17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?

[broncofan]

Oh boy. Guess if I ever want to become the next big hip-hop star, all Ize gots ta does is add some "colored" sugar & tussin to my watermelon juice. It's on the internet. Must be true.
LMAO.

I just had chicken tikka masala and coffee. I've heard you can make a hydrogen bomb with this combination. The FBI is just about to break down my door.

[broncofan]

If you want to get high on codeine do you really need skittles and iced tea to do it. That's like saying that someone coming home from the store with only orange juice was preparing to make screw drivers (and yes I saw the screenshots).

But let's say he was preparing to make some and he was carrying the ingredients with him, it's pretty unlikely that he had just consumed it....which would make it completely irrelevant to what happened.

[robertlouis]

Enuff said.

[bobvela]

I go away for a few days and return to see this dribble...


Unfortunately for Chicago, it's close to Wisconsin and Iowa where its very easy to acquire firearms and bring them into the city.

Yes... it's all the fault of the near by states... the gun laws & culture in Chicago & Illinois contribute nothing. It will be interesting to see if the court mandated (and eventually legislatively passed) ability to carry a concealed weapon will do anything in Chicago or Illinois in general to combat the rate of murders & illegal shootings.


Look at States, not cities. States with lenient firearm laws have the highest rates of gun crime.

Liar.

Or would you like to provide specific information?

Why would I even ask? We know about your inability to argue in anyway other than emotionally.

I will, lets start with this nice Wikipedia article: Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state)

DC has some of the strongest gun 'control' in the nation and leads the nation in terms of murders (as well as murders from a firearm in the nation), while states like California & New York (also very restrictive) rank quite high.

You could point out that the Brady score for many such high death states are quite low... which ignores the fact that their scores are political and unrelated to reality (ie median value of 8 and average of 16.72 on a range of 0-100), while the stats well documented by John Lott show that the easier it is to get & carry a gun leads to less gun crime.

[trish]

I say look at State and you immediately jump to DC which is such a small district it's essentially a city stuck between Virginia, Maryland and very close to West Virginia and New Jersey. I do not deny the influence of gun culture on firearm related deaths; Americans love guns like they love their penises. Only someone emotionally attached to firearms (a gun enthusiast, if you will) would think more guns would decrease the probability of death or injury by firearm.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

[yodajazz]

>>>“He's not on PCP. He's not on anything. He’s on Skittles.”

As a matter of fact, Trayvon's own Facebook page admits that he was addicted to "Sizzurp" or "Purple Drank", which is a cocktail of codeine (or Robitussin, if codeine is unavailable), mixed with Arizona Watermelon Iced Tea, and Skittles. The coating on the Skittles, apparently, dissolves in the cocktail, giving the drink its distinctive purple color.

Trayvon had just purchased Arizona Watermelon Iced Tea and Skittles. It's likely he was going to make some "Purple Drank" when he returned home, though it's uncertain whether he had access to codeine at that time.

One effect of consuming this stuff on a regular basis is violent and paranoid behavior. So it's certainly possible that Trayvon initiated a surprise attack on Zimmerman.

In any case, we know from eye-witness testimony, that Martin was on top and Zimmerman was on bottom during a violent row between the two. Zimmerman's voice was also identified as the one yelling for help on a 911 call, and he had lacerations to the back of his head from Martin having pounded it on a concrete walkway. Irrespective of who started what, someone on the bottom has a right to defend himself in whatever way he can. Unfortunately for Martin, Zimmerman's self-defense took the form of deadly force from a legally concealed firearm.

The constant drumbeat in the mainstream media of Trayvon as a kind of cherub — just a young kid with some candy in his pocket and a container of "soft drink" (the media never tells us what it was specifically) — is propaganda, probably for anti-gun, gun-control purposes, though it may have some racial component, too.

See:

http://www.occupyhln.org/george-zimmerman/skittles-and-iced-tea-or-purple-drank/

The article has screenshots of Martin's Facebook page asking where he can score some prescription codeine.

It doesn't matter if this was true,or not. Zimmerman's attorneys argued before the trial, any of Zimmerman's history, prior to that night was not relevant to the actual night of the incident. Apparently they were successful. Prior to the trial, I heard reports of Zimmerman's, negative relations with co-workers, prescription drug usage, for anxiety, which then would require a health diagnosis. Also as a matter of record, there was some sort of domestic restraining order, and something involving an assault on a police officer. Seems to me that, for the state to prove a "depraved state of mind', a person's, legal and health history are relevant. That all being said, why does Martin, living or dead, not have the same rights as Zimmerman, who killed him? Are not they both human beings? Or does a different legal standard apply to Blacks and Whites? These are not rhetorical questions. I want an answer from you. The answers point to a larger issue, one which makes Black Americans the most incarcerated people on planet Earth.

This whole issue of drug usage by Blacks, has an underlying assumption. That is that Blacks are sub-human, and that drug usage then has more serious effects, closer to that of animals, compared to others. One way this was done legally, was to classify crack cocaine use, done primarily in Black communities, was more serious than powdered cocaine, done in other communities. This was presented to Congress and others, as leading to more serious crime results, than powder cocaine. So laws were passed that gave, say ten times as much penalty for the same amount of the drug. This has lead to, what is sometimes called, "the prison generation", affecting the entire Black male chances in life.

Let's then bring this back to the Martin/Zimmeramn case. The assumption is that if Martin had marijuana in his system, and now also, that he used other drugs, he then is capable of attempted murder, of a person he had never met, for no logical reason. Human beings, who recognized as such, often have logical reasons, for their behaviors. Fear is on such, emotion, which is used to justify certain actions. The underlying assumption from those that believe Zimmerman's story, is that Trayvon did not have fear, of being followed, even though he indicated such while it was happening. An important thing in the trial was when the defense stated that Martin should have run home. What has been overlooked, is that he had no obligation to run into his house, specifically because of the "Stand You Ground Law". Once again I ask is there a different laws for Whites and Blacks? To be fair the prosecution, did state, in there closing, that Martin had no duty to run into his home, however they did not specifically mention the specific law, which would have made it easier to frame.

One last thing, lets look at your argument logically: A person (Martin) was going to get high, using items he had purchased from the store. But instead of using the items he purchased, he decides to kill a perfect stranger. But I guess, theoretically, he would have enjoyed his high better, after he killed someone, huh? And there are those who think racism is no longer an issue. God help us all.

[paulclifford]

>>>It doesn't matter if this was true,or not.

It will matter if there's a civil trial. Martin's parents have every right to pursue that, of course, but unsavory details about Trayvon will probably emerge, and the mainstream media will no longer be able to show photographs of him looking like a little cherub, "armed with nothing but a soft-drink and candy," which is how they've been trying to sell him to the public.

>>>That all being said, why does Martin, living or dead, not have the same rights as Zimmerman, who killed him?

In other words, why was Zimmerman (a so-called "white Hispanic") acquitted? Because in the opinion of a jury, he defended himself from an attacker, and therefore didn't commit a crime. In the opinion of the jury, the evidence was consistent with his narrative, and there was no other narrative to contest it or compare it to.

Better question:

Given that due process was followed and the law upheld, who is Eric Holder to unilaterally interfere with that by tasking the Department of Justice to set up a website trolling for hearsay regarding any racist comments or behavior by Zimmerman? As if he personally must try to guarantee a certain kind of outcome of a criminal trial . . . an outcome more to his liking.

"Justice" is not a specific kind of outcome that you, Holder, or some special interest group, might happen to favor. "Justice" is a process, and the process cannot guarantee any particular kind of outcome.

>>>Or does a different legal standard apply to Blacks and Whites?

For example?

Anyway, how's this for a "different standard":

Before Zimmerman was arrested in 2012, a spokesman for the "New Black Panthers", Mikhail Muhammed, publicly announced a bounty on Zimmerman's head: $10k for his capture. After the acquittal, the group's national chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, urged nationwide protests by Blacks, and posted on Twitter that "We're at war!" I don't remember white spokespersons (if such exist) announcing anything similar before or after O.J. was acquitted of murdering two Whites. If I remember correctly, the extent of White protest at the time was a suggestion that drivers in Los Angeles turn their headlights on in the daytime.

I'd also like to know why racists such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (to name but two self-appointed "leaders of the black community") suddenly become outspoken when someone with dark skin is killed by someone with light skin; but when someone with dark skin is murdered by someone else with dark skin — as happens 93% of the time — they say nothing, and are unconcerned.

An average of 8,500 blacks are murdered each year in the US, and about 93% of these murders — more than 7,900 — are committed by blacks. Where's Jackson in all this? Where's Sharpton? Where's the mainstream media? Nowhere.

Black historian and scholar, Shelby Steele has some trenchant insights on all this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324448104578618681599902640.html

The Decline of the Civil-Rights Establishment
Black leaders weren't so much outraged at injustice as they were by the disregard of their own authority.

"On television in recent weeks you could see black leaders from every background congealing into a chorus of umbrage and complaint. But they weren't so much outraged at a horrible injustice as they were affronted by the disregard of their own authority. The jury effectively said to them, "You won't call the tune here. We will work within the law."

Today's black leadership pretty much lives off the fumes of moral authority that linger from its glory days in the 1950s and '60s. The Zimmerman verdict lets us see this and feel a little embarrassed for them. Consider the pathos of a leadership that once transformed the nation now lusting for the conviction of the contrite and mortified George Zimmerman, as if a stint in prison for him would somehow assure more peace and security for black teenagers everywhere. This, despite the fact that nearly one black teenager a day is shot dead on the South Side of Chicago—to name only one city—by another black teenager.

The Zimmerman/Martin tragedy has been explosive because it triggered a fight over authority. Who gets to say what things mean—the supporters of George Zimmerman, who say he acted in self-defense, or the civil-rights establishment that says he profiled and murdered a black child? Here we are. And where is the authority to resolve this? The six-person Florida jury, looking carefully at the evidence, decided that Mr. Zimmerman pulled the trigger in self-defense and not in a fury of racial hatred.

One wants to scream at all those outraged at the Zimmerman verdict: Where is your outrage over the collapse of the black family? Today's civil-rights leaders swat at mosquitoes like Zimmerman when they have gorillas on their back. Seventy-three percent of all black children are born without fathers married to their mothers. And you want to bring the nation to a standstill over George Zimmerman?

There are vast career opportunities, money and political power to be gleaned from the specter of Mr. Zimmerman as a racial profiler/murderer; but there is only hard and selfless work to be done in tackling an illegitimacy rate that threatens to consign blacks to something like permanent inferiority. If there is anything good to be drawn from the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy, it is only the further revelation of the corruption and irrelevance of today's civil-rights leadership."



>>>And there are those who think racism is no longer an issue.

Now that you mention it, according to one recent poll, many Americans (a little over 1/3rd) appear to think Blacks are significantly more racist than Whites. According to the same poll, even Blacks (a little less than 1/3rd) agree:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/econ_survey_questions/july_2013/questions_racism_july_1_2_2013

"Americans consider blacks more likely to be racist than whites and Hispanics in this country.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans.

Among black Americans, 31% think most blacks are racist, while 24% consider most whites racist and 15% view most Hispanics that way."

[The survey questions]:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2013/more_americans_view_blacks_as_racist_than_whites_h ispanics

[trish]

Anyone have a link to Eric Holder's snitch-on-Zimmerman-website?

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=paulclifford;1368289

In other words, why was Zimmerman (a so-called "white Hispanic") acquitted? Because in the opinion of a jury, he defended himself from an attacker, and therefore didn't commit a crime. In the opinion of the jury, the evidence was consistent with his narrative, and there was no other narrative to contest it or compare it to.

-This is complete nonsense, and only serves to reinforce the idea that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor, and George Zimmerman the victim fighting for his life: instead of working backwards from the fact that GZ pulled the trigger, look at it this way:

1) GZ was a Neighbourhood Watch Volunteer, but not acting as a Neighbourhood Watch Volunteer on that night -even if he had been, he would know from the Police Department training instructions that it twice tells NW volunteers not to intervene in an incident or seek to apprehend anyone as this is Police Department business.
--GZ knew even before being told not to intervene on the phone that he had no authority to do so, even if legally the Police cannot force any member of the public in or out of NW schemes to hold back from becoming involved in a situation.
2) GZ had already decided that the person he saw was suspicious without offering that person an opportunity to explain why they were in the gated community, and in spite of the fact that is was none of Zimmerman's business to know anyway.
--the confrontation was initiated by George Zimmerman, and because he refused to testify, we do not know if he identified himself to Martin as a Neighbourhood Watch Voluteer or if he spoke politely to Martin to ask him if he was lost and needed help -the fair assumption on the basis of the language that he used when talking to the police is that Zimmerman confronted Martin with aggressive language which may have contained insulting words.
--It doesn't matter if Martin was taking home the ingredients to make Lean, Clean or Brylcreem, or if later that night he was plotting to rob the local Walmart with his father, or if he was looking through recruitment brochures for the priesthood -at the time he was confronted by Zimmerman for no reason, Martin was merely walking home from the store, and was probably lost as he decided to take a short cut in the rain and couldn't identify which house his father was staying in. He had no idea who Zimmerman was, just someone intruding on his private space.
--Crucially, did Zimmerman tell Martin that he had a gun and that he would use it? Why did Zimmerman even confront Martin when he could have walked away? The 'last resort' of pulling the trigger was not satisfactorily analysed in Court, we still do not know if Zimmerman was attacked by Martin or slipped on the wet grass and hit his head on the concrete path; whatever, perhaps in the USA you have become so used to violent acts appearing to be a 'solution' that it has become 'the only solution'.

On the evidence available, Zimmerman initiated the confrontation with Martin, Zimmerman provoked an angry response from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman chose to use a lethal weapon in response. From start to finish, Zimmerman was the aggressor; there was only one victim, profiled from the moment he was seen as a 'problem' -regardless of his colour- Trayvon Martin, and George Zimmerman dealt with the problem in a violent way.

An average of 8,500 blacks are murdered each year in the US, and about 93% of these murders — more than 7,900 — are committed by blacks. Where's Jackson in all this? Where's Sharpton? Where's the mainstream media? Nowhere.

Black historian and scholar, Shelby Steele has some trenchant insights on all this:

Now that you mention it, according to one recent poll, many Americans (a little over 1/3rd) appear to think Blacks are significantly more racist than Whites. According to the same poll, even Blacks (a little less than 1/3rd) agree:

-Shelby Steele again works backwards from assumptions about the moral claims of the Civil Rights movement compared to contemporary -and largely self-appointed Black leaders when he would do better to ask why it is that so much time and money in the USA has been spent in attempting to derail the practical benefits of the Civil Rights laws that were passed in the 1960s and implemented in the 1970s and systematically undermined from the 1980s onwards.
-If, instead of leaping onto the hysteria of black crime statistics you look at the underlying themes and issues, you may find yourself in the period after the Civil War when legislation on gun control derived from the 2nd Amendment was produced precisely as a response by the panic-stricken 'American public' convinced that freed slaves with guns were going to go berserk in a rampage of crime and murder.

Because Black people and crime go together like burgers and fries? Is this sociology or Mythology?

--If you follow through the employment history of Black Americans freed from slavery, and the economic geography of industrial development between 1861 and say 1981, and the way in which this transformed Black lives just as Black lives transformed America, you may end up with provocative questions that are not based on the worthless, if automatic assumption that Black People are 'different from us', but questions that ask why people who were once in employment are now more likely to be unemployed; why Black people who have always been suspected of having a 'natural' tendency to laziness, sexual promiscuity, drug abuse, violent and criminal behaviour and of course, resentment, are more likely than any other social group in the USA to be arrested and incarcerated in the prison system which, in 2013, is a commercial enterprise which would cease to be viable without its Black consumers.

It seems to me, you have blamed the victim -Trayvon Martin- for no other reason than that he bothered George Zimmerman; just as you have cast Black americans as the victims of their own misfortune as if the history of the USA and their role in it are two mutually separate narratives.

As long as this debate is couched in terms of 'We and They' it will automatically assume that the difference is not just real, but impossible to heal. It matters not if the majority of Americans share the same history, the same space, the same medals for military service, the same aspirations and variations of ability and achievement; the core issue being used in this blame culture becomes colourful when it ought to be abstract; it becomes about the failings of a supposedly identifiable social group when it should be about an easily identified economic system that has failed to provide full employment.


Father and Mother, and Me,
Sister and Auntie say
All the people like us are We,
And every one else is They.
And They live over the sea,
While We live over the way,
But-would you believe it? – They look upon We
As only a sort of They!

We eat pork and beef
With cow-horn-handled knives.
They who gobble Their rice off a leaf,
Are horrified out of Their lives;
While they who live up a tree,
And feast on grubs and clay,
(Isn't it scandalous? ) look upon We
As a simply disgusting They!

We shoot birds with a gun.
They stick lions with spears.
Their full-dress is un-.
We dress up to Our ears.
They like Their friends for tea.
We like Our friends to stay;
And, after all that, They look upon We
As an utterly ignorant They!

We eat kitcheny food.
We have doors that latch.
They drink milk or blood,
Under an open thatch.
We have Doctors to fee.
They have Wizards to pay.
And (impudent heathen!) They look upon We
As a quite impossible They!

All good people agree,
And all good people say,
All nice people, like Us, are We
And every one else is They:
But if you cross over the sea,
Instead of over the way,
You may end by (think of it!) looking on We
As only a sort of They!

[Prospero]

Welcome back Stavros

[Ben in LA]

..........

[Ben in LA]

:geek: :whistle:

[Ben]

Iran Demands Justice For Trayvon Martin | The Rubin Report - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJmOioxiieM)

[trish]

[QUOTE=paulclifford;1368289

In other words, why was Zimmerman (a so-called "white Hispanic") acquitted? Because in the opinion of a jury, he defended himself from an attacker, and therefore didn't commit a crime. In the opinion of the jury, the evidence was consistent with his narrative, and there was no other narrative to contest it or compare it to.

-This is complete nonsense, and only serves to reinforce the idea that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor, and George Zimmerman the victim fighting for his life: instead of working backwards from the fact that GZ pulled the trigger, look at it this way:

1) GZ was a Neighbourhood Watch Volunteer, but not acting as a Neighbourhood Watch Volunteer on that night -even if he had been, he would know from the Police Department training instructions that it twice tells NW volunteers not to intervene in an incident or seek to apprehend anyone as this is Police Department business.
--GZ knew even before being told not to intervene on the phone that he had no authority to do so, even if legally the Police cannot force any member of the public in or out of NW schemes to hold back from becoming involved in a situation.
2) GZ had already decided that the person he saw was suspicious without offering that person an opportunity to explain why they were in the gated community, and in spite of the fact that is was none of Zimmerman's business to know anyway.
--the confrontation was initiated by George Zimmerman, and because he refused to testify, we do not know if he identified himself to Martin as a Neighbourhood Watch Voluteer or if he spoke politely to Martin to ask him if he was lost and needed help -the fair assumption on the basis of the language that he used when talking to the police is that Zimmerman confronted Martin with aggressive language which may have contained insulting words.
--It doesn't matter if Martin was taking home the ingredients to make Lean, Clean or Brylcreem, or if later that night he was plotting to rob the local Walmart with his father, or if he was looking through recruitment brochures for the priesthood -at the time he was confronted by Zimmerman for no reason, Martin was merely walking home from the store, and was probably lost as he decided to take a short cut in the rain and couldn't identify which house his father was staying in. He had no idea who Zimmerman was, just someone intruding on his private space.
--Crucially, did Zimmerman tell Martin that he had a gun and that he would use it? Why did Zimmerman even confront Martin when he could have walked away? The 'last resort' of pulling the trigger was not satisfactorily analysed in Court, we still do not know if Zimmerman was attacked by Martin or slipped on the wet grass and hit his head on the concrete path; whatever, perhaps in the USA you have become so used to violent acts appearing to be a 'solution' that it has become 'the only solution'.

On the evidence available, Zimmerman initiated the confrontation with Martin, Zimmerman provoked an angry response from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman chose to use a lethal weapon in response. From start to finish, Zimmerman was the aggressor; there was only one victim, profiled from the moment he was seen as a 'problem' -regardless of his colour- Trayvon Martin, and George Zimmerman dealt with the problem in a violent way.

An average of 8,500 blacks are murdered each year in the US, and about 93% of these murders — more than 7,900 — are committed by blacks. Where's Jackson in all this? Where's Sharpton? Where's the mainstream media? Nowhere.

Black historian and scholar, Shelby Steele has some trenchant insights on all this:

Now that you mention it, according to one recent poll, many Americans (a little over 1/3rd) appear to think Blacks are significantly more racist than Whites. According to the same poll, even Blacks (a little less than 1/3rd) agree:

-Shelby Steele again works backwards from assumptions about the moral claims of the Civil Rights movement compared to contemporary -and largely self-appointed Black leaders when he would do better to ask why it is that so much time and money in the USA has been spent in attempting to derail the practical benefits of the Civil Rights laws that were passed in the 1960s and implemented in the 1970s and systematically undermined from the 1980s onwards.
-If, instead of leaping onto the hysteria of black crime statistics you look at the underlying themes and issues, you may find yourself in the period after the Civil War when legislation on gun control derived from the 2nd Amendment was produced precisely as a response by the panic-stricken 'American public' convinced that freed slaves with guns were going to go berserk in a rampage of crime and murder.

Because Black people and crime go together like burgers and fries? Is this sociology or Mythology?

--If you follow through the employment history of Black Americans freed from slavery, and the economic geography of industrial development between 1861 and say 1981, and the way in which this transformed Black lives just as Black lives transformed America, you may end up with provocative questions that are not based on the worthless, if automatic assumption that Black People are 'different from us', but questions that ask why people who were once in employment are now more likely to be unemployed; why Black people who have always been suspected of having a 'natural' tendency to laziness, sexual promiscuity, drug abuse, violent and criminal behaviour and of course, resentment, are more likely than any other social group in the USA to be arrested and incarcerated in the prison system which, in 2013, is a commercial enterprise which would cease to be viable without its Black consumers.

It seems to me, you have blamed the victim -Trayvon Martin- for no other reason than that he bothered George Zimmerman; just as you have cast Black americans as the victims of their own misfortune as if the history of the USA and their role in it are two mutually separate narratives.

As long as this debate is couched in terms of 'We and They' it will automatically assume that the difference is not just real, but impossible to heal. It matters not if the majority of Americans share the same history, the same space, the same medals for military service, the same aspirations and variations of ability and achievement; the core issue being used in this blame culture becomes colourful when it ought to be abstract; it becomes about the failings of a supposedly identifiable social group when it should be about an easily identified economic system that has failed to provide full employment.


Father and Mother, and Me,
Sister and Auntie say
All the people like us are We,
And every one else is They.
And They live over the sea,
While We live over the way,
But-would you believe it? – They look upon We
As only a sort of They!

We eat pork and beef
With cow-horn-handled knives.
They who gobble Their rice off a leaf,
Are horrified out of Their lives;
While they who live up a tree,
And feast on grubs and clay,
(Isn't it scandalous? ) look upon We
As a simply disgusting They!

We shoot birds with a gun.
They stick lions with spears.
Their full-dress is un-.
We dress up to Our ears.
They like Their friends for tea.
We like Our friends to stay;
And, after all that, They look upon We
As an utterly ignorant They!

We eat kitcheny food.
We have doors that latch.
They drink milk or blood,
Under an open thatch.
We have Doctors to fee.
They have Wizards to pay.
And (impudent heathen!) They look upon We
As a quite impossible They!

All good people agree,
And all good people say,
All nice people, like Us, are We
And every one else is They:
But if you cross over the sea,
Instead of over the way,
You may end by (think of it!) looking on We
As only a sort of They!

Very nicely done, Stavros. Happy to have you back.

[yodajazz]

>>>It doesn't matter if this was true,or not.

It will matter if there's a civil trial. Martin's parents have every right to pursue that, of course, but unsavory details about Trayvon will probably emerge, and the mainstream media will no longer be able to show photographs of him looking like a little cherub, "armed with nothing but a soft-drink and candy," which is how they've been trying to sell him to the public.

>>>That all being said, why does Martin, living or dead, not have the same rights as Zimmerman, who killed him?

In other words, why was Zimmerman (a so-called "white Hispanic") acquitted? Because in the opinion of a jury, he defended himself from an attacker, and therefore didn't commit a crime. In the opinion of the jury, the evidence was consistent with his narrative, and there was no other narrative to contest it or compare it to.

Better question:

Given that due process was followed and the law upheld, who is Eric Holder to unilaterally interfere with that by tasking the Department of Justice to set up a website trolling for hearsay regarding any racist comments or behavior by Zimmerman? As if he personally must try to guarantee a certain kind of outcome of a criminal trial . . . an outcome more to his liking.

"Justice" is not a specific kind of outcome that you, Holder, or some special interest group, might happen to favor. "Justice" is a process, and the process cannot guarantee any particular kind of outcome.

>>>Or does a different legal standard apply to Blacks and Whites?

For example?

Anyway, how's this for a "different standard":

Before Zimmerman was arrested in 2012, a spokesman for the "New Black Panthers", Mikhail Muhammed, publicly announced a bounty on Zimmerman's head: $10k for his capture. After the acquittal, the group's national chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, urged nationwide protests by Blacks, and posted on Twitter that "We're at war!" I don't remember white spokespersons (if such exist) announcing anything similar before or after O.J. was acquitted of murdering two Whites. If I remember correctly, the extent of White protest at the time was a suggestion that drivers in Los Angeles turn their headlights on in the daytime.

I'd also like to know why racists such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (to name but two self-appointed "leaders of the black community") suddenly become outspoken when someone with dark skin is killed by someone with light skin; but when someone with dark skin is murdered by someone else with dark skin — as happens 93% of the time — they say nothing, and are unconcerned.

An average of 8,500 blacks are murdered each year in the US, and about 93% of these murders — more than 7,900 — are committed by blacks. Where's Jackson in all this? Where's Sharpton? Where's the mainstream media? Nowhere.

Black historian and scholar, Shelby Steele has some trenchant insights on all this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324448104578618681599902640.html

The Decline of the Civil-Rights Establishment
Black leaders weren't so much outraged at injustice as they were by the disregard of their own authority.

"On television in recent weeks you could see black leaders from every background congealing into a chorus of umbrage and complaint. But they weren't so much outraged at a horrible injustice as they were affronted by the disregard of their own authority. The jury effectively said to them, "You won't call the tune here. We will work within the law."

Today's black leadership pretty much lives off the fumes of moral authority that linger from its glory days in the 1950s and '60s. The Zimmerman verdict lets us see this and feel a little embarrassed for them. Consider the pathos of a leadership that once transformed the nation now lusting for the conviction of the contrite and mortified George Zimmerman, as if a stint in prison for him would somehow assure more peace and security for black teenagers everywhere. This, despite the fact that nearly one black teenager a day is shot dead on the South Side of Chicago—to name only one city—by another black teenager.

The Zimmerman/Martin tragedy has been explosive because it triggered a fight over authority. Who gets to say what things mean—the supporters of George Zimmerman, who say he acted in self-defense, or the civil-rights establishment that says he profiled and murdered a black child? Here we are. And where is the authority to resolve this? The six-person Florida jury, looking carefully at the evidence, decided that Mr. Zimmerman pulled the trigger in self-defense and not in a fury of racial hatred.

One wants to scream at all those outraged at the Zimmerman verdict: Where is your outrage over the collapse of the black family? Today's civil-rights leaders swat at mosquitoes like Zimmerman when they have gorillas on their back. Seventy-three percent of all black children are born without fathers married to their mothers. And you want to bring the nation to a standstill over George Zimmerman?

There are vast career opportunities, money and political power to be gleaned from the specter of Mr. Zimmerman as a racial profiler/murderer; but there is only hard and selfless work to be done in tackling an illegitimacy rate that threatens to consign blacks to something like permanent inferiority. If there is anything good to be drawn from the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy, it is only the further revelation of the corruption and irrelevance of today's civil-rights leadership."



>>>And there are those who think racism is no longer an issue.

Now that you mention it, according to one recent poll, many Americans (a little over 1/3rd) appear to think Blacks are significantly more racist than Whites. According to the same poll, even Blacks (a little less than 1/3rd) agree:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/econ_survey_questions/july_2013/questions_racism_july_1_2_2013

"Americans consider blacks more likely to be racist than whites and Hispanics in this country.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans.

Among black Americans, 31% think most blacks are racist, while 24% consider most whites racist and 15% view most Hispanics that way."

[The survey questions]:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2013/more_americans_view_blacks_as_racist_than_whites_h ispanics

First of of, thanks for responding to my post. But in the questions of rights, I was not asking about why Zimmerman was acquitted. I am asking such questions, as to why Martin's toxicology could be used, but not Zimmerman's?
The same goes for history. The exact details of school incidents involving Martin were made public, but Zimmerman's history which included restraining order, an an alleged assault on on police officer, were not admitted as trial evidence. And if Zimmerman had a right to invoke "stand your ground", so did Martin.

Keep in mind that Black Americans are the most incarcerated group of people on planet earth. Blacks, including police officers, and college professors, are routinely stopped, questioned and search, and tested for substances. Yet we have Zimmerman, who admitted to killing someone, and doesn't have to submit to a drug test, and also have prescription drug usage excluded from evidence. And this is in a trial where the prosecution had to prove a 'state of mind'.

I for one question the general right of people to use someone's Facebook posts, as public property. This is in discussion on another thread, here today on this forum. In Martin's case extensive media use was made of his Facebook, also contents of his private cell phone. Now people, such as you are decrying, Zimmerman's right's to privacy. Zimmerman profiled, followed and pursed a minor, with no proof that he identified himself.

Yes there are other serious issues in the Black community. Leadership had always addressed these issues. Two of the most important factors are employment, and education. For example, in his last phase, Martin Luther King, began to address poverty, as a core issue. There is not enough time to address these now. But I will say that a society that sees young Black men as only criminals, is not welcoming these same men into the workplace. This is why the Martin case is so important to Black America. If your male child can't even walk to the store, what does this say about his chances in other areas of life?

Once again, I do thank you for offering your opinion. However, you and others, in my opinion, lack understanding of others reality. I posted a photo here of a large group White men standing over the body of a Black man, that they burned alive. My photo was taken down, but this was a historical reality. Zimmerman's case is part of larger historical narrative.

[hippifried]

Zimmerman, like so many others, is just a punk with a gun. Like so many other punks, he'd like the world to think he's a badass, but he can't back up his shit without being strapped. This isn't really a racial issue. It's the foolish punk idea that it's okay to use a gun in all circumstances, just because you have one. I want the punk behavior to stop. I want the ever growing punk element of the PTB to stop granting impunity to punks & their behavior. I want the rest of the loudmouthed punks to shut the fuck up & quit inventing lame excuses to justify every punk who acts stupidly, just because they're a bunch of punk ass bitches who can't back up their shit either. It's disgusting.

[fivekatz]

It is easy to say this wasn't a racial issue but honestly would the outcome had been the same if Martin had murdered Zimmerman?

I think not, this was the reverse side of the Central Park Five.

[hippifried]

It would have been the same. The punk isn't white either, so the rest of the punks wouldn't have given a shit if the races were reversed. They'd just be rollin' out a bunch of klan/nazi crap about hispanics, & how they should be profiled. Maybe there's some way to add tea & Skittles to bananas in order to catch a buzz. Defending the punk was just about defending use of the gun. The punks want impunity to act like punks because they're just a bunch of pussies.

[desireejones]

someone said we will never know if zimmerman identified hisself as a watchman etc.

he did not thats what created the tension (besides the following then the chasing after trayvon)
we know from the interview with detective Serino

(CNN) -- George Zimmerman failed to identify himself twice during a confrontation with Trayvon Martin and missed opportunities to defuse the situation that led to the death of the teen, a detective says in a newly released report.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/27/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

[hippifried]

Yeah. A lot of "what-ifs" in this case. If the punk hadn't been a punk, he might have been able to diffuse the situation...

[desireejones]

FINALLY... A Mainstream Journalist Speaks Truth on the Trayvon Martin Travesty!
FINALLY... A Mainstream Journalist Speaks Truth on the Trayvon Martin Travesty! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6OuP-wiiQg)

Journalist Martin Bashir spits some REAL truths and facts about the Trayvon Martin outcome! I applaud him for his honesty despite the "professional" backlash he may receive.

Why People Should Be Outraged at Zimmerman's 'Not Guilty' Verdict
Why People Should Be Outraged at Zimmerman's 'Not Guilty' Verdict - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtcveaMUJSI)

Bill Maher: Zimmerman Is LYING
Bill Maher: Zimmerman Is LYING - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvEvQISzbKo)

Bill Maher opened his panel discussion tonight discussing race in the George Zimmerman murder trial. Cornel West was very adamant in speaking out in favor of Trayvon Martin and slammed Zimmerman for criminalizing Martin before actually killing him. West continued to list examples of how young, poor black men are consistently, unfairly singled out in the American criminal justice system.

Matt Lewis framed the whole trial as the "wannabe gangster versus the wannabe cop," but West shot back that Martin was just reacting to being followed and that he wouldn't have died in the first place if Zimmerman had stayed in his car. They engaged in some loud crosstalk, with West stating that Martin was "criminalized" before he was "physically murdered."

West continued to claim that a young black person is shot every 28 hours in America, and that young blacks in general are abandoned and constantly "under intense police surveillance." Liz Mair found the focus on this particular case troubling when "there's a whole range of violence that we're not talking about." Maher brought up how Zimmerman got involved in the neighborhood watch after a string of burglaries in his neighborhood. He asked, "Why in this country do young black people still have no better prospects than committing petty theft?"

West declared, "The criminal justice system itself is criminal." He said that Wall Street executives can get away with practically anything, but people are freaking out about marijuana in Martin's system. On the question of whether blacks commit more crime, Mair agreed that it's harder to go after white-collar crime and fraud. West added that young blacks and whites consume drugs equally, but blacks are jailed more


Tavis Smiley: The Zimmerman verdict shows the contempt this nation has for black men
Tavis Smiley: The Zimmerman verdict shows the contempt this nation has for black men - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjSBkn3l-W4)

Did George Zimmerman LIE (A Lot!) Under Oath?
Did George Zimmerman LIE (A Lot!) Under Oath? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKrFasEGE78)

[nitron]

America to many cowboys, you like your guns, don't you? Those of you who don't , leave and let those who do, shoot it out. I'm so bored with this.

[desireejones]

Trayvon Martin Shooting Reenacted In New Ad Calling For End To Stand Your Ground Laws


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/trayvon-martin-ad_n_3780041.html?utm_hp_ref=black-voices


PSA
"Stand Up to 'Stand Your Ground'" PSA - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUKzDANF6QU)

WASHINGTON -- The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has released a chilling new online ad reenacting the night Travyon Martin was killed, in an effort to stop the controversial Stand Your Ground laws nationwide.

The nonprofit group uses actual audio from the 911 calls that shooter George Zimmerman and a witness made that night in Sanford, Fla. After the sound of a gunshot, people in hoodies are seen lying on the ground, and the names are displayed of the more than 20 states that have Stand Your Ground laws in place.

The group has also launched a website and a petition asking people to urge their state lawmakers to "oppose this immoral legislation.”

"'Stand Your Ground' laws have essentially legalized murder. With this PSA, we hope to add to the nationwide push to repeal these immoral laws," said CSGV Communications Director Ladd Everitt.

The laws allow individuals to use deadly force in cases of self-defense, with no obligation to first attempt to retreat. They gained attention after the fatal shooting of Martin, an unarmed African-American teenager, in Feburary 2012. Zimmerman cited Florida's Stand Your Ground law as justification for killing Martin and authorities initially refused to arrest him. Zimmerman was eventually tried, and last month he was found not guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter.

Stand Your Ground laws have been backed by the National Rifle Association and the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, which lost some of its corporate backers after its role in pushing Stand Your Ground laws came to light.

A group of student activists known as the Dream Defenders have been advocating against Florida's Stand Your Ground law in recent weeks, staging what turned out to be the longest ever sit-in at the Florida Capitol, which lasted 31 days. They unsuccessfully tried to persuade Gov. Rick Scott (R) to call a special session to repeal the law, although they drew national attention to their cause and the law in the process.

The CSGV ad debuts one month after President Barack Obama's most recent comments on the Martin shooting and the Zimmerman verdict. "You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son," he said. "Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago."

[runningdownthatdream]

it's just a matter of time before fatboy goes Rambo again

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/us/george-zimmerman-detained/index.html

[Silcc69]

it's just a matter of time before fatboy goes Rambo again

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/us/george-zimmerman-detained/index.html

Ah the champion of conservatives has struck again lol.

[runningdownthatdream]

Let's add wife beater and senior abuser to his child killer moniker. He seems to be working backward in his egregiousness though........maybe next he'll steal candy from babies. Whatever.........it seems that - like OJ - he'll get what he deserves sooner or later.

[hotboxterrijackson]

this dude is gonna get into trouble shortly


Zimmerman Left His Wife a Shot-Up Target: Report

Shellie said to have considered it a 'subliminal message'

After George Zimmerman was forced to move out of his house last month, his soon-to-be-ex-wife Shellie found something ominous nailed to the wall: A shooting range target sporting 17 bullet holes, according to a report in Radar. A source sent Radar a photo of the target, saying it was the same photo "that Shellie sent to her lawyer and said, 'Look at the subliminal message George left me." Another source remarked, "It's really not that subliminal."

Zimmerman's case continues to reverberate in Sanford, Florida. Police there announced yesterday that its neighborhood watch volunteers would no longer be allowed to carry guns or pursue suspicious individuals, Reuters reports. "Neighborhood watch was always intended to be a program where you observe what is going on and report it to police," a department spokeswoman explained, adding that "people in the community are nervous to join a group that was tarnished in the media and got a bad image with everything that happened."




http://www.newser.com/story/176824/zimmerman-left-his-wife-a-shot-up-target-report.html


SECOND STORY

Trayvon Martin's mother asks Senate to reform 'Stand Your Ground' laws

The mother of slain teenager Trayvon Martin spoke before a Senate panel Wednesday.







A button memorializing Trayvon Martin is displayed on a spectator as she attends the festivities of the 50th Anniversary of the "March on Washington." Martin's mother spoke in front of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee to call for a reform in "Stand Your Ground" laws. UPI/Pat Benic.
| License Photo





(UPI) -- Sybrina Fulton, the mother of slain Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, spoke in front of a Senate panel Wednesday to urge members to clarify "stand your ground" laws.
"It's unfortunate what has happened with Trayvon, and that's why I feel like it's so important for me to be here so that you all can at least put a face with what has happened with this tragedy," Fulton said in the Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing.

Martin, 17, was shot in 2012 by George Zimmerman, who was acquitted of the murder this summer. The case sparked a debate on "stand your ground" laws, even though Zimmerman's defense did not reference the law.

The hearing, which was held to examine the controversial laws, was supposed to be held last month, but was delayed after the shooting in Washington, D.C.'s Navy Yard.

Some Republicans on the committee said the laws do not need to be handled on a federal level, but rather left to the states. Such laws are currently on the books in more than 20 states.


Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat, said the self-defense laws have caused "unnecessary tragedies" and should be reviewed.

"It is clearly time for 'stand your ground' laws to be carefully reviewed and reconsidered," Durbin said.

"Whatever the motivation behind them, it's clear these laws often go too far in encouraging confrontations that escalate into deadly violence. They're resulting in unnecessary tragedies and they are diminishing accountability under our justice system."


Read more: http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/10/30/Trayvon-Martins-mother-asks-Senate-to-reform-Stand-Your-Ground-laws/4671383167189/#ixzz2jH3GyTuj

http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/10/30/Trayvon-Martins-mother-asks-Senate-to-reform-Stand-Your-Ground-laws/4671383167189/

[yodajazz]

New Zimmerman arrest. Woman says he pointed a gun at her, and broke things during an argument. She says she asked him to leave. He claims his gun was locked up. It appears to me that he had time to put his weapon away.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/18/justice/florida-george-zimmerman-arrest/

[broncofan]

This time it's obvious Zimmerman is lying. He called the police while she was speaking to an officer to give his side of the story. When asked how the glass table was broken, he said she was throwing things on it. Her story, which is that he slammed it with the butt of a shotgun is much more plausible. His entire conversation with the police sounds completely made up. That she was the one who went crazy and broke stuff, yet he doesn't even offer up a specific means by which a glass table gets broken. You don't break a glass table by throwing things on it unless one of those things is a bowling ball.

[broncofan]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/18/21521590-911-calls-released-following-zimmerman-domestic-disturbance-arrest?lite

Some of his call in this article. Another thing that doesn't make sense. He claims that she told him that she wanted to separate but that when he started to leave on his own she went crazy and started breaking things. If she was initiating the break-up why would she lose it when he's leaving?

[broncofan]

"She broke a glass table because she threw something on it — I don’t even know if it was mine or hers, whatever it was,”

I know this is a little redundant, but absolute smoking gun. Glass tables are not made to shatter when you throw things on top of them. Only a heavy object like a hammer or a dumbbell would shatter most such tables. If that were the case there is no way he would not know what object it was that broke the glass table.

On the other hand, someone deliberately slamming the butt of a shotgun against a table could easily break it. I really hope they get a conviction on this one...his story is just not believable.

Edit: Interesting though that this case does show Zimmerman is a seasoned liar. He may not be able to handle all of the details but he sounds pretty composed with the police telling them a seemingly reasonable story that really doesn't hold up. He may have crafted this kind of tale in the Trayvon Martin case since there was nobody to contradict him. Remember the police did not press him very hard until a long time had passed in the Martin case, in which case he would have been able to make up the details he was lacking immediately after the fact.

[plankton]

Your more likely to be a victim of crime or violence if you're white.

[Stavros]

Your more likely to be a victim of crime or violence if you're white.

Not only is this graph 11 years out of date it is based on a survey which is known to have flaws:

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) program, established in 1972, is a national survey of a representative sample of households in the United States which covers the frequency of crime victimization and the characteristics and consequences of victimization. The primary purpose behind the NCVS program is to gather information on crimes that were not reported to police, though information is also collected on reported crimes. The survey collects data on rape, assault, robbery, burglary, personal and household larceny and motor vehicle theft. The NCVS also includes supplemental questions which allow information to be gathered on tangentially relevant issues such as school violence, attitudes towards law enforcement or perceptions regarding crime.[/URL]
There are fundamental limitations to the NCVS program, including: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#cite_note-11)

Reliability: NCVS statistics do not represent verified or evidenced instances of victimization. As it depends upon the recollection of the individuals surveyed, the NCVS cannot distinguish between true and fabricated claims of victimization, nor can it verify the truth of the severity of the reported incidents. Further, the NCVS cannot detect cases of victimization where the victim is too traumatized to report. These factors can contribute to deficits in the reliability of NCVS statistics.

Misrepresentation: The NCVS program is focused upon metropolitan and urban areas, and does not adequately cover suburban and rural regions. This can lead to misrepresentations regarding the nature and extent of victimization in the United States

You could have quoted this by comparison:

Racially motivated hate crime

The federal government publishes a list annually of Hate Crime Statistics, 2009 Also published by the federal government is the Known Offender's Race by Bias Motivation, 2009. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report database, in 2010 58% of hate crime offenders were Latino or white, 18% of offenders were black, 8.9% were of individuals of multiple races and 1% of offenders were Native Americans. The report also reveals that 48% of all hate crime offenders were motivated by the victim's race, while 18% were based on the victim's religion, and another 18% were based on the victim's sexual orientation. The report states that among hate crime offenses motivated by race, 70% were composed of anti-black bias, while 17.7% were of anti-white bias, and 5% were of anti-Asian or Pacific Islander bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#National_Crime _Victimization_Survey_.28NCVS.29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Holms.2C_Maahs_.26_Vito_2007:43-13)


Also of interest are stats from the US Bureau of Justice -
[url]http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=nvat

If you look at the 'Quick Tables' figures on 'Violent Victimization by victim-offender relationship' (2008-2012) you will note in the majority of cases the people involved were either related or knew each other.

[broncofan]

Your more likely to be a victim of crime or violence if you're white.

You may be right, but it's funny that your statistic does not actually speak to what your sentence says here. How do you think one would go about showing who is most likely to be a victim of a crime? I'll leave that to you, but your pie chart only shows crimes by African-Americans committed against whites and vice versa.

And what you're trying to prove in the sentence I've quoted is not even really relevant to the thread. It says nothing about who is most likely to be a victim of a bias crime, or who is most likely to be taken advantage of in the legal system and denied due process.

[broncofan]

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0601.pdf

Alright, to actually speak to the statement by Plankton, here is data from 2006 on rates of crime victimization sorted according to all sorts of demographic information.

Table 5
Rate of victimization based on race for violent crimes
white only 23.3
black only 32.1

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 and over.


If I understand these charts, this says that African-Americans are victims of violent crimes at a higher rate than white Americans. If you want to know the likelihood of members of a particular race being a victim of a crime, the race of the perpetrator is irrelevant. You get numbers on rates of victimization!!

[notdrunk]

No No No. When dealing with interracial crime, a white person is more likely to be victimized by a black criminal than a black person being victimized by a white criminal. However, the majority of crime isn't interracial. People that tend to bring up interracial crime statistics online tend to have a "secret" motive (i.e, I am a bigot).

[Stavros]

No No No. When dealing with interracial crime, a white person is more likely to be victimized by a black criminal than a black person being victimized by a white criminal. However, the majority of crime isn't interracial. People that tend to bring up interracial crime statistics online tend to have a "secret" motive (i.e, I am a bigot).

Motives are well served by statistics which can sometimes be selected to support a variety of arguments -the core issue is what it is that you want to know. Most violent crime seems to involve people who are either related to each other or know each other, but that doesn't make an attack by a stranger less important. Most 'conventional' crime is committed by people from low-income no-income brackets, or are people with a 'complicated' backstory -drug and alcohol abuse, psychological problems etc.

The cute 'white collar' crime category might involve someone in the financial sector robbing people of $20 million, in some cases a person's life savings; yet some 'dude' robbing a person of $20 while at the same time knocking them to the ground is deemed to have committed the worse crime. Hate crime statistics show overwhelmingly that Black people are attacked more than white; then there is the issue of violence against women, regardless of the colour of their skin.

At some point the question is this: is there an equality of trauma between these different categories of crime? Some people get over it, some never do. And we haven't even debated the causes of crime.

[rainachapelle]

gz wife says zimmerman is a ticking timebomb growing much more angrier



George Zimmerman's Estranged Wife: He's 'Like A Ticking Time Bomb'

George Zimmerman's estranged wife says the infamous neighborhood watch guard is now acting "like a monster."

In an interview with Katie Couric, Shellie Zimmerman described how she hopes there are "no more casualties" caused by her husband's erratic behavior. She also remembers how the couple was very much in love when they first married.

"We were great friends and I thought he was a wonderful person -- that's why I married him," she said Thursday on "Katie."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/shellie-zimmerman_n_4316412.html?ref=topbar

Samantha Scheibe, George Zimmerman's Girlfriend, Describes Decaying Relationship, Attack
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/samantha-scheibe-george-zimmerman_n_4317249.html

[robertlouis]

Hmmmmm. Given the general direction of the comments on this thread - and I was as critical of Zimmerman and the Florida police as anyone when the Trayvon Martin tragedy occurred - I can't help feeling just a little sorry for George at the moment.

Let me explain. Whatever happened on that fateful night, Zimmerman has been under constant scrutiny and pressure from the media ever since. In those circumstances, even if he's also displaying latent behaviour, it's hardly surprising that he's acting irrationally. Anybody would.

That said, it's clearly in both his wife's and his own interest that she is safe from him and that he himself should be out of harm's way. Releasing him on bail may prove to be an unfortunate action with dreadful consequences. But the media circus won't help.

[yodajazz]

Hmmmmm. Given the general direction of the comments on this thread - and I was as critical of Zimmerman and the Florida police as anyone when the Trayvon Martin tragedy occurred - I can't help feeling just a little sorry for George at the moment.

Let me explain. Whatever happened on that fateful night, Zimmerman has been under constant scrutiny and pressure from the media ever since. In those circumstances, even if he's also displaying latent behaviour, it's hardly surprising that he's acting irrationally. Anybody would.

That said, it's clearly in both his wife's and his own interest that she is safe from him and that he himself should be out of harm's way. Releasing him on bail may prove to be an unfortunate action with dreadful consequences. But the media circus won't help.

As I see it, GZ had a history of questionable behaviors. His attorneys were able to downplay much of it for the trial. His history, as reported in the media, included domestic violence, or related abusive behaviors. He also filed a counter protective order. Seems to me, that he knows how to cover his actions, with counter stories. This is becoming more evident, but I felt that way, long before the recent events. By the way, the other side to media circus, is that he was able to collect over $100k in donations. His former attorneys stated that they were not paid, ( I assume that really means 'paid adequately). His 'fame' has helped to support him. Making a factory tour to purchase a new weapon, after you have killed someone with one of their other products, seems to me to be seeking attention, not avoiding it. But I do feel a little sorry for him myself. However, this was all caused by his actions. It was all avoidable. The general assumption that he would have been killed, if he had not had a gun, is a remote possibility in my judgment, based upon the number of fights teens generally get into. When you hear of people dying at the hands of teens, it is almost always because they had a weapon. How often are people killed with bare hands? If Zimmerman had thrown the first punch, that night, it would have voided his whole story. That is why his history was relevant to the trial. It was reported that he took prescription drugs related to mental health. Why? Yet we know so much about Trayvonn. I always knew that a greater truth would be known, regardless of the trial outcome.

[Ben in LA]

I don't feel sorry for him.

[trish]

Thanks to the NRA and ALEC pushing their ridiculous stand your ground laws through conservative state legislatures, more than one racist, Zimmermanesque murderer has and will continue get away with homicide after homicide.

How can responsible gun owners be so gullible? Answer: They really aren't all that responsible. Blameworthy, yes. Responsible, no.

[broncofan]

I side with the "latency" argument Robert was making on the last page. He has been under a lot of pressure. But I think what we're seeing is the effect of pressure on someone with a certain set of traits. He's insecure, resorts to violence if he thinks he can get the upper hand, pulls a gun when he feels threatened.

I have said before that I think the trial was problematic because there was very little to go on except that things seemed very wrong. There were a bunch of possible scenarios, but Zimmerman's behavior since makes the most damning ones more likely.

There's something very calculated about his lying too. I never believed that he was getting his head slammed into the concrete. Maybe he got punched in the back of the head during the grappling or his head hit the ground on his way down. But the image of someone repeatedly getting his head slammed against pavement is a compelling story. Getting your head slammed against the concrete even once might have you suffering from acute concussion I'm guessing.

But in sum, I don't feel sorry for him. He was fortunate not to be in prison for a long time.

[broncofan]

Just out of curiosity: who here knows someone who is a good liar? I know people in relationships lie about all sorts of things. But it's not that easy to break a table, threaten someone with a shotgun, then calmly tell the police a story of a hysterical woman.

People who are able to tell these sorts of lies are humongous scumbags...he not only abuses his gf but then gaslights her with a stereotype of a hysterical woman. His gf said to the police, "he knows how to play this game". I wonder how she knew he would try to spin a lie. At the least he probably told her that if she called the police he would tell them that she went crazy.

[yodajazz]

Just out of curiosity: who here knows someone who is a good liar? I know people in relationships lie about all sorts of things. But it's not that easy to break a table, threaten someone with a shotgun, then calmly tell the police a story of a hysterical woman.

People who are able to tell these sorts of lies are humongous scumbags...he not only abuses his gf but then gaslights her with a stereotype of a hysterical woman. His gf said to the police, "he knows how to play this game". I wonder how she knew he would try to spin a lie. At the least he probably told her that if she called the police he would tell them that she went crazy.

I think there was evidence of all his all his recent behavior, before the trial. He had a restraining order against him, but he also filed his on order. The reported sexual imposition with a relative, required a long period of deceptive behavior. According to her, he endeared himself with the father, in particular. I read, that a former girlfriend, said that he slapped her in the face for chewing gum. She said the he was on medication, as had been reported elsewhere. The exact diagnosis, for his med, has not been made public, or at least was not used in the trial. The major thing about the trial was that parts of his history, were excluded from the trial. Meanwhile, every bit of Martin's life, made it to the public. Martin's toxicology was admitted into trial evidence, but not Zimmerman's.

Another thing, that makes no sense to me that, that the lie told to the court about his finances earlier, was not tied his character, during the trial. It seems virtually certain to me, that his wife would have checked with him, before lying to the court about his finances. The lie was not about her finances. The lie also shows, a believe that 'I am smart enough to get away with things', (even though I am charged with manslaughter).

The state made a charge which required strong evidence of a prior state of mind.

[Ben in LA]

But in sum, I don't feel sorry for him. He was fortunate not to be in prison for a long time.

He wouldn't have been in prison too long...and I'm not referring to an early release either.:ignore:

[Odelay]

Just out of curiosity: who here knows someone who is a good liar? I know people in relationships lie about all sorts of things. But it's not that easy to break a table, threaten someone with a shotgun, then calmly tell the police a story of a hysterical woman.

People who are able to tell these sorts of lies are humongous scumbags...he not only abuses his gf but then gaslights her with a stereotype of a hysterical woman. His gf said to the police, "he knows how to play this game". I wonder how she knew he would try to spin a lie. At the least he probably told her that if she called the police he would tell them that she went crazy.
M. Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Traveled, wrote a lesser known book entitled People of the Lie. In it he documents case studies of people who he has evaluated and counseled during his career as psychotherapist, some of whom were entirely convincing liars and who he diagnosed as psychotic.

I'm not saying Zimmerman is psychotic. Just answering broncofan's question on what type of people make the best liars.

[yosi]

Thanks to the NRA and ALEC pushing their ridiculous stand your ground laws through conservative state legislatures, more than one racist, Zimmermanesque murderer has and will continue get away with homicide after homicide.

How can responsible gun owners be so gullible? Answer: They really aren't all that responsible. Blameworthy, yes. Responsible, no.

A reminder: the poeples' right to have guns is more important than the poeples' right to live......................

[trish]

A reminder: the poeples' right to have guns is more important than the poeples' right to live......................Certainly seems to be the position of lot of stand-your-grounders.

[Trilisser]

I happen to live in a country where a home owner has basically no right to defend himself with deadly force. Or where a perpetrator hit his former girlfriend with a hammer so hard that she lost consciousness. Our supreme court ruled that a hammer is not a deadly weapon.

So, I'd definitely prefer stand your ground laws here as well.

[Trilisser]

BTW, since when has a guy of Mr. Martin's size been a "kid"? Based on photos, I'd not call Mr. Martin a "kid".

[yodajazz]

17year olds are minors all around the nation. Zimmerman did outweigh him by 23 pounds, and had been working out taking self defense classes. His age at the time as 28. Zimmernan gained 130 lbs between the incident and the trial, that helped him fit a 'softie' scenario. Still the whole thing rested on his word, that he was not the aggressor in the incident. Yet he got his wife to lie about their finances to the court, at a bond hearing. Martin is on the far right in this photo. Yes he is tall, but a 159lbs, that's still a beanpole.

[Trilisser]

Yes, minors in legal sense, but frankly, 159 lbs is not a little for a supposed "kid". As for Zimmerman, I have seen only photos of him from the time of the incident, not from the trial. And frankly, I don't much trust U.S. trials, they concentrate too much on how things look, not on how things are.

BTW, a certain Napoleon graduated as an artillery officer when he was 16.

[trish]

Kid or not a kid, doesn't matter. The fact is no one would have been killed had Zimmerman not been "patrolling" the neighborhood armed with a gun. Guilty or not guilty, doesn't matter. The fact is Florida's citizens are less safe because of its lack of adequate firearm regulation and its inane stand your ground laws.

[broncofan]

And frankly, I don't much trust U.S. trials, they concentrate too much on how things look, not on how things are.

What rule of criminal procedure or evidence do you object to? The entire purpose of a trial is to allow the production of evidence that will enable the jury to re-construct what happened. It's not an easy process as the complicated rules of evidence indicate.

Do you think our rules of evidence allow evidence to be admitted that is not reliable enough? Do you think the rules of evidence are too preclusive? Do you think opening and closing arguments should be reined in? And if so, what should be the permissible scope of opening and closing? Or should we do away with opening and closing altogether and only allow the examination of witnesses? I'm afraid what you're saying is very vague.

And maybe if Napoleon hadn't entered artillery school so early he wouldn't have developed such a complex.

[Ben in LA]

TEAhadists think of this a lot...

[Trilisser]

Broncofan, first and foremost, the quality of available defence lawyers should be equal to all. In other words, the lawyers, post graduation, should be pooled in a "defence pool" from which they would be given their assignments and they should be paid by the state/federation. In addition, prosecutors should be also randomly selected from a pool of prosecutors.

Second, the opening and closing arguments should be deleted.

Third, character assassinations should be banned while cross examining. The questions should be strictly about the facts of the actual case.

Fourth, jurors should be screened more carefully to weed out any racial/feminist activists (of any race).

I once watched a documentary about a murder vs. self defence case held in Las Vegas. One of the prosecutors "witnesses" was a black gangsta with a serious drug problem. Once he did not appear in court due to being in hospital in rehab. When in court, he gave the impression of a total moron with an IQ on 50. In fact, the prosecutor's eye witnesses were all along that line. Now, the defendant was facing 25 to life. And the verdict rested substantially on the statements of witnesses who were incompetent to say whether it was day or night! Yet, the prosecutor's main concern was winning the case, not that justice be served. Luckily the defendant (a Hispanic guy) won the case.

[broncofan]

It sounds like what you're suggesting is that we do away with the adversarial system of justice.

On cross-examination you're allowed to question expert witnesses for bias. You are allowed to ask them how much they have been paid, whether they've ever said something different from what they are now saying. You seem to think that if you don't allow impeaching questions the truth comes out by itself. But what actually would happen is that you would have two opinions on every issue and the jurors would have to choose between them without hearing either view challenged. One effective way of challenging those views is to ask tough questions. If the questions are truly irrelevant they will be excluded. But if you cannot ask someone who stands to gain financially from the verdict what their financial incentive is, and they are the only witness to some event, you effectively bolster their opinion by allowing them to offer it without being challenged.

If you don't have opening and closing, you don't actually have a coherent way of synthesizing the evidence. In closing, the attorneys are merely arguing inferences that are either within the scope of the evidence or could be drawn from the evidence. Without having a closing, the average juror would not know the significance of every answer being given on direct and cross. This is simply because there's a limit to what can be gleaned from questions you did not anticipate for a case you knew nothing about before trial. This may sound condescending but it's not. If you've ever watched a trial, the information you get during questioning is scant, and it is difficult to put together without knowing anything about it previously. Imagine if you're a defendant and your attorney can't even make an argument based on the evidence to exculpate you. To me, that would be a frightening prospect. You also think he should be shackled when questioning witnesses.

A prosecutor does actually have more obligations than a defense attorney, including the requirement they turn over Brady material, and that they believe there is probable cause to proceed. But if they needed to be certain every defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before going to trial, again they would be weighing the evidence themselves before adducing it at trial, where the alternative is that it is provided to the jury and they can consider it. You seem to think that if you do away with a good portion of the trial or soften its adversarial aspects that somehow the truth magically appears. Instead, you are only eliminating effective, albeit indirect ways of ascertaining the truth. The truth, if it does emerge, is usually only going to do so piecemeal

Jurors are subject to questioning during voir dire. They are often questioned about all sorts of biases. It would not be feasible to perform background checks on every juror in every case. But racial bias is disqualifying.

Finally, if a defendant really does have an iq of 50, he can be found either not criminally responsible or not competent to stand trial. If he is convicted, he often has at least one mandatory appeal of the final verdict and it can be heard on cert by the state supreme court. There are all sorts of other post-conviction appeals he can file as well upon the discovery of new evidence that tends to exculpate him.

[broncofan]

I once watched a documentary about a murder vs. self defence case held in Las Vegas. One of the prosecutors "witnesses" was a black gangsta with a serious drug problem. Once he did not appear in court due to being in hospital in rehab. When in court, he gave the impression of a total moron with an IQ on 50. In fact, the prosecutor's eye witnesses were all along that line. Now, the defendant was facing 25 to life. And the verdict rested substantially on the statements of witnesses who were incompetent to say whether it was day or night! Yet, the prosecutor's main concern was winning the case, not that justice be served. Luckily the defendant (a Hispanic guy) won the case.
I see a witness had an iq of 50. What you're suggesting is that they cannot be asked what their incentive is to testify the way they are. They cannot be asked whether they have been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty. Or whether they have been offered a deal by prosecutors to testify the way they did. Without vigorous cross-examination of their background, you would be literally allowing anyone to get on the stand and confabulate, often in sensational and self-serving ways.

[broncofan]

Fourth, jurors should be screened more carefully to weed out any racial/feminist activists (of any race).
I realize this is my third post in a row, but I just noticed this. I thought it was a language thing.

But you're not saying racists and sexists should be kept off juries but that those who are concerned about racism and sexism should be?

I love how you include in parentheses (of any race), so that people don't forget the groups you're really talking about. Because I'm unclear. Who are you talking about?

You don't seem to be offering any sort of legal solution as the issues you address may help you get the outcome you want in one case but actually be harmful in another. For instance, you want to do away with what you refer to as character assassination on cross, but then you complain about a "black gangsta's" testimony. You're not suggesting the court should hear a motion to exclude his testimony because you don't like what he will say? You do seem to be suggesting that the defense attorney should not be allowed to probe for bias. For instance, did he and defendant have an argument a week prior? etc.

In fact, your objections to him are actually character assassination and would be excluded at trial. But asking him if he has some reason to testify falsely is not the same thing as denigrating him generally and saying he has a low iq.

[yodajazz]

In the trial of George Zimmerman, to me, it was the pre-trial stuff of what was actually allowed as evidence, that made a huge difference. The state was supposed to prove a "depraved mind", as evidence that he could have premeditated his actions. Yet his mental health history was ruled, not admissible, according to my understanding. It was reported that he had been on anti-depressants. And if so, they would have known possible side effects. Seems like much of his history was ruled as in-admissible. This includes accusations of violent behaviors. On job applications these days, they can ask people if they have ever been arrested for any reason in their entire lives. This does not mean that they were tried or convicted. But you could kill someone, and not have to answer that question, in court? Something is wrong with this picture. The dead person had a toxicology report that was mentioned in court. So why not the person who killed him?

[broncofan]

Typically propensity evidence is kept out. There are a complex set of rules for allowing such evidence if and only if the defendant chooses to make his character traits an issue at trial.

But the idea is that just because someone has a history of committing violent acts does not mean they committed the crime at issue. Their history of committing violent crimes is probative (meaning it has a tendency to make a relevant fact more or less likely) but so removed from the specific facts of the case as to be unduly prejudicial. The same would be true about the fact that someone is taking an anti-depressant or has bipolar disorder. In the case of anti-depressants, the evidence would be offered to show that they are taking a medicine whose side effects give them a generally violent disposition. Or they have a condition that makes them predisposed to violence.

Trilisser is talking about questions put to witnesses about anything that bears on their propensity to tell the truth. You can impeach a witness with prior bad acts, but usually only if the court has determined those prior bad acts are being used only to undermine the witness' character for veracity. The judge can still exclude this evidence if it is unduly prejudicial and does not bear strongly on a person's likelihood to be honest.

Further, when such prior bad acts are used to impeach a criminal defendant who has chosen to testify, they are highly scrutinized and frequently excluded because jurors will not use them strictly for their tendency to impeach (that the defendant may be lying) but to decide the merits of the case (that they are in fact guilty).

[broncofan]

This includes accusations of violent behaviors. On job applications these days, they can ask people if they have ever been arrested for any reason in their entire lives.
It does seem counter-intuitive, but if the violent behaviors are too far removed in time and place from the events in question, they are only slightly probative. The problem is that a jury will tend to give them more weight than they deserve. You can provide prior bad acts but usually only if they are not being used to show propensity but rather a signature of the crime. For instance, you were convicted of stabbing someone with a knife that is not widely available and that same knife was used here. Or you were seen stealing a car, and that car was the get-away car in the robbery.

But if you want to say, once a thief, always a thief, courts don't like to admit that evidence. Or once a hothead always a hothead, they are nervous about jurors hearing that evidence and convicting, regardless of the facts that bear on the specific events in question.

Finally, companies are allowed to ask about arrests, but they are opening themselves up for liability if they do. They are much better off asking about convictions, because they can defend themselves better in a disparate impact discrimination suit. That's a longer story, but from an employment law standpoint, companies are moving away from that type of question.

[broncofan]

In the trial of George Zimmerman, to me, it was the pre-trial stuff of what was actually allowed as evidence, that made a huge difference.
Again third post in a row. But let me just say I understand where you're coming from. I'm just telling you the orthodox legal theory. It was one of those cases where you don't have a lot of good testimonial evidence or physical evidence but something about the way things happened bespoke criminality. It makes it very tempting to admit every piece of evidence that could be helpful.

There's no doubt the fact that Zimmerman was involved in other affrays is relevant. But the truth is the risk of allowing it in is probably as great when it's the only lead you have to go on as when there's an abundance of other evidence. It may appeal to the wrong part of the jury's brain and encourage them to stigmatize defendants either for their character traits or previous actions that speak to those character traits.

Imagine you're a criminal defendant who committed a previous assault and now you're on trial for murder and there's not much evidence against you?

What I don't understand is that Zimmerman seemed to put Martin's tendency for violence in issue did he not? The rule is that if the defendant says the victim has a propensity of violence, then propensity evidence directed at him is freely admissible. Maybe his lawyer didn't do that and it was only Fox News that kept harping on Martin's past.

[buttslinger]

Everybodies a Lawyer these days!
Doctors and Politicians hold back the truth, they give the best version of the truth that people might actually believe, it seems to work...
The racists in this country, Zimmerman-style,... make under the median income of 50 grand a year. Sometimes they live in the same neighborhoods and work at the same jobs. They see each other lined up at the 7-11 buying lottery tickets. All the money they make is spent on rent, car payments, insurance, food, etc etc etc. And they blame each other for their sad state because those are the only people they see.

This system works. Western Civilization was built on this system. Even in school the dumb kids are put in classes together, readying them for their careers as janitors and trashmen.

All these people under the median 50 grand a year should belong to the same political party and they all should vote. 51% of the vote elects a guy who will make insurance companies work for the people they insure, make pharmacists look for cures, not patents,
The racists that hate the niggers have to learn that they are the niggers also. Power to the People!!!

[broncofan]

Everybodies a Lawyer these days!

You might be exaggerating.

[buttslinger]

You might be exaggerating.

maybe just a tad.

[Trilisser]

Broncofan:

1. I did not suggest that one cannot ask tough questions on cross. Of course it must be possible to ask e.g. whether the witness benefits financially/whatever by testifying.

2. Regarding "racists" and "anti-racists", my experience has it that the latter folks are far more fanatical in their views. It is also a significant factor how a "racist" is defined as the term has become the number 2 smearing implement (after "anti-Semitist"). For example, is a white guy who does not want unlimited immigration from e.g. Somalia and that that immigration policy should favour peoples from similarish cultures a "racist"? Yet, the same guy would have sex with a pretty Somalian girl in a heartbeat. To "career anti-racists" he is a diehard racist. To me he is not. To me a racist is a person who would refuse to have sex with a person of another race for the reason of the different race. Where I come from, such people are extremely rare.

What is more, those who are not fond of multiculturalism tend to be conservative in their social view overall and one part of that view is respect for the law & order. That is the very opposite of many/most anti-racists (I do not know a single "career anti-racist" who does not lean to left) often having anarchist leanings.

[trish]

Have you never heard conservatives threaten Second Amendment solutions to our immigration problems? Or threaten secession? Have you never read of black men and woman being dragged to death from the backs of pick up trucks?

[broncofan]

Broncofan:
It is also a significant factor how a "racist" is defined as the term has become the number 2 smearing implement (after "anti-Semitist")..
At least we're still number one:). I haven't met too many of the anti-racist fanatics you are talking about. Someone who is concerned more about immigrants from one part of the world than another might be motivated by ethnic bias. The history of immigration in the U.S. has been replete with examples of this. From keeping out the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, the Mexicans there has often been an attempt to demonize several groups of immigrants. Of course, having borders and controlling the immigration process is the prerogative of any country, but the rhetoric utilized in support of that objective is often based on stereotyping and fear-mongering.

I don't know if you just haven't met enough racists or you don't recognize them as such. I've met tons of racists, who upon meeting you for the first time try to recruit you. I've met tons of anti-semites. I met a girl who tried to explain to me that it was irrational for me to be weirded out by the fact that she had a swastika tattoo. I'm not like the racism patrol or something, but I'm surprised you don't think racists feel very strongly about their views. Even if you think anti-racists can be self-righteous, you haven't seen an anti-racist build a gas chamber for the people who disagree with them? Or enslave another group of people in their fight against racism? Yet, in those very examples what do you have except strongly held and irrational views? And you want us to believe that somehow this instinct has been transcended?

[runningdownthatdream]

What the fuck is an anti-racist!?!?!? Someone who advocates equality among humans? Someone who respects the basic rights of every other human? People can become apologists for just about any repugnant act, belief, or philosophy but one should just embrace their inclinations - why even try to justify it? You're just a bigot and a racist Trilisser. Accept it. And don't bother trying to justify it to people who have more sense, respect, and understanding of the human condition than you do.

[Trilisser]

Have you never read of black men and woman being dragged to death from the backs of pick up trucks?

Yes, I have. But in the country I live in the situation is different and I would dare to say with 99.999 % certainty that not a single black man or a woman has been killed here for being black. In fact, I would say that my country is safer for a lone black man (or a woman) to wander around anywhere than any African country or any US state. Even the local skinheads do not pose a threat unless totally drunk.

[trish]

So your previous post referred entirely to multiculturalism, liberalism, conservatism, racism and "anti-racism" in your country?

[Trilisser]

Broncofan, it seems our cultural backgrounds are very different. The political atmosphere is my country is such that a fellow painted as a "racist" by the anti-racists would not be even invited to any U.S. "racist" pow-wow. I know plenty of people who e.g. do not want immigrants from Africa, yet not a single one of them would harm an African for just being African.

The reason why I painted such a negative picture of "anti-racists" is that in my country that group is a group of people who generally do not tolerate anyone dissenting with them. Most of them are Green and many of them are diehard Communists. This very group, by the way, is often very pro-Palestinian and thus anti-Jewish. And one of their primary targets is the freedom of speech.

For example, one activist was sentenced to 2 years and 4 months in prison for "defamation, inciting against a group of people and insulting the peace of religion". Yet, a drunk driver who killed an 11-year-old girl and caused lifetime injuries to her 16-year-old sister got only 2 years and 2 months. And our anti-racists are perfectly happy with this. Again: a jail sentence for having an opinion and daring to write it on the internet. So indeed my patience is very thin with this anti-racist group.

Regarding that girl with a swastika tattoo, would it have helped if she had swastika on her left arm and a star of David on the right?:D

I have to say that though I have a been a fan of the Tza'hal since I was 13 or so, I do not like certain organizations like the one in which Abe F. is involved in. Plus my wake-up alarm call on my phone is this (the very version): Hatikva-The National Anthem of Israel - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjfFpFW9OdA)

[trish]

Tim Minchin: Peace Anthem For Palestine - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6qA-4PWdsg)

[broncofan]

You're so opaque about your background. I don't know if you're Israeli, European, etc. I disagree that because some leftists are pro-Palestinian they are anti-Jewish. Some may be anti-Jewish but not because they're pro-Palestinian.

I am sincerely hoping that you are not Israeli and complaining about immigrants from Africa. If a country wants to have a tight immigration policy that's quite different from barring entrants from certain regions because you think people specifically from that region are undesirable.

I agree with you that laws making racist incitement illegal do challenge freedom of speech. However, none of those laws could be passed in this country.

I think what runningdownthatdream said about anti-racists is helpful. Regardless of how fervent or zealous some may be in their views, what is it that they support? Equality before the law? It is much harder for that ethic to corrupt the legal process than its opposite.

[broncofan]

Broncofan, it seems our cultural backgrounds are very different.
How do I know that? I don't know what your background is. You're indicating you're Jewish or Israeli. If you are really Jewish, then you can tell me why with our cultural history you think some discrimination is okay? I'm not saying being Jewish is a glass house, but if you are not strongly opposed to racism, it might as well be.

[Trilisser]

Broncofan, I am Finnish. I do assume you are a citizen of the U.S.?

You ask that do I see anything wrong with the idea of equality before the law. No, I do not. However, in my country the situation has become such - thanks to these career anti-racists - that in practice minorities are more equal than the majority. Our capital city has an employment policy stating that a representative of a minority should be hired even if his qualifications for the job are slightly lower than the qualifications of the majority applicant. Yet, the anti-racist crowd is perfectly happy with this example of outright racial discrimination.

And is it a co-incidence that virtually all cases involving that notorious "peace of religion" clause involve cases of criticizing Islam? One member of parliament was convicted for breaching this clause for he wrote that Islam sanctifies child molesting as Muhammad shared the bed with a 9-year-old girl and to Moslems anything Muhammad did is holy and thus to be emulated. This conviction is shamelessly exploited by the anti-racist crowd who paint him a downright criminal. Yet, another member of parliament was convicted for causing a death as he fall asleep while driving and he killed an innocent bystander. This member has suggested that sharia law be allowed to be adopted by the local Moslems. Hence he is the poster guy for the anti-racists.

Trust me, most of the pro-Palestinians here are card carrying leftists who hate Israel. They do proclaim to be pro-Semites, but this seems to be apply only when it is a convenient tool to bash Germans. One of the leading pets of local anti-racists is a Palestine born Arab woman who recently moved to the Netherlands after she out-cried how intolerable my country had become. This lady's reaction to Israeli citizens losing their homes to rockets launched from Lebanon was "They should go to a hotel, the Jews are so rich anyway". This same lady took part in some televised debates also accompanied by the leader of the local Jewish congregation. While the latter maintained his cool composure and rational argumentation throughout the debate, the former reeked of hatred. And she is loved by anti-racists.

[natina]

Zimmerman Flees Miami, 'Bounty' on His Head

Killer of Trayvon Martin was chased by angry crowd, says TMZ

George Zimmerman is on the run: Trayvon Martin's killer attracted an angry crowd while hanging out at a beach in Miami last week and ended up fleeing the city with a bounty on his head, TMZ reports. As the story goes, Zimmerman gave an interview on Tuesday with Univision and Fusion (saying he's homeless and has PTSD) before catching rays with his brother, girlfriend, and her child. Then an angry crowd forced them back to the hotel with someone yelling about a $10,000 bounty on his head. The next day Zimmerman gave an interview with CNN and fled the city.

Is there a real threat? In this Black Panthers video, one leader claims the bounty runs to $1 million. And Time reports that in his CNN interview, Zimmerman said he has "a lot of people saying that, you know, they guarantee that they’re going to kill me and I’ll never be a free man.

http://www.newser.com/story/182523/zimmerman-flees-miami-bounty-on-his-head.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=united&utm_campaign=rss_topnews

[natina]

zimmerman caught in WEB OF LIES

Zimmerman Has Zilch, Spends $3K a Month

Travon Martin Foundation gets new home


Almost a year after his acquittal in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman doesn't seem to have much in the way of a life, according to paperwork filed this month as part of his divorce case. The 30-year-old says he has no home, no job, no income, and nearly no assets apart from his 2008 Honda pickup, the Orlando Sentinel finds. But according to his financial affidavit, he still spends $3,304 a month, including $200 for psychological counseling—and $100 on vacations. He currently pays no rent.

Zimmerman, who owes his lawyers $2.5 million, has just $650 in the bank, according to the court filing, which makes no mention of the $100,000 he made by selling a painting on eBay earlier this year. Meanwhile, at Florida Memorial University, Trayvon's parents were at a ceremony late last week to welcome the Trayvon Martin Foundation they founded to its new home, reports the Miami Herald. The foundation focuses on helping families affected by violent crimes. The teenager's death "galvanized the nation," his father said at the ceremony. "It’s just proof that positive things come out of tragedy. Even though he’s not here, we know he’s looking down on us," he said.

http://www.newser.com/story/189210/zimmerman-has-zilch-spends-3k-a-month.html

[natina]

Judge Throws Out George Zimmerman's Lawsuit Against NBC

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — A Florida judge on Monday dismissed the defamation lawsuit filed by George Zimmerman against NBC and three reporters, saying the former neighborhood watch leader failed to show the network acted with malice.

Judge Debra Nelson said the malice standard was appropriate because Zimmerman became a public figure after he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford in February 2012, generating a national conversation about race and self-defense laws.

Zimmerman "voluntarily injected his views into the public controversy surrounding race relations and public safety in Sanford and pursued a course of conduct that ultimately led to the death of Martin and the specific controversy surrounding it," said Nelson, who presided over Zimmerman's criminal trial last summer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/judge-george-zimmerman-nbc-lawsuit_n_5543711.html

[natina]

George Zimmerman said I WILL KILL YOU!

ORLANDO, Fla. — A driver says George Zimmerman threatened to kill him, asking “Do you know who I am?” during a road confrontation in their vehicles, a police spokeswoman said Friday.

The driver, whose name hasn’t been released, told Lake Mary police officers that a truck pulled up to his car Tuesday and the driver yelled, “Why are you pointing a finger at me?”

The truck’s driver then asked the man, “Do you know who I am? I will kill you,” the man told police officers, said Officer Bianca Gillett, a police spokeswoman.

The man said he recognized the truck’s driver as George Zimmerman. The man pulled into a nearby gas station and called police officers, but the truck was gone by the time they arrived, Gillett said.


http://nypost.com/2014/09/12/george-zimmerman-threatened-to-kill-me-driver/
http://nypost.com/2014/09/12/george-zimmerman-threatened-to-kill-me-driver/
http://nypost.com/2014/09/12/george-zimmerman-threatened-to-kill-me-driver/
http://nypost.com/2014/09/12/george-zimmerman-threatened-to-kill-me-driver/

[natina]

TWO NEW NEWS ARTICLES ABOUT ZIMMERMAN

guns get you into more trouble then they get you out of

At Home With the Zimmermans

Family keeps 'go bags' to flee, uses code names: Amanda Robb


The Zimmerman family isn't big on public life these days: They live in an undisclosed location in Florida, and to bring a GQ reporter to the rental house, they wanted her blindfolded. Ultimately, they nixed the visit, but Amanda Robb still interviewed them, and offers a portrait of their lives since what they call "the incident": the shooting of Trayvon Martin. The family—George's parents, Gladys and Bob, and his siblings, Robert and Grace—live in constant fear of attack. They watched the Ben Affleck film Argo "to learn how to live like CIA," Robb writes. That includes code names and color-coded threat warnings, as well as "go bags" packed in case they need to flee.

Meanwhile, they're "deeply in debt," with George owing lawyers $2.5 million; his parents have spent nearly $27,000 on their hidden residence and hotel rooms while still paying a mortgage on their empty house. Robert now sees himself as the "Zimmerman in charge of rebranding" the family. One idea, which hasn't panned out, was to make George into a reality-TV sensation. Robert also offers an interesting tidbit about his childhood: Bob regularly told his kids that "guns will get you into more trouble than they will ever get you out of," Robert says. As for George, they don't see him much, though he calls. He currently fears federal civil rights charges over the shooting: "He's worried that if FBI agents come and kick in his door, he's probably gonna shoot a few of them," his father says. Click for the full piece
Zimmerman Family Values
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201410/george-zimmerman-family-values


http://www.newser.com/story/196545/at-home-with-the-zimmermans.html


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

Zimmerman Family Values

Until his little brother, George, shot and killed an unarmed black teenager on the sidewalk of a Florida gated community more than two years ago, Robert Zimmerman Jr. was "the family fuckup." He used the phrase with me a lot, but the first time was in October 2012, at a dark back table at the Algonquin Hotel's Blue Bar in Manhattan, six months after what all the Zimmermans call "the incident." He was downing a double gin and soda, and he was wearing a Hugo Boss suit, "diamond" earrings from Kohl's, and the remnants of airbrush concealer from a quick appearance on Fox News's Geraldo at Large. He went on to name all the ways he was a lousy namesake for his father, Bob, a former Army sergeant, and a disappointing son for his mother, Gladys, a fierce, devoutly Catholic first-generation immigrant from Peru. "Unemployed. College dropout. With a DWI and a boyfriend," he said, listing his sins. (The boyfriend was a big problem for Gladys, somewhat less so for Bob.) But then, overnight, George had become "the Wreck-It Ralph of America," and Robert—articulate, sweet-natured, maybe in over his head—was thrust into the role of family savior. "You know what that means?" he said, ordering a second gin and soda. "Zimmerman in charge of rebranding

So Robert got to work, defending his brother in the media dozens of times over the next year. The circumstances may have been grim, but the small doses of celebrity could be fun. He had both Greta Van Susteren and Sean Hannity in his phone contacts. He braved HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, appearing on the show shortly before the first anniversary of the night that George shot Trayvon Martin. Unlike with the news channels, he got paid this time: $800. It was the only income Robert earned that whole year. He had a great time doing the show and an even better one afterward over drinks with fellow guest Donna Brazile, an African-American political operative who managed Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign. "I miss black people!" he told her.

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201410/george-zimmerman-family-values

[natina]

Attorney: Man shot at George Zimmerman in self-defense


LAKE MARY, Fla. —
The attorney for a Seminole County (http://www.wftv.com/s/news/seminole-county/) man accused of shooting at George Zimmerman during a road rage incident on Monday said he opened fire in self-defense.


http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/george-zimmerman-shot-lake-mary/nmDZj/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


Zimmerman wounded in shooting

http://www.wftv.com/gallery/news/local/photos-george-zimmerman-wounded-shooting/gCSg6/

[Plaything]

'My very first pistol was a cap'n'ball Colt
A cap'n'ball Colt
Soon found out...
It'll get you into trouble but it can't get you out..

Then I went and bought myself a Colt 45
A Colt 45
Called a 'peacemaker' but I never knew why...

...Mama says a pistol is The Devil's right hand'

[yodajazz]

'My very first pistol was a cap'n'ball Colt
A cap'n'ball Colt
Soon found out...
It'll get you into trouble but it can't get you out..

Then I went and bought myself a Colt 45
A Colt 45
Called a 'peacemaker' but I never knew why...

...Mama says a pistol is The Devil's right hand'

The longer I live, and thats a pretty long time, I see these old sayings representing profound truth.

Somewhere in the Bible, Fear is called "a tool of the devil". The recent news of killings involving police, and the Zimmerman case, all involve Fear from the person doing the killing. In my city, police drove up and killed 12 year old Tamir Rice, next door to a recreation center. A tool of fear is to focus on the most negative of possibilities. I just learned on an incident in Chicago a couple of years ago. It has made recent news because the policeman was just acquitted of the charges against him. I'm not sure if he was on duty, or 'in plain clothes, and an unmarked car. He killed a young woman who was walking with three males, after one of the men pulled out a cell phone, and pointed it at him, which he claimed to have mistook for a gun. His acquittal was because his actions did not meet the charges filed by the prosecutor. A pistol allows someone to react to fear,the fastest way.

Speaking of Fear, in the Zimmerman case, I say that it was reasonable that Trayvon felt fear from Zimmerman following him. Thus, if he was banging Zimmerman's head, it was because Zimmerman created a climate of fear, in following him, even after he ran. The defense strategy involved lessening the possibility that Travonn could have be scared, because he was a future criminal. So there is Fear, and 'reasonable fear'.

@Peacemaker I say, that the gun was called a peacemaker, because the concept was about preventing violence. Solve all issues peacefully, or the 45 was the last resort.

[natina]

Emergency workers talk about George Zimmerman leaving the hospital


http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/raw-emergency-personnel-on-zimmerman-at-hospital/vDR7jW/




Attorney: Man shot at George Zimmerman in self-defense


LAKE MARY, Fla. —
The attorney for a Seminole County (http://www.wftv.com/s/news/seminole-county/) man accused of shooting at George Zimmerman during a road rage incident on Monday said he opened fire in self-defense.


http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/george-zimmerman-shot-lake-mary/nmDZj/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


Zimmerman wounded in shooting

http://www.wftv.com/gallery/news/local/photos-george-zimmerman-wounded-shooting/gCSg6/

[natina]

Matthew Apperson's Alleged Shot at George Zimmerman was in Self-Defense



http://www.newser.com/story/206723/lawyer-alleged-shot-at-zimmerman-was-in-self-defense.html

http://www.newser.com/story/206671/george-zimmerman-shot-in-fla-incident.html

[bobvela]

Lynch mobs are (unfortunately) so interesting to watch...

When they succeed, we see how some view extra-judicial 'justice', and when they fail, we see how they will pounce at any opportunity to exploit weakness.

I have no particular love for George Zimmerman, though I recognized early on that he would walk free (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?65131-17yr-old-black-kid-shot-and-killed-for-walking-in-white-suburbia&p=1141664#post1141664) (just as the Baltimore cops will and for similar reasons, again, mark my words).

In the last series of breathless posts from natina, we see one such member of the mob seemingly gleeful with news that a person had been shot... yet we do not see from her or anyone else the follow-up, that the admitted shooter has been arrested and charged by the local PD (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman/os-matthew-apperson-arrested-george-zimmerman-20150515-story.html).


"After conducting numerous interviews throughout the week, detectives determined that Mr. Apperson did intentionally fire his weapon into the vehicle occupied by George Zimmerman without provocation," Gillett said in a statement.

Which is it? Either George Zimmerman was so amazingly smart to point a gun at his attacker and quickly roll up his passenger side window before ducking to avoid getting hit... or Matthew Apperson was so dumb to shoot through a tinted window towards where he figured the head of his target would be.

Seriously, which is more likely?

[trish]

Why were any of these assholes carrying a gun?

[broncofan]

Bobvela once again proves what an obnoxious piece of trash he is. The guilt of George Zimmerman's attacker does not sanitize Zimmerman's actions since the Martin killing. He has been accused of abusing two women (both alleged threats include accusations that he threatened them with a gun). In this case, the man who shot at Zimmerman claimed that George had threatened to kill him several months earlier and he attempted to file charges against Zimmerman but did not have any witnesses. It seems unlikely to me that three people have had such a vendetta against Zimmerman that they decided to make up stories about him, including that he made extremely creepy verbal threats that demonstrate his lack of character (threats of the "do you know who I am" variety are an example of Zimmerman trading on his reputation as a dangerous man rather than even maintaining the pretense of innocence).

In the Baltimore case, the police officers were overcharged. If it was a rough ride, that would more likely support manslaughter than second degree murder. The charges did not the last I checked have factual support because I don't think it's known when Gray suffered the injuries. However, if one of the police officers decides to cooperate it could be trouble for the other officers. I imagine something illegal did take place or a man would not have suffered a broken neck in custody. I am just not sure when or how it happened….and if there's a conspiracy of silence, you can't convict people based on their presence when someone was injured, because it's possible only some of the officers were responsible or that the officers are guilty of different crimes.

Anyhow, Bobvela is pretending that Zimmerman has had trouble since the Martin trial because of a lynch mob atmosphere. Very sorry, but the woman and her father who accused him of pointing a shotgun at them were not part of any lynch mob….and of course, everyone knows why you decided to use the phrase lynch mob…

[broncofan]

Why were any of these assholes carrying a gun?
Good point. Zimmerman benefited from the lack of information (and living witnesses) available to convict him in the Martin case. He has since benefited from victims who were reluctant to come forward and in this case, a previous threat the victim (and now assailant) could not substantiate. Anyone who does not think the man has a serious character disorder at this point has one themselves.

[yodajazz]

Good point. Zimmerman benefited from the lack of information (and living witnesses) available to convict him in the Martin case. He has since benefited from victims who were reluctant to come forward and in this case, a previous threat the victim (and now assailant) could not substantiate. Anyone who does not think the man has a serious character disorder at this point has one themselves.

I always thought that the female cousin, who stated that he sexually abused her was significant. Now look at it. It's the same pattern as outlined by broncofan. No witnesses 2. he reportedly ingratiated himself with her parents, so that she was reluctant to come forward, until much later. One additional thing; he collected money for his legal defense, then hid it from the court, then did not pay his attorneys. I still don't understand how his wife was convicted of lying, and not him when they discussed it together on the phone, while he was in jail. And it was not admissible for his court trial. If he lied to the court about finances, its not a big stretch that he would lie about the details of his encounter with Trayvon. And not that I think about it, his becoming a neighborhood watch person could have easily been part of his pattern of cloaking negative intentions. He did not think enough of his duties to follow guidelines, and not carry weapon nor pursue someone. Wasn't he a captain or something, who should have been knowledgeable? Good thing he failed at becoming a police officer.

[broncofan]

He has killed one man, and threatened to kill three additional people (he also threw a champagne bottle at a woman's head which I did not count in that tally). Bobvela says it's a lynch mob atmosphere, which is to indicate that the public does not want to give him a fair chance and people have a vendetta against him. But the people he has had altercations with were not motivated to lie about him out of solidarity with Trayvon Martin. With the exception of Apperson, they were people he knew and threatened. Why would this Apperson guy go to the police several months earlier with a tale about Zimmerman threatening to kill him? I don't see what his motivation was to make that up.

I do not know exactly what happened in the Martin situation, but it's obvious that Zimmerman likes to pretend to be more important than he is, and likes to make threats. There's no reason to believe his version of events is anything but self-serving. I did not know about the sexual abuse yoda…that's another interesting biographical fact for Zimmerman.

[broncofan]

I have no particular love for George Zimmerman,

I was thinking about this line. It's not like you to use understatement, so I think it's more likely you are being literal. You have no love for him, but that doesn't rule out general affinity for, or identification with.

I do notice that you seem to be more concerned with any rush to judgment against Zimmerman than with the civil rights of any of his victims. What have you said about the woman whose head he targeted with a champagne bottle? Does she deserve any defense? How about the other women he threatened?

[Queens Guy]

If he lied to the court about finances, its not a big stretch that he would lie about the details of his encounter with Trayvon. And not that I think about it, his becoming a neighborhood watch person could have easily been part of his pattern of cloaking negative intentions. He did not think enough of his duties to follow guidelines, and not carry weapon nor pursue someone. Wasn't he a captain or something, who should have been knowledgeable? Good thing he failed at becoming a police officer.[/QUOTE]

By no means am I sticking up for Zimmerman.

However, the neighborhood watch thing wasn't really a neighborhood watch. They didn't go out on 'patrol' with each other. They didn't wear windbreakers and carry walkie-talkies and whistles and flashlights or anything like that. It was more of an after the fact thing to tell each other about burglaries that had happened and such. GZ was the head of the gossip group. Today, it would be a Facebook page for the residents of the neighborhood and he'd be one of the administrators.

So, he didn't break any neighborhood watch rules as far as carrying his gun while he was 'on patrol', or 'pursuing' since he was never 'on patrol'. None of the residents went 'on patrol'. He had a gun permit, like plenty of other people in Florida do, and he was driving in his car. There was no evidence presented at trial that he went 'on patrol' on his own, like 'Oh, yeah that creepy guy drives around and around doing laps around the neighborhood all the time, middle of the night, etc.'

He's a liar, for sure, about the money. Too bad they didn't punish him for it. Too bad it wasn't admissible at trial, so the jury would have known.

[yodajazz]

Do you feel that people have a right to follow others, if they feel that person is exhibiting 'suspicious behavior'? Zimmerman claimed that Martin was "looking around". But is that in itself, suspicious behavior? I think many would argue, that someone following you is suspicious behavior. And especially if the person being followed, attempts to evade the follower.