Let's break down the story using Zimmerman's own story.

I chased this guy through the neighborhood for no other reason than I did not like the way he looked. I ended up right by his house. He confronts me about chasing him without reason. I shoot him. He is dead. I am innocent.

I'm pretty sure that I would prefer people that do things like this go through a trial so a jury can actually make that last statement. Whether or not he is guilty I cannot answer. But I'm not just going to take his word for it even if I take his version as the gospel truth. And he would seem to have a whole lot of reason for telling a story that reflects positively on himself.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Weak!

Let's break down the story using Zimmerman's own story.

Let's. You didn't.

Using Zimmerman's story: Zimmerman, aware of a number of recent burglaries in his neighborhood, sees someone he thinks is suspicious. He calls the police to report the person, and follows the person to make sure the police can still find him when they arrive. He loses track of the person. He starts to walk back to his vehicle when he is confronted, then immediately assaulted by that person. The person, having knocked Zimmerman to the ground, proceeds to bash Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk. Zimmerman shoots the person.

I don't know any more than you do if that account is honest, and I think a trial is reasonable. (Though I hope there's some evidence the prosecutor has that contradicts Zimmerman's story.)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

So I guess what you are saying is that you are against the concept of probable cause?

Like I said before, there are going to be some really pissed off people when this case is decided.

---

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

Like I said before, there are going to be some really pissed off people when this case is decided.

Not sure if this is what you meant, but that statement will be true regardless of the final dispostion of the case.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

How is there not probably cause? He admits to shooting and killing the unarmed kid.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Weak how? I have no emotional investment in this case. I wasn't there, I don't know either party, and I am not privy to any witness statements.

Zimmerman's story is that he followed Martin because he thought he looked suspicious. Martin confronted him. Zimmerman shot him. Martin is dead.

Not sure what you are objecting to.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

I''m objecting to the fact that you keep mischaracterizing Zimmerman's story.

He doesn't claim that Martin "confronted" him, for example. He claims that Martin hit his head against the sidewalk repeatedly.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I meant, really, really pissed off, not just really pissed off.... : )

---

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

Thats a hell of a break down. Care to try again?

I sure hope no one "confronts" you when you ask what they are doing snooping around your car. I know that daring to ask makes you a racist and a cold blooded killer but your head might not survive the "confrontation".

Going by the facts that we know so far, in my neighborhood having someone smashing my head of of anything is grounds for me to protect myself. Your mileage may vary.

---

~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson

Well, I clearly shortened it an awful lot. so it is short of any detail.

But that story from an outsider's point of view can look an awful lot like this(again, very shortened): "I chased a guy and started a fight. I started losing so I shot and killed him."

I worked in the city prosecutor's office during law school taking complaints from people when the police did not file charges. There are a lot of people who want criminal charges after the fight they start ends badly for them.

In this situation it may very well have been Martin that was standing his ground and defending himself against an aggressor. That sounds like a real good question for a jury to decide.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

So you're saying there is no other relevant information? Come on, you're smarter than that.

No, I am saying these questions are appropriate for a jury to decide. One man admits to shooting and killing another. It is not obvious that it was self-defense. We have courts for just this sort of thing.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Well, I clearly shortened it an awful lot. so it is short of any detail.

You didn't shorten it, you spun it like a top. To the point where it no longer represents Zimmerman's story, but looks more like the prosecutor's story.


In this situation it may very well have been Martin that was standing his ground and defending himself against an aggressor. That sounds like a real good question for a jury to decide.

It might have been. If so, one hopes that the prosecutor has some actual evidence to present.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Fine. A fat man chased a young kid, got out of breath, then got his ass kicked by said young kid. Unhappy with getting his ass handed to him he pulled out his gun and blew him away. Are you happy now?

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Might as well say what you really want to say. "A white-hispanic racist saw an opportunity to shoot a black kid and did."

No.

I don't know why you're getting impatient with me about this: You're the one who said you were going to examine the case using Zimmerman's story. And you've not done that.

If you want to present alternate versions of the story that are equally plausible, that's fine with me. I just don't understand why you don't just say that you're presenting an alternative to Zimmerman's story. You know, to keep everything honest and all.

Moving on half a step, do you think the prosecutor has evidence that will disprove Zimmerman's story?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

That's what I said (about the over-charging). Throwing up shee-ite on the wall in order to scare the guy into copping a plea to manslaughter. Barring that, she's (Corey) hoping that the judge will toss the case and order her to come back with a more realistic charging instrument for, say, voluntary manslaughter, whereupon she can look at the community and say "Hey, I tried for second degree murder but the judge won't let it fly. But we can get Zimmerman on voluntary manslaughter, at least" and the hotheads in the community will then be satisfied (she's hoping) with the charge she initially should have brought but which political considerations (she's also an elected official) precluded her from bringing in the first place.

Like I've said before: If I was Zimmerman's lawyer I'd be licking my chops at the thought of trying this as a second degree murder, and only second degree murder, case. I don't see a jury out there that'd come back with a conviction on that if that was the only charge the panel could consider.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Really? Where did I ever mention race?

I don't think this was based on race. It was based on a guy being a cowboy vigilante and an unarmed kid being killed because of it.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

You repeatedly use the word "chase" even though the evidence currently available to the public suggests no such thing.

 
>Moving on half a step, do you think the prosecutor has evidence that will disprove Zimmerman's story?

We've been over this ad nauseum, but you have

1) Witness testimony Martin telling his girlfriend he was scared and trying to get away.
2) Zimmerman ignoring direction by the police to back off.
3) Zimmerman giving unsolicited commentary to the 9/11 dispatcher of "these assholes, they always get away" and "these fucking punks." This indicate, to me, that Zimmerman held considerable animosity towards Martin, and has reason to pursue (they always get away).
4) Testimony and voice analysis that says the scared screaming is Martin, not Zimmerman.
5) The large size differential between Martin and Zimmerman.

None of this is consistent with Martin suddenly turning and attacking Zimmerman.

In my lay opinion, that seems sufficient to bring before a jury.

No idea what the prosecution has. But the fact that a guy admits to shooting and killing an unarmed person after following them will pretty much get you to probable cause in a hurry.

I use "confronted" because that is what pretty much every account has used. Zimmerman says he followed him because he didn't look right, we know Martin was not armed and was in the neighborhood legitimately. We know the shooting happened very near where Martin was staying.

Here is where it gets tricky. Assuming that Zimmerman is telling the truth. Zimmerman says he lost Martin, but we can't tell whether or not Martin knew that. Say you are Martin. You think you got away and head home. And then when you get there, the creepy guy who has been following you is sitting right there.

We know some sort of confrontation/fight happened and we know that Zimmerman shot Martin dead.

If I had to put on my psychic hat I would say he gets convicted of manslaughter. I found this when searching for a real world distinction between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, in FL there is none, "In states such as Florida, manslaughter is not broken down this way. In Florida, manslaughter, defined as: The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder . . ."

Here is the story as far as I can tell according to Zimmerman:http://en.wikipedia.org/...7s_account_of_events
"According to early media reports, that night, and in later meetings, Zimmerman described in detail, and re-enacted for police, what he says took place:
He was on his way to the store to do some errands when he spotted Trayvon Martin walking through his neighborhood. He followed Martin, but lost track of him. He was returning to his SUV when Martin approached him from the left rear and confronted him. Martin asked him, "Do you have a problem?"[125] He replied "No", and Martin then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar,[125] while Zimmerman reached for his cell phone. Martin then punched him in the face, knocking him down, and began beating his head against the ground. Zimmerman called out for help, while being beaten, before shooting Martin once in the chest at close range, in self-defense.[125][126]"

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

"We've been over this ad nauseum, but you have

1) Witness testimony Martin telling his girlfriend he was scared and trying to get away.
2) Zimmerman ignoring direction by the police to back off.
3) Zimmerman giving unsolicited commentary to the 9/11 dispatcher of "these assholes, they always get away" and "these fucking punks." This indicate, to me, that Zimmerman held considerable animosity towards Martin, and has reason to pursue (they always get away).
4) Testimony and voice analysis that says the scared screaming is Martin, not Zimmerman.
5) The large size differential between Martin and Zimmerman. "


Looks like we need to go over it again.

The "police" didn't tell Zimmerman to "back off." the 911 dispatcher told him it wasn't necessary for him to follow Martin. The two statements are NOT the same thing. Zimmerman's animosity, demonstrated by the comments you quoted, seems justified if there had been recent robberies or vandalism in the neighborhood and no one was arrested, right? Testimony about the voices is unreliable at best, and I'd be surprised if any real expert would stake a reputation on it, or on the idea that he could confirm scared screaming as opposed to angry screaming, or scared screaming that might still have been uttered by an attacker, as opposed to a victim. The size differential is a complete misdirect. The size has nothing to do with who was or was not the aggressor. Being taller doesn't automatically make you the bad guy.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Here's my point: We don't know if Zimmerman's story is true or not. But if you say you're going to use Zimmerman's story, use Zimmerman's story.

If Zimmerman's story is true, I don't think he's guilty of a crime at all. And unless the prosecutor is sitting on some evidence, he's going to get off. And should.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Please differentiate "follow" from "chase" in the context of keeping track of a kid walking quickly through his neighborhood.

I'm willing to use follow if you like. But let me ask you this. If your kid was followed through his own neighborhood by some guy he did not know would he not come home and say he was chased?

Reminds me of a Mythbusters episode where they were testing exploding pants from fertilizer. The line went something like this, "Well, they did not technically explode, they burned rapidly. But if you were wearing them you would say, "My pants exploded""

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Why do people keep focusing on the unarmed kid part. I know several people, myself included who can beat to death people with our bare hands. Lets just say if I was pounding ont Zimmerman the way this beanpole was (as supported by a witness) I wouldn't have been shot because Zimmerman would be dead or in a coma. Even when I was 17 that would have been the case. And guess what? I probably would have been arrested for assault.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Please differentiate "follow" from "chase" in the context of keeping track of a kid walking quickly through his neighborhood.

If I'm chasing someone, I'm trying to catch them. If I'm following them, I'm just following them. There's a difference.

If your kid was followed through his own neighborhood by some guy he did not know would he not come home and say he was chased?

No, he'd probably say he was followed by some guy he didn't know.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Because the guy that started the whole deal had a gun. The kid doing nothing but going on a candy run that was being followed/chased/pursued/tailed and was legitimately in the neighborhood did not. The guy with the gun lived. The kid did not.

It goes to the whole question of being reasonably afraid. If Martin had pulled out a gun this would be a very different discussion.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

And what was Martin doing the in the 73 to 76 seconds that elapsed before the physical confrontation between him and Zimmerman began? He could have easily walked the 70 yards to his father's fiance's house in that time period, but he didn't. What was he doing? Doubling back and in order to come up on Zimmerman, who had broken off "pursuit" and was then back at his vehicle and preparing to leave or something? Way too much reasonable doubt can be injected for this ever to be sustained as a murder two rap.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

While I agree that the physical stats have nothing to do with it, I would like to see that actual stats. As I recall, the booking document indicates that Zimmerman was 5'8" and 178 lbs. I have not seen anything with regard to Martin's actual size. I've only seen the childhood photo of him which is several years out of date.

So which was Martin doing? After saying something about these guys always getting away, was he trying to catch him or follow him?

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Wise words from a real American Hero Paul Howe, look him up. The character SFC Jeff Sanderson in Black Hawk Down was based entirely on him. He now makes his living training law enforcement, SWAT teams and the occasional well trained civilian on assault techniques and shooting skills.

Paul Howe

My thoughts on this are simple. Our president is one of most ignorant and racially divisive men in our history. Before knowing all the facts, he chooses to comment and take the “Black” side stating “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon”. Maybe he is just looking for votes, I don't know.
The “hoodie” issue is simple one. Don't wear them unless you want to look like a thug or gangster, especially at night. If the police do stop you, it is because you look like a crook or thug and not because of the color of your skin. This is another indicator of your stupidity. You wear hoods when it is as cold as hell outside and you are worried about your ears freezing.
Next, don't beat up the neighborhood watch. Your fists can be considered a deadly weapon as can the concrete sidewalk you are beating your victim's head into. Trayvon, if you did this, you deserved to be shot and I am glad you are dead and cannot breed other shitheads.
The parents of Trayvon are ignorant partially responsible if they raised a criminal. I am sure they are proud of their son's Facebook picture. He does not look like the average wholesome kid I know.
Also, we need to know Tayvon's school and criminal history, which has not been release and probably will not be.
Blacks of America are picking the wrong fight as usual. Instead of cleaning up their own problems, they start the “WeBe” syndrome. We be picked on, We be discriminated against, We be deprived. You are not picked on, you are stupid. You should shit-can Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson and get some real leaders in the Black Community. Good leaders who would push you to become better citizens. Not those you currently have that promote your right to be a loser and live of government handouts.
If you allow and encourage your kids to grow up to be thugs, you are weakening this country. This shitty attitude is getting old and Americans are tired of you sniveling about how bad you are treated and the excuses you make.
Use Trayvon's death as a teaching point on how not to be….

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Just stumbled across this: According to the Sanford police incident report of Trayvon Martin's death, he was 6'0" tall and weighed 160 pounds.

So not much, if any, size differential.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Your attempt to play word games is not fooling anybody. There is a world of difference between following someone so as to keep their location in sight such that the police could intercept them -- versus chasing someone which implies the intent is to take them into physical grasp.

No account on record indicates that Zimmerman intended to make physical contact with Martin. On the contrary, during the 9-1-1 call when Martin began coming at Zimmerman, he expressed concern to the operator.

After saying something about these guys always getting away, was he trying to catch him or follow him?

I don't know. According to his story, he was trying to follow him. (Which is not only plausible on its own, but seems to be supported by the fact that he was on the phone with the cops reporting the incident.)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

And you do not know that. You know exactly as much as I do. That Zimmerman claims to have started walking back to his car after being advised to do so and after losing sight of the boy. That would make Trayvon the aggressor whether he is armed or not. If Zimmerman can prove this or convince a jury this, he will be a free man whose life is forever ruined. Trayvon may well have been spared a life of crime based on the post he made on his website and based on the way he appears to carry himself.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Sorry, I stopped reading here, "Our president is one of most ignorant and racially divisive men in our history."

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Given Martin's history, it is within reason to suspect that his actions were less than an innocent candy run.

Don't know what? Not sure what you are referencing.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

 
>The "police" didn't tell Zimmerman to "back off." the 911 dispatcher told him it wasn't necessary for him to follow Martin.


We're both wrong. The exact were "We don't need you to follow him." That sounds like a request to now follow. Followed by a Zimmerman apparently complying with the request. "OK." And the the dispatcher arranging for cops to meet Zimmerman at a specific location. That's pretty clear direction, to me. The totality of that conversation, to most reasonable neighborhood watch types would be that's signal to pull off and turn it over to the pros. And if I was the dispatch, my understanding of that conversation, is that Zimmerman had peeled off and headed to the meet-up location.




>The two statements are NOT the same thing. Zimmerman's animosity, demonstrated by the comments you quoted, seems justified if there had been recent robberies or vandalism in the neighborhood and no one was arrested, right?


Whether it was justified is irrelevant. What matter is consistency of testimony.


> Testimony about the voices is unreliable at best, and I'd be surprised if any real expert would stake a reputation on it


Are you an expert on forensic voice analysis, and aware on the statistical accuracy given the quality of the recording equipment and circumstances of recording, or you just suggesting that it *might* not be reliable?


What about Zimmerman's testimony that he was the one screaming? Is that more "reliable" the all the other testimony. :)




>Being taller doesn't automatically make you the bad guy.

Please.

He starts to walk back to his vehicle when he is confronted, then immediately assaulted by that person. The person, having knocked Zimmerman to the ground, proceeds to bash Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk. Zimmerman shoots the person.

All correct except the above - Zimmerman was not walking back towards his car, he had confronted Martin in the middle of a green area between buildings. There was no sidewalk. Because these pieces are incorrect, all other wording from Zimmerman is suspect.

So what did he have in his pockets other than candy?

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Well here are some more words of wisdom from Mr. Howe a man who did more to preserve your freedom to be an ass and loser than most. By the way, it is fair to say based on his statement that a lot in the SF community, general military and probably law enforcement share his views, since he makes his living training them and being this vocal would surely have financial consequences if they didn't. I know most of the LEOs and military I know hate him.

As I live my life, I will try and look at EVERYONE the same and welcome them with a smile, believing they are a good person until they prove otherwise. I will try and look at the whole person and what is in their heart before I make a decision on that person or their character. I have served with every race and religion in the military and they are a fellow solider and friend. If they happen to be a dirt ball, it is not because of their race or Religion, it is because as an individual, they choose this path.
Finally, if I catch you on my property at night wearing a hoodie (race immaterial), you are probably screwed…..

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

You are a troll.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

I'm 100% with you on this. That is the only logical explanation based ont he facts currently available.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

"The exact were "We don't need you to follow him." That sounds like a request to now follow."

It doesn't sound like any kind of request. The way you know is that no words indicating request (please, request, don't do that, etc) were uttered. It's a simple statement of fact. We don't need you to do that. Sounds dangerously close to, "it's not necessary" which is what I said.

"Whether it was justified is irrelevant. What matter is consistency of testimony"

You offered Zimmerman's animosity, as demonstrated by his statements, as some sort of evidence. I simply pointed out reasons why those statements might not be indicative of intent to follwo and kill so much as indicative of frustration over neighborhood problems.

"Are you an expert on forensic voice analysis, and aware on the statistical accuracy given the quality of the recording equipment and circumstances of recording, or you just suggesting that it *might* not be reliable? "

I'm not an expert. However, I do know that it's hard enough to tell who's talking on the other end of a cell phone when you have it next your ear, much less third hand from a recording, in a stress situation.

"What about Zimmerman's testimony that he was the one screaming? Is that more "reliable" the all the other testimony. "

I don't claim that Zimmerman's account or testimony is any "more reliable" than any other accounts. I simply am not jumping on any bandwagon that completely discounts Zimmerman's account just because of emotional reaction to an unarmed kid being shot.

"Please. "

Please, yourself. You're the one who brought up the supposed large size disparity. A disparity which, it seems was not very large at all, by recent reports.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Why do people continue to argue the fact that 911 suggest he doesn't need to follow Martin--it is completely irrelevant.

The only thing that matters in this case is who threw the first punch, period.

And without proof that it was Zimmerman, he walks, its that simple.

---

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

Just to play devil's advocate (cuz it's fun) on the reasonable doubt issue, lets stop speculating on what TM might have been doing and look at something that is in GZ statement.

So we are at the point of the verbal brouhaha. We know it is dark, overcast, poorly illuminated (from various statements). Adrenaline will be running a bit hot. The Zimmerman reaches for his phone, per his own testimony. OK, so where was the phone? In a jacket pocket? Back pocket? belt holster? Regardless, any of those movements could appear to be reaching for a weapon, at which point TV decked him "in fear for his life". I wear my phone on a belt clip and if I was moving my right hand fast for it and you couldn't see it clearly it could be perceived to be reaching for a gun holster.

So, was TV actually the one on SYG?

Not saying it happened that way, but I think a case could be made to cause some doubt on TV being the aggressor, but rather responding to what he thought was a potentially aggressive action.

Long day at work and it is my turn to be a total ass (after dealing with a bunch of them all day).

---

Jim
"In dog beers, I've only had one"
http://www.shakercolonial.com/
Creating custom made furnishing to your requirements

This picture was posted by the Martin family so no reason to question it's authenticity but Trayvon (far right) looks slender but I don't think that fits the narrative of a 'child'.

Ohhhh! Ooooohhhhhhh! I want to play!!!

According to the Florida jury instructions, for second degree murder, there are 3 elements that must be met -

• The victim is deceased,
• The victim's death was caused by the defendant's criminal act, and
• There was an unlawful killing of the victim "by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life."

Let's break it down.

Element 1: The victim is deceased. CHECK.

Element 2: The victim's death was caused by the defendant's criminal act. Uh oh. Florida has that pesky "stand your ground law." The affidavit admits Zimmerman was engaged in a struggle. There is no assertion that he could have fled, but, chose not to. Oops.

Element 3: There was an unlawful killing of the victim "by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life." Uh oh! See element 2, above. There is an admission in the affidavit that there was a struggle. There is no allegation in the affidavit that Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to confront him with the gun Zimmerman was carrying.

We could have a problem here ...

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

>The "police" didn't tell Zimmerman to "back off." the 911 dispatcher told him it wasn't necessary for him to follow Martin.

We're both wrong. The exact were "We don't need you to follow him." That sounds like a request to now follow. Followed by a Zimmerman apparently complying with the request. "OK." And the the dispatcher arranging for cops to meet Zimmerman at a specific location. That's pretty clear direction, to me. The totality of that conversation, to most reasonable neighborhood watch types would be that's signal to pull off and turn it over to the pros. And if I was the dispatch, my understanding of that conversation, is that Zimmerman had peeled off and headed to the meet-up location.


I completely agree with this. It would be a pretty rare situation where the dispatcher would specifically tell the caller not to act/pursue/etc. It is pretty standard for dispatchers to use the phrase "we don't need you to ..." or words to that effect. A reasonable person would (or at least should) understand that as a directive to stand down.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I've brought up about elements of the crime before. Juries also have historically had difficulty in figuring out the whole "depraved mind" versus mens rea thing. I think she (Corey) knew she'd have a tough time with the traditional common law meaning of mens rea (malice aforethought), so she's trying to broaden the opening by going with "depraved mind." That gives her an opportunity to try to convict on conduct, attendant circumstances. That way she can push an "intent or knowledge that the conduct would result in death" line of attack, the "conduct" in this instance being Zimmerman pulling his pistol and firing it into Martin's chest, resultant circumstance being death, and also being murder.

I dunno, though...I still think she's going to have an immensely difficult time in convincing a jury of this characterization of Zimmerman and whatever "depraved mind" he was supposed to be exhibiting. And there's plenty of exculpatory evidence (some circumstantial, as in the Zimmerman's cuts and bruises, some direct, as in witnesses that say that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him. To me, this all sounds like a tragic misunderstanding between two persons that went wildly out of control because neither one of them was communicating with the other. There's no way Corey in a million years will be able to prove that Zimmerman stalked Martin with bad intent in mind. Just the 911 calls alone put the kibosh on that tactic. Then you have the confused circumstances of the struggle. Like I said; this is tough row to hoe for the prosecutor.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

> you are entitled to your opinion though.

Precisely. It's your opinion to take Zimmerman at his word (apparently), it's my opinion there are are enough inconsistencies to bring before a jury. I'm not sure about the 2nd-degree murder, but nevertheless.....

I think the bolded is still inaccurate, could you provide your source? I thought it was "we don't need you to do that"

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

More than sufficient probable cause....

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

I don't think your characterization of 'taking Zimmerman at his word' is accurate. I don't want to speak for anyone else but I'm not taking his word - it's more that I haven't seen any evidence OTHER than what backs up what he says. So I'm not taking his word for it but until something comes forth further than what already has I don't like the idea of sending this to a trial just to find out what happened. Although I haven't studied criminal law since law school I firmly believe our justice system isn't designed to let the courts figure out what happened absence any evidence. If the evidence isn't there - there shouldn't be a trial. Read that carefully because I'm basing this just on whats been published. If they have evidence not set forth then my mind will likely be changed.

I find it odd that actual witnesses to the event have stated to reporters that the Special Prosecutor has not interviewed them. Does it seem strange to you that an eye witness that says he saw Martin on top beating Zimmerman was not interviewed by the current prosecutor?

A simple hypothetical for you: someone breaks into your house and is charging you and you shoot him. Should you go to trial?

Another: you're at a friend's house and he gets mad at you and starts beating you up. You defend yourself and in the process your friend is killed. Another friend was in the other room but is pretty sure your friend started it. Should you go to trial to determine what happened?

I think that is the point others are trying to make. Unless there is more to be presented this should not be going to trial as it stands.

"Like I said before, there are going to be some really pissed off people when this case is decided."

That's the idea. It should be a great success. When is the trial/acquittal going to happen? Mid to late October?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

>I don't like the idea of sending this to a trial just to find out what happened.

I do like that idea. The shooting death of an unarmed kid is serious. I think the 911 transcript and testimony of the girlfriend is enough to warrant moving the decision from the executive decision of the DA to a public forum.

I don't like the murder charge. I think some form of manslaughter is more appropriate, even a misdemeanor.

I see little evidence that Zimmerman is either racist or a killer. I see plenty of evidence that he's a whackjob, and there should be *some* accountability for killing someone when the circumstances as a whole are largely inconsistent with the use of deadly force.

Here (bolded above) is where our paths part then. I agree with everything you say up to there. An eye witness says he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman punching him. That same witness says it was Zimmerman screaming for help. The courts are not designed to find innocence but to prove guilt. Unless the state has something that renders that eye witness irrelevant it is not Zimmerman's duty to have to prove his innocence that deadly force was required.

So you want him to go to court to prove his innocence and all I'm saying is don't try a case unless there is a lot more than what has been released publically.

> An eye witness says he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman punching him. That same witness says it was Zimmerman screaming for help.

I should have clarified. By "overall" I meant an unarmed kid walking home from the store, talking on the cell phone with his girlfriend. (all facts!)

It's a pretty extraordinary escalation for that to end in a shooting death. And I have reason to suspect that Zimmerman himself may play a significant role in that escalation to the point where some accountability should be considered in the public venue.


Can you admit that this is very, very far from "perfect self-defense."

Not to the extent that will make you happy. Yes Zimmerman called 911. Yes he followed TM. Yes there is a gap in the phone records and a gap in time where neither you nor I know what happened. Consider:

a) Zimmerman lost sight of him and then saw him again and snuck up behind TM tried tackling him but missed and fell on his back (grass stains and wound on head). TM defended himself and GZ shot him.

-or-

b) TM hid in a bush and when GZ was walking back to his truck TM jumped out and struck him knocking him to the ground and started beating him. GZ was either to be beaten to death or shot in self defense.

All we know is partially what lead up that point and after but not during. I will admit that if the circumstances were more like (a) above then yes self-defense is shaky. Can you admit if the facts are like (b) then self-defense is valid?

"I do like that idea"

You're not supposed to take someone to trial in order to find out what happened. A big part of the police and prosecutor's jobs are to find out what happened before going to trial. If they don't know what happened, with evidence to back it up, it's irresponsible to take it to trial.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

>Can you admit if the facts are like (b) then self-defense is valid?

Absolutely. And let's presume Z is innocent.

Let's get all o' them witnesses up on the stand so they can be cross examined about every little detail. See if they consistent with their initial statements to the police.

Ok, final question on this then: again a hypothetical - if there were 100 witnesses that all say the same thing would you still want to have a trial to cross examine the witnesses? What about 50? 25? 10? 5? 1 - if that person is the only witness?

I'm just not on board with having a trial to find out what happened. When the state thinks they have zero doubt then and only then prosecute and let a fact finder determine. That's it. Innocent until proven guilty. "We don't know what happened so let's have a trial to see if we can find out" doesn't sit well with me and shouldn't for any American. Our laws are designed to protect against false imprisonment not to put away people who shouldn't follow people they think are suspicious. Just because GZ thought TM didn't belong when he in fact did does not make a crime. Following him and reporting him to the police doesn't either. Neither does self defense. So basically the only way we should be prosecuting if the state knows GZ met the criteria of the law that JSA outlined above in post #53. Based on the evidence presented publicly I think a trial is a joke and simply wrong. But again as I admitted earlier IF the state has more than they've released then we can discuss this again.

> JSA outlined above in post #53.

JSA's post is based on the actual 2nd-degree murder charge and the actual affidavit. I've, already, stated several times I believe that to be excessive, and stated even a misdemeanor might be appropriate.

From my wide-angle lens, I see a well-meaning, but nutty and aggressive, self-appointed neighborhood watch guy who made bad decision after bad decision leading to the point where, for whatever reason, he killed TM.

A sequence of very bad decisions leading to a death of an innocent person (innocent until the point where he suddenly turned into a bad-ass, and pounced on the creepy, weird dude who'd been stalking him) should be subject to some accountability.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xpnz9y_new-witness-911-tape-proves-trayvon-martin-attacked-george-zimmerman_news

Last time I checked break and enter is not a robbery.

---

___________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/...eoesophageal_fistula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
2020 National Masters Champion - M40-44 - 400m IM
Canadian Record Holder 35-39M & 40-44M - 200 m Butterfly (LCM)

I don't really see "bad decision after bad decision" in this case, if Zimmerman's story is to be believed.

I doubt we're going to agree on that point, but regardless, making "bad decisions" is not a crime. (I think your opinion that Zimmerman should be charged with something less than murder, like manslaughter or "maybe a misdemeanor" is ridiculous.)

The situation ended tragically, and you seem to be arguing that because of that, someone has to pay, and that someone is Zimmerman- whether or not he actually committed a crime or not.

I suggest that's a flawed approach. If he didn't commit a crime, he should go free. It's that simple. Civil remedies would remain available to Martin's family.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Who said anything about robberies?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

So let's apply this clarification to your opinion in #62 that "the circumstances as a whole are largely inconsistent with the use of deadly force." By "the circumstances as a whole," you didn't really mean all the circumstances, but rather one particular subset of them?

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

 

---

___________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/...eoesophageal_fistula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
2020 National Masters Champion - M40-44 - 400m IM
Canadian Record Holder 35-39M & 40-44M - 200 m Butterfly (LCM)

"He doesn't claim that Martin "confronted" him"

Yes he does.

The relevant point is that he claims Martin battered him. It isn't Zimmerman's claim that Martin merely confronted him, and so Zimmerman shot Martin.

But you knew that.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I get really tired of hearing the unarmed kid meme casually thrown around. Whether he is armed or not is irrelevant. Now had TM been armed, that would definitely lean in GZ's favor. But I have seen unarmed kids do serious damage to other unarmed and even armed individuals. And by the time the threat presented by an unarmed individual can be absolutely determined, it would likely be too late. If we go by the testimony that GZ was being attacked with TM on top, as supported by eyewitness testimony and trauma to GZ. It was getting close to being too late. In fact, many states have a point where self defense becomes assault. When I was a teenager in Virginia training in boxing, Karate, and kick boxing. We were told that once a man is down, defined by one knee down, he is no longer a threat in the eyes of the law. This assumes no projectiles. So any attacks on a grounded person are no longer defense, but assault. ONce the knees left the ground he was fair game, but until then he was not a threat and could not be struck. I don't even know if that is the law here as I have no intention of getting into a ground fight with somebody nor would I strike somebody on the ground in a fight. But if that is a similar law here, TM was now assaulting GZ if TM was himself defending himself under stand your ground.

Let's also not forget that under testimony, GZ stated that TM made motions that suggested he had a gun. This is not uncommon in the street culture or among trained people. In womens self defense classes, they are tought to signal they have a weapon even if they don't to potential attackers. It would make sense for TM to do such a thing if he perceived a threat. But this is where common sense in the street can have real consequences witht he law. As many justified shooting originated from the dead guy initially hinting they had a weapon when they did or didn't. Usually with a lot of witnesses present. This is just a case where there are no witnesses.

I have no problem with it going to trial. In fact, I'm hoping a lot fo things get cleared up. It just seems to me that the prosecutor has set the bar high and the scenario will play out as Kahuna has stated.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

You're telling someone they are getting Zimmerman's facts wrong, and are getting Zimmerman's facts wrong. He does claim Martin confronted him, it's a relevant point. And to be quite frank, you're a moron for leaving it out of your case in support of Zimmerman because it would help show that Martin initiated the incident.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

I think you were trying to reply to my response to you, but, it did not show up in your post.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

 
>So let's apply this clarification to your opinion in #62 that "the circumstances as a whole are largely inconsistent with the use of deadly force." By "the circumstances as a whole," you didn't really mean all the circumstances, but rather one particular subset of them?

I don't understand what you're asking. I initially used poor wording to explain my assertion that there was a long sequence of poor decisions and miscalculations (possibly by both parties) that escalated what should have been a mundane, everyday situation.

I think some posters in this thread have depraved minds!!!!

---

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

You're telling someone they are getting Zimmerman's facts wrong, and are getting Zimmerman's facts wrong.

I was telling jpo that he was misrepresenting Zimmerman's story when he characterized Zimmerman's claim as being "Martin confronted Zimmerman and then Zimmerman shot Martin." See, because that makes it sound like Zimmerman claims that he shot Martin just because Martin "confronted" him. When the reality is that Zimmerman isn't claiming that at all- he's claiming that he shot Martin because Martin was beating Zimmerman's head against the ground.

But, again, you knew that.

He does claim Martin confronted him, it's a relevant point. And to be quite frank, you're a moron for leaving it out of your case in support of Zimmerman because it would help show that Martin initiated the incident.

My moronishness aside, I'm not making a case in support of Zimmerman.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

 >It just seems to me that the prosecutor has set the bar high

I agree, there.

For better or worse, we sometimes seem to reward our DAs for high profile convictions of any kind, rather than "justice."

He does claim Martin confronted him, it's a relevant point. And to be quite frank, you're a moron for leaving it out of your case in support of Zimmerman because it would help show that Martin initiated the incident.

You're not reading very carefully. In post #4, vitus already acknowledged that according to Zimmerman's statement, he was confronted by Martin.

The post to which you objected was #9, where vitus stated:

"He doesn't claim that Martin 'confronted' him, for example. He claims that Martin hit his head against the sidewalk repeatedly."

The quotation marks are important. If I'm interpreting him correctly, vitus is saying that Martin didn't use the vague word "confront," but much more specific language specifying the violent nature of that confrontation.

EDIT TO ADD: I haven't read the actual statement, so I don't know myself what language Z used.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

I agree with trail. That is the way I see it as well. The rub for me is -- what is the appropriate level of accountability? I dunno, but, it sure as hell isn't second degree murder (a point trail makes in his post, which I quoted above, and earlier in this thread).

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I'm trying but my computer is jacking with me. :)

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Very true and unfortunate. I never lost a case as a prosecutor and, for the most part, that is the way it should be. My boss at the time used to say something to the effect - "A prosecutor should NEVER lose a case. YOU control the charge and YOU determine which cases actually go to trial. You do so after gathering all the evidence. With that much control in your hands, you should never lose."

Obviously, juries can do funny things, so, there is no guarantee. But, I never lost sight of that guidance and, as a result, I never lost a case as a prosecutor and that never required me to back down from a difficult case. I also never over-charged with the hope of reaching a plea.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

You have read the jury instructions. I'm assuming you have seen the instructions regarding the new FL self-defense law. Can you post those too?

That makes three of us on the overcharging. His actions, if they do not fall under the self-defense excuse, probably align with the FL manslaughter law. But we all know that almost every prosecutor in the country over charges. It is just the way it goes.

Above you mentioned element 2 of the 2nd degree murder instructions and the criminality of the act that killed Martin. There is no doubt that there was an altercation. But if the evidence shows that Zimmerman instigated the altercation then his claims of self-defense are not valid. That is where the act becomes criminal.

The only point I have been making the whole way through this thread is that there is in fact enough probable cause to take this in front of a jury.

What I find disturbing is the number of people who will vehemently defend Zimmerman's right to kill a kid that there is absolutely no reason to think he was doing anything wrong. Apparently his hoodie means he is a thug, of course virtually every high school and college kid wears hoodies. Above someone states something along the line that given his history he was saved from a life of crime, are you fucking serious? Another post says he was probably casing the neighborhood, what evidence is there of that?

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

What I find disturbing is the number of people who will vehemently defend Zimmerman's right to kill a kid that there is absolutely no reason to think he was doing anything wrong.

But nobody claims that.

People claim that Zimmerman had a right to follow Martin and to report him to the police as a suspicious person.

People claim that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Martin if Martin was beating Zimmerman's head against the ground, unprovoked.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Here is the actual statute -

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
F.S. §776.013(3)

Here is what it means -

Florida Law After the Enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" Law
The "Stand Your Ground" Law introduced two (2) conclusive presumptions that favor a criminal defendant who is making a self-defense claim:

1. The presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear that deadly force was necessary; and
2. The presumption that the intruder intended to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

These two presumptions protect the defender from both civil and criminal prosecution for unlawful use of deadly or non-deadly force in self-defense. In addition, the defender/gun owner has no duty to retreat, regardless of where he is attacked, so long as he is in a place where he is lawfully entitled to be when the danger occurs.
In passing the "Stand Your Ground" Law, the Florida Legislature expressed its intent that no person should be "required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack." The "Stand Your Ground" Law effectively expands the "Castle Doctrine" by expanding what is meant by the concept of one's "castle" to include any place where a person is lawfully entitled to be.

Quote:

His actions, if they do not fall under the self-defense excuse, probably align with the FL manslaughter law.

I agree, IF they do not fall under self-defense.

Quote:

But we all know that almost every prosecutor in the country over charges. It is just the way it goes.

I do not agree with this. This is a dangerous game that only pays off for the prosecutor if the state allows less-included offenses to be considered by the jury even if not asserted by the prosecution.

Quote:

Above you mentioned element 2 of the 2nd degree murder instructions and the criminality of the act that killed Martin. There is no doubt that there was an altercation. But if the evidence shows that Zimmerman instigated the altercation then his claims of self-defense are not valid. That is where the act becomes criminal.

You are confusing what you think the facts will prove and what the affidavit asserts. What one needs to focus on is what the affidavit asserts. There is no assertion of that conclusion, which needs to be present in the affidavit to create probable cause.

Quote:

The only point I have been making the whole way through this thread is that there is in fact enough probable cause to take this in front of a jury.

On the charge of murder 2? This is just my opinion, based on years of experience, including as a former prosecutor, no, there isn't. The prosecutor controls every work in that affidavit. This one is no good.

Quote:

What I find disturbing is the number of people who will vehemently defend Zimmerman's right to kill a kid that there is absolutely no reason to think he was doing anything wrong. Apparently his hoodie means he is a thug, of course virtually every high school and college kid wears hoodies. Above someone states something along the line that given his history he was saved from a life of crime, are you fucking serious? Another post says he was probably casing the neighborhood, what evidence is there of that?

I understand and agree with you here. My son wears a lot of hoodies. So do I. Of course with his dark-ish Mexican skin, he looks a little more threatening to people than I. Unfortunate, but, true. I tend to completely agree with trail (and others) on this point. There should be some consequences for Zimmerman, but, not murder 2.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Like I said in another thread. When all is said and done prosecutors are evaluated heaviest on one criteria. Winning cases. That is why they would always rather plea a deal. And the ethics or manner they use don't really seem to matter as long as a judge signs off on it. Cops have the same mentality. Their job is to close cases and arrest people. At least that is what they are generally weighed on the most in most departments. In any of these scenarios if justice is served, great. If an injustice occurs and the person arrested, charged, and locked up later is found not guilty on appeal, or some other reason. It is outside of the the prosecutor or policeman's hands. Nor is their performance weighed against it.

This is what happens when a society relies more on laws and rules to maintain order instead of morals/ethics and mutually beneficial interaction. We become less in tune on a personal level with what is right and wrong, and more on what is allowed by law. I've seen comments here by former prosecutors that prove my point. They have/had no problem introducing evidence that was inconclusive if it might help their case and the judge allows it. I don't fault them for it, I fault the reasons previously described.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

What you wrote doesn't seem to be fitting what you meant, but then again I'm quibbling with someone on an internet message board.

There should be some consequences for Zimmerman, but, not murder 2.

For what crime?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

But Martin DID confront him. And THEN he (according to Zimmerman, and I think witnesses) curbed him.

Since there is no evidence at all that Martin was doing anything wrong here specifically are some of the quotes that disturb me:
"Given Martin's history, it is within reason to suspect that his actions were less than an innocent candy run. "
"What would he need to be casing the neighborhood? "
"Trayvon may well have been spared a life of crime based on the post he made on his website and based on the way he appears to carry himself. "


The sentence that you reference cannot be taken by itself without the rest of the paragraph. If Zimmerman had not chased/followed/tailed a kid that was on a candy run there would not have been any contact between the two. But for his actions this would not have occurred.

You start with an innocent kid, add Zimmerman following him, and if we take Zimmerman's account as true (and I'll even sanitize the bejesus out of it) that apparently angered Martin (as I think it would most of us), a confrontation followed, somewhere along the line Zimmerman was getting the worst of it, Martin got shot and killed. You still started with "a kid that there is absolutely no reason to think he was doing anything wrong."

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

"You are confusing what you think the facts will prove and what the affidavit asserts. What one needs to focus on is what the affidavit asserts. There is no assertion of that conclusion, which needs to be present in the affidavit to create probable cause. "

But there is.

From the affadavit:
"Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued. ...Trayvon Martin's mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin's voice."

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Since there is no evidence at all that Martin was doing anything wrong here specifically are some of the quotes that disturb me:
"Given Martin's history, it is within reason to suspect that his actions were less than an innocent candy run. "
"What would he need to be casing the neighborhood? "
"Trayvon may well have been spared a life of crime based on the post he made on his website and based on the way he appears to carry himself. "

Disturbing as those quotes may be, I still say nobody is saying that Zimmerman had a right to shoot an innocent kid- if Zimmerman was simply claiming that he shot Martin absent Martin's attack on him, nobody would argue that the shooting was justified. I think that saying people are defending Zimmerman's right to shoot a kid who was doing absolutely nothing wrong is just basically dishonest.


The sentence that you reference cannot be taken by itself without the rest of the paragraph. If Zimmerman had not chased/followed/tailed a kid that was on a candy run there would not have been any contact between the two. But for his actions this would not have occurred.

It doesn't matter. If Zimmerman was sick in bed that day, none of this would have happened, true. That doesn't mean that following Martin was a crime, and it doesn't mean that Zimmerman is responsible for Martin's attack on him.

You still started with "a kid that there is absolutely no reason to think he was doing anything wrong."

You started there, but you progressed to "a kid who was beating Zimmerman's head against the ground without justification."

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I am not sure criminal charges should be filed at all. Perhaps a wrongful death civil suit. I dunno. I don't have the luxury of having all the facts (neither does anyone else on this site). But, a series of poor and/or questionable decisions lead to the death of a young male. IMO, there should be consequences for that (note my carefully chosen word). What those consequences should be is best left to those with all the facts.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I continue to admit freely that none of us have all the facts.

Going simply from Zimmerman's account, though, I maintain that he was the victim in the incident. If what he says is true, he was the victim of an unjustified deadly assault, and acted appropriately.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I'm just curious how much of your opinion was spoon fed to you by the crap the media gave us in the beginning. If they had posted TM's switter pictures and GZ's current ones would there have been any outcry beyond the black community. Which for right or wrong legitimized this whole case to most of America? If we had been presented with the reason TM was suspended from school with as much regularity in the beginning as we were presented with the fact that GZ "assaulted a cop" years earlier in the beginning would there be the same outrcry?

Polls suggest that most americans do not believe GM is guilty of murder, but when you look at the actual numbers a different picture emerges. Most blacks believe GZ is guilty of murder. 33% of all americans believe GZ is guilty. But only 15% think he is innocent. That means the rest think like many of us do. We don't know what happened and are reserving judgement until the facts are presented. That disturbs me as that means only about 50% of people are willing to let due process run its course.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

That was my post and once again you've misrepresented it. Do you distort the truth intentionally, or do you have reading comprehension challenges?

Fine. Here are two of your posts in their entirety. Feel free to clarify them for us. I'll let your clarifications go without comment.

"Given Martin's history, it is within reason to suspect that his actions were less than an innocent candy run. "

"What would he need to be casing the neighborhood? "

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Honestly, none.

Whether he was suspended from school is irrelevant. Especially since it appears that it was for a small amount of pot in his backpack.

"That means the rest think like many of us do. We don't know what happened and are reserving judgement until the facts are presented. That disturbs me as that means only about 50% of people are willing to let due process run its course"

And what have I done in this thread other than say it should be in front of a jury?

I don't think Zimmerman acted out of racism, I don't even know if he knew Martin's race before it all went down.

My gut is that Zimmerman is a dumb-ass cop wannabe that got himself in way over his head and now a kid that was doing nothing wrong is dead.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Posting them completely out of the context in which they were written further confirms that you are purposefully distorting the truth.

Welcome to YaHey'hood. You're one of his top interns - just behind Tasha.

But Martin DID confront him. And THEN he (according to Zimmerman, and I think witnesses) curbed him.

Not sure what you're getting at here. It doesn't contradict anything vitus said, as far as I can tell.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

I have nothing against you whatsoever other than I think at least two of your posts on this topic are way over the top and disturbing. Especially this one, "Given Martin's history, it is within reason to suspect that his actions were less than an innocent candy run. " There is nothing in Martin's history that I have seen that would lead me to believe he was doing anything other than going to the convenience store.

Your second post was taken in the context of the first.

If I have misinterpreted them I would love to hear why I should think differently.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.