany.

But do we rely just on those in deciding what restaurants to eat at? No. If the waiters are jackasses, if they get your order wrong all the time, despite the fact that none of that is illegal, customers are going to stay away.

In fact, this extra layer of right and wrongs, of good and bad judgment beyond the scope of the law is what you, as conservative or libertarian depend upon in order to provide civil society its order without relying on a heavy handed state.

Ah, but whenever somebody calls somebody on, say Mitt Romney’s equity firm behavior, or George Zimmerman for being a cowardly moron who got in over his head, the refrain from your crowd is, Oh, but everything he did was legal!

Legal, mister, doesn’t equate to smart, wise, or moral. In fact, I would say that there are plenty of things that should be left up to personal judgment, but that people have to rise to the occasion if they want to make sure their freedoms remain. If you don’t want abortions, don’t feel they are consistent with respect for human life, don’t have one, don’t agree to them. If you don’t like what somebody says, speak your own mind. If you think pornography is awful, put a net nanny on your computer and confiscate nudie magazines from your kids.

The Right these days seems to want the government to do its dirty work on a lot of things, from reversing an unfavorable population shift, to restricting abortion, to trying to oppose sharia law (A stupid effort, in my book, since even a real push for sharia law would have a head on collision with the First Amendment establishment clause).

Frankly, I don’t expect or want the government interfering with my religion, with my sex life, or with the reproductive rights of any woman in my life. I play plenty of video games of different kinds. I don’t want somebody trying to ban them. I watch plenty of movies and TV shows, and don’t have much respect for censorship.

I want the market to make the bulk of the decisions in our economy, with the law there mainly to act as a barrier to more parasitic and irresponsible ways of doing business. If I invest in a mutual fund through a broker, I don’t want that broker ****ing me over for his own profit, like Goldman Sachs did many of its clients. If I put my money in a bank, I want to know that even if that bank fails, my money won’t disappear with whatever bank executive who fled to a non extradition treaty country.

I don’t mind freedom the way the stereotypical travesty of me that you imagine things I do. But you know what? I don’t believe in legality as being the best lower limit for my behavior or anybody else’s. I think that’s just there to cut short the extremes of bad behavior. Because we are free, for our society to function, we can’t simply settle for that lowest common denominator.

As for what you conclude with?

I don’t think anybody ever beat me up the way the stereotypical nerds get beat up on television. Part of that is, I grew up, physically speaking, early in my teens. So, when the a******s showed up trying to get a piece of me, they found out the hard way that I was both too angry, and too scrappy to be jumped. I grew eyes in the back of my head, but I also would give as good as I got, throwing bullies into each other, tripping a guy who tried to get in close so the fight went to ground. When I finally got one guy who would face me one on one, he never even landed a punch. I grabbed hold of both arms, forced him to the ground, and hit him a few times.

When I later got into football, the first time I was up, I drove the offensive lineman head of me right into the ball carrier. I was good at throwing people off their feet, and nobody forced their way by me on the offensive line.

And that was before I learned self defense tactics in a martial arts class and a self-defense course. I’m afraid that if it was me in a fight with Trayvon Martin, I wouldn’t have likely sucked as badly as he did. I hear the guy couldn’t even punch right.

So, that damn gun of us was all that justified him going after that teenager. And it was the only thing that would have gotten him shot, given Trayvon Martin’s lack of a weapon.

So, long story short, I have a certain perspective on defending myself. I won’t hesitate to do it, or to defend somebody, if its necessary. But I’m not going to go out of my way to put myself at risk. I’m not going to follow somebody I consider to be a potential criminal, and just hope that nothing bad happens. If you tail the tiger and it turns and bites you, who do you have to blame in the scheme of things? You believed the tiger was dangerous, why didn’t you behave rationally in light of that fact?

As far as my neighborhood goes? It was all white once upon a time when I was a kid, but there are all kinds of people now. I don’t buy into your fear and hate, so I don’t feel anxiety walking down the street. Most people mind their own business and obey the law.

Weary Willie-
What’s the proof that he doubled back? Martin was found a hundred feet from the car. Y’all keep talking about how close Martin was to home, but really, if he was that close, where did he double back from? If the fight began and ended right next to Zimmerman’s vehicle, the story would ring truer.

It’s you have the agenda. My idea is simply that if two people commit the same crime, they’ll face the same chances of being convicted, and the same punishment given their circumstances. If you call that an agenda, I call that the Constitution. I call that being created equal. If you’re against that agenda, I can’t help you.

kctim-
As far as what Zimmerman tried? Doesn’t seem like he tried much. No bruises on Martin’s arms, no scratches, no damage to his clothing where Zimmerman might have grabbed on to him?

I know for a fact that when you block a punch, that can bruise your arms and hurt their arms in turn. If Martin doesn’t look like he was in much of a fight, that means that Zimmerman didn’t avail himself of all that many means of defending himself. There would be signs on Martin, if that were the case.

As for when they were to show up? You can play any kinds of games you want with that premise. Question, do you know the actual average response times for them?

As for the guys I encountered in that neighborhood? I didn’t profile them! I kept on walking at a relatively steady pace. I did my best to leave what I thought was a risky situation. And THAT would be my point. But, if it became clear that their intentions were violent, then, and only then would I perhaps pick up some kind of weapon, or assume a more aggressive stance. I was prepared to escalate if necessary, but I did not put myself any closer to them than I had to.

Perhaps the problem is that both Zimmerman and Martin made the same mistake. But Martin didn’t have a gun when he made that mistake, so his mistake didn’t cost Zimmerman his life.

As for using race to come to biased opinion or a premature verdict?

I didn’t base my principles on Martin’s race. Rather, I thought that Zimmerman’s violations were such that a indictment should have been handed down regardless of the victims race. The discrepancy between the expected outcome and the outcome that occurred is what has generated the controversy. Whether it was a white kid or a black kid should have been irrelevant, but apparently was not, and I’m not going to simply ignore that.

Zimmerman has a right to defend himself, but typically those rights are defined proportionately. The fact that an unarmed man was shot should concern you. If it had been Martin who wrestled away the gun and shot him, the same would be demanded, if not more.

Also, Martin had a right to defend himself, and it doesn’t seem like there was enough of an immediate investigation to determine whether in fact he was simply fighting back.

Now, if you dislike the bias in the case, I can only tell you that it didn’t help that the matter wasn’t settled in a more thourough and fair way.

I don’t buy his defense, mainly, because I don’t buy that he wasn’t the aggressor. You’re really not supposed to let a guy get off that easy if he got himself that deeply into trouble before he had to, as he claimed, fight for his life.

DSP2195-
My training allows me choices to defend myself against an opponent who’s unarmed, without having to arm myself, something which in many cases, in many jurisdictions would make me the aggressor instead. I can respond more proportionately. As for CCW training?

Look, he was told not to bring his gun when he did his neighborhood watch stuff. He should have acknowledged, if he was the wimp some of you say he is, that he had no business in the first place following a person he believed to be a criminal. But that gun gave him the confidence to get out of the armor of that vehicle, and expose himself to physical assault.

The long and the short of it is that conservatives, for their partisan reasons are glorifying a man getting in over his head and using disproportionate force to defend himself. Desperate stupidity, in other words.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 20, 2013 5:49 PM
Comment #368615
Political Hostage- You think you’re such hot ****, don’t you?

Not really, but I know when I’m getting the old two step shuffle from an arrogant little boy.

You managed to talk about restaurants, Mitt Romney, abortion, nudie magazines, sharia law, and how tough you are; but what you failed to do, once again, was list for us what violations of the law Zimmerman committed. Stephen, with all your talk and all the time you spend thinking up a comical rebut, you would think you could come up with at least one thing that Zimmerman did in violation to Florida law. But evidently you can’t…

Oh, by the way, you emotional response is showing through. Are your feelings hurt?

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 20, 2013 6:11 PM
Comment #368616

SD

Just reviewing some of the comments above

I took a turn in a bad neighborhood once, and a bunch of guys started following me. Not innocent fellas, by the look of it. “

What made you conclude they were not “innocent fellas?

I must conclude that there is no doubt that you were profiling the persons present there.

Ho-hum just some more hypocrisy. If it were not for your BS you would be a steer.

Posted by: tom humes at July 20, 2013 6:19 PM
Comment #368624

Stephen

“conservatives, for their partisan reasons are glorifying a man getting in over his head.” Nobody is glorifying him. He acted foolishly.

We simply believe in the rule of law. The man was found not guilty. You don’t like the outcome of the trial. In earlier days I suppose people like you would have lynched the man and called it justice.

Posted by: CJ at July 20, 2013 8:15 PM
Comment #368625

C&J-
Lynched? Oh yes, I remember in the old south how all those young black men were brought before a grand jury after committing a crime that investigators found suspicious, then indicted, put on trial and acquitted. Then all the White people would have to gather around and protest this verdict while acknowledging that the verdict held the force of law.

I would hope you’re joking, because lynchings in the real world sound an awful lot more like what happened to Trayvon Martin, especially concerning that part where he DIED.

tom humes-
They were following me. Normal folks don’t follow you unless they have a reason.

Funny how some folks forget that. If I were walking through that neighborhood and only got funny looks, that would have been different.

Political Hostage-
Still gnawing on that bone are we? I know why you keep on insisting on it. You want your token “win the argument” point. Welcome to the real world where the discussion doesn’t have to conform to your narrow desire to show me up.

My entire point, if you weren’t neglecting it for the sake of trying to pin me down to discussing this purely as a criminal case, is that even if you take Zimmerman at his word, and assume that nothing happened that would have made the real event illegal, he still basically got the crap beaten out of him by the man he chose to pursue.

Does this sound like a man who is in command of the situation? Yet by the arguments most people on the right are making here, you would encourage him to pursue, saying that the fact that he was blindsided at the end is entirely Trayvon’s fault.

But lets say Zimmerman had the wisdom not to exit his vehicle. Maybe Trayvon still attacks our intrepid investigator, but Zimmerman could floor the gas pedal and get the **** out of there, something he couldn’t do, even by his own account, having gone after him on foot.

Police investigators, when they’re going after a criminal are taught to have their weapons at ready. they’re taught to sweep the corners of the room, to be observant of outside areas. They’re also taught and physically trained to confront criminals.

Zimmerman? From the sound of it, he had his gun going for him, and that was about it. The poor dumb bastard, even if his story is entirely true, couldn’t hold his own physically. Especially if his story is true. The more true his story is, the worse the beating he gets, having moved to follow Trayvon Martin.

Illegal? It remains in the realm of possibility that Zimmerman did nothing illegal, much as I doubt it. But if his story is true, he got the crap beaten out of him for trying to act like he could safely run down a suspect. If Trayvon was the thug folks like you thought he was, he could have just as easily had a knife, a bludgeon, or a gun on him, and the blindside Zimmerman claims could have been him getting shot, stabbed, or his skull cracked open before he even had a chance to defend himself. His best case scenario was an unarmed young man, and that is the most pathetic thing about this debacle.

And you want to keep the laws that regarded this dumbass doing everything he possibly could to get within arms length of Trayvon as a valid claim for self defense on the books.

This won’t lower crime rates in Florida, long term. It’ll just leave more people on both sides of these idiotic confrontations dead so some wannabe action heroes can get their law enforcement jollies.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 20, 2013 9:15 PM
Comment #368631

Mr. Daugherty, there is not much difference between you and Adrienne. It seems you both suffer from the same dementia.

Political Hostage- Still gnawing on that bone are we? I know why you keep on insisting on it. You want your token “win the argument” point. Welcome to the real world where the discussion doesn’t have to conform to your narrow desire to show me up.Stephen, I don’t care about winning an argument. But it seems to bother you a lot. This was your post and among many things, you wrote this comment:
Leaving aside the previous point of the stupidity of trying to confront somebody you might assume is an armed and dangerous criminal, it is perfectly possible that the real armed and dangerous criminal here was Zimmerman.

He was seeking out a confrontation. He wasn’t content to leave things up to the police. he wasn’t content to let them investigate, and let them determine if a crime was actually being committed. He had his gun on him, as he pursued Trayvon Martin. He knew it was there. Whatever you can say about the advisement by the dispatcher to break off pursuit, about whether he was legally obliged to do so, the fact remains, that with that gun on him, he continued to pursue him.

You accused Zimmerman of being the “armed and dangerous criminal”, you accused him of “seeking out a confrontation”, you accused him of “pursuing Trayvon Martin with a gun”, of “disregarding the dispatcher” and you base calling Zimmerman an “armed and dangerous criminal” on these allegations.

Don’t I or anyone else on WB have the right to ask you what evidence you have that Zimmerman did anything illegal? You have based all your accusations of supposition and innuendo.

Now, you go so far as to personally attack Zimmerman with sick, yes sick little remarks. A “poor dumb bastard” or a “wannabe action heroes can get their law enforcement jollies”. You can’t win the argument by presenting facts, so you resort to the liberal tried and tested game of personal attacks.

Keep posting your crap Stephen and I will keep asking the same question. And by the way, I haven’t been the only one to ask for your evidence; they rest just gave up after listening to you BS. I won’t.

Where’s the evidence that Zimmerman did anything illegal?

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 20, 2013 9:55 PM
Comment #368639

On 6/12/12 a 17 year old white unarmed teen was shot and killed by a 30 year old Black man. This never made it past the local news. I wonder why that is. I guess it’s alright for Black men to kill white teens who are unarmed and guys like Sharpton and Jackson or our fearless leader have no outrage for that. Where is the National outrage for that killing?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 20, 2013 10:39 PM
Comment #368642

Stephen

The idea of lynching was that people believed they should take justice into their own hands. Zimmerman indeed got a fair trail and it produced the not guilty outcome. You do not want to accept the outcome. You want to find him guilty w/o real evidence. Is it because Zimmerman is Hispanic?

I believe in rule of law. Indeed, when rule of law has failed, it is often minorities that suffer the most.

BTW - according to Tuskegee Institute there were 1,634 lynching during the 20th Century. About 2/3 of the victims were black. That was a period of 100 years, with most of the crime happening in the early part of the century. In 2010 alone, 5,942 black males were murdered. And while murder rates are dropping in general in the U.S., they are rising among young black men. So we spend months talking about this one case and while we were talking gang-bangers killed thousands.

Posted by: CJ at July 20, 2013 10:49 PM
Comment #368651
As for the guys I encountered in that neighborhood? I didn’t profile them!

Um, how do you figure? It sure sounds like you did, based off of a general feeling about them, much like Zimmerman did with Martin. You say that Zimmerman should have taken that profiling and stayed in his car and got away, just like you did. How could he do that if he didn’t profile him just like you did those guys?

Do groups of people scare you? Or do groups of people you don’t know who are acting in a certain way make you suspicious?

BTW, you said earlier that you didn’t understand why Martin went back and attacked Zimmerman, I think we have our answer now from Rachel Jeantel.

RACHEL JEANTEL: “People need to understand, he didn’t want that creepy ass cracka going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get — mind you, his little brother is there. Mind you I told you, I told Trayvon, [Zimmerman] might have been a rapist.”

So, he went to confront the suspected gay rapist, assaulting him to keep him from his younger brother. You know, a hate crime.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 21, 2013 4:23 AM
Comment #368652

Just checkin’ SD.

How deep is that hole ya dug for yourself.

Hate to have anybody come along and fill in that hole.

That would take quite awhile.

Ya gettin’ tired yet doing all that diggin’.

BTW
Your a model writer on the computer. Just want to remind ya’ that a model is a small replica of the real thing.

Now back to the myriad of questions you refuse to answer from the several on this site. There are too many to list here. So you are going to go back and read. I’m not holding my breath.

Posted by: tom humes at July 21, 2013 5:41 AM
Comment #368659

You are correct Rhinehold; the left and the media have completely ignored that fact that Martin and Jeantel suspected Zimmerman of being gay. Since the left lives in this fantasy world of hypotheticals, it could well be imagined that Martin was ambushing Zimmerman because he thought he was gay. Which would make Marin a gay basher and guilty of a hate crime. Interesting…

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 21, 2013 2:31 PM
Comment #368675

Stephen

Do you honestly not see that your entire argument is based on what you speculate both men did or did not do? That having failed to show Zimmerman did not act in self-defense, you are now trying to justify Martins aggressive behavior?

“I know for a fact that when you block a punch, that can bruise your arms and hurt their arms in turn.”

Yes, it CAN, but that doesn’t mean always does. You are still only speculating in order to justify the actions of Martin.

“Question, do you know the actual average response times for them?”

You do not give an attacker extra time to assault you based on an average. Especially in the heat of battle, when time is the last thing on your mind.

“As for the guys I encountered in that neighborhood? I didn’t profile them!”

Then why did you assume they could be a danger?

“I kept on walking at a relatively steady pace. I did my best to leave what I thought was a risky situation.”

Something Martin could have done.

“Perhaps the problem is that both Zimmerman and Martin made the same mistake. But Martin didn’t have a gun when he made that mistake, so his mistake didn’t cost Zimmerman his life.”

Could it have cost Zimmerman his life if he hadn’t stopped the assault? We will never know.
What we do know is that Martins mistake cost him his own life.

“I didn’t base my principles on Martin’s race. Rather, I thought that Zimmerman’s violations were such that a indictment should have been handed down regardless of the victims race.”

The verdict shows why you thought wrong.

“The discrepancy between the expected outcome and the outcome that occurred is what has generated the controversy.”

Which is why you should not expect an outcome, especially without knowing all the facts or having seen all the evidence.

“Whether it was a white kid or a black kid should have been irrelevant, but apparently was not, and I’m not going to simply ignore that.”

Nobody can prove race was relevant, in fact, those in the know say it wasn’t about race, but yet you guys are all speculating that it was all about race.

“The fact that an unarmed man was shot should concern you.”

And it did, until I seen the evidence.

“Also, Martin had a right to defend himself, and it doesn’t seem like there was enough of an immediate investigation to determine whether in fact he was simply fighting back.”

Despite the fact that the verdict basically came to the same conclusion as the initial investigation, let’s pretend that you are right for a moment. You got a more detailed investigation and you got a trial, just as you demanded. So why can’t you accept the results?

“I don’t buy his defense, mainly, because I don’t buy that he wasn’t the aggressor.”

So what evidence do you have that the prosecution did not? Not speculation about Zimmermans intent or what you think he should have done while being assaulted.

“You’re really not supposed to let a guy get off that easy if he got himself that deeply into trouble before he had to, as he claimed, fight for his life.”

This argument is akin to those who say a woman deserved to be raped because she was dressed sexy.

Posted by: kctim at July 22, 2013 10:54 AM
Comment #368679

Political Hostage-
What is a vigilante? There’s a reason we don’t generally allow them: their lack of accountability. A vigilante, to an innocent person they wrongfully pursue as a criminal, is really no different than anybody else who attacks them without a good reason.

You keep on harping on the illegality or legality of it.

Well, it’s perfectly possible to make this kind of unaccountable, dangerous vigilantism legal. But that won’t make it safe, just, or accountable to the citizens. It won’t make what Zimmerman did smart or wise.

But you keep asking whether he did anything illegal. Congratulations: you can’t win the argument by defending his wisdom or judgment, so you defended by saying, “he broke no law”. Well hooray for defining down deviancy.

I will not leave this matter alone simply because, in this instance, he might not have broken a law. That doesn’t settle any debate I care about. I care about whether policy is wise, whether it’s functional. My point is that the Zimmerman case shows how foolish the policy is, how dangerous.

You can keep asking your question, and I will keep on answering by saying this: You are, through policies like this, encouraging stupid, preventable violence by people who want to be the kind of cops they see in movies and TV shows, engaging in heroic gun battle whose every victim is an acceptable target, or a heroic martyr.

You’ve failed to grow up enough to realize that this stuff is bull****, adolescent fantasy, which while totally appropriate for enjoyment as entertainment, is not a model for a functioning real world.

Rich KAPitan-
Roderick Scott found the three teens breaking into his car. Zimmerman followed Martin on mere suspicion. Roderick Scott’s victim not only had significant amounts of Marijuana in his system, but amphetamines and above the legal limit of alcohol.

But likely, and most importantly, Roderick Scott was immediately arrested and tried under much stricter standard than Zimmerman. He testified in his own defense, as well. Zimmerman did not.

The difference is just how thin Zimmerman’s justification was. He essentially got into a fight with somebody who wasn’t breaking the law before he started following him, and shot somebody. Then he was let go, no booking, no arrest, and the case laid like a log for weeks and weeks.

The sense was, he was profiled, despite doing nothing criminal, and that profiling led to the confrontation. Cervini was caught breaking into a car. Zimmerman was walking down the street in a hoodie. The sense also was that Zimmerman was unfairly given the benefit of the doubt in a case where the ability to use force was decidedly lopsided. Roderick Scott may have shot an unarmed man, too, but he was immediately arrested.

That’s one example, but by your date not the one you’re talking about. Would you be so good as to provide more than a vague description of this crime?

C&J-
I’m glad you stipulate now that he had a fair trial, because by comparing it to a lynching, you were indulging in another contradiction, comparing it to an extrajudicial execution, despite both the outcome and the manner in which the case was handled.

No, I don’t like the outcome. I accept it, though, as legally binding.

As for the end of comment 398642, the gang banger typically face jail for their actions, and the cases are swiftly followed up on. It’s not like we have dozens of cases in which a gang banger shoots somebody, claims self-defense, and the victims parents have to wait months for the authorities, faced with public pressure, to go back, reinvestigate, indict, and try the case.

Y’all keep on missing what makes this a controversial case: Unarmed victim, not committing any crime, and a shooter who was on his way to getting off scott free despite how swiss-cheesed his story was.

Rhinehold-
The people I described were following me as a group. It was clear that they had locked onto me. Their behavior was directed towards me. I didn’t encounter them because I was following them.

I made no move, when they broke off following me, to go after them. They stopped troubling me, I let it go.

Zimmerman sought the kid out, and was only spotted by Martin after he had started keeping an eye on him.

See the difference? I responded to a potential threat directed at me. Was I confrontational? No. I just kept on walking, checking my blind spot, letting them know that I knew they were there. I didn’t act like a brainless victim, but I didn’t pick up a two-by-four and yell at them to back off, either.

My aim wasn’t to defeat the evildoers. It was to reach my dorm safely. I managed that, and I was fine with that. Zimmerman wanted to get that ****ing punk, he wanted to confront him and stop him. Otherwise, why follow?

As for what Rachel said, it’s a plausible reason why Trayvon might have confronted the man, no less plausible than Zimmerman’s suspicion, given that Zimmerman was following him. reading between the lines, she’s saying Trayvon thought Zimmerman was dangerous, and heading back home might have lead that dangerous man to his door-step.

That’s not a hate crime. It wouldn’t be about him being gay or anything like that. It would be about him being a potential threat.

kctim-
I’ve only said that depending on what was true during the fight, Trayvon might have merely been defending himself. I don’t dismiss the idea, though, that he might turned around and unwisely tried to confront Zimmerman for his pursuit.

But if he did, was it hate or malice that drove him? I don’t think so. I think Zimmerman had a lot less reason to be suspicious of Trayvon than Trayvon had to be suspicious of him.

“I know for a fact that when you block a punch, that can bruise your arms and hurt their arms in turn.” Yes, it CAN, but that doesn’t mean always does. You are still only speculating in order to justify the actions of Martin.

No, what I’m doing here is saying that there’s not a lot of evidence that Mr. Zimmerman tried to deflect or impede the unarmed attack on him. If he was getting the ferocious beating he claims, with injuries that a doctor remarked were not consistent with such an extended beating as he describes, then the question is, how many punches and slams actually occurred?

What I’m suggesting is that there’s little evidence for the kind of fight that would justify killing the other opponent, and little evidence that he attempted to defend himself by other means, non-lethal means, before he took that gun out and shot Trayvon.

Why do I insist on this? Because I believe that Zimmerman, having killed an unarmed man, should face a considerable uphill battle in proving that self-defense, and reasonable doubt should have been gauged not on some vague sense of Trayvon being a threat, but on the more substantive question of whether Zimmerman first tried and then failed to defend himself otherwise.

As for the response times? Look, if the response times were regularly forty or fifty minutes, it’s a lot easier to justify defending yourself in this manner, than if you can get a cop in five or six minutes.

Then why did you assume they could be a danger?

They were following me together with their attention on me. If they weren’t following, if I were just going, “oh noez”, I’d be getting paranoid with them just talking with each other, ignoring me.

So, their behavior, like Zimmermans, struck a deep seated chord, a “these folks are looking right at you, keeping pace with you, following your movements.” sort of chord.

“I kept on walking at a relatively steady pace. I did my best to leave what I thought was a risky situation.” Something Martin could have done.

And Zimmerman could have stayed in the car, and let the police keep track of Trayvon after a certain point. Whatever fault you would lay with Trayvon for not getting out of the situation (fault I wouldn’t necessarily absolutely absolve him of), if you’re being fair, you have to realize that Zimmerman did the exact same thing. But he did it first, and for the longest.

I think it’s fair to say, that if Martin did throw the first punch attacking him, Zimmerman first did a lot, with his following and his leaving of the vehicle, to convince Trayvon Martin he need to be confronted.

Had he followed the directions of both Police and the neighborhood watch association, he would likely have just left Trayvon with a memory of a guy who gave him an odd look on the way home.

The question is not whether it could have cost Zimmerman his life if he didn’t stop the assault. The question is, did he use unarmed means to face an unarmed assault before he fell back on the weapon?

Despite the fact that the verdict basically came to the same conclusion as the initial investigation…

The initial investigators recommended manslaughter charges, which the DA shot down.

As far as why I don’t buy his defense?

1) He had a weapon, his victim didn’t.
2) He claims he needed to follow Trayvon in order to see what street he was heading towards, despite the simple layout of the gated community
3) He claims somebody jumped out of bushes that don’t exist. From which direction? Funnily enough, he doesn’t know!
4) He observed no crime.
5) No evidence was found of criminal behavior on Martin’s part, besides, potentially, the beating he gave Zimmerman.
6) He shows very little evidence of a severe beating, and little evidence that he attempted any other defense- no bruising, no counterpunches, etc.

All that adds up to somebody who had to scramble for a story that fit Self Defense or SYG, but whose behavior contributed to the escalation of this episode to homicide. At best, he provoked a guy into assault and battery. At best, had he not shot Trayvon, this would have likely been a plague on both houses sort of judgment, with each punished.

As for your last argument?

There are many people who would respond that the reason why Trayvon Martin died that night was because a black kid wearing a hoodie walking the street at night looks like a thug.

Zimmerman followed the young man almost to his home. This wasn’t simply “Oh, if you walk around in a dress like that, you’ll get raped.” See, when a woman walks around in a dress like that, it doesn’t inspire fears in the would-be rapist that he’s going to be raped instead if he doesn’t sexually assault her first. The would-be rapist is secure in his safety, and any acting out on the impulse the dress creates is entirely unnecessary.

What about a guy following you home, who you might think could harm your family? Martin had no idea that his stalker was simply some in-over his head Neighbhorhood watch volunteer. Had Zimmerman simply reported him and gone home, none of this would have happened.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2013 2:48 PM
Comment #368681
1) He had a weapon, his victim didn’t. 2) He claims he needed to follow Trayvon in order to see what street he was heading towards, despite the simple layout of the gated community 3) He claims somebody jumped out of bushes that don’t exist. From which direction? Funnily enough, he doesn’t know! 4) He observed no crime. 5) No evidence was found of criminal behavior on Martin’s part, besides, potentially, the beating he gave Zimmerman. 6) He shows very little evidence of a severe beating, and little evidence that he attempted any other defense- no bruising, no counterpunches, etc.

All that adds up to somebody who had to scramble for a story that fit Self Defense or SYG, but whose behavior contributed to the escalation of this episode to homicide. At best, he provoked a guy into assault and battery. At best, had he not shot Trayvon, this would have likely been a plague on both houses sort of judgment, with each punished.

Mr. Daugherty, of your 6 statements; Zimmerman did nothing illegal.

Turn lose of the SYG; that wasn’t his defense.

It was a self defense killing and not a homicide.

You have no proof that Zimmerman provoked anyone.

Latest news; Zimmerman pulled 4 people from an overturned SUV. So now he saves lives. The only thing that could be better is if the 4 people were black. That would be icing on the proverbial cake.

Stephen, are you Adrienne’s son? You are a complete fool and the more you blather, the more foolish you sound. You just can’t stand the fact that Zimmerman committed not illegal activities, that they didn’t have enough evidence to convict him, and that he was justifiable found innocent. The criminal at this point is Obama, for race baiting and trying to cause racial unrest.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 22, 2013 3:36 PM
Comment #368685
What about a guy following you home, who you might think could harm your family?

I make sure he doesn’t harm my family. That does not include attacking them outside of the home without cause. He was not on Martin’s family’s property, he was on a public area.

That’s the part you are ignoring, Stephen. Nothing Zimmerman did, no matter what you or I think of him, warranted physical assault. Suggesting that he put himself into that bad situation and could no longer defend himself sets back rape defense decades…

And yes, if you are assaulting someone because you think they are a gay rapist, you are a) crossing the line and breaking the law and b) committing a hate crime as defined by current laws.

The first person who broke a law was Martin. The first person to use violence was Martin. The evidence does not show anything different.

And you want to argue issues with Stand Your Ground, you should find a case that actually uses that law. In case you didn’t realize, Stand Your Ground was put into place to extend self defense to include your own person outside of the home when you don’t have a reasonable ability to escape the situation unharmed. The fact that Zimmerman was on the ground and being beaten is straight up self defense, Stand Your Ground had nothing at all to do here.

Now, if you want to argue self defense laws, feel free. But your argument is very very weak.

Basically, you want to find Zimmerman guilty of SOMETHING because he acted, in your opinion, badly. Thankfully, we live in a world of laws…

The only ones being ‘vigilantee’ about this are the ones who want to penalize/punish Zimmerman even though he broke no laws.

Zimmerman wanted to get that ****ing punk, he wanted to confront him and stop him. Otherwise, why follow?

So he could report Martin’s location to the police, like he said on the 911 call he wanted? If he just wanted to confront and stop Martin, why would he call the police? If that was your intent, calling the police to the location and giving them your name is a VERY BAD IDEA.

You are stepping outside of the realm of logic here, Stephen. I don’t know why, other than you don’t like Zimmerman and want to make him out to be something that the evidence doesn’t match…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 22, 2013 4:20 PM
Comment #368687

Stephen

“I don’t dismiss the idea, though, that he might turned around and unwisely tried to confront Zimmerman for his pursuit.”

By not accepting the evidence and the verdict of the jury who was privy to all of the evidence, you are dismissing Zimmermans account of what occurred that night.

“But if he did, was it hate or malice that drove him?”

Only when asked, Zimmerman described Martin as a black male. Martin described Zimmerman as a cracker.

“I don’t think so. I think Zimmerman had a lot less reason to be suspicious of Trayvon than Trayvon had to be suspicious of him.”

Yes, you THINK that is so. More than likely because it fits the narrative of what you want to have actually happened.

“What I’m suggesting is that there’s little evidence for the kind of fight that would justify killing the other opponent, and little evidence that he attempted to defend himself by other means, non-lethal means, before he took that gun out and shot Trayvon.”

Did he have a reasonable fear for his life? You explain away Martins assault by saying his instinct took over and he ran from the creepy ass cracker. That his instinct took over and he attacked Zimmerman to protect himself from the gay rapist.
Is it not possible that Zimmermans instinct told him his life was being threatened?

”..should have been gauged not on some vague sense of Trayvon being a threat, but on the more substantive question of whether Zimmerman first tried and then failed to defend himself otherwise.”

While I think this is rational, I’m not sure how this could be determined. We would still only have Zimmermans account, the witness saying Martin was on top, the expert testimony about the gunshot.
To me, it seems like you are saying Zimmerman should have been assumed guilty and have to prove his innocence.

“As for the response times? Look, if the response times were regularly forty or fifty minutes, it’s a lot easier to justify defending yourself in this manner, than if you can get a cop in five or six minutes.”

It doesn’t matter if the response time is 1 minute MOST OF THE TIME, when your life is being threatened, you don’t sit around hoping someone will save you before it’s too late.

“if you’re being fair, you have to realize that Zimmerman did the exact same thing.”

Mistakes from both is something almost all of us have been saying.

“But he did it first, and for the longest.”

Irrelevant.

“The question is not whether it could have cost Zimmerman his life if he didn’t stop the assault. The question is, did he use unarmed means to face an unarmed assault before he fell back on the weapon?”

Truth is we don’t know and it is pointless to pretend that we can read Zimmermans mind.
If the question is now about if Zimmerman used excessive force, why didn’t the prosecution bring this up and go after manslaughter?

“The initial investigators recommended manslaughter charges, which the DA shot down.”

Something that is not unheard of.

“1) He had a weapon, his victim didn’t.”

So all people legally carrying a gun are now to be assumed dangerous? Please.

“2) He claims he needed to follow Trayvon in order to see what street he was heading towards, despite the simple layout of the gated community”

No laws were broken and no evidence proves otherwise.

“3) He claims somebody jumped out of bushes that don’t exist. From which direction? Funnily enough, he doesn’t know!”

Because the “simple layout of the community” means everybody should know every street, every tree and every bush. Even at night.
I’m not going to say he was lying or telling the truth, but I’m not going to assume the worse case to fight what I want to have happened.

“4) He observed no crime.”

Nope. He only observed what he considered suspicious activity. Activity that caused him to call 911.

“5) No evidence was found of criminal behavior on Martin’s part, besides, potentially, the beating he gave Zimmerman.”

Nor on Zimmermans part.

“6) He shows very little evidence of a severe beating, and little evidence that he attempted any other defense- no bruising, no counterpunches, etc.”

But he does have wounds from a fight, Martin did not. He also has a witness stating Martin was on top of him beating him.

“At best, he provoked a guy into assault and battery.”

What does that say about Martin if someone following him provokes him to commit assault and battery?

“At best, had he not shot Trayvon, this would have likely been a plague on both houses sort of judgment, with each punished.”

You don’t know that. You give Martin the benefit of doubt and assume he would have stopped, but there is no way of knowing.

“There are many people who would respond that the reason why Trayvon Martin died that night was because a black kid wearing a hoodie walking the street at night looks like a thug.”

And the rest of us are saying his suspicous activity and bad choices are what led to his death.

“What about a guy following you home, who you might think could harm your family?”

If a guy was following me when I was 17, the first person I would run to would have been my father. The safest place for me would have been my home. You are getting desperate here Stephen.

“Martin had no idea that his stalker was simply some in-over his head Neighbhorhood watch volunteer. Had Zimmerman simply reported him and gone home, none of this would have happened.”

Seriously?
You claim Martin had no idea. That the actions of the guy following him was that of a stalker. Then in the very next sentence, you claim Zimmerman should have known that Martin wasn’t a burglar or a rapist. That he should have known nothing would happen if he just went home.

I’m not so sure I would want to live in the same neighborhood as you Stephen. My neighbors and I look out for each other.

Posted by: kctim at July 22, 2013 5:36 PM
Comment #368689

Stephen

So you agree that the trial was fair and you accept the verdict. What is your problem then?

We all think it is terrible that this kid got killed. I don’t see anybody defending Zimmerman’s judgement. But he did not commit murder. Case closed.

BTW - that Zimmerman cannot stop butting in. The news reports that he helped pull and injured man out of a car wreck.

Posted by: CJ at July 22, 2013 6:09 PM
Comment #368690

Had BOTH Martin and Zimmerman been black under the same circumstances as happened; which of the left writing here would be raising doubts about motive, justice, and the laws of Florida?

Obama who is half-white is incorrect in saying that Martin could have been HIS son. Last time I looked, Michelle was also black.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 22, 2013 7:45 PM
Comment #368693

I caught just a few minutes of the Hannity show tonight, and by the way, before the left goes nuts; I NEVER watch Hannity. But as I came into the house, I flipped on the TV and Hannity was interviewing one of the male alternate jurors. He said they had been instructed to base their decision solely on the evidence and feelings or emotions were not to be used when making the decision on whether Zimmerman was guilty or not.

This would mean that Stephen, phx8, and other leftists on WB would have broken the law if they had been on the jury. Stephen and phx8 have stated that the jury got it wrong. They have based their decisions solely on feelings and emotion. Even after the jury found Zimmerman not guilty, the left is still arguing he was guilty; based on what? On emotion and feelings. Stephen cannot give one case in which Zimmerman violated the law and many people besides me has asked him to show I to us. Mr. Daugherty has consistently written lengthy essays on his emotional beliefs and when I question him for evidence, he become belligerent. But others are asking the same thing. Where’s the proof?

It was Jeantel who let the cat out of the bag that Martin circled back to get Zimmerman because he thought Zimmerman was a gay stalker. Which is a hate crime.

By the way, the alternate juror who was interviewed said the there was no evidence that Zimmerman had committed a crime. So the alternate would also have found him not guilty. Everything Mr. Daugherty has said flies in the face of logic. He knows he is wrong, but to save face and to continue to support a racist president who is promoting race division in America, Daugherty continues to make the same claims over and over. He is deaf to the truth.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 22, 2013 9:27 PM
Comment #368697

Here is an interesting bit of information:

“At some point next week, Florida will become the first state in the nation to have 1 million active concealed carry permit holders.

In light of this fact, Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam held a press conference on Wednesday to share the great news and to tout the Sunshine State’s widespread admiration for our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

“[These figures] tell us that Floridians have a great respect and appreciation for their Second Amendment rights, and that firearm ownership, whether for personal protection or for sport, is popular,” Putnam told a room full of reporters.

Currently there are 997,066 active license holders and given the rate at which authorities process applications – more than several thousand per week – it’s expected that the 1 million mark will be reached in the very near future.

To put this in perspective, Florida has 14 million residents who are age-eligible (over 21) for a CCW permit. So, that means one out of every 14 Floridians or 7 percent have CCW permits.”

http://www.guns.com/2012/12/13/florida-will-have-1-million-concealed-carry-permit-holders-by-next-week-video/

I wonder how many armed people are in Florida when all those snow birds go south for the winter?

The article went of to say, that when armed citizens increased, crime decreased.

“It’s great news,” Hammer told the Tampa Bay Times. “When the number of license holders increase, crime decreases. We have a record number of license holders now, and crime is the lowest it’s been in 40 years.”

Posted by: DSP2195 at July 22, 2013 10:16 PM
Comment #368698

Poor Stephen Daugherty, Obama, and Eric Holder; it seems nothing is going right for them:

Immediately after the verdict, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero fired off a statement that said, “Last night’s verdict casts serious doubt on whether the legal system truly provides equal protection of the laws to everyone regardless of race or ethnicity. This case reminds us that it is imperative that the Department of Justice thoroughly examine whether the Martin shooting was a federal civil rights violation or hate crime.”

Cooler heads have apparently prevailed, with the ACLU now telling Attorney General Eric Holder that pursuing federal charges would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution.

While it’s likely that Holder had to look up this thing called the Constitution, he probably got the message loud and clear: His witch hunt against George Zimmerman doesn’t have the support of the ACLU.

ACLU Washington Office Director Laura Murphy wrote to Holder, “The ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction. A jury found Zimmerman not guilty, and that should be the end of the criminal case.”

After the public backlash and the repudiation of his fellow attorneys, now Romero is singing a different tune.

“I think there are real serious concerns about going back on the double jeopardy policy,” Romero told Politico. “It is a slippery slope that if you allow the government to prosecute individuals for one crime and then fail and try again, it creates the wrong incentives for the criminal justice system. Good civil libertarians will differ on this issue, like lot of our issues that divide the membership or the leadership, whether it’s campaign finance or whether it’s civil rights prosecutions after a failed trial.”

I commented several times that Obama and Holder were lying to the NAACP by promising to go after Zimmerman with civil rights charges. Poor Mr. Daugherty, who believed Obama and Holder. Stephen will be the last man standing who is calling for charges on civil rights violations.

By the way Stephen, Zimmerman is armed again. Holder kept his weapon as evidence, but like minded, Constitution believing American patriots have purchased him another weapon. Stephen, don’t it just kill you to be on the wrong side again?

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 22, 2013 10:29 PM
Comment #368700

Political Hostage, notice how that pesky Constitution is consistently getting in the way of the liberal agenda?

Posted by: Cannelure at July 22, 2013 10:45 PM
Comment #368701

I honestly hate to keep hogging up space in Mr. Daugherty’s post, but his comments are so asinine it requires rebuttal. His continued claims that SYG laws, which were never used in the Zimmerman defense, should be repealed, based upon Obama’s claims that they should be repealed. Which claims Mr. Daugherty bought hook, line, and sinker.

Obama Voted to Strengthen Illinois’s Stand Your Ground Law in 2004

President Obama spent part of his surprise appearance at last Friday’s White House press briefing urging that the Stand Your Ground laws that exist in 31 states be reexamined. But only nine years ago, in the Illinois state senate, he co-sponsored a bill that strengthened his state’s 1961 Stand Your Ground law.

“It may be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations, confrontations, and tragedies as we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations,” Obama said last Friday. “I know that there’s been commentary about the fact that Stand Your Ground laws in Florida were not used as a defense of the case. On the other hand, if we’re sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed has a right to use those firearms even if there’s a way for them to exit from the situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we’d like to see?”

“And for those who resist that idea that we should think about these Stand Your Ground laws, I just have to ask these people to consider if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk, and do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened?” he asked.

He went on to say, “and if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.”

But the Illinois Review says Obama didn’t seem to have any of those concerns when in 2004 he co-sponsored S.B. 2386, which broadened the state’s Stand Your Ground law “by shielding the person who was attacked from being sued in civil court by perpetrators or their estates when a ’stand your ground’ defense is used in protecting his or her person, dwelling or other property.”

S.B. 2386 passed the Illinois state senate by a 56–0 vote on March 25, 2004. It sailed through the state house with only two “nay” votes. Both chambers were controlled by Democrats.

Stand Your Ground laws weren’t always much of a partisan issue. Florida’s law passed in 2005 after being approved unanimously in the state senate and on a 94–20 vote in the state house.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 22, 2013 10:46 PM
Comment #368702

Political Hostage-
SYG played a role in jury instruction, as well as being the reason why the authorities originally declined to prosecute him. And by the way? A self defense killing is a justified homicide. You are aware, aren’t you, that homicide is not simply another word for murder?

As far as proof that Zimmerman provoked somebody? The account of the prosecution witness indicates that Zimmerman made the young man fear for his safety.

Motive wise, there aren’t a lot of other reasons for attacking Zimmerman that make sense, given the facts. There’s no claim that Martin was trying to rob him, especially since he was that close to home. Martin and him were strangers, otherwise. And you don’t buy tea and skittle hoping to simply run into somebody to beat down.

As for your “latest news?” A man can both take lives and save lives in a single lifetime. Many serial killers worked as nurses and doctors. Sociopaths are common in the operating room, in particular because they make split second decisions with very little emotional investment to lead them to fear the outcome.

You didn’t dispute number one. Do you realize that in self-defense laws, proportionality is often a concern? Why else does Zimmerman claim repeated head bashes, and a flurry of fists? He has to convince people that he was really in danger, despite the fact that he had the power just about in his back pocket to end Trayvon Martin’s life in seconds.

You didn’t dispute the fact that he claimed he needed to see a street he was heading to, despite the fact that he lived there, and there weren’t that many streets to speak of- meaning that he almost certainly lied about why he got out of the vehicle. Now that I think of it, would you consider that illegal? Lying to investigators?

You didn’t dispute the fact that there weren’t any bushes for Trayvon to jump out of, or that he had inconsistent to non-existent memory of where he was ambushed from.

You don’t dispute that Martin wasn’t caught in the act, doing something illegal that might justify the attention paid to him, the following. You don’t dispute that nothing was found on Martin to indicate he was going to break into the place.

And you don’t dispute the facts that undermine the basis of his self-defense claim.

And once again, you talk legal and illegal.

Now, you’re claiming that because he saves some lives, he must be a spotless person, morally speaking. No, it doesn’t. Even sociopaths can be willing to save people, for their own reasons.

Which is not to say the rescue has to mean nothing because he’s a killer.

As for being Adrienne’s son? Afraid not. My mother would be surprised to hear such news, to be sure. Why do you bring it up? Because you want to tie up all the people you consider hostile opponents into one tight, neat bow of a conspiracy?

As for Obama? What race baiting? Oh, I see, he mentioned race in a way that doesn’t pretend like everything’s fine, and people are being treated equally!

The cold hard facts say that’s not happening. But what did Obama say? Did he say Zimmerman deserved to fry, and that somebody should take out his cracker ass? No. Did he say that the black man will never get a fair shake from the white man? No. Did he call the jurors or defense lawyers racists? No.

Instead, he spoke of his own experiences with being watched for no reason besides simple suspicion of him, talked about the truth, which is that many African Americans have gone through the same thing. He said people should consider that when they’re dealing with the response to the verdict, to the case in the first place.

The real race baiter here is you, because you’re trying to make it look like Obama’s trying to stir up trouble, simply because he talked about race. He did nothing to create racial unrest.

Rhinehold-

I make sure he doesn’t harm my family. That does not include attacking them outside of the home without cause. He was not on Martin’s family’s property, he was on a public area.

If it’s a public area, Martin has a right to be there, correct? SYG extends to folks like that. Also, that first sentence contradicts itself. Put simply, you’re saying protecting his family would be a valid pursuit, but oh, attacking the person who I think might be a danger to me and my family before he can reach them?

That’s your cause!

It may very well be that Martin was not justified in trying to clobber him. But to be frank, I think you’re thinking too much in legal terms, and not enough in simple psychological terms.

By the way, there are ways of asking for it that are both considered perfectly acceptable defenses in case of being charged with assault. Nobody rapes somebody else in self defense, but plenty of people hit back at people or threaten them in order to ward off an attack or aggressive behavior.

You’re just trying to score propaganda points, and you’re using a ridiculous claim that provocation doesn’t exist as a defense in these kinds of cases, or at least a mitigating factor.

If you feel somebody might be trying to assault you, you are entitled to defend yourself.

As for the evidence? Can you tell from the marks on somebody’s face who attacked first? I’ll leave you to consider that for a moment. You do realize, don’t you, that an attempt to swing at somebody can be seen as reason to actually hit back?

Quit with the melodramatics. Zimmerman is free, found not guilty. I’m not going to demand that the court retract its verdict. But I want people to do more than just think in these brittle, rigid-minded ways about the case.

The only ones being ‘vigilantee’ about this are the ones who want to penalize/punish Zimmerman even though he broke no laws.

The police officers on the scene recommended prosecution.
The fact they didn’t at least indict him, and feed him through the system then was the reason it all of a sudden became a national cause.

Zimmerman wanted to get that ****ing punk, he wanted to confront him and stop him. Otherwise, why follow? So he could report Martin’s location to the police, like he said on the 911 call he wanted? If he just wanted to confront and stop Martin, why would he call the police? If that was your intent, calling the police to the location and giving them your name is a VERY BAD IDEA.

Not if you think you can get away with it. Not if you think you’re doing them a favor, and they’ll appreciate it. Yes, he did do his case a whole lot of good by calling the police. But as I’ve demonstrated, he showed a number of indications of not caring to constrain his behavior. Put simply, he could have simply told the police what way Trayvon was going. It wasn’t as if there that many ways in and out of the neighborhood.

Folks say, oh, both sides made mistakes. It becomes sort of boilerplate, a way of avoiding rather than addressing the content. To me, if we’re going to look at this in a truly logical way, we have to have content to test.

To take his claim of self-defense seriously, we need to factor in the presence of the weapon, and ask ourselves what was going on which was so bad that he needed that much firepower to do the job. Others can and have defended themselves with less.

We see a story where he’s being beaten up, but rather than it being a few times, enough to give him a bloody nose, and a couple of scalp wounds, he instead claims a repeated, savage, brutal beating. Why does he tell the story that exaggerates things, rather than letting on that he was barely that injured?

Because if he doesn’t explain why he needs the firepower, it becomes a primary weakness in his case for self defense. So does his pursuit, which is why he tries to explain it way as being more of a search for a traffic sign (in a neighborhood with very few streets he should be very familiar with.) He claims an ambush, but can’t fill in the details on what happened all too clearly, even inventing bushes you can’t find near the crime scene for him to jump out of, from a direction he’s not even clear about. Why’s that? Because if he did actually confront him, face to face, rather than getting ambushed, it again undermines his self-defense claim.

It’s that collection of things that undermine that claim that are what provoked my disdain for his story.

More tomorrow, I’m tired.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 23, 2013 12:36 AM
Comment #368706

kctim-
Damn right I’m dismissing Zimmerman’s version of the story. It’s holier than his underwear. The evidence does not unambiguously support Zimmerman’s story. In fact, it many places it contradicts it. You keep on saying “the evidence”, “the evidence”, “the evidence”, but that just seems to me to be your attempt to just pound your conclusion home regardless of whether elements of his story are holding up.

I mean, I keep offering them, but they don’t get acknowledged except to say “everything he did was legal.” It doesn’t occur to you that one, that about half the jurors actually wanted to convict. I know the conservatives all want us to believe that the juror who went off in search of a book deal represented all the jurors, but even in those chambers, people were divided. But you folks don’t have tolerance for disagreement

As far as the relative justifications of suspicion, what Zimmerman saw was a guy ambling along, looking at the houses as he want along. That was his reason to follow him. What Martin saw, if you can imagine it, was somebody creeping along at walking speed in a vehicle, staring at him all along. Young men, by the way, have been the victims of serial killers before.

You talk about reasonable fear for his life, and maybe in those last few moments of the interaction between the two, Zimmerman had it. But up to that fight, there’s good reason to believe he really shook up Martin, had him on edge. And before that? All Martin did was walk along a series of houses in a hoodie looking at them.

The key component of self defense is who is threatening whom. It’s also, who’s life is in danger, and why.

There’s little dispute that Martin was on top, but the autopsy result don’t show much in the way of a big fight. There’s little proof of a sustained beating, but also little proof that anything hit Martin back, even in self defense, aside from that bullet.

Now you say that Zimmerman should not be assumed guilty, but let’s get one thing straight here: he is Martin’s killer. Nobody disputes that. In a straight, logical sense, he is guilty of that, and had he not had this defense, for one reason or another, he’d be convicted of it, having admitted it at the scene. This is and always was an affirmative defense, and about half the jury didn’t buy it. It takes a full jury to convict, though. It’s funny to have Republicans and Conservatives celebrate what is essentially a killer getting off on a technicality, but I think that’s what happened here. The jury was convinced in the end that under the arcane, poorly worded law, Zimmerman’s defense was valid.

You push the mistakes were made notion, but without Zimmerman’s mistakes, Martin lacks motive and opportunity to attack him, and not simply because Martin was looking for a cracker to attack and just found him. Other testimony tells us that he was genuinely scared and concerned for his wellbeing and that of his family.

Zimmerman’s actions set the scene. If he had simply told him the guy was heading for the back gate and left it at that, he would have done his duty, and the police would have gone looking for him there. They might have never actually seen Martin, but it would not have been the worse thing in the world for Zimmerman’s ****ing punk to get away that night, since he never actually committed a crime.

The question of whether Zimmerman used unarmed means to face an unarmed assault first, We can look at Martin’s nearly pristine body, and say that he doesn’t seem to have been in much of a fight. The doctors say the same about Zimmerman’s injuries. Therefore, the fight didn’t last long before Martin was shot, and with Martin’s lack of injuries in return, even along the arms, we can’t even really say that Zimmerman was doing anything when he was getting hit but reaching for his gun.

Like the prosecutors say, you’re not allowed to reach for a weapons just because you’re losing a fight.

As for your responses?

1) A self defense claim is based on the notion that whoever’s claiming it was in a position where their life was under threat. Legally carrying it or not, when he took it out, his life was in considerably less danger than Trayvon Martin’s, and that’s just common sense.

2) No laws were broken is all you can say? It speaks to a certain level of after the fact reconsideration of his actions, in light of his future self-defense plea. If you go end up looking for the fight you end up in, your self-defense argument is undermined, because whatever anxieties you got once you were in it, you put yourself in that danger first, willingly.

So, what does he do? He tells people the reason he’s getting out is in order to find out what the street is. But he knows damn well what the street is. He’s lying to investigators in order to improve his self-defense case.

3) The Bushes are a contradictory part of the lie. To wit, in order to end up at the fight, Zimmerman has to go way beyond where there was an actual street. The scene of the crime is tucked behind a row of houses. The sidewalk his head got knocked on is behind a row of houses. If he was just looking for a street sign, he’d have stayed much closer to his SUV, and not gone behind the houses where there was no street sign. Ah, but what about the next street over, perhaps he was looking for that?

The problem with that argument is that the next street over, Retreat View Circle, is essentially a loop that goes completely around the neighborhood. When he called the police, he seemed pretty damn sure of where the landmarks were, and where Martin was moving towards. Why did he know that? Because he knew the streets.

He lied. Why did he lie? Because self-defense claims are undermined if you seek out the fatal confrontation. He has to be jumped, rather than getting into a shoving match, which he loses, and gets beaten for.

4) and 5) The simple truth is, the only thing motivating this whole thing was Zimmerman’s suspicion. If I have the 911 call right, Zimmerman pursued him across almost half the neighborhood, several hundred feet, with Trayvon on foot all the way. In the rain.

That’s rather extensive pursuit for a fellow who was just observing and reporting.

and 6)

The whole point of exaggerating the beating he got was to paint a picture, essentially, of this teenager trying to beat his head in. Otherwise, his claim of self-defense is again diminished. You don’t get to pull a gun simply because somebody’s punched you in the nose, much less shoot somebody.

Zimmerman’s selectively lied and embellished his story to enhance his self defense case, and the evidence of that systematic “improvement” of his story is all over the place.

Political Hostage-
John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc. He’s a teenager being pursued across half a neighbhood by a stranger.

You want to talk about emotions rather than evidence… well, that’s what you’ve been doing all along, with appeals to his juvenile delinquency and drug use.

But the evidence says that there was a lot more pursuit than Zimmerman said, and that many of his statements to police were convenient lies.

As for being deaf to the truth? The truth is, you’ve got a hose of raw sewage connected the back of your head, and you spew it without a second thought of what you’re actually saying. Our president has never talked about anything but UNDERSTANDING between the races. He hasn’t played on racial anxieties like Republicans have, shouting about welfare and invaders from outside. He wasn’t the one who’s tried to prove himself foreign born, or who keeps on mentioning Kenyan heritage as a way to disparage him.

You folks talk about how my claim that Zimmerman’s pursuit provoked Trayvon was tantamount to saying a woman asked to get raped by wearing a sexy dress. But really, this is the better equivalent: the President has been labeled divisive, and had divisiveness read into his comments regardless of how conciliatory and empathetic his comments were. And why? Because he discusses the topic in a way that acknowledges the tensions involved, and doesn’t conclude that they’ve all gone away, and the blacks and Latinos out there are just stirring up trouble.

The President is not a race baiter. His cynical opponents are.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 23, 2013 8:38 AM
Comment #368707

Mr. Daugherty, SYG played no role in the trial of Zimmerman; the only part SYG plays in this conversation is that Obama chose to inject it; and you , being the simpleton who carries the water for Obama is more than willing to promote the narrative of the latest liberal talking point.

By the “prosecution witness” are you referring to Jeantel, who had Martin convinced the person watching him was a gay? Which led to Martin attacking Zimmerman for the purpose of gay bashing.

Why else does Zimmerman claim repeated head bashes, and a flurry of fists? He has to convince people that he was really in danger, despite the fact that he had the power just about in his back pocket to end Trayvon Martin’s life in seconds.

Daugherty, you really are quite the idiot. Zimmerman does not have to show any injuries in order to qualify for self defense. He only has to feel he was in eminent danger. You or no one else can determine what was in the mid of Zimmerman, unless you are adding mind reading to your plethora of accomplishments?

So after all this time and all the questions of what Zimmerman did that was illegal; you come up with “he lied to the police about why he got out of his car”. Great Stephen, was this lie also used by the prosecution; or have you discovered this all by yourself? Perhaps, since you are enough like Adrienne to be her son, you could also (as she) call for a retrial based upon your new found evidence?

Re/Obama the race baiter; help me Stephen to remember when the president of the United States ever threw himself into the midst of a local state murder case. You will never convince anyone on WB that Obama did anything other than turn this into race. Now you can act stupid all you want and say I am the race baiter; but we have one difference; you are a little white boy and I am a 75 year old black man. By your own standards, I have the right to talk about race and you don’t. I am much more familiar with race problems than you. As usual, the little white boys know all about race problems; did you grow up in SC on a sharecropper’s farm in the 40-50’s? No, you grew up in an Irish/American’s white community. Your not talking to one of your pinhead video game playing leftist buddies. My 75 years of being black has given me the experience to know when a black man (not you) is talking racist smack.

Instead, he spoke of his own experiences with being watched for no reason besides simple suspicion of him, talked about the truth, which is that many African Americans have gone through the same thing. He said people should consider that when they’re dealing with the response to the verdict, to the case in the first place.

The real race baiter here is you, because you’re trying to make it look like Obama’s trying to stir up trouble, simply because he talked about race. He did nothing to create racial unrest.

His own experiences, when??? Barack Obama was born and raised in Hawaii. From ages 6-10, he lived with his mother and step-father in Indonesia, until later returning to Hawaii to attend the prestigious Punahou School from sixth grade through high school. When his mother became ill, his maternal grandparents came to Hawaii to care for him, which they continued to do until he graduated in 1979. Are you trying to convince us he was profiled in Indonesia or Hawaii (a place of multiculturalism)?

1979, places Obama in the self claimed situation that “he could have been Trayvon”; and the “35 years ago” places him in the same time zone of Martin’s approximate age in 1979. So Obama is blowing smoke and you Stephen are sucking it in. He never had a life like Martin, and if he had a son, his son would be just like his daughters, living a life of privilege. No one believes you crap Stephen.

So let’s get back to the main point of your post; why don’t you provide us with evidence that Zimmerman broke the law?

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 23, 2013 8:54 AM
Comment #368708

Stephen, 99.9% of your rhetoric is pure BS; but let’s look at the only thing you said that has relevance:

No laws were broken is all you can say.

No Stephen, what we are all (meaning all conservative/Republican/libertarians) reading your post are asking, is for you to provide evidence that Zimmerman committed an illegal act. It’s not a hard question unless you have nothing. In that case, you will go on and on about what’s right, what’s fair, about feelings, innuendoes, suppositions, hypotheticals…Oh, wait a minute, that is what you have done throughout this whole post.

What crimes did he do, but I will make it easy for you…what crimes was he convicted of? I will make it even easier, since Obama (when he made this about race) called for Holder to investigate and charge Zimmerman with civil rights violations; what civil rights violations will he be charged with? Bet you can’t find any…

Stephen, will you quit talking us to death, and deal with the facts?

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 23, 2013 9:16 AM
Comment #368710
Rhinehold-
I make sure he doesn’t harm my family. That does not include attacking them outside of the home without cause. He was not on Martin’s family’s property, he was on a public area.
If it’s a public area, Martin has a right to be there, correct?

No one every said he didn’t have a right to be there.

SYG extends to folks like that.

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that because Zimmerman was following Martin FROM A DISTANCE that Martin had a right to beat him to a bloody pulp?

I think you should really look at what a Stand Your Ground law says, not what you imagine it says, before you take on the debate to eliminate it, don’t you think?

“Florida law, as of 2005, includes a “stand your ground” provision, under which a person, who reasonably fears death or great bodily harm (the ordinary deadly self-defense requirement) is relieved of the common-law requirement that one first attempt to retreat, if one can safely do so, before using deadly force.”

Also, that first sentence contradicts itself.

Actually, it doesn’t.

Put simply, you’re saying protecting his family would be a valid pursuit, but oh, attacking the person who I think might be a danger to me and my family before he can reach them?

If the belief that the danger is REASONABLE. I’m sorry, but someone following you from a distance does not constitute reasonable danger to your or your family’s life. Martin profiled Zimmerman as a gay rapist, Zimmerman profiled Martin as a potential house thief. They were both most likely wrong, but no where in the events did either one of them put the other one, or their families, in danger until Martin attacked Zimmerman.

If someone is wanting to get to me or my family and I’m safely inside of my home, and the person wanting to hurt me is out on the public street, I don’t have a right to physically assault them. If they come on to my property or attempt to enter the home, I do. That displays a crossing of the line that helps turns a wild suspicion into a reasonable one.

Where SYG comes into play, the person has to be reasonably in fear for their life outside of the home with no safe exit strategy.

At no time in the chain of events did Zimmerman pose a threat to Martin. Following someone from a distance is not a threat to anyone, if it is done more than once it is a crime, but simply watching where someone in public goes so you can report their location to the police to handle is the preferred method to dealing with these things, no going out and attacking them because you think they are a gay rapist…

It may very well be that Martin was not justified in trying to clobber him. But to be frank, I think you’re thinking too much in legal terms, and not enough in simple psychological terms.

I’m speaking in human terms, no one has the right to initiate force against another unless in self defense or in the defense of another. Period. That Martin was homophobic enough to assume that someone following him was doing it because he wanted to rape him is not a valid reason to attack someone. Period.

You’re just trying to score propaganda points, and you’re using a ridiculous claim that provocation doesn’t exist as a defense in these kinds of cases, or at least a mitigating factor.

It is not ‘ridiculous’ to say that no one has a right to attack another person because they have an unfounded belief that they are a gay rapist when that person is doing nothing more than merely following you at a distance.

I can understand 100% that Martin may have been a ‘creeped out’ and confused that someone was following him, but there are other ways to handle that situation, many others, that do NOT involve initiation of force.

If you feel somebody might be trying to assault you, you are entitled to defend yourself.

Yes you are. But that ‘feeling’ has to be reasonable. In Martin’s case it was not. Following someone from a distance is not a valid reasonable reason to assume someone wants to attack you. The reason can’t be homophobia…

As for the evidence? Can you tell from the marks on somebody’s face who attacked first? I’ll leave you to consider that for a moment. You do realize, don’t you, that an attempt to swing at somebody can be seen as reason to actually hit back?

We can only go by the evidence we have Stephen. You are trying to infer something because of ‘how you feel’, not based on the facts or logic.

Quit with the melodramatics.

There is only one person being melodramatic here, Stephen, and it isn’t me.

Zimmerman is free, found not guilty. I’m not going to demand that the court retract its verdict. But I want people to do more than just think in these brittle, rigid-minded ways about the case.

Again, the only one doing that is *YOU*. Everyone else who has tried reasoning with you has stated that Zimmerman made some stupid mistakes. But those mistakes did not warrant him being beaten. You keep making assumptions that aren’t backed up with any evidence, because you want them to be true. Wanting something to be true and actually having any kind of evidence that they are true are two completely different things.

The only ones being ‘vigilantee’ about this are the ones who want to penalize/punish Zimmerman even though he broke no laws.

The police officers on the scene recommended prosecution.
The fact they didn’t at least indict him, and feed him through the system then was the reason it all of a sudden became a national cause.

And irrelevant. I’m sorry Stephen, but police officers are not the people who are responsible for making that decision. You have to have probable cause to make an arrest, the police did not have that. As evidenced by what they presented at trial. A Grand Jury would have thrown the case out before it went to trail (which is why one was never sought, against proper procedure).

Zimmerman passed a ‘stress test’ the night of the shooting and the police collected no evidence that contradicted Zimmerman’s claim of self defense.

Zimmerman wanted to get that ****ing punk, he wanted to confront him and stop him. Otherwise, why follow?
So he could report Martin’s location to the police, like he said on the 911 call he wanted? If he just wanted to confront and stop Martin, why would he call the police? If that was your intent, calling the police to the location and giving them your name is a VERY BAD IDEA.
Not if you think you can get away with it.

You’re really stepping out of the bounds of a) facts we have and b) logic here Stephen.

Not if you think you’re doing them a favor, and they’ll appreciate it. Yes, he did do his case a whole lot of good by calling the police. But as I’ve demonstrated, he showed a number of indications of not caring to constrain his behavior.

No, you haven’t demonstrated. The prosecution didn’t demonstrate. There is no evidentiary belief that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the 911 caller said they didn’t need him to do that. Even if had, doing so doesn’t suggest in any way that he wanted to harm, personally detain or otherwise get anywhere near Martin.

Put simply, he could have simply told the police what way Trayvon was going. It wasn’t as if there that many ways in and out of the neighborhood.

He could have done a lot of things different. As we have all said. But it doesn’t warrant things escalating as they did until Martin attacked Zimmerman.

If Zimmerman wanted to show himself to the police as you suggest, he would have waited to call the police until he had Martin in custody, otherwise he would have looked the fool to waste their time having them come out and then be able to find him, etc. Again, your suggestion of what happened (not based on anything factual) is against logic…

Occam’s Razor is in full effect here, Stephen…

Zimmerman told the police what happened, his accounts match what the forensics told us, he passed a stress test the night of the event, the last person to talk to Martin has told us that he felt that Zimmerman was a gay rapist and he attacked him because he didn’t want him to ‘get to his brother’, the witnesses tell us that Martin was on top of Zimmerman while Zimmerman was crying for help, an estimated 14 times in 38 seconds.

Folks say, oh, both sides made mistakes. It becomes sort of boilerplate, a way of avoiding rather than addressing the content. To me, if we’re going to look at this in a truly logical way, we have to have content to test.

To take his claim of self-defense seriously, we need to factor in the presence of the weapon, and ask ourselves what was going on which was so bad that he needed that much firepower to do the job. Others can and have defended themselves with less.

And there, Stephen, is the crux of your issue with this case. A gun was involved. Had he NOT had that gun, he could very well have been dead now. And you would have been ok with that.

We see a story where he’s being beaten up, but rather than it being a few times, enough to give him a bloody nose, and a couple of scalp wounds, he instead claims a repeated, savage, brutal beating. Why does he tell the story that exaggerates things, rather than letting on that he was barely that injured?

I’m really getting tired of this argument that he was ‘barely injured’ when when the evidence shows that he had a broken nose (that doesn’t happen easily) and was bleeding from the back of his head.

IT DOESN’T MATTER. He doesn’t even have to be physically touched in order to use self defense, Stephen, the fact that he was is all that is needed here.

You keep saying that he should have just taken the beating he deserved. It is starting to make me ill because I’m starting to actually believe that YOU believe it and aren’t just using it as a stupid attempt to make your case.

Because if he doesn’t explain why he needs the firepower, it becomes a primary weakness in his case for self defense.

He has explained why he ‘needed that firepower’. It was ‘I’m a citizen of the United States and I have a right to defend myself’.

That’s all the ‘reason’ he needs. But, let’s go further. He was a fairly short guy who was trying to keep his neighborhood safe from people who were often bigger than him and he didn’t want to have his life in danger while he was trying to help protect his neighbors and neighborhood from going the way of a ghetto…

So does his pursuit, which is why he tries to explain it way as being more of a search for a traffic sign (in a neighborhood with very few streets he should be very familiar with.) He claims an ambush, but can’t fill in the details on what happened all too clearly, even inventing bushes you can’t find near the crime scene for him to jump out of, from a direction he’s not even clear about. Why’s that? Because if he did actually confront him, face to face, rather than getting ambushed, it again undermines his self-defense claim.

Or, he could be a human being instead of an allknowing Monday Morning Quarterback like you, who is unable to say for certain some things that happened in a split second when he wasn’t expecting it. Trust me, I’ve been ‘jumped’ and that moment when things start to happen, many times you are very foggy and confused on because your brain doesn’t process that much information that fast accurately.

I’m sorry that he’s not as good as you seem to think you would be in that case, Stephen, perhaps your autism allows your brain to work like that, but for many others of us, him being confused about some of the details of being jumped is reasonable and expected. And not a sign that he his lying about anything.

I like how you discount the stress test he took that night as well, because your monday morning quarterbacking is much more accurate than some silly bit of science like that…

It’s that collection of things that undermine that claim that are what provoked my disdain for his story.

No, what provoked your disdain is because you were told to disdain it and he used a gun you don’t think he should have been allowed to have. That’s pretty much it, isn’t it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 23, 2013 12:08 PM
Comment #368711

Stephen

The problem is that you are looking for and creating holes in order to dismiss Zimmermans version of what happened.
I have not said the evidence “unambiguously supports Zimmerman.” I have said the evidence does not show Zimmerman to have been the aggressor, that he committed cold blooded murder, simply because Martin was black.
But then, I don’t have any reason to want this to have been racial so I have no need for it to have been murder.

I have acknowledged your ideas, but as it has been pointed out to you many times, they are based on assumptions, what ifs, should of, could of and would of’s.

There is no great conspiracy to convince people that one juror speaks for all the jurors. The verdict they came to speaks for itself. But instead of asking yourselves WHY half the jurors who wanted to convict but didn’t, you guys come up with theories about why you think they didn’t. Racist judge, racist jurors, lazy prosecution, the NRA?

My keeping up with this back and forth despite your constant repeating of your assumptions shows my tolerance for disagreement, Stephen.

“As far as the relative justifications of suspicion, what Zimmerman saw was a guy ambling along, looking at the houses as he want along.”

Nothing but more speculation to portray Martin as an innocent child doing nothing. Truth is all we know is that Martins actions caused Zimmerman to call 911.

“That was his reason to follow him. What Martin saw, if you can imagine it, was somebody creeping along at walking speed in a vehicle, staring at him all along.”

So someone walking slowly along and looking into houses is not suspicous, but someone driving slowly along is supicious?

“Young men, by the way, have been the victims of serial killers before.”

Alot more often, they have been the aggressors in attacks, robberies, sexual assault and, in this neighborhood, known for B&E.

“But up to that fight, there’s good reason to believe he really shook up Martin, had him on edge.”

Quite possible, but that still doesn’t give him permission to attack someone. What’s interesting is how it is so easy for you to blame Zimmerman for all of Martins actions in order to absolve Martin of any wrongdoing whatsoever.

“And before that? All Martin did was walk along a series of houses in a hoodie looking at them.”

You forgot to add that he was also only eating Skittles and dreaming of puppies and rainbows, before an evil white guy came up and shot him in cold blood.

“The key component of self defense is who is threatening whom. It’s also, who’s life is in danger, and why.”

Somebody on top of you and swinging away is a threat to you. Your life is in danger when you fear for your life.

“Now you say that Zimmerman should not be assumed guilty, but let’s get one thing straight here: he is Martin’s killer.”

You’re right, nobody, not even Zimmerman, has said he did not kill Martin. That does not mean he is guilty of murder or that he should be considered guilty until proven innocent of murder.

“It’s funny to have Republicans and Conservatives celebrate what is essentially a killer getting off on a technicality, but I think that’s what happened here.”

Hearing the evidence and agreeing with the verdict is hardly reason to claim some kind of celebration is going on. IF you could prove your theories, 99% of those who agree with the verdict would change their opinion.

“The jury was convinced in the end that under the arcane, poorly worded law, Zimmerman’s defense was valid.”

So how would you change that law so that you could convict Zimmerman for what you think happened?

“You push the mistakes were made notion, but without Zimmerman’s mistakes, Martin lacks motive and opportunity to attack him”

True, but without Martins mistakes, Zimmerman lacks motive and opportunity. The difference is that I am willing to acknowledge BOTH.

“1) A self defense claim is based on the notion that whoever’s claiming it was in a position where their life was under threat. Legally carrying it or not, when he took it out, his life was in considerably less danger than Trayvon Martin’s, and that’s just common sense.”

Just common sense? You have no idea what Zimmerman was thinking and you claim somebody on top of you does not present a danger. And you think that is common sense?

“2) No laws were broken is all you can say?”

Because none were. You intentionally ignore that fact to push your speculation that Zimmerman was looking for the fight and that Martin was justified in his actions.

“But he knows damn well what the street is.”

You assume he knows what the street is.

“He’s lying to investigators in order to improve his self-defense case.”

You assume he has an ulterior motive.

“3)If he was just looking for a street sign, he’d have stayed much closer to his SUV, and not gone behind the houses where there was no street sign. Ah, but what about the next street over, perhaps he was looking for that?”

Well that convinces me. Zimmerman just has to be guilty because he didn’t do things as you think he did or should have done.

“He lied. Why did he lie? Because self-defense claims are undermined if you seek out the fatal confrontation. He has to be jumped, rather than getting into a shoving match, which he loses, and gets beaten for.”

I have actually watched this talking point evolve, was even kicked off a progressive site for asking for proof, lol. Of course, the latest speculating says Zimmerman grabbed Martins hoodie string from behind and then Martin fell on top of Zimmerman.

“4) and 5) The simple truth is, the only thing motivating this whole thing was Zimmerman’s suspicion. If I have the 911 call right, Zimmerman pursued him across almost half the neighborhood, several hundred feet, with Trayvon on foot all the way. In the rain.”

You have part of the 911 call right, the other parts you intentionally ignore. Like the parts about Martin staring at him. Martin starting to approach him with his hand in his waistband. Martin fleeing.
Nothing suspicous about any of that, is there.

“That’s rather extensive pursuit for a fellow who was just observing and reporting.”

A fellow whose neighborhood had become a target for criminals, something you guys love to ignore.

“and 6)
You don’t get to pull a gun simply because somebody’s punched you in the nose, much less shoot somebody.”

What if they jump on top of you after punching you in the nose, and start violently shaking you? Would you permit them to defend themselves then? Or would you do what you are doing here and convict them for not doing what you think they should have done?

“Zimmerman’s selectively lied and embellished his story to enhance his self defense case, and the evidence of that systematic “improvement” of his story is all over the place.”

That could very well be the case, Stephen. And when you can prove it, I will happily change my mind. Until then, I will accept the known evidence, the tests and the verdict.

Posted by: kctim at July 23, 2013 2:43 PM
Comment #368712

Rhinehold states: But that ‘feeling’ has to be reasonable. In Martin’s case it was not. Following someone from a distance is not a valid reasonable reason to assume someone wants to attack you.

Really? Why not? I think I am allowed to assume almost anything if a complete stranger starts following me for no apparent reason. Even more so if that stranger does not identify him/herself.

I mean think about it, you are walking to the store at night and a guy in a truck starts following you. If he does not ask you for directions or does not say why he is following you, I think is it not more than reasonable for you to assume that he may want to do harm to you. I mean why the hell else is he following you? In other words, who is displaying aggressive behavior, you or the complete stranger that for some reason is following you? Is it illegal for him to do so? No, but to say it is not reasonable to feel threatened by this behavior seems bizarre to me.

If some stranger started following my daughter at night on a walk to the store I sure as hell am going to assume they mean harm to her.

Posted by: t at July 23, 2013 3:01 PM
Comment #368713

Political Hostage-
The SYG law changed not merely SYG, but the Self-Defense law in general. It is also the basic reason why there was a delay in the prosecution, the delay that made it a national controversy long before Obama commented on it.

Put plainly, Trayvon Martin thought he was being stalked by a criminal. Did he have any reason to think otherwise? Was Zimmerman rolling in a cop-car, wearing a police uniform or a badge? No. Nothing existed there to identify him as the good guy you think he is, and profiling Martin according to his prejudices as to what a criminal looked like led Zimmerman to behave precisely like a kid like Trayvon would expect a creepy stalker looking to do him harm to look.

Daugherty, you really are quite the idiot. Zimmerman does not have to show any injuries in order to qualify for self defense. He only has to feel he was in eminent danger. You or no one else can determine what was in the mid of Zimmerman, unless you are adding mind reading to your plethora of accomplishments?

PH, if he had no injuries at all, would he have ANY case for self defense?

Simple logic: no. His life had to be in danger. If there was little proof of that, the defense wouldn’t have held. So, if Zimmerman’s injuries are proof he was attacked, logic dictates they are proof of how he was attacked, as well as the degree of the attack.

Since none of us are mind-readers, retrocognitives, psychometers or whatever, able to reconstruct the fight in our minds, we have to rely on the physical evidence to get an objective picture of things. Short of a blow-by-blow account of a witness, that’s the best you’re going to get unless you get psychic friends.

So, if Martin doesn’t have many injuries on his bodies, that’s an indication, if not an absolute one, that Zimmerman didn’t really hit back all that much, or all that often. The physical evidence, for example, indicates that claims that Martin put his hand over Zimmerman’s mouth and nose are unlikely, as no blood was found on Martin’s hands.

If I were to look at that, I’d way the evidence was consistent with a short fight where Martin was hardly resisted by Zimmerman because he was too busy getting his gun out. He thought of the most lethal option first, did not attempt to defend himself with proportional force. Literal overkill, which argues against self defense.

As for what I thought was illegal?

You realize that by lying to police, he was purposefully trying to obscure the truth of what he did? Why would he do that? Because he did not have confidence he could get off for shooting Trayvon unless he stacked the deck in his own favor.

As for the race-baiting?

Help me out here: didn’t Trayvon’s case go national news? It did, in the weeks before the March 23rd comment, which a reporter specifically asked for from the President. It’s not race baiting to comment on national news. If he had been the originator of the story, I’d be more likely to buy that, but really, it was already a national story at the time, and action had already been taken by the Sanford City council even before that. Even more hilariously, you have a headline from The Daily Caller focusing on it’s “belated” nature, and how all these real race-baiters were angry at him for not jumping on it sooner.

I am not a little white boy, I am a thirty-three year old white man, and you are taking positions that specifically play on racial resentment and which blame racial tensions on those who, by statistical evidence, have legitimate grievances with the state for biases against their favor in the justice system.

I am thankful I’ve grown up in a time when race is less of a problem. I’ve got no problem whatsoever just dealing with folks of other races like just people. I grew up in North Harris County. Yes, mostly white, but I was never brought up under Jim Crow, never had that system pounded into my brain I saw different races filter into the population in the suburbs, and it has never struck me as anything but natural.

All I’ve seen lately is folks like the people you run interference for chipping away at that system, and encouraging people to indulges in racism that makes me sick to my stomach to see in modern America.

There’s a reason most blacks have not thrown in their lot with the Republicans. The Republicans made a deliberate move to cater to the Dixie Democrats alienated by the Civil Rights Movement, and while you might see the cultural attacks they’ve used in strictly economic terms, thanks to your politics, all too much of the political attacks link right back up to pre-civil rights era, hell, pre-civil war era racial politics.

And no, I don’t trust that with just a generation or two remove from Jim Crow that things are permanently better. I’ve seen the sad resurgence of the kinds of words and actions that I thought had been buried in the recesses of the Old South before I was born. So don’t use your race to tell me that I am not qualified to comment on how our society has seemed to backslide on racial enlightenment. There was a time, it seemed, when few people disputed things like the Voting Rights Act, and here we have people in your political corner having basically gutted it, with no intention to repair it at all. If you don’t see it, then I’m really sad for you, because you’re going to be in one of the states, if you still live in North Carolina, where the value of your vote is going to be most diluted.

As for Obama? The guy went to college in Los Angeles, and then in New York, and then went back to Chicago for a time to be the Community Organizer everybody bashes him for being on the Right. Then he went to Boston to attend Harvard Law. He doesn’t have to get the age absolutely right. The man was likely judged by his appearance, and nobody bothered to ask him his pedigree to make sure he was African-American as in the descendant of slaves, rather than as the son of a Kenyan father. No, they just looked at him.

There was plenty of opportunity for Obama to experience prejudice, and I doubt even in Hawaii he never encountered it. Remember, this guy was born in the early sixties. It wasn’t the most enlightened time in those terms.

Rhinehold-

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that because Zimmerman was following Martin FROM A DISTANCE that Martin had a right to beat him to a bloody pulp?

No, he had a right to defend himself. Unlike you, I don’t instantly assume that self-defense rights automatically extend all the way to killing somebody. But I’d say, if Zimmerman has a right to put a lethal hole through Martin’s heart and lungs, what rights would Martin have, if he had a claim to defending himself?

If the belief that the danger is REASONABLE. I’m sorry, but someone following you from a distance does not constitute reasonable danger to your or your family’s life. Martin profiled Zimmerman as a gay rapist, Zimmerman profiled Martin as a potential house thief. They were both most likely wrong, but no where in the events did either one of them put the other one, or their families, in danger until Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Profiled as a gay rapist. You get all that from what may just be a joke not meant to be taken literally. Well, Zimmerman didn’t die, even if he was profiled as a gay rapist, but he would have never seemed to Martin to be a creepy older guy if he hadn’t provoked this fear by following Martin for hundred of feet through the neighborhood in his car.

Remember, Trayvon Martin didn’t know this man. He only knew that somebody was following him, staring out at him through the windshield of a vehicle as he walked to his father’s home in the subdivision. Zimmerman had to profile him first, had to watch and follow him for Trayvon Martin to become disturbed by his behavior.

Was Trayvon’s behavior after that absolutely admirable? No, which is why I state he might have gotten arrested after that, had he lived. But Zimmerman set things in motion, provoked what happened by not simply sticking with the rules that most neighborhood watch volunteers were told to stick by.

Had he done so, Trayvon might have remembered a creepy old guy, but he wouldn’t have died that night.

There’s a number of reasons that Zimmerman’s wannabe cop behavior was problematic. Real Cops carry with them the authority to look after and follow suspects without getting a violent response from them. Trayvon wouldn’t have assaulted a cop (unlike Zimmerman!) He would have been disturbed by a cop following him, but he would know it was a cop, and not some criminal looking to kidnap fresh meat.

But there’s something else: real cops are trained in how to subdue a suspect non-lethally, as well as take more deadly actions. They are trained to maintain awareness of their situation, so they don’t get jumped as easily.

You claim that Zimmerman was never a threat to Martin. Martin, though, was scared of this guy, scared enough to run!

I think it’s loathsome that you try and use that “gay profiling thing” on Trayvon, even while you support a man who followed a person simply for looking at the houses while being black and wearing a hoodie. It’s this standard brainless tu quoque argument that, in case you didn’t realize, only manages to tar your opponent at best, rather than clear your target’s name. At best, your argument ends like this: Zimmerman profiled the young black teen wearing a hoodie and looking at houses as a burglar and followed him, and the Black teen, alarmed by a guy staring at him and following him at walking speed in the vehicle, profiled him for acting like some creepy stalker pervert. WOW!

Yeah, he’s still a guy who profiled a young black teen for looking vaguely like his image of a burglar (which, by the way, had no obligation to show up as the reality. The burglar could have been a white or Hispanic man he’d pass in the convenience store without a second look.

At best, you could inspire people to say, “well maybe profiling is a bad thing all around!”

But it doesn’t entitle you or him to get away with profiling Trayvon Martin! That is a completely separate mistake, a completely separate wrong! So if you’re actually logically consistent, you’ll say what I would say, that you’re wrong to attack or pursue, or otherwise be a aggressive towards people simply because of what you think they are like, based on appearance!

You’re grabbing onto the homophobia thing like a lifeline, but the other end of the rope is just a frayed, cut-off portion.

And irrelevant. I’m sorry Stephen, but police officers are not the people who are responsible for making that decision. You have to have probable cause to make an arrest, the police did not have that. As evidenced by what they presented at trial. A Grand Jury would have thrown the case out before it went to trail (which is why one was never sought, against proper procedure).

No, not irrelevant. They’re literally the first responders here. They’re the first step in the process. If you read their report, Manslaughter steps right out as their recommendation. They didn’t buy his story, and that’s part of the reason I don’t buy it, either.

As for probable cause to make an arrest? Jesus Christ. Trayvon Martin is dead, this man shot him, the circumstances are unclear! Probable cause to believe a crime occurred! It worked just fine for the judge who likely put out the warrant for Zimmerman’s arrest later. And no, the Grand Jury did not throw the case out, either.

As for that other thing? If you think you can get away with it, you’ll call the police, and tell them what’s going on. That way, when they find you, having won the day against the criminal, you’ll have demonstrated to them both their inferiority, and your right to stand like an equal amongst them. Zimmerman didn’t have to just want to kill him. He only probably wanted to catch him, pulling the gun on him and telling him to freeze. Then the police, in his fantasy, would come along and tell him “good job”.

People like him never consider that the other party has options, and that, innocent or not, they might feel threatened by another civilian chasing them, provoking a response. Zimmerman can be a hothead who went too far, a wannabe who got in over his head, a man with a power fantasy who wanted to show those criminals who was boss, but what would be relevant here is that he wanted the police’s knowledge, so he could have their approval. He knew damn well if he didn’t call it in, not only would he not get credit, but it would go down as murder, not merely manslaughter. So even a sociopath trying to win, might think that he was better off simply calling ahead, making himself appear as a model citizen, rather than a vigilante.

As for what I demonstrated?

Look, mister. The manual told him, you don’t follow. You see something, you report that, let the police take care of it.

He went further than that.

Simple common sense tells you that if you do decide to follow a criminal, who might be dangerous and violent, you don’t get out of your car.

He got out.

Carrying a gun contradicts the rules of neighborhood watch organizations, in no small part because many people who do this sort of thing get no small amount of courage to stick their necks out into dangerous situations, because they have the gun to protect them. Without those guns, they’re more cautious, more apt to leave the police work to the police, which is precisely the reason this recommendation is made! Neighborhood watch volunteers are not junior cops. They are not trained or sanctioned by the law to be investigators or enforcers. They’re just people who keep an eye out.

But Zimmerman did more than keep an eye out. He carried a gun with him. He pursued his suspect. Suspect, for whatever reason, felt threatened by this creepy guy staring at him and following him, and depending on whose story you believe, either decided to face his stalker or got caught up to by that stalker.

Zimmerman had to consciously or subconsciously cross quite a number of lines for Martin to get killed.

You insist that without the gun he’d be dead. Really? You know that? Have you looked at what he looked like?

As for being fairly short? 5’7”. Trayvon had a full 4” inches on him. if Trayvon was 6’3”, or taller, perhaps you’d have a point, but he was not that much taller.

As for the streets? The next street over was basically a loop that went around the whole subdivision. There were two gates.

Quit glorifying him. His story was full of holes, wholes that add up to a less profound claim on self-defense than he asserted, at best. I mean, I read through the raw reports, I read through his claims, and the chronology of events, and it just strikes me that for much of this episode, he was the aggressor, and Trayvon Martin was trying to get away from him. He had to push it, really push it to get into this kind of situation.

If he had simply gone home after losing sight of Trayvon, nothing bad would have happened.

As far as autism goes? Funny thing about that. You learn by experience, rather than by a more intuitive kind of feedback, that staring at people is disconcerting. As an autistic, I have a tendency to be uninhibited in my attention, so I’ve had to learn to break off looking at people so they don’t get the unintentional cue from me that I want something from them, or are the target of some unsavory form of attention. I’ve learned that nonverbal cues, even ones that seem perfectly alright, can be provocative under certain circumstances.

I mean, as you can tell, I keep on things like a bull-dog, and that’s provocative to some, too. No rule against it, but it affects people emotionally, doesn’t it?

People ARE emotional creatures. I am one, too, contrary to the stereotype. provocation doesn’t have to be illegal for it to be effective.

I think if you imagine in your minds eye, or recall memories of such events, you’ll find that following somebody home in the dark, while staring at them, is very provocative, however legal it might be. Trayvon Martin would be responding to this perceived threat on a visceral, not a logical level.

I guess my point would be that in many ways, Zimmerman was the primary escalator of events. Without his actions, things never would have gone so far, and any self-defense claim should be mitigated by just how far he went, just how many rules, recommendations and requests he knowingly blew through in order to keep up with Trayvon Martin. I think the exaggerations and probable lies he told should also count against that defense, and should have indicated to jurors that he purposefully attempted to change perceptions about the killing, in order to get away with it completely.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 23, 2013 3:15 PM
Comment #368714

Good lord Stephen, you’re lengthy monotonous replies are giving me a headache. Let me put it this was, you are an imbecile. You are ignorant to the SYG laws. The law does not require any evidence of a physical altercation. I’m sorry Stephen, but that’s the law. You can say different all you want, it doesn’t change the law.

Rhinehold is correct; a grand jury would have thrown the case out. No evidence of wrong doing.

Stephen, everyone on here is asking you for the same thing; evidence that Zimmerman broke the law and you CAN’T give it. So you continue to make your speeches longer and longer. Give it up, you have no evidence that Zimmerman broke the law. Feelings, emotion, supposition, innuendo, and hypotheticals.

Your always the one who claims you use facts; where are the facts?

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 23, 2013 3:53 PM
Comment #368715

kctim-

I have said the evidence does not show Zimmerman to have been the aggressor, that he committed cold blooded murder, simply because Martin was black.
But then, I don’t have any reason to want this to have been racial so I have no need for it to have been murder.

He was the aggressor. People trying to defend themselves move away from danger, unless given no other choice. Evidence demonstrates that Zimmerman was the pursuer, and at best stopped being this quite a while after he had gotten out of his car. He placed himself, by his actions, at the scene of the attack, because he did more than simply observe and report.

Cold-blooded murder? No. There are much more efficient ways to commit cold-blooded murder. He could have driven up to him, rolled down the window and shot him with the element of surprise. No, I see this more as a stupid tragedy that didn’t have to occur had one guy not tried to play vigilante.

As for the racial aspect of it? This has never been simply about race for me. It’s about the expectation each of us should have that we have both equal protections under the law, and equal rights. Trayvon Martin’s case would never have earned such a high profile had the authorities in Sanford not let it go so prematurely.

As for why the jurors did what they did?

For whatever reason, my sense is that the prosecution got sidetracked. I think they should have tried for manslaughter from the outset, rather than second degree murder. Personally, I was rather shocked at Murder Two. It meant they had to prove more, and it meant that they focused on Zimmerman’s difficult to prove emotional state, rather than on the easier to prove fact that Zimmerman’s claims of self-defense were exaggerated in key and crucial aspects.

It’s not speculation (that seems to be your favorite word) to say that Martin was walking along looking at the houses. That’s what Zimmerman reports in his own words. Speculation would imply that I simply inferred or extended it. Nothing has emerged fact-wise to indicate that Martin was casing those houses or planning on breaking into them.

As for portraying him as innocent? Perhaps not in an experiential sense, but in a legal sense, he was never seen to commit a crime, even by Zimmerman. And as for Martin’s actions causing him to call 9/11?

Well, he didn’t see Martin committing a crime. So rather than the reason for the call resting on Trayvon, it primarily rests on Zimmerman, because it’s Zimmerman’s opinion about Martin, not any real fact about what he saw there, that leads to him making that call.

So someone walking slowly along and looking into houses is not suspicous, but someone driving slowly along is supicious?

Why phrase that as if it’s mutually exclusive? Both behaviors can be suspicious. I pointed out, though, that there is something decidedly more sinister about somebody creeping along behind you, trying to keep up with you in a vehicle if you’re on foot.

For much of the situation, Martin was simply trying to get out of it. It wasn’t until they got close to Trayvon’s home that he perhaps became the aggressor in return. So, to my mind, if the guy had simply left Trayvon alone, let the police deal with him, things would have turned out much better.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 23, 2013 3:57 PM
Comment #368716

So let me get this straight Stephen; if you had been on the jury, and if you had heard the evidence the jury heard, you would have found him guilty? And you would have sent Zimmerman to prison for 25-30 years based on what? Certainly not the evidence. You would have found him guilty on your own opinion of what took place. I hope you are never called for jury duty, because you’re one sick puppy.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 23, 2013 4:04 PM
Comment #368717

Stephen, Would of, could of no amount of your BS is going to change anything. The jury has spoken. Zimmerman may have been wrong but so was Travon, get over it.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 23, 2013 4:05 PM
Comment #368718
The SYG law changed not merely SYG, but the Self-Defense law in general.

I know you have stated this before, but it’s simply not true. Please show me the evidence of this statement.

If I were to look at that, I’d way the evidence was consistent with a short fight where Martin was hardly resisted by Zimmerman because he was too busy getting his gun out. He thought of the most lethal option first, did not attempt to defend himself with proportional force. Literal overkill, which argues against self defense.

Unless someone had called 911 during the fight and lead up to the shot, lasting nearly a minute and hearing someone calling out for help several times, as well as other witnesses saying the fight lasted for a bit of time and Martin was on top during the time they saw the fight…

Now, if that had happened, would you be creating this fiction out of whole cloth?

You get all that from what may just be a joke not meant to be taken literally.

I see, so the last person to talk to Martin was ‘joking around’ on Piers Morgan about the death of her friend on more than one occasion during the conversation?

You are reeeaally stretching for these now Stephen.

Unlike you, I don’t instantly assume that self-defense rights automatically extend all the way to killing somebody. But I’d say, if Zimmerman has a right to put a lethal hole through Martin’s heart and lungs, what rights would Martin have, if he had a claim to defending himself?

He would have the very same rights. But you don’t understand those rights AT ALL. You can only defend yourself with lethal force (gun, knife, baseball bat, FISTS, tire iron, etc) if you REASONABLY feel your life is in danger. Martin did not reasonably feel his life was in danger because Zimmerman had done nothing to cross that line from ‘raising eyebrows and causing one to be on alert’ to ‘fearing for their life’. Martin, on the other hand, had crossed that line by assaulting Zimmerman and having him in a position that prevented him from defending himself any other way. He was, at that point, helpless and fearful that his weapon was about to be used against him.

You are having a problem seeing the difference between the two. You think that being followed from a distance is cause enough to pull out a gun and shoot someone, or attack them physically, or run them over with a car, etc. You think that lethal force is appropriate for defending yourself from someone following you from a distance.

I agree with one thing. You should NEVER be allowed to own a gun if you feel this way. If you can’t tell the difference between those two things.

Real Cops carry with them the authority to look after and follow suspects without getting a violent response from them. Trayvon wouldn’t have assaulted a cop (unlike Zimmerman!)

Wow. Simply wow.

1) How does Martin know that Zimmerman isn’t a plain clothes cop in an unmarked car?

2) NO ONE ‘deserves’ a violent response for following someone they think is suspicious. I’m sorry but that is simply disturbing. Private investigators are in danger for their lives every day then, not just because they might get attacked for what they do, but because (according to you) they would DESERVE anything that happens to them for doing their jobs. Paparazzi would deserve the occassional attack from celebrities, news reporters would be subjected to violent crimes with no defense all over the country…

There are many valid reasons why people follow others from a distance. INCLUDING following someone who you think is acting suspiciously so that you can report that person to the police or see if they violate laws in your view. Provided that they are doing so in public areas. They cannot do so in your home or other private areas.

As for probable cause to make an arrest? Jesus Christ. Trayvon Martin is dead, this man shot him, the circumstances are unclear!

The police spent 5 hours investigating Martin, he claimed self defense. As soon as he claimed self defense, the prosecuting attorney has to examine the evidence and determine if there is ANY evidence to contradict the claim. They found NONE, therefore there was no probable cause.

That is the way our legal systems work and have worked for decades… You’re just now getting bent out of shape that someone defended themselves with legal force? At this time? Crap, Stephen…

You do get why people say that the left doesn’t understand the constitution, right? When they display this kind of lack of understanding it has to call that into question…

As for that other thing? If you think you can get away with it, you’ll call the police, and tell them what’s going on. That way, when they find you, having won the day against the criminal, you’ll have demonstrated to them both their inferiority, and your right to stand like an equal amongst them. Zimmerman didn’t have to just want to kill him. He only probably wanted to catch him, pulling the gun on him and telling him to freeze. Then the police, in his fantasy, would come along and tell him “good job”.

That’s a far stretch to reach, after saying that we can’t know what was in the mind of either person unless we were psychic, Stephen. Seems like you have decided what Zimmerman’s motives were even though they are different than what he stated and what his neighbors think of him. There is a difference between having a hero complex and going to the extent you are talking about.

I’ll let you in on a little secret. I have a hero complex too. Have for quite some time. I would have consider doing anything outside of what the law allows me to do because that goes AGAINST the idea of a hero complex. What you are talking about is a psychopath, which we have no evidence that Zimmerman is at all.

He called the 911 operator how many times? Yet, at not time in the past did he perform actions as you describe. He observed and reported, that’s it. Suddenly he decides to apprehend a bigger kid, which he isn’t certain of being able to do, ‘for the glory’? That’s some interesting fantasy you’ve created, unfortunately you have nothing to back it up other than your lack of understanding of the law, of other people and of certain psychological types and makeups.

But Zimmerman did more than keep an eye out. He carried a gun with him.

Which you have no evidence was ever drawn or that Martin knew about it. In fact, the evidence suggests it was hidden away up to the point of Zimmerman being beaten.

So, this exposes once again your real problem here, you don’t like the fact that Zimmerman had a gun on him to defend himself, he should have taken the beating he deserved.

Zimmerman had to consciously or subconsciously cross quite a number of lines for Martin to get killed.

Name one. Zimmerman, from what we know, crossed NO LINES. Martin didn’t either, right up to the point of INITIATING VIOLENCE.

I don’t think you understand what ‘crossing a line’ means.

If he had simply gone home after losing sight of Trayvon, nothing bad would have happened.

Actually, it would have because that is what did happen. As far as we know from the evidence, Zimmerman stopped pursuing Martin once the 911 operator told him to and started walking back to his car, stopping to get a look at the street signs on the way so he could make sure to give a good report (including street numbers, not just names) to the police when they showed up. It was then he was jumped.

I’ve learned that nonverbal cues, even ones that seem perfectly alright, can be provocative under certain circumstances.

I mean, as you can tell, I keep on things like a bull-dog, and that’s provocative to some, too. No rule against it, but it affects people emotionally, doesn’t it?

Yep. But it DOESN’T give those people the right to beat you because they don’t like you looking at them.

Trayvon Martin would be responding to this perceived threat on a visceral, not a logical level.

Agreed. But it doesn’t mean he has the right to attack Zimmerman at that point. No matter how much he was freaked out. If the police had shown up a minute earlier and found Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him, Martin would have gone to jail for aggrevated assault, spending a few years in prison. The ‘defense’ of ‘this crazy cracker was following me’ wouldn’t have been a valid one and his lawyer would have been well advised to not let him say anything about suspecting Zimmerman of being a gay rapist for fear of several more years tacked on to his sentence.

It doesn’t matter that Zimmerman ‘creeped out Martin’, that isn’t cause enough to initiate violence against someone. That can be a reason to yell at them to stop. Or to walk away. Or to go home. Or to call the police and report the suspicious person and follow them to report to the police where they were so that they don’t abduct and rape someone else…

But Martin crossed the line and instigated violence when he attacked Zimmerman. If there were ANY evidence at all that Zimmerman attacked Martin first, not only would I be on the other side of things, then it is very likely that he would have been found guilty of manslaughter. But when the prosecutor tells you that Zimmerman did nothing illegal up to the point of shooting Martin, how do you expect to know more about the case than he?

Lots of people want to find Zimmerman guilty of SOMETHING. A lot of people who support Zimmerman not being guilty of murder or manslaughter (because they understand the law) want there to be another law that they could have found him guilty under because they don’t ‘like’ what he did. But he understood and followed the law, he was acting in good intentions (protecting his neighborhood from increasing crime) and involved the police instead of trying to take things into his own hands, as Martin did.

It doesn’t matter how much you WANT Zimmerman to be in the wrong here, but I’ll say it one more time. Following someone from a distance does not warrant being beaten by that person. That is an inappropriate response to that action. Had Martin not attacked Zimmerman, this would have all been cleared up by the police and no one would be dead.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 23, 2013 4:23 PM
Comment #368719

Stephen cannot get over it, because Obama can’t get over it. Obama has chosen to make this a race issue leading into the next election and Stephen is an absolute worshipper of Obama. Stephen doesn’t care about facts or evidence; he simply wants to support whatever Obama says. My concern is that Stephen has shown himself incapable of discussing any subject objectively.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 23, 2013 4:25 PM
Comment #368720

“Zimmerman may have been wrong but so was Travon, get over it.”

Yeah, I’m sure you would be saying the same thing if your son or daughter were innocently walking to the store and were followed by a complete stranger with a loaded gun.

I can just hear the police phone call to your house that night as you wait for your son to return home with a candy bar.

…..” Yes we realize that your son was simply walking to the store when a complete stranger decided to follow him with a loaded weapon. Well a strange thing happened on his way home and your son is now dead. We realize that he was pretty scared, especially because he was being followed for no apparent reason. Anyway this complete stranger and your son somehow got in an altercation. We’re sorry to inform you that in his fear he got overly aggressive and his adrenaline got the best of him. He actually started winning the fight and therefore this complete stranger decided to shoot him in the chest. We’re sorry, but next time tell your son not to walk down the street at night. Or if he does, make sure he carries a loaded weapon just in case some lunatic decides to follow him. Anyway, two wrongs don’t make a right, so get over it. Goodnight”

Posted by: t at July 23, 2013 4:54 PM
Comment #368721

t, yeah it would be a hard call…

Of course, it wouldn’t have been my kid since they would have been taught that they were not allowed to initiate violence against anyone except in self defense, but hey, Martin didn’t get that kind of raising.

In t world, jumping another man and beating him is an appropriate response to that man following you from a distance.

So, either teach your kids to not assault other people or expect that phone call one day is all I can suggest.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 23, 2013 5:00 PM
Comment #368722

Stephen

You set the bar pretty low in trying to claim following somebody is an overt act of aggression that merits an assault. It does not.

Yes, it was a stupid tragedy, but to hold one party fully accountable for the actions of BOTH individuals is dishonest.

Disagreeing with the results of an investigation, with the way it was handled or the DAs decision, is not cause to claim rampant racism, especially on a national level.
IF this case was about an improper investigation and only a desire for a trial, IF it was about anything other than race, the matter would be over.
From day one, when it was believed Zimmerman was white and Martin was black, this has been about nothing but race. The dismissing of facts as they became known and the changing of stories as new facts came to light, only validate the claim.

“It’s not speculation (that seems to be your favorite word)to say that Martin was walking along looking at the houses.”

That is because all you have done is speculate about what both men were thinking and what Zimmerman should have done.
In this instance, you speculated Martin was just “ambling” along and Zimmerman had no reason to be suspicious of him.

“So, to my mind, if the guy had simply left Trayvon alone, let the police deal with him, things would have turned out much better.”

I don’t think anybody has disagreed with that. Openminded people however, also acknowledge that things would have turned out much better if Martin had not attacked Zimmerman. That’s not what happened or what the case was about though.

Posted by: kctim at July 23, 2013 5:07 PM
Comment #368723

Oh, and BTW, this is happening all over the country every day because violence is accepted in this country if the crime is black on black. It’s only when a non-black person is involved that people seem to want to care.

How sick is that?

A good parent would acknowledge the part that their ‘child’ played in the events that led to his life being lost. And they wouldn’t condemn the man who was fighting for his life and being beaten by your son for nothing more than following him from a distance…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 23, 2013 5:14 PM
Comment #368724

t, I wouldn’t expect my kid to go out of his way and jump the guy that was following him, but hey who am I to judge the stupidity of some parents.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 23, 2013 5:23 PM
Comment #368725

Political Hostage-
You know why I don’t tend to respond to your bull**** in kind? Because my experience is that absolutely nothing changes about people’s opinions when you apply that kind of venom and hostility. Calling you an a******, or a hostile bastard, or whatever would not advance my argument one bit.

I rely, often enough, on mutual exclusion arguments. This one thing must be true, or that, but not both.

Example: Zimmerman claims Trayvon put a hand over his nose and mouth. Autopsy find no evidence of Zimmerman’s blood on those hands, despite a graphically bloody nose. Short of additional evidence, what does logic tell you?

I also rely on more probability based arguments.

Another example: the neighborhood’s layout is such that the next street over from the one that Zimmerman’s vehicle is parked on is accessible from a footpath that leads directly to it. There’s no need for Zimmerman to have ventured inbetween the houses to find that out, he could have simply walked over to find it out.

That he told police that this is why he was out on foot seems questionable in that light. He could have just crossed over.

Next question: Does Zimmerman know the neighborhood? In his initial call to 9/11, he seems knowledgeable enough to say that the young man was heading towards a particular gate, the back one, which he would know was on a particular street. There are just four streets, one the wraparound, and the other three dividing middle portion into three blocks. Is it reasonable to believe that he could forget what was on the other side of that particular block?

It’s just unlikely. He had to know what street was on the other side of that block to know that the suspect was heading towards that back gate, which spurs off of it.

Understand? Zimmerman knew the streets enough to tell police which gate he was heading for, but according to him, not well enough to give a simple cross address. What’s more, he encounters Trayvon Martin in a part of that block that is considerably distant from the intersection. That makes his account of how he got into that situation dubious, and the fact he pushed such a horse**** account tells us that whatever reason he really went down that side walk, it wasn’t to check a stop sign. So tell me, if he didn’t go down that sidewalk behind the houses to check road signs, why did he go down into that part of the block?

We have a perfectly fine explanation. Only trouble is, it makes a self-defense claim problematic. If you deliberately go searching for the man who then decides to beat you up, it’s a lot harder to argue that he didn’t have reason to feel threatened by you. After all, you, a stranger, went chasing after him. If this wasn’t a misapprehension on his part, if it wasn’t just you innocently checking street signs, hundreds of feet from where they would actually be, then there’s a good claim that the suspect was provoked by your actions, and was only defending himself, which makes your claim on self-defense a confounded one.

We only have Zimmerman’s word on a number of these details, uncorroborated by other evidence. If I were the prosecutors, I would have disregarded such evidence as potentially self serving, and built the narrative up from essential facts. Reasonable doubt requires reasonable assertions. If the facts that are provable and corroborateable on their own fly in the face of his story, then that puts the prosecution’s assertion beyond reasonable doubt. Forget who was on top. Bring in people to talk about how minor his wounds were, about how many cases where people had similar injuries actually ended in a fatality. Any idiot can say “I was afraid for my life”, but if that average fight isn’t that fatal, if this seems, at best, to be a case of somebody simply defining down deviancy in terms of cowardice- that is, we have a triggerhappy fellow who got in over his head.

Establish what the protocols are for somebody in a neighborhood watch, establish that weapons are not supposed to be part of that. Establish whether or not the guy was specifically told in whatever training or orientation classes they gave them not to follow the suspect, etc.

You think I move in a fact-free atmosphere, when in truth, I practically swim through the facts, building my arguments, building the kind of logical tests that strengthen my conclusions.

I research in a kind of depth that your entertainer-influenced sensibilities just don’t understand. You look at details as being irrelevant, but often it’s the details that tell you the real shape of the reality, beyond the generalized perception.

Rhinehold-
When all is said and done, if what you’re relying upon are feelings about when you’re in danger, then the law is fatally unclear, lethally unhelpful in defining what is legitimate self-defense.

That’s why I keep on going back to the disparity between Zimmerman being armed with a gun, and Trayvon Martin having nothing. You can argue all day about who thought they were danger. There’s reasonable arguments on both sides for being afraid for one’s life, by that standard. However, one person did have the power to end that fight with a death, and they did in fact use that power, whereas the only place Martin was getting any weapon was from Zimmerman.

But there’s something else, and I just thought of it.

Remember Zimmerman saying that he was jumped from out of the bushes, from God know what direction?

How does that square with the notion that he got into an exchange with Martin before the fight started? I would think that, given the non-existent bushes and the fact that it would be pretty clear what direction he jumped out of when he started talking to you (after all, you’re facing him while you’re talking to him, right?) then the story starts to seem… a little fictional. People telling fake stories typically only invent the details they need to get through the first go round. They rarely fan out their creativity to address other facts, especially if they don’t know those facts fully. Zimmerman made his claim that Martin had his hand over his hand and mouth after he said he was punched, before the autopsy showed that none of Zimmerman’s blood or DNA showed up on his hands.

The mismatch between story and fact is inevitable if somebody’s lying, and hasn’t been apprised of available evidence. Simply put, Zimmerman’s story contradicts available evidence because Zimmerman had only a limited spread of details he attended to, a limited memory of his own actions, his own previous words. The limitations of our memories and our minds are the way by which our lies are typically exposed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 23, 2013 5:36 PM
Comment #368726

Stephen

The jury that heard all the evidence and had a good chance to think about it believed that Zimmerman was not guilty of murder. I believe in rule of law.

Let me ask a simple question. What do you think should happen now?

Posted by: CJ at July 23, 2013 5:55 PM
Comment #368727

Stephen, The jury found him not guilty IT’s OVER. All your BS’n is getting nowhere.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 23, 2013 6:05 PM
Comment #368728
However, one person did have the power to end that fight with a death, and they did in fact use that power, whereas the only place Martin was getting any weapon was from Zimmerman.

Actually, they both had the power to end the fight with the death of another, apparently you don’t think that beating someone in the face or slamming their head against the pavement can kill someone.

Fact: It can. Even a single punch or slam of the head to the ground CAN kill someone.

Zimmerman made his claim that Martin had his hand over his hand and mouth after he said he was punched, before the autopsy showed that none of Zimmerman’s blood or DNA showed up on his hands.

A lack of blood on Martin’s hands does not prove that he didn’t have his hands on Zimmerman’s face. Since Zimmerman was on his back, the blood from his nose from the punching in his face could have stayed within his nose and ran back into the nasal passage (causing a potential drowning issue), only coming out of the nose and onto his face after he stood up after the shot.

It’s called physics.

And I’m sorry, but you still haven’t proven anything. You may have some doubt as to Zimmerman’s story, but the pertinent facts (that Zimmerman was being beaten by Martin while on top of him while Zimmerman was not able to do any damage to Martin) which is backed up by the evidence and eyewitness testimony are very clear.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution in the United States. The police did not have enough evidence to bring a trial, so they were not in the wrong for not charging him without that evidence. The prosecution knew they would never get the case past a grand jury, so they didn’t call one. The prosecution admitted that Zimmerman did nothing wrong until the shot was fired. The jury had reasonable doubt to the prosecution’s claims of both Murder 2 and Manslaughter. We have the testimony of the person who was on the phone with Martin at the time explaining why Martin went after Zimmerman after being initially creeped out by him.

IMO, the key is when the line is crossed, and that is when violence was initiated. The evidence tells us that Martin initiated the violence.

That’s is. You can claim that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin (even though there is no evidence, just your ‘hunch’) but it DOESN’T MATTER. A verbal exchange between them wouldn’t have warranted a physical altercation. Had there been evidence that Zimmerman initiated the violence, then he would be guilty of Manslaughter, perhaps Murder 2 if we could show that he was wanting to kill him with that initiation, but again we don’t have any evidence to that.

You are free to think that Zimmerman is responsible here, you are even free to call for changes to the law, but you should stop and think about what those changes would mean for people in situations that would be affected by it. Sometimes we have to acknowledge that the law isn’t perfect and trials are not always going to end the way we want them to. But the end result is that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and evidence has to be presented beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is why they didn’t bring the case, not because Martin was black, not because the police liked Zimmerman (after Martin spoke out against the police chief in an earlier event that isn’t likely at all), not because of a ‘double standard’. But because there wasn’t enough evidence to warrant the arrest. If the police arrest people without probable cause and charge them without evidence, they can be liable for action for violating those rules. Zimmerman would have been able to (and could still) sue the police and Sharpton et al for wrongful arrest and defamation of character because they succumbed to the pressure to arrest him and bring charges that wouldn’t have passed a grand jury.

That’s how our law system works, and it is a good system, better than any other in the world and I am glad we have it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 23, 2013 6:05 PM
Comment #368729

This really says it all: [url=http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/video-john-oliver-daily-show-rip-george-zimmerman-decision-1200563378/] http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/video-john-oliver-daily-show-rip-george-zimmerman-decision-1200563378/ [/url]

Posted by: t at July 23, 2013 6:11 PM
Comment #368730

Honestly, there is no difference in the way Stephen’s and Adrienne’s brain works. Everyone knows Adrienne is a complete nut case and now, to my shock, Stephen has shown himself to utterly be incapable of understanding law. He just makes things up as he goes. Stephen just rattles on about a myriad of subjects; he just throws a little bit of this in and then a little bit of that, and when he’s finished, in his own mind he thinks he’s made a coherent reply. I think he just loves to read his own stuff. He thinks he’s brilliant and if you don’t believe it, just ask him.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 23, 2013 6:13 PM
Comment #368731

Says what, t? What a comedian thinks about the case?

Yup, that does say it all about what a comedian thinks about the Zimmerman case.

Now, what does that have to do with the debate we are having?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 23, 2013 6:13 PM
Comment #368732
You think I move in a fact-free atmosphere, when in truth, I practically swim through the facts, building my arguments, building the kind of logical tests that strengthen my conclusions.

I research in a kind of depth that your entertainer-influenced sensibilities just don’t understand. You look at details as being irrelevant, but often it’s the details that tell you the real shape of the reality, beyond the generalized perception.

You have got to be kidding me; Stephen, you have presented zero facts in the case. It’s a given that you do not have any evidence showing Zimmerman to be guilty of violating the law…so…I will ask Mr. Daugherty once again, if you had been on the jury, based on the evidence, would you have found Zimmerman guilty? This is a tough one Stephen, it will require you to give a definitive answer. I realize you hate to do that.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 23, 2013 6:24 PM
Comment #368733

I would be curios as to exactly what Doughboy wants? What is his goal in arguing this case? Do you have an ultimate goal Doughboy? Do you want to retry Zimmerman? Do you want to lynch him? Do you want to kick him out of the country? Just what is your goal?

Posted by: DSP2195 at July 23, 2013 6:39 PM
Comment #368735

Anyone who doesn’t believe racism is alive and well in the U.S. only needs to read the comments on this thread. One side seems to be promoting law and order and the other side seems to be promoting unlawfulness and disorder with both sides proclaiming the other is racist for exactly opposite reasons.

The left claims we must now have special legal outcomes for cases which involve a black person and a white or Hispanic person. Not content with rich versus poor, abortion against life, and Constitutional rights versus individual wants, the left beats the drum of oppression as being exercised by anyone who does not wish to cater to their “carve-out” special interest groups.

The unity of many Americans has become inextricably associated with political party. Any damn fool reading and writing on WatchBlog could have easily predicted how the two political factions would line up over the Martin/Zimmerman tragedy.

We are a nation divided along many political, social, and Constitutional fault lines. Such a nation can not stand for much longer.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 23, 2013 6:53 PM
Comment #368736

Political Hostage-
Some people just say **** to say ****. I think any impartial observer would notice multiple facts. They would probably comment that somebody like you, when they say “this guy has no facts”, is really just saying, “I don’t like his facts.” or “I don’t buy his conclusions”.

I’ve built a case that says this: Zimmerman had options he could have availed himself of to both fulfill his role on the neighborhood watch, and avoid contact with the suspected criminal. At each turn, given the choice to turn away from the possible confrontation, he instead took the opportunity to funnel himself ever closer both to Trayvon in a physical sense, and to a situation that a clearer minded person might have read as potentially dangerous. Only when Martin was literally on top of him did he choose to take action to protect himself, and when he did so, it was with very disproportionate force, beyond that he really needed to defend himself.

He didn’t go in there wanting to kill Trayvon, but he did everything he could to make that confrontation possible, likely mistakenly believing that he would come out on top. It didn’t take long in the fight in my opinion before he realized that wasn’t true, and so he killed his opponent. But he never availed himself of less lethal methods, methods that could have helped him defend himself against Trayvon without killing him.

Because of that, I would say he was guilty of manslaughter.

By the way, the reason I go in different directions is that I think in terms of a volume of different facts that are nonetheless all connected parts of the same reality. If you can’t understand that, for whatever reason, it’s not my fault. But perhaps your problem is less that you can’t, and more that you won’t put up the effort to understand them. You just turn your mind off, rather than taking note of the facts, and being willing to agree, however grudgingly, when they fit what can be found.

You can say I have no facts, but there are plenty of obvious facts you could check in what I’ve written. You just choose to argue a different way, one that deals more in attacking people’s character so others don’t trust them.

Rhinehold-
A bullet through the heart will generally kill you, a punch to the face or a knock of your head on the ground MIGHT kill you. There’s a reason most people who get into fist fights don’t get charged with attempted murder, while a person who shoots somebody in the chest, but doesn’t kill them probably does.

As for potential drowning issues.

Are you kidding me? Drowning from a nosebleed? The blood vessels that get torn in a punch to the nose are primarily to the front, and should I mention that he was likely breathing the stuff out?

You’re reaching. You keep on talking about what would have warranted a physical confrontation, but you keep on talking about how Zimmerman’s fear alone warranted him killing Trayvon. If Trayvon can be killed because of Zimmerman’s fear for his life, does it not follow that fear for his own life and that of his family might justify Trayvon’s response? That’s the problem. You don’t analyze things as if the rules apply to BOTH participants.

As for the system?

Look, Zimmerman killed somebody, and the police on the scene noted that his story was badly inconsistent. That’s enough to warrant an arrest, charges, and a grand jury investigation. And if they had done that, he could not have said, oh, they had no reason to do that, because right there, you would have the homicide under questionable circumstances.

If Zimmerman’s story hadn’t been so embellished, so packed with false details, if Trayvon had been caught doing something, if Zimmerman had just been minding his own business rather than following the young man, even getting on foot to do so, then we could talk about him suing people for arresting him.

Fact is, he’s not talking about any of that now. Why? Because if he said that, the folks would say, there’s obvious probable cause to believe a crime may have been committed. The circumstances were that uncertain.

I know in this day and age of plea deals, trials might seem archaic and unnecessary, but they are part of the due process that both guarantees that the law will be enforced, and that your average, innocent American’s rights will be upheld. If folks under these questionable circumstances don’t go to trial, two things happen:

1)The public loses faith in the system

and

2)The perception is created that the issue is not settled, and needs settlement.

As in final settlement, potentially. Even though we didn’t get Zimmerman’s conviction, we at least kept the matter from simply being swept under the rug. If I can’t take satisfaction in his conviction, I can at least take satisfaction in the fact that he wasn’t simply allowed to walk without having to be challenged on the matter.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 23, 2013 7:04 PM
Comment #368737

If I can’t take satisfaction in his conviction, I can at least take satisfaction in the fact that he wasn’t simply allowed to walk without having to be challenged on the matter.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 23, 2013 7:04 PM

Some never weary of writing about how THEY feel, what justice is for THEM, how THEY believe people should act under duress, and why THEIR opinion should carry much more weight than a jury and judge. Doughboy is attempting to put his “long pants” on and act like an adult in this matter. We read his whining and second guessing for what it is…a mere child throwing a tantrum.

He takes his lead from a president who is nothing more than a jaundiced party leader…caring not a whit about half of all Americans he is sworn to protect and defend. He takes his lead from the Jackson’s and Sharpton’s in this country who are in the game only for personal benefit.

We know for certain that neither Doughboy, obama or any of their ilk care a damn about the murder rate of our black youth in our big cities. For all their “talk” and strutting on the stage, the murder rate for black youths continues to rise along with drug use, dysfunctional families and unwanted teen pregnancies.

The left is notorious for being brain dead…now it seems; they also have no heart. What little remains of their humanity consists of greed, lust for power, divisiveness, misdirection and callousness in governing.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 23, 2013 7:30 PM
Comment #368740

“Of course, it wouldn’t have been my kid since they would have been taught that they were not allowed to initiate violence against anyone except in self defense, but hey, Martin didn’t get that kind of raising.”

Wow, it is a pretty bold statement to say you know exactly how your kid would react is in a similar situation. I have raised my kids exactly the same way, but I don’t think I can say for sure what they would do in this situation when they are under extreme duress and are really scared. Hopefully they would, but I don’t think they should be killed if they don’t. I mean they weren’t out looking for trouble and they were probably scared sh*tless.

You don’t seem to give any leniency to the innocent person who was put in duress by a stranger. You also keep saying that Travon did not act is self-defense. Is it possible to go on the offensive when someone is acting irrationally towards you and you are in fear for your physical well being? Could this not be a self-defensive stance?

What your saying is that if your son who is not a violent or bad kid does not follow exactly what you taught him to do because he was under extreme duress and was scared for his life deserved to be shot because he didn’t respond in the exact manner he should have, even though he would never have been in the situation if it wasn’t for the action of a complete paranoid stranger? So the strange pursuant gets equal leniency then your innocent son? Wow!

Posted by: t at July 23, 2013 8:11 PM
Comment #368746
I have raised my kids exactly the same way, but I don’t think I can say for sure what they would do in this situation when they are under extreme duress and are really scared.

Well “t”, since you have chosen to put your two cents into the fray; perhaps you could explain how it’s not possible for you to explain what your kids “would do in this situation when they are under extreme duress and are really scared”; but you and Stephen Daugherty ARE able to explain what Zimmerman should or should not have done under the same extreme duress and fear. In other words, double standards.

But, since Stephen is unwilling to tell us what Zimmerman did that was a violation of the law, perhaps you can. However, it has to be a violation of the law, not as Stephen claims, a hypothetical and emotional violation based on feelings.

You see, once again Stephen Daugherty makes the same old argument:

You can say I have no facts, but there are plenty of obvious facts you could check in what I’ve written.

So now Stephen has gone from “facts” to “plenty of obvious facts”, and I would be wasting my time to go back and llok for them. Stephen, you have given us no facts. You have given your hypotheticals based on emotion. You facts are a figment of your imagination.

So Stephen finally answer a question…sort of…he claimed he would send Zimmerman to prison for 25 years for manslaughter:

I would say he was guilty of manslaughter.

And Stephen bases that conviction on mystical evidence.

I’ve built a case that says this: Zimmerman had options he could have availed himself of to both fulfill his role on the neighborhood watch, and avoid contact with the suspected criminal.

You’ve built a case on supposition and hypothetical; you have absolutely what took place. Stephen, there wasn’t enough evidence to bring charges, there wasn’t enough evidence for a grand jury, and there wasn’t enough evidence to convict.

Obama and Holder said to charge him, so the prosecuting attorney charged him. They charged him with murder 2, then in the closing arguments wanted manslaughter. They also wanted child abuse, which I am sure you Stephen would have been more than happy to convict him of child abuse.

Stephen, you’re wasting time and space, just for the sake of keeping up the argument.

The only response you will get from me from this point forward is this:

Where’s your evidence of crimes committed?

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 23, 2013 10:21 PM
Comment #368776

Royal Flush-
An amazing amount of your response seems directed at telling the reader what your hostile and venomous feelings about me are. Thank you very much for prefacing your opinion with such clarity of hostility.

I’m not that complicated, really, when it comes to what I want. I’m of an age when America had finally gotten a good start on making those words “all men are created equal” actually mean something. But disparities persist, a legacy of years of injustice and inequality.

Others, though, look at the remedial steps being taken, and blast them for being inequal. These people are getting help, and I’m not! Well, do we give big jury awards to those whose doctors didn’t screw up? Do we do so for people who weren’t run off the road by a semi?

The source of the difference of treatment between whites and others is not a discrimination based on prejudice, but a separation based on standing.

For ages, if you weren’t a White Male, a protestant even, the system worked against your benefit. Even now, people like me benefit from that unfair advantage. Now people like you say, “oh, why aren’t we getting help, why aren’t we allowed to create groups that promote our interests? Why don’t we get this aid and these preferences?

The simple answer is, because society serves that purpose for you by default already. You had the advantage and STILL have the advantages. The remedies are to bring people EVEN with the real-world status that you have.

There are legitimate debates, I believe, about the way in which this is done, but the truth of the matter is, I don’t think there’s a legitimate debate about the fact that something needs to be done. More generations should not have to suffer at disadvantage because their ancestors were not among the people favored in that country at the time.

This case here, in my opinion, is important. It throws a highlight on just how lopsided the outcomes are in the justice system, given similar facts on both sides. Folks wonder why black kids shooting each other doesn’t get coverage, but the truth is, it’s not about that.

It’s about the fact that some guy was able to shoot an unarmed young man under very suspicious circumstances, yet the matter was not immediately put to the test. It was simply assumed that this was a legitimate killing under the law.

The first inalienable right that Thomas Jefferson listed was Life. It’s almost hilariously obvious to say that it’s a mutually exclusive matter to enjoy the first two if you don’t maintain the first. You can be a free man or a happy man If you’re dead, and Trayvon will never have the chance to be a free or a happy man, ever again.

There has to be an accounting at least. If we give in to the temptation to value their lives as less, what incentive do people have to make more of their lives? Equality isn’t earned, it’s something we’re supposed to be born to in this country.

Political Hostage-
I’ve included such atomistically factual statements as “There are only three or four roads in this neighborhood.” I’ve described things like where Trayvon was killed, related what Zimmerman said in the 9/11 call, among other things.

If you don’t consider these things facts, I’m unclear on what you would consider facts, other than your talking points.

You don’t argue facts, it seems. You argue people’s political attitudes, and then make statements about people’s honesty and the factual foundations of the arguments that you fail to back in any substance.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 24, 2013 12:15 PM
Comment #368785

Try this out for size.
What does Skittles, his Iced tea and cough syrup do to your system. It makes you high. Martin’s liver showed the results of this mixture. So according to the autopsy Martin was high during his attack on Zimmerman.

Posted by: tom humes at July 24, 2013 1:51 PM
Comment #368804

Don’t play stupid Daugherty; it’s not facts in general; it’s facts that give evidence to Zimmerman breaking the law. Now, give us facts that Zimmerman broke the law, any law, Florida law, Federal Law??? You cannot and will not because there are NONE. Simple as that. You can keep up your BS and you can slip back on this post and make a little jab, but you have no evidence of Zimmerman doing anything that was illegal.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 24, 2013 6:08 PM
Comment #368807

PH,

Zimmerman shot Martin even though the latter committed no crime. According to how I was brought up, that is murder and that is the crime that Zimmerman was charged with.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 24, 2013 6:20 PM
Comment #368811

WP, thanks for your analysis of the charge; but that still doesn’t answer the question, what laws did Zimmerman break? The charge of murder was only brought after Obama and Holder intervened and demanded Zimmerman be charged. The original police chief did not have the evidence of murder, the original prosecutor did not have evidence of murder, and the substitute Prosecuting Attorney did not have enough evidence to take it to a Grand Jury, so she didn’t.

Zimmerman never denied that he shot Martin, and Martin committed a crime when he attacked Zimmerman; which ended up in a self defense killing. This is the evidence presented to the jury and it is the finding of the jury.

There are two possible conclusions to this:

1. Accept the jury’s finding of no evidence of murder and Zimmerman walks.

2. Or, say the jury was wrong, that it wasn’t a fair trial, that there was mystical evidence, and that Zimmerman was really guilty.

WP, let me ask you the same question I asked Stephen Daugherty; if you were on the jury and you heard the evidence that was presented to the jury, how would you have found Zimmerman?

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 24, 2013 6:48 PM
Comment #368815
Martin committed a crime when he attacked Zimmerman

There is no evidence of this; only reasonable doubt that the opposite didn’t occur.

However, given the backgrounds of the persons involved (Zimmerman has a history of arrests for violence; Martin had a clean record); I believe Zimmerman likely started any physical conflict with Martin. Also, because Zimmerman weighed more than Martin and had MMA training, Zimmerman had little reason to fear for his life during any fight he may have gotten involved in. I believe Zimmerman shot Martin not because he feared for his life, but to be the vigilante and rid his neighborhood of the “punks who always get away”. He was smart enough not to shoot Martin in cold blood, so he started a fight in order to obtain a few minor injuries to bolster his case.

Nonetheless, my hypothesis is only supported by a preponderance of evidence, not clear and convincing evidence and there are certainly reasonable doubts raised by the Zimmerman team. In this sort of situation, our justice system is designed to let a guilty man walk free, which is exactly what happened here.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 24, 2013 7:05 PM
Comment #368817

So you, like Stephen, have no evidence that Zimmerman committed anything illegal? You base your evidence on supposition, innuendo, hypothetical, emotion, and feelings?

Nonetheless, my hypothesis is only supported by a preponderance of evidence

Your hypothesis is based on hypothetical.

You speak of Zimmerman’s record; but we are now learning that Martin also had a record that was not allowed to be entered into evidence. Martin had a record of violence and a record of fighting.

Perhaps you missed the testimony of the owner of the gym where Zimmerman attended; his comment was that Zimmerman was not able to protect himself. We have a witness that said Martin was on top. If Martin was on top, why would Martin be the one screaming for help? Martin was a tough black kid, do you think he would have screamed like a little girl for help, I don’t? Since we know Zimmerman was on the bottom, taking the brunt of the blows; why would Zimmerman be screaming for help like a little girl, if his goal was to murder Martin with a gun?

Anyway, Zimmerman is alive, Martin is dead; Zimmerman did not take the stand, but the prosecutors chose to use Hannity’s interview with Zimmerman as evidence. So Zimmerman got to tell the story and they didn’t get to cross examine. The jury only hears the evidence that is presented, that’s why they were sequestered.

Now, the question, how would you have found him, based on the evidence?

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 24, 2013 7:24 PM
Comment #368822

PH,

Do you have any evidence that Martin did anything illegal?

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 24, 2013 7:48 PM
Comment #368827

Martin wasn’t charged with murder. But we do have eye witness account that he was on top of Zimmerman, and we have physical evidence that Zimmerman was beaten.

Zimmerman was charged, so what evidence did the prosecutor have to charge him?

You guys on the left just can’t give a straight answer, can you? Always the word game.

Posted by: Political Hostage at July 24, 2013 8:55 PM
Comment #368835

Choosing not to charge Zimmerman with murder is tantamount to convicting Martin of a felony.

we have physical evidence that Zimmerman was beaten.

And we have physical evidence that Martin was shot.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 24, 2013 9:39 PM
Comment #368843

In self defence Warren, or isn’t that allowed in the liberal world?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 25, 2013 11:29 AM
Comment #368855
In self defence Warren

In defence of what? Where is the evidence that Martin committed any crime?

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 25, 2013 6:08 PM
Comment #368863

In defence of getting his head bashed in. IMO Warren I don’t think either committed a crime. Except maybe assult on Travon’s part.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 25, 2013 9:40 PM
Comment #368864

Do we have proof that Trayvon’s actions constituted a threat to Zimmerman? Or was Martin merely acting in self-defense?

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 25, 2013 9:46 PM
Comment #368867

I’m sure Zimmerman bashed his own head on the concrete sidewalk and bloodied his own nose, right Warren.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 25, 2013 10:01 PM
Comment #368869

By the way Warren, I’m sure the people in Florida who were involved with the case knew more that you or me, we can both speculate and ask questions that don’t matter, the case is closed.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 25, 2013 10:12 PM
Comment #368871

And I’m sure Martin shot himself in the chest.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 25, 2013 10:40 PM
Comment #368879
Anyone who doesn’t believe racism is alive and well in the U.S. only needs to read the comments on this thread. One side seems to be promoting law and order and the other side seems to be promoting unlawfulness and disorder with both sides proclaiming the other is racist for exactly opposite reasons.

The left claims we must now have special legal outcomes for cases which involve a black person and a white or Hispanic person. Not content with rich versus poor, abortion against life, and Constitutional rights versus individual wants, the left beats the drum of oppression as being exercised by anyone who does not wish to cater to their “carve-out” special interest groups.

The unity of many Americans has become inextricably associated with political party. Any damn fool reading and writing on WatchBlog could have easily predicted how the two political factions would line up over the Martin/Zimmerman tragedy.

We are a nation divided along many political, social, and Constitutional fault lines. Such a nation can not stand for much longer.
Posted by: Royal Flush at July 23, 2013 6:53 PM

I completely agree.

It’s painful to say, as a veteran and Purple Heart recipient, that I would not be upset if the United States split into two countries.

I personally do not consider Democrats to be my countrymen. We should form our own country with the Constitution and Democrats can form their own socialist country.

Posted by: Cannelure at July 26, 2013 12:38 AM
Comment #368893

As I stated the people in Florida who handled the case know more about the facts than both of us. Jury found Zimmerman INNOCENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 26, 2013 11:39 AM
Comment #368918
Jury found Zimmerman INNOCENT

And the same can be said for OJ Simpson.

I’ll reiterate: It is a symptom of a well-run justice system when criminals like Zimmerman are occasionally acquitted. William Blackstone once said, “for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer” and I adhere to this truism.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 26, 2013 7:59 PM
Comment #368919

As I stated Warren the people in Florida who handled the case know more than both of us. No amount of BS from either of us is going to change it.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 26, 2013 8:07 PM
Comment #368930

Warren

“And I’m sure Martin shot himself in the chest.”

Martin was shot in the chest because he continued to beat the crap out of a man he was on top of. A man who feared he was about to be beaten with in an inch of his life or worse. He was justified in using that gun to stop that brutal attack.

Once Zimmerman was on the ground, Martin could have run away. He didn’t, and it cost him his life as trajic as that is.

Posted by: dbs at July 27, 2013 9:44 AM
Comment #368940
Martin was shot in the chest because he continued to beat the crap out of a man he was on top of. A man who feared he was about to be beaten with in an inch of his life or worse. He was justified in using that gun to stop that brutal attack.

Once Zimmerman was on the ground, Martin could have run away. He didn’t, and it cost him his life as trajic as that is.

Was this proven beyond a reasonable doubt or is this simply your idle speculation? The medical examiner testified that Zimmerman’s injuries are consistent with as few as one blow to the face and once impact with the concrete:

In court on Tuesday, medical examiner Rao said Zimmerman’s injuries did not involve great force and were consistent with one blow to the face and one impact with the concrete. He had a broken nose and two small cuts on the back of his head.
http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-trial-judge-tells-jury-ignore-detectives-description-163625943.html Posted by: Warren Porter at July 27, 2013 5:40 PM
Comment #368955

Warren

Martin was on top of Zimmerman. He was attacking Zimmerman. He did not have the right to attack Zimmerman. He could have run away, and didn’t. Zimmerman could not retreat, and acted to defend himself. Unfortunately it cost Martin his life. That’s why he was aquitted.

Are you going to deny that Martin could have run away? If he had run away he would be alive today. Do you doubt that Martins intent was to beat the hell out of Zimmerman? Take your emotions out of the equation and put yourself in Zimmermans place. Are you going to sit there and wait to beaten unconscious, or defend your life ? Teenage kids commit murder on a regular basis in this country. Zimmerman had to assume Martin intended him great bodily injury or worse, and protected himself.

Posted by: dbs at July 28, 2013 9:40 AM
Comment #368957
Martin was on top of Zimmerman. He was attacking Zimmerman. He did not have the right to attack Zimmerman. He could have run away, and didn’t. Zimmerman could not retreat, and acted to defend himself. Unfortunately it cost Martin his life. That’s why he was acquitted.

The medical examiner testified that Zimmerman’s injuries tell us that he only received one blow to the face and one impact with the concrete before he shot Martin.

Are you going to deny that Martin could have run away? If he had run away he would be alive today. Do you doubt that Martins intent was to beat the hell out of Zimmerman? Take your emotions out of the equation and put yourself in Zimmermans place. Are you going to sit there and wait to beaten unconscious, or defend your life ? Teenage kids commit murder on a regular basis in this country. Zimmerman had to assume Martin intended him great bodily injury or worse, and protected himself.
You are ignoring the fact that Martin did run away when he first encountered Zimmerman. It was only because Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin that the latter had no choice but to defend himself. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 28, 2013 11:39 AM
Comment #368986

Warren

“because Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin that the latter had no choice but to defend himself.”

He followed so he could tell police where Martin was. Zimmerman didn’t attack Martin. Zimmerman was attacked by Martin, and defended himself. Remember he coulsn’t run away, because Martin was on top of him.

Posted by: dbs at July 29, 2013 5:31 AM
Comment #368987
He followed so he could tell police where Martin was
No, he followed because he was willing to do whatever it took to keep “those punks” from getting away.
Zimmerman didn’t attack Martin. Zimmerman was attacked by Martin
Any proof to back up this claim? Do you really believe the guy without the violent record, the one without the arrests for domestic violence initiated the fight? And what would be Martin’s motive? He had nothing to gain from pwning Zimmerman and we already know that he confessed his fears regarding Zimmerman to Rachel Jenteel. Martin was a scared little boy that night; remember that he ran away from Zimmerman the first time around.
Remember he coulsn’t run away, because Martin was on top of him.
He could have run away right after he called the authorities. If Zimmerman had never initiated the physical confrontation (and hadn’t overestimated his fighting abilities), then Martin would never have ended up on top.

I don’t understand why it is such a big deal for conservatives to exonerate Zimmerman. I’ve already acknowledged that although Zimmerman is probably guilty, his defense team was able to establish reasonable doubt regarding that guilt, which led to the acquittal. However, that isn’t good enough for conservatives, they somehow have a drive to condemn Martin as a punk and vindicate Zimmerman as the model citizen who did nothing wrong, when it is quite clear that Zimmerman made a number of serious blunders that night.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 29, 2013 6:27 AM
Comment #369024

dbs-
He was under no obligation to do the cops’ work for them. They could follow Trayvon just fine.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 30, 2013 8:21 AM
Comment #378725

Great blog and I love what you have to say and I think I will tweet this out to my friends so they can check it out as well. I like what you have to say Pollen and Bleu | Pollen & Bleu | Rivertrees Residences | Rivertrees | coco palms pasir ris | coco palms | coco palms condo | the rise @ oxley | the rise @ oxley residences | rise @ oxley | handbags | handbags Singapore | ladies bags excellent article.

Posted by: the rise @ oxley residences at May 25, 2014 12:06 AM
Post a comment