First court appearance: http://videosift.com/video/George-Zimmerman-Makes-First-Court-Appearance

>> ^kceaton1:

Another miscellaneous fact from John Derbyshire's article:
If you happen to be in the conservative media and George Zimmerman (you know that guy we are all sworn to protect) shoots any minority, immediately defend him!


Isn't Zimmerman Hispanic? That makes him a minority, so if he shoots himself, is it suicide or is it still self defense?

Another miscellaneous fact from John Derbyshire's article:

If you happen to be in the conservative media and George Zimmerman (you know that guy we are all sworn to protect) shoots any minority, immediately defend him!

It was 65 degrees that night. I've lived in florida, that is not "fucking cold" weather.

Edit: I looked at the other link, and this other expert claims Zimmerman says "fucking punks". So two enhanced sound tracks with two experts with two different conclusions. Doesn't sound like an exact science to me.>> ^chilaxe:

@longde
The audio has since been clarified, but even in the beginning the "coon" claim was speculative.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/324776/201204
06/cold-coon-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-911-racial.htm
http://s2smagazine.com/stories/2012/04/enhanced-audio
-george-zimmermans-911-call-released
Zimmerman campaigned in the past on the side of African-Americans in his community against the local police department. For some reason that gets left out of these narratives.
Science is best left to data, which is always more interesting than evocative narratives that pick and choose.
But the point is that nobody can change that you can put any gang member or someone who thinks of themselves in that way in a gated community and you get the same results. And on the other hand, if you put Herman Cain's son (2nd from right) there, who probably doesn't have a gold grill and gang-like tattoos and doesn't like to fight, you get entirely different results.

No, you get the same result. It could be young Obama, and you get the same result. That's the thing about racism: it is based solely on appearance. Any interpretation of behavior is influenced by pre-conceived bias.

Also, stop blaming the victim! You can pull up facebook photos and youtube videos of young people of every race imitating rap stars. It doesn't make them gang affiliated.

>> ^chilaxe:

@longde
The audio has since been clarified, but even in the beginning the "coon" claim was speculative.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/324776/201204
06/cold-coon-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-911-racial.htm
http://s2smagazine.com/stories/2012/04/enhanced-audio
-george-zimmermans-911-call-released
Zimmerman campaigned in the past on the side of African-Americans in his community against the local police department. For some reason that gets left out of these narratives.
Science is best left to data, which is always more interesting than evocative narratives that pick and choose.
But the point is that nobody can change that you can put any gang member or someone who thinks of themselves in that way in a gated community and you get the same results. And on the other hand, if you put Herman Cain's son (2nd from right) there, who probably doesn't have a gold grill and gang-like tattoos, and doesn't like to fight, you get entirely different results.

@longde
The audio has since been clarified, but even in the beginning the "coon" claim was speculative.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/324776/20120406/cold-coon-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-911-racial.htm
http://s2smagazine.com/stories/2012/04/enhanced-audio-george-zimmermans-911-call-released

Zimmerman campaigned in the past on the side of African-Americans in his community against the local police department. For some reason that gets left out of these narratives.

Science is best left to data, which is always more interesting than evocative narratives that pick and choose.

But the point is that nobody can change that you can put any gang member or someone who thinks of themselves in that way in a gated community and you get the same results. And on the other hand, if you put Herman Cain's son (2nd from right) there, who probably doesn't have a gold grill and gang-like tattoos and doesn't like to fight, you get entirely different results.

I agree -- SYG is a bad law. The very idea that you need to pass a law to "protect people who are defending themselves from a criminal attack from retribution lawsuits by the criminal or the criminal's relatives" seems misguided to me in the first place. SYG in particular seems almost designed to create exactly the kind of situation we have with Treyvon Martin.

I've got no problem with people having a right to self-defense, including even the use of lethal force, but like any other right the place where you ultimately get to assert that right is in court. You shouldn't be passing laws that require courts and the police to just take people's word for it. There should be an arrest, a criminal investigation, and if the evidence suggests it wasn't self-defense, then criminal charges and a trial.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Why does the unarmed boy not get the "innocent until proven guilty" treatment? Because Zimmerman has already executed him? How could that be right?
This is the problem with the SYG laws. Quite often the only witness to the incident is the person who got killed, and the only person left to testify is the person who killed them. Then it is all "he said/they said", and so the judge doesn't have much choice except to throw the case out. SYG is supposed to protect people who are defending themselves from a criminal attack from retribution lawsuits by the criminal or the criminal's relatives. They are not supposed to be used to deliberately provoke a fight with someone you don't like in order to kill or injure them.

Ultimately, that's why I'm so upset about this whole mess. Republicans and ALEC have essentially decided that not having any meaningful control on gun ownership wasn't good enough, they needed to give gun owners a license to kill too.

This is a very high-stakes version of the burden of proof fallacy. Why is it that Zimmerman got to shoot and kill someone based solely on his suspicions, but we can't arrest him for it unless we can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knew Treyvon wasn't a threat?

Why does the unarmed boy not get the "innocent until proven guilty" treatment? Because Zimmerman has already executed him? How could that be right?

Why isn't everyone unanimous in saying that we have to get to the bottom of not only what happened, but how we can fix our laws and institutions to treat a situation like this in a just way?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

You can, under Stand Your Ground, follow someone, initiate a fight, and kill them if you "fear for your life," which the prosecution must prove that you didn't, indeed, fear for your life (And that's some proving to do... especially when there is a gun involved, even the assialents gun, that could be 'taken away.')
In fact, a judge ruled that even if the person killed was retreating, it didn't matter. The defendant could murder him in cold blood and be fine...
Face it, there is no cover up, only a flawed law created by a bunch of scared white old people.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

A stereo thief hit a guy with a bag of like 6 pounds. He got stabbed to death. The stabber got off. The stabber had been the one to chase him down... SYoG...

Dunno how anyone can see stuff like that transpire and think it's a good idea to let someone go under that law who actively pursues and kills.

The Wiki on SYG has this blurb:

Stand your ground laws are frequently criticized and called "shoot first" laws by critics, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.[36] In Florida, the law has resulted in self-defense claims tripling, with all but one of those killed unarmed.[37][36] The law's critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue they felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed. The Florida law has been used to excuse neighborhood brawls, bar fights, road rage, and even street gang violence.[36] Before passage of the law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "[w]hether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used." This is in reference to Sarah McKinley, a teen widow with her infant child, who shot an intruder who broke through the front door. The intruder was apparently drunk, screaming and at the wrong house


Self Defense claims tripling should be indicative that you got some problems on your hands. And I doubt they count these cases as "crimes", making their crime rate lower. Reinforcing the idea that the law is sound.


And I'll just note, I've never heard of your stabbing case prior to you mentioning it. Whether it's got no racial elements to exploit or no gun involved to exploit for news, I don't know. But people care a lot less if it's anything but a gun involved.

A stereo thief hit a guy with a bag of like 6 pounds. He got stabbed to death. The stabber got off. The stabber had been the one to chase him down... SYoG...

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
No, this video is not damning evidence... Stand Your Ground is obviously not understood by most members on the Sift.
Many individuals have gotten off scott-free because of this law. It has nothing to do with the police or their actions, or even competence of the prosecutors. Judges strike down Zimmerman-like cases all the time in Florida. What people want here is an exception.
You can, under Stand Your Ground, follow someone, initiate a fight, and kill them if you "fear for your life," which the prosecution must prove that you didn't, indeed, fear for your life (And that's some proving to do... especially when there is a gun involved, even the assialents gun, that could be 'taken away.')
In fact, a judge ruled that even if the person killed was retreating, it didn't matter. The defendant could murder him in cold blood and be fine...
Face it, there is no cover up, only a flawed law created by a bunch of scared white old people.
Got a whole bunch of people who are defending Zimmerman not because they feel he's innocent, but because he used a gun. If it had been a knife or anything else, I don't think there would be so many supporters for Zimmerman under the SYG law.
But there is this constant fear that someone's coming to take their guns, that any law that makes it easier to keep and use their guns is sacrosanct. There is no actual "question" about it being reasonable or in the realm of sanity that someone could provoke a fight then kill the person. But it's become huge, because people see that the primary thing being used in these encounters are guns. And in fact they are being used against unarmed people most often.
In fact, there's news that gun enthusiasts are donating to Zimmerman's defense...simply because he used a gun. Not that they think he's actually not guilty gun or not....if it had been a baseball bat or kitchen knife...people wouldn't care nearly as much.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

No, this video is not damning evidence... Stand Your Ground is obviously not understood by most members on the Sift.
Many individuals have gotten off scott-free because of this law. It has nothing to do with the police or their actions, or even competence of the prosecutors. Judges strike down Zimmerman-like cases all the time in Florida. What people want here is an exception.
You can, under Stand Your Ground, follow someone, initiate a fight, and kill them if you "fear for your life," which the prosecution must prove that you didn't, indeed, fear for your life (And that's some proving to do... especially when there is a gun involved, even the assialents gun, that could be 'taken away.')
In fact, a judge ruled that even if the person killed was retreating, it didn't matter. The defendant could murder him in cold blood and be fine...
Face it, there is no cover up, only a flawed law created by a bunch of scared white old people.

Got a whole bunch of people who are defending Zimmerman not because they feel he's innocent, but because he used a gun. If it had been a knife or anything else, I don't think there would be so many supporters for Zimmerman under the SYG law.

But there is this constant fear that someone's coming to take their guns, that any law that makes it easier to keep and use their guns is sacrosanct. There is no actual "question" about it being reasonable or in the realm of sanity that someone could provoke a fight then kill the person. But it's become huge, because people see that the primary thing being used in these encounters are guns. And in fact they are being used against unarmed people most often.

In fact, there's news that gun enthusiasts are donating to Zimmerman's defense...simply because he used a gun. Not that they think he's actually not guilty gun or not....if it had been a baseball bat or kitchen knife...people wouldn't care nearly as much.

Naw. Thanks for playin. Go login to your bobknight account


"we don't need you to do that"

"ok"

... fin.


The only person who had rights under the Stand Your Ground law was Trayvon. His inexperience in not choosing the utmost discretion when a lunatic is following him does not make him a deadly threat at any point. It makes him a kid... and it makes George Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter

No, this video is not damning evidence... Stand Your Ground is obviously not understood by most members on the Sift.

Many individuals have gotten off scott-free because of this law. It has nothing to do with the police or their actions, or even competence of the prosecutors. Judges strike down Zimmerman-like cases all the time in Florida. What people want here is an exception.

You can, under Stand Your Ground, follow someone, initiate a fight, and kill them if you "fear for your life," which the prosecution must prove that you didn't, indeed, fear for your life (And that's some proving to do... especially when there is a gun involved, even the assialents gun, that could be 'taken away.')

In fact, a judge ruled that even if the person killed was retreating, it didn't matter. The defendant could murder him in cold blood and be fine...

Face it, there is no cover up, only a flawed law created by a bunch of scared white old people.

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^longde:
Reading about this case a little more, I now see that Zimmerman's pop is a (retired) judge. Things are starting to make a little more sense. It appears the race factors is overshadowed by a cronyism factor in this case, and his slap on the wrist for assaulting cops in the past.

Was his dad a former judge in Florida? Cause I really don't understand if he isn't...it just seems completely stupid not to arrest him, even if you're GREAT BUDDIES with his dad. Surely you'd have to know that this is a really stupid career risk (not mentioning how fucking wrong it is).

These are my thoughts exactly and what leads me to be skeptical about what's going on. I could understand (but don't condone obviously) why they would try to cover this up. But the SECOND it hit national media if I was in there shoes I would instantly said "after further review of the evidence we are now placing Zimmerman under arrest and will hold him until trial". Then prayed nobody tried to sue me or something.
Then again I guess the pressure on them is so intense to not mess it up they don't want to hold zimmerman for too long and then have his (zimmerman's) attorney sue or try to get the case dropped because of "due process"
This video is very damning evidence against Zimmerman. The family is now saying "wait for the hospital records" but my understanding is if you have a broken nose the area around your face would be bruised right? His brother is saying "His (George's) nose is swollen". I'm not a doctor so maybe someone else wants to chime in here?

Proving my original point and showing this Sift to be a complete pile of bologna...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57408577-504083/enhanced-video-shows-apparent-injury-on-george-zimmermans-head-police-say/

CBS video suddenly, miraculously, AMAZINGLY "discovers" the injuries. Hmmm - well, the 911 tape proves there was racism...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/2/inside-politics-nbc-news-to-probe-misleading-edit-/

Cue up the Price is Right "Loser Horn"...

But again - I'm not saying anything about what Zimmerman or Martin were or weren't doing. I repeat - again - let the investigation take place at its own pace. Stop letting the obvious efforts of the professional race industry turn you into brainless parrots. Stop being sheeple for the blatant agendas of different groups trying to advance thier 'version' of events into the public. Ignore the whole mess and let the courts take care of things - the way its supposed to be.

Last word - the news media has proven itself to be wholly untrustworthy on this story. CBS omitting video detail that they KNEW they had? NBC deliberately editing the tape to make it sound like it was Zimmerman doing profiling? I hope the so-called "intellectual" left is starting to realize just how mentally bankrupt thier media is.

Explain what? There, does that help?

Sorry. I figured you could distinguish between the process of investigation and the pomp of a court trial.

If you comprehend that, you'll know exactly why I refer to trials as a ritual/ceremony.

If you don't, ask yourself how forcing both parties and 12 random people to sit in designated areas while some lawyer in a priest's gown hands out decrees has any bearing on the evidence.

So to reiterate, Evidence alone establishes "guilt". [or the level of obligation to repay suffering cause by one's actions.]

In this case, the evidence is overwhelming.



>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Evidence.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

How do you propose we determine guilt or innocence without a trial?