March 30, 2012

"You return force with force when somebody assaults you. George was out of breath, he was barely conscious."

"There would have been George dead if he had not acted decisively and instantaneously in that moment when he was being disarmed."

Zimmerman's brother speaks:



Quoted in the linked article, at CNN.com, is Marcia Clark, the prosecutor who failed to convince a jury that O.J. Simpson was guilty. She's talking about the photographs of George Zimmerman, which people on the web are saying prove he didn't have a broken nose.

Suddenly, everyone's a doctor, the kind of doctor that does diagnoses through blurry web videos. Flashback: Remember when Senator Bill Frist — a Harvard-trained doctorquestioned the diagnosis of Terri Schiavo "based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office"? He got slammed for that.

But here's Marcia Clark: "Anyone who's seen a broken nose is aware of the fact that the blood spurts. That leads to a lot of bleeding. You would have expected to see blood on the front of George Zimmerman's shirt collar. Blood — you know, in many more places."

Anyone knows. Of course, a broken nose is a veritable geyser. So says the expert on blood evidence. I know she's seen a lot of blood. Blood does gush from slashed throats. But a broken nose? I'm going to Google that. Here's a list of symptoms, according the Mayo Clinic website (boldface added):
Signs and symptoms of a broken nose may appear immediately or may take up to three days to develop. Signs and symptoms may include:

Pain or tenderness, especially when touching your nose
Swelling of your nose and surrounding areas
Bleeding from your nose
Bruising around your nose or eyes
Crooked or misshapen nose
Difficulty breathing through your nose
Discharge of mucus from your nose (rhinorrhea)
Feeling that one or both of your nasal passages are blocked
I am trying to fathom the depths of mendacity around the Trayvon Martin case. Why aren't people afraid of uttering statements that are so easily devastated?

For a prosecutor to make extreme and overconfident statements about evidence, when the statements are not even remotely accurate and the inaccuracy is detected through 5 seconds of Googling? I understand why people want to lie and deceive, but to throw away your credibility so carelessly?

153 comments:

robinintn said...

Marcia Clark? What credibility?

John Cunningham said...

For the Lefty, there is no such thing as truth, only the Narrative/Party line. as Lenin put it, all policies, actions, and views must be analyzed in terms of "who, whom." thus, the half Peruvian Zimmermann is white, while the half white Urkel is black. since the goal is to get
Whitey, anything that serves the party line is good and holy.

Shanna said...

Why aren't people afraid of uttering statements that are so easily devastated?

Because the minute the statement is disproved, it is replaced with a ridiculous conspiracy theory. And no amount of evidence can convince people that a conspiracy didn't happen, once they've decided it did.

pduggie said...

Everyone trusts the factcheck sites. Why don't they get in on it and compile a biggest whoppers or something of the case. Then we can have a one-stop-shop for figuring out we ought to withold judgement

Tank said...

This broken nose stuff is weird.

I broke my nose playing football in high school. It never bled. Never.

About ten hours after I broke it, it started to swell, but not much, and blacken. It developed into two black eyes. I did look scary and got a nice headache.

Rialby said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rialby said...

Insty was right with what he wrote this morning in quoting John Hinderaker:

“President Obama has fanned the flames of hatred in the Trayvon Martin case, and has not said a single critical word about the outrageous actions of the New Black Panthers, who offered a $10,000 bounty on George Zimmerman–the same New Black Panthers on whose behalf Eric Holder quashed a federal criminal prosecution; or of Spike Lee, who tweeted a wrong address for Zimmerman, presumably to facilitate harassment or even murder; or of the many liberals who have posted on the @killzimmerman Twitter feed; or of the many other Democrats and liberals who have indulged in an orgy of hate with respect to Mr. Zimmerman. President Obama’s interest in the victims of violence is selective: he cares if they look like the hypothetical son he doesn’t have.”

In other words, he’s a racist hatemonger. Just to be clear. So much for hope and change.

TCB-n-a-Flash said...

The facts don't matter in this case. Just like the OJ trial.

~N. said...

OTOH, when your attorney is claiming you've been so trammeled that the only way you feel you can stop the attack is to pull out a gun and shoot them, there does seem to be a disconnect between that picture and the one presented in the video.

If he was _that_ badly hurt -- barely conscious, shortened breath, broken nose, head pounded against the pavement -- yet he isn't brought to the emergency room to check for concussion, to clean and dress a head wound, to examine his nose, etc., someone's not telling the truth.

Also, it's funny how some people are saying you can't look at that video and say there is no head wound, and then, in the same breath, they turn around and say there _is_ a head wound.

We will never know the truth. What we do know, is if George Zimmerman had stayed in his car and met the police at the entrance to the community, or gone home and met them there, Trayvon Martin would be alive, and George Zimmerman's life wouldn't be a living hell.

And, frankly, I get why black people are so angry. I get it.

It's like when Catholic priests whine about how it's not fair no one trusts them. Well...whose fault is that? Whose fault is it the black community doesn't trust white cops?

When you've been hunted down, lynched, falsely accused and left to rot in jail, for decades, you have a different perspective than a privileged white woman sitting in her ivory tower.

pm317 said...

I hope Marcia Clark reads this and saves her reputation.

Joaquin said...

I've broken mine twice. First time, a small drip of blood. The second time, nothing.

William said...

The broken nose can be documented, but, even if that turns out to be verified, it will not matter. The counter assertion will be that Zimmerman injured himself to make his story more credible.....His brother was well spoken and poised. Zimmerman does not come from a family of flaming bigots.

X said...

This is Davi & Duke lacrosse all over again

Curious George said...

"Tank said...
This broken nose stuff is weird.

I broke my nose playing football in high school. It never bled. Never.

About ten hours after I broke it, it started to swell, but not much, and blacken. It developed into two black eyes. I did look scary and got a nice headache."

Exactly the same here. No blood, and no visable signs of injury until the next day. Hurt like a sonuvabith though.

X said...

show of hands from everyone who has broken a nose without bleeding. me twice. the affirmative action prosecution of oj didn't work. little wonder.

machine said...

Murdered! By Skittles no less...and they were probably concealed too!

Matthew said...

"If he was _that_ badly hurt -- barely conscious, shortened breath, broken nose, head pounded against the pavement -- yet he isn't brought to the emergency room to check for concussion, to clean and dress a head wound, to examine his nose, etc., someone's not telling the truth."

-- He was treated at the scene. It is possible he thought he was getting hurt much worse than, on examination, he actually was. I remember getting beaned in the face with a baseball in little league feeling like I was going to die, then in two minutes telling the coach I was good to go in again. Pain has that effect on people; it immediately makes you realize something bad is happening and that bad thing -has to stop now-. Maybe you've already been hurt badly, but maybe not.

I think that might be what happened here. He did get hurt, and it felt bad. But, after they checked him, the injuries just weren't serious enough to force him to go to a hospital right then.

Won't know for sure without the medical records, but we do know he had injuries to his nose and back of his head (unless we assume the "police just lied," which I guess, makes any conversation moot.)

pduggie said...

Fine, Obama should perhaps say something about the NBP and Lee, but he did not "fan the flames" by his very terse remarks that "if I had a son Trayvon would look like me".

It was clear that an ISSUE in the case would be whether Martin's 'suspiciousness' was in any way enhanced by stereotypical expectations about blacks in particular dress. That's a real problem because it affects the marginal decision making of people. Sometimes people with guns.

More details have mitigated that a bit from the center to the periphery, I'd say, but it was reasonable for Obama to allude to it. It was also a way for O to say "I care (as a African American)". Which is fine. Why not? How is that hatemongering?!?! Reynolds was very disappointing to me in that comment. Its not even pandering. Its personal and how he feels.

He's 'being careful not to impair any investigations by his comments. Calling for soul searching was the right call at the time, with what was out there.

MnMark said...

We will never know the truth. What we do know, is if George Zimmerman had stayed in his car and met the police at the entrance to the community, or gone home and met them there, Trayvon Martin would be alive, and George Zimmerman's life wouldn't be a living hell.

Yes, because Zimmerman violated one of the cardinal rules of Black-Run America: A White Shalt Not Speak or Look Disrespectfully At A Black.

Zimmerman committed the offense of daring to ask a stranger walking down his street what he was doing there. When this stranger is black, naturally that justifies the black immediately physically attacking the "white Hispanic" who dared to breach the unwritten law.

That is why everyone blames Zimmerman for causing himself to be attacked by the black. He should have known and followed the unwritten rule. It's his own fault he got attacked, and he should have taken his beating and possible murder quietly and submissively, since he had it coming. But he dared to use a gun - an EVIL GUN! - to defend himself. This cannot be excused...such violation of the new social norm of white submissiveness must be strictly cracked down on.

machine said...

and Marcia Clark has NO credibility to risk...

DADvocate said...

Why aren't people afraid of uttering statements that are so easily devastated?

Hate. It's a hate mob screaming for a lynching, lead by the MSM with a foundation of ignorance.

I worked in a health club and say a guy get whacked across the bridge of the nose so hard it broke his nose with some cartilage protruding. It was bleeding out the nostrils, just a little out the cut. He looked like hell the next day. I caught an accidental head butt on my nose once playing basketball. It didn't break or bleed, but it sure hurt like crazy, more than any fist or elbow I ever caught.

These people are hate filled idiots, eager to show their hate by pretending, in the worst way, to care.

Matthew said...

"I am trying to fathom the depths of mendacity around the Trayvon Martin case. Why aren't people afraid of uttering statements that are so easily devastated?"

-- The simple answer is some people face no consequences for lying. Some people don't get assessed a pants on fire or multiple Pinocchios for lying. Other people get assigned them for disagreeing with what the Fact Checker would rather have us do.

If we want these people to stop lying so blatantly, we need the media to hold them more accountable, as opposed to selective accountability.

Almost Ali said...

Come on now, Chris Darden deserves at least some of the credit.

Almost Ali said...

we need the media to hold them more accountable...

Howard Johnson is right!

Matthew said...

"These people are hate filled idiots, eager to show their hate by pretending, in the worst way, to care."

-- The other possibility is they just have never been seriously injured physically. I wouldn't guess how a broken nose feels, because I've never had one broken. But I know what it is like to be in pain, so I can guesstimate how that works. I've seen other people with broken noses, so I can hypothesize, it makes me know you can have a fairly clean break.

But, if you've never been in real danger or suffered real pain, I imagine you think of a broken nose like you see on TV. Guy gets punched and his nose erupts in red stuff while he holds it moaning in pain, blood running between his fingers.

EDH said...

~N. said...
"When you've been hunted down, lynched, falsely accused and left to rot in jail, for decades, you have a different perspective than a privileged white woman sitting in her ivory tower."

You are talking about George Zimmerman and Marcia Clark, right?

William said...

@-n-: OTOH to OTOH: I think it's fair to say that Zimmerman screwed up. There's a dead body, and Zimmerman pulled the trigger. But that doesn't make it a crime. I think Cheney screwed up, but his malfeasance wasn't a crime......It's also fair to say that Trayvon screwed up. Perhaps he felt justifiably threatened by Zimmerman, but taking a swing at him was demonstrably the wrong way of negotiating the situation.....Both of these men have a history of jerk like behavior. I don't know with certainty the facts of the case, but the only history that has bearing on the case is the past history of jerk like behavior of both protagonists.

Scott M said...

@pduggie

but he did not "fan the flames" by his very terse remarks that "if I had a son Trayvon would look like me".

The comment was unnecessary pandering to his black base. Combined with the day-after release of an Obama-logo'd hoodie on the store.barackobama.com site, yeah, I'd say he's making a statement and it isn't "be calm". Hoodies are suddenly the protest de jure, a black Guy Folkes mask.

I cannot say whether or not the statement and the release of the merch was intended to add fuel to the fire...how can we know? But it certainly does. As far as the statement itself, it just strikes me as a ridiculous thing for him to embroil himself in given the unconscionable of black-victim violence, most of which is committed by other blacks, with nary a mention from the White House. The very way in which the comment got inserted into the news story was odd and seemed to lean toward it being a scripted, wholly on-purpose incident.

Does it rise to the level of Glenn's "hatemongering"? Certainly not. That would belong to Spike Lee, the Black Panthers, and whoever started the facebook/twitter fracas. But is it something that the President of the United States should have gotten involved with?

It smacks of Cambridge.

Bender said...

Again, the evidence of Zimmerman's injuries is NOT based on his own statements nor that of later video or photographs.

It is based upon the contemporaneous observations of the responding police officer at the scene who took Zimmerman into custody a few minutes after the shooting, as detailed in his report.

Just exactly is this supposed to play out in court?

OFFICER TESTIFIES: I saw Zimmerman with an injury to the back of his head and nose, and the back of his clothes were wet, with grass on it.

(prosecutor shows video/pics to officer)

PROSECUTOR: So where in these pictures is his supposed injury? Huh?

OFFICER TESTIFIES: I saw them with my own two eyes.


PROSECUTOR IN CLOSING ARGUMENT: That police officer is not credible. Don't believe him.
________

Is that how it is supposed to work in the courtroom?

Matthew said...

"Is that how it is supposed to work in the courtroom?"

-- If the pictures are clean, easy to see, do not show any injuries and are also taken shortly afterwards, then yes.

That is not what the video is, though. But, if there were high-quality pictures of Zimmerman still at the scene, minutes after the shooting, with no visible wounds, then yes. We should disbelieve the officer. (Again, that's not the case here.)

Bender said...

EMT testifies: I was called to the scene and I treated Zimmerman for injuries to the back of the head and nose.

Prosecution expert witness testifies: I'm an expert doctor. Based on my expertise and my review of the case, Zimmerman was not injured at all.

Prosecutor in closing argument: There you have it jury, the EMT is not credible, the EMT lied when he said that he treated Zimmerman because the expert says that Zimmerman was not injured at all.
_______________

Maybe this stuff would fly on Ally McBeal, but I guess that is what people really think it is like in the courtroom.

Andy Freeman said...

> I think it's fair to say that Zimmerman screwed up. There's a dead body, and Zimmerman pulled the trigger.

My apologies if the above was intended as a meaningless platitude, but if it's intended as a serious comment, it's wrong.

Do you really believe that a dead body implies that the shooter screwed up?

I'm pretty sure that other factors matter, that in some cases there's a dead body when the shooter did the right thing and in others, there's a dead body when the shooter screwed up.

Heck, there are even situations where the shooter screwed up by NOT killing the right someone.

I don't know whether Zimmermann screwed up because I don't know enough about the situation.

Skyler said...

Why is Marcia Clark still practicing law? Shouldn't she be working as a janitor or driving a garbage truck. Her incompetence with the Simpson case was on public display for the entire country to see. How anyone would ask her for legal opinions is baffling.

Matthew said...

Zimmerman screwed up because he could have bugged out sooner and chose not to.

There's no denying that was a mistake, even without hindsight. If it had not been Martin but an armed criminal, Zimmerman would be dead now (since the initial stabbing or shot would have been much worse than a sucker punch).

It was a mistake to follow. That does not mean he is culpable for Martin's death [he might be, but the current evidence doesn't look that way, but, there's still more to find out].

Hagar said...

This is a media thing and has nothing to do with reality and courtoom procedure.

Bender said...

"We should disbelieve the officer."

The prosecutor is going to ask the jury to disbelieve his own witness?

The prosecutor is going to ask the jury to disbelieve the police officer who the prosecutor must call as an essential witness to testify that when the officer arrived at the scene, Zimmerman was there and had a gun?

The prosecutor is going to ask the jury to disbelieve the witness that the prosecutor himself calls to the stand?

X said...

being asked what they are doing is not a legitimate reason to physically attack someone. being physically attacked is a legitimate reason to shoot someone. I don't know that this is what happened, but it looks that way.

Mitchell said...

Maybe Ms. Clark is flashing back to her nose job.

~N. said...

It is possible he thought he was getting hurt much worse than, on examination, he actually was. I remember getting beaned in the face with a baseball in little league feeling like I was going to die, then in two minutes telling the coach I was good to go in again. Pain has that effect on people; it immediately makes you realize something bad is happening and that bad thing -has to stop now-. Maybe you've already been hurt badly, but maybe not.

Geez, guess it's a good thing for your coach you weren't packin', eh?

That's the problem -- Zimmerman's entire rationale for point-blank shooting Martin is that he "believed" his life was in danger and that the _only_ way he could possibly survive was to kill him. And then, oopsies, guess it wasn't that bad after all -- didn't even need to go to the ER for stitches or to check for a concussion or whathaveyou.

These explanations may all be true, but that only feeds the rage.

If you're going to be truly honest here, just reverse the ethnicity of the people involved. Zimmerman is black, Martin is white (or Latino, or Asian -- anything but black).

Would your impulse to exonerate Zimmerman be as strong? Honestly?

Matthew said...

Re-read my hypothetical (that if we had photo evidence of the same time the officer is claiming to have seen something the photos do not show, then yes, we need to disbelieve the officer).

That's not the case here, but if it were, then we would. But it isn't, so we don't.

Matthew said...

"Would your impulse to exonerate Zimmerman be as strong? Honestly?"

Yes.

Now, apologize and don't accuse me of being racist again.

Hagar said...

The prosecutor chose not to prosecute because Zimmermann claimed he shot because he felt himself in imminent danger of being killed, which there was - and is - some evidence to support and none to disprove. There is just no way to get around the "beyond reasonable doubt" criteria.

What did or did not happen between Zimmermann and Martin before the fatal moment is irrelevant in this case.

Which in no way restrains our estimable newsmedia in the least.

Bender said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
~N. said...

@MnMark

Here's the thing -- Zimmerman is free to confront people in "his" neighborhood, but he has to accept responsibility for his actions.

Zimmerman made a series of choices that night that led to this event. He bears the bulk of the responsibility for what happened. He was the driving force behind the series of events that went down that night.

Whether this sees a court room or not, he's going to have to live with that for the rest of his life, and so he should.

Everyone talks about Zimmerman's rights, but no one wants to address the responsibilities that go along with those rights.

David said...

Marcia Clark is a witless tool. They had to dig deep for someone to comment in using her.

Bender said...

Boy testifies: I was out walking and I saw Martin on top of Zimmerman hitting him.

Homeowner testifies: I went outside and I saw Martin on top of Zimmerman hitting him.

Prosecution expert witness testifies: I'm an expert doctor. Based on my expertise and my review of the case, Zimmerman was not hit because there were no injuries at all.

Prosecutor in closing argument: The expert says that Zimmerman was not hit. (pulls out pictures) Where is there any evidence of him being hit in these pictures? Huh? Neither the boy nor the homeowner are credible. They are both lying. The responding officer is lying. The EMT is lying. The eyewitnesses are lying. Everyone is lying, that in itself establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
____________

Like I said yesterday, it looks like an awful lot of people went to the Verrilli school of legal reasoning and advocacy.

~N. said...

@Matthew

No, I'm not going to apologize, and I didn't _accuse_ anyone of being racist.

It's like the pain perception thing -- people don't think they're racist, they probably aren't truly racist - but they do factor race into their immediate perception of a situation.

You're walking down a dark alley -- you're confronted by a big, tall black guy wearing a dark hoodie and baggy jeans who asks for directions. You're walking down a dark alley -- you're confronted by a petite, blonde white girl in Lily Pulitzer who asks for directions.

Who do you stop and help?

That you might feel more comfortable stopping for the preppy little blonde girl than you would the black guy doens't mean you wouldn't hire a black person, or deny them a loan. You're not a racist at heart. But you react based on preconceived notions about what you see in front of you right now.

leslyn said...

Hagar said,

This is a media thing and has nothing to do with reality and courtoom procedure.

So let's move ON. This is just more spouting of opinions, because no one really knows anything yet.

Paul Zrimsek said...

That's the problem -- Zimmerman's entire rationale for point-blank shooting Martin is that he "believed" his life was in danger and that the _only_ way he could possibly survive was to kill him.

Has Zimmerman said that? I believe the use of lethal force is also legal if you're defending yourself against serious injury; it doesn't have to be death.

edutcher said...

Saw the vid (most of it) of Zimmerman being led into the police station.

Most of his torso covered by a jacket - open in front, head down.

How the Hell can you tell whether he was injured or not in a case like that?

Rialby said...

Insty was right with what he wrote this morning in quoting John Hinderaker:

...

President Obama’s interest in the victims of violence is selective: he cares if they look like the hypothetical son he doesn’t have.


In other words, he’s a racist hatemonger. Just to be clear. So much for hope and change.


He used to be a community organizer. This is what he did for a living.

machine said...

Murdered! By Skittles no less...and they were probably concealed too!

So much for wit.

Oh, yeah, they know they're losing.

Matthew said...

"Who do you stop and help?"

-- Both, provided they stay about ten feet away and respect my personal space.

And you're right, you didn't accuse anyone. You just floated the idea, asking us to be honest about whether race would play a factor in our decision. Don't back pedal, own up to what it is you're trying to say instead of trying to sugar coat it.

"People don't think they're racist, they probably aren't truly racist - but they do factor race into their immediate perception of a situation."

-- People aren't racist -- they just probably do what racists do.

Don't insult our intelligence here.

TMink said...

"Why aren't people afraid of uttering statements that are so easily devastated?"

Because they have a lying media that uncritically regurgitates whatever they say. Many, many "news" stories are just reprints of press releases by Media Matters and the like. The fix is in.

Trey

PatCA said...

I think this "trial by pundit" is disgraceful in the extreme.

Have we lost our minds?

Tully said...

I've had a broken nose with almost no bleeding at all, and very little swelling. I've also had scalp lacerations where the bleeding stopped quickly with treatment.

Fuzzy video from an undetermined amount of time after the fact tells us very little at all.

~N. said...

@Matthew

So people who suggest we profile young men who look like they may be of Middle Eastern descent at airports are racists because they do what racists do, right?

Thank you.

Darcy said...

I just really don't know what the truth is here. It could very well be that Zimmerman was the aggressor. I just DON'T KNOW. The fact that so many people apparently KNOW the truth and feel no conscience about advocating (cheering!) for him to be stalked and wishing him harm and is just stomach-turning to me.

I am reminded of To Kill A Mockingbird and how powerfully that story spoke of racism, hate and the mob mentality.

The historical "hoods" have been exchanged, haven't they?

Don't be so smug, lefties. This is so ugly that it will stain you if you embrace it, and rightly so, as it stained the racist mobs of the past.

Have we learned nothing?

Hagar said...

@-N,
There is nothing in the reported evidence that says Zimmermann ever confronted Martin.

OTOH, Zimmermann claimed that Martin confronted him. Which, of course, you may or may not believe, but either way, it is the only "confrontation" being testified to.

As for the famous video, the ABC version has a strategigally placed banner so that the back of Zimmermann's head cannot be seen, CBS turned the lights down so that it is difficult to see anything at all, and NBC showed it with a commentator who looks away from the screen and makes a distracting hand gesture at the crucial moment when the gash on the back of Zimmerann's head is clearly visible.

This is agitprop; not reporting.

roesch/voltaire said...

It is interesting to note that the investigating detective who listened to Zimmerman and had a chance to observe him in person, did not think Zimmerman's story held up based on the physical evidence and wanted to press charges. And it is strange the the police department waited three days before notifying the parents, - so many unanswered questions here.

Matthew said...

"And it is strange the the police department waited three days before notifying the parents, - so many unanswered questions here."

-- The police did mess that up, but I'm not sure how much weight it has on the actual shooting.

Almost Ali said...

How anyone would ask her [Marcia Clark] for legal opinions is baffling.

Women love her. Especially after she changed her hair from I-Am-Woman wash'n'wear to something more male-centric.

Besides, Gil Garcetti was the man behind the lady Clark, so he bears responsibility. Not to mention the insertion of Chris Darden, another man for no seasons.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

I am trying to fathom the depths of mendacity around the Trayvon Martin case. Why aren't people afraid of uttering statements that are so easily devastated?

Because they are desparate to have the events fit the meme they've become acustom to operating in. If it doesn't; their little worlds, where they're just such good, righteous people, get rocked.

And we can't have that, can we?

leslyn said...

Everything in the posts and the breathless "reporting" is just opinion. Until we have facts, let's move ON.

paul a'barge said...

Marcia Clark?

Guess the gender.

Paul Zrimsek said...

You're walking down a dark alley -- you're confronted by a big, tall black guy wearing a dark hoodie and baggy jeans who asks for directions. You're walking down a dark alley -- you're confronted by a petite, blonde white girl in Lily Pulitzer who asks for directions

If people are really race-conscious to the extent that you think they are, you should be able to set up a hypothetical without stacking the deck as you've done here.

Matthew said...

"If people are really race-conscious to the extent that you think they are, you should be able to set up a hypothetical without stacking the deck as you've done here."

-- True. Maybe I would help the pretty blonde girl because she's pretty and I'm single, which has nothing to do with race at all.

Though, pretty blondes can rob you too, hence why you insist on at least ten feet or so of personal space.

Nathan Alexander said...

And this is where Hollywood is helping to ruin society.

N. is making a Hollywood argument about responsibility.

Matthew and N. are making Hollywood arguments about damage.

In Hollywood, you can tell how badly someone is hurt by how much blood they have on them.
In Hollywood, when it is necessary to show reasonable cause, the blood and damage will remain visible as long as necessary.

In real life, a wound can be sealed with the medical version of super glue, butterfly bandages are close to flesh-colored, and people change clothes when they are messy.

~N. said...

The confrontation issue is a he said-he said with one party dead.

There wasn't a proper investigation, the crime scene wasn't properly processed, and pertinent evidence wasn't properly secured.

And the reason for that is that Trayvon Martin was black and anyone who thinks that's not true is lying.

You can dicker over what some bloated, botoxed bimbo said on TV, or the bad parenting behind bringing your babies to protests (one wonders if the same analysis is applied to babies being dragged to protest in front of abortion clinics...hmmm...), but at the end of the day, a white dude with a cop complex blew away a black dude, and the cops shrugged and went on their merry way.

Everyone is getting what they deserve now. The cops in that community will never be trusted by the black community again. Zimmerman will never be a cop, and he'll have to live in fear the rest of his life.

Good.

They deserve it.

You walk around with a gun acting like a big tough man because you have a gun, and you reap what you sow.

Yeah, cry me a river over how unfaiiirrr it is to poor widdle baby Georgie-porgie Zimmerman with his 9mm. Guess now that he doesn't have it anymore, he's just little pussy in hiding. Boo hoo. Whatever.

Scott M said...

Though, pretty blondes can rob you too, hence why you insist on at least ten feet or so of personal space.

20 if you can get it, especially if you're "Israeli"-carrying. You need those two or three seconds regardless.

Matthew said...

"There wasn't a proper investigation, the crime scene wasn't properly processed, and pertinent evidence wasn't properly secured."
--> Actually, so far, evidence was secured. They did tape off the area and conduct an investigation. So, yeah. Strike 1.

"And the reason for that is that Trayvon Martin was black and anyone who thinks that's not true is lying."
--> The foundation on this is shaky, since there was an investigation. It had nothing to do with his race, but rather, what two witnesses and an officer observed, which led the prosecutor to not think he'd have a case.

"But at the end of the day, a white dude with a cop complex blew away a black dude, and the cops shrugged and went on their merry way."
--> Not what happened. Also, why are you taking away Zimmerman's ability to self-identify? He says he is Hispanic; isn't it... rude, I guess?... to tell him his identity?

"You walk around with a gun acting like a big tough man because you have a gun, and you reap what you sow."
--> I guess people deserve to be hit, mounted and beaten for talking to people. Right? Do you even care about the facts, or are you just going to soldier on?

None of the facts back up -any- of what you said. Maybe you'll turn out to be right, and there was a cover up and everyone is racist. But, right now? To keep asserting that? It's just... wrong.

Freder Frederson said...

when the gash on the back of Zimmerann's head is clearly visible.

For Althouse bemoaning the mendacious coverage of this case, it is a wonder she isn't on here fact-checking and complaining about the mendacious comments in this thread, including this comment. (Actually, I'm not surprised at all)

Whatever it is on the back of Zimmerman's head, it most certainly can not be described as a "gash". And how about this one:

Yes, because Zimmerman violated one of the cardinal rules of Black-Run America: A White Shalt Not Speak or Look Disrespectfully At A Black.

And as for whether or not his nose was bloody, the police statement that you put so much credence in states that Zimmerman had a bloody nose.

And will you all stop pretending to know what the EMTs determined at the scene--unless of course you can point to some evidence outside of your fevered imaginations what the EMT's examination revealed.

The fact that a man who claimed to have his nose broken and his had bashed against concrete--so hard that he was barely conscious--didn't even bother to go to the emergency makes that account of the events extremely problematic.;

Scott M said...

Whatever it is on the back of Zimmerman's head, it most certainly can not be described as a "gash".

Freder. Gash expert. Fuzzy security camera expert. Certitude expert.

Freder Frederson said...

and people change clothes when they are messy.

Can you please provide a link for the assertion that Zimmerman was allowed to go home and change clothes between the shooting and arriving at the police station in handcuffs. Because, I certainly haven't seen any evidence of this.

Matthew said...

"The fact that a man who claimed to have his nose broken and his had bashed against concrete--so hard that he was barely conscious--didn't even bother to go to the emergency makes that account of the events extremely problematic."

-- Unless the EMTs who treated him told him not to worry unless there were complications. We don't know what he was told, but it seems more likely that since he got treatment, he would know if he needed to go to the hospital better than we would.

Also -- I thought he did go to the hospital, just not for a day or two?

Nathan Alexander said...

Can you please provide a link for the assertion that Zimmerman was allowed to go home and change clothes between the shooting and arriving at the police station in handcuffs. Because, I certainly haven't seen any evidence of this.

Can you please provide a link that says it is okay for you to pretend your argument is correct if you express plausible doubt about facts you don't like?

Freder Frederson said...

Freder. Gash expert. Fuzzy security camera expert. Certitude expert.

Unlike some people on this blog, I can read a dictionary. Gash: "A long deep cut"

Now, after all you experts have told us, from personal experience, how a broken nose doesn't bleed (even though the police said Zimmerman did have a bloody nose), how many of you are willing to stand up and say that you had a "long deep cut" on the back of your head and it didn't bleed? I know when I got a gash (and it really was a gash that had to be closed by 13 stitched) on the back of my head, I bled like a stuck pig.

Pastafarian said...

I broke my nose playing baseball in my twenties, and it didn't bleed a drop. I did end up with two very black eyes, and a rakish angle to my nose, though.

This nonsense about "but did Martin reach for his gun?" What stupidity.

If you're carrying a concealed firearm, and you cannot allow a situation to reach the point where someone is reaching for your weapon. Zimmerman was apparently so hesitant to pull his gun that he allowed things to devolve into a wrestling match.

In my mind, this is a pretty dramatic indication that Zimmerman wasn't a trigger-happy cowboy.

Martin didn't deserve to die; but "deserve" has nothing to do with it. If you punch someone you don't know in the face, and sit on his chest and rain down blows to his head, you're taking a very big risk. Don't be surprised if you end up shot.

Matthew said...

Most people have been trying to show that it does not have to be an explosion of blood, like people want to see on Zimmerman to prove he has a broken nose. It could have been cleaned up and stopped by the time of the video, is what they're saying. Which is likely, and why they are trying to explain it is not a never-ending, fountain of blood carpeting the room in red.

~N. said...

Matthew -- his clothes weren't bagged, no powder evidence, gunshot trajectory evidence was taken.

That's not a secured, properly processed crime scene, and Zimmerman's clothes and a photo-documentation of his injuries would be pertinent evidence.

So, yeah, what was that about strike 1...?

And another officer thought he should be charged, so there goes your strike 2.

And I guess people deserve to be murdered because they look suspicious to some douche-bag loser wannabe with a cop complex.

The overwhelming burden of proof, responsibility and guilt is on Zimmerman.

But, oh, that might make people not like gunowners so much, especially the loudmouth assholes who brag about how they're gonna stop and confront anyone walking down THEIR street, so they all get behind Zimmerman and defend him without any facts whatsoever, because, as always, it's aaaaaalll about them all the time.

Scott M said...

I know when I got a gash (and it really was a gash that had to be closed by 13 stitched) on the back of my head, I bled like a stuck pig.

Same here. I've had 35 stitches total, two different injuries, on my scalp. Here's the thing, though, after applied pressure for a few minutes, both stopped.

This whole "gash" thing is beneath you, Freder. How about you just wait until all the facts, or as many as we're going to get, are out?

Freder Frederson said...

Can you please provide a link that says it is okay for you to pretend your argument is correct if you express plausible doubt about facts you don't like?

What exactly my argument that you object to? That I don't believe everything I read on Althouse's blog (If I did I would think that Bin Laden was not buried at sea.

Althouse has argued that the MSM's coverage of this case is mendacious because people are lying about the facts. You are responding to police station videotape by asserting that Zimmerman could have broken his nose without it bleeding (which I accept but you still have the problem that the responding officers, whose credibility you put so much faith in, apparently did indeed say Zimmerman had a bloody nose).

But, it was asserted above that the reason Zimmerman apparently has no blood on his clothes was that he was able to change before he was taken to the police station. It is not too much to ask for verification of this particular, and very important point.

Pastafarian said...

~N: "You walk around with a gun acting like a big tough man because you have a gun, and you reap what you sow."

Jesus, tilde N, that's a lot of pent-up hostility you have there. Didn't Mommy and Daddy get you that Red Rider air rifle you wanted for your 10th birthday?

He was walking around with a gun because a) he thought someone might punch him in the face, and sit on this chest and rain blows down on his head and b) he's a citizen and not a subject.

You know who else reaps what they sow? Punks who punch people they don't know in the face, because their victims look older and flabbier then they do. I'll not go as far as you do, though; Martin didn't deserve this. But he took a very big chance when he got into a physical altercation with this guy.

sydney said...

This whole episode is just sickening and disheartening. This sort of behavior is why we have courts and our laws - to avoid lynch mobs and to make a legitimate attempt to find the truth before administering punishment. What does it say about us a society that our media establishment is leading the lynch mob?

Matthew said...

"Matthew -- his clothes weren't bagged, no powder evidence, gunshot trajectory evidence was taken.

That's not a secured, properly processed crime scene, and Zimmerman's clothes and a photo-documentation of his injuries would be pertinent evidence."

-- They did secure it, and they gathered evidence. Maybe they did get powder, I don't know, they did not say. Zimmerman went with them the next day to reenact the shooting for police.

Where is your information that they got none of the information? It seems to me that since we know they, A) investigated and B) put up police tape, that it seems a big stretch to say, "But they didn't really do anything."

And, no. Someone who is accused of a crime is not responsible for proving they are innocent. That's like... the crux of our legal system.

Bender said...

Zimmerman was apparently so hesitant to pull his gun that he allowed things to devolve into a wrestling match

Thank you. Good point.

MnMark said...

@-N: Here's the thing -- Zimmerman is free to confront people in "his" neighborhood, but he has to accept responsibility for his actions.

Zimmerman made a series of choices that night that led to this event. He bears the bulk of the responsibility for what happened. He was the driving force behind the series of events that went down that night.


What "responsibility" does Zimmerman bear for asking a stranger in his neighborhood what he is doing there? When the stranger then decks Zimmerman with a punch, and straddles him slamming his head into the cement, that's ZIMMERMAN'S responsibility???

You do understand that you are saying that *ASKING SOMEONE A QUESTION* makes you responsible when they decide to physically assault you for it? What kind of sick moral world do you live in?

Oh, I know which one. The one where black people can't be expected to behave with self-restraint and decency when they are asked a rude question, and where it's really the white person's fault for not understand that The White Shalt Not Question Or Look Wrong At The Black, on pain of instant vigilante beatdown.

In case it hadn't occurred to you, here's two possible non-violent alternatives to punching someone out for inquiring what you're doing in their neighnorhood:

(1) Answer "I am visiting my father. What's it to you?" and then you walk on your way.

(2) Answer: "I can't see how that's any of your business," and then walk on your way.

The fact that people like you can actually think that it is the fault of the guy who ASKS A QUESTION that he gets beaten for it, suggests how screwed up your moral compass is.

Matthew said...

"And another officer thought he should be charged, so there goes your strike 2. "

-- He was over ruled by an expert. So, yeah.

Bender said...

That's not a secured, properly processed crime scene, and Zimmerman's clothes and a photo-documentation of his injuries would be pertinent evidence.

Pertinent evidence for whom? All of this is NOT evidence for the prosecution. It is all evidence in support of the defense.

Police usually are not all that concerned about preserving evidence that does not go toward establishing guilt, but instead goes toward proving innocence or reasonable doubt.

~N. said...

Oh, so Martin, because he's black, wearing a hoodie, and some tool with a teeny tiny penis and a cop complex, MUST put up with being followed, being treated like a criminal when he'd done NOTHING wrong?

That's right, boy, stand and answer the white man. Don't dare stick up for yourself, or you'll get shot. You have no rights. Only white people have rights.

Frankly, the more y'all talk, the more convinced I am that Zimmerman and his ilk are nothing but a pack of lowlife racist creeps.

Freder Frederson said...

How about you just wait until all the facts, or as many as we're going to get, are out?

So in your world, and apparently Althouse's, the only people allowed to make up facts in this case are those who are defending Zimmerman.

Same here. I've had 35 stitches total, two different injuries, on my scalp. Here's the thing, though, after applied pressure for a few minutes, both stopped.

And the back of your head and shirt weren't caked with blood. And they didn't bandage it?

My objection was to referring to the laceration on the back of Zimmerman's head as a "gash". Whether or not he had a cut on his head is unclear from the video, but calling it a gash is certainly mendacious.

MnMark said...

I just want to emphasize that from the facts I've read, Zimmerman did absolutely NOTHING wrong.

It is not wrong to be vigilant about strangers in your neighborhood.

It is not wrong to approach a stranger on the street and inquire about their business in your neighborhood. They are under no obligation to answer, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking.

It is 100% wrong to assault someone like Martin allegedly did. That makes MARTIN 100% responsible for this event.

It is not wrong to shoot someone who has decked you with a punch and is slamming your head into the pavement.

Zimmerman, from the facts that have been presented, did NOTHING wrong. It was Martin's unprovoked attack - yes, UNPROVOKED, because being asked a question is not a reason for a decent, normal person to attack someone - that is the cause of this sitation.

HT said...

I am reminded of To Kill A Mockingbird and how powerfully that story spoke of racism, hate and the mob mentality.

The historical "hoods" have been exchanged, haven't they?

Don't be so smug, lefties. This is so ugly that it will stain you if you embrace it, and rightly so, as it stained the racist mobs of the past.

Have we learned nothing?


I was hoping to get through this without having to see comparisons drawn between the two hoods - those of the KKK and those of the sweatshirts. One has nothing to do with the other, no matter how much people say they should not be worn or no matter how much people say they should, and wear them almost as a badge of victimhood honor. City councils wore hoods way outside of Florida. How silly and yes divisive. I was hoping at no point to see anyone draw the conclusion that black politicians are now throwing the hoods back in the face of whites. Hope hope hope.

What never ceases to amuse me is how people say yeah but Zimmerman is half Peruvian as if no Peruvian anywhere is racist. As if it is impossible for someone from Peru to be racist, just the concept of it. More silliness.

Where is our dignity?

Well, on the other hand, I think we are getting better. I do. I think in many ways, it's inevitable that, push a button, and we all play our roles. My feeling is that every year we dig a little deeper and come out a little less reactionary than before. Maybe I'm just getting older and more mellow, and just hoping.

Hagar said...

It is more fun to make shit up.

Another thing; this clamor for "an arrest." The infamous video clearly shows Zimmermann entering with the police officers with his hands handcuffed behind him and being "frisked" [again?] by one of the officers.
How is this not "an arrest"? If I were handcuffed and "taken downtown for questioning," I would most certainly fee that I had been "arrested!"

MnMark said...

Oh, so Martin, because he's black, wearing a hoodie, and some tool with a teeny tiny penis and a cop complex, MUST put up with being followed, being treated like a criminal when he'd done NOTHING wrong?

That's right, boy, stand and answer the white man. Don't dare stick up for yourself, or you'll get shot.



He doesn't have to "put up with" anything. He can ignore Zimmerman and keep walking down the street.

And here's a bulletin for you: you can "stand up for yourself" with WORDS...you don't have to punch someone. Has that occurred to you?

Nathan Alexander said...

@N.
And I guess people deserve to be murdered because they look suspicious to some douche-bag loser wannabe with a cop complex.

The irony!!! It burns!!!

~N. said...

MnMark

How do you know Zimmerman just asked him a question? And isn't Zimmerman saying he never even talked to him? That Martin attacked him from behind?

When you choose to arm yourself, when you choose to appoint yourself some kind of neighborhood watch "Captain", when you choose to continue to pursue when you've notified the police of suspicious activity, when you choose to get out of your car and confront, you are responsible for thinking through your actions.

When you fire your weapon, you are responsible for what happens next.

At the end of the day, NOTHING WOULD HAVE HAPPENED TO ANYEONE had Zimmerman gone home, or waited for the cops. He didn't. Martin is dead, and Zimmerman has pretty much turned his life and the lives of his family into shit.

~N. said...

Yeah, and hey, here's a bulletin -- you can notify the cops of your suspicions and STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM PEOPLE, ever think of that?

Look, I get it that you're thrilled there's one less black person in the world, but do you really have to make it THAT obvious? Shame on you.

Nathan Alexander said...

@Freder,
What exactly my argument that you object to?

I object to the fact that you don't have an argument.
I object that your intent is to try to undermine and cast doubt on known facts, in service to your clearly dishonest agenda.

Matthew said...

"At the end of the day, NOTHING WOULD HAVE HAPPENED TO ANYEONE had Martin gone home, or not punched Zimmerman in the face."

Gee, it is almost like both people acted stupidly, and now we have to find who initiated the violent struggle.

Which is where most people are looking, instead of just saying: Zimmerman is a racist. You may be right, and Zimmerman started and ended it.

But, remember how this story was initially reported. That Zimmerman attacked Martin, shot him in cold blood. Now, it turns out, there was a struggle, and witnesses concur that Zimmerman was on the worse end of it.

So much has been reported -wrongly- about this, that we need to wait and listen. But we can't ignore the exonerating information we've been given.

Matthew said...

"Look, I get it that you're thrilled there's one less black person in the world, but do you really have to make it THAT obvious? Shame on you."

-- Not that you're accusing anyone of being a racist or anything.

I still want my apology, darn it.

Scott M said...

And the back of your head and shirt weren't caked with blood. And they didn't bandage it?

No, in fact, both instances, I only got a few drops on my shirt. With applied pressure from my hands, my pants were far more bloody from my constant switching hands and wiping them off.

And they didn't bandage it?

No. Packed it until I could get to the ER for stitches in both cases. I've had similar cuts to the head that I never got stitches for.

Here's the thing. If you apply pressure right away, as you should and most people instinctively do, there shouldn't be a ton of blood. Incapacitating head wounds, even small gashes (which I would call "deep" as anything that makes it through a couple layers of skin and tissue...that's not much in absolute terms) "bleed like stuck pigs" because the person injured can't or doesn't have the presence of mind to apply pressure immediately.

You're getting stuck on semantics for no good reason.

Freder Frederson said...

Police usually are not all that concerned about preserving evidence that does not go toward establishing guilt, but instead goes toward proving innocence or reasonable doubt.

You really don't understand the role of a police investigation, do you?

Darcy said...

HT: It is not an apples to apples comparison, no. But the racist implication is very apt. Sadly.

Pastafarian said...

~N: "some tool with a teeny tiny penis..."

Do you say that because Zimmerman was half-white, or half-Hispanic?

And: "I get it that you're thrilled there's one less black person in the world..."

That's a loathsome and assholish thing to say, tilde N.

Nathan Alexander said...

@N.,
You are either an eye-witness, or you are assuming that Martin was 100% innocent, in direct contradiction of multiple witnesses.

Are you making that assumption on the basis of race?

If not, what is your source of evidence greater than the two eyewitnesses that invalidates their testimony?

Freder Frederson said...

and witnesses concur that Zimmerman was on the worse end of it.

Anonymous witnesses who surfaced well after the fact. If I am wrong about this, please provide a link to the witness statements from the night of the event that back up your preferred version of the events.

Hagar said...

As a "furriner" born and raised, I hereby apologize for referring to the 2-3 inch apparent wound on the back of Zimmermann's head as a "gash" rather than a "cut."
Actually since it (allegedly) was caused by being banged against a concrete walk, it probably is neither, but more like an "abrasion," but whatever it is the skin was broken.

And MN,

There is nothing in the evidence presented by anyone that mentions Zimmermann talking to Martin other than Zimmermann's statement that Martin accosted him and then proceeded to assault him {Zimmermann].

MnMark said...

@-N
Yes, I'm giving Martin the benefit of the doubt that Zimmerman at least asked him a question first before Martin attacked him. I guess you want to argue that Martin may have just attacked Zimmerman because he looked at him wrong or something? I don't see how that helps Martin.

Yes, even though Zimmerman has every legal right to keep a watch on his neighborhood and even to - GASP - approach a stranger and ask their business in the area, the problem would have been avoided if he had not approached or antagonized or in any way caused any kind of slight, offense, wrong look, etc towards Martin.

And if those stupid Jews had just left Germany, they wouldn't have gotten gassed. And if MLK hadn't marched and antagonized the cops, he wouldn't have been thrown in jail. And if the black protesters in the south hadn't been protesting, they wouldn't have been sprayed with water hoses. It's all their fault that someone else attacked them! They should have known!

Talk about "blame the victim" - you take the cake.

Bottom line: regardless of how offended you might feel by what someone else says, if you punch them and start slamming their head into the sidewalk, you just might get shot for it.

I call that just desserts. I guess Trayvon wasn't used to people resisting his beatdowns. He seemed pretty comfortable attacking a stranger on the street - it didn't take much to set him off. But then, he was, by his own account, a "NO_LIMIT_NIGGA." Just keepin' it real!

Matthew said...

"Anonymous witnesses who surfaced well after the fact. If I am wrong about this, please provide a link to the witness statements from the night of the event that back up your preferred version of the events."

-- Witnesses anonymous to us (except one).

I'm not doing your homework for you, as most everyone else who has been gung-ho to hang Zimmerman has refused to read the basic police reports. Do your own homework. The only non-anonymous witness's statement is the one that differs from all the other information we've been given.

Larry J said...

Gerlado is stupid, so let's ignore him. But, yeah. Martin could have responded reasonably instead of attacking. He may have, if he did respond reasonably and Zimmerman turns out to be the aggressor, we might have a real issue on our hands.

But... why does the author of this piece ignore the allegations that Martin struck first, was on top of Zimmerman, and beating him? She has an interesting point about saggy pants laws and curfew; in fact, if we removed everything about Zimmerman/Martin, this would be a really good essay.


According to reports (which may or may not be correct), Martin knew he was being followed. He's said to have told his girlfriend that. We don't know how Zimmerman approached Martin. Did Martin have reason to think he was being attacked? If you're walking alone in the night and someone get out of his car and approaches you, what are you likely to think?

The hard part about the allegations are that Martin is dead, so we only hear from one side of the confrontation. If he thought he was under attack, striking Zimmerman could be considered self-defense, something Martin had the same right to as anyone else. We may never know what happened between the time Zimmerman got out of his car and when witnesses say they saw Martin beating him. Martin is unable to tell his side of the story and Zimmerman's account may or may not be accurate. We simply don't know. Zimmerman was the alleged adult in the confrontation. IMO, he handled the situation very poorly.

bagoh20 said...

"I understand why people want to lie and deceive, but to throw away your credibility so carelessly? "

Sharpton, Jackson, Spike Lee; credibility is not all that necessary for success, I guess. It may just be an obstacle that some have found no need to address.

Mutaman said...

"I understand why people want to lie and deceive, but to throw away your credibility so carelessly?"

Yeah, like seeing words that don't exist in the folds of pajamas.

Sofa King said...

It's like when Catholic priests whine about how it's not fair no one trusts them. Well...whose fault is that? Whose fault is it the black community doesn't trust white cops?

Really? That's fascinating. Applying that same rationale, whose fault would you say it is that the white community doesn't trust young black men?

~N. said...

All of you who are claiming I'm accepting as fact that Martin wasn't the aggressor are accepting as fact that a) he was and b) Zimmerman is telling the truth.

I accept none of those scenarios as fact.

I'm working with WHAT WE KNOW.

What we know is Zimmerman, the last anyone knew as fact, was following Martin. And then the next thing we know AS FACT is that Martin is dead.

Zimmerman brought this on himself. The cops brought the outrage down on themselves.

Martin is aware someone, not a cop, not a uniformed security guard, not driving an official vehicle of any kind, is following him. Did Zimmerman pull back his jacket and flash his gun when he approached Martin? Because, in that case, then Martin is justifiably doing everything you're applauding Zimmerman for doing.

You're so hellbent on portraying the gun-toting, cop wannabe Zimmerman as a sweet little innocent angel that this world is just so fucking blessed to have among them, that you're guilty of assuming AS FACT that Martin was the aggressor.

Sofa King said...

Gee, it is almost like both people acted stupidly, and now we have to find who initiated the violent struggle.

That's not even true. There's no requirement that either one person or another has to be assigned the "killer." It could simply be a case where both parties made erroneous but legally excusable mistakes of judgment.

~N. said...

@SofaKing

How many white people truly have a firsthand negative experience with young black men? The crime most young black men perpetrate is overwhelmingly against other young black men.

Priests didn't rape each other. White people didn't lynch other white people.

cubanbob said...

N knows all of the facts because he has a God's eye view of the facts and the timeline. N knows for a fact that Martin is straight up innocent, that he wasn't looking to burgle a home and that Zimmerman is stone cold guilty of first degree murder. N knows it all, like Freder.

Florida still has a few hanging trees, he and Freder should get Sharpton and the NBP to form a lynch mob and put one of those trees to use. In the meantime when is Sharpton going to ride old sparky for Fredies Mart and Crown Heights?

When Holder sends a squad from the DoJ and the FBI in on the act I will take these wannabe lynchers seriously. In the meantime lets let the cops and the state attorney do their jobs and then form a judgment whether Zimmerman is guilty of a capital crime, manslaughter or commited a justifiable homicide.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Applying that same rationale, whose fault would you say it is that the white community doesn't trust young black men?

Just because the Mascots of the Anointed are entitled to have their perceptions treated as facts, that doesn't mean just anyone can claim that privilege.

Sofa King said...

How many white people truly have a firsthand negative experience with young black men? The crime most young black men perpetrate is overwhelmingly against other young black men.


Let's put it this way: more white people have been criminally victimized by young black men than white people have been raped by Catholic priest, by at least an order of magnitude. So your argument is either valid or invalid in both cases. Your choice.

~N. said...

No, Paul, it's just a bad analogy.

Sofa King said...

~N: Let's get to the point here. Even assuming that your perception of what happened, that Z killed M for no other reason than that M is black, what of people calling for Z to be killed? Do you at least agree that Z deserves the same measures of justice accorded the average gangbanger?

Rick67 said...

We. Shouldn't. Be. Talking about this. At all.

D*mn the left. That's mean, but what else can one say?

~N. said...

I think vigilanteism is appalling and no one should be putting bounties on anyone's head, or posting what they falsely assume to be Zimmerman's address, or calling for revenge.

Had BOTH the Zimmerman and Martin families directed their energy towards asking why the cops did such a crap job investigating this, we wouldn't have the situation we have now.

Every human being deserves a fair, unbiased investigation.

Freder Frederson said...

I'm not doing your homework for you,

I'm not asking you to do my homework. I have done it, and as far as I can tell there are only two eyewitnesses that have come forward, the woman who made the call to 911 (and maintains she did not see, only heard the altercation) and the anonymous witness who one man on the ground with another on top of him--and he or she wasn't even sure who was on top.

Now granted you can find articles by disreputable sources (e.g., Newsmax) who say that the witness said Martin was on top (citing, without linking, an Orlando Sentinel). So I went to the Orlando Sentinel and it does indeed claim that there was one (not multiple) witness who claims to have definitely seen Zimmerman on the ground, but again, that witness popped up weeks after the event. The police apparently claim they have witnesses that corroborate Zimmerman's account, but they are not releasing any details about it.

One thing is certain, nobody has come forth who claimed to witness the original altercation, so there is absolutely no evidence, other than Zimmerman's word, that Martin started the fight by punching Zimmerman in the face hard enough to break his nose.

Tarzan said...

You're walking down a dark alley -- you're confronted by a big, tall black guy wearing a dark hoodie and baggy jeans who asks for directions. You're walking down a dark alley -- you're confronted by a petite, blonde white girl in Lily Pulitzer who asks for directions.

Who do you stop and help?

That you might feel more comfortable stopping for the preppy little blonde girl than you would the black guy doens't mean you wouldn't hire a black person, or deny them a loan. You're not a racist at heart. But you react based on preconceived notions about what you see in front of you right now.


The clothes make the man, or woman as the case may be. First impressions are everything in a dark alley, so yes, you're damn right I'd be more likely to help the girl, while at the same time watching to see if she's just bait for an accomplice luring in the shadows.

I've encountered exactly that before. The (white) girl looked 'presentable' at a glance, but up close was haggard and reeked of alcohol. A very tough-looking white guy (in a hoodie of course) made his way over from another angle and they both started to try and engage me in 'conversation' which is a standard part of a setup. It was a darkened parking lot and not an alley, so I was able to change course and defuse what might have been an ugly situation.

I don't trust much of anyone in a dark alley too quickly. All the more less so the more closely they match the 'gangsta' ideal, and yes, that includes skin color as a factor, as the 'ideal' gangsta is a black one.

The NAACP is not looking out for my or my family's well being. I have to do that myself and appraise every situation as clearly as I can. If that looks 'racist' to someone else, too bad. You go ahead and make your own choices when you're in the dark alley, and then go ahead and live by them.

I have to ask, what the f*** is a 'Lily Pulitzer'?

Matthew said...

"I'm not asking you to do my homework. I have done it, and as far as I can tell there are only two eyewitnesses that have come forward...

The police apparently claim they have witnesses that corroborate Zimmerman's account, but they are not releasing any details about it... so there is absolutely no evidence, other than Zimmerman's word, that Martin started the fight by punching Zimmerman in the face hard enough to break his nose."

-- Except for the witnesses that the police say they have.

So, you know the police have these witnesses, but you want to expose them to the mob of people who have shown no qualms about sending death threats -to the wrong house- just so that your curiosity can be satiated?

Do you not care about their safety?

Freder Frederson said...

N knows it all, like Freder.

I would like you to show one post of mine where I have stated anything other than uncontroverted facts about this case. Or where for that matter I said Zimmerman was guilty.

Freder Frederson said...

Except for the witnesses that the police say they have.

You are simply mistaken about this. Please direct me to an article, any article, that claims the police have a corroborating witness (or any other witness other than Zimmerman) to the initial confrontation.

~N. said...

This is a Lilly Pulitzer.

I misspelled it originally. I'm not particularly given to Lilly Pulitzer clothing, but it's sort of summer uniform for the Kiawah set. I'm more a St. John gal myself. Not into all those bright colors.

Matthew said...

"You are simply mistaken about this. Please direct me to an article, any article, that claims the police have a corroborating witness (or any other witness other than Zimmerman) to the initial confrontation."

-- Stop moving the goal posts. We were talking about whether the police had any witnesses at all, then whether any witnesses at all that saw Martin hitting Zimmerman, now we're back to the initial confrontation.

The fact is there are witnesses. You want them to be made public because you are curious. You know that witnesses who go public and support Zimmerman's account will be hounded, threatened and potentially attacked.

What you are asking for is irresponsible. We have the evidence we have, make do with it till more comes loose.

Freder Frederson said...

"The police apparently claim they have witnesses that corroborate Zimmerman's account, but they are not releasing any details about it... so there is absolutely no evidence, other than Zimmerman's word, that Martin started the fight by punching Zimmerman in the face hard enough to break his nose."

BTW, this is a very deceptive use of ellipsis. If one had not read my initial post they might think I was claiming there were no witnesses who claim they saw Zimmerman on the ground with Martin on top of him. I never said this, in fact I admitted there was indeed such a witness.

Tarzan said...

That being said, ~N, there's a lot that you say with which I very much agree.

I find it very surprising that one man can gun down another after intentionally leaving the safety of his car to pursue someone else after already notifying the police of the situation and being advised to stay put, and not face some fairly serious consequences and court room time.

Racism doesn't concern me. Public safety does. It should be very difficult to shoot people dead in public and walk away from it all in one night, case closed.

That sword could cut in all sorts of unexpected ways.

Tarzan said...

This is a Lilly Pulitzer.

Wow.

Dare I say...sassy!

Nathan Alexander said...

@Freder,
If I am wrong about this, please provide a link to the witness statements from the night of the event that back up your preferred version of the events.

And your dishonest and despicable strategy to undermine facts continues.

Why should you demand others spoon-feed you information?

Why should others meet your demands when you signal you are actively seeking grounds to discount anything that doesn't match your preconceived assumptions?

List the facts. All the answers are there, if you have the courage to face the obvious conclusions.

Matthew said...

"BTW, this is a very deceptive use of ellipsis. If one had not read my initial post they might think I was claiming there were no witnesses who claim they saw Zimmerman on the ground with Martin on top of him. I never said this, in fact I admitted there was indeed such a witness."

--> Actually, you were responding to:

"and witnesses concur that Zimmerman was on the worse end of it."

Anonymous witnesses who surfaced well after the fact. If I am wrong about this, please provide a link to the witness statements from the night of the event that back up your preferred version of the events."

--> In other words, you were contending there were no witnesses to Zimmerman getting the worst of it. Which you then claim they did not have.

Which is why we're showing you you're wrong. Slow down, rethink, re-evaluate.

Matthew said...

PS,

My preferred version involved Zimmerman bugging out (a phrase I use so that it sticks with people that I wanted Zimmerman to not follow or attempt to follow Martin at all), and everything ending happily ever after for everyone.

The version I am unhappily settling for is two stupid people engaging in a stupid fight that left one dead.

Shanna said...

Zimmerman was apparently so hesitant to pull his gun that he allowed things to devolve into a wrestling match

This. The only evidence we have is that Martin was the aggressor, and this makes me think Zimmerman didn’t start the thing, because if he were really such a hothead, why on earth would he provoke a fistfight with a guy who was 6’3’’ when he had a gun?

Matthew -- his clothes weren't bagged, no powder evidence, gunshot trajectory evidence was taken.

Don’t you get gunshot trajectory from the autopsy, mostly? Also, there was really no question who the shooter was. Ballistics, again, would prove it was his gun and he admitted it, and admitted he Zimmerman he shot Martin, so there was no particular need to go crazy proving something that was obvious.

when you choose to get out of your car and confront, you are responsible for thinking through your actions.

Ditto when you choose to beat the crap out of someone. We don’t know who started the aggression (and no, watching someone in your neighborhood, or even talking to him, is not aggression).

How many white people truly have a firsthand negative experience with young black men?

When someone tried to break into my house when I was home alone it was a young, black man. Now I have had plenty of good experiences too to balance that, but the one time I was seriously worried about crime, well. It is what it is. Thankfully that particular person was scared off by my very large dog and her very deep bark!

bbkingfish said...

Why did the investigating police fail to screen Zimmerman for drugs and alcohol?

Freder Frederson said...

why on earth would he provoke a fistfight with a guy who was 6’3’’ when he had a gun?

6'3" and skinny as a rail (I was thin in high school, weighed the same as Martin did, yet I am six inches shorter--5'9" and 150lbs back then). Zimmerman had about 100 lbs on Martin, and from the video it wasn't 100 lbs of fat. Zimmerman looks like he is in pretty good shape.

Steve Koch said...

The lefty leadership, led by typical corrupt and cynical lefty leader Obama, is whipping up its stupid base in an election year. Lefty leadership thought Zimmerman was white because of his name so they wanted to push the theme that the fed gov needs to protect blacks from white violence (absurd as that is in terms of the actual racial crime statistics).

When it turned out that Z man is actually hispanic, the lefties decided they could get away with continuing with the white racists violence vs blacks theme since their followers are so stupid and the media, academia, entertainment, on and on are in the tank for the left.

Since the left routinely fabricates propaganda to advance its political goals, it is completely unsurprising that they are doing it again in this case.

What is mystifying is how Althouse retains her ability to be surprised by the unrelenting corrupt, cynical duplicity of the left. At a certain point most adults realize that when they wake up in the morning it is not to a brand new world. The people who were corrupt, cynical liars yesterday are still corrupt, cynical liars today. To ignore reality is not being fair and open minded, it is just willful ignorance.

To answer Althouse's question, lefties do not worry about losing credibility when telling political lies because winning politically is much, much more important to the left than figuring out objective reality. Lefties who tell the truth rather than conform to the lefty narrative will be severely punished by fellow lefties (i.e. it would be a career limiting move to tell the objective truth rather than the lefty political lie).

Freder Frederson said...

When it turned out that Z man is actually hispanic

His father is white, his mother is Hispanic. And thus,he can call himself "Hispanic", "White" or "mixed race" if wants. So far, other than his white father calling him Hispanic, we have no idea how he self-identifies.

Matthew said...

"His father is white, his mother is Hispanic. And thus,he can call himself "Hispanic", "White" or "mixed race" if wants. So far, other than his white father calling him Hispanic, we have no idea how he self-identifies."

-- Except his voting record.

"George Zimmerman was originally identified as white. Then his family said he was Hispanic. Which is it?

Zimmerman is identified as "white" in the original police report. However, according to CBS News investigative producer Pia Malbran, who has been reporting from Miami, police in Florida routinely label Hispanics who don't have black skin as "white," even if they have ethnic facial features. The Associated Press reports that Zimmerman's mother, Gladys, is originally from Peru. Both she and George Zimmerman identified themselves as "Hispanic" in their voter registrations. Robert Zimmerman, George's father, lists himself as white."
-- http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57407115-504083/trayvon-martin-shooting-what-do-we-know/

Do your homework, please.

Freder Frederson said...

Both she and George Zimmerman identified themselves as "Hispanic" in their voter registrations.

Voter registration, especially in states subject to the Voting Rights Act, does not give one the opportunity to declare mixed race, which the census forms do. And just because he declared himself "Hispanic" on his voter registration doesn't mean he calls himself Hispanic regularly. If you are of mixed race, you can change your classification at your whim (actually, you can be any racial heritage and claim you are anything you want--except Native American, you have to be a member of government recognized tribe to do that).

Matthew said...

"Voter registration, especially in states subject to the Voting Rights Act, does not give one the opportunity to declare mixed race, which the census forms do."

-- The Florida voter registration DOES have a box for multi-racial (http://election.dos.state.fl.us/voter-registration/voter-reg.shtml#voterApp)

Do your homework.

Matthew said...

PS, Yes. I had looked that up before you responded to reply with it when you inevitably misstated a basic fact.

Steve Koch said...

Freder Frederson said...
"His father is white, his mother is Hispanic. And thus,he can call himself "Hispanic", "White" or "mixed race" if wants. So far, other than his white father calling him Hispanic, we have no idea how he self-identifies."

Ha ha. So racial identity is not a fixed thing determined by genetics? Ha ha. So Z man can be hispanic in the morning, mixed in the afternoon, and white by night, depending on how he feels? This is the stupidest response to one of my comments in a long time.

Freder Frederson said...

So racial identity is not a fixed thing determined by genetics? Ha ha. So Z man can be hispanic in the morning, mixed in the afternoon, and white by night, depending on how he feels? This is the stupidest response to one of my comments in a long time.

Absolutely. There is no requirement that you be consistent in self-identification, in fact, you can decline to answer and leave people guessing (if you do that though, in certain circumstances someone will identify you on what they believe without consulting you.)

Freder Frederson said...

The Florida voter registration DOES have a box for multi-racial

You are right, but it is a fairly new form (no more than three years old).

Paul Zrimsek said...

I hope for the sake of the poor bastards who are stuck redoing the redistricting in Wisconsin that the part-time Hispanic population isn't too big.

Freder Frederson said...

So racial identity is not a fixed thing determined by genetics?

And this is especially true for the Hispanic category, since it rests entirely on your language heritage (Spanish only) and where you trace your home to (Spanish Speaking areas of Central and South America). So, under the U.S. government's definition of "Hispanic" Brazilians and natives of Belize are not Hispanic. Haitians are not Hispanic while Dominicans are. An

Steve Koch said...

Freder,

I have concluded that communicating with you is a waste of time. If only Roesch-Voltaire could be cloned so there was more than one intelligent poster among the lefties on Althouse's site. Sigh.

Titus said...

The brother is fucking hot.

So hot.

I don't give a shit about this case but I would love to do the brother.

Pastafarian said...

Freder: "BTW, this is a very deceptive use of ellipsis."

Funny you should mention this. Here's MSNBC quoting Zimmerman's conversation with the cops:

"'This guy looks like he’s up to no good...he looks black,' Zimmerman told a police dispatcher..."

But here's the full transcript:

ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he's up to no good, [begin ellipsis] or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

911 DISPATCHER: Okay, is this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic? [end ellipsis]

ZIMMERMAN: He looks black.

See what they did there, Freder? Now THAT'S a very deceptive use of ellipsis -- with the intention of provoking a race riot.

hombre said...

Althouse: I am trying to fathom the depths of mendacity around the Trayvon Martin case. Why aren't people afraid of uttering statements that are so easily devastated?

Just following another fine example set by our president. If your deception is consistent with the media template it will not be exposed as false.