A medical report that was not referenced in the state’s charging affidavit states that Zimmerman sustained a broken nose, two black eyes, and two cuts on the back of his head.That makes it sound like Frazier is advocating conviction not based on the legal standards, but on the practical goal of controlling the public's emotions. What did Frazier actually write?
The new forensic facts challenge the second-degree murder charge, which, to stick, requires a jury to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted with malicious recklessness in causing Trayvon’s death, says Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor whose criticisms of the prosecution stepped up as the state’s evidence was revealed.
Given the new evidence, “the prosecutor is at least guilty of willful blindness,” says Mr. Dershowitz in a phone interview....
Medical examiners found that Trayvon had THC, the euphoria-inducing compound found in marijuana, in his blood – a potentially salient fact given that Zimmerman told a dispatcher he thought the man he had spotted “was on drugs or something.”...
The report also revealed the FBI findings from one of the most controversial tenets of the case: whether a voice that can be heard screaming for help during a 911 recording was Trayvon or Zimmerman. The FBI was unable to conclusively determine whom the voice belonged to, and was also unable to corroborate suggestions that, at one point, Zimmerman uttered a racial slur.
According to police, Tracy Martin, Trayvon’s dad, said he didn’t believe the voice crying for help belonged to his son. When asked, Officer Chris Serino wrote: "Mr. Martin, clearly emotionally impacted by the recording, quietly responded 'no.' "
The stakes in the case are high. It set off national introspection over so-called Stand Your Ground laws, which critics call “shoot first” laws. Zimmerman is likely to argue his use of that law in a special “mini-trial” to precede a jury trial, in which a judge can dismiss the case outright and shield Zimmerman from civil liability.
Others, meanwhile, worry what impact an acquittal or hung jury could have, sparking columnist Mansfield Frazier at the Daily Beast to suggest that the legal system has a responsibility to help avoid a “large scale racial calamity.”
If this case goes all the way to trial, it’s a train wreck waiting to happen. The time is now for strong hands to take the helm and steady the ship of state—not to mention our national racial, political and legal discourse. The paramount concern has to be to avert a large-scale racial calamity....O'Mara has a professional obligation to represent his client, not the overall good of the nation. Frazier seems to think he's the voice of reason, but he's calling for the subversion of the legal system. Frazier likes the fact that Zimmerman is "in isolation right now" so he's kept away from "the more rabid right-wingers from getting inside his head and convincing him to take the case to trial, based on the belief that no matter what the evidence shows, in Florida at least one juror will never vote to convict. Unfortunately, this reasoning is not crazy. The South, after all, is still the South."
To my mind, the government offers Zimmerman a plea deal that has him back on the street within this decade, and he accepts it quietly. That seems like a conclusion most reasonable Americans could live with....
If [Zimmerman’s lawyer, Mark] O’Mara were successful in brokering such a resolution, he should be viewed as nothing less than a savior. A protracted murder trial of George Zimmerman is the last thing this country needs right now. America can only dodge so many racial bullets, and a not-guilty verdict in this case could very easily turn the racial cold war into a very hot one.
What?! What about the ordinary legal analysts who don't think the prosecution can prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt? There's absolutely nothing rabid, right-wing, or Southern about that opinion.
Posts
207 comments:
1 – 200 of 207 Newer› Newest»I know that many people think this is a tedious response, but if you flip black and white on that one it reads really really badly.
What's up with the CSM?
_XC
Damn that forensic evidence.
Zero and Holder and the media had a great little lynching going and those damned Althouse Hillbillies, with their reason and their analysis, shut it down.
As I say, the Lefties are really riding a cold streak.
I look forward to the forth coming apologies from Jackson, Sharpton, et. al.
If the South is still the South, then Zimmerman, being a white Hispanic, er, multi-racial Hispanic, should hope not to go to trial. Aren't all Southerners racist?
"To my mind, the government offers Zimmerman a plea deal that has him back on the street within this decade, and he accepts it quietly. That seems like a conclusion most reasonable Americans could live with...."
-- We need to stop encouraging people to accept plea deals that are so obviously against their interests. Zimmerman's case is strong; he has no reason to accept a plea deal except the fear that a prosecutor may be able to take away his freedom for longer. If Zimmerman feels he is innocent, he should go to trial. He should not accept being guilty and sentenced to jail (and a ruined life) solely to appease the rioting masses. That's what the police and executive branch are supposed to handle: Ensuring people don't riot. The judicial branch's job is to make sure Zimmerman gets a fair trial.
To my mind, the government offers Zimmerman a plea deal that has him back on the street within this decade, and he accepts it quietly. That seems like a conclusion most reasonable Americans could live with...
This is sickening to read.
I'm sure it would be really "reasonable" if the author were charged with a crime he didn't commit...
"New" evidence?
It is only new to those who previously had plucked their eyeballs out and covered their ears while insisting over and over that Zimmerman was guilty, period, no trial necessary.
Go look back at all of the prior posts on this blog and all of this has already been mentioned and discussed.
"To my mind, the government offers Zimmerman a plea deal that has him back on the street within this decade, and he accepts it quietly. That seems like a conclusion most reasonable Americans could live with...."
I think that misreads the American public. People who think that on balance, he's probably actually innocent -- not just "technically" innocent because of a lack of sufficient evidence and the burden of proof, but actually innocent based on the facts and the evidence that is now public -- aren't going to find that an acceptable outcome. They'll think it's a travesty of justice.
Bender: The THC being in his system and Martin's autopsy results are new evidence. Zimmerman's wounds, while not new evidence, the actual pictures are new. Those are new, but the fact that Martin's father could not ID the voice initially and that witnesses agreed with Zimmerman's telling are not new. They really should have separated it out better into "what is new" and "what is now being officially confirmed by the police with documentation and not just say so."
"...so-called 'shoot-first laws'..."
Shoot first? So Zimmerman shot Martin in the heart, and then Martin, falling forward, extended his fist with his last dying breath, and it fell into Zimmerman's nose?
This is what guns are for: We are under no obligation to allow people to break our noses or bash our skulls into sidewalks.
"...the government offers Zimmerman a plea deal that has him back on the street within this decade, and he accepts it quietly. That seems like a conclusion most reasonable Americans could live with...."
This Frazier is a craven, flaming asshole who would sacrifice 10 years of this man's life in a stripy hole, when it's clear this man did no more than defend himself. Frazier is worse than the worst parts of Martin or Zimmerman. If anyone from this entire sordid affair belongs in prison, it's this asshole Frazier, and cowardly backstabbers like him.
This is justice according to Frazier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeldwfOwuL8
The soft bigotry of low expectations. The African American community needs to be held to the same standards of behavior as everybody else. If they riot, throw them in jail. Stop treating them like children who don't know right from wrong. Law suits against the media for fomenting riots might also be in order. Even if you lose they would have an effect.
I'm sure it would be really "reasonable" if the author were charged with a crime he didn't commit...
Leftists will often sacrifice themselves for a future political utopia. Stalin's show trials were full of victims confessing to crimes they didn't commit.
Of course, they are also more than willing to sacrifice others...
Martin had been suspended from school for marijuana possession. It is reasonable to conclude then that he smoked it. We already knew that they were in a struggle and the "new" evidence of wounds to the knuckles of Martin and additional pictures of Zimmerman only corroborate what was already known.
And they better hope that no prosecution witness testifies that Martin was a good boy and would never be involved in any burglaries because such character testimony would open the door to the stolen jewelry that was also found in Martin's possession at school.
Frazier is a complete idiot, and he writes for the "Beast" - But I repeat myself.
This country isn't going to be "torn apart" by a trial. And if found not guilty and Blacks riots, what would that prove not except some Blacks were just looking for any excuse to loot and riot.
I hope GZ's found innocent in the Preliminary trial because that's what the evidence demands.
I share Mansfield Frazier's concern that a fair trial would result in the looting of liquor stores and Korean shops and the attempted murder of a white truck driver.
This whole GZ story just shows how a small liberal media elite can determine what 300 million Americans talk and think about.
There are a 100 crime stories that just as interesting, but THEY decide which local crime story becomes national news.
Truth is harsh. Truth can hurt.
Nothing is more valuable or precious than everyone feeling good.
So truth must go.
Which means we'll all take our chances in a great mosh pit of emotions.
So let's open the gate and release the pressure, and just hope and pray that there isn't a fence ahead of continuing push of the crowd.
I just read a meteor might hit earth in the next 50 years.
I'm very concerned.
Can Zimmerman sue the president for attempting to railroad him? Can he sue the DA for pushing the case much further in order to ride the steam of public opinion? Can the DA at least be fired, as was the DA in the Duke lacrosse case, for dereliction of duty?
Some kind of legal principle needs to be established that you don't railroad just to suit the PC left and their mindless rabble, with demagogues like Jackson and Sharpton and Obama still leading the fray.
Spin.
which critics call “shoot first” laws.
The "critics" are anti-gun, ignorant simpletons who nobody takes seriously.
harrogate said...
Spin.
Thank you for your full of fact, glorious contribution.
"National introspection" is an awfully strange phrase. It is at once an oxymoron and a presumption. Who is introspecting? No one, actually. We just have certain journalists projecting their biases on an abstraction.
Jay,
I know based on previous threads that you, like many here, had not at all reached a conclusion about this incident to which forensic reports might be bent. You, like AA herself and commenters like Fen, were cautioning everyone not to arrive at snap judgments. ;-)
harrogate said...
Jay,
I know based on previous threads that you, like many here, had not at all reached a conclusion about this incident to which forensic reports might be bent. You, like AA herself and commenters like Fen, were cautioning everyone not to arrive at snap judgments.
Actually, I've done nothing but comment on the actual facts of this case, and how the actual facts destroy the narrative.
A narrative you whole-heartedly accepted without any critical examination, I would add.
Again. Missing the "no shit" tag you need.
"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern," the report said. "There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter."
Shoulda been charged with manslaughter...
Frazier's attitude is indeed chilling.
However, this case will not go to trial. The MSM is already walking it back at all deliberate speed. It will be dumped some Friday night this fall when something else has got everybody's attention, and after that it will be down the memory hole.
Harrogate,
Spin? Seems you have no idea what that means. I don't recall whether you were among the chorus of lefties here telling us that a broken nose would have been evident on the video taken at the police station, therefore Zimmerman was a liar.
The physical evidence continues to support what Zimmerman has said? If "spin" is your best response, or the prosecutor's, there is no question that there is reasonable doubt.
Really, your side has been leading the poor Martin family on, and this is all you've got. I'd suggest that you should feel shame if I had any inkling that you were capable of it.
See, manslaughter, I would've felt like that was a reach, but at least, a possible conviction. It would still be a tough case, but at least it feels like a case.
Murder? That's too big a bridge to cross.
I accepted nothing. The gist of what I ever said to anyone, here or elsewhere, anonymous or in person, was that if I were out walking and someone followed me like that, I am not sure how I would handle it. And I'm still not sure. I don't fuck with people and appreciate that they not fuck with me.
I did, of course, have fun with people who wanted to elevate Z to the status of hero. That is hardly the same as accusing him of being guilty of murder, or even manslaughter. And I damned sure don't support the idea that he needs to be sentences in order to head off a potential riot. I'm a defendant's rights guy by nature.
I would be surprised if there were ANY juror votes for conviction, let alone 11 out of 12.
There are very few "Southerners" in Florida. It's mostly a Yankee state now. I would lay even money that an enpaneled jury wouldn't have even one born in Florida resident.
Others, meanwhile, worry what impact an acquittal or hung jury could have, sparking columnist Mansfield Frazier at the Daily Beast to suggest that the legal system has a responsibility to help avoid a “large scale racial calamity.”
How can this statement be viewed as anything other than negatively racist towards blacks. If Zimmerman is found guilty, even with weak evidence against him, no one expects whites and hispanics to cause a "large scale racial calamity"; however, it is assumed that blacks will if he is not convicted (due again to week evidence against).
Is it worse that people just assume blacks to be violent because of verdicts or that blacks have a history of violence when a verdict doesn't go their way?
A protracted murder trial of George Zimmerman is the last thing this country needs right now.
Primarily what the MSM needs, not necessarily the country. The people in the country need to know just how much the MSM lead them astray by putting a narrative ahead of facts.
The South, after all, is still the South.
Ha! It's totally okay to have a prejudicial bias against people in the south, but the whole assumption of this douche's outrage lies in how wrong prejudice is to begin with. The Zimmerman-Martin case is a great example of the bias and prejudice of the MSM. Almost as good as the Duke lacrosse case.
Do these people ever learn just what prejudiced and racist people they are against southerners and whites?
machine: I guess all those rapes that occur every year wouldn't occur if those seductive tarts would just stay sequestered in their homes instead of parading around in public.
Those "victims" should be charged with aggravated seduction.
and @machine,
That is twaddle. Zimmerman had as much right to walk around in the area as Trayvon Martin did. The only thing that matter is who started the fisticuffs, and the prosecution cannot prove that Zimmerman did. In fact, though not "proven," indications are mostly that Trayvon Martin did as Zimmerman claims.
We already knew that they were in a struggle and the "new" evidence of wounds to the knuckles of Martin and additional pictures of Zimmerman only corroborate what was already known.
I think the forensic evidence on Martin & Zimmerman's injuries is actually better for Zimmerman than what we had heard before. I mean, Zimmerman has:
broken nose, two black eyes, and two cuts on the back of his head.
Whereas Martin apparently had a gunshot wound, bloody knuckles, and nothing else (that last is what I read somewhere, but cannot find a news article saying specifically, now that I look). If that's right, and Martin didn't even have any bruises or lacerations that could have been inflicted by Zimmerman in a struggle, that suggests to me that there wasn't so much a struggle as a one-sided Martin on Zimmerman beat down.
harrogate said...
I accepted nothing. The gist of what I ever said to anyone, here or elsewhere, anonymous or in person, was that if I were out walking and someone followed me like that
Incorrect!
You accept the idea that Zimmerman "followed" Martin.
There is no evidence of that anywhere, at all.
And I damned sure don't support the idea that he needs to be sentences in order to head off a potential riot.
Now on that, we certainly agree!
machine said...
"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern," the report said. "There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter."
As a matter of law, this blustery statement is wholly irrelevant.
Of course you don't care, you narrative bitter clinger you.
Jay: Zimmerman followed Martin; the question is whether he stopped when he said he did or if he re-started following Martin. Then, even if he did follow Martin again, that doesn't prove he started it, or that he had "malicious intent" to harm Martin. But yes, at least at one point, he was following Martin (which is where the confusion comes from).
Your belligerence here and elsewhere speaks for itself, Jay. A real internet badass sword carrier of righteousness, you are.
Every version of this story we have seen has it that Z, at least for a while, followed M. If this did not happen then it means what exactly? That M just saw Z, minding his own business, and attacked him. Maybe that's the story that gelled in your mind.
harrogate: "...if I were out walking and someone followed me like that, I am not sure how I would handle it."
Would you punch them in the nose, breaking it, and smash the back of their head into the sidewalk repeatedly? If so, remind me to steer clear of any Althouse meetups. Unless I'm carrying my S&W J-frame.
I haven't heard any reports of injuries to Martin's face or Zimmerman's knuckles. I'd say it's pretty apparent, and has been for some time, what happened here.
A Hispanic man observed someone suspicious, who he thought might be on drugs, and who he thought might have been a thief. (He turned out to be right on both counts.) He followed the guy; he called the cops. The cops said "you don't HAVE to follow him any further", but this Hispanic man didn't want the guy to get away, so he might have followed him beyond this point (as was his right, to walk down the public street.)
And at some point, the guy in the hoodie, hopped up on pot-marijuana and having just been expelled from school, doubled back and attacked the Hispanic. Not surprisingly, the more aggressive, younger, faster, more agile, bigger, stronger man started bashing the Hispanic's head into the concrete, and he could have killed him, but the Hispanic guy happened to be CCW, as is his right.
What part of this narrative is in dispute?
And why do you hate Hispanics?
Every version of this story we have seen has it that Z, at least for a while, followed M.
So you're "not sure how you would handle it" if you saw someone "following you", no matter whether they did it for seconds, minutes, or hours?
Interesting.
machine,
The encounter between George Zimmerman and Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement
What tripe. People have the right to challenge those in their neighborhood, especially when a rash of thefts had occured and the stranger in your neighborhood looks high. What you don't have the right to do is go into a fit of rage because someone challenged you, then attack that person.
Waiting for the police is as cowardly a position as ever and really not surprising that a government document would implicitly put forth the idea that peopel should depend on the government for personal protection, instead of taking personal responsibility for it. And it's not really a good idea, since the police have not consitutional duty to protect anyone (see Warren v District of Columbia, or simply google for "scotus police no duty to protect" as there are multiple SCOTUS cases all defending police negligence).
Re: Pastafarian:
I guess all those rapes that occur every year wouldn't occur if those seductive tarts would just stay sequestered in their homes instead of parading around in public.
Heavens, man, that's only common sense! I thought we all knew that:
Sheik al-Hilali added: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it..whose fault is it - the cats or the uncovered meat?
"The uncovered meat is the problem."
He went on: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (veil), no problem would have occurred."
"As a matter of law, this blustery statement is wholly irrelevant."
Your response to machine, meanwhile, is true on its face. But this is why I entered the conversation originally. Not to argue he should be found guilty of murder, but to note that based on what I have seen, Z is far from a victim or a hero, but rather, engaged in some provocative, asinine behavior that I am thankful has never been targeted at me. Because if it were targeted at me, I wondered and still wonder, how would I react? Would I become frightened and run? Angry and confront? Ignore and keep on going? It is hard to tell. Again, I am thankful so far, that I have never been presented with the situation that M walked into.
"Waiting for the police is as cowardly a position as ever and really not surprising that a government document would implicitly put forth the idea that peopel should depend on the government for personal protection, instead of taking personal responsibility for it."
-- Had Martin been a dangerous criminal, or just a bit stronger, Zimmerman would be dead. Sometimes, yes, it is wise to back off. There is nothing cowardly if Zimmerman had decided to wait by his car to meet with the police. If Martin had a knife -- mind you, it is fairly clear he got the jump on Zimmerman -- Zimmerman would be dead. Again, this isn't saying what Zimmerman did was legally (or ethically) wrong, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the choice to not follow.
go ahead. riot. There will be more George Zimmermans ready to stand their ground.
harrowgate, are you saying that if someone is guilty of following me, then I have the right to overpower them, bash their nose in, and smash the back of their skull into the pavement?
What could Zimmerman have done here, that gave Martin the right to do this? Bear in mind that Martin has no injuries other than bloody knuckles and a small hole in the chest.
"hopped up on pot-marijuana"
Goodness. Really? Both syntactically and in terms of content, that you have never in your life gotten high.
People are already rioting and attacking white people with Trayvon's name upon their lips while they do it. I think there have been a total of 15 incidents of this nature at last count.
So are we going to give groups of thugs a veto over our justice system?
The problem is that people have been brainwashed to think of themselves as members of groups instead of as individuals. If something happens to a group member then it is as if it happened to them and they are justified in seeking revenge on members of the offending group. This sort of thing is naturally so ridiculous and self-refuting that you end up with the spectacle of Harvard professors running around desperately trying to claim membership in a group 5 generations back as if it has some bearing on anything at all.
It is all primitive and abhorrent to a civilized mind --- it is also the end result and goal of the grievance studies departments and government programs that encourage this sort of insanity.
Dershowitz is right to call out the prosecutor here but he misses the bigger point of how we arrived at this point. Until we stop encouraging tribalism based on race we are going to get more and more of this sort of thing.
"harrowgate, are you saying that if someone is guilty of following me, then I have the right to overpower them, bash their nose in, and smash the back of their skull into the pavement?"
Pasta, no, I'm not saying that, certainly not in a legal sense. But I also do not think that if you follow some guy out walking at night in the rain, and it leads to a violent confrontation, that you are exactly in a position to say "whaaaaa?"
based on what I have seen, Z is far from a victim or a hero, but rather, engaged in some provocative, asinine behavior
Walking around the neighborhood he lived in?
What kind of provocative asshole does THAT? Besides Trayvon Martin, of course. :)
"But I also do not think that if you follow some guy out walking at night in the rain, and it leads to a violent confrontation, that you are exactly in a position to say "whaaaaa?""
-- A few nights ago, I was out for a walk. Someone else from my building also was out for a walk; I don't know if she knew who I was, but I recognize most people in my building since I've lived there about two years now. I would have been shocked if that turned into a violent confrontation. Because, if she had asked, I would have said: "I live at XYZ." Problem solved.
Words. If only both had used them better.
Revenant, come now. By all accounts he was not out for a walk but following Martin. As many here are celebrating and have been celebrating for weeks!--he was "challenging" behavior--aka walking out at night-- he deemed "suspicious."
Let's not go all down the Z-minding-his-business rathole, for goodness sake.
Re: harrogate:
Pasta, no, I'm not saying that, certainly not in a legal sense. But I also do not think that if you follow some guy out walking at night in the rain, and it leads to a violent confrontation, that you are exactly in a position to say "whaaaaa?"
I don't think there are that many people whose response to being followed is going to be to initiate a violent confrontation (because that is just about the stupidest possible response -- after all, they might be carrying a gun). I think most people (e.g. me) respond by first walking away faster, to see if they're actually following you.
If Martin hadn't confronted Zimmerman and attacked him this whole situation would have been avoided.
The lesson is: don't physically attack someone in a CC state. They might shoot you in self-defense.
I'm very concerned that there's no way to walk this situation back to where it needs to be. Even if Zimmerman is acquitted, I'm afraid he's a dead man walking.
If it happens, most of the blame should go to the reckless MSM.
If this case goes all the way to trial, it’s a train wreck waiting to happen. The time is now for strong hands to take the helm and steady the ship of state—not to mention our national racial, political and legal discourse. The paramount concern has to be to avert a large-scale racial calamity....
To my mind, the government offers Zimmerman a plea deal that has him back on the street within this decade, and he accepts it quietly. That seems like a conclusion most reasonable Americans could live with....
Note that Frazier is not offering to sacrifice his own time in prison, or, likely his own life, given the bounty on Zimmerman's life. And, Frazier isn't offering up his own rights of citizenship, including the right to vote and the right to own firearms. And, Frazier isn't offering to protect Zimmerman because he would no longer be able to carry that gun of his.
No, libs invariably want everyone else to sacrifice for their idea of an ideal state, but they, because they are so special, are exempt from this sacrifice. Reminds me a bit of AlGore buddy Laurie Davids, telling women that they should get by with one square of TP, while she jets coast to coast on her private jet. And, a lot of other liberals too.
Until the Fraziers of the world are willing to walk the walk, and pay the price personally for their liberal ideals, I don't think that anyone should take them seriously.
harrogate: "...you have never in your life gotten high."
That's the first time I've ever been accused of that. Usually I'm accused of having huffed the wrong color paint.
"Words. If only both had used them better."
Matthew, totally agreed.
I wonder though, if you were used to people looking at you suspiciously wherever you went, if it would render a less Aristotelian set of responses within you. Perhaps it would in me.
Re: harrogate:
Revenant, come now. By all accounts he was not out for a walk but following Martin.
It's a little more complicated than that. I'm pretty sure he has said he followed Martin initially, called in to 911, then turned around to go back to his car. Martin confronted him, there was a struggle of some sort, and he shot Martin.
the report said. "There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter."
If, instead of Zimmerman, it had been a police officer who noticed Martin walking between houses in a neighborhood that had had a few break-ins in prior months, would that be sufficient for a Terry-stop? Would the officer be justified in stopping Martin and asking him what he was doing?
Or would it at least justify the officer to investigate further, to continue to observe Martin and follow him?
Is there ANY police officer in the entire country who would not at least investigate further to see exactly what Martin was up to?
"I would be surprised if there were ANY juror votes for conviction, let alone 11 out of 12."
I wish this was true. As shown by the OJ case and Ravi Case, you can find 12 idiots who'll vote Guilty/not Guilty no matter what the evidence.
Pasta,
Based on other things I have seen you write, I believe you! I just found the word group "hopped up on pot-marijuana" to be quite odd, and based on my own experiences, pretty off the mark.
BTW, Martin could have just ran home and called the police if he was "being pursued". Of course, when you're high drugs you have bad judgement.
murder, but to note that based on what I have seen, Z is far from a victim or a hero, but rather, engaged in some provocative, asinine behavior that I am thankful has never been targeted at me
Really?
Which "behavior" is that?
Where is said behavior documented, I'd love to read all about it.
Remember, you didn't beleive the narrative!
*GIGGLE*
re: rcocean:
The lesson is: don't physically attack someone in a CC state. They might shoot you in self-defense.
Honestly, I don't think it even matters whether concealed carry is authorised or not -- DC had one of the highest (if not the highest) gun-related murder rates in the country when guns were prohibited. You can't assume someone is unarmed just because CC isn't allowed.
The Althouse Jury has ruled unanimously. The poor Zimmerman boy is an angel that is not guilty of anything and is being abused by the legal system.
But until the new Stand Your Ground Immunity pre-trials were conceived, due process of law has meant a fair hearing under rules of evidence, and included lengthy cross examination of the witnesses, such as the forensic evidence interpreters, in a room over many days about 20 feet from 12 attentive citizens hanging onto every word.
Justice in Florida has now defaulted to an easy shoot and kill and expect no retaliation unless the dead man was a good person. And if he is a good person. If not, then slander him by a propaganda barrage.
It is upholding that idiot concept which has caused a racial reaction from the citizens of Florida who know that they are always seen as the bad people... the burglars...the muggers, etc..
The solution is to give the world a look at the innocence of Zimmerman, just like we used to do the first 150 years of the legal system. That will clear him and also end any retaliation cycle like it was always designed to do.
BTW, saying that THC is in a man's blood in trace amounts says nothing, unless you are baseball player in Milwaukee attacking the opponents in MVP contests and the Commissioner decides to suspend you. It takes 30 days for THC to leave the blood stream....so what was the amount in the dead child's blood????
And how close was the gun muzzle when Zimmerman fired out of fear that Martin would take his 9mm and use it first???
It's probably only manslaughter in traditional cases. The Second Degree Murder charges is a typical prosecutor's over charge. So what. Prosecutors lose that all of the time.
Trust the Jury.
Revenant, come now. By all accounts he was not out for a walk but following Martin.
And what's the objective difference between following and walking?
arrogate said...
Revenant, come now. By all accounts he was not out for a walk but following Martin.
Huh?
Which "accounts" are these?
Because based on the police reports Zimmerman was on the way to the store and noticed Martin walking down the street.
Remember, you didn't fall for any narrative!
Revenant,
"And what's the objective difference between following and walking?"
I admit I want to invoke the ole Supreme Court Justice go-to, "I know it when I see it." Doesn't stand up in a court of law of course. But neither is this conversation happening in court.
So let me ask you. You're out for a walk. Think you could tell if someone was following you? How?
And how close was the gun muzzle when Zimmerman fired out of fear that Martin would take his 9mm and use it first???
It was in contact with Martin's clothing. Or are you enjoying wallowing in your ignorance?
Trust the Jury.
Yeah, like the OJ jury?
Matthew,
Sometimes, yes, it is wise to back off.
Sometimes that is correct, but that wasn't the statement put forth. The statement was quite clear: Zimmerman should have obeyed the cops, who weren't on the scene, and trusted they would have done the right thing, when there is ample evidence that the chances that wouldn't happen are non-trivial.
The statement is full of the implication that the police are from the government and here to help, and whatever you do, don't trust yourself to protect yourself, even if the person who is telling you not to do something isn't there and isn't fully aware of the whole situation, i.e., the dispatcher.
due process of law has meant a fair hearing under rules of evidence, and included lengthy cross examination of the witnesses, such as the forensic evidence interpreters, in a room over many days about 20 feet from 12 attentive citizens hanging onto every word.
Utter bullshit.
The purpose of trials in America is not, and was never, "to find out what happened"
You have beclowned yourself on this topic to a level that is tragic.
Revenant, come now. By all accounts he was not out for a walk but following Martin. As many here are celebrating and have been celebrating for weeks!--he was "challenging" behavior--aka walking out at night-- he deemed "suspicious."
Let's not go all down the Z-minding-his-business rathole, for goodness sake.
Define "minding his business". Zimmerman had every right to be tailing Martin, so that the cops could interview him when they arrived.
So far, I have not heard anything that would indicate that Zimmerman did anything wrong. Maybe a little imprudent, but not wrong. Martin on the other hand, apparently swinging on Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground, and beating his head against the concrete - now that was wrong, wrong as in the commission of a crime. Very possibly a felony, before we even get to whether or not Zimmerman reasonably believed (from Martin's actions or talk) that his life was at risk. If, Zimmerman reasonably believed that, we are likely somewhere between aggravated assault and attempted murder. In either case, Martin, if caught, would be going down for some decent time (And, yes, being 17, and likely a bit over 6', he would very likely have been tried as an adult).
"So let me ask you. You're out for a walk. Think you could tell if someone was following you? How?"
-- Three left turns people.
traditionalguy,
Justice in Florida has now defaulted to an easy shoot and kill and expect no retaliation unless the dead man was a good person. And if he is a good person. If not, then slander him by a propaganda barrage.
So understanding the "stand your ground" law isn't your strong suit, huh?
the report said. "There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter."
Which as a matter of law is wholly irrelevant.
Prior to beating that poor fellow at the baseball game, those 3 Dodger fans were not involved in any crimial activity.
Isn't this game fun?
Ken: In this case, had Zimmerman obeyed the cops, he would not be injured and Martin would, most likely, be alive and well. Zimmerman made a bad call; nothing in criminal in that though.
Three left turns is pretty good. And then what do you do if you're tailed for all three turns, in exactly the sort of scene we're imagining the scene to be on that night?
Maybe something different in the moment, than you would say in a cool moment of reason here.
I admit I want to invoke the ole Supreme Court Justice go-to, "I know it when I see it."
The objective difference between following and walking is... you know it when you see it? Do you actually know what the word "objective" means?
Think you could tell if someone was following you? How?
The relevant question is "can I tell if someone is following me, in a manner that leaves no reasonable doubt about that".
And the answer is "no". Like everyone, I have seen countless times when someone "followed" me into or through my neighborhood, and it simply turned out that their final destination was a dwelling near my own.
Anyway, thus far we have:
1. Evidence that Martin was attacking Zimmerman
2. No evidence of any kind that Zimmerman attacked Martin.
Doesn't even get you to "manslaughter", let alone second-degree murder. If Zimmerman had shot someone who wasn't black this would never have gone to trial.
I look forward to the forth coming apologies from Jackson, Sharpton, et. al.
I'm looking forward for Sharpton and NBC being sued into oblivion. That will be a good time.
To my mind, the government offers Zimmerman a plea deal that has him back on the street within this decade, and he accepts it quietly. That seems like a conclusion most reasonable Americans could live with....
And that is the problem with a lot of Progressive jurisprudence. Sentence somebody, innocence be damned, to appease the mob.
As has been said, a man with the law on his side is a majority.
Shoulda been charged with manslaughter...
Wouldn't have gotten a conviction then, either. It's not a crime to ask somebody what he's doing. Nor is it a crime to shoot a guy actively punching the shit out of you.
I accepted nothing. The gist of what I ever said to anyone, here or elsewhere, anonymous or in person, was that if I were out walking and someone followed me like that, I am not sure how I would handle it. And I'm still not sure. I don't fuck with people and appreciate that they not fuck with me.
Would you cold cock the guy in the back of the head when he didn't actually do anything to you?
Revenant, I think I was agreeing with you on the "objective" criterion, and that it was pretty clear that I was. We are talking about related, but different things here, I think.
harrogate,
Why aren't you detailing this "provacative" behavior?
What is it?
traditionalguy, I'm not a glorious attorney like you, but as I understand things, in situations such as these, a shooter isn't automatically arrested.
Let's suppose, for example, that an older woman is found badly beaten and with torn clothing in her own home, holding a smoking 0.357 and sitting on the floor next to a dead young man with 3 prior convictions for rape and his pants around his ankles.
Would you have this woman frog-marched out of her house in cuffs? Would you trust the jury?
Where's the line, tradguy?
See my comment at 11:56. What part of it is in dispute?
It's clear that Zimmerman was attacked and was defending himself; it's as clear as the fact that you're not guilty of the Tate/La Bianca murders. Or should we have you arrested for those immediately, just in case, and trust the jury?
harrogate said...
Every version of this story we have seen has it that Z, at least for a while, followed M.
Um, by "followed" do you mean observed?
And then what?
So Zimmerman followed Martin while on the phone with police.
That is "belligerent and assinine"?
"this blustery statement is wholly irrelevant."
this is the Sanford Police Dept statement, not mine...
p.s. Most of the time, rape victims do not follow alleged rapists (especially after the Police ask them not to)...
harrogate said...
I accepted nothing.
You "acccept" that Zimmerman followed Martin and somehow provoked a confrontation.
You "accept" that Zimmerman engaged in "provocative, asinine behavior" which of course you can not define or detail.
Other than that, you accept nothing!
Revenant, I think I was agreeing with you on the "objective" criterion, and that it was pretty clear that I was. We are talking about related, but different things here, I think.
So, to sum up:
(1): You claim that by following Martin (however briefly), Zimmerman was engaged in "provocative, asinine behavior).
(2): You concede that it is impossible to objective distinguish between "following" and "walking around the neighborhood".
Ergo
(3): You are saying that walking around the neighborhood you live in is provocative and asinine.
Provided you're a "white Hispanic", of course. If you're black you can walk around all you want and nobody's allowed to think anything of it.
machine said...
this is the Sanford Police Dept statement, not mine...
Nobody said it was yours, clown.
The source of the statement isn't relevant.
The statement isn't relevant.
You posting it proves you're an idiot.
Jay...You are boldly wrong.
The trial is the only real fair venue where both sides are forced by the Jury's authority to listen to what the other side has to say.
We are often mistaken and never perfect in our knowledge until we are forced into shutting up and listening to the other side's case.
machine said...
p.s. Most of the time, rape victims do not follow alleged rapists (especially after the Police ask them not to)...
Idiot:
This isn't a rape case.
THere is no dispute there was a physical confrontation between Martin & Zimmerman.
he trial is the only real fair venue where both sides are forced by the Jury's authority to listen to what the other side has to say.
More utter crap.
A trial's purpose is not to "find out what happened"
traditionalguy said...
Jay...You are boldly wrong.
No, I'm not wrong, you can't demonstrate I'm wrong and everything you believe about this case has been demonstrated to be false.
Neighborhood Watch provides a valuable service in these neighborhoods that suffer the most from criminals (like Z man's neighborhood). At least they get off their ass and try to do something about crime in their neighborhood instead of hiding in their house letting their neighborhood get taken over by crimanimals.
The idea that Z man should be convicted to avert black rioting is disgusting.
Regarding the response by whites and hispanics to black rioting, if you aren't armed, well trained in the use of your weapons, with plenty of ammo, it is your own fault.
traditionalguy: "The trial is the only real fair venue where both sides are forced by the Jury's authority to listen to what the other side has to say."
I insist that tradguy be arrested immediately, on suspicion of assisting the would-be assassins of Gerald Ford in 1975.
It's the only way to be sure he wasn't in on it.
To my mind, the government offers Zimmerman a plea deal that has him back on the street within this decade, and he accepts it quietly. That seems like a conclusion most reasonable Americans could live with....
Wrong. What we should have done is leave this all to Florida, where it seems like their first impulse was to make the right call given the available evidence, which hasn't changed. Not for us to railroad a possibly not guilty person into spending a good chunk of his life behind bars just because some folks might be mad if he doesn't.
Re: Harrogate:
And then what do you do if you're tailed for all three turns, in exactly the sort of scene we're imagining the scene to be on that night?
Why are we imagining that to be the scene? Here's what Zimmerman has claimed:
Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.
There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they're not sure what happened.
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.
So yes, he starts out following Martin. Then police tell him not to bother, he "loses sight" of him (i.e. not following), and goes back to his car. Then Martin approaches him from behind.
The Althouse Jury has ruled unanimously. The poor Zimmerman boy is an angel that is not guilty of anything and is being abused by the legal system.
And, your point? In what way do you think that Zimmerman is legally culpable?
But until the new Stand Your Ground Immunity pre-trials were conceived, due process of law has meant a fair hearing under rules of evidence, and included lengthy cross examination of the witnesses, such as the forensic evidence interpreters, in a room over many days about 20 feet from 12 attentive citizens hanging onto every word.
And, this was why the law was passed - that a lot of people with fairly strong cases of self-defense were spending maybe a year or so in jail waiting trial, for something that they were legally justified in doing. And, then, being offered the sort of deal that Frazier suggests, just to make it go away.
And, the people of Florida decided that if it is a strong case of self-defense, then they shouldn't languish in jail and face jeopardy for something that they were legally entitled to do - defend their own lives.
Justice in Florida has now defaulted to an easy shoot and kill and expect no retaliation unless the dead man was a good person. And if he is a good person. If not, then slander him by a propaganda barrage.
Martin wasn't a good person, and most likely committed one or more crimes that night, and those crimes were likely felonies. Think somewhere between simple assault through attempted murder. And, yes, if he had survived and Zimmerman had been left on the ground, and then later caught, he would likely have been charged with the latter, and given a chance to bargain down to something like aggravated assault.
It is upholding that idiot concept which has caused a racial reaction from the citizens of Florida who know that they are always seen as the bad people... the burglars...the muggers, etc..
Well, by most of our definitions, they are the bad people. The burglars, muggers, and, in Martin's case, those committing aggravated assault. As a society, we have societally derived norms, and these all transgress these norms.
The solution is to give the world a look at the innocence of Zimmerman, just like we used to do the first 150 years of the legal system. That will clear him and also end any retaliation cycle like it was always designed to do.
It was one thing, when you could go from killing someone in self-defense, to trial, to acquittal in a week or two, and quite a different thing where you can take a year or so, and spend substantial amounts of money clearing yourself. And, when you have prosecutors like Corey overcharging in order to force those claiming self-defense to plead down to lower charges.
And how close was the gun muzzle when Zimmerman fired out of fear that Martin would take his 9mm and use it first???
Somewhere between contact and point blank range. Meaning that Martin was still on top of Zimmerman, or had lunged for Zimmerman's gun and was again directly on top of him on the ground. Meaning that Martin had not "withdrawn", and so Zimmerman was legally entitled to use force to resist, and if he were in reasonable fear for imminent loss of life or great bodily injury, was legally entitled to use deadly force.
It's probably only manslaughter in traditional cases. The Second Degree Murder charges is a typical prosecutor's over charge. So what. Prosecutors lose that all of the time.
Yeh, so the Fraziers of the world can suggest that the Zimmermans of the world take a hit for the team, spend time in jail, and lose their civil rights.
"To some legal experts, the new evidence backs up Zimmerman's original story..."
I guess this is what passes for reporting today. What do you mean by "some?". So OK which legal experts think the new evidence doesn't support Z's story? Anyone? Along with throwing in that all this is true but he should have avoided M in the first place, the thrust of the article is not so much reporting the new evidence as trying to minimize its importance.
Revenant,
What I have been doing is trying to put myself in Martin's shoes, how I would feel, what I would do in the moment.
Now part of that is, taking it at face value that Martin knew he was being followed by Zimmerman (until this thread, I thought most people were taking that at face value, actually!)
At what point did it become an open question whether Z was in fact following him?
In any case, if I did know someone was following me and I was alone at night, it would freak me out more than a little. Me, I'd probably be afraid, speed up and keep going, as some have suggested. Maybe, if I were feeling ballsy, I'd stop and turn and give some version of "why are you following me?" But I doubt I'd do that since I'd probably think the Z cognate was a mugger, in this hypothetical.
But then, I'm not used to being treated like a suspect, either.
Pasts...OK, ratchet back the prosecution of obvious victims. The usual process is to dismiss at Preliminary hearing, and if not, get a Grand Jury No Bill.
That should have been done here. But this case was in the ditch on the other side of the road when no judicial determination had been taken of any kind and those police tapes surfaced three weeks later about the hunter and his prey, and then the Police Chief pulls out and no information is released.
Now it is too late not to do have a jury trial in order to cut Zimmerman loose. The Special Prosecutor understands her role.
It was a sincere tragedy that will still end in a whimper if the facts are presented in court. If not, then another sincere tragedy is about to start.
Did they ever find that DB Cooper guy?
Because I'm thinking traditionalguy might have a knapsack of mildewed 1971 c-notes and a parachute in his crawlspace. There's only one way to be sure: Cuff him and throw him in lock-up til his court date.
You'd better get yourself a good attorney, son. The lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client, you know.
And you'd better pray I'm not in that jury pool. I'm pretty sure you're guilty.
Ken: In this case, had Zimmerman obeyed the cops, he would not be injured and Martin would, most likely, be alive and well. Zimmerman made a bad call; nothing in criminal in that though.
Not that it really matters here, but the dispatcher was probably not a cop, and she can likely be seen as giving a suggestion, and not an order.
"Um, by "followed" do you mean observed?"
good one...
It was the race hustling liberal media and the race hucksters that inflamed the potential rioting masses.
Old Blame-Zimmerman Story: Zimmerman shot a child who just wanted some candy!
New Blame-Zimmerman Story: Well, you know, it's Zimmerman's fault he dared confront such an obviously dangerous thug!
raditionalguy said...
Jay...You are boldly wrong.
The trial is the only real fair venue where both sides are forced by the Jury's authority to listen to what the other side has to say.
We are often mistaken and never perfect in our knowledge until we are forced into shutting up and listening to the other side's case.
This is not a civil trial. The State, through its Prosecutor, has a duty only to charge a crime for which it can muster proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Prosecuter does not have that evidence in hand, it should not put anyone through a trial.
Based on the evidence published this far, the State should be withdrawing its charge of second degree murder, and probably charging nothing. It's no crime to shoot someone who is beating your head into the ground, breaking your nose, giving you two black eyes, and lacerating your head. Zimmerman does not have to wait until he is beaten to death before he shoots.
harrogate said...
Now part of that is, taking it at face value that Martin knew he was being followed by Zimmerman (until this thread, I thought most people were taking that at face value, actually!)
Except you can't really define "follow" in this scenario.
Was Zimmerman 10 yards behind Martin?
5 yards?
40 yards?
You have no idea, you just keep using words without defining them.
"Not that it really matters here, but the dispatcher was probably not a cop, and she can likely be seen as giving a suggestion, and not an order."
-- You're right; I should have been more exact.
"New Blame-Zimmerman Story: Well, you know, it's Zimmerman's fault he dared confront such an obviously dangerous thug!"
I don 't know that any sane or decent person has claimed that M was an "obviously dangerous thug." That's not what you are saying here, is it?
What I have been doing is trying to put myself in Martin's shoes, how I would feel, what I would do in the moment.
If your answer to that question is the same as Martin's, i.e. "jump the guy", all that means is that you'll deserve a bullet, too.
it at face value that Martin knew he was being followed by Zimmerman
But we don't know that. We know that at one point Zimmerman was following him, and that at another point Martin ended up beating on Zimmerman. Zimmerman says that happened well after he had stopped following Martin.
Harrogate,
You stated that Zimmerman engaged in "provocative, asinine behavior"
Which behavior would that be?
Also, at what distance was Zimmerman "following" Martin and for how long did this take place?
Thanks in advance.
Martin knew Zimmerman was following him, per his girlfriend's statement about their phone call.
traditionalguy: The police were there on the scene, and they saw a smaller, older man with a bashed-in face and bloodied back of the head; a puddle of blood with hair and skin stuck in the sidewalk; a dead younger man (no, not a child; a 17 year old man) who was bigger, stronger, and younger than the older man whose only injuries were cuts on his knuckles, from beating someone.
And they probably looked at this kid's information and saw he'd just been suspended for possession, and he'd been found with stolen jewelry before.
So they chose not to arrest Zimmerman; because, obviously, he was defending himself.
And then idiots and race-mongers got involved, and pushed a picture of this Martin from 5 years ago when he was a child; and people right here on this blog, whose handle rhymes with "fraditionalguy", started screaming for blood based on some misty male-menopausal emotions; and some hack of a DA, looking to make a big splash in the news, had him arrested.
You've screwed the pooch on this one, tradguy.
the dispatcher was probably not a cop, and she can likely be seen as giving a suggestion, and not an order
The above statement is true. One other observation, though:
This isn't a police state. Police don't get to issue "orders". They can certainly tell you to stop breaking the law, warn you of the consequences of doing so, and arrest you if you do so anyway. They may NOT, however, "order" you not to engage in lawful, Constitutionally-protected behavior like walking around your own effin' neighborhood keeping an eye out for suspicious individuals.
re: harrogate:
Now part of that is, taking it at face value that Martin knew he was being followed by Zimmerman (until this thread, I thought most people were taking that at face value, actually!)
People take at face value that Martin thought he was being followed -- allegedly he called his girlfriend and told her as much. The problem is that there are apparently intervening events between his being followed and his approaching Zimmerman. If Martin did, as Zimmerman says (uncontradicted), approach Zimmerman from the rear, then Martin would have realised Zimmerman had broken off pursuit (or potentially, not even have been pursuing at all, for all Martin knew at that point), and initiated confrontation anyhow.
Now, Zimmerman may be lying, but he's also the only witness we have. If we want to look for evidence that contradicts his account, that's probably going to have to be evidence of where the two were at various points in time, where the car was, how fast people walk, etc.
"The man, who is not identified by name, says that Zimmerman relentlessly bullied him at work.
Zimmerman, according to the witness, targeted him because he was Middle Eastern. He repeatedly called the man a “fucking moron” and mocked him using the voice of “Achmed the terrorist.” Zimmerman’s stories about the man would involve “bombing,” “I’ll kill your family” and other “jokes” about “Middle Eastern stuff.” According to the man, this went on “for days and days.”
Just a peaceful "observer" of other cultures...he really should be getting a medal...
machine said...
"Um, by "followed" do you mean observed?"
good one...
Hi idiot. Since Harrogate/Love/Jeremy is ducking questions maybe you could try:
At what distance was Zimmerman "following" Martin and for how long did this take place?
Was Zimmerman standing in the street merely observing Martin, and if so does that count as "following"
Pasts...OK, ratchet back the prosecution of obvious victims. The usual process is to dismiss at Preliminary hearing, and if not, get a Grand Jury No Bill.
Except that there wasn't enough evidence to go to a grand jury with, and the preliminary hearings tend to be after the grand jury returns and indictment.
That should have been done here. But this case was in the ditch on the other side of the road when no judicial determination had been taken of any kind and those police tapes surfaced three weeks later about the hunter and his prey, and then the Police Chief pulls out and no information is released.
Not sure what evidence you are talking about. Still, with all the evidence released to this point, the prosecution's case is so weak that the question is whether the case will be dismissed at the immunity hearing stage, or at trial, and whether the prosecutor should be grieved for filing it in the first place.
Now it is too late not to do have a jury trial in order to cut Zimmerman loose. The Special Prosecutor understands her role.
Well, no, as to the stage of the case - expect an immunity hearing in maybe August, if not earlier.
As to the prosecutor though - you are correct - she apparently brought the indictment all on her own, without the cover a grand jury, because the black leadership across the nation promised that their people would riot if she didn't. So, yes, she knew her job, and that was to indict, regardless of the evidence. And, you can see that from her charging documents, what they claim, and what they ignore (like, for example the forensic evidence, Florida self-defense law, etc.)
"Just a peaceful "observer" of other cultures...he really should be getting a medal..."
-- The guy who defended a homeless black man who was beaten by the police is also a raging bigot against Muslims. Possible, but, this anonymous witness is the only one saying it. So, call me: Not Convinced.
There is video footage of Martin in the 7-11 store. He was a tall,lanky kid who even in the store wore the hood over his head. Harrogate will claim that this observation is racist, but it seems to me that Martin was trying to project a thug-life image. There are young black kids who try very hard to look dangerous and, for the most part, succeed very well. His supporters want it both ways: young blacks are entitled to adopt a thug look, but if you view them as thuggish, you are being racist....In any event, Martin didn't look like the kind of kid who got all mellow and benign after a joint. Beyond the THC in his system, he was buying skittles and Arizona Iced Tea. Munchies? Perhaps there'something to Zimmerman's statement that he was suspicious of Martin because he looked like he was on drugs.....All of the evidence that has come to light has pointed to Zimmerman's innocence. Why is it incumbent on Zimmerman and his lawyer to be statesmanlike? Shouldn't some national black leader take the lofty position and caution restraint in judging Zimmerman harshly. Before I die, I would like to see some black populist caution his followers for excessive bias....Charles Taylor supped with Nelson Mandela and flirted with Naomi Campbell. It's depressing that someone like George Zimmerman can inspire so much outrage and Charles Taylor such apathy.
Whenever I've heard someone having the munchies, Skittles is not what I hear them buying. I hear people buying a whole pizza, or bags of chips. Not a tiny bag of Skittles.
harrogate:
A person whose reaction to being followed is engaging in assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm is a dangerous thug.
Either Martin was so obviously such a thug that it was reasonable to expect he would react with severe violence to being followed, or he wasn't obviously such a person, and it was reasonable for Zimmerman to expect that no violence would result from following Martin.
So you tell me -- was Martin an obvious thug? Or did Zimmerman have a reasonable expectation that there would be no violence resulting from following him?
Except you can't really define "follow" in this scenario.
Was Zimmerman 10 yards behind Martin?
5 yards?
40 yards?
I think that the evidence is that he wasn't following all that closely, since he apparently managed to lose Martin. But, to bring the distances down a bit, the night was apparently fairly dark and rainy.
I am uncomfortable a bit though with the word "follow", and think that "tail" may be more accurate. It appears that the reason that Zimmerman was following/tailing Martin was to help the police when they arrived - whose arrival he knew was imminent having talked to the dispatcher.
The first police on the scene were actually responding to his suspicious person call, before it changed to a "shot fired" call, right before they arrived.
There is no evidence that I have seen that Zimmerman ever initiated any verbal communication with Martin whatsoever, and is completely consistent with his claim that he was just trying to keep Martin in sight. Both the (multiple?) verbal confrontations, along with the physical confrontation appear to have been initiated solely by Martin.
Steven said...
A person whose reaction to being followed is engaging in assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm is a dangerous thug.
Good point.
So what if Zimmerman turned out to be a cop and said cop shot Martin.
Where would we be, with the same narrative?
I am uncomfortable a bit though with the word "follow", and think that "tail" may be more accurate
Me too.
Which is why I used "observed"
machine said...
"The man, who is not identified by name, says that Zimmerman relentlessly bullied him at work.
Look ma, SQUIRREL!
Anyway, I did enjoy this from the discovery doc:
Page 39, Officer Chris Serino
Zimmerman could be heard ‘yelling for help as he was being battered by Trayvon Martin.’”
Whenever I've heard someone having the munchies, Skittles is not what I hear them buying. I hear people buying a whole pizza, or bags of chips. Not a tiny bag of Skittles.
I think that the reality, maybe, is that Martin had residue THC, etc. in his system from being a pot head, but had not done any that night. The concentrations in his blood would suggest that he had not done pot for at least a couple of hours, maybe a day or so. Some have suggested that the pot residue, such as THC, showing up in his bloodstream at autopsy, had broken down after his death, but I would expect that the breakdown would have stopped the metabolization of such.
The consensus is that Martin did look stoned on the 7-11 video. But an alternate explanation is that he was talking on the phone to his supposed girlfriend at the time, and that the movements that appear unconnected disjointed only appear such, because the viewers are not part of the telephone conversation. In any case, if Zimmerman saw the same Martin that was seen on the 7-11 video, I think that he could reasonably be suspicious that this was a drug crazed hoodlum, and his slinking through the neighborhood bore watching.
I am weary of this tale. The truth is that this is modern America having a meeting at night in the middle of nowhere. Two sublimely undereducated young people performing their roles as prescribed, both fundamentally innocent of the broader world, both weaving towards that night from the instant they were conceived.
Don't start none, won't be none...
Pasta...I understand your feelings about some police being an assembly line out of control. That's the side that I am usually on too.
But the police audio tape played on CNN showed the world an armed man ignoring police dispatcher advice and following a stranger into the dark that he later admitted to killing... but with extenuating circumstances of being attacked first.
A trial in a case like that is the norm. A refusal to arrest was an outlier effectively refusing to protect dead men who tell no tales.
IMO, a black teen in a hoodie in the rain looking around for his door created a tragic mis-perception in Zimmerman's mind of Martin as another burglar on the lose. Oops, he was 17 and lived there too and was talking to a girlfriend on a cell phone.
The day I do that, by all means arrest me and test my story in court.
Matthew,
had Zimmerman obeyed the cops
Dispatch made a suggestion, and has no authority to give commands that must be obeyed. Additionally, dispatch is likely not a cop. But most importantly, as I tried to get across before, a person on the phone no where near the scene is likely to give bad information. Trust cops and authority if you like, but don't get all pissy when others don't (and for good reason: often bad advice is given).
Zimmerman made a bad call
Did he? If Martin was prepared to fly off in a rage, smashing a man's head into the side walk, only to be stopped by a gun shot, what might have happened if Zimmerman didn't challenge him. Everyone seems to just assume Martin was in the neighborhood on peaceful business. Maybe, maybe not.
n this case, had Zimmerman obeyed the cops
Here is what the dispatcher also said:
Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?
Dispatcher: Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else
How is Zimmerman supposed to do that when he lost sight of Martin?
But the police audio tape played on CNN showed the world an armed man ignoring police dispatcher advice and following a stranger into the dark
No audio showed any such thing.
a black teen in a hoodie in the rain looking around for his door
Hysterical.
Really, why don't you just say he was on his knees begging for his life too?
I'm embarrassed for you.
Seriously, those comments are so over the top and absurd, it is like watching OWS lecture on economics.
"...the legal system has a responsibility to help avoid a “large scale racial calamity.”"
I agree; the prosecutor never should have brought charges in the face of this evidence. But now the legal system's responsibilty is to see that Zimmerman gets a fair trial regardless of the societial ramifications.
But the police audio tape played on CNN showed the world an armed man ignoring police dispatcher advice and following a stranger into the dark
When told "we don't need you to do that" Zimmerman's response was "OK"
To you, that is "following into the dark"!!!
Everything you believe about this incident is a lie.
"How is Zimmerman supposed to do that when he lost sight of Martin?"
Oh...so Zimmerman was working with the police...peacefully observing...
now it all makes sense...
You are all right: He shoulda been shot just for entering the neighborhood....
Zimmerman was under no obligation to stay in his car. Any "conclusion" based on "he shoulda stayed put" ignores the fact GZ was breaking no laws by driving in his neighborhood, reporting the suspicious guy, or LEGALLY carrying his weapon.
harrogate wrote:
I did, of course, have fun with people who wanted to elevate Z to the status of hero. That is hardly the same as accusing him of being guilty of murder, or even manslaughter.
And which benighted persons fell afoul of your rapier wit, harrogate? I do not recall anyone who comments here proclaiming Zimmerman's heroics. In fact when this case first came into the national spotlight I recall at least a few who speculated that GZ ought to have faced a manslaughter charge, and was I among them to my chagrin. This was before genuine evidence, as opposed to the fabrications offered by the likes of NBC, was readily available to the public eye. We now realize that much of what we were sold as "news" in the Zimmerman/Martin incident was nothing less than flagrant libel intended to inflame racial tensions (and perhaps even a lynching) to the benefit of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.
George Zimmerman is not a hero (a near-worthless accolade in today's cheapen culture) He's just an average man with the misfortune to cross paths with the criminal Al Sharpton, and the criminal National Broadcasting Company, and the mountebank Jesse Jackson. However... Unless the prosecution is holding back some evidence or testimony of a monumental nature, if the charges against Zimmerman are not summarily dismissed in the preliminary hearing and he has to go to trial, he will certainly be a martyr.
tradguy is in his mental illness mode regarding George Z.
Well, I for one, am not going to go anywhere near a city, town, neighborhood that has any black presence in it until well after the upcoming race war.
There is nothing that will satisfy the craven leftist cowards who want to sacrifice an innocent man to the jacked up blacks who have been encouraged by race hustlers and egged on by the media. They WANT to encourage racial strife. Racial resentment is their bread and butter and how they plan to keep themselves in power. They WANT a race war and are crucifying Zimmerman to get it.
If he is found innocent under the 'stand your ground law' or even found guilty of a lesser charge there is going to be a race war. If he isn't drawn and quartered in public....war.
Actually, more of a race war than is already happening. You have to be living under a rock not to notice the gangs of blacks who are roaming the streets and targeting whites to beat up and kill for no other reason than race. It is a race war, that the media is trying to hide.
You can pretend all you want. I'm not stupid and I have lived through the Watts riots era and lived in cities where it was dangerous to go out at night and during the day in certain neighborhoods. I have been personally and physically attacked for being white driving in the wrong neighborhood.
Zimmerman is screwed.
Forewarned is forearmed. Don't be surprised.
With the way liberals and tradguy are trying to crucify George Z, I will anoint him a hero just to fuck them up.
DBQ... QFT
"I am weary of this tale. The truth is that this is modern America having a meeting at night in the middle of nowhere. Two sublimely undereducated young people performing their roles as prescribed, both fundamentally innocent of the broader world, both weaving towards that night from the instant they were conceived."
Worthy of Cormac McCarthy, there. I feel there is a lot of truth to this, in the end.
nope, according to Tradguy George Z. was a racist predator hell-bent on executing black teen males in hoodies.
Re: Dust Bunny Queen:
Actually, more of a race war than is already happening. You have to be living under a rock not to notice the gangs of blacks who are roaming the streets and targeting whites to beat up and kill for no other reason than race.
I haven't noticed that myself walking about. Yes, it shows up in the corners of the news on a fairly regular basis, but this is a huge country. It's a thing and it happens, but it's not that common. Not to the point that one could reasonably call it a "race war."
Dusty Bunny,
Jesus Christ, that post would make Pat Buchanan blush.
"You have to be living under a rock not to notice the gangs of blacks who are roaming the streets and targeting whites to beat up and kill for no other reason than race. It is a race war, that the media is trying to hide."
Literally, of course, that is a total lie. Quick show of hands: who does not live under a rock, and yet has never seen "gangs of blacks roaming the streets and targeting whites to beat up and kill for no reason other than race."
Now that everyone's hands are in the air, go ahead. Wave em like you just don't care.
(DBQ meant figuratively, I assume. But is just as horrendously wrong on that count, too).
"I would be surprised if there were ANY juror votes for conviction, let alone 11 out of 12."
The number of guilty votes will directly correlate with the number of liberals and blacks on the jury. For Zimmerman to walk, there will need to be at least four whites on the jury--because two of the whites, being liberals, will always vote to convict. There also needs to be more than one independent-minded white because a single white will get beaten down by peer pressure. Also if only a single person votes not guilty, the prosecution will retry the case.
In fact that may be the prosecution's game plan, keep retrying the case over and over till the public gets tired of it. Zimmerman's punishment will be having to defend himself four trials in a row.
The prosecution hopes that they will give George Z cancer or make him commit suicide. They will not stop until he is dead as a doornail.
Not to the point that one could reasonably call it a "race war."
So like Whoopie Goldberg you are able to distinguish between rape and rape-rape. One being just plain rape and the other something more like rape-rape?
Making excuses for evil.
I guess in your mind it isn't war unless there are like...tanks and uniforms? I believe that Martin was actually wearing one of the uniforms favored by his side.
How many people need to be killed in order for you to call it war? How much territory has to be occupied and ceded? I believe that Detroit has already surrendered.
Yes. It IS a big country, thank GOD. And I plan to stay in my part of it until sanity returns, if and when that ever happens.
Jay wrote:
The purpose of trials in America is not, and was never, "to find out what happened"
Quite right. Under our system a jury trial is intended to establish guilt. If GZ goes to trial and is acquitted it establishes nothing beyond "George Zimmerman is not guilty of the death of Trayvon Martin" and leaves a whole universe of other possibilities unaddressed. In fact this trial works against an effort to "find out what happened".
This is totally different from the Duke case where the prosecutor did it for votes. This is akin to the high ethical standard of Holder vs AZ, or DOJ vs voter ID laws already unanimously upheld by the Supremes, or the Dane County justice system [DA and Judges]vs the 'People' and last, but not least, a UW Law Prof as Special Prosecutor getting laughed out of court by a Texas jury in US vs Conally--[Watergate era]now that's 'ethics'.
To my mind, the government offers Zimmerman a plea deal that has him back on the street within this decade, and he accepts it quietly. That seems like a conclusion most reasonable Americans could live with....
I guess I'm unreasonable then, because doing jail time for doing nothing wrong does not strike me as "reasonable".
The whole concept of "plea deals" needs to be scrapped. I know the judicial system loves it, but that's not an argument in its favor.
Literally, of course, that is a total lie
Literally, it is true. A little Google goes a long way. Try it. As the people who went to the Wisconsin State Fair, the news reporters in Virginia. Go hang out for a while in Oakland Ca, night or day.
I literally don't think you live under a rock, that was figurative. How is it under your figurative rock or can you tell with your head so far up your literal liberal ass?
Literally, of course, that is a total lie. Quick show of hands: who does not live under a rock, and yet has never seen "gangs of blacks roaming the streets and targeting whites to beat up and kill for no reason other than race."
Well, I can't raise my hand. For, you see, I have been to the Wisconsin state fair at night.
And, I was at the final River Splash event in Milwaukee.
So, speak for yourself, please.
machine said...
Oh...so Zimmerman was working with the police...peacefully observing...
Um stupid, he called 9-11 to report suspicious activity.
Or are you denying that now?
You are all right: He shoulda been shot just for entering the neighborhood....
Who is arguing that again?
And which benighted persons fell afoul of your rapier wit, harrogate? I do not recall anyone who comments here proclaiming Zimmerman's heroics.
The same number of people calling Zimmerman a "hero" is the same number that harrogate/love/jeremey "had fun with"
Oh...so Zimmerman was working with the police...peacefully observing...
According to the available evidence, yes.
the report said. "There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter."
So what? Martin was engaged in criminal activity at the time he was shot, which is what is relevant here.
The one good outcome here is that Mr Zimmerman rid the country of a lad who who would become a lifetime criminal. (ohhhh, not politically correct--but entirely accurate)
Quick show of hands: who does not live under a rock, and yet has never seen
Solipsistic much?
Knowing this administration, and the concern for justice of the Attorney General, I will confidently predict that Zimmerman will be acquitted by the trial jury and then charged with civil rights violation of Martin's rights. He will then be convicted in federal court, just as the LAPD guys were in the Rodney King case. Come on, this is America under the Democrat Party !
Solipsism as an actually very mild counter to melodramatic fantasy, Revenant.
I mean, read DBQ's post. Compared to it my comment is like observing that the Cubs haven't won the WS in a while.
In this case, had Zimmerman obeyed the cops, he would not be injured and Martin would, most likely, be alive and well.
Zimmerman did not disobey the cops.
Re: Dust Bunny Queen:
I guess in your mind it isn't war unless there are like...tanks and uniforms? I believe that Martin was actually wearing one of the uniforms favored by his side.
I don't think uniforms are necessary.
How many people need to be killed in order for you to call it war? How much territory has to be occupied and ceded?.
I don't think it's a matter of how many people are killed, or how much territory is "occupied" or "ceded." I think it's a matter of the degree of mobilisation of a particular racial group with specific animus directed against another racial group. So, for example, I see something that might be called race war in Black mobilisation against Koreans in the LA riots. And I assume similar things occurred in other race riots elsewhere. But this is just low-level racist hostility from young Black teenagers. Individual incidents of racist violence do not add up to a race war.
That said, if there were evidence that, broadly speaking, African-American communities were in favour of these kinds of attacks, then my view would be different. But I don't see that -- I see everyone trying to pretend these attacks just don't happen, or that if they do, they're not racially motivated. And maybe the odd tweet or comment in support of the perpetrators.
last i looked at 911 dispatcher has no legal authority. YMMV of course
I mean, read DBQ's post. Compared to it my comment is like observing that the Cubs haven't won the WS in a while
First of all, I don't give a rat's ass what you think of me or my post. I know, what I know and what my life experience has shown me.
Do you disagree that if Zimmerman is NOT found guilty that we will not see an even larger and more widespread outbreak of blacks attacking whites for no other reason than race? Do you doubt that there will be an upwelling of vandalism and destruction similar to the Watt's rioting?
People like Frazier, the writer of the article is suggesting that Zimmerman be thrown upon the burning pyre, sacrificed to ....and I QUOTE him "to help avoid a “large scale racial calamity.". Sounds like he is anticipating what I wrote.
Disagree with me all you want. Call me names if you feel like it.
I'm right.
That said, if there were evidence that, broadly speaking, African-American communities were in favour of these kinds of attacks, then my view would be different.
They don't have to be in favor of these attacks. They merely have to be silent...and for the most part, they have been. The worst that can happen would be good people not doing a thing.
Here in STL, we've had a rash of "flash mob" crime since last year and, if memory serves, two deaths to the "knockout game", with multiple non-fatal attacks. One of these occurred two blocks away from an area downtown I frequent and would have never guessed something like that (ie, a single pedestrian being suddenly and without warning or provocation attacked by a group of black teens) would have happened.
I've lived in this city for a lot of years, including some of the not-so-nice areas on the north side. This behavior is unprecedented.
African-American communities were in favour of these kinds of attacks, then my view would be different.
I'm sure that the average citizen is not in favor of a race war or supports the criminal elements that are attacking others in Trayvon's name etc. Most, I imagine, are well meaning people who want to live their lives in peace.
The German citizens who lived near the Nazi Death Camps were not in favor of the mass extermination and torture of the Jews either. They just wanted to also live their lives in peace.
All it takes is for the weak willed to turn a blind eye and pretend that evil isn't happening for evil to succeed.
Tra la la.....waltzing through life wishing and hoping.
I hope I'm wrong. But...I'm not.
Re: Dust Bunny Queen:
People like Frazier, the writer of the article is suggesting that Zimmerman be thrown upon the burning pyre, sacrificed to ....and I QUOTE him "to help avoid a “large scale racial calamity.". Sounds like he is anticipating what I wrote.
Well, you are certainly right that Frazier is essentially threatening race war unless Zimmerman gets some kind of prison term.
DBQ,
Now you're shifting the goal posts, not a lot, but some. because if your point is, there is danger of racial violence is Z is acquitted, I think that is, unfortunately, a true story. Sill no reason for the court to convict, of course.
But this is all different than saying right now, you're not paying attention at all if you don;t see black gangs roving everywhere looking for white people to attack. Lots and lots and lots of people are paying attention and have seen nothing of the sort.
As for Google. why don't you google some rapes. or some non racially-motivated muggings. or google ron paul supporters. now THEY are everywhere!
Re: Dust Bunny Queen:
I'm sure that the average citizen is not in favor of a race war or supports the criminal elements that are attacking others in Trayvon's name etc. Most, I imagine, are well meaning people who want to live their lives in peace.
Yeah, see, I think there have been moments in history when that kind of thing hasn't actually been true. And I think the term "race war" ought to be reserved for those cases.
Harrogate said:
I don 't know that any sane or decent person has claimed that M was an "obviously dangerous thug." That's not what you are saying here, is it?
On that issue, I agree. The young man apparently made a couple mistakes in his past, and it appears that he made a mistake, or at least may have, for which he ended up paying far too high a price.
I really doubt that Zimmerman should be found guilty as charged, although I'm not certain. That is different than saying Martin got what he deserved. He didn't deserve what he got, and it's a shame no matter how it is sliced or diced.
traditionalguy, the fact that the 911 tapes don't match your "summation" seems not to faze you at all.
Why is that?
The suggestion by the Daily Beast writer that a possibly innocent Zimmerman should take one for the team, spending time in jail so as to avoid embarrassing the likes of Barack Obama and the Florida States' Attorney -- which is what he really mean - is a concept with which I am, unfortunately, very familiar. It's a political variation on the idea of habeus corpus. You can't make political hay by merely claiming there is still persistent racism. You need to get someone specifically to agree to be the scapegoat for the concept of persistent racism. That's what Daily Beast wants Zimmerman to be.
I served that role for a political campaign in Los Angeles. They needed to sell a message, that the incumbent mayor of LA was corrupt. He wasn't corrupt, but it tested well in the focus groups, so they had to manufacture a scandal.
It is brutal to be that person. Even though it's bullshit, someone still has to run up a big legal bill, and eventually go to prison. Someone has to live with being a felon. It's amazing that the Daily Beast writer thinks that's a trivial price to pay. Why doesn't he pay it, if it's so fucking important to his vision of a better world?
How far are we come in 242 years? From John Adams' defense of the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre to the sniveling cowards who want Zimmerman to take a plea deal even though he's innocent of the charges. For shame!
Compared to it my comment is like observing that the Cubs haven't won the WS in a while
DBQ stated that gangs of black people are targeting whites for beatings or death on the basis of our race. Her statement is factually correct.
Are such beatings and killings *common*? No, but then they weren't common when white southerners carried them out against blacks fifty or sixty years ago, either. They are certainly more common than white-on-black mob violence is these days.
don 't know that any sane or decent person has claimed that M was an "obviously dangerous thug."
Of course not. Any rational person can see what Zimmerman caused his injuries by repeatedly slamming his head into Martin's fists. :)
Just a peaceful "observer" of other cultures...he really should be getting a medal...
You're right --- he should be imprisoned based on the alleged comments of an unnamed man who claims he is racist against Middle Eastern people.
That sounds rational.
Don't start none, won't be none...
Very true, machine. If Trayvon didn't assault George, he'd be alive today...probably.
Literally, of course, that is a total lie
Provided one ignores that it has happened in Norfolk.
Philly.
NYC.
Denver.
Chicago.
Cleveland.
Washington.
Los Angeles.
Milwaukee.
But other than THOSE, yes, it's a total lie.
That's what Daily Beast wants Zimmerman to be.
@John Stodder: That sounds repugnant. Who writes for the Daily Beast? Who wrote that?
Seems like there are also previous examples of Zimmerman showing restraint.
"My house was being robbed, and George on his nightly rounds watched this burglary in progress, called Sanford P.D., waited for them, and helped ensure that nothing bad happened to my house," Taaffe said. "And it's documented in the 911 call for February 2. That was my residence that George Zimmerman helped stop."
And how close was the gun muzzle when Zimmerman fired out of fear that Martin would take his 9mm and use it first???
Worthy of three question marks, is it? According to a posting by Tom Maguire, quoting a Washington Post report:
“Neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin from a very close range, according to documents a Florida prosecutor released Thursday that indicate a hand-to-hand struggle occurred before the teenager was killed.
“A lab report, based on an examination of the two sweatshirts Martin was wearing, found holes and gunshot residue consistent with a ‘contact shot,’ meaning the gun was pressed against Martin’s chest. An autopsy report said that the gunshot wound indicated he was shot from an ‘intermediate range,’ which experts say is between one and 18 inches away.”
saying that THC is in a man's blood in trace amounts says nothing
The only people I've seen saying THC was present in "trace amounts" are spokesmen for Martin's family.
But the revelation that he was a pothead does help answer a question that has been bugging me, namely "why go on a snack run on foot in the rain"? :)
I don 't know that any sane or decent person has claimed that M was an "obviously dangerous thug."
Well, all the evidence seems to point to M's beating the hell out of Z because he was annoyed. That is certainly thuggish and dangerous behavior. He may not have been doing anything thuggish when Z first observed him, though.
Bruce,
"... but the dispatcher was probably not a cop... "
Even if the dispatcher were a sworn officer, he/she still would not have a generalized authority to order someone around by telephone.
Patrick,
OK, you tell us then--what does a person deserve who knocks somebody down and starts bashing their head into the pavement?
Oh, I see Rev and Roger beat me to it on the dispatcher's "order".
Well thanks, fellas! For a long while it's seemed to me that I'm the only one pointing out the "we don't live in a police state" response to those who are shocked, shocked, that Z. did not "obey" the 911 dispatcher's "orders".
Bob Owens, in a piece linked to by Instapundit, points to a video showing the kind of “mixed martial arts” beating that Zimmerman was undergoing, according to a near-distance eyewitness.
"To my mind, the government offers Zimmerman a plea deal that has him back on the street within this decade, and he accepts it quietly. That seems like a conclusion most reasonable Americans could live with...."
Seems to be the most quoted phrase from the article and for good reason. It would be awfully convenient for the likes of Mansfield Frazier and the other pundits, race-hustlers and so forth who have bruited an ever increasingly obvious false narrative.
I see no reason why Zimmerman should listen to people who have been trying to railroad him from the start.
Machine: "The encounter between George Zimmerman and Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement."
Ken: "What tripe. People have the right to challenge those in their neighborhood, especially when a rash of thefts had occured and the stranger in your neighborhood looks high. What you don't have the right to do is go into a fit of rage because someone challenged you, then attack that person."
===================
Ken is correct. Liberals, racist blacks, and the progressive jews in the media fanning the flames would like NOTHING more than people to believe only government has a right to defend them from threats. And that many times when there is a dead young black thug, they the dead thug is the "Victim" of other people that could have "saved the child".
1. Blame people for seeking to protect themselves, "stealing" that role from proper government Heroes. People owning firearms and doing things like profiling and forming neighborhood watch programs are all "wannabe cops and vigilantes".
2. Blame the victim. They would be screaming for murder charges or at least lengthly jail time if a woman had shot a skittles-carrying unarmed attempted racist in a park if:
a. The woman was sluttily dressed.
b. She had been WARNED by Hero police authorities, like all women, to avoid the park because of other attacks. And not dress in a sexually attractive manner.
c. She "failed" to call 911 on suspicious young black thug before she was attacked, or she "failed" to have gone to the park with several people instead of alone. Or she "failed" to understand that if she had only had pepper spray instead of a .380, that poor black child would be alive today, eating his skittles.
Zimmerman does not matter to people like Fraser. What's a little undeserved imprisonment compared to avoiding a riot and a race war? If he does not decide to sacrifice himself, the state should force the sacrifice. It's all for the greater good.
In the south that Fraser still imagines to exist, blacks in fact were sacrificed to the justice system in order to prevent white uprising (or imagined white uprising.) So why not a little payback, sacrificing an imagined white person to an imagined (or real) potential uprising.
We must, he believes, submit to the mob.
It's the duke lacrosse case all over again. After he is either acquitted or having the charges completely dropped, he needs to sue everyone involved for trying to string him up. Of course he is going to be hit with a wrongful death suit, but let them try and they will most likely lose that too.
Where is the leftard justice for treyvon outrage now? [crickets]
Post a Comment