The Path That Led to the Shooting of Trayvon Martin

A recent Reuters profile of George Zimmerman explains the context in which he shot Trayvon Martin on February 21. It does not provide direct evidence one way or the other on the question of whether Zimmerman's use of force was justified, but it does complicate the widespread perception of him as a racist hothead and overeager wannabe cop.

Aside from the fact that he deemed a black teenager "real suspicious" (based partly on behavior that struck him as odd), there's little evidence that Zimmerman is racist. Reuters notes that he has "an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather," was raised in a multiracial household, and has black friends, including his partner in a short-lived insurance agency. Another relevant (and ironic) part of Zimmerman's history not mentioned by Reuters: Last year, according to his family, he distributed fliers at black churches protesting the lenient treatment of a white police lieutenant's son who was caught on video assaulting a black homeless man.

"I'm black, OK?" a neighbor tells Reuters. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin." The details about the rash of burglaries and home invasions help explain Zimmerman's multiple calls to the police and his anger at the prospect that yet another suspect was about to escape on the night he shot Martin. His frustration may have prompted him to continue following the teenager after the police dispatcher suggested he stop (although that point is a matter of dispute).

The profile notes some previously aired evidence that Zimmerman was prone to violence: his 2005 arrest for shoving an alcohol control agent who was arresting his friend for underage drinking and a restraining order against him by a former fiancee. It also confirms that, contrary to neighborhood watch guidelines, he made a habit of carrying his gun (which he originally bought as protection against an aggressive neighborhood dog) while patrolling the neighborhood. Although those facts reinforce the impression that Zimmerman was looking for trouble, the main thrust of the piece is that he was a good neighbor genuinely interested in helping others and working with the police to address a crime problem that had everyone on edge. That motivation got him into a situation where he made a tragic mistake—one that, depending on the details of his fight with Martin, may amount to a crime. 

[Thanks to Manny Klausner for the link.]

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.

  • ||

    I don't think Zimmerman is a piece of shit human being, precisely, but I do think he was an irresponsible dope who let his emotions get out of control and who created a pointless tragedy. I still think manslaughter is the appropriate charge.

  • Randian||

    Based on the evidence on the record, there isn't enough to convict even on that, assuming that the jury actually knows what reasonable doubt means.

  • Ragnar||

    True, the evidence at this point appears to be a 'he said, he's dead' situation. Very difficult to get beyond reasonable doubt in this. Gonna be a circus.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Maybe. Martin's history shows he was in the habit of looking for trouble. Zimmerman's history shows he was in the habit of looking for trouble. So is it good luck or bad that they found each other? Looks to me like maybe Zimmerman took care of a growing problem. And in a way, so did Martin.

  • MOFO.||

    What history do you think shows that either of them had a habit of looking for trouble?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    This is all very suspicious...if it's true, how come the press releases from the Martin family don't mention it?

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    contrary to neighborhood watch guidelines, he made a habit of carrying his gun

    Which is why I'll never join Neighborhood Watch. The cops don't consider it wise looking for criminals without being armed. Neither do I.

  • Pip||

    He wasn't on neighborhood watch when this happened. He too was making a store run.

  • TFG||

    "That motivation got him into a situation where he made a tragic mistake"

    Trayvon Martin made the tragic mistake of attacking a man who happened to be armed. But no, he's a saint and obviously his actions didn't contribute to him ending up dead at all.

  • Randian||

    Trayvon Martin made the tragic mistake of attacking a man who happened to be armed.

    You have no idea if that happened at all.

  • T||

    Well, we've got eyewitness testimony it did.

  • Randian||

    By the accused. There remains the girlfriend's account that she heard Zimmerman confront Martin with interrogatory questions. So, given that there are conflicting accounts and each witness is not disinterested, I would say that "knowing" what TFG said is not possible.

  • T||

    So? The veracity of the eyewitness is subject to question, but we have an eyewitness who stated he was attacked. Therefore, we have some idea that's what happened.

    Unless you're in the Fluffy "question = threat" camp, Zimmerman asking Martin questions doesn't preclude Martin attacking.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    We have witnesses who saw him losing a fight. As far as I know, no one has come forward claiming to have seen how the fight started, so we have nothing but Zimmerman's word as to who attacked who.

  • T||

    Yes, Zimmerman being a witness. I love the automatic assumption that he was involved, therefore he's lying.

    His testimony, while possibly biased, carries infinitely more weight than the random speculations of a bunch of armchair lawyers who weren't even in the state on the night in question.

    IOW, you have no more reason to suspect Zimmerman is lying than you do Martin's girlfriend is telling the truth. But you're weighting one testimony much more heavily and discounting the other based on what?

    Me, I don't care. I'm just poking the badger with sticks at this point because the conversation reached the point of ridiculousness weeks ago and kept going.

  • bagoh20||

    I think it is highly unlikely that a man armed with a handgun would start a fist fight. The risk of being disarmed makes that just stupid. When you are armed you are very aware keeping your distance. Without that, the weapon loses a lot of it's ability to protect you. It's something you understand without even thinking about it.

  • plu1959||

    Interesting point.

  • T||

    Yeah, anybody that's ever run Tueller drills knows you don't let people close on you while you're holstered.

  • R C Dean||

    I think it is highly unlikely that a man armed with a handgun would start a fist fight.

    A fair point. But a man with a gun who set out to make sure someone didn't "get away" might grab or try to restrain that someone. Which would count as starting the fight.

  • ||

    But a man with a gun who set out to make sure someone didn't "get away" might grab or try to restrain that someone. Which would count as starting the fight.

    Maybe. But since there is zero proof of this as far as we know then Zimmerman should walk. Martin's family could still sue him in civil court where the burden of proof is less, but I don't see how he can be held criminally liable when it is reasonable to believe his version of events and there is no one to contradict it.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    There remains the girlfriend's account that she heard Zimmerman confront Martin with interrogatory questions.

    Maybe he should have stuck to rhetorical questions?

    They are "conflicting accounts" only if you consider asking questions to be an attack. Otherwise, we have one witness saying Zimmerman was talking and one saying Martin was swinging. There's nothing conflicting about those accounts.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Is there eyewitness testimony Martin attacked him, or that Martin was winning a fight of unknown origin?

  • Randian||

    The latter is all I know about, and it seems that some are making the assumption that therefore the former must be true as well.

  • R C Dean||

    There are no eyewitnesses that we know of to how the fight got started. We only have testimony that Trayvon was winning the fight when he got shot.

    Winning the fight =/= started the fight.

  • robc||

    Zimmerman is an eyewitness that we know of.

  • R C Dean||

    Yes, and I seem to recall he has changed his story. The first version was basically "he jumped me from behind". I believe the more recent versions are more "nuanced."

  • Azathoth!!||

    The first versions in the media that said anything besides 'Zimmerman murdered Trayvon' said he got jumped from behind. Zimmerman's story has remained consistent from the beginning--that the media didn't put that out is not a reflection on Zimmerman.

  • plu1959||

    "That motivation got him into a situation where he made a tragic mistake"

    If Martin attacked Zimmerman and was beating the crap out of him when the shot was fired, then I'd say Martin was the one who made a tragic mistake.

  • Randian||

    I expect pages-long, introspective pieces in the media reflecting on how the reporting could have gone so wrong.

    Yep, any minute now...

  • ||

    Oh good, it had been a few days since I saw an article about this. I was starting to have withdraws.

  • AlmightyJB||

    There have been no other crimes to report.

  • kinnath||

    Where is the forensics report? Nothing means shit until we see the forensics report.

  • R C Dean||

    I seem to recall that the autopsy was consistent with Zimmerman's story - powder burns on Trayvon's clothes, that kind of thing.

  • kinnath||

    I hadn't seen that in the news.

    So either the special prosecuter charged him with second degree murder before seeing the autopsy results. Or the special prosecuter charged whim with second degree murder after seeing the autopsy report which tends to confirm the shooter's story.

    Not sure which frightens me more.

  • kinnath||

    Without getting into the question of whether Zimmerman is morally culpable for the events that occurred, it seems that the situation is:

    1) A witness confirms seeing Martin on top of Zimmerman immediately prior to the shooting

    2) The police report says that Zimmermans clothing was wet on the back and covered with grass indicating he was on his back on the ground

    3) Zimmerman was treated for a broken nose and cuts on his scalp

    4) The autopsy report is consistent with shots being fired from close range

    How does the prosecution ever convince a jury that Zimmerman's self-defense claim is bogus?

  • tarran||

    They don't. They'll shrug their shoulders and say that they tried to the professional racist concern trolls, and everybody will move on.

  • ||

    Because none of those things say who started the fight or Martin was the one defending himself. Just because he ended up winning the fight doesn't mean he started it.

    Not I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm saying we don't know.

  • kinnath||

    We don't know == reasonable doubt. That's the point I am trying to make. How does the prosecution overcome reasonable doubt when all the available physical evidence is consistent with Zimmerman's story and there is no witness to state how the fight started.

  • R C Dean||

    Here's what I think the prosecutor will argue:

    (1) Zimmerman was reckless or worse to be carrying a gun while pursuing Martin against the request of the po-po dispatcher.

    (2) Zimmerman approached Martin and challenged him, based on the girlfriend's testimony. Also, based on her testimony, Martin was trying to get away, not confront, Zimmerman. You can throw in some (disputable) reconstruction of their movements, here.

    (3) Zimmerman said he was going to make sure Martin didn't "get away."

    (4) Based on (2) and (3), Zimmerman started the fight by trying to illegally detain Martin.

    (5) Thus (and this requires ignoring the statute, which this prosecutor is willing to do), Zimmerman couldn't have shot in self-defense.

  • kinnath||

    That's what the bail hearing would indicate isn't it.

    Does this get past the judge and make it to trial?

  • Azathoth!!||

    (2) can't work. She's lying--and her story and the phone records show that she's lying. She said she called Trayvon twice. The phone record shows the two incoming calls--one at 7:04 and one at 7:12. She says she didn't get him the second time. This means that anything she overheard happened between 7:04 and some time before 7:12. Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher from 7:09 until 7:13. According to the call, Trayvon doesn't even notice Zimmerman until after Zimmerman's talking to the dispatcher--which means Zimmerman would have had to have been on the phone with the dispatcher while confronting Trayvon in order for the girlfriend to have heard it.

    But it's not in any recording. So (2) doesn't work.

  • shamalam||

    If you read FLorida's SYG law you will see that it does not matter if Zimmerman started the fight. What matters is if Zimmerman reasonably believed he was in danger of "great bodily harm or death" when he used lethal force to defend himself.

  • ||

    That seems like a huge flaw in the SYG law then. If Zimmerman started the fight and Martin felt he was in grave danger, that would mean that Martin was within his right to use lethal force to defend himself. But his using lethal force means Zimmerman would also feel he was in grave danger, thus justifying his use of lethal force.

    Yay feedback loops.

  • Zeb||

    Word. I think that SYG is a good thing to have protected in principle, but it seems like the law in Fla. needs some work. As it is currently written, it seems like any deadly force situation has the potential to become a feedback loop like that.

  • shamalam||

    If you read FLorida's SYG law you will see that it does not matter if Zimmerman started the fight. What matters is if Zimmerman reasonably believed he was in danger of "great bodily harm or death" when he used lethal force to defend himself.

  • BladeDoc||

    If YOU had read Florida's SYG law you would have seen that you only have the right to resist UNLAWFUL force. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/sta...../0776.html Therefore if you start a fight and are then getting your ass kicked you are NOT in fact protected under the SYG law in FL (or anywhere else BTW). This is a common misconception.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    contrary to neighborhood watch guidelines, he made a habit of carrying his gun (which he originally bought as protection against an aggressive neighborhood dog) while patrolling the neighborhood. Although those facts reinforce the impression that Zimmerman was looking for trouble

    The notion that someone who carries a gun is "looking for trouble" is a load of horseshit popular with the antigun and anti self-defense crowd that has nothing to do with reality.

  • R C Dean||

    Point taken, but carrying a gun while roaming the neighborhood looking to stop potential criminals from getting away could fairly be termed "looking for trouble."

  • MOFO.||

    Was that what he was really doing? Roaming the neighborhood looking to stop potential criminals? I thought he was going to the store.

  • ||

    If you're just going to the store, do you follow every suspicious guy you drive past?

    If I was just running a quick errand and saw something suspicious I'd call the cops (which is what he did) and then head home (if he had done this he wouldn't be in a world of shit right now).

  • MOFO.||

    Maybe, but still not the same thing as " carrying a gun while roaming the neighborhood looking to stop potential criminals from getting away "

    More like carrying a gun when he happened to encounter a potential criminal.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    By that logic being in a neighborhood watch at all is "looking for trouble".

  • ||

    This. Carrying a gun is at least as likely to indicate that someone is trying to stay OUT of trouble.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    but it does complicate the widespread perception of him as a ... overeager wannabe cop. ... . It also confirms that, contrary to neighborhood watch guidelines, he made a habit of carrying his gun (which he originally bought as protection against an aggressive neighborhood dog) while patrolling the neighborhood. ... working with the police to address a crime problem that had everyone on edge.

    You realize that you have just reinforced the, (in my opinion, correct) perception of Zimmerman as an "overeager wannabe cop". I mean, who else thinks the solution to a dog problem is shooting it? Why couldn't he have thrown a piece of raw meat covered in antifreeze into its yard, like normal people do?

  • plu1959||

    According to the article, the cops suggested that Zimm get a gun when he complained about a dangerous dog in the neighborhood.

  • T||

    It's a lot harder to justify poisoning somebody's dog in their yard than it is to justify shooting a dog that's attacking you.

  • AlmightyJB||

    That was my first thought on that as well. Perhaps because that was my original thought on the matter.

  • ||

    Normal people use bear traps.

  • ||

    I prefer drone strike.

    (Imagine this with Barack Obama as my handle.)

  • J_B||

    Dude, there were issues with dangerous pitbulls in the neighborhood.

    What are you going to do when a pitbull charges you? Whip our your dick and ask it to lick it?

    You would love to have a gun in that situation and a full clip.

  • J_B||

    *out

  • wareagle||

    "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said.

    To Reuters. Not the alphabet soup networks, not the major papers, not anyone interested in wondering why Zimmerman might have had reason for suspicion. I'm sticking with the original assessment that an armed neighborhood watch person is an invitation to disaster, but the burglary angle neuters the race meme.

    You would think that a history of trouble in the neighborhood might have merited some attention, but that would distract from the narrative of poor innocent black kid mercilessly gunned down by white hispanic. Agenda first, facts is they support the agenda.

  • David_TheMan||

    If a black guy shot a 17 year old white kid because white boys were robbing the house, wouldn't you think the black guy would deserve a trial?

    Being scared that people were robbing your neighborhood gives you no right to intrude on the rights of a person who happens to look like those people right?

    Also how is it an agenda when against the wishes of the leading detective and sloppy police work a guy is let go for killing an unarmed child. What is the agenda really? I know some people hate that Jesse and Al are involved, but really seeking justice for that kid is suddenly a nefarious agenda?

    Come on.

  • Zeb||

    They (Al and Jesse and others) are doing everything they can to portray this as about race, even though every new bit of evidence that comes out really discredits the notion that the shooting was racially motivated. That is the agenda. And it is fucking blatant.
    And a 17 year old is not a child. He may have been in some legal sense, but physically, he was an adult. His age is irrelevant.
    I'm not defending Zimmerman here. I think he caused the whole thing and bears moral responsibility (though I don't think that the evidence I know of warrants a conviction for 2nd degree murder). But you can't seriously deny that an awful lot of the coverage of this has been absolutely terrible.

  • David_TheMan||

    If it took them making it racial to force Zimmerman into court I can tolerate that, at the end of the day that is what is important, in my view, that someone be made to defend their actions and if Zimmerman is convicted or not I'm satisfied.

    Yes 17 years old is a child. His age isn't irrelevant because in the end he is still a child, the same way Natalie Holloway, who was 1 year older was a child.

    The coverage has been terrible and misleading on both sides, but seems to me some seem to take personal offense to the coverage in Trayvon's favor ignoring the favorable coverage in Zimmerman's favor. People want to point out Jesse and Al, but ignore David Duke and the KKK supporting Zimmerman.

  • ||

    David Duke and the KKK haven't tweeted peoples addresses and called for lynching anyone.

    And of course you think it's okay to race bait to get your way.

  • wareagle||

    The coverage has been terrible and misleading on both sides,

    no, the coverage has been terrible and misleading on one side - the side that seeks to make this a racially motivated murder. And who gives a shit what David Duke thinks? No media outlet is giving him a platform, let alone a talk show to air his bilge. That you even draw a parallel is a credibility killer.

  • Zeb||

    Making shit like this about race when it shouldn't be is the most harmful thing to the state of race relations today, in my opinion. It really only serves to increase the credibility of Duke and KKK assholes and people like that.
    Whatever happens, I very much doubt Zimmerman will ever touch a gun again, let alone kill anyone. I'd rather see him go free than see further racial division sown in this disgraceful way.

  • Jeff||

    Except Zimmerman probably didn't shoot Martin because black boys were robbing houses in the neighborhood, but because Martin was in the process of inflicting bodily harm upon him.

  • David_TheMan||

    Or Zimmerman could have initiated the altercation, found himself on the losing end of a fight he started then shot him out of cowardice.

    I can play that game too.

  • Jeff||

    Even if that's the case, there's evidence that he shot Martin because Martin was in the process of beating his brains out regardless of who started it. Meanwhile, there is zero evidence that George Zimmerman acted out of racism except in your fevered imagination.

  • Restoras||

    Are you interested in justice or are you interested in a conviction?

  • David_TheMan||

    Interested in justice and hopefully through a fair trial we will see justice served.

  • Restoras||

    And what if that results in an acquittal?

  • Brutus||

    See also: Rodney King verdict.

  • David_TheMan||

    It results in an acquittal.

  • wareagle||

    congratulations on presenting the griefer point of view and its inherent contradictions:

    If a black guy shot a 17 year old white kid because white boys were robbing the house, wouldn't you think the black guy would deserve a trial>
    Nice Obama-esque argument, but no one is saying Z should just walk. Race is germane, however, in that youths of a specific color had been behind a string of break-ins. That makes one more who looked the part suspicious. Reversing the races does not change that.

    Being scared that people were robbing your neighborhood gives you no right to intrude on the rights of a person who happens to look like those people right?
    You are assuming things that are not known. Following someone, even asking them who they are, is hardly intruding on their rights. It may be busybodiness, assholery, or profiling, but when crimes happen in your neighborhood, it is natural to be on the lookout for more crimes.

    What is the agenda really?
    George was hardly "let go". He is charged with second-degree murder and headed for trial. Jesse and Al are not concerned about justice; they are career race hustlers, Sharpton in particular, looking for face time.

    And the reality of an agenda is present in your first question: had that been the scenario, there would have been zero national news coverage, no hysteria, and only mild local interest.

  • David_TheMan||

    Yes it is an obama-esque argument to asked what if the races were reversed. Like there is no difference before the law when blacks commit crimes compared to whites, even though routinely blacks will serve longer sentences for doing the same crime than white and even latin counterparts.

    But that is just obama/liberal/evil MSM spin to separate us right?

  • Azathoth!!||

    What 'whites'?

    To reverse the races we'd have to say

    "If a black guy shot a 17 year old hispanic kid because hispanic boys were robbing the house, wouldn't you think the black guy would deserve a trial?"

    Everyone who wants to make this about race calls George Zimmerman 'white'.

    He's not. At the hearing when bail was set he stood near a black cop that was almost the same color as him.

    But you need that 'white'--you need it really bad.

    Because black on hispanic and hispanic on black crime falls into that section of crime that we don't talk about--you know-- the area of crime statistics that whites get called 'racist' for even noticing.

    So you really need to pretend Zimmerman is white.

  • Seamus||

    If a black guy shot a 17 year old white kid because white boys were robbing the house, wouldn't you think the black guy would deserve a trial?

    If we were living in Bizarro World, in which a rash of burglaries by white perps had a mixed-but-predominantly-black neighborhood on edge, and a black neighborhood watch guy had shot a white 17-year-old who'd been skulking suspiciously around the neighborhood and who jumped the black guy when he noticed he was being watched (or if I had no evidence that the black guy's claim that that's what happened was false), no, I don't think the black guy would deserve a trial. There would be no probable cause to believe he'd committed a crime.

  • Drake||

    I think Zimmerman is kind of a dumb sucker. He actually thought the "Black Community" would be on his side.

    http://theconservativetreehous.....-thickens/

  • David_TheMan||

    Only an idiot would think any "community" would be behind a person who killed a unarmed boy walking home.

  • Restoras||

    teh chidrunz meme. Very nice.

  • David_TheMan||

    Oh Trayvon wasn't a child now, or do you think that is a myth made by the MSM?

  • Restoras||

    Sorry, a 17-year old may technically be a child but this distinction rings false. He was allegedly beating the crap out of Zimmerman (I know many 17-year olds that could beat the crap out of older adults. I'm sure you do too), someone who outweighed him by some number of pounds. He is less than a year away from being able to vote and enlist. He can leagally operate a motor vehicle.

    Technically a child, yes. Actually a child - as in just as helpless as an 8-year-old? Definately not.

  • Drake||

    You can enlist at 17 with your parent(s) permission. I went through Boot Camp with several 17-year-olds.

  • Restoras||

    but...but...tink of teh chillunz?!?!

  • Zeb||

    Yeah. And in most states (I don't know about Fla. specifically) you are automatically charged as an adult at 17 if you commit any crime.

    Older teenagers are not children. They are not adults either, but they certainly don't belong in the same category as, say, an 8 year old. Insisting on referring to him as a child is just an emotional appeal which has nothing to do with the facts of the case.

  • wareagle||

    Trayvon was a 17-year old on a bad path. Your portrait of "unarmed boy walking home" is nauseating at best. When confronted, such a boy would say "I am going to my dad's house; he lives right over there. Lighten up, dude."

  • David_TheMan||

    Yes Trayvon was a 17 year old on a bad bath. Zimmerman was a 28 year old man on a bad path protected by his politically connected father.

    That said it is okay Zimmerman killed Trayvon, he was going to be a criminal later right wareagle?

    lol. Some of you people can't even hide it.

  • Killazontherun||

    You know who else calls seventeen year old teens 'boys'? They wear white hoods.

  • ||

    He wasn't a "boy" anymore than you are "TheMan".

  • Brutus||

    Zimmerman didn't know he was a "child." He thought Martin was about his own age.

  • ||

    Any time I see a Zimmerman/Martin headline I go a little bit narcoleptic. I think it's an avoidance mechanism.

  • plu1959||

    [Thanks to Manny Klausner for the link.]

    I'm sure Manny Klausner is a fine human being. But as I recall, I was the first person to link this story on H&R, way back when it first appeared.

    Harrumph.

  • ||

    I think they pulled rank on you, since Manny Klausner is the co-founder of Reason.

  • plu1959||

    In that case ... never mind.

  • R C Dean||

    Nice attempt at trying to maintain your anonymous handle, Manny.

  • SOFL Hockey Fan||

    Recently I was driving near my home when I saw a car driving slowly ahead of me stop and pull over to the right. A young man jumped out of the car and grabbed a woman who was walking toward him on the sidewalk. She started yelling and as I approached the vehicle a woman got out of the driver's seat and told me that they were trying to get her "off of drugs", an "intervention" apparently. A lot of yelling and screaming followed. I had my gun in my vehicle. I drove past the scene and watched. Nothing unusual occurred. No violence, no kidnapping, just conversation between the three people. Never considered pulling my gun.

  • David_TheMan||

    Everyone is a good guy, from the people that like him/her, until they fuck up.

    Too much emphasis is being placed on irrelevant shit such as "was he a racist" and etc.

    The only thing that matters regarding the case now is if the government can prove their case.

  • Restoras||

    So the truth is less important than the government being able to prove a case?

  • David_TheMan||

    Unfortunately trials aren't about the truth, it is about the government being able to convince 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of the charges.

  • Restoras||

    So, are you interested in a conviction or are you interested in the truth?

  • wareagle||

    twice now that question has been asked and twice is has gone unanswered. It's like the Queen in Alice - sentence first, trial later.

  • David_TheMan||

    I answered the question, the truth is I want to see a fair trial. The truth will never come out because the party who knows it is too biased to ever admit it if it is contrary to seeing that he doesn't serve time.

    If there is a magic camera that can surface. I'll be happy to see the truth, but that isn't happening.

  • Coeus||

    The truth will never come out because the party who knows it is too biased to ever admit it

    So, no chance that he's telling the truth, then? So conviction then. Got it.

  • Brutus||

    Remember throwing vigins into volcanos?

  • The Fatman||

    AAAhhhh, man. The good old days.

  • ||

    ...convince 12 people...


    Actually, in Florida juries for everything except capital offenses have only six members.

  • David_TheMan||

    Well change that to 6 then

  • Paul.||

    and has black friends

    I thought that made one racist: "Some of my best frieds are black!"

  • plu1959||

    "Some of my best frieds are black!"

    Joe'z law?

  • Paul.||

    No, I wasn't calling anyone a moran. Get with the progrom, plu1959.

  • plu1959||

    How did you edit that!? Are you David Blaine or something?

  • plu1959||

    Oops. Never mind.

    Multi-tasking is a myth.

  • Killazontherun||

    A little dated, now it's more like, 'some of my best genes are black.'

  • T||

    If you fry them till they're black, you're doing it wrong.

  • Pip||

    Chef Paul Prudhomme disagrees.

  • Killazontherun||

    This subject makes me sad.

    How 'bout a distraction? Talk about working what (little) you got. DAMN:

    http://www.wwtdd.com/2012/05/c.....ite-model/

    Disclaimer: Your boss will give you a raise.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Bottom line, No Limit Nigga reached his limit. If Zimmerman is acquitted, south Florida will burn.

  • sarcasmic||

    If Zimmerman is acquitted, south Florida will burn.

    There it is.

  • Drake||

    Maybe the Latinos should threaten to riot if that is how justice is served these days.

  • Zeb||

    I'm going to predict no riot. I'm not super confident on this, but someone has to be optimistic, damn it!

  • Drake||

    Just make it a speedy trial. If they announce a verdict in July or August, Florida will already be burning.

    It will be too damn hot for people to go outside and run around all mad and stuff.

  • J_B||

    Martin thought he was thuggin'

    ...he found out who was Bossman.

  • J_B||

  • Pip||

    The Path That Led to the Shooting of Trayvon Martin Jacking Houses.

  • RBS||

    I'm continually disappointed with the writers at The Atlantic

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com.....him/51829/

  • Jeff||

    Ah, so Zimmerman shot Martin because he thought he was a Mexican. It all makes sense now.

  • Restoras||

    No no, Zimmerman shot Martin because Martin was trying to foil his attempt to implement the Zimmerman Telegram.

  • plu1959||

    Zimmerman is a self-hating Mexican. Or rather his white self hates his Latino self. And he mistook Martin for a Latino. But he can't admit that because it would still be a hate crime.

    See?

  • shamalam||

    Sullum, you're buying (and selling) the "Zimmerman is guilty" line. Shooting a person to death in defense of your own life is no tragedy.

    There is nothing that I have seen that indicates that Zimmerman did anything wrong.

  • RBS||

    Where has Jacob written or said Zimmerman is guilty?

  • Zeb||

    Shooting a person to death in defense of your own life is no tragedy.

    It's justifiable, but that doesn't necessarily make it not a tragedy. Lots of things that are justifiable or necessary are nevertheless tragic. Even if he had never been charged, I can only imagine that this would always be the most tragic and life changing event in Zimmerman's life. Even if it was justified, it was ultimately avoidable, and he will always have that to think about. It's a shitty, tragic situation for all involved.

  • shamalam||

    Let me clarify:

    I was responding to Sullum's "tragic mistake" phrase, but the squirrels would not let me post Sullum's statement. Shooting Martin was not a "mistake", it was self defense. whether it was "tragic" is debatable.

  • Brutus||

    Now, if a hundred or so of Eric Holder's peeps work over a couple of ofay reporters in Norfolk, it's just bidness as usual.

  • TingoZing||

    Oh my Gosh man its over, get over it. moove on!

    www.Privacy-Guys.tk

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