I'm sorry but there is evidence to the contrary

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t1#/video/bestoftv/2012/03/27/ac-kth-trayvon-martin-witness.cnn

^ Eye Witness Backing up Zimmerman's side of the story

and

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t1#/video/bestoftv/2012/03/27/ac-george-zimmerman-friend.cnn

^ are you going to call this Black man a Racist Sympathizer too?

Look I'm not going to debate this with you endlessly because it's not my job to play devils advocate for a man I don't know. I'm not sure how you can know 100% of everything that happened considering you were not there. If you still don't feel any different after those then just leave me alone man.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Listen to the 911 call Zimmerman made.
http://videosift.com/video/Trayvons-Murderer-says-fucking-coon
s-2-21-in-911-call
He's on the phone staring down Trayvon as he walks up.
Zimmerman says "he's coming to check me out" as Trayvon gets closer.
"These asshole's, they always get away" "he's running" then under his breath "fuckin' coons" and you can hear Zimmerman chasing Trayvon.
Dispatcher: 'Are you following him?'
George: "Yeah."
Dispatcher: 'Okay, we don't need you to do that."
They then talk about where the police officers will meet George.
George ask if the police can call him.. as if he was going to follow and/or detain Trayvon until the officers arrived.
It's clear Zimmerman is a racist.
It's clear Trayvon was attempting avoid Zimmerman.
It's clear Zimmerman wasn't going to let Trayvon get away.
It's clear Zimmerman murdered an unarmed 17 year old boy.
What more do you need to know? George hunted and murdered a black kid for "looking suspicious."
Just admit Zimmerman is a murder.
Admit he should be held in prison until he's put on trial.
And admit you're wrong for trying to defend a child murdered.

Listen to the 911 call Zimmerman made.

http://videosift.com/video/Trayvons-Murderer-says-fucking-coons-2-21-in-911-call

He's on the phone staring down Trayvon as he walks up.

Zimmerman says "he's coming to check me out" as Trayvon gets closer.

"These asshole's, they always get away" "he's running" then under his breath "fuckin' coons" and you can hear Zimmerman chasing Trayvon.

Dispatcher: 'Are you following him?'
George: "Yeah."
Dispatcher: 'Okay, we don't need you to do that."

They then talk about where the police officers will meet George.

George ask if the police can call him.. as if he was going to follow and/or detain Trayvon until the officers arrived.

It's clear Zimmerman is a racist.
It's clear Trayvon was attempting avoid Zimmerman.
It's clear Zimmerman wasn't going to let Trayvon get away.
It's clear Zimmerman murdered an unarmed 17 year old boy.

What more do you need to know? George hunted and murdered a black kid for "looking suspicious."

Just admit Zimmerman is a murder.
Admit he should be held in prison until he's put on trial.
And admit you're wrong for trying to defend a child murdered.

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?

Someone stalking you, whether anyone likes it or not, is not a just cause for you to turn around and beat the crap out of them.
If Martin turned around and punched him and knocked him on his ass I think that would have been a justifiable amount of force. But continuing to beat on him as some people suggesting to "knock him out" you don't understand how the body works. You can't tell the difference between "Oh yeah I knocked him out" and "Awesome! Internal bleeding and his brain is swelling now I can get away".
Does everyone here really believe because Zimmerman was being over zealous they feel he deserves to get knocked down and have someone sit on top of him and continuously punch him in the head?

According to the SYG law, which they claim let's Zimmerman walk away with no charges. Yes Trayvon had the right to defend himself from a pursuer if he felt that he was in danger. The level of damage he could inflict was dependent on how much danger he thought he was in. The law defines everything as "reasonable" for the level it has to meet. If someone chased you down in a vehicle, you escaped him and he continued looking until he found you again. That to me is reasonable grounds to assume this person means you harm.
Plus, I still have trouble fathoming how Trayvon got within striking distance of Zimmerman in the first place. I find it entirely unlikely that he would approach his stalker. So I believe that Zimmerman cornered him or caught him in a hiding spot. It just never would have happened if Zimmerman would have 1) not followed him 2) not got out of his vehicle.
And I'll just throw this out, carrying a gun carries with it a certain expectation that you will use said gun otherwise carrying it will end up getting you shot if you draw and don't use it. I think Zimmerman felt confident due to his gun and his willingness to use it. Substitute any other rational adult and they would not hunt down a kid and approach him to within striking distance, it's too predatory to continue forward once you've gotten within speaking distance of someone who has tried to evade you once already. Keep in mind that Trayvon had not committed a crime to warrant the amount of attention Zimmerman was giving him, nor the need to approach him beyond the distance a loud speaking or even shouting voice would carry. I certainly would not approach a kid on public property who ran away from me initially. I may be more inclined to hunt them down if they were on my private property or in a dangerous area, but neither of those fit this scenario.
The act of pursuing someone who is trying to get away is by it's nature aggressive. Martin had the right to defend himself from a stranger demonstrating aggressive behavior. The language and frustration Zimmerman expressed on the phone call also suggests he was not pleased to have someone get away on his watch, and perhaps semi-racist in nature.
On the flip side. If Trayvon had chased Zimmerman and still ended up shot to death, would this conversation even be happening? Trayvon would have been provoking the encounter and even if he never laid a finger on Zimmerman, the law states you can use deadly force if you believe someone means to great bodily harm or commit a felony.
It's a joke that Zimmerman has the right to "defend himself" with deadly force, in an encounter he forced upon a teenager against all advice and all material that Zimmerman had presented at a neighborhood watch meeting. The presenter came forward and spoke about it. Under the law he has to meet criteria as the aggressor. I do not believe the police have released information showing he fulfilled those criteria, and his immunity under SYG should be forfeit.
The language on the call "coon", the lack of a tox screen, and the various other screw ups by police. PLUS not holding him until they at least interviewed everyone they could find within a block of the shooting. Now all of those people are potentially tainted by Zimmerman's presence, the media coverage, and the bias of the sources of this information. It's up to the second investigation to hopefully see that they screwed the pooch and see if it was because they are incompetent, racist, or covering up for Zimmerman.
I don't blame anyone for being outrageously pissed and concerned over this. It essentially means you can walk down the street, stalk any lone person, and shoot them dead if they have anything in their hand you can claim looked like a gun or say anything like "I'll kill you...........................if you come any closer." Just the last part won't make it out of their mouth if you have your gun good and ready to blow a hole in them.


Pork that's the problem though even your own article says "I have my doubts, I don't see how" but we don't know all the facts.

This law should not be under scrutiny until it's actually used and if it actually gets zimmerman off.

And the problem with your Theory about Martin being able to continuously pummel Zimmerman while he is on the ground is not true. Once Zimmerman is on his back the "Perceived Threat" is neutralized. It works the same way here in jersey with self defense but I can't use a gun. I answer force with equal force. Once my opponent is disabled I can't keep wailing on them.

Being stalked, in my opinion, does not allow you to feel like your life is in danger. Martin used his cellphone to text his girlfriend, why didn't he call the cops and try to get help?

But then again I'm not a lawyer OR a judge and nobody else is. So everything I say here could be wrong. We don't have all the facts so anyone claiming to know EXACTLY what happened is wrong.

It's just funny because it seems to me that liberals are siding with Martin and Conservatives and siding with Zimmerman. Everyone seems to have their own set of "Facts" and nobody is willing to believe that their own side (Liberal Media or Conservative Media) is injecting facts that may or may not be 100% credible into the case.

Everyone seems to be using this case as a means to push their own policy whether it's gun control reform, minority rights, or personal security. Everyone seems to just be ignoring the tragedy that some kid has had the rest of his life taken from him. Because really that's all we do know!

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?

Someone stalking you, whether anyone likes it or not, is not a just cause for you to turn around and beat the crap out of them.
If Martin turned around and punched him and knocked him on his ass I think that would have been a justifiable amount of force. But continuing to beat on him as some people suggesting to "knock him out" you don't understand how the body works. You can't tell the difference between "Oh yeah I knocked him out" and "Awesome! Internal bleeding and his brain is swelling now I can get away".
Does everyone here really believe because Zimmerman was being over zealous they feel he deserves to get knocked down and have someone sit on top of him and continuously punch him in the head?


According to the SYG law, which they claim let's Zimmerman walk away with no charges. Yes Trayvon had the right to defend himself from a pursuer if he felt that he was in danger. The level of damage he could inflict was dependent on how much danger he thought he was in. The law defines everything as "reasonable" for the level it has to meet. If someone chased you down in a vehicle, you escaped him and he continued looking until he found you again. That to me is reasonable grounds to assume this person means you harm.

Plus, I still have trouble fathoming how Trayvon got within striking distance of Zimmerman in the first place. I find it entirely unlikely that he would approach his stalker. So I believe that Zimmerman cornered him or caught him in a hiding spot. It just never would have happened if Zimmerman would have 1) not followed him 2) not got out of his vehicle.

And I'll just throw this out, carrying a gun carries with it a certain expectation that you will use said gun otherwise carrying it will end up getting you shot if you draw and don't use it. I think Zimmerman felt confident due to his gun and his willingness to use it. Substitute any other rational adult and they would not hunt down a kid and approach him to within striking distance, it's too predatory to continue forward once you've gotten within speaking distance of someone who has tried to evade you once already. Keep in mind that Trayvon had not committed a crime to warrant the amount of attention Zimmerman was giving him, nor the need to approach him beyond the distance a loud speaking or even shouting voice would carry. I certainly would not approach a kid on public property who ran away from me initially. I may be more inclined to hunt them down if they were on my private property or in a dangerous area, but neither of those fit this scenario.

The act of pursuing someone who is trying to get away is by it's nature aggressive. Martin had the right to defend himself from a stranger demonstrating aggressive behavior. The language and frustration Zimmerman expressed on the phone call also suggests he was not pleased to have someone get away on his watch, and perhaps semi-racist in nature.

On the flip side. If Trayvon had chased Zimmerman and still ended up shot to death, would this conversation even be happening? Trayvon would have been provoking the encounter and even if he never laid a finger on Zimmerman, the law states you can use deadly force if you believe someone means to great bodily harm or commit a felony.

It's a joke that Zimmerman has the right to "defend himself" with deadly force, in an encounter he forced upon a teenager against all advice and all material that Zimmerman had presented at a neighborhood watch meeting. The presenter came forward and spoke about it. Under the law he has to meet criteria as the aggressor. I do not believe the police have released information showing he fulfilled those criteria, and his immunity under SYG should be forfeit.

The language on the call "coon", the lack of a tox screen, and the various other screw ups by police. PLUS not holding him until they at least interviewed everyone they could find within a block of the shooting. Now all of those people are potentially tainted by Zimmerman's presence, the media coverage, and the bias of the sources of this information. It's up to the second investigation to hopefully see that they screwed the pooch and see if it was because they are incompetent, racist, or covering up for Zimmerman.

I don't blame anyone for being outrageously pissed and concerned over this. It essentially means you can walk down the street, stalk any lone person, and shoot them dead if they have anything in their hand you can claim looked like a gun or say anything like "I'll kill you...........................if you come any closer." Just the last part won't make it out of their mouth if you have your gun good and ready to blow a hole in them.

at what time does he say "coons"?

@enoch

I've been having this back and forth with a guy on another forum. He keeps insisting that because Zimmerman was hurt, he was within his rights to shoot Trayvon under SYG. And I keep trying to point out to him that SYG does not say that, but it falls on deaf ears.

And then it comes to witness testimony being the gospel the witness identified as "John" backs up Zimmerman. But the girlfriend of Trayvon who was on the phone with him is also a witness, but somehow her testimony is no good because she's his girlfriend, or underage, or is "speculation" and if she were really a witness the police would have talked to her, etc, etc.

I mean strictly from how events have been reported. We have Zimmerman's own words, phone call, and actions to judge him by. And with Trayvon all we know is that he's dead, was wearing a hoodie, and was a black teen going to the store and back. Yet somehow Trayvon was doing something wrong because Zimmerman identified him as suspicious. Even though there is AT LEAST one black resident in that neighborhood and being black in the neighborhood should not = auto-suspicion even if it's predominately white.

Zimmerman kept chasing and Trayvon should be covered under the law because of it, we KNOW Zimmerman followed him. He wouldn't have "lost" him if Trayvon hadn't tried to actively avoid him by running away. Running away from a creep is not a crime, following a kid is questionable behavior. More so after he was told not to, and the fact that he's neighborhood watch "leader" and should have known better.

The whole thing smacks of Zimmerman having a chip on his shoulder that he isn't "catching the bad guys" and him acting in accordance with that goal...even if it means forcing an encounter. Perhaps he didn't mean to kill Trayvon, or isn't a racist. But I believe he wanted an encounter to happen so at least one of these "punks/goons/coons" were caught. And then he claimed self defense, when he forced the thing upon an individual who was trying to get away from him. It's just compounded by the fact that Trayvon wasn't of a similar age, weight, and build to Zimmerman. He simply did not have the life experience to temper the encounter against, and Zimmerman should have not pushed it. In a role reversal, I'd have no problem with Zimmerman shooting a teenager who was pursuing him after he ran.....but that's not what happened. He forced it upon Trayvon, and got his ass handed to him and shot out of fear. Which does not excuse his actions leading up to the event, he was not immune under self defense laws until he met criteria.

Actually went and looked up the law. Because as more evidence comes out, I still thought that a teenager being followed by a much older adult (~10 years) should result in that teenager being covered under the SYG (Stand Your Ground) Law.

So looking at the text. Trayvon could use justfied force, in accordance with 776.012 and deadly force if he met the criteria of 776.012 (1). He was the person SYG, being stalked for unknown reason by a complete stranger. This is ignoring Zimmerman's comments and just looking at his actions. He followed a kid heedless of advice and the standard op of a neighborhood watch - call it in and remove yourself if no crime is taking place.

776.032 should not apply to Zimmerman, because he caused the confrontation by following. There was no defensive nature in stalking someone to the point of them defending themself from you.

776.041 could apply to Zimmerman as he is the clear aggressor (Again lots of people feel that aggressor means you threw the first punch, that's not what the law says, it's all about reasonable belief that you are in danger and I think being stalked = reasonable). The police had to verify that under 776.041 (1) wasn't happening, which I don't think it is easily proven that Zimmerman was commiting a hate crime via the stalking/profiling/shooting. 776.041 (2) only grants immunity if (A) OR (B) are fulfilled. I have not seen that the police have established (A) or (B) were fulfilled.

(A) Did Zimmerman exhaust every reasonable means of escape the danger of Trayvon? Does yelling help count? My argument here is that persistent following and disregard of advice of written material for conduct PLUS verbal command from dispatch shows that he is incapable of acting reasonably. The reasonable act would be to call it in and leave it the fuck alone. Plus he had no reason to be out of his vehicle after Trayvon.

(B) There is no evidence that Zimmerman tried to withdraw from conflict. There is evidence he was getting thrashed on the ground by his victim after he forced the confrontation on Trayvon, but not that he tried to de-escalate the encounter by either (A) or (B).

So again, I wonder why Zimmerman was let go when he there is no evidence to suggest he didn't force the encounter by his rash and impulsive decisions to get the people "who always get away". Then you count the "fucking coons", which according to many is "fucking punks" or "fucking goons" because "coon" is something no one under 40 has said in a decade. But coons sounds nothing like punks and goons is what all the kids are saying these days (sarcasm).


I've had this discussion on other sites. And overall people seem to keep preaching that you should apply the evidence and the evidence shows that Zimmerman was attacked. Following isn't illegal and questioning someone isn't illegal, and calling the police isn't illegal, and saying "fucking coons" isn't illegal, and ignoring advice of dispatch isn't illegal, and using lethal force in defense of yourself isn't illegal, and.....blah. But taken together, it shows that Zimmerman did a lot of stupid shit to provoke an incident that WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if a reasonable and rational person had been in his place. And according to the SYG law, Martin was covered under it more so than Zimmerman. Yet far too many people are all about believing the police THIS TIME because......of some reason...whether it be Zimmerman is white, an adult, or is alive to "say so". Yet Martin is unbelievable because he is black, a teen, or hit Zimmerman (many believe unprovoked at that).

Over all, it has a lot of earmarks of a case of road rage. Where Martin does something to upset Zimmerman. Zimmerman follows Martin, violence goes down. In most cases I've heard, the guy who does the following and forces an encounter = guilty. Because it's unreasonable anger/decision making leading up to the event and there may not have been an offense in the first place...especially because there's no evidence of an offense to require that kind of action on the part of the guy following you to your home, work, or whatever destination...getting out and starting shit.


2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[14]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

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
(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.

"coon"? Who uses that word anymore?

Your video, Trayvon's Murderer says 'fucking coons' (2:21) in 911 call, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^jonny:

heh heh - fucking poon. Makes grammatical sense anyway!
>> ^Peroxide:
Either that or this guy hates poon: /po͞on/
Noun:
Any large Indo-Malayan evergreen tree of the genus Calophyllum.


Poon, short for poontang. Fucking poontang is a pastime shared by many men and lesbians.

You should be a defense lawyer!

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

Maybe he tripped over a raccoon?

I dunno, I have to agree with Soto, it sounds like he could be saying "fucking punks". Regardless, Zimmerman is a murdering asshole and should be locked up for a long time or dragged into the street and beaten with rubber hoses. I'm just 50/50 on if he says "punks" or "coons".

You get it.

The only disagreement I have is that darker skinned europeans and latinos are still a rung above black people, with some white skin privilege.>> ^legacy0100:

^I think Zimmerman's identification does have some significance in this story because it can be interpreted differently in two different contexts.
1. If Zimmerman is comes from a 'white' (cultural) background, this story may be seen not only as one man's racism but also a symbol of empowered majority's oppression of the minority in US society, which is what everyone initially thought at first and the reason why the word 'white' was repeated over and over in the media.
2. If Zimmerman comes from a 'Hispanic' (cultural) background, this story is about a racist man hating on black people, but NOT as empowered majority suppressing the minority. So the story only includes a racist asshole killing an innocent black kid. Even though Hispanics are light skinned, they do not represent empowered majority in the United States. Many cleaning ladies and construction workers you see are light skinned Ecuadorians and Mexicans, and same goes for Russians and east Europeans who often work in bars, night clubs, and restaurants as waiters/waitresses.
Both contexts does not change the fact that Zimmerman is racist, that much is concrete. But it's what he represents that adds meanings to this ugly situation. Americans recognize that there is an invisible class society we have in our society, and would love to find a story that they can point to and claim it as proof. That may have been the case for Zimmerman/Martin murder case had Zimmerman been from an empowered majority group. I think the need to have evidence to prove the existence racial class society here in America is the reason why people are deliberately classifying the word 'white' in a very vague definition.
I would love to know what Zimmerman's occupation / dayjob was before the incident. This could give us an insight to whether he was being racist out of empowered majority or as just one racist a-hole.

None of that matters because being a racist is independent of one's status as a minority or otherwise. Under apartheid, whites were a minority in South Africa, yet nobody doubts that many of them were racists. Regardless of his actual family background, the murderer is clearly not African, which means that his statement of "fucking coons" can only be seen as racist and implies that the victim's race was part of the reason that the shooter (and his apologists) do not consider his crime to be murder.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

>> ^legacy0100:
^So you're saying Zimmerman is Hispanic?
Or maybe you were trying to prove a different point? In that case you may want to use a word other than 'white', because the confusion over this word is the exact reason why we're having this discussion in the first place.
If you may allow me, I would like to recommend you the word 'light skinned'.

What I'm saying is that "Hispanic" is not a racial classification, so it doesn't preclude him being white. Suppose I told you he was Irish. You wouldn't then say, "Well, is he Irish or is he white? He can't be both."
The classification "Hispanic", as used by the US government, refers to people with origins in Spanish-speaking countries. There are white people with origins in these countries, so there are white Hispanic people.

>> ^legacy0100:

^So you're saying Zimmerman is Hispanic?
Or maybe you were trying to prove a different point? In that case you may want to use a word other than 'white', because the confusion over this word is the exact reason why we're having this discussion in the first place.
If you may allow me, I would like to recommend you the word 'light skinned'.


What I'm saying is that "Hispanic" is not a racial classification, so it doesn't preclude him being white. Suppose I told you he was Irish. You wouldn't then say, "Well, is he Irish or is he white? He can't be both."

The classification "Hispanic", as used by the US government, refers to people with origins in Spanish-speaking countries. There are white people with origins in these countries, so there are white Hispanic people.