Trayvon Martin

[kirksnosehair]

I think THIS is the Florida law that Zimmerman is citing to defend his actions in this case.

[KevShmev]

Also, sorry if this has been posted, but at what range did Zimmerman shoot Martin? Was it point blank? How far away was he when he was shot?

I don't think that information has been released yet, as it is still an ongoing investigation, but that, along with the trajectory of the bullet, are vital when trying to figure out what really happened.  A shot from very close range and the bullet going in an odd angle will indicate a struggle of some sort immediately prior to the gunshot.  Until we know that info, it is hard to know what really happened in the moments before Martin was shot.

[Scheavo]

The only thing that is clear to me, is that both parties made some very bad decisions, all of which led to this tragedy.  There were likely so many instances where it could have been diffused and sent on another less lethal path....with just a different action one or both parts.  Both parties made active choices that led to a death of one person, and the ruin of another life.  Tragic.

This.  Beyond that, it boggles the mind to see people spouting off about what we "know" and which facts are supposedly "indisputable."

What do you not find indisputable about the fact that Zimmerman called 911, and followed Trayvon? Are you calling the 911 tape bogus? I'm really not basing the logic off anything other than that, and unless there's a massive conspiracy afoot, I'm basically saying the sky is blue.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying ring the guy up, or anything close to that. I'm saying, he deserves some sort of punishment. What degree of punishment depends upon the rest of the evidence, more of which may still come out. Maybe he does deserve to rot in prison, maybe he deserves probation, fines, and community service.

(this relates to the thread in general)

But to say that he shouldn't be punished at all is a ridiculous statement to make. Seeing as how the claim of self-defense, as currently being used, means Zimmerman get's off completely free, that's fucking bullshit, and for every reason I've given, and for undeniable facts that we do know about the case.

[Scheavo]

I'm not gonna link to the articles, because I honestly think it's disgusting, but I cant' believe that Republicans and Conservatives are really fucking trying to "catch" Obama as a racist over his Trayvon remarks. And not just the shit Gingrich said, I mean more recent ridiculous comparisons, which completely misunderstand why this case is maddening to people.

[bosk1]

What do you not find indisputable about the fact that Zimmerman called 911, and followed Trayvon? Are you calling the 911 tape bogus?

Pretty much nothing.  But that is completely different than your previous post about "indisputable facts."  In your own words:

Actually, GMD's account goes beyond hard evidence of the case. I'm keeping myself to precisely what we know. Zimmerman followed Trayvon - even after Trayvon tried to get away (Zimmerman chasing him, as you can hear on his phone, Trayvons girlfriend reporting the same thing) - had no reason to suspect Trayvon of any crime, and brought a gun into the incident that ended up being used to kill someone. Those are indisputable facts, and further information cannot overturn those facts.

The "indisputable facts," according to you:

1.  "Zimmerman followed Trayvon" -- Probably not in dispute.
2.  "even after Trayvon tried to get away" -- Very much disputable.  You have no idea what the truth is regarding that "fact."
3.  "Zimmerman chasing him" -- Maybe.  Even if he was following, "following" is not necessarily "chasing."  Again, very much disputable.
4.  "Trayvons girlfriend reporting the same thing" -- Okay, she reported it.  The fact that she reported it is indisputable.  She did.  But whether what she reported actually happened is very much disputable.
5.   "had no reason to suspect Trayvon of any crime" -- Um, no.  This is very much in dispute.
6.  "brought a gun into the incident that ended up being used to kill someone" -- Yeah, that one is probably indisputable.

Bottom line is, you like thousands of others don't know what you are talking about if you think sufficient facts to convict (or to acquit, for that matter) are "indisputable."  There is a LOT about the story that only a small handful of people know.  Nobody at this stage should be saying the key facts of the case are indisputable or what the outcome of the case should be. 

But to say that he shouldn't be punished at all is a ridiculous statement to make. Seeing as how the claim of self-defense, as currently being used, means Zimmerman get's off completely free, that's fucking bullshit, and for every reason I've given, and for undeniable facts that we do know about the case.

Whether he should or shouldn't has yet to be decided.  There is a lot that goes into that that, again, we simply do not know.  But I don't think anyone in this thread has said that they think he should NOT be punished.  Even if he successfully pleads and proves self-defense, that does not mean other factors won't still lead to some sort of conviction.  Self-defense is not always a complete defense to a conviction.  A defendant can sometimes still be convicted, and the self-defense defense will only be a partial defense that will mitigate, but not eliminate, the sentence.

[El Barto]

I think people have been sensibly trying to avoid the subject, but I think there's every reason to believe that actually letting justice be served could result in billions of dollars in property damage.  I guarantee that LEO in Florida is already well into the planning stages, and it would surprise me if the Federales weren't having similar discussions.  I'm thinking we might be to the point where pragmatism might need to play a pretty big role in the outcome of this.  Find a way where he gets 2 years handed down, serves 9 months someplace safe, and then quietly disappears.  I think it's a safe bet the guy's life is already pretty well screwed, so this might actually be the best outcome for him, as well. 

[gmillerdrake]

Actually, GMD's account goes beyond hard evidence of the case. I'm keeping myself to precisely what we know. Zimmerman followed Trayvon - even after Trayvon tried to get away (Zimmerman chasing him, as you can hear on his phone, Trayvons girlfriend reporting the same thing) - had no reason to suspect Trayvon of any crime, and brought a gun into the incident that ended up being used to kill someone. Those are indisputable facts, and further information cannot overturn those facts.

My account is based on the police report, Zimmermans account, the eye witness account and even Martins Girlfriends account. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and began to walk back to his car. If Martin were so frightened then he could have just called it even and waited until Zimmerman was gone....but instead he chose to confront him.
   I will not apologize or back off my support for a man who is being railroaded and having his life ruined by protecting himself and shooting a thug who jumped him. That's what Martin was. Read the tweets....look at the 'real' pics...judgmental...a bit....but if the shoe fits.
  As I said...unless there is some sort of bombshell evidence that comes out against Zimmerman...which could happen....my position in his defense will not change. But it's fascinating that the evidence that clearly illustrates Martin as a wanna be ganster.....with that type of mindset and attitude is being glossed over like it has nothing to do with this case.
   Just as my position won't change....those of you just as adament on the other side of the argument aren't changing yours either so....what's the point...

[Scheavo]

1.  "Zimmerman followed Trayvon" -- Probably not in dispute.

It's not in dispute, becuase Zimmerman says hes doing so on the 911 tape. Are you going to dispute that by saying Zimmerman is lying? That the events of Zimmerman' following Trayvon didn't happen, which they obviously did? You're just denying reality at this point.

2.  "even after Trayvon tried to get away" -- Very much disputable.  You have no idea what the truth is regarding that "fact."
3.  "Zimmerman chasing him" -- Maybe.  Even if he was following, "following" is not necessarily "chasing."  Again, very much disputable.

You can actually hear Zimmerman chasing after him in the tape, and its the only logical conclusion from his actions. Again, it's all on the tape. Do you give chase to someone who isn't trying to get away? (*edit* which doesn't require Trayvon to know he's getting away)

4.  "Trayvons girlfriend reporting the same thing" -- Okay, she reported it.  The fact that she reported it is indisputable.  She did.  But whether what she reported actually happened is very much disputable.

Okay, this is fair, I forgot I had mentioned this, as it was a parenthetical thought. But notice how the events on the tape, and the reported events per the girlfriend, who we know was talking with Trayvon 5 minutes before the police showed up. And it's undeniably true that she reported it. So I stand by my statement, that none of the evidence I'm using is disputable (which is not the same as saying my interpretation is indisputable).

5.   "had no reason to suspect Trayvon of any crime" -- Um, no.  This is very much in dispute.

Again, it's on the fucking tape. Zimmerman saw a black kid, in a hoodie, and basically formed his own assumptions from there. It's almost like you have listened to the tape?

6.  "brought a gun into the incident that ended up being used to kill someone" -- Yeah, that one is probably indisputable.

Again, probably? If Zimmerman shot Trayvon with a gun taht wasn't his own, we would definitely know about it. It would mean it had to of been Trayvon's, and do you honestly think Zimmerman would claim that gun as his own? You have to start thinking crazy things to think there's a possibility that his is disputable.

Nobody at this stage should be saying the key facts of the case are indisputable or what the outcome of the case should be.

You'll notice I'm not actually saying what the outcome should be, don't you? It's the part quoted below. The outcome would involve the actual charges (murder, manslaughter, etc), and I'm quite clearing saying I'm not sure where that should fall.

But to say that he shouldn't be punished at all is a ridiculous statement to make. Seeing as how the claim of self-defense, as currently being used, means Zimmerman get's off completely free, that's fucking bullshit, and for every reason I've given, and for undeniable facts that we do know about the case.

Whether he should or shouldn't has yet to be decided.  There is a lot that goes into that that, again, we simply do not know.  But I don't think anyone in this thread has said that they think he should NOT be punished.  Even if he successfully pleads and proves self-defense, that does not mean other factors won't still lead to some sort of conviction.  Self-defense is not always a complete defense to a conviction.  A defendant can sometimes still be convicted, and the self-defense defense will only be a partial defense that will mitigate, but not eliminate, the sentence.

[/quote]

 

You do realize that this is what the whole hullabaloo is about, right?  Zimmerman is getting a complete defense from a conviction, because he's claiming self defense. I heard that the police wanted to charge him with manslaughter, but a State lawyer had to turn that down becuase there wasn't enough evidence to prove that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self-defense.

If things were operating how you say they should be, there wouldn't be a story. I'm forced to assume you really don't know anything about this case at this point.

[El Barto]

But it's fascinating that the evidence that clearly illustrates Martin as a wanna be ganster.....with that type of mindset and attitude is being glossed over like it has nothing to do with this case.

Actually,  it has exactly nothing to do with this case.  Wannabe thug gangsters can be victims just as well as anybody else.  It's also completely irrelevant that Zimmerman might have had a sketchy past.  The only thing that matters is the facts of this particular case, and back-stories don't qualify. 

[Scheavo]

Actually, GMD's account goes beyond hard evidence of the case. I'm keeping myself to precisely what we know. Zimmerman followed Trayvon - even after Trayvon tried to get away (Zimmerman chasing him, as you can hear on his phone, Trayvons girlfriend reporting the same thing) - had no reason to suspect Trayvon of any crime, and brought a gun into the incident that ended up being used to kill someone. Those are indisputable facts, and further information cannot overturn those facts.

My account is based on the police report, Zimmermans account, the eye witness account and even Martins Girlfriends account. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and began to walk back to his car. If Martin were so frightened then he could have just called it even and waited until Zimmerman was gone....but instead he chose to confront him.
   I will not apologize or back off my support for a man who is being railroaded and having his life ruined by protecting himself and shooting a thug who jumped him. That's what Martin was. Read the tweets....look at the 'real' pics...judgmental...a bit....but if the shoe fits.
  As I said...unless there is some sort of bombshell evidence that comes out against Zimmerman...which could happen....my position in his defense will not change. But it's fascinating that the evidence that clearly illustrates Martin as a wanna be ganster.....with that type of mindset and attitude is being glossed over like it has nothing to do with this case.
   Just as my position won't change....those of you just as adament on the other side of the argument aren't changing yours either so....what's the point...

I think what you bring up is perfectly legitimate to bring up, and like I said, is assuredly pertinent to what manner Zimmerman get's punished. But, what you bring up is testimonial evidence, which means it needs to stand up in a court, with the rest of the evidence. I didn't mean to imply that you're story was wrong, it certainly could be right, only that my story is a 911 tape most of us have heard, and can't really be refuted by other evidence. Zimmermans account can be refuted. And so far, Zimmermans account is enough to keep him from getting prosecuted.

[bosk1]

Seriously, Scheavo, you don't have a clue about how the legal system works.  None.  If you can't participate in the debate intelligently, leave. 

[Scheavo]

Seriously, Scheavo, you don't have a clue about how the legal system works.  None.  If you can't participate in the debate intelligently, leave.

I know how the legal system is supposed to work, but how it's supposed to work is not how it's working in this case. Why do you think the Department of Justice was called in? Because the system was working so wonderfully? Why do you think there's a huge debate about the stand your ground law? Because it doesn't mess with the system you're defending?

[bosk1]

I'm not defending anything.  I'm pointing out that you have no clue what you are talking about when you say facts are "indisputable" or when you pontificate about what the implications of self-defense are. 

[gmillerdrake]

But it's fascinating that the evidence that clearly illustrates Martin as a wanna be ganster.....with that type of mindset and attitude is being glossed over like it has nothing to do with this case.

Actually,  it has exactly nothing to do with this case.  Wannabe thug gangsters can be victims just as well as anybody else.  It's also completely irrelevant that Zimmerman might have had a sketchy past.  The only thing that matters is the facts of this particular case, and back-stories don't qualify.

your right...what I should have said or meant to say is that...weighing what I see/read/learn about the two involved....I believe/trust Zimmermans 'story' more than I do any of the suggested scenarios where Marting is a helpless victim with a 12 year old face

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

It isn't disputable that Martin tried to get away. Zimmerman even said Martin was running away.

[Scheavo]

I'm not defending anything.  I'm pointing out that you have no clue what you are talking about when you say facts are "indisputable" or when you pontificate about what the implications of self-defense are.

Bosk, I'm sure you know more about the legal system than me. What you don't seem to know much about, is this case specifically. Florida has a very asinine law that is defending Zimmerman from facing charges, and protects anyone from getting charged for something similar unless the state can prove that the defendant was not acting in self defense. The rest, I can only assume are your weird interpretations of what I have said, which may be a result of my own poor word choice. There were many legal experts who said this law basically legalizes murder, so long as you don't have any witnesses.

And again, the facts I'm bringing up are basically describing what happens on the 911 call, that is recorded, that is official record. How exactly are you going to dispute the accused own words, at the time of the event, as they are recorded on police record? Seriously? It's not as if pointing to hearsay, or possible events on the ground I'm pointing out what definitely happened, what we definitely know about the case, and nothing more.

Here's what I'm doing: I'm saying there is gravity. What the judicial system gets to decide upon is whose right, Newton or Einstein. But me pointing out the indisputable fact that there is gravity, does not invalidate either Newton or Einstein, and it is not pontificating or speaking out of my ass.

It isn't indisputable that Martin tried to get away. Zimmerman even said Martin was running away.

Double negative fail?

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

You're right. I meant to say it isn't disputable. Thanks.

In other news, for the word "thanks", my phone suggests "Run-d.m.c." as a correction. WTF?

[bosk1]

Okay, well now at least you've toned down the rhetoric so we can at least have a discussion.

Florida has a very asinine law that is defending Zimmerman from facing charges, and protects anyone from getting charged for something similar unless the state can prove that the defendant was not acting in self defense. The rest, I can only assume are your weird interpretations of what I have said, which may be a result of my own poor word choice. There were many legal experts who said this law basically legalizes murder, so long as you don't have any witnesses.

Yes, I realize that is what the "experts" on the 10:00 news may be saying, but that's not actually how it works.  I mean, it sort of is, but it is a very distorted picture.

And again, the facts I'm bringing up are basically describing what happens on the 911 call, that is recorded, that is official record. How exactly are you going to dispute the accused own words, at the time of the event, as they are recorded on police record? Seriously? It's not as if pointing to hearsay, or possible events on the ground I'm pointing out what definitely happened, what we definitely know about the case, and nothing more.

Yes, what you bring up is from the 911 call.  But there are at least two reasons why a good portion of what you cite to is still not "indisputable."

(1)  The 911 call is not necessarily the whole picture.  You are putting your own spin and interpretation on a lot of the facts.  Your interpretation may seem like the most logical.  And at the end of the day, it might actually end up being exactly what is proven at trial.  But as of right now, the fact remains that there may be other interpretations you and I are not aware of.  We simply do not know at this stage. 
(2)  Even if there is little or now room for interpretation or context or other explanations from Zimmerman or other witnesses, the 911 tape could very well end up partially or completely inadmissible at trial.  The fact that a 911 tape exists doesn't make the facts that are captured on the 911 tape admissible at trial.

Bottom line is, yes, there is a 911 tape.  But the existence of a 911 tape does not make your interpretation of what you are hearing on the 911 tape the "indisputable" story, or even the complete story for that matter. 

Here's what I'm doing: I'm saying there is gravity. What the judicial system gets to decide upon is whose rights, Newton or Einstein. But me pointing out the indisputable fact that there is gravity, does not invalidate either Newton or Einstein, and it is not pontificating or speaking out of my ass.

I understand that is what you think you are doing, but you aren't quite there.  The only thing that is "gravity" is that there is a 911 tape.  What is on the tape and what it means are still VERY much up in the air.

[Scheavo]

1)  The 911 call is not necessarily the whole picture.  You are putting your own spin and interpretation on a lot of the facts.  Your interpretation may seem like the most logical.  And at the end of the day, it might actually end up being exactly what is proven at trial.  But as of right now, the fact remains that there may be other interpretations you and I are not aware of.  We simply do not know at this stage. 

I'm not saying it's the whole picture. I'm saying it is what it is. Zimmerman calls the police, says there's a black kid wearing a hoodie whom he suspects. He then follows said kid, telling the operator that he's following said kid, and that said kid is walking away. To come to a different conclusion requires you to imagine that Zimmerman called the police, and lied about what he was doing. Now, I guess technically possible, but it takes some insane amount of mind-wrangling to think that this happened. You can hear Zimmerman voice, you can tell his describing events as they are happening, and that he's telling you what he's doing.

Also, you need to dissociate that from what's admissible in court. I've never actually talked about that, I've simply made the case that Zimmerman needs to be charged with something. There is more than enough evidence to charge him with something, something which has not been done because of the State law, which may or may not say this or that - but clearly causes confusion amongst lawyers and legal experts as to what it actually means and says.

Let's also not kid ourselves into thinking that just becuase evidence isn't admissible in court, that said evidence doesn't thereby exist. We have provisions which throw out evidence for good reasons, but they don't actually change the facts on the ground. I've benefited from these provisions myself, and I know that having the evidence thrown out simply made it impossible to convict me, but it didn't make one ounce of difference as to my actual guilt.

(by the way, out of curiosity, how could a 911 tape be thrown out? What could lead to it not being admissable in court?)

[bosk1]

I'm not saying it's the whole picture. I'm saying it is what it is.

Except that it isn't simply "what it is."  It may completely distort what actually happened and paint an incorrect picture that is not accurate.  Am I saying that it does?  No.  I'm just saying that it could.  Which is why I am saying that it is far too premature to be saying that an interpretation of a couple of facts is the equivalent of indisputable facts.

Also, you need to dissociate that from what's admissible in court. I've never actually talked about that, I've simply made the case that Zimmerman needs to be charged with something. There is more than enough evidence to charge him with something, something which has not been done because of the State law, which may or may not say this or that - but clearly causes confusion amongst lawyers and legal experts as to what it actually means and says.

That's all fine.  But then you shouldn't be saying that facts are "indisputable" and that there is enough "indisputable" evidence that he should be punished.  That is a different thing than merely saying there is enough evidence to charge him.

(by the way, out of curiosity, how could a 911 tape be thrown out? What could lead to it not being admissable in court?)

There are any number of reasons why evidence that may seem clear and reliable may not be admissible.  I'm not saying that is the case with the 911 tape.  But it might be.  Again, we don't know.  We can listen to the tape, but we don't know enough about the fine details of the case to know what would be excluded and why.

[Scheavo]

I'm not saying it's the whole picture. I'm saying it is what it is.

Except that it isn't simply "what it is."  It may completely distort what actually happened and paint an incorrect picture that is not accurate.  Am I saying that it does?  No.  I'm just saying that it could.  Which is why I am saying that it is far too premature to be saying that an interpretation of a couple of facts is the equivalent of indisputable facts.

99% of the time, I'd be agreeing with you, and always would have. But thanks to our news media, I've been given access to pretty damn solid evidence, which some peole are using to make all sorts of claims, but which I'm simply pionting out makes Zimmerman responsible, in some fashion, for what happened.

Also, you need to dissociate that from what's admissible in court. I've never actually talked about that, I've simply made the case that Zimmerman needs to be charged with something. There is more than enough evidence to charge him with something, something which has not been done because of the State law, which may or may not say this or that - but clearly causes confusion amongst lawyers and legal experts as to what it actually means and says.

That's all fine.  But then you shouldn't be saying that facts are "indisputable" and that there is enough "indisputable" evidence that he should be punished.  That is a different thing than merely saying there is enough evidence to charge him.

Well, there's what I think, and there's what I think should be done. I think Zimmerman is guilty of something - and if I were on the jury, I'd be voting for some sort of manslaughter charge- but I'm not so asinine as to think we should just skip the legal process. It plays an important role, but unfortunately, much of that role is not happening. The investigation into the matter was inadequate, people were not interviewed, and a full report was not done.

(by the way, out of curiosity, how could a 911 tape be thrown out? What could lead to it not being admissable in court?)

There are any number of reasons why evidence that may seem clear and reliable may not be admissible.  I'm not saying that is the case with the 911 tape.  But it might be.  Again, we don't know.  We can listen to the tape, but we don't know enough about the fine details of the case to know what would be excluded and why.

Ya, I guess I was just hoping for a way in which a 911 tape could be inexcusable. From what I know about the reasoning for dropping evidence, I just can't see how that could play a role in a freely given 911 call.

[El Barto]

Florida has a very asinine law that is defending Zimmerman from facing charges, and protects anyone from getting charged for something similar unless the state can prove that the defendant was not acting in self defense. The rest, I can only assume are your weird interpretations of what I have said, which may be a result of my own poor word choice. There were many legal experts who said this law basically legalizes murder, so long as you don't have any witnesses.

Yes, I realize that is what the "experts" on the 10:00 news may be saying, but that's not actually how it works.  I mean, it sort of is, but it is a very distorted picture.

Ya know, Hoss, I get that you don't like to play lawyer in here, which is very understandable to me, but if you're going to throw around statements such as that, you really should offer up some sort of explanation.  That very point is something that I think we would all like to understand better,  and while I certainly don't expect you to play law professor,  if you're going to address that fairly important legal matter, the least you can do is something better than yeah, but they're wrong, though.

[Scheavo]

Florida has a very asinine law that is defending Zimmerman from facing charges, and protects anyone from getting charged for something similar unless the state can prove that the defendant was not acting in self defense. The rest, I can only assume are your weird interpretations of what I have said, which may be a result of my own poor word choice. There were many legal experts who said this law basically legalizes murder, so long as you don't have any witnesses.

Yes, I realize that is what the "experts" on the 10:00 news may be saying, but that's not actually how it works.  I mean, it sort of is, but it is a very distorted picture.

Ya know, Hoss, I get that you don't like to play lawyer in here, which is very understandable to me, but if you're going to throw around statements such as that, you really should offer up some sort of explanation.  That very point is something that I think we would all like to understand better,  and while I certainly don't expect you to play law professor,  if you're going to address that fairly important legal matter, the least you can do is something better than yeah, but they're wrong, though.

I imagine an investigation can reveal alterior motive, which can be enough to convict without evidence. *It doesn't legalize murder, I see the hyperbole now, it just makes self-defense claims all that much easier, making rage, random, and spur of the moment killings harder to convict. Your standard jealous wife, husband, ex, will still be found through an investigation. But in this case, the suspect is easily known, what is not known are the exact circumstances - which is playing the difference between charges, and no charges.

My question would be, why was this cases investigation so obviously inadequate? Is it the law, racism, lack of funding, general inadaquacy, etc? I think the wording is very tricky, and it the issue with the law is that it can shift the burden of proof to a point where charges won't stick - as possibly seen by this case.

[El Barto]

I don't think the case's investigation was so thoroughly inadequate.  The cops had enough that they wanted to charge Zimmerman, and the prosecutor told them not to waste their time.  I think this was a function of the way the law was written.  It's also worth noting that the prosecutors of their state were largely opposed to NRA law because they foresaw situations like this.

[Scheavo]

I don't think the case's investigation was so thoroughly inadequate.  The cops had enough that they wanted to charge Zimmerman, and the prosecutor told them not to waste their time.  I think this was a function of the way the law was written.  It's also worth noting that the prosecutors of their state were largely opposed to NRA law because they foresaw situations like this.

Well, they apparently never interviewed Trayvons girlfriend, who seems like someone who would be relevant to talk to regarding self-defense claims. The old way, the claim would have risen, the girl would have been interviewed. As it is, that didn't happen, and is probably only happening now because of the outrage.

Of course, I think there should be enough evidence to charge him with manslaughter, and let the system work from there, so I don't really disagree with what you just said.

[kirksnosehair]

Actually, GMD's account goes beyond hard evidence of the case. I'm keeping myself to precisely what we know. Zimmerman followed Trayvon - even after Trayvon tried to get away (Zimmerman chasing him, as you can hear on his phone, Trayvons girlfriend reporting the same thing) - had no reason to suspect Trayvon of any crime, and brought a gun into the incident that ended up being used to kill someone. Those are indisputable facts, and further information cannot overturn those facts.

My account is based on the police report, Zimmermans account, the eye witness account and even Martins Girlfriends account. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and began to walk back to his car. If Martin were so frightened then he could have just called it even and waited until Zimmerman was gone....but instead he chose to confront him.
   I will not apologize or back off my support for a man who is being railroaded and having his life ruined by protecting himself and shooting a thug who jumped him. That's what Martin was. Read the tweets....look at the 'real' pics...judgmental...a bit....but if the shoe fits.
  As I said...unless there is some sort of bombshell evidence that comes out against Zimmerman...which could happen....my position in his defense will not change. But it's fascinating that the evidence that clearly illustrates Martin as a wanna be ganster.....with that type of mindset and attitude is being glossed over like it has nothing to do with this case.
   Just as my position won't change....those of you just as adament on the other side of the argument aren't changing yours either so....what's the point...

The same way you are glossing over the fact that Zimmerman referred to Martin as a "F*cking Coon" while on the phone with 911?  If you're going to make Martin's "mindset and attitude" part of the equation, then why don't you want to make Zimmerman's "mindset and attitude" (clearly racist) part of it as well? Is is possible that it's because it conflicts with your pro-gun biased tendency to defend anyone else who, like you, feels the need to walk around with a loaded deadly weapon on them at all times? 

You know, all things considered here (and obviously, we can't know everything about what went on) if Zimmerman's not carrying that weapon on that day, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion because *probably* no one would be dead.  There are no reports that Martin was carrying any kind of weapon, and I doubt that Zimmerman would have "followed" (his word to the 911 dispatcher) Martin at all if he were not carrying.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Which is kinda what I was thinking about in an earlier post.  Zimmerman knew that whatever happened, he had the protection of a gun.  To some people, gun = balls.  It would seem a lot MORE foolhardy to follow a stranger around your neighborhood, without the peace of mind of knowing you have a gun on you.

[gmillerdrake]

Actually, GMD's account goes beyond hard evidence of the case. I'm keeping myself to precisely what we know. Zimmerman followed Trayvon - even after Trayvon tried to get away (Zimmerman chasing him, as you can hear on his phone, Trayvons girlfriend reporting the same thing) - had no reason to suspect Trayvon of any crime, and brought a gun into the incident that ended up being used to kill someone. Those are indisputable facts, and further information cannot overturn those facts.

My account is based on the police report, Zimmermans account, the eye witness account and even Martins Girlfriends account. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and began to walk back to his car. If Martin were so frightened then he could have just called it even and waited until Zimmerman was gone....but instead he chose to confront him.
   I will not apologize or back off my support for a man who is being railroaded and having his life ruined by protecting himself and shooting a thug who jumped him. That's what Martin was. Read the tweets....look at the 'real' pics...judgmental...a bit....but if the shoe fits.
  As I said...unless there is some sort of bombshell evidence that comes out against Zimmerman...which could happen....my position in his defense will not change. But it's fascinating that the evidence that clearly illustrates Martin as a wanna be ganster.....with that type of mindset and attitude is being glossed over like it has nothing to do with this case.
   Just as my position won't change....those of you just as adament on the other side of the argument aren't changing yours either so....what's the point...

The same way you are glossing over the fact that Zimmerman referred to Martin as a "F*cking Coon" while on the phone with 911?  If you're going to make Martin's "mindset and attitude" part of the equation, then why don't you want to make Zimmerman's "mindset and attitude" (clearly racist) part of it as well? Is is possible that it's because it conflicts with your pro-gun biased tendency to defend anyone else who, like you, feels the need to walk around with a loaded deadly weapon on them at all times? 

You know, all things considered here (and obviously, we can't know everything about what went on) if Zimmerman's not carrying that weapon on that day, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion because *probably* no one would be dead.  There are no reports that Martin was carrying any kind of weapon, and I doubt that Zimmerman would have "followed" (his word to the 911 dispatcher) Martin at all if he were not carrying.

The audio of Zimmerman calling him a 'coon' is almost innaudable and he says he called him a 'goon' anyway. It's really how you want to interpret it. If your leaning toward wanting to fry Zimmerman for protecting himself then you'll hear 'coon'. If not, then it's 'goon'. I take in account that he had fostered/big brothered black kids...he isn't white he's a mixed race.....and that friends of all races and family members swear repeatedly that using a racist term is completely out of character for him.
   Zimmerman had/has every right given to him by his state to carry a gun. Saying Martin wouldn't be dead if Zimmerman didn't have that gun is obvious...but Zimmerman may be dead if he hadn't. One will never know if Zimmerman would have continued to try and see what Martin was up to if he didn't have the gun. It's not really relavent if you ask me.
    I carry a gun...all the time. It's not my fault if I shoot someone that is threatening me or my family. At all. It is a huge responsibility to carry a weapon and one that shouldn't be taken lightly. But just because one has a CCW liscense and is carrying doesn't mean they can be automatically blamed because 'well he/she wouldn't have been shot and killed if he/she didn't have the weapon'.
   Zimmerman told the police he followed Martin because he wanted to see where he went to to tell the police. There had been a string of robberies. That is how 'breaks' in the case happen. "Yeah I saw a suspicious guy (and I'm sorry but whether it's profiling or whatever...a tall Black man, wearing a hoodie walking between houses which Martin was doing, at night is suspicious) walking between houses, I followed him and he went into that home." The police knock on the door...interview/question Martin...it's no harm no foul.....unless they discover this or that which may or may not have tied him to the break ins. I'm not saying I believe Martin was the person who was robbbing the homes. All I am saying is that is how police work and 'breaks' in a case happen.
   Zimmerman lost track of Martin and was returning to his vehicle. Any type of 'pursuing' or 'chasing' had ended. The encounter where Martin was shot was initiated by Martin approaching Zimmerman. That is where I fault Marting for simply being young and Macho...thinking he'd do something about it.
   I cannot and will not fault Zimmerman for following Martin to see what he was up to.....especially due to the fact he was part of a neighborhood watch...in a gated community....that had been under attack by a rash of break ins. And, I will not fault him for exercising his right to bear and conceal a weapon as given to him by the state he lives in. Is the law 'leniant'? Maybe. But if the prosecutors and other interest groups fought it and it was still voted on and passes by the citezens of that state...then guess what...it's the law.

[kirksnosehair]

Wow, it's pretty amazing how much you know about this case

[gmillerdrake]

Wow, it's pretty amazing how much you know about this case

It's all out there in the hundreds of articles that have been written about it.

[KevShmev]

Regarding the alleged racial slur, it is fairly inaudible, but enhanced audio is out there now.  It definitely sounds like goon or coon, but I don't think you say for sure which one it is.  It sounds like both.

[bosk1]

Florida has a very asinine law that is defending Zimmerman from facing charges, and protects anyone from getting charged for something similar unless the state can prove that the defendant was not acting in self defense. The rest, I can only assume are your weird interpretations of what I have said, which may be a result of my own poor word choice. There were many legal experts who said this law basically legalizes murder, so long as you don't have any witnesses.

Yes, I realize that is what the "experts" on the 10:00 news may be saying, but that's not actually how it works.  I mean, it sort of is, but it is a very distorted picture.

Ya know, Hoss, I get that you don't like to play lawyer in here, which is very understandable to me, but if you're going to throw around statements such as that, you really should offer up some sort of explanation.  That very point is something that I think we would all like to understand better,  and while I certainly don't expect you to play law professor,  if you're going to address that fairly important legal matter, the least you can do is something better than yeah, but they're wrong, though.

I hear you.  And I did do that in the first post in the thread where I was explaining how self defense comes into play, albeit in very cursory terms.

But you're right, and that's why I rarely even comment on these kinds of posts, because I don't want to get into law professor mode.  I was content just quietly following the thread without commenting.  But between Sceavo and gmillerdrake and others commenting about what we all surely must "know," my frustration over the fact that this case is being tried in the "court of public opinion" by people who really don't have enough information just got the best of me.

[KevShmev]

   But between Sceavo and gmillerdrake and others commenting about what we all surely must "know," my frustration over the fact that this case is being tried in the "court of public opinion" by people who really don't have enough information just got the best of me.

I totally agree with this.  It is impossible for any of us to know enough at this point to say for sure what we think really happened. 

[bosk1]

And for the record, in case it wasn't clear, I am not taking Zimmerman's side either.  Since Scheavo was the one I was directly interacting with, it may have seemed that way.  But my point is simply that we don't know, so we shouldn't be taking sides at all--either side.  It just makes me sick the way this whole thing is being covered and how it is being used as just one more thing to polarize people.  Haven't we had enough of this kind of garbage driving people apart?

[KevShmev]

Also, with the information now out there that Martin had had problems in high school, including apparently taking a swing at a bus driver, it makes it more plausible that he would have confronted Zimmerman and instigated a physical confrontation.  Now, his past has no bearing on Zimmerman thinking he looked suspicious, as Zimmerman couldn't have possibly known what some random 17-year old kid had done in school or whatever, but it does make it look like he was an aggressive kid who had no qualms about throwing down.

Also, I am still not taking sides here either.  Just trying to offer some perspective.