http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/03/21/police-report-martin-death-details-scene-shooting
is dox for the holster and injuries,
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/witness_supports_self_defense_story_hJ7s3EBd9LtYlZaE41WzFP
for the eyewitness
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-attorney-friend-speak-trayvon-martin-incident/story?id=15999256#.T3AonlQrs9Q
neighborhood watch commander documented above

The Young Turks narrative is certainly biased and emotional. However:

1. Zimmerman was not part of any registered neighborhood watch group. Period.
2. No neighborhood watch group in the United States advises carrying a gun, confronting a suspect, or doing anything other than calling the police when you see suspicious behavior.
3. According to the site you linked to, I don't see anything they list as "suspicious behavior" that can be applied to Treyvon Martin.
4. Plenty of people in America wear guns on their hips. Assuming they are always cops would be completely ridiculous. (I'm not sure why the fact that he displayed a gun makes you feel better?)
5. Zimmerman's injuries, though MAYBE caused by Martin, were a direct result of his escalating the situation contrary to the advice of both police and neighborhood watch guidelines.

I don't think Zimmerman ran out to shoot someone, he ran out to catch someone, and when things didn't go his way, he started screaming, because he realized he wasn't Charles Bronson.

Zimmerman chased down an unarmed child for no crime other than walking home. There was no justifiable reason for him to escalate the situation to the point where Martin felt he needed to physically defend himself. Not one. Martin's murder was a direct result of Zimmerman's actions, not Martin's, whatever the motive.

I come from a country where only bad guys and cops carry guns, so I don't really understand where's the controversy here. on one side there's a kid, minding his own business, and on the other some nutcase with a gun stalking him. the kid ends up dead. how can anyone come to the conclusion this was NOT Zimmerman's fault?

If you're going to quote the NY Post for "facts" you might as well quote Fox News too. One and the same.

These facts made you change your mind about what, specifically? You are not very clear.

So, you think the homicide of the unarmed teenager, who was committing no crime when Zimmerman approached him, is a justified homicide?

You are essentially saying that armed stalkers can get away with murder if their targets defend themselves.

>> ^speechless:

If you're going to quote the NY Post for "facts" you might as well quote Fox News too. One and the same.

Damn Right!

Assuming any of that stuff about Zimmerman being attacked is even credible in the first place, would you not defend yourself if some guy came after you with a gun?

IMHO, doesn't matter where facts come from. Think outside the box.

As for Zimmerman not being an official Watch commander. Please document that. Because there's nothing out there that says he wasn't on the Watch.

finally
@DFT

Assuming Zimmerman came at Martin with a gun, it still makes no damn sense. What does make sense is everything but "The young turks" narrative.

Oh and I documented a procedure for neighborhood watches to arrest people and a simple google search will correct you of the idea that the watch should not carry guns.

Third, why do you insist on saying martin was an unarmed child? This is absurd.

You're strolling in the rain, minding your own business, chatting with your significant other on the phone.

Out of nowhere, a large stranger with a gun approaches you. Do you "stand your ground"?

If he tried to arrest and detain you, would you let him?

If you would act passively in this situation, I guess I see why you think the unarmed child is in the wrong. I hope you don't have kids, though.

>> ^marinara:

Third, why do you insist on saying martin was an unarmed child? This is absurd.

wasn't he?

TYT's narrative was that an overzealous wanna be cop chased an African American kid down and shot him. The 911 call seems to bear that out. The cops told Zimmerman to stop running, but you can tell he continues to run because of the sound of air wooshing against the cell phone.


To me, the screams for help sound more like a child than a man. It would probably be easy to analyze the audio to determine whose voice it really was. Likewise, they could probably also take a look a Zimmerman's injuries to see if they are legit and not self inflicted after the fact. It seems unlikely to me that a small kid could (or would want to) overpower a large man. It also seems strange that Zimmerman claims the kid dissappears and then reappears out of nowhere to ambush him. And the 'do you have a problem? well you do now' line sounds fabricated, like something out of an action movie.

Zimmerman's story sounds bogus to me. He is fighting for his life, after all. I'd probably make stuff up too if I was in Zimmerman's shoes.

Sorry for the reeeaaally long post @marinara but I was trying to be brief:

1. "Zimmerman was not part of any REGISTERED neighborhood watch group."

Zimmerman did indeed say that he was "captain" of his neighborhood watch, and I can't find any proof that he wasn't, do you know why? Because there is no documentation regarding his neighborhood watch program, because it was unregistered and existed only in the heads of two or three people. And, might I add, it was certainly not "official".

When a person forms a neighborhood watch, it might be important to take into account the community that they live in. What if the community doesn't want a neighborhood watch program? What if they do, but they feel they don't want you representing them, as some people in Zimmerman's community clearly felt?

The fact is that Zimmmerman's self-appointed title carried no legitimacy at all. If my friend Cletus and I want to call ourselves the neighborhood watch, we can. I can call myself "secretary treasurer" and he can call himself "supreme overlord". But it has no more meaning than when my friend Nick and I get together and call ourselves a "fourteenth level archer", and "Nargok, the dwarven battlemage" (respectively). Only, in the case of the neighborhood watch titles, one must consider the community they are attempting to represent. This is why most watch programs (like the one you linked to) register themselves with the National Sheriff's Association, or some other organization.

2. "Oh and I documented a procedure for neighborhood watches to arrest people and a simple google search will correct you of the idea that the watch should not carry guns."

What you documented on the "City of Oxnard, Police Department" website was that citizen watch volunteers (who are registered) are encouraged to make arrests when they have seen a crime being committed, in particular, when they see someone committing the crime of vandalism. All US citizens have the right to make a citizen's arrest, but no one has the right to arrest or detain anyone for "suspicious behavior", even if that person is walking down the street wearing a hoodie, and looking skeptically at the person following them.

As to the gun, the same Oxnard website you linked to, on the same page, advises that no one carry a weapon at all, except for a heavy-duty flashlight that might be used to defend one's self in an emergency. Unfortunately, a Google search relating to neighborhood watch organizations carrying guns is inundated with articles and polls regarding this tragic case. The fox news polls indicate that a minority of people questioned think neighborhood watch members should carry guns, but those people do not reflect the views of any actual organization (that exists outside of its member's heads) that I know of.

I'd like to refer you to the response to the NY Times from Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels. The Angels are one of the most prolific watch organizations in history, with chapters all over the world. They were founded in the late seventies in NYC when the areas they patrolled were considered wastelands. Despite several attempts on the founder's life, and the loss of a few of its members over the years, they still do not advise carrying guns.

3. "...why do you insist on saying martin was an unarmed child? This is absurd."

I say it for two reasons: the first is that Martin was unarmed. There are no eyewitness reports, or even statements from Zimmerman that I've heard, that indicate that Martin attempted to use his bag of Skittles or his can of iced-tea as a weapon. The second reason I say it is that according to the US legal system, Martin was still a child at the time of his death. If he were in the "Child Protective Services' program, he wouldn't have gotten out until he was eighteen, which is the age that US citizens officially become adults (unless they're insane). Some children are tried as adults in the US, but child-victims are never represented as adults.

I understand if you think it's more appropriate to refer to Martin as a teenager, or possibly an adolescent, or even a young adult. But I don't think so, and I'll tell you why: I'm thirty-one years old. I'm not much older by comparison, but when I see a seventeen-year-old kid, I rarely think to myself, "he's got everything figured out". In fact, I rarely think that about most adults. Sure, I think most kids are smarter than people give them credit for, but I don't think Martin was mature enough to know the law and develop an appropriate response to being pursued for no reason by a man armed with a gun. And the US legal system hasn't made a determination in his case yet anyway.

And that's just the point: I'm not necessarily saying I think Martin Zimmerman is guilty. In fact, he's innocent until proven guilty, but I'm absolutely sure that he needs to be arrested. And I'm not really basing that opinion on anything other than his own version of events. If what he's saying is roughly: "I was out patrolling when this kid came up and started beating the shit out of me, so I shot him in fear for my life", then I'll give him that it's an unfortunate event. But I'm damn sure that he still needs to be arrested. Hell yes.

Nono, the onus is on you to prove that he was.You cannot prove a negative.
>> ^marinara:

Think outside the box.
As for Zimmerman not being an official Watch commander. Please document that. Because there's nothing out there that says he wasn't on the Watch.

I think the whole thing was a viral publicity stunt for Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea.

_{too soon?}

@marinara, so that's how the US legal system works now? The victims of crimes have to prove (posthumously, if necessary) that their assailant is guilty before the police take any action, right?

Wait, so a grown man admittedly pursues an unarmed kid, against the advice of the police, and said unarmed kid ends up dead and you don't think the grown man needs to be arrested and investigated? And your justification for this stance is that the internet video you watched was overzealous?

.....huh?

That's the power of the internet, my friends.>> ^peggedbea:

Wait, so a grown man admittedly pursues an unarmed kid, against the advice of the police, and said unarmed kid ends up dead and you don't think the grown man needs to be arrested and investigated? And your justification for this stance is that the internet video you watched was overzealous?
.....huh?

Why is it important to some on the right that Zimmerman be innocent? I genuinely don't understand.

I generally like the cut of your jib @marinara, but sometimes you just go off into Alex Jones land and I'm not quite sure why. With all due respect, this isn't your best work.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why is it important to some on the right that Zimmerman be innocent? I genuinely don't understand.


Because if he's guilty, then it calls into question their stupid "stand your ground" law, and more broadly, their insistence that everyone has the right to be armed all the time.

The only opinion anyone who is not part of the case should have is that an investigation is necessary.

Any opinions on Zimmerman's guilt or whether Martin attacked first are uninformed speculation no matter how many facts you've read.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

... But it has no more meaning than when my friend Nick and I get together and call ourselves a "fourteenth level archer", and "Nargok, the dwarven battlemage" (respectively).


Great post. On a lighter note I loved the use of "respectively".

Yours, Deano, Fourth Lord of The Elderberries.

3 of these things turned out to be lies:

-Zimmerman was screaming, not the kid. (not a fact)
-Zimmerman had injuries to the head.
-Eyewitnesses say that Martin had Zimmerman on his back.

What's the source on Zimmerman had no injuries to the head? Even in that police video, there does seem to be SOME injury to his head, just not as grievous as the earlier police reports led us to believe.

It's pretty obvious that there was some sort of altercation. I'm just skeptical is was life threatening, except for Martin of course.