@Darkhand

You were saying?

aaaaaargh!!!!!!!!

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 factor is overshadowed by a cronyism factor in this case. His slap on the wrist for assaulting cops in the past doesn't seem so strange now.

>> ^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).

Also I hope this video shuts up the bunches of people talking about self defense and all of that bullshit. They have very little to stand on before and now it just got fucking obliterated. It's gonna take a very inept lawyer to fail to convict Zimmerman.

EDIT: By the way just for the sake of google...I googled George Zimmerman after typing that and look what comes up first.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/29/george-zimmermans-father-claims-trayvon-martin-beat-his-son-threatened-his-life/

"Robert Zimmerman detailed his son's account of the night, claiming Martin beat his son for over a minute and told him something along the lines of, "You're going to die tonight."

Does George look like a man who was brutally beaten that night? Neeeeyyyyyoope!

I thought it strange that the cop is touching Zimmerman without gloves on. You would think he'd have blood on him and the cop would not want that on his hands. On the red coat you wouldn't think it would show up on camera, but that grey shirt it would. So either he had no blood on his shirt and the jacket closed, and that cop stuck his hand in blood while checking him.......or there's no blood on him at all.

You do see the cop wipe his hand on his pants, but that's after he checks Zimmerman's back, which would be wet or have dirt on it if he was in the grass.

I see no bandages, nothing in his nose to stem blood flow from a broken nose. There is a point in the video where the light catches the crown of his head and you can see a line that may be indicative of a scrape or abrasion, but he would have a bandage if it were bad. The paramedics had seen him by this point, and he chose not to go to the hospital.

If I had just been brutally attacked, I'd want to go to the hospital and not the police station. Since the head beating was supposed to be bad, you don't know what the hell may have happened.....unless he was knocked crazy and was loopy from the beating. Which they would have made him go to the hospital at that point.

I also find it strange that they didn't take his clothes.


And for those whom are following the case, there's news out now that the police wanted to get an arrest warrant for manslaughter for Zimmerman, but were denied by the Attorney General. The expert the news interviewed said it was unusual, but not unheard of for an AG to not take police recommendation. That AG has recused himself from the case and they've put someone else in charge of the decisions now.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/newsnation/46883285/#46883285 This is a video where they discuss this.

I suspect Joe Oliver was let into the press to make Zimmerman look better, failed. So now Zimmerman's father has come into the picture realizing it looks bad.

I hope that people start refusing to get sucked into the conflicting narratives that are being desperately peddled on both sides of this tragedy. Frankly, I've been disgusted at the mob mentality surrounding this whole case. The media has abandoned all pretese, and is simply acting as a bunch of propoganda outlets - allowing themselves to be manipulated by both the obvious race-hustling of charlatans like Al Sharpton, and by the Police with all these leaks that are clearly desgined to put out a narrative.

Best thing we can all do is shut the news off, ignore the media, and not listen to a single word that anyone says about this whole thing. Let the courts do what they do, and stop getting sucked into these ideological knife fights that are clearly politically motivated.

How unsurprising.

Here is a comment from reddit - http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ribzs/zimmerman_shooter_of_treyvon_martin_on_police/c462epk

Yes. Martin's nickname was 'Slim'.

And Martin was only 100 feet from his father's house down the pathway between houses where he was killed by Zimmerman.

And Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend telling her he was scared that he was being chased by some strange man. And she told him to run home.

And the initial confrontation of Martin by Zimmerman was overheard by the girlfriend who heard Zimmerman demanding to know what Martin was doing.

Every new piece of evidence continues to paint Zimmerman as a liar:

[1] http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/19/2703029/us-department-of-justice-fbi-and.html#disqus_thread

"Zimmerman said he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck, police said. He said he feared for his life and fired the semiautomatic handgun he was licensed to carry because he feared for his life."

There are no street signs at the spot where Zimmerman killed Martin - it's a pedestrian walkway between the backs of houses that leads to Martin's father's house

There are no signs of grave injury to Zimmerman like he claimed or any hospital trip

There are only three streets in the entire gated community. Zimmerman didn't need to get out of SUV to check which street he was on

He didn't get 'attacked' by Martin - the girlfriend heard Zimmerman approaching Martin demanding to know what he was doing

Zimmerman expects people to believe that this 17 year kid racing home to his father's house at night in the rain while being stalked by a 250 lb unknown adult armed with a handgun suddenly turned around and attacked Zimmerman savagely enough for the nutcase to shoot Martin and leave no obvious signs of serious injury on Zimmerman's body.

I know right? All that happened was a guy shot and killed an unarmed black kid, said it was self-defense, and the cops just sent him home with his loaded gun. Case closed, obviously. I can't understand why anyone's making a fuss over it.

Actually, I don't understand why anyone thinks there's some other "side" to the tragedy.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I hope that people start refusing to get sucked into the conflicting narratives that are being desperately peddled on both sides of this tragedy.

Fox'll just ignore this video's existence

Why is this man not in jail yet? Corruptus in Extremis.

Holy shit, this coming from one of the most politically biased individuals to ever puke up worthless polarized talking points on the sift.

Ignore story about murder and injustice for minorities.
Raise hell about "startling new details" in the Obama birth certificate saga.

Riiight...

You and everyone like you are demented.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Best thing we can all do is shut the news off, ignore the media, and not listen to a single word that anyone says about this whole thing. Let the courts do what they do, and stop getting sucked into these ideological knife fights that are clearly politically motivated.

I guessed randomly that Zimmerman may not have been hurt at all from the beginning, go look what I wrote on day one and you'll see I guessed right. The thing that made me think this might be so was the behavior of the police. They were acting suspicious, sending a narcotics officer, not arresting Zimmerman, not compiling any witnesses, etc...

It's almost like they had a connection of some kind with Zimmerman and somehow this was paramount to what happened. I even guessed then that we might be looking at a probe into an entire police department over this. I guess we'll see.

I guessed that there may have been some sort of cover-up due to the suspicious actions of the police. The constant lying, denials, and story transformation seems to make this more true everyday. WTF is going on down there...!?

coming from one of the most politically biased individuals to ever puke up worthless polarized talking points on the sift

I understand your fear and anger. When leftists encounter a conservative that puts forth simple, logical arguements that conflict with liberal ideology, your response is the default. Lash out. Attack. Insult. That's all the left has really got. We see it in the blogosphere right now with the Obamacare SCOTUS case. Liberals are literally gobsmacked at how Barry-boy's law has been so utterly and easily turned into swiss cheese - even though the arguments have been there for decades. Not having any intelligent, logical response to the simple, common-sense arguments, what do they do? Visit the leftist blog of your choice to see netizens stomping and bellowing like elephants - much like yourself. You suffer from the same malady, but on a smaller scale when you encounter me here on the Sift. I understand, and you have my pity.

But of course the truth is that I've never done any of the things you accuse me of. Like far too many on the left, you appear to confuse your hatred and anger towards an intellectual idea that contrasts your own with the persons present them. There is so much bologna flying around the internet about this Trevon case in particular that I have refused to take any stance whatsoever. I am not the guy tweeting the address of retirees to lynch mobs. I am not the guy putting out 'dead or alive' bounties. I'm not the guy making wild accusations based on 3rd hand internet stories, facebook comments, and media talking points which are based on rumors, innuendo, and theory. I'm just a guy saying, "chillax".

What I find loathsome is the tone of the discussion. It reminds me very much of the Duke Lacrosse case where the media latched on to a sensational story and ran with it, kicked out a narrative they liked, and pretended it was true. The whole nation tried, convicted, and demanded the execution of the Lacrosse team. The "evidence" was equally conclusive. How could a bunch of rich white boys NOT be guilty? Aaaaand then when the actual investigation happened the whole thing fell apart. I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying it is too early to say anything at all, and that there's a ton of agenda-based, race-inspired hype rush to jugement that is causing a lot of people on the indeological left to forget the first rule in US jurisprudence...

Innocent until proven guilty.

But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES. The media doesn't know anything, and there are a ton of race-baiters down there in Florida that are very desperately churning up everything they can in order to advance the agenda that this was a hate crime. Frankly, I'm not buying it. I'll wait for the actual investigation. All this stuff flying around right now is obviously designed to establish a narrative before the trial - and I'm not listening to a word of it.

Why? Adam Corrola of all people nails it in his podcast...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/29/Adam-Carolla-Media%20Bias

The entire story about that "poor persecuted gay student driven to suicide by his bigoted roommate"? Yeah - it was all bullcrap. So was the Duke Lacrosse case. Again - I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying let's wait for some REAL data as opposed to all this clearly agenda-driven bullcrap that is designed to establish a narrative. You all think you're smart, right? Prove it for a change and stop being parrots. There's a ton of people down there throwing gas bombs so you'll react the way they want. Stop being thier tools. Shut off the news. Ignore everyone who is shouting for your attention - because they're probably a charlatan or demagogue. Just go about your business and wait for the courts to take care of this.

I understand what you're saying about people seeing what they want and manipulating a tragedy to their own ends. But I have no problem with the "court of public opinion" (as influenced on the Sift by TYT) supporting the family and deciding that the initial investigation was flawed, and that Zimmerman needs to be arrested and brought to trial. Now that's happening anyway, but people are going to follow it and discuss it like they would any popular murder case.

I believe Zimmerman is a pathetic Charles Bronson wannabe, but I'm not ready to convict him. One of my friends made a very convincing case just last night that he'll get off in the end. Either way, the outcome is going to be very politically relevant to every American, no matter how they feel about it.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES.

There's a big difference between having tried and convicted him and what this lefty wants: for the case to be investigated properly.

I think this is part of the issue. The left's position isn't "off with Zimmerman's head!" it's "we demand a real criminal investigation!"

The people we're most mad at are the Florida police for looking the other way. I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty of a crime or not, but I'm pretty fucking sure that him shooting and killing an unarmed kid warranted more action from the police than what happened.

I don't understand why that isn't everyone's reaction. Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?

Do you guys think killing people isn't a big deal?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker From my perspective, the problem is that it seems the courts aren't doing anything. When a man has shot another man, he should at least be arrested by the police to give a full statement etc etc. He's innocent until proven guilty, certainly, but he should still be investigated properly.

This video is meaningless without time stamps. I've heard it was taken 4 hours after the event, more than enough time for Zimmerman to clean up. Is there no record of anyone anywhere treating his injuries?

-----
Please enjoy the Evil Zimmerman Theory, based on the idea that Zimmerman planned to corner and execute a minority, which is the radical left's consensus:

1) Zimmerman sees the target (Martin) and decides to directly confront him.

2) To cover his ass, Zimmerman calls 911, creating audio evidence of the encounter. Because his judge father is so beloved that every single cop on the force will hide or distort all forensic evidence in his favor, he's not worried. Also, because he "owns" the police, Zimmerman doesn't care if they catch him in the act (or beat him to the target).

3) Without knowing 100% if Martin himself is armed (or working solo), lone vigilante Zimmerman walks/runs within audio range (20-50 feet?) of Martin and starts yelling racial slurs to get Martin to attack him. He yells the slurs with confidence, since the 911 operator will scrub any lines from Martin like, "Mister don't shoot!" or "I'm unarmed!"

4) Zimmerman has lied to 911 about being lost, he knows exactly where he is, and he knows when he confronts Martin, it will be in a place Martin has nowhere to run. Zimmerman also knows that even if there was an escape route, instead of running away, Martin will take the bait and attack him.

5) Before all this Zimmerman has drawn his gun and put in his pocket (or already has it there). He says some more things to get Martin to attack, and Martin charges him. Zimmerman has to very carefully time this. Shoot too soon (outside of 25 feet) and it looks like what it is, a planned hit. Wait too long and Martin will get the drop on him, beat the shit out of him and probably kill him in an adrenalin-filled rage, with or without taking his gun away.

6) Zimmerman gets lucky and shoots Martin once around 10 feet. Even though he has "diplomatic immunity" through owning the local police through family ties, he doesn't bother emptying his gun into the fallen Martin to end the slightest possiblilty that Martin might pull through and testify against him.

7) Zimmerman has no idea how many witnesses--if any--heard or saw the ruckus or possibly even filmed it. He doesn't care: the police are backing him up. He flops around in the grass and whacks his head a few times, drawing blood, but just enough that a backup alibi about a scuffle could go either way. He knows his father will lie for him, but the lies do have to be consistent.

-------------------------------

The Evil Zimmerman Theory will remain theory until the forensic evidence about shooting distances/angles/et al. is released.

QM and Pennypacker resort to strawmans as usual. flinging terms like "radical left" without consequence. The sift needs some serious moderation around here.

No one has convicted Zimmerman...end of story, get that bullshit out of your heads. It really is quite irrelevant who the attacker is. The real question is:

Did a kid deserve to have his life ended over this? And the answer is most assuredly...

NO!!

It truly is despicable that this has turned into a left v right issue. This is the sort of thing that should be uniting us, not dividing us. EVERYONE, left and right should be ashamed.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

coming from one of the most politically biased individuals to ever puke up worthless polarized talking points on the sift
I understand your fear and anger. When leftists encounter a conservative that puts forth simple, logical arguements that conflict with liberal ideology, your response is the default. Lash out. Attack. Insult. That's all the left has really got. We see it in the blogosphere right now with the Obamacare SCOTUS case. Liberals are literally gobsmacked at how Barry-boy's law has been so utterly and easily turned into swiss cheese - even though the arguments have been there for decades. Not having any intelligent, logical response to the simple, common-sense arguments, what do they do? Visit the leftist blog of your choice to see netizens stomping and bellowing like elephants - much like yourself. You suffer from the same malady, but on a smaller scale when you encounter me here on the Sift. I understand, and you have my pity.
But of course the truth is that I've never done any of the things you accuse me of. Like far too many on the left, you appear to confuse your hatred and anger towards an intellectual idea that contrasts your own with the persons present them. There is so much bologna flying around the internet about this Trevon case in particular that I have refused to take any stance whatsoever. I am not the guy tweeting the address of retirees to lynch mobs. I am not the guy putting out 'dead or alive' bounties. I'm not the guy making wild accusations based on 3rd hand internet stories, facebook comments, and media talking points which are based on rumors, innuendo, and theory. I'm just a guy saying, "chillax".
What I find loathsome is the tone of the discussion. It reminds me very much of the Duke Lacrosse case where the media latched on to a sensational story and ran with it, kicked out a narrative they liked, and pretended it was true. The whole nation tried, convicted, and demanded the execution of the Lacrosse team. The "evidence" was equally conclusive. How could a bunch of rich white boys NOT be guilty? Aaaaand then when the actual investigation happened the whole thing fell apart. I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying it is too early to say anything at all, and that there's a ton of agenda-based, race-inspired hype rush to jugement that is causing a lot of people on the indeological left to forget the first rule in US jurisprudence...
Innocent until proven guilty.
But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES. The media doesn't know anything, and there are a ton of race-baiters down there in Florida that are very desperately churning up everything they can in order to advance the agenda that this was a hate crime. Frankly, I'm not buying it. I'll wait for the actual investigation. All this stuff flying around right now is obviously designed to establish a narrative before the trial - and I'm not listening to a word of it.
Why? Adam Corrola of all people nails it in his podcast...
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/29/Adam-Carolla-Media%
20Bias
The entire story about that "poor persecuted gay student driven to suicide by his bigoted roommate"? Yeah - it was all bullcrap. So was the Duke Lacrosse case. Again - I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying let's wait for some REAL data as opposed to all this clearly agenda-driven bullcrap that is designed to establish a narrative. You all think you're smart, right? Prove it for a change and stop being parrots. There's a ton of people down there throwing gas bombs so you'll react the way they want. Stop being thier tools. Shut off the news. Ignore everyone who is shouting for your attention - because they're probably a charlatan or demagogue. Just go about your business and wait for the courts to take care of this.


And yet when it comes to Obama he's guilty until proven innocent.

Your ignoring the biggest accusation leveled against you. When a black man is shot and killed by a white guy, you are here insisting the white guy is innocent until proven guilty, which is fine and nobody is even really arguing against it. The trouble is at the exact same time you go around insisting that a black man who has been accepted as president forged his birth records and was in fact born in Kenya, guilty until proven innocent, and not even a certified birth certificate accepted by the highest authority in the state is in your mind enough evidence to prove his innocence.

That contradiction of positions that paints you in a horrific light and you might want to address it rather than ignoring it.

Anyone else surprised that Zimmerman looks nothing like the pudgy, remorseful, loser-type portrayed in the popular mugshot?

It is definitely racism here underscored by thoughts that people have the right to "protect" themselves, even if that protection is provoking another and responding with force--even if that protection is an overreaction(I punch you, you shoot me.)

Now, the question is does it matter if he is bleeding or not by law? The defense doesn't have to prove any injuries on Zimmerman in the first place, but the police report would probably be tossed from court if they can't explain this video (Like for example, they may have cleaned up Zimmerman before booking him.)

All this seems to me is minority on minority violence. Funny thing is, since I live close by, I hear about this shit all the times. Hispanics hate blacks and vice versa, the acrimony is insane. One said to not trust the spics but to deal with the white man because he is more the honest businessman...?

>> ^NetRunner:

I think this is part of the issue. The left's position isn't "off with Zimmerman's head!" it's "we demand a real criminal investigation!"
The people we're most mad at are the Florida police for looking the other way. I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty of a crime or not, but I'm pretty fucking sure that him shooting and killing an unarmed kid warranted more action from the police than what happened.
I don't understand why that isn't everyone's reaction. Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?
Do you guys think killing people isn't a big deal?
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES.

On a side note, if this had been a black man who had shot a Hispanic, nobody would have cared. However, if a black man would have shot a white man he would have immediately been arrested most likely. And the same people outraged right now would be outraged at that arrest.

I find it funny that before the facts--not now that the facts are known--thousands of racists profiled Zimmerman who they accused of profiling. And, even though the evidence now supports it, they are still racist fucks for having profiled unjustly. (I did not say you profiled btw @NetRunner, you have an open mind and are waiting. I am talking about all these loud motherfuckers--including the kid's parents...)

Casey Annothny, a white woman, murdered her child or was directly negligent in her child's death. There was no looking the other way because she was white. Yet the prosecution fucked up the case. I wouldn't care how long it would take--get everything right under the law firs then arrest.

I say this because stand your ground is hard to fight against period. (Its not like other states where people should move to if they fear this shit.)

And if you want to know--the police wanted to make an arrest right away. They filed the paper work. It was the State's attorney that advised against it... (Why, I don't know?)


>> ^NetRunner:

I think this is part of the issue. The left's position isn't "off with Zimmerman's head!" it's "we demand a real criminal investigation!"
The people we're most mad at are the Florida police for looking the other way. I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty of a crime or not, but I'm pretty fucking sure that him shooting and killing an unarmed kid warranted more action from the police than what happened.
I don't understand why that isn't everyone's reaction. Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?
Do you guys think killing people isn't a big deal?
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES.

Wait, I am confused... Obama is black, and usually presumed guilty before innocent as a black man first. We agree on that 100% I assume...but the proper way to word your argument would have been, "when a black man is shot and killed by a Hispanic, you are here insisting the Hispanic guy is innocent until proven guilty."

If we say Zimmerman is for the most part white, then Obama is white too, and that's just retarded... We know society goes by racial clumping and that shit is not going to change any time soon. In fact, this is the first time I have ever heard "White Hispanic" in my life--when the Media wants to stir up shit for dollar's sake.

If it had been Zimmerman shot by a KKK member, who thinks the fucking paper would label it a white-on-white crime? Who on the sift would label it as such?

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
coming from one of the most politically biased individuals to ever puke up worthless polarized talking points on the sift
I understand your fear and anger. When leftists encounter a conservative that puts forth simple, logical arguements that conflict with liberal ideology, your response is the default. Lash out. Attack. Insult. That's all the left has really got. We see it in the blogosphere right now with the Obamacare SCOTUS case. Liberals are literally gobsmacked at how Barry-boy's law has been so utterly and easily turned into swiss cheese - even though the arguments have been there for decades. Not having any intelligent, logical response to the simple, common-sense arguments, what do they do? Visit the leftist blog of your choice to see netizens stomping and bellowing like elephants - much like yourself. You suffer from the same malady, but on a smaller scale when you encounter me here on the Sift. I understand, and you have my pity.
But of course the truth is that I've never done any of the things you accuse me of. Like far too many on the left, you appear to confuse your hatred and anger towards an intellectual idea that contrasts your own with the persons present them. There is so much bologna flying around the internet about this Trevon case in particular that I have refused to take any stance whatsoever. I am not the guy tweeting the address of retirees to lynch mobs. I am not the guy putting out 'dead or alive' bounties. I'm not the guy making wild accusations based on 3rd hand internet stories, facebook comments, and media talking points which are based on rumors, innuendo, and theory. I'm just a guy saying, "chillax".
What I find loathsome is the tone of the discussion. It reminds me very much of the Duke Lacrosse case where the media latched on to a sensational story and ran with it, kicked out a narrative they liked, and pretended it was true. The whole nation tried, convicted, and demanded the execution of the Lacrosse team. The "evidence" was equally conclusive. How could a bunch of rich white boys NOT be guilty? Aaaaand then when the actual investigation happened the whole thing fell apart. I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying it is too early to say anything at all, and that there's a ton of agenda-based, race-inspired hype rush to jugement that is causing a lot of people on the indeological left to forget the first rule in US jurisprudence...
Innocent until proven guilty.
But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES. The media doesn't know anything, and there are a ton of race-baiters down there in Florida that are very desperately churning up everything they can in order to advance the agenda that this was a hate crime. Frankly, I'm not buying it. I'll wait for the actual investigation. All this stuff flying around right now is obviously designed to establish a narrative before the trial - and I'm not listening to a word of it.
Why? Adam Corrola of all people nails it in his podcast...
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/29/Adam-Carolla-Media% 20Bias
The entire story about that "poor persecuted gay student driven to suicide by his bigoted roommate"? Yeah - it was all bullcrap. So was the Duke Lacrosse case. Again - I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying let's wait for some REAL data as opposed to all this clearly agenda-driven bullcrap that is designed to establish a narrative. You all think you're smart, right? Prove it for a change and stop being parrots. There's a ton of people down there throwing gas bombs so you'll react the way they want. Stop being thier tools. Shut off the news. Ignore everyone who is shouting for your attention - because they're probably a charlatan or demagogue. Just go about your business and wait for the courts to take care of this.

And yet when it comes to Obama he's guilty until proven innocent.
Your ignoring the biggest accusation leveled against you. When a black man is shot and killed by a white guy, you are here insisting the white guy is innocent until proven guilty, which is fine and nobody is even really arguing against it. The trouble is at the exact same time you go around insisting that a black man who has been accepted as president forged his birth records and was in fact born in Kenya, guilty until proven innocent, and not even a certified birth certificate accepted by the highest authority in the state is in your mind enough evidence to prove his innocence.
That contradiction of positions that paints you in a horrific light and you might want to address it rather than ignoring it.

Best I can get from the information out there:

Around 7:30 the shooting had occurred and the police were just arriving.

7:40 they pronounce Trayvon dead.

7:55ish Zimmerman shows up at police station that we see on video.

10PM ish Zimmerman is released.

So, 7:30 to 7:55 is the amount of clean up and dress time Zimmerman had for his wounds at a maximum. But it's doubtful they were cleaning him up in the car...and it's doubtful they were cleaning him up immediately upon arriving. So, I think the 25 minutes becomes more like 10-15 for clean up.

So, what you see on that tape, if this time line is pretty close to actuality. He had very little clean up time for someone to be claiming a broken nose and repeatedly slamming of their head into concrete.

You DO see the police officer looking at the back of Zimmerman's head in the video.
You also see the police officer handling the clothing with no gloves on......presumably where blood would be if the back of his head being slammed and he shot up at his attacker.

They are also saying that the police took him from the scene against his wishes to go to the hospital, but that was not the claim prior to the video coming out that I can find. Prior to the video it was that he had been treated on the scene and was trying to cooperate with the police and went to the hospital the next day.

Also, Trayvon report supposedly had his full name and address on the morning of the 27th at like 3 AM. His father filed a missing person the 27th, and was informed of the death the 28th.

My biggest concern aside from the short 3 hour maximum window they spent with Zimmerman on this, they supposedly had him walk police through the events the next day, is that they hadn't even found out Trayvon's reason for being there until the 28th. That means they have a NW leader saying there's a non-resident there whom he killed. And they haven't even figured out by the time they let him go if Trayvon did have a reason to be there, because supposedly the house in the neighborhood was owned by Trayvon's father's fiancee. Oh, and they didn't take Zimmerman's clothes, I am just hoping they got pictures. Plus there is report of the lead investigator filing an affidavit that he didn't believe Zimmerman's story the night of the crime. SYG not only grants immunity, it also impairs the police ability to investigate to see if it actually was self defense to any degree of accuracy which pretty much means you're getting immunity unless there was someone left alive who witnessed the moments leading up to the shooting, the shooting, and survived long enough for police to arrive. So you go from witness of all events = crazed gun man/mass murder/whatever to no witness = Self Defense.

>> ^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?

>> ^NetRunner:

I think this is part of the issue. The left's position isn't "off with Zimmerman's head!" it's "we demand a real criminal investigation!"
The people we're most mad at are the Florida police for looking the other way. I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty of a crime or not, but I'm pretty fucking sure that him shooting and killing an unarmed kid warranted more action from the police than what happened.
I don't understand why that isn't everyone's reaction. Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?
Do you guys think killing people isn't a big deal?
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES.


I'm not a birther but I feel the same way Winstonfield does too. Until the police say "We can find no reason to arrest or charge Zimmerman" everyone needs to be patient. Have Rallys and Prayer Vigils for the family but being so angry about it doesn't solve anything.

Killing people is a big deal and if Zimmerman wasn't defending himself then he needs to be tried and convicted as a criminal.

Let the prosecutor do her job and if she doesn't THEN hold her accountable. I feel like we've hit the "fast forwarded button" skip a year and George Zimmerman was released and the mayor presented him with a key to the and gave a speech about how Zimmerman is a great citizen for "stopping a dangerous negro".

People act like I'm defending Zimmerman when it will always seem that way because nobody else is looking at the other side of the case. Until this video came out we had no reason to NOT believe Zimmerman over what was in our individual hearts.

Now Zimmerman needs to pray that the hospital took photos of him or something looking really beat up or can explain away why in that video he looks perfectly fine.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Police Video, abc news, Travon Martin, George Zimmerman' to 'Police Video, abc news, Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^NetRunner:

The left's position isn't "off with Zimmerman's head!" it's "we demand a real criminal investigation!"

I think it's embarrassing that there is a "left" and "right" in a potential murder trial and it reinforces my feeling that, in the 21st century, people still can't break away from their primitive tribal mindset. Many people have simply sworn loyalty to a team.

I don't have a problem with demanding an investigation and I do think something smells rotten when said investigation even needs to be demanded. It should have been automatic.

But there has been plenty of noise from both teams on this case that is downright despicable. Never mind for a moment that Spike Lee gave out the wrong address; Was he encouraging mobs of people to show up at Zimmerman's house and demand an investigation? If he was that's incredibly naive, at best. Even if he, somehow, had the best of intentions, there have been plenty of people out there calling for Zimmerman's head and publicizing his address only puts him in danger and complicates the investigation.

The other team is no less irresponsible. What I've been seeing a lot of in the last couple days is references to the attacks on Allen Coon. "Why isn't the left up in arms about this?" and "Why hasn't Obama given a speech about him?" are the major themes. They're trying to portray the Martin outrage as anti-white racism. And in a few cases they're right.

Both teams are immature and insane, they're both making proper justice that much harder to attain, and they both think they're the fucking heroes in this story rather than the enraged peanut gallery they really are.

The investigation is under way. Everyone needs to shut up and wait for the outcome. There will be riots no matter which way it goes if the public outrage machine keeps going like this.

@Darkhand, the problem is that the police already said: "We can find no reason to arrest or charge Zimmerman." That's the issue that started the whole thing. The talk about racism and gun laws and bruises is all incidental to the fact that the shooting came to light specifically because the prosecutor had no job to do. The whole thing was ready to be closed until enough people complained that the Dept. of Justice got involved.

Now it looks like Zimmerman is going to have a trial, and it's all thanks to the fact that people, who were not a part of the criminal justice system, were arguing over the specifics of the case. The courts might never have node done anything if the details weren't driving people crazy.

Curious; can you outline your friend's argument?>> ^Ryjkyj:

I understand what you're saying about people seeing what they want and manipulating a tragedy to their own ends. But I have no problem with the "court of public opinion" (as influenced on the Sift by TYT) supporting the family and deciding that the initial investigation was flawed, and that Zimmerman needs to be arrested and brought to trial. Now that's happening anyway, but people are going to follow it and discuss it like they would any popular murder case.
I believe Zimmerman is a pathetic Charles Bronson wannabe, but I'm not ready to convict him. One of my friends made a very convincing case just last night that he'll get off in the end. Either way, the outcome is going to be very politically relevant to every American, no matter how they feel about it.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES.

If you had a little more empathy, you would see why people are so upset and angry. Anyone with a darker skinned kid is upset and concerned that murder can be so easy to commit and get away with.

And you're completely wrong when you say noone is looking at Zimmerman's side. For god's sake the guy killed a kid and he's walking free. The police and state attorneys were on his side from the start. They already said: "We can find no reason to arrest or charge Zimmerman".That's the problem. If they had arrested Zimmerman from the start none of the protest would have happened.>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^NetRunner:
I think this is part of the issue. The left's position isn't "off with Zimmerman's head!" it's "we demand a real criminal investigation!"
The people we're most mad at are the Florida police for looking the other way. I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty of a crime or not, but I'm pretty fucking sure that him shooting and killing an unarmed kid warranted more action from the police than what happened.
I don't understand why that isn't everyone's reaction. Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?
Do you guys think killing people isn't a big deal?
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES.

I'm not a birther but I feel the same way Winstonfield does too. Until the police say "We can find no reason to arrest or charge Zimmerman" everyone needs to be patient. Have Rallys and Prayer Vigils for the family but being so angry about it doesn't solve anything.
Killing people is a big deal and if Zimmerman wasn't defending himself then he needs to be tried and convicted as a criminal.
Let the prosecutor do her job and if she doesn't THEN hold her accountable. I feel like we've hit the "fast forwarded button" skip a year and George Zimmerman was released and the mayor presented him with a key to the and gave a speech about how Zimmerman is a great citizen for "stopping a dangerous negro".
People act like I'm defending Zimmerman when it will always seem that way because nobody else is looking at the other side of the case. Until this video came out we had no reason to NOT believe Zimmerman over what was in our individual hearts.
Now Zimmerman needs to pray that the hospital took photos of him or something looking really beat up or can explain away why in that video he looks perfectly fine.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

@Darkhand, the problem is that the police already said: "We can find no reason to arrest or charge Zimmerman." That's the issue that started the whole thing. The talk about racism and gun laws and bruises is all incidental to the fact that the shooting came to light specifically because the prosecutor had no job to do. The whole thing was ready to be closed until enough people complained that the Dept. of Justice got involved.
Now it looks like Zimmerman is going to have a trial, and it's all thanks to the fact that people, who were not a part of the criminal justice system, were arguing over the specifics of the case. The courts might never have node anything if the details weren't driving people crazy.


I agree with you on that. I'm glad public pressure is helping to ensure that justice is served. What I'm saying is after it reached the national stage the anger could have been scaled back a bit. People putting out prices on his head and that elderly couples life was put in danger because of irrational people.

When I said no-one is talking about Zimmermans side I meant the people on this site not the police.

I have empathy for all living things regardless of race or species.

>> ^longde:

If you had a little more empathy, you would see why people are so upset and angry. Anyone with a darker skinned kid (like me) is upset and concerned that murder can be so easy to commit and get away with.
And you're completely wrong when you say noone is looking at Zimmerman's side. For god's sake the guy killed a kid and he's walking free. The police and state attorneys were on his side from the start. That's the problem. If they had arrested Zimmerman from the start none of the protest would have happened.

I have empathy for all things too; yet I don't find myself defending child killers too often.>> ^Darkhand:

When I said no-one is talking about Zimmermans side I meant the people on this site not the police.
I have empathy for all living things regardless of race or species.

>> ^longde:

I have empathy for all things too; yet I don't find myself defending child killers too often.>> ^Darkhand:
When I said no-one is talking about Zimmermans side I meant the people on this site not the police.
I have empathy for all living things regardless of race or species.



Which brings me back to my original point and Winston's point as well. Everyone thinks that because I offered an alternate version of the story I'm DEFENDING Zimmerman.

You can't have Empathy for all living things and hate Zimmerman those statements are mutually exclusive.

Don't put words in my mouth: I never said I hate Zimmerman. I have empathy for even that wretch. I just don't have sympathy for him.

And, you are in effect defending Zimmerman when you reach for explanations that would exonerate him.>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^longde:
I have empathy for all things too; yet I don't find myself defending child killers too often.>> ^Darkhand:
When I said no-one is talking about Zimmermans side I meant the people on this site not the police.
I have empathy for all living things regardless of race or species.


Which brings me back to my original point and Winston's point as well. Everyone thinks that because I offered an alternate version of the story I'm DEFENDING Zimmerman.
You can't have Empathy for all living things and hate Zimmerman those statements are mutually exclusive.

>> ^longde:

Curious; can you outline your friend's argument?


Well, first off, you have to imagine that he is very charismatic, and I was drunk and halfway through a game of Eclipse. Anyway, the argument (and this has already been said before) was just that the "stand your ground law" is flawed. All Zimmerman really would need to do, is prove that he felt his life was in danger. Any circumstances before that might not even be taken into account depending on how the judge feels the law applies. And Zimmerman is the one with an eye witness to back him up.

It sounds pretty flimsy, I know, but I would prepare myself for the possibility that Zimmerman will walk. There's no reason it can't end that way.

In my opinion If you had empathy for him you'd be standing in the middle like me.

>> ^longde:

Don't put words in my mouth: I never said I hate Zimmerman. I have empathy for even that wretch. I just don't have sympathy for him.
And, you are in effect defending Zimmerman when you reach for explanations that would exonerate him.>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^longde:
I have empathy for all things too; yet I don't find myself defending child killers too often.>> ^Darkhand:
When I said no-one is talking about Zimmermans side I meant the people on this site not the police.
I have empathy for all living things regardless of race or species.


Which brings me back to my original point and Winston's point as well. Everyone thinks that because I offered an alternate version of the story I'm DEFENDING Zimmerman.
You can't have Empathy for all living things and hate Zimmerman those statements are mutually exclusive.

Who get's to define "middle"? You?

In fact, I reject the simplistic framing of this issue that it could have some moral high ground in the "middle". >> ^Darkhand:

In my opinion If you had empathy for him you'd be standing in the middle like me.
>> ^longde:
Don't put words in my mouth: I never said I hate Zimmerman. I have empathy for even that wretch. I just don't have sympathy for him.
And, you are in effect defending Zimmerman when you reach for explanations that would exonerate him.>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^longde:
I have empathy for all things too; yet I don't find myself defending child killers too often.>> ^Darkhand:
When I said no-one is talking about Zimmermans side I meant the people on this site not the police.
I have empathy for all living things regardless of race or species.


Which brings me back to my original point and Winston's point as well. Everyone thinks that because I offered an alternate version of the story I'm DEFENDING Zimmerman.
You can't have Empathy for all living things and hate Zimmerman those statements are mutually exclusive.

Yeah, sometimes I'm surprised he hasn't been given a medal of valor.>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^longde:
Curious; can you outline your friend's argument?

Well, first off, you have to imagine that he is very charismatic, and I was drunk and halfway through a game of Eclipse. Anyway, the argument (and this has already been said before) was just that the "stand your ground law" is flawed. All Zimmerman really would need to do, is prove that he felt his life was in danger. Any circumstances before that might not even be taken into account depending on how the judge feels the law applies. And Zimmerman is the one with an eye witness to back him up.
It sounds pretty flimsy, I know, but I would prepare myself for the possibility that Zimmerman will walk. There's no reason it can't end that way.

@Darkhand

Still running on that horrible cunt platform, are we?

Will you please just admit Zimmerman murdered an innocent person for no reason?

@Darkhand, I have empathy for Zimmermam:

-I understand the feeling of righteous indignation when you feel someone is getting away with something.

-I understand the feeling of apprehensiveness that someone strange is in my neighborhood looking or acting suspicious.

-I understand his ambitions to want a career in a particular field, and performing any viable substitute to prove his worth.

What I don't have sympathy or patience for:

-profiling black people

-Stigmatizing someone without any objective proof

-Carrying a loaded gun in a neighborhood filled with kids, and looking for trouble

and last but not least

-stalking, confronting, and killing an unarmed, teenage boy for NOTHING>> ^Darkhand:

In my opinion If you had empathy for him you'd be standing in the middle like me.
>> ^longde:
Don't put words in my mouth: I never said I hate Zimmerman. I have empathy for even that wretch. I just don't have sympathy for him.
And, you are in effect defending Zimmerman when you reach for explanations that would exonerate him.>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^longde:
I have empathy for all things too; yet I don't find myself defending child killers too often.>> ^Darkhand:
When I said no-one is talking about Zimmermans side I meant the people on this site not the police.
I have empathy for all living things regardless of race or species.


Which brings me back to my original point and Winston's point as well. Everyone thinks that because I offered an alternate version of the story I'm DEFENDING Zimmerman.
You can't have Empathy for all living things and hate Zimmerman those statements are mutually exclusive.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^longde:
Curious; can you outline your friend's argument?

Well, first off, you have to imagine that he is very charismatic, and I was drunk and halfway through a game of Eclipse. Anyway, the argument (and this has already been said before) was just that the "stand your ground law" is flawed. All Zimmerman really would need to do, is prove that he felt his life was in danger. Any circumstances before that might not even be taken into account depending on how the judge feels the law applies. And Zimmerman is the one with an eye witness to back him up.
It sounds pretty flimsy, I know, but I would prepare myself for the possibility that Zimmerman will walk. There's no reason it can't end that way.


This is how many people feel. I have argued with someone about it repeatedly in the past week. I find the split on this issue comes to down to gun owners who carry and on the other side you have gun owners who don't carry or non-gun owners.

I keep saying that the law should not be whose alive to claim whatever. The law should be applied in order of events. Because Zimmerman survived the encounter does not mean he didn't start it, and the first evidence of this is him chasing Trayvon on foot.

I can't imagine a person in the world that feels getting chased by a complete stranger for no reason thinks that guy has your best intentions at heart. So, you could make a reasonable claim that Trayvon Martin felt he needed to defend himself.

And the evidence backs it up. Hell the recounting of events is something like this: Zimmerman follows in the vehicle, then gets out and chases on foot, 911 tells him not to, and he loses Trayvon. While returning to his vehicle (which could be the way Trayvon had to go to get home) Trayvon confronts him and asks if he has a problem, Zimmerman says no and (here's the important part) *reaches for his phone*, that's when he claims Trayvon says "yeah you do" and hits him.

Hell if I had someone chase me down the street and then reach for their pocket after they got me close, I'd assume ill intent in the form of a weapon or something.

So, in a non-insane law environment. The law would first apply to Trayvon. He would be covered under SYG and Zimmerman would be the aggressor and have to follow the parts of the SYG law covering that on how to disengage. If he didn't follow those or admit to following those, then he's fucked.

If he did follow those, then he still isn't covered under SYG because his stupid ass started it. Perhaps he felt in danger of his life, but it doesn't say aggressors under SYG also covered under SYG.

But a law without language telling you to not retreat or de-escalate is a stupid fucking law. You just find a place that has no cameras and no witnesses, then kill everyone. Create the confrontation if you need to, just make sure the other guy is dead at the end. And you are immune, no one can sue you for anything regarding those events once you've been cleared under SYG.

@Porksandwich:

According to Zimmerman, he was carrying his weapon in plain sight. So if he's telling the truth, I assume Martin would've seen it. Now, this is still all just speculation, but whatever the events leading up to the confrontation, if I felt I absolutely needed to hit someone who I knew had a gun, I would absolutely make sure that person was unconscious before the end of my assault. All this shit about how Martin had a responsibility to back off once he'd subdued Zimmerman is crazy. As if you would hit someone who had a gun and then back off and tell them to calm down.

Anyway, I could speculate forever, but what I don't have to speculate on is this: I support an American's right to carry a gun, even in public. There's a reason though, that most (practically all) neighborhood watch groups have policies about patrolling unarmed and in groups. The reason is to avoid vigilante justice, and even just unfortunate confrontations or misunderstandings that end in tragedy. The recommendation in ninety-nine percent of watch groups is that even if you have a license to carry a gun, you do not carry it on patrol and you always patrol in groups to avoid situations that escalate to unnecessary ends.

All that said though, the law is still open to interpretation. Even if Martin loses a murder trial, he could still appeal a conviction in a higher court and bring the whole thing back to square one. Unfortunately, this tragedy is just a another messed up event in a sometimes shitty world that people sometimes have to learn to live with.

@Ryjkyj

I have not see anything that suggests he was carrying the weapon openly. The last thing I've heard was that after he was hit by Martin, the gun became exposed once he was on his back and they both wrestled for the gun...or this happened at least at some point during Martin kicking his ass.

The reaching for his phone part, would make me think he was pulling a weapon, not a phone..after chasing me.

If you have some sort of link on the open carry part, I'd love to read it. I got some guys on another thread who have a sizeable number of gun nuts on there who have carry permits and all of them say nothing prior to Martin hitting Zimmerman matters. At that point Zimmerman could assume Martin was trying to kill him once he had him on the ground.

And the concealed gun was not reason to feel threatened, or the chase...or the reaching...or .......... you see where it's going.

I just point out that just because Zimmerman says something and the police say evidence agrees does not mean that is exactly what happened, but that what we know of his actions by his own account and the 911 call....he conducted himself in a manner that a non-adult would feel threatened by. Hell a college kid would have probably ran, even if they had a perfectly legitimate reason to be there. Because some guy was evil-eying them and then chasing.

I have nothing to gain by defending Zimmerman, with the exception of pointing out the usual media bias as they crucify him.

I offered up a flawed scenario of what might have happened, minus the full range of facts (which no one has at this time). Why did I suggest 'Evil Zimmerman' is a radical leftist theory? Because they're the ones that insist America is (still) an evil place inhabited by nothing but racists, and since Zimmerman is not Black--the only race that according to the left can "never" be considered racist--Zimmerman is therefore an evil racist.

The lower-than-whaleshit non-FOX media have turned this into a media frenzy, and don't think His Earness isn't grateful for the chaos, it takes attention off the shitconomy and soaring gas prices.

The question is NOT, "Did a kid deserve to end his life over this?" and if it is, you'd better be prepared for the answer to POSSIBLY be Yes. The non-Fox media have been very careful to only show the pics of 12-year-old Trayvon, not the 17-year old posing as a thug, tweeting about hassling Whitey, who physically is more than capable of killing someone.


Zimmerman could end up being as twisted as Dexter, otherwise I don't see a motive for his actions. It's one thing to pretend one is a bigshot, a whole other game to actually (needlessly) put oneself in a life-or-death situ where control is literally guaranteed to be lost in an instant.


>> ^VoodooV:

QM and Pennypacker resort to strawmans as usual. flinging terms like "radical left" without consequence. The sift needs some serious moderation around here.
No one has convicted Zimmerman...end of story, get that bullshit out of your heads. It really is quite irrelevant who the attacker is. The real question is:
Did a kid deserve to have his life ended over this? And the answer is most assuredly...
NO!!
It truly is despicable that this has turned into a left v right issue. This is the sort of thing that should be uniting us, not dividing us. EVERYONE, left and right should be ashamed.

two paragraphs in and @quantumushroom strawmans and ad homs as usual.

You are utterly incapable of making arguments without logical fallacies. If you think dressing like a thug warrants being shot, then my opinion of you is simply not low enough.

Who decides what a thug dresses like? you? Zimmerman? Geraldo? You do realize that you just committed prejudice, don't you? You are judging someone based on how they dress. Shock, how dare someone wear a hoodie when it was raining.

NO.

Even if Trayvon was ultimately the one doing the beating (lets ignore for a moment the video evidence of Zimmerman's lack of injuries and the funeral director saying that Trayvon's body didn't have any indicators that he had been punching someone), It was an incident CREATED BY Zimmermann. He followed him even though he shouldn't have. He carried a gun even though he shouldn't have. He provoked the incident, end of story. Trayvon was actually the one close to home, how do you know that it wasn't Trayvon that wasn't standing his ground, or are you just committing more prejudice?

The.boy.did.not.deserve.to.die.

Zimmerman should be arrested and put on trial. Period!

@VoodooV

Have to say I agree with the assessment of the trial. I just simply don't see evidence that Zimmerman acted in a reasonable manner. That's coming from me as a non-gun owning person. On the other hand, the people who own guns and have carry licenses are the one's predominately taking up the other side. Saying that he should be able to provoke the incident and then use his gun when he goes too far and puts someone in a position where they feel they have to fight him off.

I still wonder why the 911 overheard help calls stop when the gun goes off. Wouldn't you want to save a young guy's life and continue shouting help? Or if you had just had your head bashed against concrete, wouldn't you continue to yell for help because you are gravely injured? Why would the person who was yelling help and fired the gun, stop yelling for help? He was just brutally assaulted and needs help.

That plus Zimmerman's own commentary during his 911 call that we can clearly hear, ignoring the under the breath comment.......he expressed concern that the kid was not right and still felt empowered to chase him on foot even though he "has something in his hand". No reasonable person is going to chase after a drugged addled person with a potential weapon in their hand.............unless they felt their gun would protect them. Which is not what a carry permitted gun is for, it's not to put yourself in a dangerous situation of your own volition and then shoot your way out. It's to protect you when other choices are gone, like calling the police, leaving the area, or otherwise just acting like someone not looking to start shit.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I think it's embarrassing that there is a "left" and "right" in a potential murder trial and it reinforces my feeling that, in the 21st century, people still can't break away from their primitive tribal mindset.

That's my position too. Why you're putting that at the head of a reply to me, I don't know.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
The investigation is under way. Everyone needs to shut up and wait for the outcome. There will be riots no matter which way it goes if the public outrage machine keeps going like this.


Except there isn't an investigation under way. That's what people are mad about. That's why I don't get how this spilled into a right vs. left thing.

I have a theory, but rather than jumping to conclusions, I would like to hear someone make their case for why they're mad at people who are demanding Treyvon Martin's death be investigated by police.

So far it seems to be that the people pushing back are misinformed, either about whether the police are investigating (they aren't) or about what the people making noise about this are actually saying (apparently when people say "we want an arrest and investigation" these people hear "we want our pound of flesh").

As you said in the middle of your comment, there are people on "both sides" whose behavior has been reprehensible, but focusing on that kind of stuff is always a form of ad hominem. If Spike Lee does something bad because he's mad about this, it doesn't mean he was wrong to be mad in the first place.

I want to focus on the central dispute over the case, rather than try to litigate which "side's" advocates have acted most shamefully.

>> ^NetRunner:

That's my position too. Why you're putting that at the head of a reply to me, I don't know.

Because you were the one who said, "The left's position isn't 'off with Zimmerman's head!' it's 'we demand a real criminal investigation!'" and "Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?", apparently unaware of the irony of complaining about how it's become a partisan political spat even as you perpetuate it.

But, to be clear, my comment was not aimed squarely at you even though I quoted you. Your statement was just a good example for me to cite.

>> ^NetRunner:
Except there isn't an investigation under way. That's what people are mad about. That's why I don't get how this spilled into a right vs. left thing.
I have a theory, but rather than jumping to conclusions, I would like to hear someone make their case for why they're mad at people who are demanding Treyvon Martin's death be investigated by police.
So far it seems to be that the people pushing back are misinformed, either about whether the police are investigating (they aren't) or about what the people making noise about this are actually saying (apparently when people say "we want an arrest and investigation" these people hear "we want our pound of flesh").
As you said in the middle of your comment, there are people on "both sides" whose behavior has been reprehensible, but focusing on that kind of stuff is always a form of ad hominem. If Spike Lee does something bad because he's mad about this, it doesn't mean he was wrong to be mad in the first place.
I want to focus on the central dispute over the case, rather than try to litigate which "side's" advocates have acted most shamefully.

Last I knew there were two investigations underway: Federal and State of Florida. If you're trying to say there needs to be a new local investigation (technically there was one at the time of the incident, it just sucked ass), then I agree and I'm not mad at anyone for demanding one.

If I had to guess why some of the Right is touchy about this, I'd say it's because they fear its potential affects on gun rights (of which "Stand Your Ground" is a derivative, IMO).

What bothers me, personally, about the whole situation is all these self-appointed jurors who have already reached a verdict. They come in both pro-Trayvon and pro-Zimmerman flavors and they're all a bit light in the skull. There hasn't been a complete investigation yet, let alone a trial where all the evidence is presented, and we've already got millions of judge/jury/executioner types spouting off.

When it comes time for this to go to trial for real, where will we even find impartial jurors? It's getting hard to imagine any result but declaration of mistrial, Zimmerman free to go.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Because you were the one who said, "The left's position isn't 'off with Zimmerman's head!' it's 'we demand a real criminal investigation!'" and "Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?", apparently unaware of the irony of complaining about how it's become a partisan political spat even as you perpetuate it.

Uhh, so acknowledging that the argument is dividing along right/left lines, while decrying the fact that it has done so...is perpetuating it?

This is like these mystifying conversations I have where I say racism exists and is bad, and in return get flack from some wingnut who claims I'm making racial problems worse by saying racism exists and is bad.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Last I knew there were two investigations underway: Federal and State of Florida.

Here's the rub, what are those investigations aimed at achieving? An investigation of the local police, and whether they conducted their side of things properly, or an investigation that might result in charges against Zimmerman? From what I've heard it's the former, not the latter.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
If I had to guess why some of the Right is touchy about this, I'd say it's because they fear its potential affects on gun rights (of which "Stand Your Ground" is a derivative, IMO).

That's the most generous of my theories, but I don't really think it's that. The things they're pushing back against aren't the handful of people saying calmly "this is why the Stand Your Ground law is bad policy", they're pushing back hardest against the people who're suggesting this was some sort of racially motivated murder. They've apparently lost all sense of reason and proportion when it comes to defending white guys who get accused of being racist.

And BTW, that's what me perpetuating the partisan fight looks like.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
What bothers me, personally, about the whole situation is all these self-appointed jurors who have already reached a verdict. They come in both pro-Trayvon and pro-Zimmerman flavors and they're all a bit light in the skull. There hasn't been a complete investigation yet, let alone a trial where all the evidence is presented, and we've already got millions of judge/jury/executioner types spouting off.
When it comes time for this to go to trial for real, where will we even find impartial jurors? It's getting hard to imagine any result but declaration of mistrial, Zimmerman free to go.


I agree, there's a real danger of the "Zimmerman needs to be charged" camp making it impossible for Zimmerman to be tried in an impartial manner. Most of the stuff I see though is people collecting evidence of one type or another that suggests the shooting wasn't in self-defense, as a way to demonstrate the need for a trial. Case in point, the video up top showing Zimmerman looking uninjured and unmolested some 20-30 minutes after the altercation with Martin.

It seems to me like that's what you need to do if you want to convince people that there needs to be an investigation and a trial -- you cast doubt on the story that Zimmerman told the police, which was the reason they released him without further investigation.

Truth is, I think it's going to be hard to build a solid case against Zimmerman at this point, mostly because the opportunity to collect the evidence that could've convicted or conclusively exonerated him is gone now. That's why the police's refusal to conduct an investigation in the immediate aftermath of the shooting feels so criminal to a lot of people.

I've not heard anything about evidence collected from Martin's body though. Perhaps there's something there that would be able to definitively establish what happened.

>> ^NetRunner:

Uhh, so acknowledging that the argument is dividing along right/left lines, while decrying the fact that it has done so...is perpetuating it?

I think you went beyond acknowledging when you made a statement on behalf of The Left™. I think there are a lot of people trying to make this partisan politics because they get an automatic support base if they succeed, but I also think the people who are doing that are a loud minority at this point. Most people, even the self-appointed judge/jury/executioners I mentioned before, have not allowed politics to shape their opinions IMO.

>> ^NetRunner:

Here's the rub, what are those investigations aimed at achieving? An investigation of the local police, and whether they conducted their side of things properly, or an investigation that might result in charges against Zimmerman? From what I've heard it's the former, not the latter.

I'm not sure it's plausible to get a new local investigation without showing some sort of negligence or wrong-doing in the first one. I also can't help but wonder if, even after all the investigations are complete, the case will be tossed out because SYG does protect Zimmerman here. Whether the law is right or wrong is a separate trial. It may be that this case is the first domino that starts the repeal of SYG, but it also may be that Zimmerman goes free because it was the law at the time. I'm not saying I'd be happy about that; just that it seems like a possibility.

>> ^NetRunner:

That's the most generous of my theories, but I don't really think it's that. The things they're pushing back against aren't the handful of people saying calmly "this is why the Stand Your Ground law is bad policy", they're pushing back hardest against the people who're suggesting this was some sort of racially motivated murder. They've apparently lost all sense of reason and proportion when it comes to defending white guys who get accused of being racist.

There are absolutely some weird reactions in all this which are based on race. I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference whether Zimmerman is a racist or not. I guess it could make the difference between murder and a lesser charge, as it could be used to establish motive, but here and now it's a minor issue for me. Whether or not he is a racist will not effect this stage in the process. That won't come into play until a trial begins.

>> ^NetRunner:

I agree, there's a real danger of the "Zimmerman needs to be charged" camp making it impossible for Zimmerman to be tried in an impartial manner. Most of the stuff I see though is people collecting evidence of one type or another that suggests the shooting wasn't in self-defense, as a way to demonstrate the need for a trial. Case in point, the video up top showing Zimmerman looking uninjured and unmolested some 20-30 minutes after the altercation with Martin.

It seems to me like that's what you need to do if you want to convince people that there needs to be an investigation and a trial -- you cast doubt on the story that Zimmerman told the police, which was the reason they released him without further investigation.

Truth is, I think it's going to be hard to build a solid case against Zimmerman at this point, mostly because the opportunity to collect the evidence that could've convicted or conclusively exonerated him is gone now. That's why the police's refusal to conduct an investigation in the immediate aftermath of the shooting feels so criminal to a lot of people.

I've not heard anything about evidence collected from Martin's body though. Perhaps there's something there that would be able to definitively establish what happened.

I worry that the "public investigation" ruins the eventual trial if it goes too far. This video seems like extremely weak evidence. The poor quality could easily be hiding cuts and bruises. I'd put more weight in police documentation and hospital records (or the lack thereof) than this video to establish whether Zimmerman had injuries.

I agree that a lot of evidence has been lost to time now. Examination of the gunshot wound can probably still tell us a lot about the altercation, fortunately. Showing who was on top of who at the time of the shooting will probably go a long way toward telling the real story by itself.

@NetRunner

You said: I've not heard anything about evidence collected from Martin's body though. Perhaps there's something there that would be able to definitively establish what happened.

And since I don't feel like wading through the quoting embeds and all that to pick everything out...that'll have to do.

The funeral director who handled Trayvon's body after the coroner said that his hands didn't look like he'd been in a fight. Although the funeral director was kind of an oddball, I don't know if I can take that assessment as true.

Although it does cast even more light on there being a lack of an investigation into Zimmerman. Few points stick out in respect to it:

1) Video cops handles him without gloves...I certainly wouldn't touch blood with my bare hands. And he would presumably be covered in blood from the shooting since he was under him when he shot.....right?

2) 911 Recording with "someone" shouting help, the shouting stops as soon as the shot is heard. Why would the shooter stop yelling for help if he'd just been beaten soundly?

3) Voice analysts can't match the shouter's voice with Zimmerman. Not conclusive, but another "questionable" aspect.

4) They never took Zimmerman's clothes as evidence.

5) They let Zimmerman out before they ever knew where all the following had taken place. They didn't walk through the events with Zimmerman until the next day. So they couldn't possibly have done a proper canvas for witnesses.

6) They didn't even know why Trayvon was in the neighborhood until the next day at the earliest when the missing persons report was filed.

7) Zimmerman followed in spite of what common sense would say for a regular person.

So this is where I'm coming from as I look at the case. And until I see some official reason as to why these things were done as they were that doesn't seem to fall under "cover up/incompetence/some other equally despicable thing"...I question.

My hope is that if they can't find a case against Zimmerman due to a evidence being long gone, is that they ask the same questions and bust that PD in a way that they are absolutely held liable for wrong doing with no defense. I just don't see it happening though with one government agency holding another one to the fire like that.

If this were a murder involving someone I knew, I'd be pissed that there is no official release to answer why they did what they did that made sense. So I can only be pissed on behalf of someone else out there who is left not knowing a damn thing and the person who did the killing is out with only spending a few hours answering questions.

I don't think any outcome will be satisfactory now. Too much stuff has gone wrong for anyone to feel that there is a proper outcome to the events of that night and since.

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.

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?

>> ^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.

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:

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.

Got a whole bunch of people who are defending Zimmerman not because they feel he's innocent, but because he used a gun

There may be those out there who are only interested in defending Zimmerman because he had a gun. Just like there are those out there who are only attacking Zimmerman because Martin was black. It'd be nice if such slimeballs didnt' exist - but whaddya do? All you can do is point it out, condemn the bums, and encourage others to ignore them. Personally, I'm not defending Zimmerman because he used a gun. I'm simply not willing to just assume he's guilty based on hyped up misinformation (see CNN, NBC, CBS, etc...).

Self Defense claims tripling should be indicative that you got some problems on your hands.

I tend to agree. The SYG laws - like most laws - has fundamental flaws. The "Pro Martin" version of the story is that Zimmerman was following Martin with a deliberate attempt to provoke a confrontation and kill him in "self defense". If that's true, such a use of SYG is sleazy and wrong. But - what if the "Pro Zimmerman" version is true? What if Zimmerman was just following what he thought was a suspicious person, began to head back to his car, got attacked, and shot in self defense? In that case then the SYG sounds OK - or at worst its applicability is fuzzy.

And that really is the problem, isn't it? Laws are usually passed in an attempt to fix a "problem". In some states, there was a "problem" with bad guys who would PROSECUTE people who defended themselves. That's obviously a lousy situation. You don't want criminals using the law to get rich by suing innocent citizens who just wanted to defend themselves from a crime. You also don't want innocent citizens being too scared to defend themselves from criminals for fear they are going to get thier asses sued off. People could die because of that kind of crap.

So to fix that "problem", some states have passed these SYG laws as a means of shielding innocent citizens from prosecution by sleazy criminals who got a boo-boo when the uppity citizen defended themselves. Well - as you observe - now they have a whole NEW problem... Criminals who deliberately provoke a fight and then kill the people who defend themselves! Now you're right back where you started.

This shows how hard it is to write a good law. The conundrum is that you need to write a law that sleazeballs can't mis-use to thier advantage. But it is the bad people that are the most skilled and practiced at finding ways around those protections, while the good people hardly ever think about it. The end result is that the "Bad People" are experts at the law, and the "Good People" know jack-all about the law. So you still have a population of "Bad People" who are figuring out ways to screw over the "Good People" - only now they can do it in the courts if they fail to do it in the streets. Throw in all the Shysters and stand back.

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.

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.

The fact that this law was in place is going to make it almost a lock that Zimmerman is not going to be prosecuted. If Zimmerman's defense team comes out and says, "Zimmerman had legitimate reason to believe that he was in danger of great bodily harm because Treyvon Martin jumped him, broke his nose, and was pounding his head on the sidewalk" then what can a prosecutor say? There are eyewitnesses that at least superficially confirm Zimmerman's story. They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had no such fear, but in fact that he deliberately WANTED to instigate the fight. So far no such evidence exists. All we've got are conspiracy theories, rumors, innuendo, blog rage, and "ooo - he was related to a judge".

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.

Damn winston is crazy as shit.

The only one who had rights under stand your ground? Trayvon Martin, who Stood His Ground against an unidentified armed vigilante and was Executed for it.

You can't start provoke a fight and claim self-defense with these laws. The new evidence showing that Martin fought Zimmerman proves beyond a doubt: Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter.

Zimmerman had no training, no plan, he was the causative negligent agent whose actions resulted in unnecessary death.

Anyone who can't see why Trayvon had the right under Stand Your Ground that Zimmerman did not, is really lacking upstairs.