New Details About George Zimmerman's Account of His Fight With Trayvon Martin

The New York Times, by way of The Orlando Sentinel, has a few more details about George Zimmerman's account of his fight with Trayvon Martin:

Zimmerman said that Trayvon had punched him and then repeatedly slammed his head into the sidewalk in the moments leading up to the shooting....

In the 911 calls that have been released, Mr. Zimmerman is heard deciding, against a dispatcher’s advice, to follow Trayvon, whom he deemed "up to no good."

In Mr. Zimmerman’s account to the police, he returned to his S.U.V. after he was unable to find him. Trayvon then approached Mr. Zimmerman from behind and they exchanged words. Then, Mr. Zimmerman said, Trayvon hit him hard enough that he fell to the ground — which would explain what Mr. Zimmerman’s lawyer, Craig Sonner, has said was a broken nose — and began slamming his head into the sidewalk.

This account is consistent with Zimmerman's injuries and the report of an eyewitness who called 911, although that man (identified in the papers only as John) did not see how the fight started. It is also consistent with what Martin's girlfriend, who was talking to him on his cellphone right before Zimmerman shot Martin, said she heard. Judging from that conversation, Martin was understandably worried about the guy in the SUV who was tailing him and decided to confront him.

While it's clear that Zimmerman created the circumstances that led to the fight, it's not clear who made the first aggressive move after the two of them "exchanged words." By Zimmerman's account, Martin threw the first punch, but for all we know Martin was responding to what he perceived as a potentially deadly threat—a plausible reaction if we assume that Zimmerman displayed his gun or Martin caught a glimpse of it. In other words, something similar to the scenario outlined by Julian Sanchez, in which both Martin and Zimmerman reasonably feared for their lives, may actually have happened. If so, Zimmerman would still be responsible for needlessly setting these events into motion. But if his account of how the fight unfolded is true, his use of force could be justified under Florida law—not because of the right to "stand your ground" established in 2005 but because of the right to use deadly force when you reasonably believe you are "in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm" and have "exhausted every reasonable means to escape."  

Addendum: Joe M notes in the comments that Martin's girlfriend (as quoted by The Guardian) "thinks she heard Zimmerman push Martin 'because his voice changes, like something interrupted his speech.'" If so, it may have been Zimmerman who started the fight. When I said Zimmerman's account was consistent with hers, I had in mind the brief exchange between the two men that preceded the fight.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Al Sharpton||

    Fry the cracker!

  • Bradley||

    I love how often people complaining about race baiting are themselves, you know, race baiting.

  • ||

    [sigh]

    This would be so much easier for all of us if Zimmerman were a real cop.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Let this be our last battlefield.

  • Tim||

    Zimmerman is hispanic on the wrong side...

  • ||

    Zimmerman would still be responsible for needlessly setting these events into motion.

    No kidding.

  • ||

    Zimmerman's responsibility was to watch the neighborhood. Following a suspicious person- even if the suspicion is racially motivated- is not a fault. It is not the white guy's fault because he is concerned about neighborhood security.

  • ||

    Zimmerman's responsibility was to watch the neighborhood. Following a suspicious person- even if the suspicion is racially motivated- is not a fault.

    Watch =/= follow, specifically, watch =/= get out of the car and chase down

    you seem to think leaving shit out will make you right when you're irrefutably wrong

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Watching doesn't require remaining stationary. If what you are watching moves, you may need to move to continue watching.

    "get out of the car and chase down" ... and maybe you add shit in to make yourself seem right.

  • ||

    ""get out of the car and chase down" ... and maybe you add shit in to make yourself seem right."

    Zimmerman admits this.

    You fail.

  • ||

    ANd honestly, I stopped giving a shit about your opinion when you idiotically claimed you could tell the future, then spent two hours arguing that it was true.

    NOW, you're so fucking stupid you don't even know what the facts of the case you're trying to argue are.

  • yippy||

    Being followed =/= justification for violently assaulting someone. Following on foot =/= "chasing someone down", which implies running.

    You seem to think that the fact that Martin was killed automatically condemns Zimmerman, regardless of Martin's actions.

  • ||

    "You seem to think that the fact that Martin was killed automatically condemns Zimmerman, regardless of Martin's actions."

    Nope.

    You seem to be bad at reading.

  • ben||

    I agree. Thank you for saving me the trouble of typing that.

  • yippy||

    You don't understand. People who live in neighborhoods with crime problems are supposed to stay inside, bolt their doors, close their drapes and hope that the police will protect them. Participating in a neighborhood watch is unnecessarily proactive. A good citizen is a passive citizen.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Participating in a neighborhood watch is unnecessarily proactive. A good citizen is a passive citizen.

    Participating in a neighborhood watch isn't so "proactive"; participating in a neighborhood 'confront,' which is what Zimmerman did, is unnecessarily proactive.

  • ||

    Where's the evidence that it was Zimmerman who confronted Martin again? It seems more likely that was the case to me, but there were no witnesses to their initial meeting.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Zimmerman's self-appointed responsibility was to watch the neighborhood.

    He's only one step away from those people who dress up like superheroes and harrass homeless drunks.

  • Michael||

    Wow, Zimmerman kinda pales in comparison to Super Vaclav on the complete-and-total-asshole spectrum.

  • ||

    So wearing a hoody and carrying candy IS enough to be suspicious. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

  • you're a racist we get it||

    "Hate to nitpick, but no you didn't say that."

    Yes moron, I did.

    "Nope. Despite you trying to threaten me."

    THAT WAS BEFORE THE SENTENCE YOU QUOTED IDIOT, AND THE SENTENCE YOU QUOTED IS A QUESTION, NOT A CLAIM OR ASSERTION.

    How fucking stupid are you that you choose to "nitpick" something and totally make an idiot of yourself in doing so?

  • Joe M||

    "In Mr. Zimmerman’s account to the police, he returned to his S.U.V. after he was unable to find him. Trayvon then approached Mr. Zimmerman from behind and they exchanged words...."

    This account is... also consistent with what Martin's girlfriend, who was talking to him on his cellphone right before Zimmerman shot Martin, said she heard.

    No, it's not. (continued)

  • Joe M||

    From her account:

    "He says: 'Oh, he's right behind me. He's right behind me again,'" Crump said the girl told him. "She says: 'Run.' He says: 'I'm not going to run, I'm just going to walk fast.'

    She then heard Martin saying "Why are you following me" and another voice saying "What are you doing here?" She told Crump they both repeated themselves, and then she thinks she heard Zimmerman push Martin...

    That's a huge and crucial distinction. In fact, it is the difference between murder and self-defense.

  • WTF||

    she thinks she heard Zimmerman push Martin...

    She could tell who intitiated the shoving by audio alone? My, what big ears she has!

  • Joe M||

    Sorry, I really shouldn't have truncated that quote. She said that because Martin was interrupted in the middle of talking.

  • Sudden||

    I'm a bit befuddled as previous accounts of hers that I've read have indicated that she was under the belief that Trayvon was pushed because he dropped his phone, not because of his speech being interrupted.

    Inconsistent stories tend to be less meritorious.

  • ||

    "Inconsistent stories tend to be less meritorious."

    So, are you outright calling her a liar, in the face of piss poor reporting and your lack of a police statement from her?

    Then do so, but don't play games.

  • Slim||

    yes, I will call her a liar. One who had help from a lawyer making up a story to help win a big settlement in the coming civil suits.

  • ||

    "yes, I will call her a liar. One who had help from a lawyer making up a story to help win a big settlement in the coming civil suits."

    And that's proof of why your opinion is a joke.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Zimmerman was attending a community college. I don't know how much money could be expected from a civil suit. Are there other entities (with money) that are culpable? Because you can sue Zimmerman for $100M, and win. But good luck collecting any of it.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    yes, I will call her a liar.

    Fine, We'll call you a piece of shit and everything will be even-Stevens.

  • Sudden||

    I'm not saying her story is necessarily inconsistent. It's worth noting that the Guardian article being linked to was from 3/20, so I can't say that the story has changed since then.

    My question is more about the accuracy of the different quotes I've seen in media coming from her. But, if the inconsistency is in her account rather than the reporting of it (which, admittedly seems more likely) then it does cast some doubt on the integrity of her account.

  • ||

    Um, if he dropped his phone, his speech could be interrupted.

  • you're a racist we get it||

    "Hate to nitpick, but no you didn't say that."

    Yes moron, I did.

    "Nope. Despite you trying to threaten me."

    THAT WAS BEFORE THE SENTENCE YOU QUOTED IDIOT, AND THE SENTENCE YOU QUOTED IS A QUESTION, NOT A CLAIM OR ASSERTION.

    How fucking stupid are you that you choose to "nitpick" something and totally make an idiot of yourself in doing so?

  • Zeb||

    Dropping the phone woudl interrupt him in the middle of talking. There is no contradiction there.

  • Ryan||

    I'm glad I wasn't the only one to realize that.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    She said that because Martin was interrupted in the middle of talking.

    Like someone might be if they took a breath and got ready to shove someone hard?

  • ||

    No one does that.

    Stop trying so hard Mr. Had a head injury and thinks he's recovered.

  • Joe M||

    My point is that this is a he said she said situation. My kingdom for the audio from that phone call.

  • yippy||

    She said that because Martin was interrupted in the middle of talking.

    As any athlete knows, the power of a strike can be increased by exhaling at the moment of impact. Thus, there is no way of knowing whether an interruption or change of Martin's voice during the call was due to Zimmerman pushing Martin or Martin pushing Zimmerman. Sorry, but the only thing that the gf's statement indicates is that someone pushed someone. It doesn't establish who the aggressor was.

  • Tim||

    This case is exactly why we have juries.

  • ||

    Good luck finding an untainted jury. Half the jury is going to out for blood, and the other half is going to be too terrified to speak up to the contrary (I’ll let you figure out the various shades of those juror’s epidermis)
    And even if you do find a jury that acquits him, I'm sure the Feds will step in and convict him of "civil rights violations" when the cities start to burn like they did after the LAPD officers in the Rodney King fiasco were exonerated – only to be tried a second time in Kangaroo Court.
    Apparently double jeopardy doesn't apply once folks start looting.

  • ||

    C-

  • ||

    Yep, tens of thousands of innocent white men are undoubtedly in prison right now because they were railroaded by black-controlled juries.

  • Realist||

    WTF???

  • MNG||

    I'm not sure why they felt the need to release the fact that he had been suspended from school for Teh Devil Weed...

    Supposedly though there are some witnesses and injuries to corroborate the shooter's story. That's pretty heavy imo.

  • Joe M||

    Sure. Except the only part that no one can corroborate, and which another semi-witness explicitly disagrees with, is who came after whom initially.

  • yippy||

    No, it doesn't Joe M. see above

  • David||

    They corroborate that there was a fight, and that Martin wasn't getting his ass kicked, but neither is dispositive. The only evidence on how the fight started is still the friend's account.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    If Zimmerman started the fight, it doesn't matter if he was getting his ass kicked. You can't start a fight, and then want to pull a gun when you realize you're losing and claim self defense.

  • ||

    You can if you are a fucking pig.

  • ||

    That's not really correct. If Martin was using unreasonable force in response, that reopens the opportunity for Zimmerman to use deadly force.

    These cases are never easy, particularly when key moments don't have neutral, reliable witnesses. But there's nothing automatic here.

  • Bee Tagger||

    I'm not sure why they felt the need to release the fact that he had been suspended from school for Teh Devil Weed...

    No kidding. As if Team Red wasn't already motivated enough to avoid taking a nuanced "this is why we have juries" approach to this situation. They have the liberal media to oppose in an election year, after all.

    This, of course, is not meant to condone the media's horrible coverage of this case. Granted, they are a big part of the reason there will be a trial, but also wittingly or unwittingly making it unlikely to be a fair one.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    Think you got your TEAMs confused there, Mister. In this case, it's TEAM BLUE that's avoiding taking a wait-and-see approach.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I'm also suspicious about the suspension for an "empty marijuana baggie". Was there actually marijuana in it, or is this some Philadelphia style "small ziploc bags are inherently drug paraphenelia" type situation?

  • Sudden||

    They said the baggie had formerly contained weed. Probably an empty sack he smoked in the morning before class and stupidly neglected to throw away. I would think they could smell it or find flake or crystal residue.

  • H. Reardon||

    I'm not sure why they felt the need to release the fact that he had been suspended from school for Teh Devil Weed...

    I don't have a problem with the devilweed, but Trayvon's parents apparently do. They put forward that the suspension was for some other reason. I find that they are shown to be liars as revelent.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    I find that they are shown to be liars as revelent

    Why? They weren't witnessess to the incident.

  • H. Reardon||

    In a 'the MSM is useless' kind of way, not a 'seeking justice' kind of way.

    And I wouldn't be suprised that should there be a trial, that the parents would be asked to testify as character witnesses, so perhaps it would be relevent in a 'seeking justice' kind of way.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    Parents are lousy character witnesses as they always think their children are the next best thing to Jesus. If the best thing your defense has is a character witness from your parents, it's over already.

  • yippy||

    hey always think their children are the next best thing to Jesus

    Especially if they smell a big pay day. Oh, sorry, I forgot that grieving parents are immune to greed.

  • Judge Roy Bean||

    What in the world is all this fuss about then since he'll get a fair trial before we hang him.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    If so, Zimmerman would still be responsible for needlessly setting these events into motion.

    Not if "Trayvon then approached Mr. Zimmerman from behind..."

  • ||

    When I am in a frighting situation, I run away. Air Force training: "never get into a pissing contest with a gun".

  • yippy||

    When I am in a frighting situation, I run away.

    TELLMOFF - Halloween sprinter

  • HeroicMulatto||

    When I am in a frighting situation, I run away. Air Force training: "never get into a pissing contest with a gun".

    True, but if Martin ran away and Zimmerman continued to confront him...half of you would be saying "Well, if he wasn't up to something, then why did he run?"

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't, right?

  • ||

    "True, but if Martin ran away and Zimmerman continued to confront him..."

    That's the whole crux of the problem here. Who confronted who.

    Also if Z confronts M, and initiates the altercation, then as the aggressor he would have no claim to self defense, regardless of how "suspicious" Martin's fleeing looked.

  • Ryan||

    Personally I think stalking someone at night, and failing to explain your reasons when asked, is justification for getting your ass kicked.

    Assuming this much is true, I believe the shooting was completely unjustifiable.

  • wayne||

    "When I am in a frighting situation, I run away. Air Force training..."

    Sorry, cheap shot, couldn't resist.

  • ||

    He called 911,was told to stay put,got out of his suv WITHA GUN in a show of force and cries victim?Not bying it.

  • Brick Top||

    Well that's good 'cause I ain't fucking selling it.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Oh, well, with such a reasoned and considered approach on your part, who are we to argue?

  • yippy||

    got out of his suv WITHA GUN in a show of force

    Any evidence at all that he was showing the gun or that Martin even saw the gun before Zimmerman pulled it out and shot Martin? No? Then STFU.

  • ||

    He wasn't even "told to stay put." The 911 dispatcher asks him if he is following Martin and then says, "you don't need to do that," which hardly sounds like an affirmative command to me.

  • Tim||

    Too bad the young Mr. Martin didn't call the police for help. Why are you laughing?

  • ||

    The bottom line is that none of this would have ever happened except for Zimmerman looking for trouble. Martin was just walking down the street. That's all. Zimmermen started the entire incident because he thought Martin looked suspicious with no empirical support whatsoever.

  • Teaching Student||

    That might leave Criminal Negligence, but with Florida State Law the way it is, I don't see him getting convicted of murder.

  • Slim||

    Just knowledge of crime rates and which groups are more likely to be committing crimes.

  • ||

    That's theoretical, not empirical. Martin didn't commit a crime. He didn't even threaten to commit a crime. All he did was walk down the street.

  • Sudden||

    Jesus fucking christ, we weren't there. We don't exactly know what it was that set Zimmerman into suspicion mode. Sure, the old saw is that Trayvon being black was the sole determinant in Zimmerman's suspicion. But for all we know, the kid might've been eyeing an open garage or taking his time looking around houses. I'm not saying he was for certain, and Zimmerman certainly does have the sound of a man overzealous in his perception of criminal activity. But it's foolish to assume that just because the kid was found without any stolen goods on him that he wasn't casing.

  • ||

    Can you suck Zimmerman's cock any harder? You're making shit up that's not even in the police report.

  • Sudden||

    Go fuck yourself. I'm simply trying to posit what exactly it was that arose his suspicions in the first place. The first fucking part of the comment is "we don't know, we weren't there." I'm not buying the Trayvon was a bandleader meme or the Zimmerman was a responsible and upstanding citizen meme either. I'm trying to figure out what the fuck was so damn suspicious about the kid that Z felt compelled to follow him. It may have been that Z is paranoid, and his history seems to indicate that. But at the same time, it's not necessarily so that Trayvon was some saintly fucking price.

    So, to rhyme with your handle: just fucking die.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Jesus fucking christ, we weren't there. We don't exactly know what it was that set Zimmerman into suspicion mode.

    Seeing as how Zimmerman had called the cops 40+ times in the previous year and nearly all of his "suspicious" persons were of African descent, I'd say that the shade of Trayvon Martin's epidermis is what set him into "suspicion mode."

  • Robert S.||

    Source?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    source?

    Shooter of Trayvon Martin a habitual caller to cops

    Eyewitness Claims Zimmerman Held Trayvon’s Face on the Ground, ‘Did Nothing to Help’ After Shooting

    My favorite part:

    In the latest of several eyewitness reports from the Trayvon Martin shooting, a woman named Mary Cutcher has come forward.

    In an interview airing on Dateline Sunday, Cutcher said that she and her roommate ran outside after hearing the shot. Then, they saw George Zimmerman holding Trayvon Martin’s face on the ground. ”He never tried to help,” she said.
  • yippy||

    Zimmerman had called the cops 40+ times in the previous year and nearly all of his "suspicious" persons were of African descent

    I believe there are contradictory media reports about that.

    I'd say that the shade of Trayvon Martin's epidermis is what set him into "suspicion mode."

    Nothing wrong with that if most of the crime in the area was being committed by blacks. "racial profiling" has been so thoroughly demonized that no one will admit to doing it, but everyone does anyway. Even Jesse Jackson admitted that he felt nervous whenever he walks on a dark street and he hears a group of young black men walking behind him. If you want to decrease real racial profiling, passing laws is not the answer. The answer is to decrease the criminal activity of blacks and the answer to that is to get rid of the welfare-state, but that is a whole 'nuther conversation.

  • yippy||

    persons were of African descent

    Aren't we all of African descent?

  • Zeb||

    No. White people are delivered by a giant stork.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Nothing wrong with that if most of the crime in the area was being committed by blacks. "racial profiling" has been so thoroughly demonized that no one will admit to doing it, but everyone does anyway. Even Jesse Jackson admitted that he felt nervous whenever he walks on a dark street and he hears a group of young black men walking behind him. If you want to decrease real racial profiling, passing laws is not the answer. The answer is to decrease the criminal activity of blacks and the answer to that is to get rid of the welfare-state, but that is a whole 'nuther conversation.

    Amazing how this has fuck-all to do with the topic at hand.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    But it's foolish to assume that just because the kid was found without any stolen goods on him that he wasn't casing.

    No, it's not. Given that he was staying with his father in the neighborhood, I would think the logical presumption would be one of innocence.

  • ||

    you're kidding, right...

  • nomad||

    Likewise, keeping an eye on someone you don't recognize isn't a crime, even if you leave your car to do it.

    Remember, we don't know (empirically) that Zimmerman did any more than that to trigger the situation.

  • ||

    Watching your neighborhood is not looking for trouble, nigger lover.

  • ||

    chasing them in your car, then getting out and chasing them more is though, sister fucker.

  • yippy||

    chasing them in your car

    No evidence for that.

    getting out and chasing them

    No evidence for that either.

    "Following" is not "chasing". "Watching" is not "threatening".

  • ||

    "No evidence for that."

    Lie, Zimmerman admits to it.

    "No evidence for that either."

    Lie, Zimmerman admits to it.

    ""Following" is not "chasing". "Watching" is not "threatening"."

    Which is why I used the words I used, liar.

  • yippy||

    So Zimmerman said, "I got out of my car to chase him."

    Huh, you must have access to news sources that I don't.

  • Realist||

    "The New York Times, by way of The Orlando Sentinel, has a few more details about George Zimmerman's account of his fight with Trayvon Martin:"
    How about telling the whole story. There is also at least eye witness who corroborates Zimmerman's story? How about a recent picture of Martin? All the race hustlers including Obama were probably wrong....as usual.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    How about a recent picture of Martin?

    What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Or is it only race hustling when it goes against your prejudices?

  • Realist||

    Come on asshole you know damn well what it has to do with it the media and race hustlers want to portray Martin a sweet little innocent boy. But in reality he looks more the thug.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    Well, yeah, if all young black men look like thugs to you. I google image searched him, and all I can find are pictures of him looking like a high school kid. Where did you see the thug picture?

  • ||

  • Zeb||

    He looks like a high school kid making a face in the other picture. So?

    And not only sailors, bikers and gang members have tattoos anymore. Have you missed the last 20 years or something?

  • Tacos mmm...||

    I'm tempted to. You'd have to be pretty sheltered to see anything other than an ordinary teenage boy on that page.

  • Repairman Jack||

    He probably talking about this stuff or another picture of someone with no shirt on flipping off the camera that is not supposed to be martin.

    http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan.....rug-dealer

  • Realist||

    I said more the thug. There is big fucking difference in the two pictures.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    Again, what picture are you talking about, the fake one?

  • ||

    Bob - that may be a civil issue, but it is not clear that Zimmerman committed any crime. One does have the right to be a self-indulgent wannabe cop - even if it's despicable.

  • ||

    Agreed. Zimmerman was being an obnoxious busybody, but that isn't grounds for a beating.

    Of course, I'm not sure a beating is grounds for a shooting, either. Supposedly, Zimmerman said the kid grabbed for his gun. Who knows? This case unfortunately will probably remain ambiguous forever, because no one remains who knows exactly how this thing went down except Zimmerman.

  • Joe M||

    Supposedly, Zimmerman said the kid grabbed for his gun.

    Wait, what? I haven't read that anywhere.

  • ||

    Apologies for the unsubstantiated comment - I don't remember where I read that, but I DID read that this morning. Can't attest as to its accuracy so take it with a mountain of salt.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Supposedly, Zimmerman said the kid grabbed for his gun.

    How did the kid know about the concealed gun? Was Zimmerman brandishing his weapon before the fight started?

  • Sudden||

    When he's on top of Zimmerman railing on him, depending on the position of the gun, it is entirely conceivable that he felt a cold metal object underneath him.

    Of course, at that point, it's not entirely inconceivable that Trayvon would consider reaching for the gun an imperative of self-defense, if only to disarm the man from having a potential equalizer in the combat.

  • Joe||

    I know that when I see someone brandish a gun after following me, I don't feel threatened at all and, in fact, want to beat the guy down. But if someone 80 lighter than me hits me, it's time to stop a beating heart.

  • ||

    As I remember reading this morning, the gun was in a holster on the waistband of Zimmerman's pants. I'm guessing the story is that during the beatdown, Martin discovered it.

  • Just and Engineer||

    Getting a beating probably isnt grounds for a shooting. But having your head slammed repeatedly into the cement is definately passed the point of just taking a beating. If someone is pushing or punching you they're either not trying to kill you or doing a really bad job of it. At the point where a person has another person on the ground and is slamming their head into a curb in my mind that goes beyond a simple fistfight and is intent to kill.

  • yippy||

    +1

    Fear of death or grave bodily harm. And if it really was Zimmerman screaming before the gunshot, it is likely that Zimmerman was fearing for his life.

    Isn't there some kind of high-tech voice recognition software that can determine if it was Zimmerman screaming for help?

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Isn't there some kind of high-tech voice recognition software that can determine if it was Zimmerman screaming for help?

    No. Real life isn't CSI: Miami.

  • Realist||

    Who the fuck are you to say no? You are a stupid fuck and have no idea.

  • yippy||

    No.

    Damn. I suppose you're going to tell me that there are no flying cars either?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    But what about the wet grass stains we've heard so much about? So which was it? Was Zimmerman being pummeled on the sidewalk or on grass?

  • Realist||

    Duh....shithead it could be both. You lefty assholes will do anything to defend any black, guilty or not.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Lefty == anyone who thinks blacks aren't automatically guilty apparently.

  • Realist||

    No, lefty is anyone who thinks blacks are never guilty.

  • Zeb||

    Jesus, why does everything have to be about race with you people. Some people might just reflexively defend any person who seems to have been killed unnecessarily.

  • Realist||

    Naaaaahhh! it's race and the lefties and the media love it.

  • ||

    I think the view many have that Zimmerman is automatically at fault for confronting Martin is wrong. If Martin used unreasonable force in response to Zimmerman doing whatever, he may very well have triggered a situation where Zimmerman could use deadly force in self-defense. The fact that Zimmerman may have been a doofus to initiate the whole situation doesn't settle anything, really.

    Again, we're jumping around without complete information. Zimmerman has a bit of an edge, with his story being at least partially corroborated by an eyewitness and, of course, having the legal advantage of any defendant in a criminal trial. But that could change as more evidence is uncovered.

    The girlfriend's account about who pushed who doesn't help, as the same explanation works for Martin pushing Zimmerman.

  • ||

    Still lean towards Zimmerman getting himself into a situation he shouldn't have, maybe to the point of the use of deadly force being unjustified, but an investigation and trial, if any, should (hopefully) sort all of that out. In any case, enough doubt has been cast to make the media and political frenzy a little ridiculous.

  • Brian||

    I think part of the media frenzy has been about Zimmerman not being arrested or charged. Based on what has come out, it clearly is not an open and shut case of self defense. The claim of self defense is something for a jury to decide, not the police.

  • ||

    That part I partially agree with, as the police had no business closing the investigation (though an immediate arrest wasn't necessarily called for, either) and announcing that fact. But that's over.

  • Mensan||

    That's an issue with the wording of the Florida law. The law presumes that use of deadly force was justified, and prohibits arrest or prosecution without probable cause to believe it was not justified. From what has been released, the police have no evidence to support the position that Zimmerman is lying, and therefore have no legal grounds for arrest.

  • Brian||

    That's fair enough, I guess I just disagree with the letter of the law. Seems clear that homicide occurred and the culprit has admitted to it. The question is really was it justified or not, a defense that should be judged by a jury.

  • ||

    Sorry, homicide is not necessarily a crime. And the individual who committed it is not a "culprit" unless it was a crime. And it doesn't go to a jury unless the DA decides he can prove it's a crime. And in this case it might be a crime but it doesn't look like the DA could prove it.

  • kinnath||

    I live in a small development in rural Iowa. The street is a public thoroughfare. I still have the right to stop, get out of my car, and ask a stranger why he's walking down my street at night.

    Of course, he has the right to tell me to fuck off as well.

    The only thing that determines who is morally responsible in an altercation is who touches whom first.

  • Sudden||

    The only thing that determines who is morally responsible in an altercation is who touches whom first.

    +infinity. This is the critical issue, and the still unknown fact in this case.

  • ||

    776.041 —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter [the self-defense defense]is NOT available to a person who:
    (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
    (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
    (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
    (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

  • ||

    The example given in my CCW class (a poor dramatization)showed a man verbally provoking another (insulting and challenging him)into drawing a knife. In the example, the knife wielder was NOT justified in drawing the knife, but the guy deliberately provoking him lost the claim of self defense anyway. Then they replayed the same scene, only on the second reenactment the provocateuer, upon seeing the knife, backed away, put his hands up in a gesture of surrender and said "I'm sorry - I don't want to fight anymore." In that second reenactment, when the knife wielder pursued him anyway, the man was able to claim self defense when he shot the knife wielder.

    Like the provocateur in my CCW class video, Zimmerman may (MAY) have lost the ability to claim self defense by stalking Martin. Even if Martin's response was unwarranted (ie, ALSO illegal) and even if Martin actually threw the first punch.

  • ||

    In order to qualify for a concealed weapon permit, Zimmerman would have to have known the law, and known that seeking out a conflict might abrogate his right to forcefully defend himself even if his life was legitimately in danger. Does getting knocked on your ass count as "exhausting every possible avenue of retreat?" You can't retreat any further with your back on the ground, but getting knocked down isn't the same thing as voluntarily withdrawing.

  • ||

    Even if Zimmerman is ultimately determined to have acted in self defense, I think he acted very irresponsibly while carrying a weapon. You have some obligation to deescalate potentially violent situations, not inflame them. Martin acted just as irresponsibly - he acted like a hot headed adolescent. But Martin was only 17. Zimmerman, at 28, should have acted with better judgment.

  • Zeb||

    I don't know how it works in FL, but no on made sure I knew the laws about self defense when I got a concealed carry permit. I have made sure that I do know what they are, but there was no requirement for the permit.

  • ||

    It all hinges on what force was used by Martin, oddly. Even if Zimmerman initiated the actual violence (let's say he shoved Martin hard), if Martin started choking Zimmerman, slamming his head against the sidewalk (which may have happened given the testimony), etc., it's possible that a jury could find that Martin's use of force was unreasonable. If so, the next question is whether Zimmerman could (or should) have attempted to retreat or even maybe just point the gun to stop the violence. In other words, was his use of deadly force reasonable under the circumstances? No one really knows.

    Really, all of the pronouncements and speculation about what happened or likely happened are silly, as the key issue is completely unclear.

  • Bill||

    Zimmerman has a bit of an edge:

    Because the other guy was black and Zimmerman is still alive and can say whatever he wants.

  • ||

    According to FL statute, IF Zimmerman deliberately provoked or instigated the confrontation he lost the right to self defense whether Martin's response was 'reasonable' force or not. If Martin responded with unwarranted force, then he might ALSO have been guilty of a crime, but it wouldn't automatically restore Zimmerman's ability to claim self defense. Only by withdrawing or retreating (stand your ground does not apply if you are the instigator of force) from Trayvon and making it clear that he no longer wanted a confrontation could ZImmerman regain the right to claim self defense. Maybe he did that, I don't know.

  • ||

    You have to be able to retreat to even attempt to retreat. Maybe he could have. One would think he could having a gun on him. But we don't know that, and it's plausible that he couldn't. Nothing open and shut here, and more evidence is needed.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, I think everyone should shut up about this. I'm fucking sick of it and will try real hard not to comment on it anymore. But it is fun to mindlessly speculate about things we no almost nothing about.

  • GILMORE||

    ALL ZIMMERMAN ALL THE TIME

    people might get the impression that there's some actual news in this news the way things are going

  • ||

    I vote for a detonation of a small nuclear warhead - in the Zimmerman neighborhood - just to be sure we got all of the racists!

  • New Black Panthers||

    Sound good plus we'll shoot any survivors. remember the japs crawling around in the rubble

  • Zeb||

    The survivors will envy the dead.

  • johnl||

    If Zimmerman is telling the truth, how did he get a shot off? If you are overwealmed and getting thrashed, how can you take time out from covering your head to grab a gun and aim?

    I am interested in the angle of entry. I bet that Trey was shot nearly straight on. Not from underneath while he was smashing Zimmerman, but a minute later after he had stopped and they had both stood up.

  • Teaching Student||

    That's very possible, but so is the the gun being fired during the fight. I haven't seen anything concrete about where Martin was shot. We can only go on the evidence, and right now the evidence doesn't say shit. We have no clue and probably won't.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    Actually, it's possible to determine range somewhat with forensic evidence, depending on whether there are contact marks or powder spatter around the entrance wound. The angle of entry can also be quite telling.

  • Loki||

    I thought in one of the too many accounts I've seen that Martin was shot in the chest. If the trajectory was at an upward angle, that may indicate that Martin was still on top when he fired. And yes, it is possible to draw a gun during a fight. If you're already getting pummeled, then there's nothing to lose by grabbing a gun, and at point blank range, is there really any aiming involved?

    Of course, the whole situation could have been prevented if Zimmerman hadn't been out playing neighborhood Rambo.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    If they were in close contact when the shot went off Zimmerman would almost certainly have had a lot of Trayvon's blood on him. Gunshot wounds have a way of bleeding like a motherfucker under most circumstances. I haven't seen anything about that in any stories so far.

    As for an arrest, I'm sure the prosecutor will call for one as soon as she thinks she's got a case to prosecute. As others have pointed out arrests are not automatic and absent credible charges arrestees can only be held so long.

    The people that are out for blood are starting to sound more and more like a lynch mob. Even though I think Zimmerman is responsible for the events leading up to the kid's death I wish the race-baiters would just shut the fuck up.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, this. This is at most very tangentially race related.

  • yippy||

    the whole situation could have been prevented if Zimmerman hadn't been out playing neighborhood Rambo

    It also wouldn't have happened if there was no criminal activity in the neighborhood, but there was and the citizens decided to form a neighborhood watch to reduce the problem.

    You seem to be arguing against the whole concept of neighborhood watch programs. I don't see anything wrong with neighborhood watches, especially with people like Zimmerman, who, according to some of the accounts, would go door-to-door and talk to other residents. Recognizing that there is an unfamiliar face walking around the neighborhood at night is a sign of vigilance, not "playing Rambo".

  • HeroicMulatto||

    You seem to be arguing against the whole concept of neighborhood watch programs. I don't see anything wrong with neighborhood watches, especially with people like Zimmerman, who, according to some of the accounts, would go door-to-door and talk to other residents. Recognizing that there is an unfamiliar face walking around the neighborhood at night is a sign of vigilance, not "playing Rambo".

    I like how you left out the part where Zimmerman took it upon himself to do more than just 'watch'.

    At least in the Old West, people waited until they got a nice, shiny badge before rounding up a posse.

  • ||

    Right, cause nobody ever preys on peoples fears about those "others" that don't live in your immediate vicinity. Everywhere I've lived has had neighborhood watch, nevermind the fact that the crime statistics were so low or non-existent to warrant such.

  • Randy||

    Recognizing that there is an unfamiliar face walking around the neighborhood at night is a sign of vigilance, not "playing Rambo".

    Shadowing Martin from his vehicle while Martin walked back from the store, calling the police to report Marten when no crime was witnessed, and then following Martin on foot, all the while armed seems a bit Ramboish.

    You seem to be arguing against the whole concept of neighborhood watch programs.

    You seem to have reading comprehension skills. He critized the actions of one over-zealous volunteer.

    Why is it so hard for you to accept the notion that Martin might have felt threatened by Zimmerman's actions and acted in self-defense? Zimmerman may not have broken any criminal laws, but his actions led to the eventual confrontation, that is clear. You can deny it all you want.

  • Zeb||

    Was there any unusual amount of criminal activity in the neighborhood? You sound like you know something.
    The existence of a single neighborhood watch volunteer does not imply a problem with crime.

  • ||

    I am curious at what neighborhood watch program Zimmerman was 'commander' or considering: "According to Chris Tutko, the director of the National Neighborhood Watch program Zimmerman was not part of a registered neighborhood watch program. ABC News reports that the neighborhood watch manual states: "It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers. And they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles.""

  • ||

    Another possible bit of evidence that could help.

  • Realist||

    "I bet that Trey...." how quaint...a friend of yours???
    His name is spelled Tr(A)yvon. So it would be Tray!

  • GILMORE||

    johnl|3.27.12 @ 11:39AM|#
    ...
    I am interested in the angle of entry.

    CSI-fetish much?

    This shit has crossed the line past Schiavo stupid. Between you guys and the black panthers, we've went Full Retard long ago.

  • yippy||

    Physical evidence - how does it work?

  • ||

    You don't see that as a relevant piece of evidence? Obviously, if the wound was a straight-on shot from a few feet away it's proof Zimmerman is a murderer. If it's a close-up angle shot, then it could corroborate Zimmerman's account.

  • GILMORE||

    NAL|3.27.12 @ 12:54PM|#
    You don't see that as a relevant piece of ...

    sigh.

    Its really no fun when people don't know they're being mocked.

  • ||

    I don't see him getting convicted of murder.

    I don't either, but I don't think he should be treated as if he is blameless.

  • ||

    The bottom line here seems to be that Zimmerman was an idiot (which is not illegal), followed the guy for no good reason (which is not illegal), confronted him and asked him why he was in the neighborhood (again, not illegal) and got punched for his trouble. And while being beaten (which he may have deserved for being a busybody and a jerk, is still illegal) he shot the guy (which is self-defense).

  • ||

    This is pretty much the point I've come to on this. I don't like snoopy guys like Zimmerman, and were it me he was following (as unlikely as it is that he'd be marking me, a tubby thirtysomething white guy in jeans and a Motorhead shirt, as "suspicious") I'd tell him to piss off.....but what I wouldn't do is to start beating the shit out of him. Since, y'know, at that point you cross over from the innocent guy who's being harassed to the guy committing an assault.

  • Sudden||

    First they came for the blacks and I said nothing, because I was a tubby thirty-something white guy in a motorhead t-shirt.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    followed the guy for no good reason (which is not illegal

    It may not be illegal in all circumstances, but there can certainly be an implicit threat in following someone.

  • Joe||

    It's only self defense if he reasonably believed he would be greatly harmed. I don't think that's reasonable, and hopefully the jury won't either. This isn't just black/white turn-based. There's grey.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    If he really has a broken nose and was really getting his head banged against the sidewalk, it seems pretty reasonable.

  • Joe||

    To end someone's life? Do you know how easily a nose breaks? I suppose we can look at the police report to see how nasty that boo-boo on the back of Zimmy's head was. Oh, wait...

  • yippy||

    followed the guy for no good reason

    An unfamiliar face walking around the neighborhood at night is a good reason to follow the guy, especially if he was skulking. Skulking is very suspicious.

    confronted him and asked him why he was in the neighborhood

    Nothing wrong with that.

    while being beaten (which he may have deserved for being a busybody and a jerk

    When I put myself in Martin's situation, if it is as you have described, I find that all I would have done is answer Zimmerman's questions and probably ask why Zimmerman was asking. Zimmerman would probably have responded by explaining he was part of a neighborhood watch. I absolutely can't relate to the belligerent response by Martin, again if what went down is as you have postulated.

    It's amazing how just acting in a civilized manner prevents any kind of trouble.

  • you're a racist we get it||

    "I absolutely can't relate to the belligerent response by Martin"

    But the over the top belligerent response from Zimmerman you get, because you're a racist.

    "It's amazing how just acting in a civilized manner prevents any kind of trouble."

    And you know Trayvon was uncivilized because...?

    Oh right, you don't, you're just a racist couching your racism in 3rd grade level arguments.

  • ||

    It's an open question whether or not Zimmerman, by being a jerk and a busybody - and behaving in a genuinely frightening manner - "started" the fight. If you start a fight (even by non physical means, like a verbal insult or challenge) then shoot your way out of it when you start to lose, you were NOT defending yourself.

  • ||

    776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
    ...
    (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
    (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
    (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

  • Ice Nine||

    both Martin and Zimmerman reasonably feared for their lives, may actually have happened. If so, Zimmerman would still be responsible for needlessly setting these events into motion.

    Why is that exactly? Because Z was following Trayvon in his car and/or on foot? We are constantly told that Trayvon had a perfect right to walk around on a public street (albeit in a gated community, as I understand it). Would someone please tell me why Z didn't have the same perfect right to walk/drive around (so fine, behind Trayvon) the same public street - in his own freakin' neighborhood. And don't tell me he shouldn't have done so because he was packing. He was packing legally and the fact that he happened to have a gun is incidental unless the facts ultimately show that he used it in any way other than for defense.

  • Realist||

    ^^^THIS^^^

  • ||

    "^^^THIS^^^"

    is stupid and not what happened?

    That's what you meant to say so you wouldn't be a lair?

  • Realist||

    How do you know???

  • ||

    "How do you know???"

    Information from the call you are intentionally leaving out.

  • Ice Nine||

    He seems to have access to facts that none of the rest of us are familiar with.

  • ||

    ...the fact that he happened to have a gun is incidental...

    Since this is all about someone having been shot and killed with that gun how can it be merely "incidental"?

  • Ice Nine||

    I can help you with your reading: "the fact that he happened to have a gun is incidental unless the facts ultimately show that he used it in any way other than for defense."

  • ||

    That wasn't any help. I'd say that since the reason anyone is talking about this incident is that a man was shot and killed, the gun itself is precluded from being incidental.

  • ||

    "He seems to have access to facts that none of the rest of us are familiar with."

    At least you finally admitted you weren't familiar with the phone calls.

    Big of you to admit you're wrong.

  • Realist||

    Why don't you come up with a name for yourself....shithead seem appropriate.

  • ||

    Why don't you get over the fact that you're getting shut the fuck up and hate it.

  • Realist||

    "....you're getting shut the fuck up..."???
    I am guessing English is not your first language.

  • Ice Nine||

    Show us the quotes and quit talking about them.

  • ||

    "Show us the quotes and quit talking about them."

    You're the one claiming there's no evidence in the face of the tapes.

  • Ice Nine||

    I said no such thing as anyone reading the thread above can handily affirm. But that's OK, it just became apparent with that comment that you're stupid and this conversation that I had thought was worthwhile is a waste. Bu-bye

  • Now you're lying||

    "I said no such thing "
    "He seems to have access to facts that none of the rest of us are familiar with."

    Sad that you realize you're caught and resort to lying.

  • Now you're lying||

    "you're stupid and this conversation that I had thought was worthwhile is a waste. Bu-bye"

    And that's how internet trolls who shoot off their idiot mouths then get shut the fuck up but can't take it quit arguments, and have for years.

    At least try to be original when you know you're wrong.

  • ||

    What specifically are you trying to refute?

    No one is questioning that Z interacted with T, so the question seems to be one of semantics.

    You think needlessly following a guy, then exiting your car while armed in your stated attempt to "stop him from getting away" isn't chasing him/harassment. Since NONE of what I posted there is in dispute, you seem to be unhappy with how I'm framing it.

    You are entitled to be, and I'm entitled to laugh at you for it.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    Would someone please tell me why Z didn't have the same perfect right to walk/drive around (so fine, behind Trayvon) the same public street - in his own freakin' neighborhood.

    It's not completely clearcut. Following someone can certainly be percieved as threatening, and legitimately so.

  • Realist||

    Not illegal!

  • ||

    Not illegal!

    It's not a cheeseburger either, but since he said "threatening", neither of our comments are worth a fuck in regards to his statement.

    Care to try again?

  • Realist||

    Nope....what I said was correct.

  • ||

    Who said it wasn't?

    However, since he said "threatening" it's IRRELEVANT, because you were too stupid to bother learning that "threatening" is not a synonym for "illegal".

    Care to try again?

  • Tacos mmm...||

    So you don't think it would create any problems for you to follow women around your neighborhood at night?

  • Realist||

    Trayvon was a woman???

  • yippy||

    No, but he wanted to be. If only there were a government gender reassignment program, Zimmerman and Martin might have both had a happy ending.

  • Randy||

    Nice dodge.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    Way to miss the point.

  • Realist||

    Hey dickwad, you're not claiming to have had a point are you??? Aaahhaaa!

  • Joe||

    So...following someone and confronting them isn't illegal, but the minute they touch you - BAM! - self-defense! Tolerate my words and threats, but zero tolerance for your actions.

  • Realist||

    Yep...that's it. if you don't like it fuck ya. Physical assault is against the law.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Battery is against the law, but so is unlawful arrest.

  • Realist||

    Arrest?? Shit you're stupid.

  • Joe||

    Not to the point of death, tough guy. There's a threshold for deadly force. And no, that isn't it.

  • Realist||

    It is in Florida.

  • Joe M||

    I don't think any reasonable (drink!) people are making that argument. The issue is whether Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin.

  • Ice Nine||

    I didn't even suggest that the people making that argument were reasonable. Your second sentence is correct if you insert "physically" before "restrain".

  • Joe M||

    I'd first have to insert "restrain". ;)

  • Ice Nine||

    Zing.

  • ||

    Would someone please tell me why Z didn't have the same perfect right to walk/drive around (so fine, behind Trayvon) the same public street - in his own freakin' neighborhood.

    He does.

    He doesn't have the right to follow someone needlessly, harassing them in the process.

    The call supports my version, not yours.

  • Ice Nine||

    He doesn't have the right to follow someone needlessly, harassing them in the process.

    He most certainly has the right to follow someone needlessly.

    Please inform us what evidence indicates he was harassing him.

  • Joe M||

    The interrogation was a bit harrass-y.

  • ||

    "He most certainly has the right to follow someone needlessly."

    Nope, wrong.

    As to harassing, he admits it.

    Are you REALLY this ignorant of the case?

  • Ice Nine||

    "Nope wrong"? Show me the money.

  • ||

    "Show me the money."

    You're the one claiming it's ok to follow him needlessly.

    And you're wrong

    "Section 784.048. STALKING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTIES. 1997.

    (1) As used in this section, the term:

    (a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose."

    The law says you're wrong asshole. Yes that includes following asshole.

  • yippy||

    serves no legitimate purpose

    Keeping an eye on an unfamiliar person in a crime-ridden neighborhood is a legitimate purpose or at least it is an arguable point.

  • ||

    Right, the gated community is "crime-ridden".

  • yippy||

    Crime is never committed in gated communities? Good to know.

    Some reports state that the HOA for the community decided to start a neighborhood watch. Why would the HOA have done that if there wasn't a crime problem?

  • Tacos mmm...||

    Why would the HOA have done that if there wasn't a crime problem?

    Paranoia? Fear of crime correlates pretty poorly with the reality.

  • Realist||

    Cite!

  • ||

    Not knowing exactly what gated community it was, I can't cite you specific stats. I'm sure crime happens in gated communities. But they are hardly "crime-ridden".

  • Ice Nine||

    And I don't know about "REALLY" but, yes, I don't know every little last detail of the case. Sue me.

  • ||

    "yes, I don't know every little last detail of the case"

    Then stop shooting off your dicksucker.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Would someone please tell me why Z didn't have the same perfect right to walk/drive around (so fine, behind Trayvon) the same public street

    I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU!
    I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU!
    I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU!
    I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU!
    I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU!
    I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU!
    I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU!

    Wow, crack legal defense there.

  • ||

    A hypothetical: You have a perfect right to speak your mind in public. But if you say insulting or intimidating things to someone else - that may cross the line into assault. Driving down a public street or thorougfare is legal, but following a pedestrian, at walking speed, in your vehicle is a legitimately frightening thing to do. Scared people do foolish and sometimes violent things. Martin was wrong to batter Zimmerman, but Zimmerman should have realized that his behavior - behavior most people would find frightening - was likely to touch off a confrontation.
    There is a responsibility that goes along with packing legally.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    This is pretty much my line of thought. Doing potentially dangerous things, like driving a car or carrying a gun, requires a certain level of maturity for your own safety and that of others. Mr. Zimmerman does not seem to have evinced that maturity. When one is careless driving, or getting into altercations with firearms for little to no good reason, and others are hurt or killed, one shouldn't be completely shielded from the consequences.

  • Realist||

    "This is pretty much my line of thought."
    You have so little regard for the meaning of 'thought'.

  • ||

    Given Zimmerman's actions and inherent suspicion of black men, it sounds like he'd fit right in with any police department in the state of Florida. If Zimmerman had a badge and did this, the local media would have praised him as a hero and Trayvon would just be another faceless statistic.

  • Realist||

    "...and Trayvon would just be another faceless statistic."
    Like all the blacks that were killed by blacks in Chicago....LAST WEEKEND???

  • Apple||

    "Trayvon would just be another faceless statistic."

    Also true if Zimmerman had been black, minus the hero part.

  • Realist||

    "While it's clear that Zimmerman created the circumstances that led to the fight,..."
    How is that clear? Martin was in a gated community that he didn't live in.

  • ||

    "Martin was in a gated community that he didn't live in."

    His family did, so for all intents and purposes, he did.

    Your attempt at a point is moronic.

  • Slim||

    Father's latest shack up /= family

  • O'RLY?||

    "Father's latest shack up /= family"

    LOL @ U

  • Realist||

    Well shit for brains Zimmerman didn't seem to know who he was. Why didn't Martin identify himself???

  • ||

    How do you know he didn't?

    Right, shut up now.

  • Realist||

    How do you know he did? Tayvon often stayed with a 20 year old relative....very responsible.

  • ||

    "How do you know he did?"

    YOU'RE THE ONE WHO ASKED WHY HE DIDN'T.

    Can you not even keep track of your own stupidity?

    "Tayvon often stayed with a 20 year old relative....very responsible."

    Smearing him with irrelevancies, awesome.

  • Realist||

    I'll decide what's irrelevant.

  • MNG||

    Why should he have to asshole?

    His dad lived there, he was staying with his dad. What the fuck is wrong with you that you think people have to show their papers to some asshole who accosts them on the street?

  • Realist||

    Why the name calling shithead???
    "His dad lived there, he was staying with his dad."
    Staying with...not living with...he is a minor. He sometimes "stayed" with a 20 year old relative. Sounds like a real responsible family.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Staying with...not living with...he is a minor. He sometimes "stayed" with a 20 year old relative. Sounds like a real responsible family

    And that has fuck-all to do with anything.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    His parents were divorced. Sometimes he stayed with mother, sometimes with his father. Lots of white kids do that too, asshole.

  • Realist||

    Sometimes he stayed with a 20 year old relative.
    "Lots of white kids do that too, asshole."
    How does what white kids do reflect on this?

  • yippy||

    you think people have to show their papers

    Zimmerman asked for 'papers'? Good to know.

    Being asked to explain your presence doesn't require answering, it also doesn't justify physical assault.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I'm not required to explain my presence to actual police, much less Sargeant Mall Ninja.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Who is George Zimmerman that anyone needs to identify themselves to him?

  • yippy||

    No one has to and no one is arguing that Martin had to. Nice straw you got there, Mr. Scarecrow.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    I can't watch the MSM after eating, as their take on this will bring the food back up. Sure, people are afraid of young black men. Because young black men want us to be afraid of them! I watched guys who looked like Trayvon carrying my neighbor's possesions out of their home, watched them check the iron gate on another neighbor's basement window to see if it could be removed for another burglery of his home. (he's had 3 so far). The thugs have declared war on Decent Society, (white, black, whatever)and shouldn't be surprised when their victims strike back.

  • ||

    I watched guys who looked like Trayvon...

    You see, right there, that's where you should have figured out that you are being prejudiced. Most people would have spotted it in the preceding statements, but this is the germ of it right here. It's textbook.

    By the way, "Concerned Citizen," what did you do besides watch your neighbors' homes get burglarized? Did you turn your porch light on, call police, call neighbors?

  • Concerned Citizen||

    I'll clarify - young black men in hooded sweatshirts. I was in my car, going home for lunch, and the thieves car was parked in my driveway. I stopped across the street to assess the situation when I saw them emerge from between my house and my neighbor's. I didn't recognize what they were carrying, so I hit my garage door opener button to see how they would react. They got into their car and left. I didn't get the license plate #. I checked my home, saw that nothing had happened, then checked my neighbor's, and his rear sliding glass door had been smashed. I then called the cops. Oh, and I've been mugged by guys who looked like Trayvon, so fuck you.

  • Joe||

    How do you get that mustache to curl like you do?

  • Concerned Citizen||

    My 'stache is straight. And gray. Your point?

  • ||

    And I've been ripped off by doughy white guys in Dockers. What's your point?

  • ||

    Fucking Bill Murray. Did he ever give your bike back?

  • GILMORE||

    Oh, and I've been mugged by guys who looked like Trayvon, so fuck you

    Hey man, not nice~ :(

    I never got a look at the people mugging me. I just shoot and move on.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    I was too young to be packing heat. But you already guessed that I was white.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The thugs have declared war on Decent Society, (white, black, whatever)and shouldn't be surprised when their victims strike back.

    Who was Trayvon Martin victimizing with a can of Arizona Ice Tea and a bag of Skittles?

  • yippy||

    victimizing with a can of Arizona Ice Tea and a bag of Skittles

    The irrelevant mention of Ice Tea and Skittles, which seems to be a staple of the race-hustling rabble-rousers, pegs you as just a black guy who simply won't examine the evidence of the case dispassionately.

  • ||

    God damn you are an asshole and a retard.

  • yippy||

    Ok, now you have really hurt my feelings.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The irrelevant mention of Ice Tea and Skittles

    No. Relevant to the point that he had broken no laws prior to Zimmerman's "attention" to him.

    which seems to be a staple of the race-hustling rabble-rousers

    *Snore*. Oh, I'm sorry, have you said something pertinent yet?

    pegs you as just a black guy who simply won't examine the evidence of the case dispassionately.

    Wow, amazing skill you have there, being able to divine a person's race by their text. And ad hominem too! Way to keep things "dispassionate." Do yourself a favor and toddle on back to Vanguard or Stormfront or whatever cesspool it is you slithered out of.

  • Buster||

    Who was Trayvon Martin victimizing with a can of Arizona Ice Tea and a bag of Skittles?

    His pancreas?

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Some victims may/will overreact. Thug Life has it's drawbacks.

  • johnl||

    If the angle of entry supported Zimmerman and the PD's positoion, we would know about it already. Whenever there is evidence that we don't know, it's not because the PTB sit on evidence that supports their theory.

  • yippy||

    we would know about it already

    Sure, because the police always release all the evidence in a potential criminal case as soon as they receive it. They don't worry about verification and consistency of evidence or about media distortions or about other people making political hay from half-explanations.

  • ||

    First, they had already determined it wasn't a criminal case. Second, they do release a shit ton of evidence even for criminal cases. Or don't you watch the news?

  • ||

    Anyway, this confrontation between a private vigilante and a private citizen is an anarchist's dream scenario. Who are we to claim that Zimmerman was at fault? Isn't the law subjective? Only statists believe in objectively defined rules of law and order.

    Too bad there isn't a private police force and a private judge and jury to determine "the truth" of the matter. Then we'd all have more time to argue over pizza and microbrews.

  • ||

    "Martin was understandably worried about the guy in the SUV who was tailing him and decided to confront him."

    I'm sorry, but this makes no sense! If Martin was going to confront a guy who was following him, then he would have done it when the guy was actually actively following him. However, Zimmermans account says that he lost Martin and then Martin, having successfully ditched his tail, for some reason decided to completely change tactics and turn around and search out Zimmerman and attack him with a minimal exchange of words.

    Zimmermans story doesn't add up.

  • ||

    If Martin was going to confront a guy who was following him, then he would have done it when the guy was actually actively following him. However, Zimmermans account says that he lost Martin and then Martin, having successfully ditched his tail, for some reason decided to completely change tactics and turn around and search out Zimmerman and attack him with a minimal exchange of words.

    Zimmermans story doesn't add up.

    We don't know that. That may not be Martin's character at all. We do know he's been suspended from school three times, had been caught in the past with possession of a "burglary tool" and a bag full of women's jewelry, may have attacked a bus driver and had a twitter handle of "NO LIMIT NIGGA".

    Isn't it possible, he was so incensed at being followed by whitey, that he decided to hide and take advantage of the element of surprise?

  • yippy||

    he decided to hide and take advantage of the element of surprise

    Even Zimmerman isn't claiming that.

  • ||

    I think he is. He said he lost him and was headed back to his SUV.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    had been caught in the past with possession of a "burglary tool"

    I carry a leatherman all the time. Guess that makes me a burgler, too.

  • ||

    A leatherman, if only!

    In this case the "burglary tool" was a flathead screwdriver.

  • Bradley||

    had a twitter handle of "NO LIMIT NIGGA"

    Clearly, a capital offense.

  • ¢||

    the scenario outlined by Julian Sanchez

    Uh-huh.

    "I'm kinda stuck with this Mexican-looking name, and though occasionally it comes in handy (LOL!), it also means that sometimes I need to remind all you White People that I'm 100% with you and one of you. So let me show you this After School Special I fantasized up, where a Mexican-looking dude with a white name (GET IT!?) embodies all my—which is to say our—black-dude-related anxiety and cowardice, but since he lacks our sophistication and rationality and verbal facility and ease with social interactions—because only his name is White, see?—he..."

    It's my favorite kind of irony.

  • T||

    Somebody round up Fluffy. He's good for another 50 posts on this.

    Then maybe we can all realize there's been no new information since day one and that this horse is fucking paste. We've beat this sumbitch flat.

  • Mensan||

    I just want to know why almost every report about this incident shows 4-year old photos of Martin, and reports that he weighed 140 lbs. More recent photos show the 6'0" 160 lbs (according to the police report) Martin sporting gold teeth and tattoos, and dressed like a thug, yet the media insists on showing photos a clean cut 13-year old.

    His Twitter account shows that he portrayed himself as a thug, and his friends praised him for punching a bus driver. Now it's coming out that he was in Sanford, rather than at home in Miami, because he had been suspended from school. After getting caught vandalizing lockers, school security searched his backpack and found a bag containing a marijuana pipe and marijuana residue, women's jewelery, and "burglary tools." Additionally, some posts on his Twitter account hint that he was dealing marijuana.

  • Mensan||

    Is any of this relevant to what happened that night? I don't know, but it certainly paints a different picture than the one currently being presented in most of the media. Haven't they learned anything from Tawana Brawley and the Duke lacrosse case?

  • GILMORE||

    Haven't they learned anything from Tawana Brawley and the Duke lacrosse case?

    Uhm, yes.

    That you are all suckers for overblown stories like this?

    Case. In. Point?

  • ||

    See, some people on blogs like to talk about actual subject matter. If you don't, please stfu!

  • Here's your relevance||

    It's not relevant to what happened that night specifically, but it is relevant to how one should think of the media coverage on the subject. They've portrayed one side as a sympathetic victim, and the other side as a racist killer. They've portrayed Florida as a backwards place with lynch-enabling "Stand Your Ground" laws. The disconnect between "140 lb. innocent child Trayvon" and "160 lb. thug-lyfe @NoLimitNigga suspended bus driver attacking Trayvon" may reflect a disconnect between media coverage of the events that night and reality.

  • Mensan||

    Agreed. That was my point. I meant that Martin being a thug may not be relevant to the actual shooting if Zimmerman threw the first punch. It is very relevant, however, if Martin threw the first punch, as is claimed by Zimmerman and is not refuted by any evidence or witness testimony so far.

  • GILMORE||

    Ahhh!...

    So = Colonel Mustard, in the *library*!!.... with the... lead pipe??

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Martin used the word "nigga" in his twitter account, therefore, he was a racist and got what he had coming.

  • Realist||

    "Haven't they learned anything from Tawana Brawley and the Duke lacrosse case?"
    you're kidding right??? The media and liberals have an agenda....and nothing will stop taht.

  • Realist||

    ....or that....

  • Bobarian||

    The media's lesson from those events...

    Ride that fucking horse until it'd dead!

  • Concerned Citizen||

    And since he was under suspension, why did his father allow him to leave the house to buy candy??? Great parenting, there. I've never been suspended from school because I knew that if I had been, my parents would have inflicted serious discipline.

  • Realist||

    Trayvon sometimes stayed with a 20 year old relative....great parenting indeed.

  • Joe||

    These are all good points, guys. Upon review of all the facts, which include empty bags of pot and a screwdriver only a thief would use, Zimmerman made the correct choice to end this hooded deadbeat's life. Hopefully the jury will take into account this irrelevant evidence when deciding the fate of your boy, G-to-the-Z.

  • Realist||

    Joe...you blow!

  • ||

    you can ridicule the burglars tool thang all you want WITHOUT case facts, but i suggest it's a bit more than just a screwdriver. it's based upon the facts and circs you found the tool(s) under

    for example, you find a teenage boy with numerous pieces of women's jewelry, especially of various different wrist sizes for bracelets etc (evidencing multiple owners etc.) AND tools , in proximity, it doesn't take a rocket science to make the burglarious tools inference

  • yippy||

    why did his father allow him to leave the house to buy candy

    Trayvon may have stepped out to get some candy and have a semi-private conversation with his gf. Meh.

    I don't think anyone is arguing that Trayvon came from a perfect suburbanite family.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    "I wondered then as I wonder now if he wouldn't have turned out a very different boy indeed if you had adminstered a few fatal beatings growing up."

  • GILMORE||

    I think people are ignoring the fact that the Trayvonn shooting was an inside job.

    You all just *want* to think the shooting was perpetrated by a quasi-hispanic, jewish-named, white guy = in fact, if you examine the sound of the shot from the cell phone recording, it's clear that there are a series of timed explosives indicative of a demolition. The question we should be asking is, "Qui Bono?" = or, WHERE WAS BONO DURING THE SHOOTING?!? This is clearly a conspiracy by Irish rock-star philanthropists

  • T||

    He was on the grassy knoll.

    Please note in Florida, due to Republican budget cuts, knoll refers to any piece of ground with an elevation higher than the surrounding area. 6 inches will do.

  • Barney The Frank||

    "....6 inches will do."
    In your dreams.

  • Sudden||

    Did the shooting happen on a Sunday, Bloody Sunday? Or was it a Beautiful Day? Did the events unfold in Mysterious Ways?

  • yippy||

    Trayvon was promising his gf diamonds and a ring of gold, but all she wanted was him.

  • Bobarian||

    Back, and to the left...

    Back, and to the left.

  • ||

    Anyone else tired of this already?

  • CNN||

    HELL NO!

  • Chaka Khan ||

    This is my big chance at a come back!

  • ||

    The problem that I keep coming back to arises from what, as far as I can tell, are the 100% undisputed facts:

    (a) Martin was with his father watching a sports match on TV and, at halftime, he said he was going to go a nearby convenience store to buy snacks.

    (b) Martin, in fact, went to a nearby convenience store and bought snacks.

    (c) Martin was within a block or so of the house where he and his father had been watching TV when he encountered Zimmerman.

    (d) Martin was unarmed.

    (e) Martin was sober.

    Riddle me this: What is the likelihood of a sober, unarmed man, who was running an errand and very close to his final destination spontaneously and with no provocation starting a fight with a complete stranger? (Note that the bolded part is Zimmerman's own account of how the fight happened.)

    Zimmerman's account makes no sense in light of the available facts.

  • Sudden||

    Martin was within a block or so of the house where he and his father had been watching TV when he encountered Zimmerman.

    Why then did he proceed to walk past his father's house in an effort to shake his tail instead of going into his "castle" for protection, both physical and legal?

  • Sudden||

    Nm, I retract that statement. At first I read that as he was a block away from the house when passing by Zimmerman initially, didn't realize that the block away was where the confrontation in question took place. My apologies.

  • yippy||

    Yeah, the fact that Zimmerman had to get out of his SUV to follow Martin does suggest that Martin was taking evasive action, maybe justified if Martin really felt fear from being tailed by someone in a car.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    Why then did he proceed to walk past his father's house in an effort to shake his tail instead of going into his "castle" for protection, both physical and legal?

    Where is that from?

  • NL_||

    I suppose it's plausible that Zimmerman thinks that following Martin and interrogating him were reasonable, and therefore not provocative. Given his belief that he needed to look out for criminals, he may be unaware of how threatening he appeared to others in the process.

    Which at best only means that his stupid justification is honestly presented, not that it's effective.

  • ||

    Right - he should have known better, he should have been aware. Any reasonable person would have such knowledge and awareness.

  • Realist||

    Riddle me this: Why didn't his father call police until the next day???

  • GILMORE||

    ...The jews? I give up. What's the answer?

  • Joe M||

    Why would he call the police the night of the incident, when they were already there?

  • Realist||

    I thought you knew so much??? His father did not find out about the death until the next day...when he called police..

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    So the guy's not going to win "Father of the Year" award any time soon.

    Not really relevant, is it?

  • Joe M||

    I never claimed to know every single detail. I'm pretty shocked that the dad didn't look into things the night of the shooting, considering: 1) his son was just supposed to be making a run to the convenience store for a couple things and 2) a gun was fired just a block from his house and police and EMS came to deal with it. If my son didn't return in such circumstances, I'd be out in the street trying to figure out what happened.

    But that has nothing to do with the central events of the shooting.

  • GILMORE||

    Realist|3.27.12 @ 1:14PM|#
    Riddle me this: Why didn't his father call police until the next day???


    THE FATHER DID IT! OMG!!!

  • Realist||

    It wouldn't be the first black on black crime....in fact it happens all the time. You better start worring about the number of blacks killed by blacks and not concern yourself with white on black crimes....or as in this case hispanic on black, possibly self defense.

  • ||

    clearly, you haven't worked in law enforcement because if you had, you'd recognize that i's ENTIRELY likely that such a person would snap, especially cosndiering he had some guy following him and yelling at him.

  • Buster||

    What kind of Neighborhood Watch "Captain" doesn't know who lives in the Neighborhood??

  • Mensan||

    Martin didn't live in the neighborhood. His father's girlfriend lived in the neighborhood, and he was visiting.

  • NL_||

    It's hard to conceptualize this story without thinking that Zimmerman's suspicions were unreasonable. Which would mean he was effectively stalking somebody and basically provoked a fight.

    But I suppose knowing ex post that Martin was unarmed and chatting on a cell phone to his girlfriend right after he bought snacks makes it harder for me to see Martin as a criminal. But even trying to look only from Zimmerman's point of view ex ante, it's hard not to think that he WANTED to see suspicious activity where none existed.

  • nomad||

    It's hard to conceptualize this story without thinking that Zimmerman's suspicions were unreasonable

    Residents keeping track of unfamiliar people in the neighborhood is probably the most effective way to lower crime in a neighborhood - more effective that alarms, gates, etc. And, of course, resident vigilance is more effective if the bad guys know the residents are vigilant. So, upon seeing a stranger after dark, watching him, following him (for a short distance), even asking him who he is and what he is doing is not criminal or even unreasonable. If Zimmerman used force or threats of force against the stranger, however, that would be illegal and unreasonable. But of course there is no evidence that Zimmerman did initiate the conflict with force or threats of force.

    Therefore, it is not necessarily the case that Zimmerman was being unreasonable.

  • ||

    i agree. A lot of the "suspicousness" that gets called in by citizen watch etc. turns out to be nothing

    and a substantial %age turns out to be bona fide. A LOT of the burglars, car thieves etc. we catch are because "nosy" neighbors tip us off
    very rarely, they go over the line and try to make detentions on their own (which is ONLY legally justified IF they witness a crime, not mere suspicious behavior), and i posted about such an incident i responded to

    MOST of the time, they act correctly

    following somebody and even verbally challenging him within certain bounds is entirely entirely reasonable.

    the following part, ESPECIALLY so because then the person can give updates as to location as we are responding

    i'm curious if martin had a cell phone? if so, and he thought zimmerman was harassing him, he should have called police

    we get paid to sort out such incidents

  • Stormy Dragon||

    i'm curious if martin had a cell phone? if so, and he thought zimmerman was harassing him, he should have called police

    Maybe like a growing number of Americans Martin was of the opinion that adding police to already tense situations rarely improves them.

  • ||

    well, then he was sorely informed. not surprising.

  • you're a racist we get it||

    "I absolutely can't relate to the belligerent response by Martin"

    But the over the top belligerent response from Zimmerman you get, because you're a racist.

    "It's amazing how just acting in a civilized manner prevents any kind of trouble."

    And you know Trayvon was uncivilized because...?

    Oh right, you don't, you're just a racist couching your racism in 3rd grade level arguments.

  • yippy||

    the over the top belligerent response from Zimmerman

    What "over the top belligerent response"? If, as Zimmerman claims, Martin was on top of him, slamming his head against the sidewalk, then the shooting wasn't a "belligerent response".

    And you know Trayvon was uncivilized because...?

    According to both Zimmerman and Martin's gf, Martin responded to Zimmerman's questions in a belligerent way instead of just having a civilized conversation.

    you're just a racist

    RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! Speaking of 3rd grade level.

  • .||

    Where can I get a T-shirt that says We Should Have Picked Our Own Cotton?

  • GILMORE||

    .|3.27.12 @ 1:46PM|#
    Where can I get a T-shirt that says We Should Have Picked Our Own Cotton?

    Racists-R-Us

    or WalMart

  • Realist||

    We Should Have Picked Our Own Cotton.
    Excellent point.

  • GILMORE||

    Martin's girlfriend (as quoted by The Guardian) "thinks she heard Zimmerman push Martin"

    Yeah? And I heard the stoplight turn green just now, while I smelled a dog barking.

    really people, are you aware how off on a 'princess diana killed by paparazzi'-media-freakout you are at this point? Its fucking embarrassing. Accept 2 things = a) you know nothing, and b) it doesn't really matter anyway.

    I think you're all caught up in this to avoid realizing that you're stuck with either another 4 years of obama, or Romney. Suck-Suck.

  • Joe||

    So, I'm expecting that the next time a cop shoots someone, you'll say a) we know nothing, and b) it doesn't really matter anyway. I mean, cops should be treated by the same standard, right?

  • GILMORE||

    Oh, do shut the fuck up. Now you're defending this fucking feeding frenzy media fetishism as though you're just taking a stand for Individual Liberty. Excuses excuses. You guys are like a gang of fat housewives watching Judge Judy

  • ||

    cops should be treated to the same standard...it's called the law. i learned looooong ago at reason.com that standard doesn't apply

    when the facts aren't clear, i am agnostic on police UOF's. the kneejerkers here always parse the evidence (or ignore it) in the light that makes the police officers look worse

    this case is actually kind of enlightening in that it shows given the right metanarrative many reasonoids will be equally illogical

    BUT since zimmerman was not a cop he is certainly getting a fairer shake here than he would if he was a cop. that's astoundingly obvious

    if zimmerman wasn't a cop, the ONLY narrative we would be hearing would be "racist cop shoots unarmed black kid walking down the sidewalk for no reason whatsoever..."

    and we'd get a lot of derp derps about admin leave w./o pay, that if he wasn't a cop he would have been booked into jail and other horseshit

  • GILMORE||

    this case is actually kind of enlightening in that it shows given the right metanarrative many reasonoids will be equally illogical

    This is possibly the only conclusive take-away from this news story so far

  • GILMORE||

    Joe|3.27.12 @ 2:03PM|#
    So, I'm expecting that the next time a cop shoots someone, you'll say a) we know nothing, and b) it doesn't really matter anyway. I mean, cops should be treated by the same standard, right?

    when there's so little evidence providing any certainty either way about what actually took place, then YES, dumbass.

  • ||

    right, but my point is a few facts are not in dispute

    one - before the confrontation, martin was apparently doing nothing wrong, just walking down the street

    the shooter was white (hispanic). the person shot was black

    martin was unarmed

    based on JUST those facts, if zimmerman was a cop, we would be getting all sorts of hysterical nonsense here about double standards, racist cops, excessive force, etc.

    when it's a cop, restraint, careful examination of fact patterns or GOD FORBID waiting until more facts come in is NEVER par for the course for reason cophaters.

  • ||

    we have a fair %age of people here (myself included) who said, and especially earlier when there were fewer case facts in zimmerman's favor as there are now, hey MAYBE there is more to this story and zimmerman MAy be justified.

    i find that pretty funny considering the hysterical derp derp kneejerking we have when cops are involved in such situations

    i remain consistent. i was agnostic on this case from the beginning.

    NOW, imo i am leaning towards the zimmerman side, at least to the extent that i think it's more likely than not he was justified, although hardly anywhere close to a conclusion, and also i like the way the cops acted by not booking him ,etc

  • ||

    Obviously this whole scenario proves why we need to one up the limey's and install tracking chips into everyone and have surveillance cameras on every house, streetlight, and stop sign.

  • Apple||

    Should we be referring to most non-Dominican latinos as "white hispanics" now?

  • GILMORE||

    No, Mary Stack

  • Apple||

    We should call them Mary Stack?

  • ||

    most hispanics in the US are white fwiw

    hispanics can of course be any race.

    in common usage, and even in police broadcasts (like suspect descriptions), when 'hispanic male' is described people think of a male that has brown skin, iow a background of the native peoples of mexico combined with the european invaders that results in the 'classic look' we associate with hispanic male.

    but of course a hispanic male CAN be blonde haired blue eyed scandinavian looking guy, or somebody who looks like george takei.

    and of course in cuba especially, a lot of hispanics there are of west african origin, commonly referred to as black

  • ||

    1) hispanic is a cultural, not a racial designation. as i point out often.a hispanic can be white, black, or asian. the feds, though, in their hate crime stats, treat hispanics as a VICTIM class, but if they are an offender, they are classed in with their race, which most of the time is white

    2) more and more we hear the facts, the more it supports zimmerman. as i said, i am agnostic and have been, JUST LIKE COP UOF's that everybody kneejerks, but imo at this point, the evidence is tipping in zimmerman's favor that he at least mayhave been acting in self defense, that he committed no crime, and that the police acted correctly in SINCE HE GAVE A STATEMENT after handcuffing etc. and that statement was supported by common sense, physical evidence, and witness statements, that the cops were correct in NOT BOOKING HIM

    3) the race hucksters, just like the anti-cop bigoratis, will evade

  • ||

    most of the kneejerkers will concentrate that zimmerman was "lookign for trouble" or that he "shouldn't have followed martin". the former is hardly in evidence and is mere supposition.

    the latter is an opinion that i happen to disagree with, but either way is COMPLETELY irrelevant to UOF if the incident happened as zimmerman AND THE WITNESSES allege, and which at this point, the physical evidence also supports

  • shamalam||

    Yeah, I agree.

  • ||

    much like the feministing line has been "well, they hired a stripper and they were underage drinking alcohol, so clearly they were criminals and..."

    etc.

  • Baby Face||

    As people lose faith in the system, they resolve the matters by themselves...this is where we run the risk of race wars. Not that I'm a big fan of Martin's father going on the 'Al Sharpten' show, but at least it is a better alternative than the father going and hunting down Zimmerman and his family.

  • ||

    and we have no evidence the system has failed anybody, least of all trayvon martin

    IF he attacked zimmerman such that self defense was legally justified, then in fact the system is doing the right thing

    IF zimmerman unlawfully killed him, then hopefully the system will indict zimmerman and he will be tried

    either way, there is no evidence the system isn't working. in fact, the bulk of evidence i see shows it working quite well in this case

    the media otoh

  • ||

    also,. recently i have read NUMEROUS reports from martin supporters in the media listing pretty much EVERYTHING in zimmerman's background

    many background things are irrelevant. many others are relevant

    if i find a guy lurking around a parking lot at 2 am, he has no keys in his possession (iow, it's clear HIS car is not in the lot) and he has a screwdriver in his pocket, that's suspicious

    if i run his name and he has three arrests for breaking into cars, THAT is MUCH MORE suspicious

    see how that works?

  • BoscoH||

    Assume that Zimmerman's actions from the moment he encountered Martin were totally in the right. Then it makes even more sense for the race baitors to continue to demand that he be arrested. Why? Follow me now. Because when reasonable people try to present the facts that have emerged, they are being even more insensitive to the feelings that dominate the discussion. Thus, even more racist.

    It's a lot like your wife catching you getting a blow job from the 25 year old hot blonde neighbor that lives across the street. There is no explaining it away. There is no reasoning. Except in the case of Zimmerman, he might not have actually been on the receiving end of that blow job. See how this works now? There is no defense against outrage except to pull your own outrage joker from another deck. So this has to evolve into an anti-Hispanic thing. There is no other course.

  • shamalam||

    Here is part of the Florida law:

    "776.041 Use of force by aggressor.

    The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

    (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

    (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

    (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or"

  • shamalam||

    It seems to me that Zimmer is shielded from prosecution even if he was the agressor. See section 2a, above.

    If Zimmer is getting a beat down and he reasonably believes he is in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death.

    The only question is whether it is reasonable to believe the beating he is taking meets the criteria.

  • ||

    as i have stated. this is consistent with the law in pretty much every state: deadly force is authorized when a person reasonably believes(iow a reasonable person in that situation based on facts and circumstances would believe this) that the threat he is presented with is placing him in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (my state uses serious. fla apparently uses "great bodily" harm, but i suggest they are the same.

    btw, note for example that per case law in most states, rape is considered "serious bodily harm" as well

  • shamalam||

    I agree with your comment, but just to be sure: EVEN IF Zimmer was the aggressor, he would be shielded under the "great bodily harm or death" caveat?

  • ||

    i haven't read the whole law, just that particular section, but yea....
    it doesn't erase the fact that , for example a homeowner can shoot a burglar.

    however, once the homeowner does so and the guy is no longer a threat, then he can't keep on

    for example, the guy is shot and he is crawling away, he's even outside the house and just slinking away on the grass inch and by inch and the homeowner keeps plugging rounds at the guy. if the burglar at that point, grabbed his gun and returned fire, that would probably be self defense.

    forcible felony also covers a lot of stuff. like if the guy is stealing a car, the car owner is shooting at him (not justified btw) as the car thief is trying to run away.

    i really wouldn't make too big a deal about it.
    .

  • ||

    So the way the law is written, if I brake into your house and you catch me and proceed to kick my ass so bad I fear for my life, I'm allowed to shoot you?

    If I am understanding that right, that is insanely fucked up.

  • shamalam||

    I think in the case you describe, you would fall under item 1, and there would be no shield from prosecution.

    The way I read it, though, if you start an argument with me and pursue me and I start wailing on you (and you legitimately fear for your life) then you are shielded from prosecution if you shoot and kill me, even though I started the whole thing. Sort of like the Zimmer/Martin frackus.

  • omniblot||

    The individual at the center of the controversial Trayvon Martin shooting is a registered Democrat.
    http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/n.....democrat/#

  • Bradley||

    Oh good, I'm glad someone finally found a political angle to this case.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Trayvon Martin, the kid with no prior history of violence, or George Zimmerman, the guy who attacks cops and stalks his ex-girlfriends?

  • shamalam||

    I saw this earlier.

    The girlfriend thing is a "he said, she said" thing so I totally discount it. The cop thing did not result in a conviction. Pretty thin gruel.

  • shrike||

    Are you thinking what we're thinking?

  • ||

    Martin's girlfriend (as quoted by The Guardian) "thinks she heard Zimmerman push Martin 'because his voice changes, like something interrupted his speech.'"
    Because him exerting himself (like pushing Zimmerman) would totally not change his voice...

    It's all freaking hearsay. There are only two witnesses (alive). Zimmerman says he was walking away and got jumped, but yeah, he has a vested interest in saying that.
    The witness who saw part of the fight says Taryvon was on top of Zimmerman beating him, which doesn't tell us how it started but definitely tells us that Zimmerman was on the losing end.

    Given the evidence we have, there is really no way to prosecute this. There is just no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman isn't telling the truth.

  • shamalam||

    Actually, there are two witnesses. The "other" witness is a 13 year old boy who said he saw Zimmer on his back; he did not see the actual shooting though. Both witnesses corroborate the account that Zimmer gave, and the physical evidence.

  • ||

    the witness i saw interview on camera sounded a lot older than 13. he sounded like an adult. he apparently didn't know zimmerman or martin (iow he had no reason to be biased for either), he didn't want his face on camera (iow he is not seeking publicity) and he described who was on top of who and who was beating on who by clothing description pretty clearly identifying martin as wailing on zimmerman from the top

    iirc, he also said it was zimmerman who was screaming for help. most of the early media accounts reported martin was a helpless victim screaming for help

  • shamalam||

    "In addition, an eyewitness, 13-year-old Austin Brown, told police he saw a man fitting Zimmerman's description lying on the grass moaning and crying for help just seconds before he heard the gunshot that killed Martin. "

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayv.....d=16000239

  • ||

    right. i think these are two DIFFERENT witnesses.

  • SIV||

    Jesus Fucking Christ

    There is no way a grand jury is going to true bill this.

  • ||

    he has already given a statement to police (as i often say, contra the reason meme about never talk to police, it can only fuck you), thus he would have every reason testify

    as somebody who has personally testified before GJ scores of times...

    if he is reasonably compelling, he gives his account,a true bill is remote.

    we don't know anywhere near the full facts, and i am still agnostic, but i am leaning towards self defense.

    also, Gj's do (like most people) have confidence in the police. the fact that cops did not book zimmerman after zimmerman told his side of the story will also benefit him. they are going to be "well, the cops didn't even think they had PC after all..."

    the prosecutor will have to overcome that burden by presenting new evidence that wasn't known to the cops when they decided not to book and it better be pretty compelling

  • ||

    the main thing with this case is the smell test

    1) guilty people generally do not cooperate (at least right away) by giving a full detained account of what happened, certainly not in a homicide, unless they are feeling guilty and giving a confession or think they are totally innocent and giving an explanation. zimmerman apparently was willing to talk from the beginning and explain why he thought he was completely innocent. shades of the duke case i might add
    2) independent witness(es) ANd physical evidence both support zimmerman.
    3) i'd like to know where the shooting took place. obviously if it happened right next to his vehicle, it would corroborate his story further, that he was walking back to his car when he got jumped. it's unlikely he would have been able to jump on martin etc. if it was right next to his car. you stop the car and then would have to approach martin, etc.

  • ||

    4) i don't see any nexus between the witnesses and the zimmerman such that they'd have cause to lie, or shade their story to his benefit. contrast with a case where a close relative, friend, bf, gf etc. makes a statement. even if they don't intentionally lie, their bias will often shade their testimony

    based on literally hundreds of investigations i've done, i get a pretty good "smell test" indicator. it's what i had when the duke case came out. almost immediately it set off my "she's lying" indicator. partially based on factors with her, but also based on how the suspects were acting. they were acting like innocent people act when accused

    the media has really gone out of their way to color this case (pun intended). the picture they used of martin was when he was like 13 or something. it made him look like a little kid. he was 17.

  • ||

    and of course a HUGe factor in this shooting for the media and especially the left is the stand your ground law, which they are just ACHING for a juicy case to PROVE the law is ill advised. the fact that this case may not even hinge on that law would be ironic

    this case just sets off all the metanarrative triggers that the left and the media lOVE. "racial profiling", white oppressor, black victim, a guy with a god forbid CCW, etc.

    it's a fucking perfect storm of awesomeness for these people

  • Alice Bowie||

    I wish that there was no grand jury or state attorney investigation at this point.

    These people are going to be more upset once the obvious outcome happens.

  • 1freeman1951||

    Re: your addendum; discounting the fact the girlfriends statement regarding the phone call with Martin is considered hearsay under the law the ONLY thing she can state as being fact are what can be determined physically ie by sight, hearing, feeling, taste.
    What can be taken as fact: Martin initiated verbal contact via challenge with Zimmerman who then replied with a challenge of his own. As to who made first physical contact, her statement is pure speculation. To say that Zimmerman did because his voice changed while talking does not prove a thing. Anyone who has observed or been involved in a shoving match knows, a persons, voice is subjected to stress changes whether that person is doing the shoving or is the one being shoved.
    And don't even get me started on the "if only" game. There are a lot of 'in onlies' on both sides.
    Both parties made poor decisions with a tragic result.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement