HANNITY: Is there anything you regret? Do you regret getting out of the car to follow Trayvon that night?Zimmerman had just described how Martin was beating his head against the concrete — you can see that Hannity was inviting Zimmerman to say: If I had not had the gun, I would have died. In context, you can see Zimmerman brought up God as his way of declining to explore alternate scenarios. Note that he had trouble with Hannity's double-negative question "Do you feel you wouldn't be here for this interview if you didn't have that gun?" Zimmerman answers no, which literally would mean that Zimmerman thinks he would have survived to tell the tale, but, especially given his description of the pre-shooting attack, it seems he would have said that without the gun, he would have died. Hannity rephrases the question: "You feel you would not be here?" And Zimmerman's answer is, essentially, it's not for me to say.
ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.
HANNITY: Do you regret that you had a gun that night?
ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.
HANNITY: Do you feel you wouldn't be here for this interview if you didn't have that gun?
ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.
HANNITY: You feel you would not be here?
ZIMMERMAN: I feel it was all God's plan and for me to second guess it or judge it --
HANNITY: Is there anything you might do differently in retrospect now that the time has passed a little bit?
ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.
Actually, I think the problem for Zimmerman is less that it sounds like he thought God had a plan for him to kill Martin than that he failed to clearly state that if he hadn't had that gun to shoot Martin, he would have died. But I think the complexity is that in Zimmerman's version of what happened, Martin saw the gun:
ZIMMERMAN: At that point, I realized that it wasn't my gun, it wasn't his gun, it was the gun.So, in the actual story, with the gun, Zimmerman's need to shoot Martin was much greater than it would have been in the alternate scenario with Martin punching him and banging his head on the concrete. Zimmerman declined to comment on the alternate scenario in which there is no gun. His form of expression brought God into the picture. Someone less given to God talk might have said: What happened happened.
HANNITY: Did he say anything? Because you said he was talking a lot about the gun. Did he say he noticed the gun?
ZIMMERMAN: He said, "You are going to die tonight (EXPLETIVE DELETED)" and took one hand off of my mouth and I felt it going down my chest towards my belt and my holster, and that's when I -- I didn't have anymore time.
But now, the "God's plan" line is out there, affecting what people think about Zimmerman, and it will be used against him in his trial. Such are the risks of doing interviews.
Posts
252 comments:
1 – 200 of 252 Newer› Newest»I'm reserving my opinion of his guilt or innocence pending the trial. However he is a fool to go TV and his lawyer should be disbarred for letting him go on TV.
The only court he needs to concern himself is the trial court and he needs to forget about 'wining' in the court of public opinion.
Zimmerman keeps doing things that turns a ridiculously hard case proving murder into an only challenging case. He just needs to shut up, stop talking, and demand his speedy trial.
At that point, I realized that it wasn't my gun, it wasn't his gun, it was the gun.
That's a pretty effective line.
The POWER will destroy a white-hispanic man, emphasis on white, for defending himself against a black attack. No defense allowed. Total submission required. A sacrifice must be made to "them" because after all "they" might riot and what could be worse than that?
Couldn't see much of it, as the feed kept breaking up last night.
The impression I got of what little I saw that Zimmerman is kind of an average guy who caught up in something so much bigger than himself and the import of it is just starting to sink in.
Zimmerman has already been tried in the court of public opinion, and none of it is his doing. The actual trial will result in acquittal if based on the evidence no matter what Zimmerman says, short of confession.
His real problem will be living in the world after the verdict, and that is why he's on TV. Just being acquitted isn't enough -- OJ was acquitted, and look how that worked out for him.
I don't get it. The facts are what they are, there was no contradiction of the facts. The law should have a clear bright line for what he is charged with. What self defense means. What he has said has changed none of the facts. He thought he was going to die, he had to shoot the guy, end of story.
Isn't the purpose of the court to identify the truth of what occurred? It's not some stupid popularity game here, with the DA winning or losing, or the defendant winning or losing.
The system is here to protect people. The idea it's what you can convince people of is sickening to me. I haven't seen or heard one thing that indicates to me this is anything but self defense, at this point.
As for the rest of it, this man and his reputation is on many people's minds in America. It's a story that you can't defend yourself against a person because he is young, or black, unless you are racist, as I understand the evidence.
If something changes with the facts, it will change my mind. But right now, I the system does not seem to be working.
Zimmerman is a fool. A complete, outright, batshit crazy fool. Bad enough that he speaks to Hannity, who's a joke interviewer, but the fact that he opens his mouth at all is an invitation for the prosecutor to nail his ass to the wall.
Shut up, George. Just shut up. Or talk yourself right into a twenty-year jail sentence. Your choice.
Well, the important part isto not destroy the meme. If Zimmerman sounds too good, take one line out o context and emphasize that.
The whole point is to aid in a conviction or make riots likely in the case o an acquittal.
"Such are the risks of doing interviews."
Only when dealing with a media agenda. You should put the pressure on the Media for contextual missrepresentation. Most people don't expect much from the Media, but we should continue to point it out.
Allow me to predict the future. He will not be convicted of murder.
But, he will then be prosecuted by the DOJ for violating TM's rights.
And if he wins that case, he will be sued in a civil court ala OJ. And he will be ruined financially and in every other sense
Who said that there's no double or triple jeopardy?
Oops. Z told a more perfect story this time, which may become his undoing. He had a perfect story already in the can. By telling a new and improved story he cast doubt on all of his story telling.
What stuck out to me was the admission that the Concrete was no longer under his head when he pulled his gun. He pulled it because Trayvon saw it. The concrete bashing to near passing out had been a convenient fear of death story all along.
Z also embellished his nearly invisible and bloodless broken nose wound by saying that Travon hit him in the face a dozen times. That would have left no time for slamming Z's head onto the concrete over and over.
Then Z, in his humble victim mode, added that Trayvon was pushing down on his nose and mouth to stop his yelling and that hurt Z so, so bad since his nose was broken, you know.
Sorry Z, but a broken nose is numb at that stage.
IMO the fight was started by an encounter that stemmed from a mistaken targeting of a black teen burglar "Punk" that Z refused to let escape this time
Trayvon felt stalked and he took Z down where Z hit the concrete walk and Trayvon got top position on him and probably was hitting him. Then Z decided to kill the little trespassing punk.
Z's only problem from that was the revelation that this trespassing punk was a 17 year old that lived there. So Z used his story telling skills, which he needs to quit improving each time.
The black folks reaction was always to the wrongful assumption that black teen men in hoodies are punks with open season on them. That are fed up with that.
"But, he will then be prosecuted by the DOJ for violating TM's rights. "
-- I doubt it, since the FBI found no possible racial motivation for the shooting. He'll probably have to win a civil trial, but he should be safe from the DOJ.
I thought Zimmerman has said, consistently, that Martin went for his gun and that was what pushed him into shooting? I don't think that's a new part of the story.
HANNITY: Is there anything you might do differently in retrospect now that the time has passed a little bit?
ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.
Really? I mean, I think it was self-defense, but I would be surprised if he didn't just wish none of it had ever happened. With perfect 20/20 hindsight, would he really have gotten out of his car?
I think the problem is when Zimmerman would have changed things. When I heard the question, I assumed he meant in that immediate moment, that is: "Knowing he was just a kid who had not actively broke into any houses and belonged in your neighborhood, would you still have a shot him?" Not taking it back further from that immediate decision. So, maybe that's why Zimmerman said no.
Or, maybe he believes in a deterministic universe where one's choices are fore-ordained. Or he's an idiot.
It's nice that we have a new fake racism trial. The OJ story was getting old.
Because you killed a young man in self defense who looked like Obama's son, do you understand why the media is treating you differently?
JohnBoy said...
Allow me to predict the future. He will not be convicted of murder.
But, he will then be prosecuted by the DOJ for violating TM's rights.
Certainly as long as Eric Holder is AG.
Tradguy what makes you so sure TM wasn't casing a home to burgle? After all how many teens get caught with a bag full of wedding rings? i say lets wait for the trial.
When I heard the question, I assumed he meant in that immediate moment, that is: "Knowing he was just a kid who had not actively broke into any houses and belonged in your neighborhood, would you still have a shot him?" Not taking it back further from that immediate decision.
Maybe. I guess he could also just have a really poor opinion of the 'kid' who slammed his head into the concrete and told him he was going to kill him. Maybe he thinks he did the world a favor.
Bob: It doesn't matter if he was casing a house to burgle. It doesn't matter if he was on the lookout for children about to fall out of windows for him to run and catch. All that matters is: Did he attack Zimmerman? Was he a threat to Zimmerman's life? Martin could be a sinner or a saint for all I care; his character doesn't matter. Just his actions in the maybe 5 minutes surrounding when he was shot.
There is a lot of things in my life too that I wish had happened differently, but like Steve McQueen said in The Magnificent Seven, "It seemed like a good idea at the time," and anyhow, for all I know, if I had done differently, it might have turned out even worse.
But I do agree that Zimmerman talks too much. He is indeed just an average guy caught up in something bigger than he is, and he should not help them provide rope for the lynching.
I think Christopher in MA says it best.
It seems to me that Zimmerman acted in self defense. I see no evidence to suggest that he should have been charged with any crime.
But Lordamighty he needs to shut up. He's been singing like a bird since the moment this happened and he just keeps making it worse. His lawyer should resign.
He will be aquitted, and the heat of this thing will fade. Most people are now learning enough to realize it was pure self-defense, after the trial it will be pretty common understanding. That won't stop the Traditionalguys who, even though they now see it, can't admit it because they dug their hole so deep early on, but they won;t want to make bigger fools of themselves, so they will not push it much.
Then Z will be left with his life, and nobody will care much. His story won't be very sellable due to a loss of interest and there being no real mystery to it. It happened just like he said it did.
So I say, yes do the interviews and get that money while it's being offered. You will be acquitted and then it will be too late. If he didn't have such an easy case I'd say it's crazy, but the fact that the case is so clear, is what makes it both safe and only valuable before the trial. It's worth the risk, and he knows the truth, so doesn't have to worry about letting something slip.
For the record, I also don't understand why he was charged -- at least, with murder. I kept expecting the prosecutor to show some evidence that was damning or at least worth investigating. It has yet to show. I could see a lesser charge MAYBE, but not murder.
But, not being charged is not in the cards for Zimmerman. So, he needs to start acting smarter.
He is indeed just an average guy caught up in something bigger than he is, and he should not help them provide rope for the lynching.
There is a lot of seething death rage expressed on Twitter over Zimmerman. I don't believe anyone who pretends this doesn't exist.
I'm looking at you Tradguy
I keep seeing comments by people saying he shouldn't go on TV, that he's a fool, batshit crazy, etc.
Why?
The rest of the media certainly aren't going to help him. Right now, his story isn't getting out, except on blogs, and even that isn't working all that well (note Tradguy's normally logical mind and how much of a pretzel he's twisting into to avoid the truth).
It's standard boilerplate that defendants should never say anything to the media. Times are different, and most of the media are directly gunning against him. Why shouldn't he seek the friendly confines of a Sean Hannity?
"But now, the 'God's plan' line is out there, affecting what people think about Zimmerman, and it will be used against him in his trial."
It's clear that you haven't tried a lot of cases. If the prosecution offers that part of the interview, the defense will be entitled to insist that enough of the full interview be included to put the 'God's plan' snippet into full context. That will allow the jury to see the defendant just as you did -- and they are quite likely to conclude, as you did, that he made "an excellent impression."
Whether to allow a defendant to be interviewed prior to trial is a tricky issue for the defense. Famously, the defense elected not to object when the prosecution played the video of a 'confession' by Bernie Goetz (the NYC subway shooter of years ago) during his interrogation by the cops (the defense had ample grounds to do so and could have kept it out of the trial). The reason was that the defense wanted the jury to see Goetz and understand how he felt and why he could have said 'you don't look so bad, here's another' and then shoot one of the thugs again. It was a gutsy call but it worked.
I think the defense here had a good sense of how the interview with Hannity would play out. My guess is that they are quite pleased, and aren't afraid of its possible use at trial. I suspect they would probably welcome that move, if the prosecution takes that tack.
I don't pretend to be an expert on the case, but to ask GZ if he "wouldn't have been alive without the gun" isn't really the right question. GZ couldn't have known then and doesn't know now whether TM would have walked away, beat him unconscious and walked away, beat him until he died (whether TM wanted to kill him or did so without planning it), or grabbed the gun and shot him. No one knows this. Just a couple days ago in Chicago there was a case of a couple teens beating a man in an alley until he died. No one wants to be this man. What's the threshold -- how many punches does one have to endure because you're "probably" just going to end up unconscious?
"...his character doesn't matter. Just his actions in the maybe 5 minutes surrounding when he was shot."
Beyond the injuries to both men, the primary evidence to inform the jury about whether Martin attacked or not is his character. If he was a choir boy who rescued kittens, Z would be in a lot more trouble. Martin's own words and acts before that day speak volumes.
A couple of mornings ago, an ABC reporter came onto a morning radio talk show to talk about the "explosive" testimony of Zimmerman's cousin, and how this is going to ruin his credibility even farther. He couched this as just a regular news story. This is unbiased news?
I say shout to the rooftops that you're being railroaded. Tell EVERYONE about the details of the case, and maybe some pressure will be put on the media, the runaway prosecutor, and the obviously corrupt judge who still hasn't dismissed what's an obviously fabricated political case.
There's two trials at work here.
If Zimmerman clams up to maximize his chances of a not-guilty verdict in the criminal trial, the liberal media will claim he's trying hide something.
It would be abandoning the field of public opinion and getting an automatic loss there.
That would mean that his future would be in peril for just about the rest of his life. His life might even be in danger, because the liberal media would have his media conviction establish his legal not-guilty verdict as injustice.
He must fight the media in order to allow a legal not-guilty verdict have some persuasive power.
It's a tactical choice. He may be reducing his chance of a legal conviction from 100% to 98%, but he's gaining the chance for that verdict to stick even in the court of public opinion.
But even that is dicey, thanks to racists who have pushed the nonsense that Trayvon Martin is innocent simply because he's black.
Thanks Cubanbob...Juat wait for the trial is all we need to do. The Jury will sort it out. And there having been a trial defuses the anger and the cover up accusations.
As to God's role, I was surprized at Z claiming predestination.
Calvinists can work predestination into a total denial of Free Will, and therfore, of all responsability. They see it as a humble position before God's Authority...like repentance for existing. But it can also be used as an excuse for not acting at all to help people in need or to do justice to the weak and to outsiders.
Or he's an idiot.
Bingo.
What I think drives the anti-Zimmerman sentiment is an unanswered question, namely, "why did a kid, alone, with no history of violence, decide to beat on you?" You do hear of random acts of violence by kids, but it's always a group of them.
What I didn't hear in this interview, and what I think is a real problem, is any attempt by Zimmerman to explain why he didn't de-escalate the situation. I mean, why didn't he talk to Martin from inside his vehicle?
I watched the entire interview and was very impressed. I can see whay his lawyer allowed this. How allowing an extended, open interview like this would help him.
Even if he was a choir boy though, he still was beating Zimmerman's head into the ground (cement or dirt doesn't make a difference in my mind). If that's true, it doesn't matter if the day before he gave of his life's blood to save my own mother, the shooting was allowable.
What little respect I ever had for the mainstream media has finally evaporated.
"What I didn't hear in this interview, and what I think is a real problem, is any attempt by Zimmerman to explain why he didn't de-escalate the situation. I mean, why didn't he talk to Martin from inside his vehicle?"
-- Zimmerman's story, if I understand it, is that he was confronted on his way back to his vehicle, and not given an opportunity to de-escalate as he was immediately put on the ground.
Too many people, when they hear someone say "It was God's plan," think that the speaker is saying the speaker believes God approves of what he has done.
And this is just ridiculous. If you believe in God the way Abrahamic faiths do, then EVERYTHING, good and bad, Hitler and Gandhi, is part of God's plan.
See, you don't want to say "no history of violence," because then his past history is allowable. And, it is currently known that Martin "took a swing" at a bus driver. So, he does have at least one noted spot in his history of violence. Simply, less effective violence than demonstrated against Zimmerman.
@Chicklit...OK, and a trial will defuse that, especially when Martin's family accepts that outcome.
Do you really think my not joining others at digital barricades defending the White Race is the problem?
It may be that our need for reconciliation is what will bring real peace. Simple telling a fair truth is a necessary big part of reconciliation. Even Z has started by his reaching out to the Martin family in the interview.
The wisdom of the Scots that rules fairly and without favoritism is a blessing to a Nation. That is also what Obama is clueless about as he divides groups into clasing factions so he can steal more for the Tribe in power.
Mathew Sablan - no, we don't have a history of Martin "taking a swing" at anybody. That's part of the massive disinformation campaign against Martin. We do have a conviction for Zimmerman taking a swing at a cop.
Zimmerman had three opportunities at de-escalation: 1) Talk to Martin from his car 2) not get out of the car and follow him 3) when Martin walked up to him, saying "I'm neighborhood watch."
Being interviewed by Bob Costas worked well for Jerry Sandusky.
See, but since you brought up his history of violence, this "disinformation campaign" as you call it is a perfectly legitimate question to raise. We now need to examine all of his personal history. We need to see his entire school records because, well, you're making a claim, and yet, other people have made counter claims. So, hey, the only way to get to the truth is to dig through the dead kid's life and examine it in detail. Why you want to subject him to that when you can ignore his past entirely and focus solely on the time surrounding his shooting is beyond me, but, you want to prove he is an angel, prove it.
You'll quickly find, I imagine, that my approach -- not caring what he did except in that brief time that matters -- is a better approach.
Gerrib: Martin had the most important option to not escalate. He could have chosen not to punch someone else in the head, mount them and begin beating their head into the ground.
That... that seems to be an infinitely more relevant decision to be examined.
The fact that Martin "took a swing" at Zimmerman is not in serious dispute. At ALL.
Something happened to put Zimmerman on the floor. I don't think it was the Sandusky "tickle monster."
Mathew Sablan - no, we don't have a history of Martin "taking a swing" at anybody. That's part of the massive disinformation campaign against Martin. We do have a conviction for Zimmerman taking a swing at a cop.
You come across as a partisan.
Also: I thought charges were dropped for Zimmerman. It's so interesting that charges against Zimmerman, though never convicted, are DAMNING, but similar accusations against Martin are SMEAR CAMPAIGNS OF DISINFORMATION. Whereas, I don't care. About either. Was the shooting justified?
"What I didn't hear in this interview, and what I think is a real problem, is any attempt by Zimmerman to explain why he didn't de-escalate the situation. I mean, why didn't he talk to Martin from inside his vehicle?"
Actually, it's completely explained in the interview and has been explained many times. You're positing a scenario I can't even picture given the set of facts as presented by Z.
That's awesome. Zimmerman had a moral duty to de-escalate, but Martin had no duty whatever to not have escalated in the first place.
Tradguy: Simple telling a fair truth is a necessary big part of reconciliation.
The fair truth is that there is no evidence that has come to light that suggests that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense. Trad has never been able to make the case. The prosecution hasn't thus far been able to make the case. There's no reason to believe there IS an affirmative case. But Tradguy wants the prosecutorial power of the DA to target an ordinary citizen and crime victim anyway. Tradguy is arguing for a Stalinist state, where people can be picked up and held without trial for... what specifically happened? 'We don't know,' says Tradguy! 'But let's ruin a guy's life, lock a dozen jurors up and distrupt their lives, and devote thousands of hours of scarce investigative and prosecutorial bandwidth for no damned reason.
The direct conclusion is that Tradguy wouldn't recognize a "fair truth" if it bit him on his ass.
Actually, it's completely explained in the interview and has been explained many times. You're positing a scenario I can't even picture given the set of facts as presented by Z.
You allude to a good point: some people (Tradguy, Chris Gerrib) want to believe so badly that there is something there, that they're capable of completely ignoring the evidence that exists.
Why would Gerrib spout off that opinion without, you know, actually watching the interview?
traditionalguy said...
@Chicklit...OK, and a trial will defuse that, especially when Martin's family accepts that outcome.
The idea that the Martin family would accept and acquittal is silly & obscene.
I found it interesting that he said he wasn't 'following" Martin, only gong in the " same direction." This twisting of meaning is worthy of an Althouse headline.
Chris Gerrib said...
We do have a conviction for Zimmerman taking a swing at a cop.
Complete and utter bullshit.
You can't post on this topic without lying.
Want to guess why that is?
I found it interesting that he said he wasn't 'following" Martin, only gong in the " same direction." This twisting of meaning is worthy of an Althouse headline.
Then I said:
some people want to believe so badly that there is something there, that they're capable of completely ignoring the evidence that exists
RV gives us a case and point.
Why would Gerrib spout off that opinion without, you know, actually watching the interview?
Some opinions/attitudes/approaches come from pure bias. You hate Obama because you're a racist!
Others come from over-analysis. I think this may be Gerrib's problem.
@roesch-voltaire:I found it interesting that he said he wasn't 'following" Martin, only gong in the " same direction." This twisting of meaning is worthy of an Althouse headline.
So when you are eastbound on I-94 you are "following" every other car going east? And so if you get in an accident with one you must have been looking for trouble, right? Why did you follow him if you don't want to hit him? Oh, don;t tell me you were "just going in the same direction", that's a twist in meaning worthy of Althouse...
You, sir, are a sophist, because I know you read better than that. It's easy to go in the same direction as someone without following them. You might not know exactly where they are, for example.
Tradguy: What stuck out to me was the admission that the Concrete was no longer under his head when he pulled his gun.
That's because you're an idiot.
If I am armed, and get in a streetfight, the assumption CAN and MUST be that if I lose, the other guy will find my weapon. I MUST assume he will use it at that point. This is true whether or not there's a rock under my head, and it's true if we're fighting on a haystack or featherbed.
If it becomes remotely possible that I will lose the fight, I MUST pull my firearm. If the attack persists even for a second, I MUST fire. And I will fire center of mass and keep firing until the threat is over.
Anyone who does anything different at that point is an drooling, handwringing idiot or a libtard. But I repeat myself.
roesch/voltaire said...
I found it interesting that he said he wasn't 'following" Martin, only gong in the " same direction
I find your utter cluelessness and blinkered delusions rather interesting.
Your inability to distinguish the reference in Zimmerman's remarks to the facts is also interesting.
@tradguy:@Chicklit...OK, and a trial will defuse that, especially when Martin's family accepts that outcome.
Yeah, just like with Rodney King, or the BART cop in San Francisco: the trial settled everything....
Perhaps while driving by he was going in the same direction but once he got out of his SUV, against the advice of the 911 operator, he was following Martin, to claim otherwise is a lie clueless Jay.
Ann Althouse - why is it so hard to picture Zimmerman rolling down the window of his car and yelling at Martin, "hey, who are you?" Especially if, as he said in his police statement, Martin approached him?
Regarding Martin, he had done nothing wrong, and had every right to be where he was. How exactly was he to know that Zimmerman wasn't a threat? Some guy follows you in a car, then gets out in the rain to come after you?
Zimmerman had to do community service for his scuffle with the cops, which was documented. What documentation do you have of Martin's violence?
Lastly, I don't have to prove Martin was an angel. It would be nice if somebody could explain to me why anybody would launch an unprovoked attack on somebody of roughly equal abilities. This is very atypical behavior, even for hardened crooks.
The fair truth being told and the outcome being based on that and not based on favoritism is an unusual but highly effective custom of the Scots.
It heals the divisions between classes of the citizens. That releases a tremendous energy and resolve to keep that blessing and peotect it.
English and other European aristocracy were abusing the hell out of their own people, and also at will in their Empires, until that Scots solution was applied. It is what made America exceptional. It is also empowered the abolition of slavery at great cost.
A study of Australian history is enlightening in regard to a fair governor's positive influence.
It is also seen when a football coach throws the star off of the team by the same rules that throw the benchwarmers off of the team. The team then prospers.
It is not a waste of time and resources.
Gerrib: That's why Martin hit Zimmerman from behind and pinned him as fast as he could. He hit him hard and fast, and then continued hitting Zimmerman. He probably would have continued to hit Zimmerman until someone came to stop him, Zimmerman was dead or unconscious or Martin was forced to stop.
I have been attacked by people; you rarely know what is going through someone's mind when they decide to hurt another human being. But, it also, rarely matters. Martin was on top of Zimmerman, pummeling him.
If that is true, nothing else matters. The shooting is justified; it is a sucky situation. Both of them could have avoided it. But the shooting -itself- is legal.
So, do you disagree that the attack developed in the way the evidence, witness testimonies and medical reports make it appear?
Also, if I thought someone was a threat, and I saw him turn and walk away... I would not confront him. I would continue to run away. I would certainly not sucker punch him, pin him to the ground and beat his head into the ground.
Do you see my running theme here?
Dante: I don't get it. The facts are what they are, there was no contradiction of the facts
If the Left can't revoke your 2nd Amendment rights, they will destroy your life for exercising those rights. This is meant to be an object lesson to anyone who tries to defend himself from the "wards" of the Nanny State.
Chris Gerrib, please tell us you're a lawyer.
We do have a conviction for Zimmerman taking a swing at a cop.
No. He "pushed" a cop. He didn't "take a swing" at one.
Why are the Trayvon defenders such deliberate liars?
Libtard: once he got out of his SUV, against the advice of the 911 operator, he was following Martin
He did NOT get out of his SUV to follow Martin.
Do you libtards even look at or read the evidence? Geez.
The Guardian put "sorry" in quotes.
The media can be a monster.
Ugly people.
Jason...You just made the old rhetorical point that all black young men should be issued 9mm and ammo if there is to be a fair administration of justice.
After all, your man concealed carrying the 9mm always has to shoots to kill the moment a fight starts, and the man with the skittles gets to be slandered as a subhuman untermensch.
But, he will then be prosecuted by the DOJ for violating TM's rights.
And if he wins that case, he will be sued in a civil court ala OJ. And he will be ruined financially and in every other sense
I think that he would only be prosecuted by the DoJ if Obama is reelected. With bail, the trial is likely pushed off until after the election, and even if it were before then, only a Black racist like Holder would sanction a retrial based on the evidence that we have seen. There is absolutely no credible evidence that the shooting was racially motivated, and a lot of evidence to the contrary (all of which would likely be admissible in a federal civil rights case) that Zimmerman is not racially biased against Blacks.
I also suspect that even if Obama is reelected, that Holder will be gone. If the Republicans retake the Senate, expect that if he tries to hold on, that he will be at least impeached, and maybe even removed from office. That sort of thing. I think a lot of people now view him as a lying racist, and that isn't what we want in our Attorney General.
On the other hand, the Martins may just sue in civil court for wrongful death. Can't really do so until Zimmerman's immunity hearing, which is why they are pushing the criminal side so hard. If Zimmerman gets immunity, then there is no criminal trial, and no civil trial either.
trad: Do you really think my not joining others at digital barricades defending the White Race is the problem?
No. But I know that your irrational and emotional defense of Trayvon is out of character. So I think you are doing some Indulgence or Penance for some horrible racism against black people you've did in your past.
Its the only thing that explains the break in your pattern.
"The black folks reaction was always to the wrongful assumption that black teen men in hoodies are punks with open season on them. That are fed up with that."
Wish black folks were more fed up with young black men murdering other blacks. That's the real elephant in the room isn't. Trayvon Martin is now a meme to pretend otherwise.
Before deciding that Trayvon was an angel one might consdier his facebook page where he describes his attitude and drug sales. The use of "purple drank" which is a mixture of dextromethorpham and Arizona watermelon juice and skittles, two of which were in his possession. The timeline is also significant. One side effect of the drug combo is sudden rages.
Zimmerman is probably the designated victim for the race hustlers that have adopted this case. It will be hard for him to emerge with a whole skin.
... the wrongful assumption that black teen men in hoodies are punks, he said from his Ivory Enclave.
traditionalguy, I think you may be coming around to the notion of the right to bear arms. Indeed, all young black men should have that right, though "should be issued" is more of a Swiss way of putting it, and un-American.
If young black men had proper rights to arms, they might use them to protect themselves, and the rule of law.
But they don't have such rights.
The use of "purple drank" which is a mixture of dextromethorpham and Arizona watermelon juice and skittles, two of which were in his possession. The timeline is also significant. One side effect of the drug combo is sudden rages.
Also called "lean" b/c of the tendency of abusers to walk funny:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lean
That was another MSM cover-up: they sped up the film from 7-11 so viewers wouldn't see how erratically Trayvon was moving.
trad: er all, your man concealed carrying the 9mm always has to shoots to kill the moment a fight starts
More emotional hyperbole. Responsible gun owners, like Zimmerman, do NOT "shoot to kill the moment a fight starts". They shoot to kill when they are 1) in fear for their life or 2) in fear of grievous bodily harm (like TMI from having your head bashed on concrete). This is exactly what Zimmerman did, despite your fairy tales to the contrary.
BTW, why are you so oppossed to young black men arming themselves for self-defense? More of your racism/guilt/racism seeping through?
I would hope Zimmerman went on this interview against the vehement protest of his attorney, otherwise his counsel is incompetent.
What's the threshold -- how many punches does one have to endure because you're "probably" just going to end up unconscious?
One. There's a report on a man in the UK who had his head slammed into a concrete surface. Resulting in Traumatic Brain Injury.
He has a family. He can't talk to them or even walk. They have to feed and wipe him.
I hope people like Trad and Chris could experience that. Maybe then they wouldn't be so casual about the threat to Zimmerman.
After all, your man concealed carrying the 9mm always has to shoots to kill the moment a fight starts
Define fight. If someone jumps me at night I'm going to shoot that person if I'm carrying. I'm not going to ask if he's just intent on a generic ass whooping.
"What I didn't hear in this interview, and what I think is a real problem, is any attempt by Zimmerman to explain why he didn't de-escalate the situation. I mean, why didn't he talk to Martin from inside his vehicle?"
I think that this apparently needs to be repeated for those, like TG, who want to make up the law as they go along. The only thing that matters here, in a criminal trial for 2nd degree murder, is whether or not Martin swung at Zimmerman first, and whether he was beating his head against the cement. If that is true, and all the physical evidence points that way so far, then Zimmerman was entitled to use deadly force to protect his own life.
Those, like TG, who want Zimmerman convicted, are dwelling on the Information charging him with 2nd Degree Murder, where his getting out of his truck and somewhat tailing Martin was claimed to be the extreme indifference required for the 2nd Degree charge.
But, not only would the state of Florida have to prove that tailing someone at a distance to aid the police, who were in-route, when they arrived was essentially gross negligence of the level required for the gross indifference, beyond a reasonable doubt, they also have to disprove the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.
-- Zimmerman's story, if I understand it, is that he was confronted on his way back to his vehicle, and not given an opportunity to de-escalate as he was immediately put on the ground.
Which is why the TGs of this world look to Zimmerman getting out of his truck to track Martin for the cops, who were a couple minutes away, as the critical action on his part, to show extreme indifference, etc. Never mind that this was the neighborhood in which he lived, where he had every right to be, and where he worked as Neighborhood Watch, etc.
I don't think that it would work for the prosecution for a 2nd Degree Murder charge, even if self-defense were not so obviously applicable. The state needs to prove every element of its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and showing that to be the extreme indifference required is not likely. It would require that the jury essentially believed that people don't have a right to be in their own community, gated in this case, if they see people there who might not belong, but appear to possibly be up to no good. That the person who doesn't appear to belong there has more right to be there than the person who does live there. That might work in progressive paradises like Chicago, but is unlikely to work very well in Florida.
Oh forgot to add, although I implied it - that guy in the UK who has to have his wife wipe his ass?
That's FOREVER. As in permanent TBI.
That was another MSM cover-up: they sped up the film from 7-11 so viewers wouldn't see how erratically Trayvon was moving.
So, a question for our criminal law experts here (Dolan?) Would the 7-11 video be admissible? When not sped up, Martin does look pretty sketchy there. Would expert testimony on the "lean" street drug be admissible? And, maybe Martin's tweats about using the drug?
I think that it would be less likely that Martin's suspension for drug use, his apprehension for having someone else's jewelry, and his claim to have swung on the bus driver, would be admissible. None really go to anything relevant in the case, and would seem to more prejudicial than probative of whether or not Martin swung on Zimmerman, whether Zimmerman should have been suspicious of him, whether Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck, etc.
Was Zimmerman following Martin? Refer to the recorded conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher:
About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running." The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"
The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door. Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.
The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."
So, according to Zimmerman, he was following Martin. End of story.
That's awesome. Zimmerman had a moral duty to de-escalate, but Martin had no duty whatever to not have escalated in the first place.
Yeah, that’s not a reasonable standard. Yeah, I know you were raped mam, but you had a DUTY to de-escalate!
How exactly was he to know that Zimmerman wasn't a threat?
Punching the shit out of someone is a good way to make them into a threat, wouldn’t you say?
So I think you are doing some Indulgence or Penance for some horrible racism against black people you've did in your past.
I have long felt that must be the issue, Fen.
Ha. Folks criticize Zimmerman for giving interviews. But Zimmerman is a brave man; he showed that by taking defense of his community upon himself.
He has a message to proclaim that will survive his exoneration.
I can imagine Hannity interviewing Jesus, asking if he really be King of the Jews, whereupon Jesus incriminatingly replies, "Thou sayest it."
It probably doesn't matter if Zimmerman goes on tv or radio. Everyone that I know, and everyone who comments here have already made up their minds as to his guilty or innocence. Zimmerman evidently thinks that he has to provide some explanation about that night, because the prosecutors from the government are constantly leaking evidence and innuendo about him.
why is it so hard to picture Zimmerman rolling down the window of his car and yelling at Martin, "hey, who are you?" Especially if, as he said in his police statement, Martin approached him?
Note the term "picture". In other words, you're offering facts not in evidence. But I'll play anyway. Assuming your above, what if Martin was carrying a gun and shot at Zimmerman first and then Zimmerman fired back scoring a hit? Would you still hold that Zimmerman should be under the microscope?
All that aside, why does the responsibility have to reside with Zimmerman? He was the one attacked (you seem to have forgotten this fact).
I don't care if Martin was 17 years old or not. He knew that attacking someone was wrong, and if HE hadn't escalated it, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
So, according to Zimmerman, he was following Martin. End of story.
Once Zimmerman turned back around, it switched, and Martin was following Zimmerman. End of story.
About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running." The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"
The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door. Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.
Hey, I never heard that first part! So, did he get out of his car to check on Martin solely to answer the questions asked by the police dispatcher? Sheesh this case has been twisted.
As for the following, I think Z stated that he was on his way back to his truck when he was attacked, so the people talking about his not following Martin are talking about at the time of his attack, not earlier.
Actually, it's completely explained in the interview and has been explained many times. You're positing a scenario I can't even picture given the set of facts as presented by Z.
One of the many problems for the Zimmerman defense is his remarkable record of exercising poor judgment. That doesn't mean he's guilty of murder, of course, but it does mean he's guilty of being a dumbshit and of making a series of poor decisions that ultimately resulted in the death of Martin.
The fact that Zimmerman, in retrospect, can't think of anything he might do differently proves that this guy is an idiot.
The Z and Travon confrontation was one on one. The wounds on Z were minor scrapes and an undisplaced nose cartelege crack. The man carrying the gun ended the fight he says about 30 or 40 seconds before the police he was calling out for found him and the dead man.
Z has a perfect story to be acquitted, He just needs to quit tweaking it.
The trial wiil make Z into a hero since the "victors write the history."
The appearance of Justice without favoritism is what is really on trial here. And Joe Paterno's method of handling hot issues with favoritism is the worst possible one.
The black folks reaction was always to the wrongful assumption that black teen men in hoodies are punks with open season on them. That are fed up with that.
Well, there is no evidence, anywhere in America at all, that black men in hoodies face "open season" by white shooters.
So instead of typing dumb comments on the Internet, perhaps your time would be better spent educating black on this fact.
None really go to anything relevant in the case, and would seem to more prejudicial than probative of whether or not Martin swung on Zimmerman, whether Zimmerman should have been suspicious of him,
I think it goes to Zimmerman's motive - stranger wandering around in rain, acting like he's doped up, casing houses. That's why Martin hit Zimmerman's radar to begin with.
Once Zimmerman turned back around, it switched, and Martin was following Zimmerman.
Aside from the fact that your statement isn't relevant, is there independent evidence that Martin followed Zimmerman?
Jake: If Martin had not attacked Zimmerman, all Zimmerman's stupid decisions would've amounted to squat.
The appearance of Justice without favoritism is what is really on trial here.
Hysterical.
Considering:
Detective in Zimmerman case said he was pressured to file charges
Those words don't mean what you think they mean.
"...this guy is an idiot." I was there! I was a friend of both George and Trayvon! I know all about this!
The appearance of Justice without favoritism is what is really on trial here. And Joe Paterno's method of handling hot issues with favoritism is the worst possible one.
Really? A guy defending himself from being beaten is the same as a football coach ignoring pedophilia? Trad, you've gone off the deep end. Get help.
The only favoritism here is to the race hustlers like Sharpton and Jackson, who want their head on a pike in spite of the evidence. The fact that you're a party to it is sad to say the least.
tradguy is still stuck on this bizarre meme that there was no investigation and an attempted "cover up" that only a trial can sort out.
Of course the purpose of trials in America is not to "find out what happened"
But he'll carry on in the meme.
That's why Martin hit Zimmerman's radar to begin with.
This is why idiots shouldn't be part of a Neighborhood Watch program. Zimmerman's "radar" is obviously as defective as his judgment.
Jake: That doesn't mean he's guilty of murder, of course, but it does mean he's guilty of being a dumbshit
You're a dumbshit. Does that mean we can violate your rights, ruin you financially, stir up "Dead or Alive" bounties, and lock you up for 20 years?
Please? Else, take your stupid line of reasoning and shove it up your ass.
and of making a series of poor decisions that ultimately resulted in the death of Martin.
Like looping back to stalk Zimmerman, ambushing him, and threatening to kill him while attempting to kill him? Those kind of "poor decisions", Libtard?
Aside from the fact that your statement isn't relevant, is there independent evidence that Martin followed Zimmerman?
Yes, it is relevant. Martin attacked Zimmerman by coming up behind him and jumping him. All of the evidence points to this.
How could it NOT be relevant?
Jake Diamond said...
That doesn't mean he's guilty of murder, of course, but it does mean he's guilty of being a dumbshit and of making a series of poor decisions that ultimately resulted in the death of Martin.
Um, actually idiot, Martin's decision to attack Zimmerman resulted in Martin's death.
Duh.
What stuck out to me was the admission that the Concrete was no longer under his head when he pulled his gun. He pulled it because Trayvon saw it. The concrete bashing to near passing out had been a convenient fear of death story all along..
don't quit your day job and try to become a detective. Because you're terrible at it.You say he has a perfect ( in the sense of manufactured) case, and then you try to poke some holes there. But your refutations are lousy. And if you made such arguments in court I would laugh at the shoddy reasoning.
The concrete bashing to near passing out had been a convenient fear of death story all along.
He has the scars on theback of his head to prove his head was injured. Scars which people like you argued were not there when he went to the police station. And, trayvon could have been punching him/bashing his head and stopped momentarily when spotting the gun, and zimmerman may have lifted his head off concrete. When you're grappling with someone who is in top of you things often happen at the same time, or are a jumble.
Z also embellished his nearly invisible and bloodless broken nose wound by saying that Travon hit him in the face a dozen times. That would have left no time for slamming Z's head onto the concrete
I love how, to fit your meme, you minimize the fact that he did have a broken nose. It's pure conjecture on your part that his face was in fact bloodless. But since when is it an either or that he either was punched in the face or had his head bashed. Why couldnt it have been both? And there's not enough time for slamming zimmermans head? How long do you think it takes to slam someones head? A millisecond? If they are wrestling for close to a minute that gives trayvon plenty of time to punch slap grapple and yes also slam zimmermans head into ground. AND reach for the gun.
Sorry Z, but a broken nose is numb at that stage.
At what stage? Ten seconds after your nose is broken? How are you determining that? And how fdo we know that it wasn't this punching of the face, and not the initial punch, that caused zimmermans nose to break? If so, then it would hurt at that moment, no? At any rate, even if your nose goes numb, it's not as if your nose won't still hurt, especially if you are being punched in the face at the time!
This is why idiots shouldn't be part of a Neighborhood Watch program. Zimmerman's "radar" is obviously as defective as his judgment
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. How is Zimmerman an idiot? And don't hand me the bullshit about poor judgment - he's the one who's alive now.
And trad guy, he passed a lie detector test the day of or say after the shooting.
Libtard: This is why idiots shouldn't be part of a Neighborhood Watch program. Zimmerman's "radar" is obviously as defective as his judgment.
Surely. I think "smart" people like you should be. Then you can have your head bashed into the concrete and your wife can wipe your ass for the rest of your life.
A PERFECT solution. Thanks for volunteering!
Zimmerman actually did stop an actual criminal in the past, and he seemed relatively well liked and praised for his work in the neighborhood watch. This time, he got it wrong and things spiraled out of control. He made a mistake; Martin compounded the error, tragedy struck.
Jake Diamond said...
This is why idiots shouldn't be part of a Neighborhood Watch program. Zimmerman's "radar" is obviously as defective as his judgment.
Oh look everybody, it is captain neighborhood watch!!!
I mean, when you want to know who should or should not be on a neighborhood watch, you need to ask wittle Jakie diamond!
You do!!
Jake: If Martin had not attacked Zimmerman, all Zimmerman's stupid decisions would've amounted to squat.
Well, I don't know how the confrontation began, because as far as I know, there's no independent evidence relating to that. But given the facts that are established by independent evidence, we know that
1. Zimmerman was carrying a gun even though he'd been advised not to.
2. Zimmerman followed Martin, even though he'd been advised not to.
3. Zimmerman shot Martin, even though Martin was unarmed.
Under the circumstances, it's pretty damn hard to make the case that Zimmerman's poor judgment isn't substantially responsible for the resulting death of Martin.
Jake Diamond said...
But given the facts that are established by independent evidence, we know that
1. Zimmerman was carrying a gun even though he'd been advised not to.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Another "fact" from the barely literate imbecile!!
I love it.
Idiot.
. But given the facts that are established by independent evidence, we know that
1. Zimmerman was carrying a gun even though he'd been advised not to.
2. Zimmerman followed Martin, even though he'd been advised not to.
Neither of these are "facts" you pathetic, lying imbecile.
"1. Zimmerman was carrying a gun even though he'd been advised not to.
2. Zimmerman followed Martin, even though he'd been advised not to.
3. Zimmerman shot Martin, even though Martin was unarmed."
-- You seem to have skipped some steps between two and three. Let's fill in the gaps.
2a. Witnesses acknowledge Zimmerman being pinned "MMA style" by Martin.
2b. Autopsy evidence shows the only damage on Martin was to his hands and the bullet hole.
2c. The first time Martin's girlfriend/friend spoke about her phone call, she clearly stated Martin called out to Zimmerman first.
2d. Zimmerman's injuries are on the front and back of his head.
2e. Shooting an unarmed person is perfectly allowable. If a 250 pound man is raping a 110 pound woman, we would not say: "What the hell lady? He was UNARMED!" If you are physically outmatched, the pistol is the great equalizer.
Why are you skipping all the evidence that shows Martin started it, escalated it and put Zimmerman's life in jeopardy?
See, Jake's problem is that his intellect can only handle bumper-sticker statements.
He's got to be a troll. No one with any actual knowledge of the case could be this stupid.
"Under the circumstances, it's pretty damn hard to make the case that Zimmerman's poor judgment isn't substantially responsible for the resulting death of Martin."
-- Sadly, for you, that's not the burden that the state has to reach to find Zimmerman guilty of murder.
3. Zimmerman shot Martin, even though Martin was unarmed.
While this is a fact, as a matter of law it is wholly irrelevant.
So you list 2 outright lies and an irrelevant point.
Shocking, mr. facts.
Really, I'm stunned by this.
@Fen - You need to improve your reading comprehension. Seriously. Just don't practice with my comments, because I don't want to have to deal with your temper tantrums every damn time you get confused.
Try to remember my advice. Since you didn't have the benefit of it before you shit yourself after reading my comment, I'll explain my comment to you once and only once, and after that, you'll have to put your big boy trousers on and figure things out for yourself.
Explanation for Fen: I was NOT suggesting that Zimmerman be prosecuted or jailed for stupidity.
Ok, little fella? Can you calm down now?
I notice a pattern here.
The arm chair quarterbacks who know all about this case, neighborhood watches, and what "smart" people should do all lie when discussing the topic.
This floors me.
I mean, I can't believe it.
Martin attacked Zimmerman by coming up behind him and jumping him.
Is there independent evidence of this? If so, share it.
Well, I don't know how the confrontation began, because as far as I know there's no independent evidence relating to...
So, since there's no evidence, why do we insist there should be a trial?
Zimmerman was carrying a gun even though he'd been advised not to.
Who advised him, and what right does this person have to advise him?
Zimmerman followed Martin, even though he'd been advised not to.
Advised, not ordered. He still is free to make his own call. And so what? Maybe Zimmerman had the right call here?
Zimmerman shot Martin, even though Martin was unarmed
If you want to believe that fists are not arms, go ahead.
Under the circumstances, it's pretty damn hard to make the case that Zimmerman's poor judgment isn't substantially responsible for the resulting death of Martin.
Wicker man sized strawmen. Whether you think Zimmerman was "stupid" or not, doesn't give the state the right to rake him over the coals because an aggrieved group wants a scalp.
Jake Diamond said...
Is there independent evidence of this? If so, share it.
Mind you, from the author of:
Zimmerman was carrying a gun even though he'd been advised not to.
The comedy writes itself.
Jake Diamond said...
But given the facts that are established by independent evidence, we know that
Zimmerman was carrying a gun even though he'd been advised not to.
Please provide evidence for this silly, bullshit claim.
Martin's decision to attack Zimmerman resulted in Martin's death.
Jay is back in his world of denial. Please don't bring facts or logic to Jay's door!
Jake Diamond said...
But given the facts that are established by independent evidence, we know that
Zimmerman followed Martin, even though he'd been advised not to.
That's false.
See you silly, little pathetic liar, the 9-11 dispatcher asked if Zimmerman was following Martin and Zimmerman replied in the affirmative.
After which the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that" to which Zimmerman replied "OK"
So in other words, Zimmerman listed to the dispatcher.
And you're a pathetic liar.
Jake Diamond said...
Jay is back in his world of denial.
I'm not the one typing outright lies on the Internet.
Idiot.
How is Zimmerman an idiot? And don't hand me the bullshit about poor judgment - he's the one who's alive now.
Hilarious! The fact that Zimmerman is alive proves that he didn't use poor judgment.
This blog should be renamed the Althouse Comedy Club.
Jake Diamond said...
This blog should be renamed the Althouse Comedy Club.
Idiot:
You asserted:
Zimmerman was carrying a gun even though he'd been advised not to.
Provide evidence for this claim.
Jake: I fail to see any possible solution set where Martin gets killed -without attacking Zimmerman.- Remember, Zimmerman is not a racist. He stood up for a homeless black man who was beaten by police and sought justice for that man. He mentors at-risk youth. He previously helped the police apprehend a criminal as part of the neighborhood watch. The only way we get to him shooting Martin involves a fight breaking out; if Zimmerman sucker punched Martin, he left absolutely ZERO sign of a hit. If the fight were mutual, he also left zero marks and was overcome so completely as to be physically dominated in seconds, so the fight stopped being mutual then.
There's no rational way to hold that Zimmerman sought out Martin for violence.
traditionalguy said...
@Chicklit...OK, and a trial will defuse that, especially when Martin's family accepts that outcome.
===================
One of the more cancerous recent notions is "The Victim's Family With Total Moral Authority"
Along with the "Tell it!!! tactic to shut down debate:
1. Tell it to the Mother of the dead Hero soldier bringing Freedom!! to Iraq that you want to end the war!
2. Tell it to the grieving lifetime partner of the AIDs Victim that we have enough free medical services!
3. Tell it to poor Trayvons MOther - for only she has the Power to Forgive!
=============
It's a duplicitous pile of shit.
And conservatives now play the game as well on the bodies of 9/11 Victims and their Supremely Moral Families or questioning the noble cause that left dead Heroes or Hero body parts by serving the grateful Afghanis....and questioning that sacrifice would HURT the grieving Victim Family.
Muslims play it with the Martyr's familys.
And we all know how "Victims Families with Unlimited Moral Authority is played by the Left."
It even sucks in the Tradguys.
************
With Trayvon Martins holy and good mother who now sits in absolute judgment....
Well, where was the bitch when Trayvon was embracing the drug and thug culture? When his grades failed? When he was caught with burglary tools and stolen jewelry? Who decided not to ground him in a room with schoolwork after the thugs last suspension but send him up to Orlando to chill and party?
Is there independent evidence of this? If so, share it.
More accounts support Zimmerman’s version of his fight with Trayvon Martin.
From Time Magazine no less.
Hilarious! The fact that Zimmerman is alive proves that he didn't use poor judgment.
So, if he were dead, it would be good judgment.
That's some weapons grade stupid right there.
Actually if you are religious you do feel what happend to Zimmerman WAS God's Plan. It is all part of God's Plan.
But sometimes God gives you a limeburger.
And Trayvon did what he did and got his call to come home.
I think "smart" people like you should be. Then you can have your head bashed into the concrete and your wife can wipe your ass for the rest of your life.
Fen's temper tantrum continues.
Does the thought of my head being bashed into concrete give you pleasure? Are you having a particularly bad day, or do you have these happy fantasies about everyone who disagrees with you?
Maybe a nap will help. Tantrums are often the result of being tired. Hope this suggestion helps!
I mean, when you want to know who should or should not be on a neighborhood watch, you need to ask wittle Jakie diamond!
I accept the appointment. Thanks!
Jay should not be part of a neighborhood watch program for the same reason Zimmerman shouldn't have been.
Jake Diamond said...
Does the thought of my head being bashed into concrete give you pleasure?
Yes, pansy.
But anyway, why don't you direct us to the proof that Zimmerman was advised not to carry a gun as you asserted?
Do you think there is a reason why you can't do that?
Jake Diamond said...
Jay should not be part of a neighborhood watch program for the same reason Zimmerman shouldn't have been.
Except that you don't own any firearms, have never been in the military, and have not one utter clue about neighborhood watch programs.
Anyway, why don't you direct us to the proof that Zimmerman was advised not to carry a gun as you asserted?
Do you think there is a reason why you can't do that?
Does the thought of my head being bashed into concrete give you pleasure? Are you having a particularly bad day, or do you have these happy fantasies about everyone who disagrees with you?
If you'd bothered to read his prior comments, you'd know he was referring to a real-world example (in Chicago), where the Zimmerman-type was NOT armed, and got beaten and stomped to death.
Why are you skipping all the evidence that shows Martin started it, escalated it and put Zimmerman's life in jeopardy?
None of the evidence you cited proves that Martin started it. None of the evidence is enlightening as to how the physical confrontation started. None of the independent evidence suggests that Zimmerman's life was in jeopardy.
You need to think a bit more about this.
Jake Diamond said...
None of the evidence you cited proves that Martin started it. None of the evidence is enlightening as to how the physical confrontation started
As a matter of law, it is irrelevant how it started.
Anyway, why don't you direct us to the proof that Zimmerman was advised not to carry a gun as you asserted?
Do you think there is a reason why you can't do that?
Jake Diamond opined: None of the independent evidence suggests that Zimmerman's life was in jeopardy.
WTF do you know about banging heads against concrete? A cousin of mine was killed that way by an enraged asshole.
Jake Diamond said...
None of the independent evidence suggests that Zimmerman's life was in jeopardy.
As a matter of law, independent "evidence" as believed by you, is irrelevant.
Of course you have not one utter effing clue as to what evidence does or does not exist.
Nor do you have one utter effing clue as to what the relevant statue says.
But you'll still rush to comment.
Idiot.
@Fen - Seriously dude, pull your big boy pants on and stop crying. Your tantrum just makes you look like a spoiled child who isn't getting his way.
If calling me a troll is the best you've got, you're admitting defeat.
"None of the evidence you cited proves that Martin started it. None of the evidence is enlightening as to how the physical confrontation started. None of the independent evidence suggests that Zimmerman's life was in jeopardy. "
1. The girlfriend/friend's statement that Martin called out to Zimmerman first shows he engaged first. The level of injuries between the two also shows that Martin, at least, had the upper hand. The autopsy evidence also shows that Zimmerman did not harm Martin until the shots were fired.
2. Zimmerman had head trauma and was overpowered and pinned to the ground. His life was in jeopardy. If you don't think that, then... I don't see how we can have a conversation about this. What does he need for you to think his life is in jeopardy? An eye hanging loose after it is gouged out? Does he need to have come back to consciousness after blacking out? His head was being smashed into concrete; the first smash could have cracked his skull.
Please, please come back with a reasonable response.
Jake Diamond said...
If calling me a troll is the best you've got, you're admitting defeat.
Hey assclown:
Why don't you direct us to the proof that Zimmerman was advised not to carry a gun as you asserted?
Do you think there is a reason why you can't do that?
Sadly, for you, that's not the burden that the state has to reach to find Zimmerman guilty of murder.
I don't have a stake in the case.
Jake Diamond said...
I don't have a stake in the case.
That's right!!!
You taking to the Internet to make shit up about the case is all coincidence!!!
So you list 2 outright lies and an irrelevant point.
More denial from Jay. I swear I could easily write an algorithm to produce a "Jay Comment Generator." He's so predictable that his stupidity loses almost all of its amusement value.
The strict denial of facts that are inconsistent with his opinions is still pretty damn hilarious though. I've never really witnessed anyone living in a reality-free bubble before. It's amazing in its own creepy and pathetic way.
Jake Diamond said...
More denial from Jay.
Assclown:
Why don't you direct us to the proof that Zimmerman was advised not to carry a gun as you asserted?
Do you think there is a reason why you can't do that?
Tradguy,
"Trayvon felt stalked and he took Z down"
Yes, everyone with an ounce of sense and integrity realizes TM was the assailant in this case. Welcome to the light!
But then you go to say:
"... joining others at digital barricades defending the White Race..."
and the rest of us just go WTF? WT f'n F????? Sure, you can find the random individual here or there that might fit this description, but if you think that's a valid characterization of your opposition here at Althouse, you're just plain nuts. Find one single thing I ever said that made this about race.
Jake Diamond said...
The strict denial of facts that are inconsistent with his opinions is still pretty damn hilarious though
Except what you posted are not "facts"
Why don't you direct us to the proof that Zimmerman was advised not to carry a gun as you asserted?
Do you think there is a reason why you can't do that?
Idiot.
Whether you think Zimmerman was "stupid" or not, doesn't give the state the right to rake him over the coals because an aggrieved group wants a scalp.
Straw man argument. Stick to what I wrote, not what you find convenient to argue against. (To be clear, I didn't draw any link between Zimmerman's poor judgment, which you acknowledge, and the case against him.)
Jake Diamond said...
But given the facts that are established by independent evidence, we know that
1. Zimmerman was carrying a gun even though he'd been advised not to.
I love how you continue to use the word "facts" as if you would know what an actual fact is.
Please direct us to the proof demonstrating this "fact"
I've asked 10 times.
I wonder why you can't do so?
@Matthew -
There is no independent evidence that I know of about how the physical confrontation began. If you know of some, please share it.
People who don't understand Zimmerman landed a superb defense lawyer and somehow the lawyer is "Blowing it!" by putting Zimmerman out to counter the black racist, liberal, and progressive Jewish media "Narrative" - miss that this is done often in high profile cases and done successfully.
The students accused by a black whore and the Duke Faculty that has a few black whores on it, plus the media, plus a preening DA.....were guided by attorneys in media appearances to humanize them to the public and counter "The Narrative".
Look at what some of the takeaways are:
1. For the hispanic community, larger than the black community in Florida...a message GZ is a God-fearing 1st language HIspanic American who was defending his community.
2. For Florida white evangelicals, and equally large community...GZ believes in Gods plan. He is one of them. A flawed, but moral man.
3. For the media, GZ is no longer a "thing". He is a living breathing person who mostly comes across very well...not as high class as Seligmann who was put in front of cameras to deflect the Duke Lacrosse demonizers.
4. The "angry and righteous" black community and liberals and progressive jews in the media orchestrating this now have to fear a hispanic blowback as hispanics have long been favorite targets of black thugs.
5. This is looking like another big black eye for the race baiters and their credulous tools, along the lines of Twanna Brawley and the preposterous Duke Lacrosse Rape accusation they assembled a legal and media lynch mob around along with agitating real threats to the lives of the race targets to emerge.
Thousands of death threats, some credible, were launched against the Brawley prosecutors, the Duke players, and George Zimmerman.
@Callahan -
Your link to Time doesn't provide any relevant independent evidence about how the physical confrontation began.
"Stick to what I wrote"
Ok.
"Zimmerman was carrying a gun even though he'd been advised not to."
Says who? So what?
So, if he were dead, it would be good judgment.
Logical fallacy.
Jake Diamond said...
Your link to Time doesn't provide any relevant independent evidence about how the physical confrontation began.
Stupid:
You asserting that Zimmerman was carrying a gun even though he'd been advised not to. is not a fact.
Jake Diamond said...
Logical fallacy.
Assclown:
Why don't you direct us to the proof that Zimmerman was advised not to carry a gun as you asserted?
Do you think there is a reason why you can't do that?
There is no independent evidence that I know of about how the physical confrontation began. If you know of some, please share it.
You keep bringing this up as if it matters. The evidence DOES show that Martin had no marks on him except his hands and the bullet hole, and that Zimmerman had marks on him consistent with being tackled and having his head pounded into the pavement. How it started does NOT matter. If Zimmerman called Martin a filthy black c&%^sucker, it still doesn't justify Martin beating on Zimmerman, which the evidence DOES show.
So take your own advice when it comes to strawmen.
independent evidence
What exactly is "independent evidence"? Testimony given by witnesses and recorded by the police IS independent evidence as far as I know. And that Time magazine link shows what the prosecution released. It is independent evidence.
Libtard: Fen - Seriously dude, pull your big boy pants on and stop crying. Your tantrum just makes you look like a spoiled child who isn't getting his way.
If calling me a troll is the best you've got, you're admitting defeat.
What tantrum? I simply said I'm wasting time arguing with someone who either 1) is ignorant of the evidence in this case, or 2) is being deliberately stupid, ie. a troll.
You're having a meltdown because I won't give you the attention you craved from your Daddy. I'm not your Daddy. But I did know your Mother.
Why don't you direct us to the proof that Zimmerman was advised not to carry a gun as you asserted?
Ironic, isn't it? Jake asserts the above without a hint that such evidence exists (as his lack of links to such evidence shows), yet when I give him links to actual evidence, it isn't "independent evidence".
Jake - you need to back up your claims. You haven't as of yet; all you're doing is arguing your opinion.
"lack of links"
I suspect he's Googling furiously as we type.
I Callahan said...
What exactly is "independent evidence"?
I loved that one too.
George Zimmerman's statement to police that Martin started the fight is independent evidence.
Watching this clown flail is passe.
Neighborhood watches are routinely told not to carry guns (I was when I attended the training) and also told not to follow / engage people.
Per Zimmerman's statement, he wasn't "jumped from behind." Martin came up to Zimmerman, asked, "do you have a problem with me?" Zimmerman lied and said "no," then got hit. (Zimmerman obviously DID have a problem, since he was following Martin and had called police.)
Significantly, the case in Chicago involved THREE kids, not one. In other words, these random attacks usually seem to involve multiple kids egging each other on.
I Callahan - if a gunfight had broken out on the street, then obviously Zimmerman would be in his rights to defend himself. In fact, if Zimmerman had at any time identified himself as Neighborhood Watch, I would be much less critical of his subsequent actions. But Zimmerman never identified himself.
Regarding Zimmerman's faulty radar - if, in my neighborhood, I called the cops on every dude with a hoodie, I'd be on first-name basis with every dispatcher in the county. Nothing Zimmerman describes sounds remotely worth calling the cops for.
There is no independent evidence that I know of about how the physical confrontation began. If you know of some, please share it.
Don't need it. The physical evidence corroborates Zimmerman's story, and that story has to be discredited beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction. With the corroboration of the physical evidence, Zimmerman could probably prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt at this point, but doesn't need to - the state does.
What you are essentially saying is that there was a physical altercation, and the only surviving witness is biased (because he is on trial for murder), and so we don't know what really happened. And, to some extent, you are correct. We do not know with 100% certainty what happened. But, the physical evidence corroborating Zimmerman's story makes that story significantly more probable than the contrary narrative that you seem to be enamored with.
Chris Gerrib said...
Neighborhood watches are routinely told not to carry guns (I was when I attended the training) and also told not to follow / engage people.
Zimmerman was going to Target and was not patrolling the neighborhood in a "watch" capacity.
I Callahan - if a gunfight had broken out on the street, then obviously Zimmerman would be in his rights to defend himself. In fact, if Zimmerman had at any time identified himself as Neighborhood Watch, I would be much less critical of his subsequent actions. But Zimmerman never identified himself.
Not sure why that matters. Do you really think that Martin wouldn't have swung on Zimmerman, then knocked him down, and beat his head against the concrete, if the latter had just identified himself as Neighborhood Watch?
Are you suggesting that not identifying himself as Neighborhood Watch somehow negates Zimmerman's self defense claim? Or, that it somehow increased his negligence to the level of extreme indifference? Not sure what you are trying to say here.
"Zimmerman ... said "no," then got hit"
That seems like the core of the matter right there.
In fact, if Zimmerman had at any time identified himself as Neighborhood Watch, I would be much less critical of his subsequent actions. But Zimmerman never identified himself.
This makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
You don't have to be part of a neighborhood watch to:
A. Call the police for suspicious activity
B. Ask someone in your neighborhood what they are doing
C. Any combination of A&B, while carrying a gun.
if a gunfight had broken out on the street, then obviously Zimmerman would be in his rights to defend himself.
And this makes no sense what so ever.
As a matter of law, you don't need a "gunfight" in order to defend yourself with a gun.
If you believe Martin approached Zimmerman, questioned him, then punched him... what appears to be the issue with Zimmerman defending himself from an assault?
Zimmerman did not call Martin in because he had a hoodie. He described several behaviors that also raised his concern. In hindsight, it is possible those were completely innocent actions. He could not have known that at the time though.
@Kirk Parker...No one is racist when the fair facts are being argued. But a drum beat of fear of black lynch mobs running loose a t midnight was once heard from many commenters as the audio tapes and a photo of a 14 year old Martin were being broadcast.
But the arrest of Z put the incident back on a fair way to a public trial of the evidence and the rest of the story seems to excuse Z.
Those early days exposed a fear of the Other by many whites and by many blacks. A Judicial solution to that problem was being kept suppressed by the new Florida Law against even having trials of the evidence in shootings of aggressive bad people. The ground had been ceded to TV rabble rousers.
The system is working again now.
Chris Gerrib said...
Nothing Zimmerman describes sounds remotely worth calling the cops for.
Really?
How many burglaries took place in Zimmerman's neighborhood in the last 12 months?
It doesn't matter that Zimmerman was wrong to call the cops. In fact, it wouldn't matter if Zimmerman were the most racist man in the world. If it happens as it was described; Martin approached Zimmerman. Asks him a question. Punches Zimmerman; commences beating his head into the cement -- Zimmerman has every right to defend himself with lethal force.
Of course, if he WAS the most racist man on earth, he'd be a lot less sympathetic. As it is, he made some judgment calls that, in hindsight, turned out to be wrong. That's sympathetic.
Jake diamond wrote:
Was Zimmerman following Martin? Refer to the recorded conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher:
About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running." The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"
The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door. Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.
The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."
So, according to Zimmerman, he was following Martin. End of story.
If he was asked which direction he (trayvon) was going and he then gets out of the car, he is following him to get information as directed by the dispatcher. And there is all indication that after being told that he doesn't need to follow him, he stopped. And this is irrefutable. Because we have the conversation, where zimmerman says he got away, followed by a long conversation on where the cops should meet him. So at that point he was NOT following Trayvon. END OF STORY.
And how long was that following anyway? From being asked which direction trayvon was going to being told he didn't have to follow? We can time it from the phone call, but if it's more than 6 seconds id be surprised. Not exactly a stalking as described. And since trayvon got away why didn't proceed home?
There is a good two minutes of conversation, Lu's another minute or so before the confrontation where trayvon was not visible and Zimmerman was not following him. Rather than go home (or the house where his fathers gf lived) did hd in fact double back TO confront Zimmerman?
Gerrib - "Significantly, the case in Chicago involved THREE kids, not one. In other words, these random attacks usually seem to involve multiple kids egging each other on."
Gerrib seems to have a mindset that all the beatings, armed robberies, rapes and murders black thugs are involved in ONLY happen with multiple black offenders, never solo ones..
A quick journey to crime statistics data will disabuse him of that notion. Yes, black thugs often act in groups....but single offender acts of crime and violence are more common even with black thugs.
Chris Gerrib said...
Neighborhood watches are routinely told not to carry guns (I was when I attended the training) and also told not to follow / engage people.
Beware of the supposed "expert" asserting that all neighborhood watch volunteers in training are "routinely told" not to have guns, or other means of self defense.
Because that is not true.
Volunteers in some states are discouraged from having firearms on liability issues - easier to settle with a dead volunteer than settle a case involving a Homeowners Association sanctioned volunteer who shoots a thug authorities can make no criminal case on, or lawyers of his Empowered Family.
But for the rest? You can't stop people from having some means of self-defense in public if it is legal to do so under state law, and even in groups, Watch volunteers have been attacked, menaced, even shot at by thugs and burglars entering their neighborhoods.
Traditional guy wrote:
Z's only problem from that was the revelation that this trespassing punk was a 17 year old that lived there. So Z used his story telling skills, which he needs to quit improving each time.
no, in fact Trayvon did not LIVE there. Who's the one embellishing the facts here?
The house in question belonged to trayvons dads girlfriend, and trayvon had been sent there only a few days earlier, because he got in trouble at school. Trayvon may have been a guest, but he did not LIVE there. And for all other people in that gated community he was a stranger.
To answer various questions:
Jay - Regarding the gun, I was answering I Callahan's hypothetical farther up in the thread.
No, you don't have to be a Neighborhood Watch to follow somebody or ask questions. But if you don't explain yourself, you risk the person you're targeting assuming you are a threat.
Matthew - "if it happened as described" is key. I'm still trying to figure out why Martin would attack Zimmerman, especially in the manner described. It doesn't make sense to me, so I suspect that Zimmerman is not telling us the whole story. If Zimmerman provoked a confrontation, then he does not have the right to shoot his way out of it.
Jay - there are 1100 units in my complex, flanked by 2 apartment complexes. We do have burglaries. We also have people in hoodies walking down the street.
jr565 - if you watch the video re-enactment, you don't need to get out of the car to see where somebody is going. It's not that big of an area.
Chris Gerrib : In fact, if Zimmerman had at any time identified himself as Neighborhood Watch, I would be less critical."
We're ALL "Neighborhood Watch," shithead. Also known as "citizens."
Trad guy wrote:
After all, your man concealed carrying the 9mm always has to shoots to kill the moment a fight starts, and the man with the skittles gets to be slandered as a subhuman untermensch.
let's put that in a way closer to how you're phrasing it. The man pinned to ground getting punched in the face and having his head smashed into concrete gets to be slandered as a racist white targeting black folks. And he's not even
white. You and guys like you have to keep twisting the facts to suit your meme.
I'm still trying to figure out why Martin would attack Zimmerman, especially in the manner described. It doesn't make sense to me, so I suspect that Zimmerman is not telling us the whole story
Either you're not giving us enough information, or you extremely naive. The idea that inner-city kids don't drop the gloves and go at the drop of a hat is laughable.
That aside - I also had a hypothetical above. If Zimmerman had called Martin a lousy black c^%$sucker, it still wouldn't have justified what did happen, which still is not in dispute. Because you don't understand why it would happen doesn't mean it didn't.
Chris Gerrib wrote:
Regarding Martin, he had done nothing wrong, and had every right to be where he was. How exactly was he to know that Zimmerman wasn't a threat? Some guy follows you in a car, then gets out in the rain to come after you?
Flip it.martin didn't live there. He had only just come there that week because he had gotten in trouble at school and was sent to stay with dad. How was Zimmerman to know, considering he was inside a gated community for which Zimmerman was serving on its community watch, that he shouldn't be viewed suspiciously? Especially when he seems to be acting so ( ie walking past zimmermans car, putting his hands in his waist, darting between buildings and then running. How is Zimmerman to know he wasn't one of the burglars that robbed the area only a week before.
And let's remember, before the dispatcher said he didnt have to follow Trayvon he asked Zimmerman which way trayvon was going, which is why Zimmerman got out of the car in the first place. And further, whatever following Zimmerman did of trayvon, it lasted seconds, and all indications are he stopped following and instead was talking with cops about where to meet up that conversation lasted a lot longer than any chasing, and the altercation took place a minute after that. Meaning, Zimmerman was not stalking or chasing trayvon at the time of the altercation. Considering trayvon "got away" and for at least a few Zimmerman was busy talking to the cops, why didn't trayvon go home? Why didn't trayvon call the cops? Its suggestive that he in fact doubled back to confront Zimmerman (though its also possible that he and Zimmerman just happened to go in the same direction and met up by happenstance and then the confrontation ensued).
If you're part of a neighborhood watch and are ther to look for suspicious activity, why are you somehow in the wrong for viewing trayvons actions with suspicion, of he's acting suspiciously and if he's a stranger in the community.
The very case you made for trayvon, could just as easily
Be made for zimmerman
Jake diamond wrote:
1. Zimmerman chased Martin even thoughhe'd been advised not to.
That is not true. He had gotten out of his car (at the directive of the dispatcher asking which way he was going) and was asked if he was following him, then was told he didn't have to. There is no indication that he continued following him after being told he didn't have to. Why are you lying?
Significantly, the case in Chicago involved THREE kids, not one. In other words, these random attacks usually seem to involve multiple kids egging each other on.
That is one instance, and doesn’t mean it is most common, and even if it is more common that says nothing about this particular attack. Do you really think nobody ever attacks someone else by themselves? That’s bunk.
All the physical evidence points towards TM being the aggressor.
The system is working again now.
The system was working when the cops examined the evidence and made the initial call not to prosecute. The trial is heading towards the same conclusion. It’s only political nonsense and possible interest in money from a civil suit that screwed the system up.
I Callahan - Inner-city kids, like all other kids, fight for reasons. Like robbery (except Martin had $40 in his pocket), or gang turf (except Martin wasn't in or near his turf) or to impress friends (except Martin's friends weren't there). So, tell me again why Martin would suddenly attack while leaving his only weapon, the can of pop, in his pocket?
jr565 - what's suspicious about walking in a cold rain with your hands in your pockets? Where was Zimmerman's car in relationship to where Martin was going? Does Zimmerman, a man who told the cops he couldn't remember the name of one of the three streets of his community, know everybody who lives there by face?
Martin should have called the cops. Maybe, since this wasn't his usual residence, he wasn't sure of an address to give them.
Inner-city kids, like all other kids, fight for reasons.
Did you not go to high school? Teenage boys fight for all kinds of dumb reasons.
Shanna - yes I did. I got into one (1) fight, with somebody I knew.
Never got into a fight with somebody I didn't know, nor knew of anybody who'd randomly jump some dude.
"Martin should have called the cops."
That's what those who support Zimmerman think. Instead of attacking someone, it doesn't seem a hard choice.
"So, tell me again why Martin would suddenly attack while leaving his only weapon, the can of pop, in his pocket?"
So the inability to understand one person's actions is sufficient to conclude murder? Seriously, a can of "pop" is more of a weapon than a fist? And it's use is so clearly called for all other possibilities are precluded? These are the sorts of corners you get backed into when you defend premature conclusions instead of accepting the evidence doesn't support you.
It's very strange to watch this debate. One side has participant statements backed up by both witnesses and physical evidence. Perhaps not absolute proof but strong evidence. The other side has supposition and inference. The key questions are (1) did TM attack GZ and (2) did GZ reasonably believe his life was in danger. There's no public evidence (yet) contradicting GZs assertion that TM attacked him.
I understand being skeptical of the participant statements, that's natural. But it's odd beyond understanding to first dismiss the physical evidence and witness statements essentially by raising the requirement of "proof" to an unreachable standard but then turn around and accept completely unsupported assertions as fact.
Chris Gerrib wrote:
jr565 - if you watch the video re-enactment, you don't need to get out of the car to see where somebody is going. It's not that big of an area.
. It was dark. And as stated on the phone call, he didn't know where he was after he ran. Clearly then it might be harder to see people than you think especially if they turn a corner for example.
jr565 - what's suspicious about walking in a cold rain with your hands in your pockets? Where was Zimmerman's car in relationship to where Martin was going? Does Zimmerman, a man who told the cops he couldn't remember the name of one of the three streets of his community, know everybody who lives there by face?
No, he put his hands in his pockets while walking towards zimmermans car, as if he had a weapon, and prior to that he was looking in windows and going in between buildings. At night. In a gated community, in which he was not a member. And wearing a hoodie, which can disguise someone's appearance. After the community has recently had a string if break ins.
At the most basic level, trayvon did not live there. He was therefore a stranger peering in windows after dark.. Now it may ultimately turn out that trayvon was just smoking or talking to his gf, so what Zimmerman saw as suspicious had an innocent explanation, but that dioesnt mean that for those who aren't privy to such extenuating circumstances and who don't know you from Adam wont find said actions suspicious.
The other possibility is that he was taking Lean, which would explain the skittles, and may have been impaired and overly aggressive. Zimmerman did also mention that trayvon looked like he was on drugs or something- another suspicious vehavior
Post a Comment