Prosecutor John Guy's first words to the jury recounted what Zimmerman told a dispatcher in a call shortly after spotting Martin: "F------ punks. These a-------. They always get away." Zimmerman... viewed [Martin] "as someone about to a commit a crime in his neighborhood.... And he acted on it. That's why we're here... He shot him for the worst of all reasons: because he wanted to.... Zimmerman thought it was his right to rid his neighborhood of anyone who did not belong."
२४ जून, २०१३
"Trayvon Martin armed himself with a concrete sidewalk and used it to smash George Zimmerman's head."
Said the defense attorney, in his opening statement. Meanwhile:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४२७ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 427 पैकी 201 – 400 नवीन› नवीनतम»Where would Martin's hands be, if not on the front of Zimmerman's head?
He could have grabbed him by the collar of his jacket, too, I suppose.
It doesn't actually matter, though. The coroner's report garage is relying on -- or, rather the corner's report the leftie blogs garage gets his talking points are relying on -- found no conclusive DNA evidence one way or the other. Given that all the witnesses who saw the altercation say that one of the two men was pummeling the other, that leaves three possibilities:
1. No conclusive DNA evidence resulted from the punching, or
2. The witnesses all coincidentally made up a story involving one man hitting another, and Zimmerman injured the front and back of his head on his own somehow even though Martin never hit him. Martin coincidentally scraped his knuckles at the same time, or
3. Zimmerman pummeled Martin without actually injuring Martin in any way apart from scraped knuckles, and also left no conclusive DNA evidence.
Ritmo goes off again, not really knowing what he's talking about says:
"Being a "thug"? Again, not an execution-worthy offense."
No, but self defense is a reasonable DEFENSE against someone bashing your skull in. Execution may be your word, but it's the wrong word.
And being a thug is not an execution worthy offense, but being a thug may explain Trayvon's motivation. Or at the very least paint an accurate picture of who Trayvon was. And hint, he wasn't the 11 year old choir boy that was being presented by the media.
And you'll note that the defense and the media had no problem delving into Zimmerman's past trying to portray him as a racist white who hates black people. Only, the fact that he was hispanic kind of threw a spanner into the works. So, now he's a white hispanic.
By the way, you might want to look abit into Zimmerman's history with black people. He isn't a racist.
"Every time these authoritarians open their fat mouths it's painfully obvious that they can't tell the difference between punishing someone for an act and punishing someone for who or what they are - which isn't even an actionable by the state or any government in any event."
Isn't this whole case about punishing Zimmerman for what he is. Or what the left says he is? Trayvon's defenders had no problem lynching this guy and making up the most ludicrous stories about this guy based on nothing but fabrications. So who is the authoritarians again?
Pot meet kettle.
Right. But the thug-status of the person shot has no relevance to the case; it is a squirrel and a distraction and should be dismissed as such.
Easy for you to say.
But not for the many ignorant people who, like Big Mike, obviously think otherwise.
They will be among the people who will be roaming the streets with their sites set on "kill" for the "bad guys".
No one shot anyone for being a thug
Not directly, but Martin's decision to administer an ass-whipping to Zimmerman was what ultimately led to his own death.
It is remarkable how infrequently you get shot in self-defense if you don't around attacking people.
@garage, your ally Rhythm & noballzatall, now he's one seriously weird dude.
Lord knows jr would have no problem trying the entire trial, in premeditated fashion, for every commenter assembled here. The required length of his rants call for nothing less.
Fuck police and fuck the courts!, amiright? Arm everyone. No evidence like evidence from a dead man! Strike hard strike first no mercy Sir!
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
Your statement the other day that Z should be convicted of a lesser charge (2d degree - I don't recall) seems to rely holly on believing the best of hat M was doing and the orst of what Z did. It's possible a jury will do that also, but they will be violating their oaths if they render a verdict ith those assumptions.
Manslaughter. I think manslaughter is the appropriate charge. I clearly don't think the worst of Zimmerman. I do think he is incompetent, a Walter Mittyesque character who is a threat to himself and others.
Clearly, either Troll doesn't know his own mind (a real possibility) or he's a liar.
Why else hurl pejoratives at Zimmerman if, in fact, all Troll thinks he made an egregious mistake?
I believe strongly that a civil society has no place for armed vigilantes, no matter how 'soft'.
Then what are we supposed to do when the cops don't show up?
And Zimmerman was hardly an "armed vigilante" (boy, the Lefties love invoking that one), although, if the apartment complex was overrun with gang-bangers with no cops around, a Committee of Vigilance would have been a reasonable step.
All Zimmerman was doing was watching for suspicious characters,, what a Neighborhood Watch, does when he saw one and challenged him, he was attacked.
The insidious idea that Troll and the rest of the slime tonight want to place is that Zimmerman had set himself up to be judge, jury, and executioner - and there's no evidence of that.
Except in the Lefties' minds.
The well intentioned but incompetent can often be a greater danger than the mean but competent.
Here we go with Troll meaning no harm again.
Most men would not have killed Martin when placed in the identical starting situation as Zimmerman.
Really?
You have statistical evidence for this?
@garage, your ally Rhythm & noballzatall, now he's one seriously weird dude.
And one with social skills! (Unlike you). Which must make me seem dangerous, in some way, to paranoid vigilantes like you.
Big Mike, when you're done killing people for "looking suspicious", make sure you tell the cops about your social anxiety, the many fears you harbor, any antipsychotics you take. It will help at your sentencing phase.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Lord knows jr would have no problem trying the entire trial, in premeditated fashion, for every commenter assembled here. The required length of his rants call for nothing less.
Fuck police and fuck the courts!, amiright? Arm everyone. No evidence like evidence from a dead man! Strike hard strike first no mercy Sir!
That's exactly what Ritmo and his little friends have done.
Zimmerman is guilty and should be sent up the river for life.
Maybe longer.
However, it's going to be interesting the next time one of their Messiah's sons is killed under similar circumstance and the Hispanic isn't a "white" one with a "white" name from South America, but one from Jalisco with a Spanish name that looks like Fernando Valenzuela.
How will they crucify a white man then?
The Trayvon defenders pushed out grainy footage showing that Zimmerman suffered no wounds. Have you seen a picture of his nose the day after the attack?
The defenders put out a picture of Trayvon as an 11 year old angel, and not the thug wannabe he was. (or as Trayvon referred to himself, a "No limit nigga".)
Then they bring out sound experts trying to prove he called Trayvon a coon. Only I listened to those tapes and it sounds like he's saying "phone".
Then they bring out their other sound experts to show that the mufffled sounds you hear through a wall, are defintively Trayvon, even though they are so muffled you can't even make out words.
But eyewitness testimony described Trayvon as being on top of Zimmerman and punching him MMA style, and Zimmerman screaming for help.
Then the defenenders trotted out the "He stalked him" argument. Stalking to me means something far different than what happened in this case.
THe very 9/11 tape shows that there was no "stalking" Zimmerman follows Trayvon for like 8 seconds, then has a long conversation with the cops about how he doesn't know where he is anymore and a discussion about where the cops should meet him when they send over a squad car That whole conversation Trayvon is nowhere to be seen. And yet Zimmerman "Stalked" Trayvon.
THe whole Trayvon was executed storyline has more holes than swiss cheese. (And I only touched on a smattering of the inconsistencies).
And yet the usual suspects (Ritmo, A Reasonable Man) keep trottting out the same lies and bogus code words, as if them saying it makes it true.
The coroner's report garage is relying on -- or, rather the corner's report the leftie blogs garage gets his talking points are relying on -
Interesting you think the coroner's report would only be highlighted on lefty blogs. Righty blogs aren't interested in evidence?
Fuck police and fuck the courts!, amiright?
The pseudo-lynching of Zimmerman isn't very amusing in and of itself.
But it is certainly amusing to hear the police and court system spun as essential to protecting the well-being of young black men with drug habits.
Ritmo wrote:
Fuck police and fuck the courts!, amiright? Arm everyone. No evidence like evidence from a dead man! Strike hard strike first no mercy Sir!
I have a problem when people like you try to lynch someone in the court of public opinion based on made up lies. Fuck police and fuck the courts is your argument. Why even have a trial, the guy is obviously guilty seems to be your rallying cry.
Pot meet kettle Ritmo. (that seems to be a common theme with you)
Rhythm and Balls said...
@garage, your ally Rhythm & noballzatall, now he's one seriously weird dude.
And one with social skills! (Unlike you).
Social skills? What social skills (funny, sounds just like the Baghdad Bob of Althouse)?
Calling people names because they can rebut him?
Ignoring debating points from the other side because he can't answer them?
Changing the subject when he's been shown up?
They may be social skills, but you only see them on a psych floor.
@edutcher, it depends on whether "identical starting position" includes being armed. "Most men" don't go around with a concealed handgun, so probably "most men" would have to pray that the police got there before they were beaten to death. But armed men can fight back (unless they're dumb enough to use a small-of-the-back carry, in which case they couldn't have reached their gun).
That's exactly what Ritmo and his little friends have done.
Zimmerman is guilty and should be sent up the river for life.
If I have predetermined the outcome then why did I propose no sentence?
The point here, not that numbskull rights-deniers like you would understand it, is that more evidence is better. And in a trial of something as severe as one involving a death or killing, the most evidence is the best.
Castle doctrine makes evidence a casualty of fear and license. Kill first becomes a license to hopefully kill soon enough to make more evidence of what actually occurs in an altercation even less likely to materialize, let alone see the light of day. All the lawyers, prosecutors, defense, whatever, they all know this.
Only you don't.
And the NRA has duped you into not seeing why that's a bad thing.
And, oh yeah, That makes you a fascist asshole.
Interesting you think the coroner's report would only be highlighted on lefty blogs. Righty blogs aren't interested in evidence?
I said you got your talking points from leftie blogs, not that only leftie blogs covered the report.
The leftie blogs were, and are, pretty much alone in pushing the "the tests were inconclusive, which means our fantasies about Zimmerman must be true" angle, though. :)
The Trayvon defenders pushed out grainy footage showing that Zimmerman suffered no wounds. Have you seen a picture of his nose the day after the attack?
Have you seen in the dictionary where under "gullible" it says "someone incapable of considering that false 'evidence' can be planted after the fact"?
There's a cross-reference to "jr565" at that point.
Off to bed for me, but if anyone here is interested in some actual lawyerly thoughts on today's testimony instead of tradguy's wishful hoping for a new set of facts, or garage's "Zimmerman's head bashed itself" conspiracy, or R&B's "racist!" shrieks, head over to Legal Insurrection. Good, thoughtful analysis. Night all.
Big Mike, when you're done killing people for "looking suspicious" ...
You think a neighborhood with a neighborhood watch shoots any strangers who wander through? You really do need to get out of your mother's basement more.
Kill everyone who looks suspicious on the streets and trials aren't needed to determine guilt or innocence. Yes, we actually have idiots who think (if you can even call it that) this way in America.
Do you have to be this mind-numbingly stupid every time you post, R&B? Did anyone in this thread say, or even hint, that they feel this way?
Jesus, the stupid is dripping in this thread.
Got protection, Mike?
Did anyone in this thread say, or even hint, that they feel this way?
Of course they did. His fellow conservative even had to remind him that people can't be killed because they look like "bad people". That was after I said that acts are salient, not character.
But he's a slow learner.
Manslaughter. I think manslaughter is the appropriate charge.
Why? How, in any way, is he guilty of manslaughter?
Garage Mahal wrote:
Interesting you think the coroner's report would only be highlighted on lefty blogs. Righty blogs aren't interested in evidence?
If your side really believed in evidence you wouldn't be putting out such a bogus story and then expecting people to follow it. Especially when that story is so distorted, and not based on actual evidence.
Question, don't you feel embarrased that the media ran with the "Zimmerman had no injuries" storyline, complete with grainy footage that showed he didn't even have a scratch on him? Aren't you embarrassed that the media used such evidence to lynch Zimmerman? And you want to talk about "actual" evidence. Shameless.
And by the way, I can show evidence of Zimmerman's injuries that corroborate his story. Other than bloody knuckles from punching Zimmeman in the face MMA style, where is the evidence that Zimmerman was pummeling Trayvon?
Have you seen in the dictionary where under "gullible" it says "someone incapable of considering that false 'evidence' can be planted after the fact"?
Cops on the scene took pictures of Zimmerman and commented on his injuries then. But you keep goign with the Trayvon is an 11 year old innocent and Zimmerman is the white hispanic who hates black people and is gunning them down simply for carrying skittles. It worked for you so far.
I said you got your talking points from leftie blogs, not that only leftie blogs covered the report
No, what this means is that you're annoyed I brought up DNA evidence, which doesn't support the claim that Martin caused Zimmerman's injuries.
Have you seen in the dictionary where under "gullible" it says "someone incapable of considering that false 'evidence' can be planted after the fact"?
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Wow. Jumped 50 comments while I was reading.
"My point then, and I will repeat it now, is that in the pictures we had 's nose was not seriously broken"
Wow. What a concept. A non-serious broken nose. Got news for you buddy. Someone starts swinging at me and breaks my nose and keeps coming, if I'm armed-HE'S SHOT. Period. End of discussion. Doesn't matter if I'm on my back on the ground and he's on top, or if we're both still standing.
The whole point of an armed citizenry is- if you start to commit a random (or non-random) act of violence against a fellow citizen, you suffer the risk of immediate death. Tends to reduce the overall amount of violence.
Can't wait until someone playing the knock out game picks the wrong target. That will be the political trial of the year.
But you keep goign with the Trayvon is an 11 year old innocent and Zimmerman is the white hispanic who hates black people and is gunning them down simply for carrying skittles. It worked for you so far.
We will see. As long as the laws promoting the suppression of as much evidence in lethal altercations possible continue to expand, then in my own definition, it hasn't.
Sometimes tyranny (aka "trial by Night Watch") takes time to work its way through to the logical conclusion that it's a bad idea.
But in the meantime, it sure brings out the fascist boot-lickers in full-force. But we already knew who they were.
No, what this means is that you're annoyed I brought up DNA evidence, which doesn't support the claim that Martin caused Zimmerman's injuries.
You know what annoys me? When people like garage hold on to this small, insignificant piece of conjecture, and completely ignore all of the rest of the evidence that's readily available, because they want to believe what they want.
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Lol. Which fact? The fact that we assume jr565 is capable of considering things in the first place?
You're right. I retract that assumption.
someone incapable of considering that false 'evidence' can be planted after the fact"
You brought this into the discussion, R&B. Without a single shred of evidence. Now have the balls to defend it.
Harold said...
The whole point of an armed citizenry is- if you start to commit a random (or non-random) act of violence against a fellow citizen, you suffer the risk of immediate death.
Would you like to point to the support for this remarkable theory in the constitution.
Would you like to point to the support for this remarkable theory in the constitution.
Why would anyone have to have this written in the constitution? It's a natural law, ARM. I can do anything I need to protect my own life. But if you insist, it's the second amendment.
a Walter Mittyesque character
.....as are you!!
"garage mahal said...
I said you got your talking points from leftie blogs, not that only leftie blogs covered the report
No, what this means is that you're annoyed I brought up DNA evidence, which doesn't support the claim that Martin caused Zimmerman's injuries. "
Ummm... perhaps you misunderstand what evidence is. There is no DNA. Therefore, there is no DNA evidence. Lack of DNA doesn't prove anything. Punching someone will not likely leave a traceable amount of DNA around. Under the fingernails? They weren't in a bitch slapping contest. Closed fists- nothing under the fingernail. Not hard to understand. You've been watching too many episodes of TV drama if you think DNA is the tell-all be-all of evidence.
"false 'evidence' can be planted after the fact""
You brought this into the discussion, R&B. Without a single shred of evidence. Now have the balls to defend it.
It doesn't require evidence other than the fact of the sequence of events, which is already in there. Any idiot with the most rudimentary understanding of basic forensics understands this. Scenes are contaminated, "fresh" evidence goes bad. The further you are from the scene both in terms of time and place, the less strength that any evidence "collected" has.
How bad does someone have to be with basic logic or knowledge to not get that? Don't they teach you that on CSI? And you're the one who wants to re-write the laws to make evidence at-the-scene less likely to accumulate on account of a quicker killing?
You're beyond hope. This country is lost.
Mike, I have no argument with that.
Exception being someone with an edged weapon or one trained to use his/her hands (boxing, martial arts, etc.)
Rhythm and Balls said...
That's exactly what Ritmo and his little friends have done.
Zimmerman is guilty and should be sent up the river for life.
If I have predetermined the outcome then why did I propose no sentence?
Who cares, but you've clearly judged him guilty.
The point here, not that numbskull rights-deniers like you would understand it, is that more evidence is better. And in a trial of something as severe as one involving a death or killing, the most evidence is the best.
Name-calling again?
And I don't see anybody suppressing evidence but Ritmo.
He just can't get past Zimmerman's injuries.
So he wants to ignore them. Or find a way they happened without Zimmerman being assaulted by "Trayvon".
Of course, "Trayvon" didn't do it, so Zimmerman must have done it to himself.
Yeah, dat's da ticket. Wit' his girlfriend, Morgan Fairchild, helpin' 'im.
And it's funny how Ritmo keeps sounding like the Baghdad Bob of Althouse when he's pressed.
Rhythm and Balls said...
false 'evidence' can be planted after the fact""
You brought this into the discussion, R&B. Without a single shred of evidence. Now have the balls to defend it.
It doesn't require evidence other than the fact of the sequence of events, which is already in there. Any idiot with the most rudimentary understanding of basic forensics understands this.
And Ritmo is any idiot certainly.
Scenes are contaminated, "fresh" evidence goes bad
I know.
It was the One Armed Man.
And Colonel Mustard was with him.
With a candlestick.
In the drawing room.
No, what this means is that you're annoyed I brought up DNA evidence, which doesn't support the claim that Martin caused Zimmerman's injuries.
Like I pointed out, it neither supports nor refutes the claim that Martin caused Zimmerman's injuries. It does note that Martin has somebody else's DNA on his sleeve and no wounds (apart from the bullet hole) anywhere but his knuckles, though.
Good luck spinning THAT into "there's no way Martin could have been punching Zimmerman". :)
Ritmo, the Defenense is claiming self defense and not using the Stand Your Ground law as a defense.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/30/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense
But that's really what this is about. The left was pushing two separate memes. One was the anti gun, anti stand your ground meme. And the other was the "black man being targeted by racist white, most likely republican tea partiers".
And then your side simply trotted out "facts" that we were all supposed to accept as fact, simply because you uttered them.
It is and was a political argument against republicans who cling to their guns and hate Obama and other blacks, because of racism.
Thats why your side is so desparate to pin this SOMEHOW onto your precious meme. Only the meme is bullshit and we all know you are peddling bullshit.
I would say you should be ashamed,but that would assume the left was capable of it.
"AReasonableMan said...
Harold said...
The whole point of an armed citizenry is- if you start to commit a random (or non-random) act of violence against a fellow citizen, you suffer the risk of immediate death.
Would you like to point to the support for this remarkable theory in the constitution."
How about I quote Heinlein instead- "An armed society is a polite society."
As far as the constitution goes, there's that pesky 2nd amendment thing. But, the legal theory that lethal force can be used to protect yourself against violence or can be used by a third party to protect someone else against violence is well established in law. Though liberals would rather the STATE and its' officials be the only armed people around. Despite the fact that courts have repeatedly ruled that the STATE is under no actual obligation to defend you.
Punching someone will not likely leave a traceable amount of DNA around. Under the fingernails? They weren't in a bitch slapping contest. Closed fists- nothing under the fingernail. Not hard to understand. You've been watching too many episodes of TV drama if you think DNA is the tell-all be-all of evidence.
Really? Zimmerman said Martin punched him in the face 25-times. That's not likely to produced DNA evidence on Martin? It would seem miraculous to me for no blood to make it on to Martins hands, knuckles, and sleeve/cuff of his hoodie.
The under the fingernail remark was how Martin managed to slam Zimmerman's bald head on to concrete without getting any of Zimmerman's scalp under his fingernails.
Ed, you think you need my statements to play judge and jury all by yourself, but you don't. I know you think Martin was guilty of "needing execution" before any actual trial took place. So go ahead and play out Zimmerman's trial (which in your mind, is a mock trial) on your own. You don't need any evidence to ruin the perfection of your permanently closed mind, where enemies and friends are predetermined, and justice and fairness is meted out before any evidence pertaining to it need be examined.
I see now why Quaestor brought up the Soviet Union. Ed sounds like the perfect Soviet lawyer.
By the way, when I first heard the story I bought the argument. Because I saw a picture of Trayvon as an 11 year old and all I heard was that Zimmerman stalked him, beat him and while he was pleading for his life executed him. I said at the time, lets wait for the trial before we lynch Zimmerman, but I bought the narrative.
Onlyi I very quickly realized that it was just a narrative pushing an agenda. And the narrative was not based on reality. And lie after lie was trotted out in furtherance of a narrative that wasn't true.
And you're the one who wants to re-write the laws to make evidence at-the-scene less likely to accumulate on account of a quicker killing? You're beyond hope. This country is lost.
Huh!!?? Where in any of my posts have I posited this at all?
You pulled something out of thin air (the evidence was fabricated). I asked you to back up that view. You then articulate exactly nothing for the next several paragraphs.
Dude, we're in agreement on one thing - this country is lost, especially if what you post is what liberals consider intelligent thought on this subject.
Interesting you think the coroner's report would only be highlighted on lefty blogs. Righty blogs aren't interested in evidence?
The only evidence that counts is what is testified to under oath at trial.
I know we are not on the jury, and so we can speculate away, but the only "evidence" that gets weighted by the jury is evidence testified to at trial.
And so far, the jury has only heard from the 911 dispatcher... who I'm wondering what kind of shape might have she be in.
Does anybody know the approximate weight of the 911 dispatcher by any chance?
Heinlein is a science FICTION writer.
Would you like to point to the support for this remarkable theory in the constitution. [sic and double sic}
It's not in the Constitution. It's in a remarkable document written earlier that asserts that "all men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these rights are Life ... " The right of self-defense is both "self-evident" and "unalienable."
Garage wrote:
Really? Zimmerman said Martin punched him in the face 25-times. That's not likely to produced DNA evidence on Martin? It would seem miraculous to me for no blood to make it on to Martins hands, knuckles, and sleeve/cuff of his hoodie.
Wheres the DNA evidence that Zimmerman even threw a single punch? And how do you explain the broken nose scratched head, and the eyewitness saying that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman throwing punches MMA style?
How about I quote Heinlein instead- "An armed society is a polite society."
I support the Second Amendment and would agree that it presupposes a natural right of self-defense. Still, people like to trot out this quote as though it proves something that it doesn't. One can think of many armed societies that aren't polite, from America's tougher inner city neighborhoods to Afghanistan.
Zimmerman said Martin punched him in the face 25-times. That's not likely to produced DNA evidence on Martin?
It is, of course, much more likely that two separate witnesses hallucinated that the man on top was repeatedly punching the man on the bottom, and that Zimmerman's head had earlier damaged itself and broken its own nose. And that the unidentified non-Martin DNA on Martin's sleeve came from a totally different dude.
That's much more likely than "the police failed to recover useful DNA evidence from Martin's body". Much more likely.
Really? Zimmerman said Martin punched him in the face 25-times. That's not likely to produced DNA evidence on Martin? It would seem miraculous to me for no blood to make it on to Martins hands, knuckles, and sleeve/cuff of his hoodie.
Well, since we're all in the mood to make up evidence out the clear fucking blue sky, how about this: Martin was wearing gloves. And since the police is in the pocket of "The Man", they burnt the gloves (and another matching hoodie) in a barrel fire behind they station while Al Sharpton supervised.
Let's face it - it's about as plausible as R&B's theory about fabricated evidence...
You pulled something out of thin air (the evidence was fabricated).
That's not thin air. And it doesn't have to be proven, no matter how plausible and likely it is. Zimmerman has to be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Martin didn't have that luxury. So Zimmerman could have planted all the evidence favorable to him after the fact and still gotten away with his execution. But that's ok with you because you're on his side.
@Unreasonableman, go to a gun show sometime. Even though the guns on display are locked and unloaded, and even though no one is supposed to be carrying a loaded firearm, you will never hear so many "pardon me," "excuse me," and other such polite phrases per unit time in your life.
Who knows, it might even rub off on you a little bit.
One can think of many armed societies that aren't polite, from America's tougher inner city neighborhoods to Afghanistan.
No, these are not armed societies. The thugs are armed. The weak are not. Big difference.
Also Garage, the autopsy report shows that Trayvon had two injuries. One was a bullet hole, where Zimmerman shot him. And the other was bloody knuckles.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/autopsy-results-show-trayvon-martin-had-injuries-h/nN6gs/
Please explain why the bloody knuckles doesn't corroborate Zimmermans (and the eyewitness story) that Trayvon was punching him. Can you point to Zimmerman's bloody knuckles? Can your provide evidence of how Trayvon's knuckles were bloodied, other than by him punching Zimmerman? Was he involved in a different fight where he bloodied his knuckles?
Dude, we're in agreement on one thing - this country is lost, especially if what you post is what liberals consider intelligent thought on this subject.
Now that even got this atheist saying "amen, brother."
Ritmo wrote:
Zimmerman has to be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Martin didn't have that luxury. So Zimmerman could have planted all the evidence favorable to him after the fact and still gotten away with his execution. But that's ok with you because you're on his side.
Where is the evidence that Zimmerman did that?
Why would you assume that people would be ok with that? Please provide evidence that he did so, otherwise stop making up stories and then attacking people for thinking it's ok that Zimmerman fabricated his injuries. What a liar you are. Through and through.
That's not thin air. And it doesn't have to be proven, no matter how plausible and likely it is.
It does if the prosecution plans to use it to convict Zimmerman. You can't achieve proof beyond a reasonable doubt by asking a jury to use its imagination. :)
I Callahan said...
One can think of many armed societies that aren't polite, from America's tougher inner city neighborhoods to Afghanistan.
No, these are not armed societies. The thugs are armed. The weak are not. Big difference.
Tying yourself in knots here. Pretty much everyone in Afghanistan has a gun. Britain is an unusually polite society and almost no one has a gun.
"especially if what you post is what liberals consider intelligent thought on this subject."
Now that even got this atheist saying "amen, brother."
Neither have two people with such deplorable understanding of forensics and evidence agreed on something so disagreeable.
Except in the Soviet Union.
No, these are not armed societies. The thugs are armed. The weak are not. Big difference.
Keep up the Road Warrior fantasies. It's not hard to find guns in either example and the thugs aren't the only ones who have them. The Heinlein quote is memorable and clever, but it isn't an answer to anything.
It does if the prosecution plans to use it to convict Zimmerman. You can't achieve proof beyond a reasonable doubt by asking a jury to use its imagination. :)
That's my point exactly - save where you creatively "implanted" the word imagination where "deduction" would have sufficed. ZImmerman gets the due process of law inclusive of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that he made sure to deny Martin of.
Which Forensics 101 flunkee Callahan is ok with because he's already decided who's right and wrong. As has the sociopathic statist Revenant.
Britain is an unusually polite society ...
Haven't been there lately, have you?
One can think of many armed societies that aren't polite
People often misinterpret what Heinlein was saying. He literally meant *polite*. He didn't mean "an armed society is peaceful". He meant "people are more cautious about giving offense when they know the other guy's got a gun".
Cultures where ordinary people are usually armed do tend to follow that pattern. That includes Afghanistan, but not inner city America (where it is all but impossible for civilians to legally carry a weapon).
The under the fingernail remark was how Martin managed to slam Zimmerman's bald head on to concrete without getting any of Zimmerman's scalp under his fingernails.
Under the fingernail forensic evidence are usually sought after a rape allegation as part of a rape kit checklist where careful preservation and collection of potential evidence is of the outmost importance.
I'm not saying the shooting of RM should not have been treated with the outmost do care... but I'm saying that it appears to me, it appears to this observer, that collection of under fingernail DNA between to guys involved in a shooting incident is not the first thing that pops to mind whereas at a rape incident it would be.
I suspect my crude explanation might not be enough to satisfy the urge to continue pushing that under-fingernail DNA red herring. But I gave it my best shot.
I can only do so much up against a lefty blog.
Britain is an unusually polite society and almost no one has a gun.
Hah! Who's tying themselves in a knot? Explain the above to the poor Londoners who had to deal with those riots a couple of years back. They weren't allowed to defend themselves.
Lunacy.
People wouldn't be on Zimerman's side saying he defended himself if they also believe that he fabricated the evidence of his self defense. Ritmo assumes or suggests that those defending Zimmerman, KNOW that Zimmerman did in fact fabricate his injuries and are ok with that because, what, they are ok with shooting black people for no reason?
And yet Ritmo will, after slandering people routinely then get his panties in a wad when someone like me calls him an asshole.
Ritmo is incapable of having an honest conversation on this topic. Or frankly on most topics.
Revenant, good points, but from what I've seen the people who use the Heinlein quote use it to imply or state that an armed society is a more peaceful one. Yes, one can have a society that is polite and violent (many tribal societies are known for their emphasis on manners), but that is a society that I don't think most people would prefer and isn't what is generally alluded to when that line is deployed.
Ritmo wrote:
ZImmerman gets the due process of law inclusive of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that he made sure to deny Martin of.
That's what happens when a fight ends with someone dying. If Trayvon continued to bash in Martin's face, you would say the same thing about Trayvon, that he made sure to deny Zimmerman his due process while he executed him. Only something tells me, if THAT were the storyline, that noone would care about this case, because it doesn't fit the narrative that the left is trying to push.
ZImmerman gets the due process of law inclusive of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that he made sure to deny Martin of.
That is why it is called "the right of self-defense", not "the right to wait for police to get around to arresting your assailant, assuming you're alive enough to testify".
It's safe to say that I've never "slandered" jr565 because "slander" means that you've ruined the reputation of someone in a material way. And if there is a public "reputation" of "jr565" that my statements have ruined, I'm curious to know what benefit his anonymous and rather cryptic, alphanumeric internet title accrued to him all this time.
We don't know what Zimmerman planted, we just know whether it's very likely, a mere possibility or something in between. And fascists like you are ok with using the reasonable doubt standard to say that just because something's possible, it doesn't mean that a vigilante executioner should face punishment for doing the wrong thing, if that indeed occurred.
I would never trust my own freedom to Soviets like you.
"How convenient then! Let's put the burden on the state for proving that killers killed the person they killed on the streets illegally. Brilliant.
You understand wrong."
Um... yeah? The burden is on the state to *prove* what happened. If the state can't prove it, then even a murderer must be presumed innocent.
Is Ritmo claiming something different? (Is Ritmo American?)
Neither have two people with such deplorable understanding of forensics and evidence agreed on something so disagreeable.
Actually, what you don't get is that the evidence is entirely on Zimmerman's side. Garage wants things to be like a CSI show and find irrefutable DNA, and someday he will get that absence of evidence (i.e., DNA from Martin) is not evidence of absence. Now put away your rope, sonny. You and somefeller and Unreasonableman and Rhythm and noballzatall need to just go home and be ashamed of yourselves for forming a lynch mob.
Some people chew their fingernails and therefore they don't get to scratch and EXTRACT DNA, if and when they are involved in a physical altercation with somebody.
Do we have pictures of TM's fingernails at the time of the shooting?
Revenant said...
Cultures where ordinary people are usually armed do tend to follow that pattern.
Could you point to these cultures.
That is why it is called "the right of self-defense", not "the right to wait for police to get around to arresting your assailant, assuming you're alive enough to testify".
Which non-lawyers like yourself, whose regular dealings with what courtrooms would call "evidence" are non-existent, are very ok with.
But even prosecutors think this is a horrible idea. But a sociopath who uses appeals to libertarianism to advance his sociopathy is somehow more "pro-victims' rights" than they are. Interesting.
Revenant, good points, but from what I've seen the people who use the Heinlein quote use it to imply or state that an armed society is a more peaceful one.
Yeah, I know. I just said that people misuse the quote that way. :)
The full quote is "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life". It is pretty hard to miss the point of that statement, but yet people often do.
Big Mike says:You and somefeller and Unreasonableman and Rhythm and noballzatall need to just go home and be ashamed of yourselves for forming a lynch mob.
Please provide a link and quotation of my comments calling for Zimmerman's punishment or in which I've taken a position on whether he should be convicted. I suspect you won't be able to do that. But sorry if I harshed your mellow.
Could you point to these cultures.
Rural America and a chunk of suburban America. Where guns are MORE plentiful than the inner cities on a per-capita basis, and the crime rates are much lower.
Next...
Please provide a link and quotation of my comments calling for Zimmerman's punishment or in which I've taken a position on whether he should be convicted. I suspect you won't be able to do that.
He can't do that. His severe mindblindness prevents him from understanding when a serious discussion requiring serious appeals to evidence is appropriate or not.
We don't know what Zimmerman planted, we just know whether it's very likely, a mere possibility or something in between. And fascists like you are ok with using the reasonable doubt standard to say that just because something's possible, it doesn't mean that a vigilante executioner should face punishment for doing the wrong thing, if that indeed occurred.
There you go again, putting words into the mouth of fascists like me. First we know that Zimmerman didn't in fact fabricate anything because as soon as the shooting occurred, neighbors came out and saw Zimmerman holding his head in his hands acting dazed. And cops came on the scene shortly after. And THEY then noticed his injuries. There was little time for Zimmerman to fabricate a crime scene.
But if he did, do you think people who support him on the grounds that he defended himself, would actually support him? Prove it. Or lets see the prosecution prove it. Yet meanwhile despite the fact that there is a theoretical possibility that Zimmerman might have fabricated his injuries, I KNOW with certainty that the narrative suggested by you is fabrication upon fabrication, from the picture of Trayvon, to the actual details of Trayvons life, to the smearing of Zimmerman as a white racist, to the pushing of the story that Zimmerman wasn't even injured, or that he "Stalked" Trayvon. Or that he "executed" Trayvon. Or that he was a "vigilante with a gun". Do you go to your little lefty websites and get your code words and then bring them here to repeat? Because it seems like the left keeps using the same code words to push their bogus narrative.
And, You're deliberately lying about the motiviation of people who are defending Zimmerman because you have no actual argument and can't defend the actual evidence when it contradicts the narrative. Only a scoundrel would keep going with the talking points when the talking points are disproved by the evidence.You're that scoundrel.
Fair enough, Revenant. I see your point there. One can think of other quotes that get truncated and misinterpreted (Nietzsche's "God is Dead" line comes to mind - no, that doesn't mean that atheism is all happy-clappy freedom!), but that Heinlein one gets mentioned all the time in that manner when guns are the topic.
Could you point to these cultures.
Yes.
Rural America and a chunk of suburban America. Where guns are MORE plentiful than the inner cities on a per-capita basis, and the crime rates are much lower.
Assumes all crimes are reported, a fact not in evidence, and not likely...
"Most men would not have killed Martin when placed in the identical starting situation as Zimmerman."
This is pathetic equivocating as "the identical starting situation" is entirely ambiguous.
Is the "starting situation" driving through the neighborhood? I know very well that some people insist that normal people must not intervene or otherwise stick their noses in suspicious business. This, of course, is why a woman can be raped within the hearing of 50 people and no one calls the police or helps her. If that's the world you want to live in, you're welcome to it, but you're not welcome to make that decision for all of the people who do notice what is going on around them and do step in and get involved.
Or is the "starting situation" when Martin jumped Zimmerman? In that case most men, if they were armed, would have shot Martin.
Unless the evidence proves that Zimmerman shot Martin from a distance there is no way that the state could possibly prove that Zimmerman attacked Martin instead of the other way around.
And the state has to prove it... or seat a lynch mob jury and make a mockery of our "innocent until proven guilty" justice system.
I Callahan said...
Rural America and a chunk of suburban America. Where guns are MORE plentiful than the inner cities on a per-capita basis, and the crime rates are much lower.
I suspect you are wrong on the suburban stats and rural cultures are generally more pacific.
On the other hand every other country in europe, Canada, New Zealand and Australia has much lower gun ownership and are objectively safer societies. Although we all may have different definitions of 'polite', not being shot must rank quite high on the list for most.
There are constitutional arguments for gun ownership in the US but no good public health arguments.
Ritmo wrote:
It's safe to say that I've never "slandered" jr565 because "slander" means that you've ruined the reputation of someone in a material way.
Slander also means "making false and damaging statements about someone". That fits. Slander is not only a legal definition, it's also a verb.
Here are some synonyms for you:
defame, villify, traduce.
Pick which word you want to use instead. it still appies to your arguments.
@somefeller, you're on the same side as garage and Rhythm & noballzatall. If you don't want to be tarred by the same brush, then consider with whom you associate.
You can tell a man who boozes ...
No apology.
But even prosecutors think this is a horrible idea.
What an odd use of the word "even".
Like "even the CEO of Starbucks thinks you should buy all your coffee from Starbucks". It would perhaps be more appropriate to substitute "obviously" in place of "even".
Assumes all crimes are reported, a fact not in evidence, and not likely...
Are you really positing that a larger percent of crimes in the 'burbs go unreported, and that it's the opposite in the inner-cities?
If you believe this, you really need your head examined.
Is the "starting situation" driving through the neighborhood? I know very well that some people insist that normal people must not intervene or otherwise stick their noses in suspicious business.
This wasn't driving through the neighborhood. This was in a gated community. One that Trayvon was visiting but didn't belong to.
Synova said...
This is pathetic equivocating as "the identical starting situation" is entirely ambiguous.
I thought it was obvious that the starting situation was from the point at which Zimmerman first lays eyes on Martin.
The point is that Zimmerman's unique personal characteristics created a lethal situation that most people, more closely clustered towards psychological norms, would not have done. The vast majority of men placed in the identical situation would not have ended up killing Martin. Zimmerman is an outlier. He is culpable of an unnecessary killing.
I guess out of all those I'm more a fan of "vilify" but there's a problem. I looked it up and found that it would mean I'd have had to lowered your esteem. And I don't think I can do that as whatever esteem you had wasn't evident in the first place.
The guy who points out the emperor's wearing no clothes does not get tried for removing said clothes.
You may now proceed to continue vilifying Trayvon Martin.
This does not involve the Castle Doctrin.
How does one bash a head into the sidewalk without getting DNA under the fingernails(?)? You grab the shoulders / coat slam the head up and down. Whiplash-y stuff...
Why is that so hard to imagine?
"Assumes all crimes are reported"... I doubt many dead bodies with gunshot wounds are ignored. And as far as I know, every state mandates anyone arriving in an ER with a gun or knife wound is reported to the police.
Callahan's apparently a fan of rural meth labs and all the good neighborliness they breed.
Are you really positing that a larger percent of crimes in the 'burbs go unreported, and that it's the opposite in the inner-cities?
We "Boys N the Burbs" are just better had hiding the bodies of the thousands of middle-class white dudes we kill, that's all. Their families don't report their deaths because they know better than to cross us.
So in other words, Big Mike, you don't have anything to back up your assertions regarding what my position is on this issue. No surprise. Keep on jerking that knee!
The vast majority of men placed in the identical situation would not have ended up killing Martin
Pity. We could use fewer Martins and more Zimmermans.
jr565 said...
This was in a gated community. One that Trayvon was visiting but didn't belong to.
He had every right to be there. He was the overnight guest of Brandy Green, who was paying whatever community fees were involved.
Everyone knows that rural country justice is clean as a whistle and corruption-free!
One thing that bothers me is that Florida decides capital crimes (2nd Degree Murder) with a jury of 6?
I dunnno, but 12 seems to even out the Bell Curve a little more as far as being a jury of one's peers and compensating for outliers. (And the all woman jury thing is bit weird.)
BTW DBQ -- if I had to serve on a murder jury I'd want you to be there with me.
"Britain is an unusually polite society and almost no one has a gun."
There are break-ins of occupied houses in the U.S., but very, very few. It is a much more common crime in Britain.
One possibility- the average homeowner in the U.S. may very well be armed, and will shoot to kill to defend his property. Defending your property is against the law in Great Britain- you now have a "duty to retreat", which turns the old Britsh common law of a "a man's home is his castle" upside down.
Or perhaps someone can come up with an reasonable alternative explanation of why the this particular difference in crime rates. I doubt it. I'm going with the armed homeowner as deterrent. Not the police and their outstanding police work in nabbing the criminal AFTER THE CRIME HAS OCCURRED. Oh, wait. Is there some jurisdiction in the U.S. where that actually happens after property crimes?
Revenant said...
Pity. We could use fewer Martins and more Zimmermans.
It is clear that this is a widely shared viewpoint here but, not unreasonably, some of us prefer the rule of law.
Pity. We could use fewer Martins and more Zimmermans.
Revenant, the sociopathic pretend-libertarian's true opinion on herd culling as a social policy makes itself known.
ARM, Z is not on trial for questioning M or driving thru the neighborhood while armed or whatever. The question is if he had a legal right to use lethal force to defend himself in his situation, which was being in a fight with M. And was his situation created by him asking M what he was doing in the area, thus threatening him to the point M felt he had to attack him? Ultimately, no matter the verdict, people are going believe what they want to believe.
some of us prefer the rule of law.
Not the pretend-libertarians, whose ideas of justice comes from Leningrad.
It is clear that this is a widely shared viewpoint here but, not unreasonably, some of us prefer the rule of law.
The right of self-defense IS the rule of law, silly man.
Similarly, we have the right to keep an eye out for trouble in our neighborhoods. We have the right to call the police -- or anyone else, for that matter -- and tell them if we see someone who looks suspicious. We have a right not to be jumped and pummeled. Finally, we have a right to shoot someone who thinks he IS allowed to jump and pummel us.
All of these things are legal and desirable. You obviously can't have a free country if you divide it, as you prefer to, into "police", "criminals", and "helpless victims". The victims need the ability to protect themselves. :)
AReasonable Man wrote:
He had every right to be there. He was the overnight guest of Brandy Green, who was paying whatever community fees were involved.
I recognize that. But, the rest of the community wasn't aware who Trayvon was. He didn't live there. So, he was for all intents and purposes a stranger. Why would you not view him with suspicion?
In my building for example, there is a sign that says "Don't buzz people unannounced into the building."
Make sure you know who you're buzzing in. If someone unrecognized is wandering in the halls its not unreasonable to have a bit of suspicion about that persons intent since they aren't known to anyone in the building save the person who's guest they are.
And that's a single building. We're talking about a gated community with multiple buildings.
Trayvon could have short circuited this entire scenario by, instead of running going up to George's car and say "Hey, I'm Trayvon, and I"m staying at so and so's house. You know her, right?".
R&B, one of the rules of law is you can defend yourself if you think someone is about to kill or injure you.
Revenant vomits up two whole paragraphs devoted to rule of law without mentioning due process.
poppa india said...
Ultimately, no matter the verdict, people are going believe what they want to believe.
The racial aspects of this case are all BS to me. The issue for me is do we let an armed 27 year old man shoot a 17 year old teenager on suspicion of a thought crime. I realize other people want to focus more narrowly on the case, which largely accounts for the differences in opinion, but this is the issue for me. It is bad enough that we have the police doing this on a regular basis, are we now going to let mildly unhinged citizens do the same thing? My answer is no. YMMV.
"He had every right to be there. He was the overnight guest of Brandy Green, who was paying whatever community fees were involved."
The idea that he was shot because he didn't belong there is amazingly ignorant.
As if Zimmerman was Elmer Fudd and out to kill someone because they weren't where they were supposed to be, but called the police first. As if when visiting someone else's neighborhood it's usual to wander off the sidewalks and between buildings and that no *reasonable* person would think that suspicious and call the cops.
What difference does it make if he had a right to be there because he was a guest or if he had a right to be there because he was a resident or if he didn't have a right to be there because he hopped a fence to take a short cut and was trespassing?
It's irrelevant. ASKING Martin if he belonged there is irrelevant simply because it's trivial.
Either Martin jumped Zimmerman and got him down on the sidewalk or he didn't.
Britain is an unusually polite society
This is a person who has never been to the UK. :)
Also, the quote is "an armed society is a polite society", not "only armed societies are polite".
In a way, this goes back to the "it takes a village" idea". Good behavior and social order was maintained by people asking a stranger what he was doing in a neighbor's yard. If that stranger responded with violence, most would assume the worst and self-defense was allowed.
Revenant vomits up two whole paragraphs devoted to rule of law without mentioning due process.
Because due process only applies to government action.
There is no due process required in the exercise of basic human rights protected by the law. That's why you were allowed to write the above drivel without submitting a Form 827j: Request to Troll with the Department of the Interior. :)
jr565 said...
In my building for example, there is a sign that says "Don't buzz people unannounced into the building."
I have lived for a while in condo community pretty similar to this one. I knew almost no one the entire time I was there. I think the concept of 'community' is a pretty loose one in this situation, certainly much looser than in a shared building or a small country town.
Because due process only applies to government action.
Whereas private actors get to be as tyrannical as Revenant thinks they should be allowed to be.
I love this idea of a well-armed society as polite. I'm pretty sure the Hollywood Shooters and Beltway Snipers must have been saying a lot of "Please" and "Thank You" to their victims.
What a bunch of airheaded crap. I heard the same kind of bullshit during the Duke Lacrosse case. Much of that was in writing too. You know what? Nobody apologized for being complete assholes then either. People who do this shit are dangerous, anti-reason, anti-justice. I can only hope one of you gets wrongly accused of a crime. It's the only way for karma to pay you back fairly.
And the *claim* is that Zimmerman shot Martin... not for a thought crime... but because Martin got him down and was beating Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk.
Or do you really and honestly think that it's okay for someone to respond to an inquiry by starting a fist fight? Why? Because he's black, a teenager, and therefore not a human being that can be expected to behave like a human being? How do you explain this? Are you imagining that Zimmerman physically attacked Martin, started punching and grappling with him?
Or do you figure that the understandable black youth RAGE at an unjust world where someone would dare to ask why you're skulking about between buildings in the rain excuses everything and removes Zimmerman's right to self defense?
jr565 said...
Trayvon could have short circuited this entire scenario by, instead of running going up to George's car and say "Hey, I'm Trayvon, and I"m staying at so and so's house. You know her, right?".
I don't entirely disagree with this but it presupposes a level of maturity largely lacking in most 17 year old teens. The onus for mature decision making is clearly on Zimmerman.
Supporters of Alger Hiss claimed that not only were the so called Pumpkin Papers forged, but the very typewriter used to type them was an FBI forgery. Some twenty years after the Sacco conviction a ballistics test was developed which showed that the gun Sacco admittedly had on his person was the gun used to kill the guard. The left's explanation: the DA had switched the evidentiary bullets........There is no argument nor evidence that you can submit which will alter the opinion of Trayvon Martin's supporters. Zimmerman's guilt is part of their religion. It's like Creationism. It exists on a plane independent of logic or empiricism.
Revenant vomits up two whole paragraphs devoted to rule of law without mentioning due process.
Due process, as defined by Ritmo:
Trayvon: Why you following me whitey? I'm gonna kick your ass!!
Z: Wait, Mr. Young Thug, let's wait a few months so that if I have to kill you, you will have gotten due process.
Is that about right, Ritmo?
AReasonable Man wrote:
I don't entirely disagree with this but it presupposes a level of maturity largely lacking in most 17 year old teens. The onus for mature decision making is clearly on Zimmerman.
If you lived in the community and saw George driving around would you be afraid of the White Latino stalking you? Or would you know that was George Zimmerman because you live in the community?
ARM. the issue is not how old anyone is. A 17 year old is as capable of dangerous violence as a 27 year old. The question is was Z justified using lethal force when he was in a physical encounter with M? The questions of neighborhood watches, concealed carry, etc, are legislative questions, not judicial ones.
do we let an armed 27 year old man shoot a 17 year old teenager on suspicion of a thought crime
You seem to have the same problem as Ritmo does, in believing things that have no basis in fact whatsoever. You've been asked this a number of times, but I'll try again: where, in the current evidence is a shred of the above true? Just one item, please.
"I don't entirely disagree with this but it presupposes a level of maturity largely lacking in most 17 year old teens. The onus for mature decision making is clearly on Zimmerman."
Oh bull shit.
You really do see Martin as non-human don't you, since he's not responsible for his Very Bad Decision.
It's a sad sad tragedy but sometimes a 17 year old who make Very Bad Decisions don't get a second opportunity. Nothing requires a mature and rational adult to let a 17 year old break his skull on a sidewalk or steal his gun and shoot him on account of the 17 year old is only marginally sentient.
Revenant said...
Britain is an unusually polite society
This is a person who has never been to the UK. :)
I may have low standards. I have found the French polite on several visits. As a tourist I have never really found any place all that rude. This is no doubt related to the fact that they need tourists to make a living.
Whereas private actors get to be as tyrannical as Revenant thinks they should be allowed to be.
It is logically impossible for self-defense to be "tyrannical". Although I'm guessing you just wanted to pick a mean adjective and were getting tired of typing "sociopathic". :)
Callahan, how many lives do you think the Castle "Doctrine" will save and how many people can you guarantee won't abuse it? Or do you always know the "good guys" from the "bad guys" beforehand?
I sure wish I had the kind of pre-trial judgment that you did. Minority Report was wrong to show the future dystopia as being only focused on preventing pre-crime. They skipped the preliminary step that you've invented, of having a conclusive pre-trial.
shoot a 17 year old teenager on suspicion of a thought crime
Interesting take on the evidence: Martin pounded Zimmerman's head into the concrete using only the power of his thoughts.
There's the explanation for garage's "missing" DNA evidence, I guess. :)
I just hope somebody had the presence of mind to take some good DNA samples from Martin's body. Unlocking the secret of telekinesis could be a boon for all mankind.
Callahan, how many lives do you think the Castle "Doctrine" will save and how many people can you guarantee won't abuse it?
"Will save"? The castle doctrine is thousands of years old.
It also only applies to homes, residences, and the like. It wouldn't be a defense for Zimmerman, and Zimmerman's attorney isn't asserting that it is.
It is logically impossible for self-defense to be "tyrannical".
It is logically ridiculous to pretend that you can determine a justification of self-defense by minimizing the amount of interaction and evidence that would accumulate in a lethal conflict.
You are seriously an idiot. You devolve authoritarianism to the private sector and individuals and called it "freedom".
The castle doctrine is thousands of years old.
So are greater rates of violence in the population the further back in history you go.
It also only applies to homes, residences, and the like.
You are behind on the issue. The NRA's legislation spread like herpes in state legislatures to make sure it was extended to public areas.
You know... it can BE a tragedy and still be self-defense. Martin doesn't have to be a horrible person in order for Zimmerman to have acted in self-defense. They can both be decent guys, more or less.
Nor, if Zimmerman was a horrible person, is Martin automatically angelic.
Even horrible, evil people get the right of self-defense.
It is logically ridiculous to pretend that you can determine a justification of self-defense by minimizing the amount of interaction and evidence that would accumulate in a lethal conflict.
OK, let's assume 17 year old jumps on 27 year old. Starts beating 27 year old about the head and face, and smashes 27 year old's head into the pavement. 27 year old is armed, pulls his gun out, and shoots 17 year old, killing him.
Does the above allow you to determine a justification of self-defense? Who exactly is minimizing the amount of interaction and evidence that would accumulate in a lethal conflict here?
It is logically ridiculous to pretend that you can determine a justification of self-defense by minimizing the amount of interaction and evidence that would accumulate in a lethal conflict.
I'm not quite sure what the point of that word salad was, but I'm fairly certain it wouldn't interest me if I knew. :)
Even horrible, evil people get the right of self-defense.
You are unfortunately preaching to the wrong crowd if trying to pound this into the skulls of the Althouse commentariat.
The majority of them reject the separation of virtuousness of person from virtuousness of the act. They are incapable of that.
See now... why aren't we all up in arms about the guy waiting in line to buy shoes who shot a robber who was trying to steal everyone's shoe money?
Was the shooter black? He may well have been. I haven't seen him identified by anything but his sex and the description "homey."
I'm not quite sure what the point of that word salad was, but I'm fairly certain it wouldn't interest me if I knew. :)
Most people's rights don't interest you.
But you smile like Ted Bundy to charm your way out of how despicable that makes you look.
So are greater rates of violence in the population the further back in history you go.
... and?
You are behind on the issue. The NRA's legislation spread like herpes in state legislatures to make sure it was extended to public areas.
You're thinking of the "stand your ground" laws, which are an entirely different legal concept. And also unrelated to this case, as it so happens.
"The majority of them reject the separation of virtuousness of person from virtuousness of the act. They are incapable of that."
The alternate reality inside your head must be a fantastical place.
OK, let's assume...
Ok, let's have evidence.
The fact that prosecutors and defense attorneys both overwhelmingly oppose the laws that would put Zimmerman somehow "automatically" a priori in the right before addressing any facts doesn't concern you, and goes unaddressed by you.
And that's all I need to know.
How is... okay so... if prosecutors and defense attorneys oppose a law there opinion is relevant to the law how? The law either is or isn't a law and either is or isn't Constitutional.
Self-defense isn't a new concept and if the state is trying Zimmerman for murder they have to prove it actually happened. Benefit of the doubt, in America, goes to the accused.
You're thinking of the "stand your ground" laws, which are an entirely different legal concept. And also unrelated to this case, as it so happens.
Thanks to Zimmerman's counsel wisely rejecting the imminent possibility of jury nullification in the face of such legal monstrosities.
"The majority of them reject the separation of virtuousness of person from virtuousness of the act. They are incapable of that."
The alternate reality inside your head must be a fantastical place.
And your explanation for why "Big Mike" (among others) presumptuously thought to indict Martin for being a "thug" and need for Matthew Sablan to patiently explain to him the obvious fact that this was immaterial will be coming as soon as your apology.
The law either is or isn't a law and either is or isn't Constitutional.
Oh, but you forgot one! The law either does or doesn't make a travesty of rules of evidence.
In this case, it would have.
Matthew Sablan: But the thug-status of the person shot has no relevance to the case; it is a squirrel and a distraction and should be dismissed as such.
I'm not sure if you're joking or not. But I personally don't see anything wrong with taking a person's aggressive tendencies (or lack of them) into account in trying to decide if he's the kind of guy who would try to pound someone's skull into the concrete for the crime of following him.
Calling Martin a thug seems to be a reasonable call, but you can show me where someone presented this "thug" accusation as a good enough reason to kill someone or YOU can apologize.
Just because you HEAR something through the filter of your own prejudices doesn't mean anyone actually made the argument that this was legalized thug hunting rather than self-defense after being attacked.
If you want I can ask Big Mike if he thinks that if Martin was the choir boy some people like to portray him as and (hypothetically) thought that Zimmerman looked just like the ex boyfriend that was stalking his Mom to beat her up, if Zimmerman retains the right to self defense when attacked by a choir boy, I'll do that. I'm guessing he'd say, like anyone else with a brain, that Zimmerman has the right to self-defense no matter the state of Martin's soul.
And yet... it seems quite likely that Martin was wandering around in a suspicious manner and attacked Zimmerman, not because Zimmerman's doppleganger was stalking Martin's mother, but because Martin was a thug.
"Thug" explains Martin's behavior. It doesn't define anything about Zimmerman's response.
Thanks to Zimmerman's counsel wisely rejecting the imminent possibility of jury nullification in the face of such legal monstrosities.
Nice hallucination there.
In reality, of course, Zimmerman's attorney isn't relying on "stand your ground" because Zimmerman's defense is that he *couldn't* retreat -- he claims Martin had him pinned.
"Stand your ground" protects the right of self-defense in cases where retreating was an option. Use of lethal force in self-defense when you can't retreat is legal everywhere in America, and always has been.
"Stand your ground" would apply to the shoe line killing, though the police have said that they count it self-defense and aren't arresting anyone.
It seems like our justice system might deliver more accurate results if a more probability based approach was used. We could construct models and then run them against cases from the past with known accurate results to validate and improve the models' ability to accurately predict what actually occurred in a case.
"Thug" explains Martin's behavior. It doesn't define anything about Zimmerman's response.
Except for Big Mike's justification of it.
I take as further evidence of his willingness to entertain that thinking his cavalier attitude toward "fragging" (military fratricide) and the fact that he came on my blog and threatened me with violence.
But he's apparently a great proponent of the idea that self-defense is underutilized and its best applications under-appreciated by the American legal system, despite these flaws. At least according to the many here who would not take issue with him.
JAL: How does one bash a head into the sidewalk without getting DNA under the fingernails(?)? You grab the shoulders / coat slam the head up and down. Whiplash-y stuff...
Why is that so hard to imagine?
How do you explain Zimmerman's bloody nose, bleeding head and wet shirt back unless someone had knocked him to the ground and was beating on him?
I take as further evidence of his willingness to entertain that thinking his cavalier attitude toward "fragging" (military fratricide) and the fact that he came on my blog and threatened me with violence.
Say, why don't you put your blog back on line so that we can all be aware of such "facts"?
I wonder if the punishment for those convicted of violent crimes will ever include being forced to wear a recording device like google goggles so that everything they do is recorded, kind of like a black box for criminals. Would the recording device use the eye itself as the lens so that it is not easily removed by the criminal? Are some criminals every movement already being monitored so that it will be easy to know if they were at the crime scene at the moment the crime was committed?
Say, why don't you put your blog back on line so that we can all be aware of such "facts"?
Because not all of us are as untrusting as the, well, challenged.
I took my blog off for different reasons. I'm sure I could reprint them easily, anyway.
Stop patronizing me. You delinked me because in your failure to understand me you had cast aspersions. I have no reason to revisit any of that. It was time to put it away anyway. As someone who's taking your own blog down, permanently or temporarily, you'd think you could understand that.
Althouse should have two posts on the Zimmerman trial tomorrow. One for people who are watching the trial and one for people who are just talking out their ass.
bahgoh20 - "I heard the same kind of bullshit during the Duke Lacrosse case. Much of that was in writing too. You know what? Nobody apologized for being complete assholes then either. People who do this shit are dangerous, anti-reason, anti-justice. I can only hope one of you gets wrongly accused of a crime. It's the only way for karma to pay you back fairly."
===============
It was the hope of LBJ that once the "angry nigrahs agitated by the communists" rioted, they would target and burn places like Columbia and Yale.
If blacks do go after whites and hispanics and Asians again..Hispanic gangs will likely declare ahead of time their neighborhoods are no go areas at the risk of being shot unless accompanied by an hispanic vouchsayer. The Asians will bunker. And it is a fair bet that the cool Obama loving white hipsters and Metrosexuals will get more than their far share of black racist brutality. And worse, out of fear of being accused of being racists for defending themselves - those left, liberal, fabulous gays, and progressive jews will take their beatings, maimings, even deaths like simpering bitches.
Meanwhile, suburbanites and rural whites would watch as no cops were within half a mile as black mobs burned another Starbucks or Apple store for the day and once more gang stomped several cornered whiteys.
"My, isn't it terrible watching what the blacks are doing to all those spawn of yuppies or old yuppies themselves --all those apologetic white Obama voters...?"
"Trayvon Martin armed himself with a concrete sidewalk and used it to smash George Zimmerman's head."
Damn, someone is channeling George Wallace (the black standup comic, not that other guy). Some years back Rodney King had crashed his car into a culvert. Wallace joked (quoting from memory), "He didn't hit the culvert, the culvert hit him. It was a white culvert."
All the sockpuppets in one thread.
Whoda thunk?
Rhythm and Balls said...
Ed, you think you need my statements to play judge and jury all by yourself, but you don't. I know you think Martin was guilty of "needing execution" before any actual trial took place. So go ahead and play out Zimmerman's trial (which in your mind, is a mock trial) on your own.
Ritmo assumes and we know what happens when he assumes...
poppa india said...
The questions of neighborhood watches, concealed carry, etc, are legislative questions, not judicial ones.
I agree with this. But, it is only by making an issue over specific difficult cases that we can draw attention to bad laws.
I love watching this woman posting under "areasonable man" shriek that Zimmerman was an "armed vigilante!"
That's funny.
Oh, now the woman posting under the "areasonable man" handle is suggesting SYG (or concealed carry?) are "bad laws"
What a frightened delicate little flower you are, unreasonable woman.
Rhythm and Balls said:
And that's all I need to know.
Yep. This is the gist of your argument in a nutshell.
You don't need the trial. You don't need to hear testimony.
You have already decided Zimmerman is guilty, and you have deluded yourself, through assumption of facts not in evidence and repetition of those fantasies in a Big Lie technique, into the untenable position that anything but a murder conviction is injustice.
Everything you have said demonstrates you have no respect for the Rule of Law. You favor Rule of Man, but all it Rule of Law in your self-delusion and dishonesty.
All the comments by ARM, garage, R&B, somefella, et al, are preparation for the rhetorical battlespace.
The Not Guilty result that is likely to be reached, based on all currently available evidence will be used to stir up racial division.
Liberal fascists love to use hatred and cultural balkanization to seize and hold political power.
Just take a look at the economic performance of Detroit and the murder rate of Chicago: those are the inevitable results of your views.
Those are the inevitable results of the style and motivation of your defense of Martin.
Congratulations! You guys have made everything worse for everyone.
But you will never face up to it.
You treat the US Constitution like the Pharisees treated the Torah.
Personally, I think the defense starting with a joke will prove to be a smart move.
1) Using humor gets people to drop defenses, to like you, and to be more receptive to what you have to say
2) the joke itself indirectly compliments the jury for their ability to be objective and non-judgmental
3) The use of the joke highlights the fact that the prosecution's case is pretty much a joke. (at this point...there is always the possibility that the prosecution will introduce some blockbuster evidence that changes the direction of the trial)
Nathan Alexander said...
anything but a murder conviction is injustice.
You don't get off to a good start on this rant given that I have explicitly stated multiple times that I don't think a murder conviction is justified.
The rest of the rant is equally fallacious. You are way too over-invested in the idea of Martin's guilt for thought crimes.
The lines of opinion are drawn.
Pro-Martin:
garage, ARM, R&B, somefeller, tradguy.
Stance characteristics: Assumes lots of facts not in evidence. Selectively chooses which evidence is worth including, rejects other items of evidence. Inconvenient evidence minimized or explained away. Assumes the best of Martin, the worst of Zimmerman.
Pro-self defense:
pretty much everyone else.
Stance characteristics: Accepts all evidence in existence. Doesn't explain away anything. Doesn't assume best/worst of either Martin's or Zimmerman's character, just applies common sense judgment of actual concrete actions.
How many people think the pro-Martin crowd will adjust their views to match evidence used in court?
If there is a blockbuster revelation that strongly demonstrates Martin had a violent/murderous bent, does anyone think the pro-Martin crowd would change their opinion to support the defense?
Of course not.
If there is a blockbuster revelation that strongly demonstrates that Zimmerman had a violent/murderous bent, does anyone doubt that the pro-self-Defense crowd would change their opinion to support the prosecution?
Of course they would change to support the prosecution.
The only way to support Martin is to assume he is an angel and Zimmerman is a racist intending to murder, i.e., to make assumptions about race and character, and ignore actual concrete actions.
The only way to support Zimmerman is to support Rule of Law, concrete actions, and accountability for one's own actions.
The latter is better for society. The former is typical Liberal politics of personal destruction.
Balkanization. The destruction of civil society for political gain.
I'm really surprised and dismayed more Republican politicians and pundits aren't speaking out on this trial.
1) It is a great microcosm of US society:
Self-defense vs the infantilization of black people.
Do we have the right to defend ourselves from those who would beat us to death? Or are liberals correct and blacks can't be held responsible if they engage in over-reactive violence?
Plus, having Republicans prominently support a Hispanic to prevent his lynching by a vengeful black community should help Hispanics feel more comfortable with the GOP.
Furthermore, the GOP should be prepping the battlespace for an acquittal. They should be talking right now how we support the Rule of Law, and rioting just because you don't like a court result is illegal, unacceptable, infantile, stupid, and anyone who supports such actions is unpatriotic.
The GOP should go on record for supporting peaceful communities that are safe for large, extended families and respect for the Rule of Law and self-defense. That provides a segue to talking about welcoming arms for legal immigration of strong community- and family-based cultures like Hispanics.
There is no way that the GOP can make inroads into the black community on this issue, and they should not want to, because the only way to do it is to continue to oppress blacks through infantilization, as aptly demonstrated by ARM, garage, and R&B.
But coming out strongly for community, peace, self-defense, family, accountability, personal responsibility, etc, would play very well among the strong family-based community of Hispanics.
Zimmerman is a father figure: putting himself at personal risk in order to protect his community.
Nathan Alexander said...
I'm really surprised and dismayed more Republican politicians and pundits aren't speaking out on this trial.
A more judicial man might take this observation as a warning to question his own views.
ARM,
You said:
Manslaughter. I think manslaughter is the appropriate charge. I clearly don't think the worst of Zimmerman. I do think he is incompetent, a Walter Mittyesque character who is a threat to himself and others.
I believe strongly that a civil society has no place for armed vigilantes
Manslaughter is 3rd degree Murder.
There may be some daylight between you and and the others prepping to scream injustice at an acquittal. If so, I apologize.
However, you consistently continued to argue against what you call "armed vigilantes" in this case...which puts you firmly in the camp of those who want to dismantle the right to self defense.
If you want to clarify that you do in fact, support self-defense and the Rule of Law, you'll have to backtrack on several of your statements in this thread.
I'll wait.
Only 374 comments and counting? I'm disappointed in the late night crew....
@ARM,
A more judicial man might take this observation as a warning to question his own views.
Nope.
1) The GOP is called the Stupid Party for a reason
2) just look at the shrieking harpy imitation that R&B and garage do in this thread. Now imagine ABC, NBC, Al Sharpton, et al doing the same thing to any GOP politician who dares to give an opinion.
A smart Republican could turn it back by referencing Obama's own statements on the case, and shame them with their obvious double-standard.
But refer to #1.
The liberal Big Lie echo chamber really needs to be dismantled for the good of the nation.
Or else the entire nation will end up like Detroit and Chicago.
Does anyone really want the US to end up in the same situation as those liberal bastions?
Although I guess the question is the answer: Yes, those who can afford armed guards, or who are given them as part of their office, absolutely willing to enrich themselves by making the rest of us live in garbage pits like Detroit and murder pits like Chicago.
Nathan Alexander said...
Manslaughter is 3rd degree Murder.
This is not generally true and varies between states. But, clearly manslaughter has a different meaning to murder, or there would be no reason for a distinction.
AReasonableMan
A more judicial man might take this observation as a warning to question his own views.
You mean like your reaction to the vast majority of the comments here pointing out that Zimmerman committed no crime?
Kind of like that?
Nathan Alexander said...
which puts you firmly in the camp of those who want to dismantle the right to self defense.
If Martin was currently alive it would seem that he would have had a strong case for self-defence, certainly a stronger SYG case than Zimmerman. He had every right to be were he was. Unfortunately Martin is dead, due, in my view, to Zimmerman's incompetence. It was an unnecessary death, if you look at the totality of Zimmerman's behavior.
Obviously you disagree and equally obviously that is your right, but slandering people like me with a broad range of agendas that bear no relationship to my actual beliefs doesn't really advance your cause.
I think reasonable people can differ widely on this case because we have different views of what a civil society should look like. I think fewer guns results in a safer society, all things considered. When the justification for gun usage moves from the defense of the homeowners property into a very nebulously defined community setting the justification for citizen initiated killings becomes extremely weak.
And the sound you hear is the woman posting under the "areasonable man" handle scurrying away from facts:
Wendy Dorival, coordinator for Sanford PD Neighborhood Watch (cross examination)
Dorival: "George was very professional, a little meek, really wanted to make community better"
Dorival: "I wanted to recruit George to be Citizen on Patrol."
West: "So if they see ANYTHING unusual, they are to err on side of calling PD? Dorival: "Yes".
West: "Is someone walking in rain without apparent purpose suspicious?" Dorival: "Yes".
West: "Zimmerman contacted your boss to praise your efforts? " Dorival: "Yes".
Dorival's testimony is 100% pure unadulterated love-fest for Zimmerman
Dorival: It's Good Neighborhood Watch practice to follow suspicious person from a distance
Don't worry, dipshits like the unreasonable woman know better.
AReasonableMan said...
If Martin was currently alive it would seem that he would have had a strong case for self-defence, certainly a stronger SYG case than Zimmerman. He had every right to be were he was
Why do you come here and make this comedically stupid assertions?
Nobody is disputing Martin is able to walk down the street.
You're borderline retarded.
I think fewer guns results in a safer society
Of course you do.
There is no rational basis for such a belief.
In fact, there are almost 300 million guns in circulation in the US and as the issuance of concealed carry has increased, crime has decreased.
You're nothing but someone blinded by stupid ideology who comes here to say preposterous things.
Nathan Alexander said...
Although I guess the question is the answer: Yes, those who can afford armed guards, or who are given them as part of their office, absolutely willing to enrich themselves by making the rest of us live in garbage pits like Detroit and murder pits like Chicago.
I lived in the inner city of St Louis for several years. I had two children there while living on a very modest salary. I am not unaware of the problems of city violence. To argue that this is a result of a liberal agenda is something of a stretch. More often than not it is liberals who live in these places.
Murder rates have steadily declined for decades, under both liberal and authoritarian administrations. There is not a lot of evidence that government policies have affected this decline all that much.
AReasonableMan said...
There is not a lot of evidence that government policies have affected this decline all that much.
Well, except for throwing people in jail, adapting policing polices, and changing gun laws.
Everything you type on this Web site is absurd.
"Murder rates have steadily declined for decades, under both liberal and authoritarian administrations. There is not a lot of evidence that government policies have affected this decline all that much."
Liberal about what? Authoritarian about what?
"Liberals" these days want to control every aspect of your life other than sex. Because if you're free to be a pervert then it doesn't matter how extensive your slavery or how minute the rules you have to follow or if you even have the authority to have salt on your food or lard to deep fry your potatoes.
And even over sex "authoritarian" is so slim pickings these days that it just means someone doesn't want to pay for your sexual freedom but maybe you ought to fund it your own self.
As for cities with liberal policies... liberal in what way? In the way that actually means liberal where people have maximum individual autonomy? Or liberal in the way that means they've been disarmed and hemmed about with no end to regulations?
Next witness, O'Brien, president of HOA:
O'Brein: "Burglar was caught because he was followed at a distance."
"It was an unnecessary death, if you look at the totality of Zimmerman's behavior."
Point out for me please a *necessary* death?
And your insistence of viewing the "totality" of Zimmerman's behavior makes it clear that somehow Zimmerman lost the right to self-defense because he stuck his nose in where it didn't belong.
How about this theory? Martin is dead because all of the neighbors on the line with 911 didn't go out there to pull him off Zimmerman. They just sat on the phone while Zimmerman was beaten and Martin was shot.
No doubt had they intervened the "totality" of their decision making would have lost them the right to self defense too.
Next witness, O'Brien, president of HOA
O'Brein: "Burglar was caught because he was followed at a distance."
O'Brien: "Burglar who was caught by following at distance was a 17-year-old black person"
What an absolutely brutal morning for the State.
Synova said...
How about this theory? Martin is dead because all of the neighbors on the line with 911 didn't go out there to pull him off Zimmerman.
You are doing exactly what Nathan was accusing liberals of doing, prejudging the case. In fact what happened at this point is in dispute.
Since Zimmerman was armed I think they behaved correctly. I would not intervene in a fight in which I thought there was a high probability that someone was armed. This is exactly the problem with arming everyone on the street, normal behaviors become life threatening.
O'Mara on recross: "So, you're saying to follow at a safe distance?" O'Brien: "Correct."
AReasonableMan said...
Since Zimmerman was armed I think they behaved correctly. I would not intervene in a fight in which I thought there was a high probability that someone was armed.
Again, preposterous.
What would lead you or anyone to conclude Zimmerman was armed?
Everything you type on this matter is fucking idiotic.
This is exactly the problem with arming everyone on the street,
"Everyone on the street" is not armed.
Nobody is for arming everyone on the street.
Again, everything you type on this topic is beyond stupid.
AReasonableMan wrote:
You don't get off to a good start on this rant given that I have explicitly stated multiple times that I don't think a murder conviction is justified.
THe prosecution does. So you are in disagreement with the prosecution on this? Do you think all the people demanding justice for Trayvon think Zimmerman should be charged with murder or manslaughter?
This morning's State's witness was the Neighborhood Watch Bureaucrat at the Sanford PD. She was in quick agreement with the Defense atty that her orders to Neoghborhood Watchers were to report everything different or "purposeless' seen going on so police could come out and investigate...incliding walking around in circles in the rain.
That would mean all teenagers on cellphone calls to girlfriends are suspicious...well not the white ones.
AReasonable Man wrote:
"If Martin was currently alive it would seem that he would have had a strong case for self-defence, certainly a stronger SYG case than Zimmerman. He had every right to be were he was. Unfortunately Martin is dead, due, in my view, to Zimmerman's incompetence. It was an unnecessary death, if you look at the totality of Zimmerman's behavior."
There is no evidence that George actually started the fight. But in addition to instigating the fight he also instigated the incident in the first place.and this is borne out in the phone call where Zimmmerman loses sight of Trayvon and then talks to the cops about where to meet. Trayvon had run off in the direction of home and Zimmerman lost him. He could simply have continued going home. Instead he went back looking for Zimmerman.
But, here's the thing. He's a guest in the community, not a member of the community. Why did he run in the first place and not tell Zimmerman what he was doing there?
REmember, the phone call Zimmerman makes with the cops he sees Trayvon. Trayvon comes towards the car, while George is on the phone with the cops, and puts his hands in his belt as if he's flexing or fronting or threatening. Then he takes off running. If you are a guest in someones house, why would you RUN when you see soemeone in the neigbhorhood look at you? There hadn't even been a conversation at that point. But there should have been. And it should have been Trayvon saying "hey" to the guy in the car.
Then George Zimmerman might have said "who are you and what are you doing here?" and Trayvon might have said "I'm Trayvon, I'm staying at my fathers gf's house. She lives over there".
Then George Would have said something like "Oh. Well we're doing community watch here because there was a rash of breakins. Keep your eye open and say hi to so and so".
But instead he first puts on a tough guy pose when he's walking by the car, then RUNS. At what point was he not acting suspiciously?
Why didn't the person who lived there tell the community ahead of time that Trayvon will be staying with her, so don't worry if you see him coming in after hours?
WHy didn't she tell Trayvon that there's a community watch and this guy George drives around looking at the neighborhood so Trayvon doesn't freak out that someone in a car is looking at him.
I think, and this is just my opinion, that Trayvon got mad that some dude was eyeballing him as if he didn't belong there and so went to show him the error or of his ways. Not remembering or caring that he doesn't live in the community so there would be an assumption that you were suspicious until you were proven not to be. He should have offered that proof.
traditional guy wrote:
That would mean all teenagers on cellphone calls to girlfriends are suspicious...well not the white ones.
That's just conjecture on your part. We'd have to look at every suspicious call made and then track it with the suspicious persons race. And even then, what if the majority of people coming in with cell phones who look suspicious are black. Would that suggest a policy to only find blacks suspicous, or would it simply mean that more often than not the person with the cell phone was black simply because that's how it played out.
This: But in addition to instigating the fight he also instigated the incident in the first place.
should have said:
But in addition to instigating the fight he (Trayvon) also instigated the incident in the first place.
Trad - according to the call between Zimmerman and the police dispatcher, Martin appeared suspicious long before Z determined that he was Black.
I was talking to a former Denver cop and I was telling about being hassled when I was a couple years older than Martin was by his old department. We both laughed, because I was just acting like a 20 year old. Pushing the limits and causing as much trouble as I could without getting caught. Martin appears to have been no different, though being maybe 3 years younger, having even less judgement, but similar testosterone levels. Sure I was offended when the police took an interest in what I was doing. But I wasn't really surprised, given how much I wasn't getting questioned on.
Martin was considered suspicious because he looked and acted suspicious, not because, at least initially about his race - because with his hood up, race was hard to determine. This is fairly obvious from Zimmerman's call with the dispatcher.
As a note - the million hoodie march was asinine. Hoodies are worn, at least in part, because it makes hiding faces easier. Why shouldn't someone trying to hide their identity with their hood up, as Martin may have been doing, be more suspicious than someone who isn't?
The prosecutor highlights that Zimmerman was mad that "they always get away". Yet, that was because Trayvon got away. There was no indication that he wasn't anything but someone who was there to break into someone's house. And Trayvon could have provided said evidence by a) not running, and b) not being threatening when approacing George's car and c)recognizing that he was a guest in the community not act as if he owned the place and belonged there.
Imagine if the shooting didn't go the way it did, but instead Trayvon just beat the shit out of George. And he then went home and said he just beat up this dude who was eyeballing him.then Trayvons dads gf came out and realized that Travon just beat up beat up George Zimmerman,and he's on the community watch. And what was his crime? Looking at Trayvon suspiciously. Isn't that what he's supposed to do for people coming into the community who didn't belong there? Not only would Trayvon go to jail, but his dads gf might be held accountable for not telling the community that Trayvon was there.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा