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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Maybe he didn't want to go to the Hospital because they'd take a blood test. Who knows what they'd find.

---

Yeah, when you listen to those 911 calls made by Zimmerman, he sounds a little loaded. Not quite slurring his speech, but IMO he comes across like he's high, out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

Doesn't matter one way or another to me. As I've stated before, my reason for posting was so it got attention, which it did - and and investigation was opened.
The only thing that really disturbs me is the racist attitudes of you and a few others who will continue to argue that it was right for Zimmerman to kill a young person and the laws and culture which have allowed it.

---

GOTTA AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT ONE. People still not looking at two facts 1. Zimmerman was told not to engage, he's not a professional and he shouldn't have approached Trayvon and he lied about being punched at his SUV. 2. The neighborhood watch rules are a. Don't carry a weapon b. Don't engage a suspicious person.

He broke all the rules and went after Trayvon, self defense don't apply to him. People who support Zimmerman is basically supporting gun toting but are blind to the facts of Zimmerman being wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Yeah, when you listen to those 911 calls made by Zimmerman, he sounds a little loaded. Not quite slurring his speech, but IMO he comes across like he's high, out of it.

---

Yeah he sounds a bit off in the 911 tapes.

They both fucked up.

George shouldn't have confronted Trayvon. Trayvon shouldn't have bowed up. The more info that comes out the more it seems they were both out of line and there is no "right" party in this situation.

It really sux that two young men just starting their lives (along with their respective families) have had their futures shattered. "Play stupid games win stupid prizes".

What bothers me is the blatant editing of info. The 911 calls. The pics released of Trayvon as a zygote when he was a tatted-up >6 ft wanna-be (or maybe real; IDK) "gangsta". If you read his (since taken down, but saved for posterity) twitter feed (under his "nolimitnigga" screenname) you will see that (like a lot of young men) he felt like he needed to prove his toughness to the world. I get it. I had an element (my wife would probably tell you I still do) of machismo to my personality at that age as well.

Let me be clear though, no matter what either of them was into (nothing wrong with a little recreational chemical use), or what past poor decisions (we've all been stupid) either of them had made in life this was a tragic, senseless loss of life.

pic related:
http://i.imgur.com/krB60.png

http://i.imgur.com/5k9hg.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zulusierra

They both fucked up.

George shouldn't have confronted Trayvon. Trayvon shouldn't have bowed up. The more info that comes out the more it seems they were both out of line and there is no "right" party in this situation.

It really sux that two young men just starting their lives (along with their respective families) have had their futures shattered. "Play stupid games win stupid prizes".

What bothers me is the blatant editing of info. The 911 calls. The pics released of Trayvon as a zygote when he was a tatted-up >6 ft wanna-be (or maybe real; IDK) "gangsta". If you read his (since taken down, but saved for posterity) twitter feed (under his "nolimitnigga" screenname) you will see that (like a lot of young men) he felt like he needed to prove his toughness to the world. I get it. I had an element (my wife would probably tell you I still do) of machismo to my personality at that age as well.

Let me be clear though, no matter what either of them was into (nothing wrong with a little recreational chemical use), or what past poor decisions (we've all been stupid) either of them had made in life this was a tragic, senseless loss of life.

pic related:

---

No no no - this is just fudging it all. The only fact that remains unchanged is that George Zimmerman, a self-appointed neighbourhood watch, took a gun and followed someone. That's the only FACT that led to this incident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

No no no - this is just fudging it all. The only fact that remains unchanged is that George Zimmerman, a self-appointed neighbourhood watch, took a gun and followed someone. That's the only FACT that led to this incident.

---

Your screenname says you're european, is that correct?

I don't think you understand the reality of life+mindset of citizens in the southeast US. Whether wrong/right/neither (I'm not arguing either way) if you live somewhere like Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, or Alabama you need probably ought to be familiar with the following quote:

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
-Robert A. Heinlein

It is what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zulusierra

They both fucked up.

George shouldn't have confronted Trayvon. Trayvon shouldn't have bowed up. The more info that comes out the more it seems they were both out of line and there is no "right" party in this situation.

It really sux that two young men just starting their lives (along with their respective families) have had their futures shattered. "Play stupid games win stupid prizes".

What bothers me is the blatant editing of info. The 911 calls. The pics released of Trayvon as a zygote when he was a tatted-up >6 ft wanna-be (or maybe real; IDK) "gangsta". If you read his (since taken down, but saved for posterity) twitter feed (under his "nolimitnigga" screenname) you will see that (like a lot of young men) he felt like he needed to prove his toughness to the world. I get it. I had an element (my wife would probably tell you I still do) of machismo to my personality at that age as well.

Let me be clear though, no matter what either of them was into (nothing wrong with a little recreational chemical use), or what past poor decisions (we've all been stupid) either of them had made in life this was a tragic, senseless loss of life.

pic related:
http://i.imgur.com/krB60.png

http://i.imgur.com/5k9hg.jpg

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zulusierra

Your screenname says you're european, is that correct?

I don't think you understand the reality of life+mindset of citizens in the southeast US. Whether wrong/right/neither (I'm not arguing either way) if you live somewhere like Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, or Alabama you need probably ought to be familiar with the following quote:

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
-Robert A. Heinlein

It is what it is.

---

I've lived in the USA for over 12 years and travelled more states and more fucked up places in the USA than most Americans. I understand what you are saying - I'd probably be armed if I lived in some cities there also, however, it doesn't alter the fact that he behaved like a vigilante - he took the weapon, he left his house and he followed.

Why does it have to be what it is? Some of your states used to have canibals? Marry at 12? Kill men for sport? Things CAN change. Other countries have - but that's for a different topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

it doesn't alter the fact that he behaved like a vigilante - he took the weapon, he left his house and he followed.

Why does it have to be what it is?

---

I agree.

I don't know. If you figure it out plz let me know asap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

No no no - this is just fudging it all. The only fact that remains unchanged is that George Zimmerman, a self-appointed neighbourhood watch, took a gun and followed someone. That's the only FACT that led to this incident.

---

That actually isn't true. He was asked to do it per statements of other residents of that community. I also don't see anything wrong with following and reporting suspicious activity. Especially since there was a huge string of break ins and robbery in the community. I've followed and reported drunk drivers before. They even tell us to report drunk drivers. There is no way to tell they are drunk other than suspicious driving actions. Am I a vigilante reporting drunk drivers? What if some drunk sees me reporting them and decides to hit me with their car? Guess its my fault for trying to do the right thing. Same thing goes with this. Some large kid you've ever seen before walking in the rain looking around at all the apartments. There is no evidence that says he chased him or initiated any contact. Only evidence that he was attacked. You can just as easily say trayvon turned around and approached zimmerman from behind, which is what is looking like what happened from all the actual evidence coming out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

however, it doesn't alter the fact that he behaved like a vigilante - he took the weapon, he left his house and he followed.

---

He was acting like anyone else would. I've reported people walking around my parking garage who looked suspicious. Does that make me a vigilante? What if they approached me and attacked because they didn't want me to report them and I just happened to be packing? Am I a vigilante or someone who didn't want my car to be fucked with and got jumped by some hoodlum who didn't want me calling the cops?

The guy has a permit for the gun and carried it around with him, which was within his rights. He didn't leave his house to follow the guy. He was driving in his car and saw the man looking suspicious, got out and called the cops. I'm failing to see the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmyDaly

The guy has a permit for the gun and carried it around with him, which was within his rights. He didn't leave his house to follow the guy. He was driving in his car and saw the man looking suspicious, got out and called the cops. I'm failing to see the problem.

---

You are not wrong.

However "COMMA" as someone who is licensed/trained to carry concealed it is important to keep in mind that sometimes, "discretion is the better part of valor" -Shakespeare, in Henry IV, Part One, 1596.

If it is at all possible for me to flee a situation (off my private property/ outside my auto) without using my weapon it is what I will do. We don't know if George had a chance.

Now on my property I'm not backing down. Period. Some of that USMC brainwashing never goes away, lol...

I read the kid was beating him and threatening him...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zulusierra

You are not wrong.

However "COMMA" as someone who is licensed/trained to carry concealed it is important to keep in mind that sometimes, "discretion is the better part of valor" -Shakespeare, in Henry IV, Part One, 1596.

If it is at all possible for me to flee a situation (off my private property/ outside my auto) without using my weapon it is what I will do. We don't know if George had a chance.

Now on my property I'm not backing down. Period. Some of that USMC brainwashing never goes away, lol...

---

The evidence says trayvon was on top of him beating his ass. Zimmerman says he pulled the gun when treyvon saw it and went for it. At that point, I don't see fleeing as an option. If it is true that trayvon attacked zimmerman from behind, beat his ass and went for his gun, I prolly would of used the gun as well.

It is a shame it escalated to that level of violence though..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmyDaly

The evidence says trayvon was on top of him beating his ass. Zimmerman says he pulled the gun when treyvon saw it and went for it. At that point, I don't see fleeing as an option. If it is true that trayvon attacked zimmerman from behind, beat his ass and went for his gun, I prolly would of used the gun as well.

---

Have they said why he got out of his vehicle?

Why I'm asking is I still haven't read why he was close enough to be attacked in the first place. It will be interesting to see how things actually went down.

My prediction: there's no way they get him on any murder charge. They're trying to scare him into a plea deal.

While I do ultimately side with Zimmerman if the evidence proves that Martin was indeed attacking him, I in no way condone his behavior up to the point at which everything went sour. I have heard tale of Zimmerman following Martin, kind of like he was tailing him. This is not well becoming of a licensed carrier, as I would never actually promote confrontation with anyone, for the sole fact that I am indeed carrying. This is part of the reason why Zimmerman is in trouble to begin with, if Martin had confronted him, there would be practically no contest in court that Zimmerman had done what was needed and within the law to protect himself.

Both their faults? Nah don't agree.

Why I don't agree with you? Because 1. You're going by some pics Trayvon put up, most teens out here in the urban community act like that and they are going through a phase, some are real gang members and some are not, Tray was not a gang member he was just acting up. Does that constitute him getting shot? HELL TO THE NO~!!!

Proven fact Trayvon was no gangsta, the phone call he made to his girlfriend while he was frighten someone was following him. He was scared, a gang member either would of confronted first of pull out on Zimmerman being Tray didn't have a gun and was scared shows he wasn't a gang member. The reason he fought back was because of his self preservation nature kicked in to protect himself, he even RAN!!! So if he ran and Zimmerman was able to catch up to him that means Zimmerman went after him. Since when is it wrong to go to the store buy some thing and go back home? You explain that to me and us.

For the umpf teen time, Zimmerman was told not to engage, he was the predator not Tray, so he was the only one wrong, he also had a gun he was wrong because the neigborhood watch rules is DON'T CARRY A WEAPON AND DON'T ENGAGE A PERSON he violated both. He is at fault no one else, Tray was minding his business and going where he was going. If Zimmerman would of let the police handle this, either the Police would of killed Tray or Tray would of bee questioned by the police or Tray would of made it to the house without anyone finding him. No, Zimmerman took it upon himself to be a WANNA BE COP!!! If you wanna talk about wanna bees, that fool in his mind thought he was a cop and had the right to do whatever he wanted.

Prior to that, he assaulted a cop and his ex and she took out a restraining order against him, he has a history of violence and he's a fucking nut case.

The blame is only on one person here and that's ZIMMERMAN!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zulusierra

They both fucked up.

George shouldn't have confronted Trayvon. Trayvon shouldn't have bowed up. The more info that comes out the more it seems they were both out of line and there is no "right" party in this situation.

It really sux that two young men just starting their lives (along with their respective families) have had their futures shattered. "Play stupid games win stupid prizes".

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pnsmcgraw

While I do ultimately side with Zimmerman if the evidence proves that Martin was indeed attacking himf.

---

What evidence that Trayvon was attacking him? Let me ask you something how the hell do you say EVIDENCE show Trayvon was attacking him when 1. Trayvon has a phone record of a girlfriend where he said SOMEONE IS FOLLOWING ME, then his girlfriend said Tray ran, this is confirmed by Zimmerman who said he is running. He ran away from the situation because he was scared.

2. Evidence shows that Trayvon was going to and from the store minding his own business and he was one the phone talking to his girl!!!

3. Evidence shows that Trayvon couldn't have attacked Zimmerman like Zimmerman said "HE ATTACKED ME FROM THE LEFT SIDE AS I TRIED TO GET INTO MY SUV" bullshit. Zimmerman said himself to the dispatcher that Trayvon went into the gated community and made a turn, Zimmerman SUV was parked outside the gated community near the entrance, and they were inside the complex so that means Zimmerman went after him if Trayvon RAN!!!

4. Zimmerman approached Trayvon wrong asking him "WHAT ARE YOU DOING AROUND HERE" wtf ? How the fuck do you approach someone like that? Phone records show Trayvon saying "WHO ARE YOU" then pushing and shoving happened.

How can the person that runs away be the attacker? You gotta explain that with logic, Trayvon fought back to protect himself and punk ass Zimmerman couldn't fight so he used a gun!!!

Evidence, Tray never had a weapon!!! So how is it that Trayvon attacked him again?

The DA based it's arrest on evidence gathered.....some of it phone texts by Zimmerman up to a month after. That can't be good.

The new medical reports on the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case tell us a lot. And it is not just for what they find, but also what they don’t find.
First, the reports provide striking evidence that Zimmerman did not start the fight with Martin, and that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense. Martin’s injuries were two-fold: broken skin on his knuckles and the fatal gunshot wound.
Zimmerman’s injuries involved: a fractured nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury.
It takes considerable force to break the skin on multiple knuckles. The large range of injuries on Zimmerman indicates that the Martin’s attack was prolonged. But here is what is missing: where are the injuries to Zimmerman’s hands? Where are the bruises on Martin’s face or other parts of his body? The evidence paints a picture where Martin was the only person landing blows.
The broken skin on Martin’s knuckles and Zimmerman’s wounds obviously provide some justification for self-defense.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...#ixzz1v4xb21NE

Here's the lay out map from where Zimmerman drove from the Front gate and stopped at the entrance where he saw Trayvon walking.

http://img1.imagehousing.com/80/9feb...2ba0c65a04.jpg
http://img1.imagehousing.com/16/aa39...1f8ababb85.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yourdaddy

The broken skin on Martin’s knuckles and Zimmerman’s wounds obviously provide some justification for self-defense.

---

If Martin, an unarmed man walking home from the store, had killed the gun toting Zimmerman by SLAMMING his head against the pavement while yelling for help, would he be innocent then?
I'm SO glad Fox News has gotten into this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

The DA based it's arrest on evidence gathered.....some of it phone texts by Zimmerman up to a month after. That can't be good.

---

Exactly, the DA put that at 2nd degree murder and not man slaughter, you know why? Because Zimmerman actually killed Trayvon and the evidence showed he did just that. Man slaughter for Zimmerman would of been this.

If Zimmerman had chased Trayvon and Tray would of ran into a car because Zimmerman was chasing him and Tray feared for his life, that would be man slaughter because Zimmerman caused the death not actually do it. So the DA couldn't prove Zimmerman had intent to kill that's why he didn't get 1st degree murder charge and why he got 2nd degree murder charge. His history is violate and the Police dept there fucked up a whole lot.

1. They have the original report that said MANSLAUGHTER but he didn't get arrested, the DA is like WTF.
2. Trayvon's body in the morgue for 3 days as a john doe but they had info of who Tray was hours later not days later.
3. Police dept said Zimmerman was clean, fuck outta here he assaulted an officer and assaulted his ex in 2005.
4. Zimmerman got like over 40 calls on people being in the neighborhood, like he's a fucking mad man. Security guards don't make that many dam calls.

Zimmerman as you can see lied he was not hit at his SUV he was hit when he pushed Trayvon and Tray fought back and was kicking his punk ass and he decided to shot Trayvon.
Zimmerman lied once you think he wouldn't lie again to cover his ass? He said Trayvon reached for his weapon, bull shit. He lied and said that to say self defense, but the fucked up thing is Zimmerman went after Trayvon that's a fact and it's evidence and Zimmerman will be locked up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yourdaddy

The new medical reports on the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case tell us a lot. And it is not just for what they find, but also what they don’t find.
First, the reports provide striking evidence that Zimmerman did not start the fight with Martin, and that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense. Martin’s injuries were two-fold: broken skin on his knuckles and the fatal gunshot wound.
Zimmerman’s injuries involved: a fractured nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury.
It takes considerable force to break the skin on multiple knuckles. The large range of injuries on Zimmerman indicates that the Martin’s attack was prolonged. But here is what is missing: where are the injuries to Zimmerman’s hands? Where are the bruises on Martin’s face or other parts of his body? The evidence paints a picture where Martin was the only person landing blows.
The broken skin on Martin’s knuckles and Zimmerman’s wounds obviously provide some justification for self-defense.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...#ixzz1v4xb21NE

---

From the link you provided but the quote you chose not to paste into your post:

When you compare Trayvon’s non-fatal injury with Zimmerman's bloody head wounds, the autopsy evidence is better for the defense, Sheaffer said.
“It goes along with Zimmerman's story that he acted in self-defense, because he was getting beaten up by Trayvon Martin,” Sheaffer said.
The injury to Martin’s knuckle also fits with Zimmerman's story that before he shot and killed Martin, Martin had broken his nose and knocked him to the ground, slamming his head on the sidewalk.
But Sheaffer said there could be another explanation for Martin's knuckle injury.
“It could be consistent with Trayvon either trying to get away or defend himself,” Sheaffer said.

In other words, people are still 're-constructing' the events on the basis of a drip-drip of edited comments so that the whole truth is not known. I understand the frustration and drive going on, but every time I read this thread I find the same 'facts' have more than one meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmyDaly

The evidence says trayvon was on top of him beating his ass. Zimmerman says he pulled the gun when treyvon saw it and went for it. At that point, I don't see fleeing as an option. If it is true that trayvon attacked zimmerman from behind, beat his ass and went for his gun, I prolly would of used the gun as well.

---

Riddle me this because I am baffled by your statement. Why did Zimmerman go after Tray when he was told not to engage the Teen? If Zimmerman would not have gone after Tray because it's evident that Tray ran away Zimmerman said that himself on the phone call he made to 911. Didn't Zimmerman have a chance now to not proceed? Fleeing is not an option you say but dam I am confused didn't Zimmerman by the evidence put himself in that predicament? If I was Tray I would of kicked his ass too, you don't follow me and ask me WHAT AM I DOING HERE? WTF type of approach is that? Zimmerman is a liar Tray didn't reach for his gun. He used that as an excuse.

Thank you, see how dudes is, they wanna tell one side of the story then get their asses caught out there, see. Dudes are so hell bend for Zimmerman they wanna paint a one way picture. Again, phone records show Zimmerman went after Tray, if you go after someone that means you are the predator, how the fuck can Zimmerman use self defense when he ran towards and made the dam problem? Only one that could use self defense is Trayvon, there's phone records to his girl that they can hear and Zimmerman himself getting out of his SUV and following him and knocking on a neighbors door.

The SUV was outside of that walking lane from where Trayvon was found dead, 100's of feet away from the SUV as I showed the Map. How the fuck did they end up inside and around that bend into a scuffle when the SUV was parked out of that? Because Trayvon ran as phone records show and Zimmerman ran after him as records show, he can't use self defense!!! That's why the DA gave him 2nd murder!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

From the link you provided but the quote you chose not to paste into your post:

When you compare Trayvon’s non-fatal injury with Zimmerman's bloody head wounds, the autopsy evidence is better for the defense, Sheaffer said.
“It goes along with Zimmerman's story that he acted in self-defense, because he was getting beaten up by Trayvon Martin,” Sheaffer said.
The injury to Martin’s knuckle also fits with Zimmerman's story that before he shot and killed Martin, Martin had broken his nose and knocked him to the ground, slamming his head on the sidewalk.
But Sheaffer said there could be another explanation for Martin's knuckle injury.
“It could be consistent with Trayvon either trying to get away or defend himself,” Sheaffer said.

In other words, people are still 're-constructing' the events on the basis of a drip-drip of edited comments so that the whole truth is not known. I understand the frustration and drive going on, but every time I read this thread I find the same 'facts' have more than one meaning.

---

If you're armed and you go stalking someone against the wishes of the police and it goes sour, it's on you. I don't care if the kid was cowering in a corner or if he was beating you to a pulp with his bare seventeen year old untrained fists. You shoot and kill an unarmed kid under those circumstances it's manslaughter at the very least. Nevertheless my guess is Zimmerman walks (Florida is not a place where you can count on justice prevailing...indeed you can safely bet against it), but at least Zimmerman has to face a judge and a jury.

That would be fucked up if he walks. that will put in others heads "HEY I CAN USE SYG LAW AND GET OFF LIKE ZIMMERMAN" That shit is crazy and whenever a case comes up like that they will use Zimmerman's case as a site case. I am hoping he goes to jail. Because he would probably end up killing someone again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

If you're armed and you go stalking someone against the wishes of the police and it goes sour, it's on you. I don't care if the kid was cowering in a corner or if he was beating you to a pulp with his bare seventeen year old untrained fists. You shoot and kill an unarmed kid under those circumstances it's manslaughter at the very least. Nevertheless my guess is Zimmerman walks (Florida is not a place where you can count on justice prevailing...indeed you can safely bet against it), but at least Zimmerman has to face a judge and a jury.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamesedwards

Riddle me this because I am baffled by your statement. Why did Zimmerman go after Tray when he was told not to engage the Teen? If Zimmerman would not have gone after Tray because it's evident that Tray ran away Zimmerman said that himself on the phone call he made to 911. Didn't Zimmerman have a chance now to not proceed? Fleeing is not an option you say but dam I am confused didn't Zimmerman by the evidence put himself in that predicament? If I was Tray I would of kicked his ass too, you don't follow me and ask me WHAT AM I DOING HERE? WTF type of approach is that? Zimmerman is a liar Tray didn't reach for his gun. He used that as an excuse.

---

You are getting very emotional about this, which is exactly what leads to people looking over the facts here. I will reply anyways even though it won't make any difference.

1) "Why did Zimmerman go after Tray when he was told not to engage the Teen?"

-There is no evidence that zimmerman "went after" the 6 foot 1 tall 17 year old man. He observed him and reported him to the police, which I don't see anything wrong with. He was never told not to do anything by anybody. If you listen to the 911 call, the operator tells him
"we don't need you to do that". No orders are given. Even though, Zimmerman says "ok". After that, you hear him saying "wheres my car" and you don't hear any chasing going on.


2)"If Zimmerman would not have gone after Tray because it's evident that Tray ran away Zimmerman said that himself on the phone call he made to 911. Didn't Zimmerman have a chance now to not proceed?"

-Yes, he did say that trayvon ran away. Then he asked the 911 operator if he should follow him. That is when she said "We dont need you to". Then he says ok. and like I said before, you hear him saying "wheres my car" after that as well.

3)"Fleeing is not an option you say but dam I am confused didn't Zimmerman by the evidence put himself in that predicament? If I was Tray I would of kicked his ass too, you don't follow me and ask me WHAT AM I DOING HERE?"

-I don't think he planned on trayvon turning around and coming back at him and starting a fight with him on his way to his car. Your mindset is exactly what got him killed. There is nothing wrong with reporting suspicious activity to the police. We are encouraged to do it all the time. I've done it and I am guessing if i did it to someone who didn't want me calling the cops on them, they might try and fight me as well. That doesn't make me the bad person.

4)"Zimmerman is a liar Tray didn't reach for his gun. He used that as an excuse. "

-Well, it seems like there is evidence to back up almost everything else he has said. Even if trayvon didn't reach for his gun, there is still evidence that he started the fight and sustained not a single injury other than his gun shot wound and the wounds to his hands that he sustained after punching zimmerman. I am guessing you think all the evidence is fake though as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamesedwards

Because Trayvon ran as phone records show and Zimmerman ran after him as records show

---

I didn't know that. Can you post a link where I can see this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamesedwards

Both their faults? Nah don't agree.
Why I don't agree with you? ...
The blame is only on one person here and that's ZIMMERMAN!!!

---

http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...HeMadLando.jpg

I don't think you comprehend what I was saying.

That's ok. :cool:

I don't know if the full honest truth about the event that night will ever be established, if only because Zimmerman has so many enemies; if he walks, the outrage will continue, the debates about the 'facts' will persist with the monotony of Dallas 1963.

But maybe the core problem is that people have seen so many episodes of some cop show where the investigating police examine a crime scene and interview witnesses and suspects, that they forget that in real life -and it seems to happen in the UK as well as the US- in real life cases the police often fail to live up to expectations; they can't get the basics right on the night, so what hope is there of justice? Witnesses are not interviewed, photos are not taken, crime scenes are washed down, specimens arrive in the lab a week or two weeks after the event, and so on and so on.

Yet for justice to be done, the police are the first professionals who get involved; a court will be presented with the evidence they collect and the jury can only make a decision on that evidence. In so many cases crap lawyers, evidence that isn't submitted to court, and sloppy police work can convict innocent people, and let the guilty go free.

Yesterday in the UK a man was released from prison for a murder he could not have committed because he was somewhere else at the time, his rock solid alibi was never presented to court. Theoretically, had there been capital punishment here, he could have gone to the gallows. In Texas, as the NYT reported a few days ago, an innocent man was executed -he bore such a strong resemblance to the man who did commit the murder that they were called twins: but where was the dna evidence that separated one from the other? On such basic pieces of evidence that never gets missed in CSI or LA Law or NYPD Blue rest not just lives, but our faith in the concept of justice as something that is real and fair. This isn't TV, its real life. If it happened once or twice, fair enough, even cops can make mistakes. But I have been reading about sloppy police work for years, and it makes me wonder if its institutional incompetence, bored policeman investigating yet another shooting, or if the 'profile' of the people involved determines the outcome....

OH so now I don't comprehend what you were saying or said? Ok, got it!!! :dancing:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zulusierra

I don't think you comprehend what I was saying.

That's ok. :cool:

---

For me I wish Zimmerman wouldn't have gotten out of that car Trayvon may have been still alive.

I have many clippings of men that did over 15 years WRONGLY in prison, and have to get paid millions of dollars now because of what happened. It's crazy!!! DNA is getting them off. So in the US a lot of people shouldn't be behind bars.

Lawyers and this system lie also not all the time the truth prevails.

Cops lie, and steal and cheat too, I have first hand experience with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Yesterday in the UK a man was released from prison for a murder he could not have committed because he was somewhere else at the time, his rock solid alibi was never presented to court. Theoretically, had there been capital punishment here, he could have gone to the gallows. In Texas, as the NYT reported a few days ago, an innocent man was executed -he bore such a strong resemblance to the man who did commit the murder that they were called twins: but where was the dna evidence that separated one from the other? On such basic pieces of evidence that never gets missed in CSI or LA Law or NYPD Blue rest not just lives, but our faith in the concept of justice as something that is real and fair. This isn't TV, its real life. If it happened once or twice, fair enough, even cops can make mistakes. But I have been reading about sloppy police work for years, and it makes me wonder if its institutional incompetence, bored policeman investigating yet another shooting, or if the 'profile' of the people involved determines the outcome....

---

This is the Guardian article that Stavros may have been referring to. We have miscarriages of justice in the UK too. The difference is that if they are subsequently proven innocent we can release them into society. In Carlos LaLuna's case it was too late - he had already been judicially murdered by the state of Texas. It's well worth reading if you've never once paused to consider whether life imprisonment is preferable to the death penalty.

The wrong Carlos: how Texas sent an innocent man to his death

A few years ago, Antonin Scalia, one of the nine justices on the US supreme court, made a bold statement. There has not been, he said, "a single case – not one – in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred … the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops."

Scalia may have to eat his words. It is now clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit, and his name – Carlos DeLuna – is being shouted from the rooftops of the Columbia Human Rights Law Review. The august journal has cleared its entire spring edition, doubling its normal size to 436 pages, to carry an extraordinary investigation by a Columbia law school professor and his students.

The book sets out in precise and shocking detail how an innocent man was sent to his death on 8 December 1989, courtesy of the state of Texas. Los Tocayos Carlos: An Anatomy of a Wrongful Execution, is based on six years of intensive detective work by Professor James Liebman and 12 students.

Starting in 2004, they meticulously chased down every possible lead in the case, interviewing more than 100 witnesses, perusing about 900 pieces of source material and poring over crime scene photographs and legal documents that, when stacked, stand over 10ft high.

What they discovered stunned even Liebman, who, as an expert in America's use of capital punishment, was well versed in its flaws. "It was a house of cards. We found that everything that could go wrong did go wrong," he says.

Carlos DeLuna was arrested, aged 20, on 4 February 1983 for the brutal murder of a young woman, Wanda Lopez. She had been stabbed once through the left breast with an 8in lock-blade buck knife which had cut an artery causing her to bleed to death.

From the moment of his arrest until the day of his death by lethal injection six years later, DeLuna consistently protested he was innocent. He went further – he said that though he hadn't committed the murder, he knew who had. He even named the culprit: a notoriously violent criminal called Carlos Hernandez.
Carlos DeLuna: crime scene Police detective Escobedo, who headed the investigation, standing on evidence at the crime scene. Within two hours, the Shamrock had been cleaned up. Photograph: Corpus Christi police department

The two Carloses were not just namesakes – or tocayos in Spanish, as referenced in the title of the Columbia book. They were the same height and weight, and looked so alike that they were sometimes mistaken for twins. When Carlos Hernandez's lawyer saw pictures of the two men, he confused one for the other, as did DeLuna's sister Rose.

At his 1983 trial, Carlos DeLuna told the jury that on the day of the murder he'd run into Hernandez, who he'd known for the previous five years. The two men, who both lived in the southern Texas town of Corpus Christi, stopped off at a bar. Hernandez went over to a gas station, the Shamrock, to buy something, and when he didn't return DeLuna went over to see what was going on.

DeLuna told the jury that he saw Hernandez inside the Shamrock wrestling with a woman behind the counter. DeLuna said he was afraid and started to run. He had his own police record for sexual assault – though he had never been known to possess or use a weapon – and he feared getting into trouble again.

"I just kept running because I was scared, you know." When he heard the sirens of police cars screeching towards the gas station he panicked and hid under a pick-up truck where, 40 minutes after the killing, he was arrested.

At the trial, DeLuna's defence team told the jury that Carlos Hernandez, not DeLuna, was the murderer. But the prosecutors ridiculed that suggestion. They told the jury that police had looked for a "Carlos Hernandez" after his name had been passed to them by DeLuna's lawyers, without success. They had concluded that Hernandez was a fabrication, a "phantom" who simply did not exist. The chief prosecutor said in summing up that Hernandez was a "figment of DeLuna's imagination".

Four years after DeLuna was executed, Liebman decided to look into the DeLuna case as part of a project he was undertaking into the fallibility of the death penalty. He asked a private investigator to spend one day – just one day – looking for signs of the elusive Carlos Hernandez.

By the end of that single day the investigator had uncovered evidence that had eluded scores of Texan police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges over the six years between DeLuna's arrest and execution. Carlos Hernandez did indeed exist.

Liebman's investigator tracked down within a few hours a woman who was related to both the Carloses. She supplied Hernandez's date of birth, which in turn allowed the unlocking of Hernandez's criminal past as the case rapidly unravelled.

With the help of his students, Liebman began to piece together a profile of Hernandez. He was an alcoholic with a history of violence, who was always in the company of his trusted companion: a lock-blade buck knife.

Over the years he was arrested 39 times, 13 of them for carrying a knife, and spent his entire adult life on parole. Yet he was almost never put in prison for his crimes – a disparity that Liebman believes was because he was used as a police informant. "Its hard to understand what happened without that piece of the puzzle," Liebman says.

Several of the crimes that Hernandez committed involved hold-ups of Corpus Christi gas stations. Just a few days before the Shamrock murder he was found cowering outside a nearby 7-Eleven wielding a knife – a detail never disclosed to DeLuna's defence.

He also had a history of violence towards women. He was twice arrested on suspicion of the 1979 murder of a woman called Dahlia Sauceda, who was stabbed and then had an "X" carved into her back. The first arrest was made four years before DeLuna's trial and the second while DeLuna was on death row, yet the connection between this Hernandez and the "phantom" presented to DeLuna's jury was never made.

In October 1989, just two months before DeLuna was executed, Hernandez was setenced to 10 years' imprisonment for attempting to kill with a knife another woman called Dina Ybanez. Even then, no one thought to alert the courts or Texas state as it prepared to put DeLuna to death.

Hernandez himself frequently told people that he was a knife murderer. He made numerous confessions to having killed Wanda Lopez, the crime for which DeLuna was executed, joking with friends and relatives that his "tocayo" had taken the fall. His admissions were so widely broadcast that even Corpus Christi police detectives came to hear about them within weeks of the incident at the Shamrock gas station.

Yet this was the same Carlos Hernandez who prosecutors told the jury did not exist. This was the figment of Carlos DeLuna's imagination.
Carlos DeLuna mugshot Carlos DeLuna: Photograph: Corpus Christi police department

Many other glaring discrepancies also stand out in the DeLuna case. He was put on death row largely on the eyewitness testimony of one man, Kevan Baker, who had seen the fight inside the Shamrock and watched the attacker flee the scene.

Yet when Baker was interviewed 20 years later, he said that he hadn't been that sure about the identification as he had trouble telling one Hispanic person apart from another.

Then there was the crime-scene investigation. Detectives failed to carry out or bungled basic forensic procedures that might have revealed information about the killer. No blood samples were collected and tested for the culprit's blood type.

Fingerprinting was so badly handled that no useable fingerprints were taken. None of the items found on the floor of the Shamrock – a cigarette stub, chewing gum, a button, comb and beer cans – were forensically examined for saliva or blood.

There was no scraping of the victim's fingernails for traces of the attacker's skin. When Liebman and his students studied digitally enhanced copies of crime scene photographs, they were amazed to find the footprint from a man's shoe imprinted in a pool of Lopez's blood on the floor – yet no effort was made to measure it.

"There it was," says Liebman. "The murderer had left his calling card at the scene, but it was never used."

Even the murder weapon, the knife, was not properly examined, though it was covered in blood and flesh.

Other photographs show Lopez's blood splattered up to three feet high on the walls of the Shamrock counter. Yet when DeLuna's clothes and shoes were tested for traces of blood, not a single microscopic drop was found. The prosecution said it must have been washed away by the rain.

There appeared to have been an unseemly scramble to wrap up the crime scene. Less than two hours after the murder happened, the police chief in charge of the homicide investigation ordered all detectives to quit the Shamrock and allowed its owner to wash it down, sweeping away vital evidence that could have saved a man's life.

The exceptionally lax treatment of evidence continued even beyond the grave. When Liebman asked to see all the stored evidence in the case, so that he could subject it to the DNA testing that was not available to investigators in 1983, he was told that it had all disappeared.

Having lived and breathed this case for so many years, Liebman says the most shocking thing about it was its ordinariness. "This wasn't the trial of OJ Simpson. It was an obscure case, the kind that could involve anybody. Maybe those are the cases where miscarriages of justice happen, the routine everyday cases where nobody thinks enough about the victim, let alone the defendant."

The groundbreaking work that the Columbia law school has done comes at an important juncture for the death penalty in America. Connecticut last month became the fifth state in as many years to repeal the ultimate punishment and support for abolition is gathering steam.

In that context, Liebman hopes his exhaustive work will encourage Americans to think more deeply about what is done in their name. All the evidence the Columbia team has gathered on the DeLuna case has been placed on the internet with open public access.

"We've provided as complete a set of information as we can about a pretty average case, to let the public make its own judgment. I believe they will make the judgment that in this kind of case there's just too much risk."

As for the tocayos Carloses, Carlos Hernandez died of natural causes in a Texas prison in May 1999, having been jailed for assaulting a neighbour with a 9in knife.

Carlos DeLuna commented on his own ending in a television interview a couple of years before his execution. "Maybe one day the truth will come out," he said from behind reinforced glass. "I'm hoping it will. If I end up getting executed for this, I don't think it's right."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

he had already been judicially murdered by the state of Texas.

---

Texas has a long, sad history of executing folks on flimsy cases.

A lot of Texans actually seem somewhat proud of the fact that they lead the US in state-sponsored death.

IDK, maybe an old English style "outlaw" classification on individuals would make more sense in some limited applications?:shrug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zulusierra

Texas has a long, sad history of executing folks on flimsy cases.

A lot of Texans actually seem somewhat proud of the fact that they lead the US in state-sponsored death.

IDK, maybe an old English style "outlaw" classification on individuals would make more sense in some limited applications?:shrug

---

You're missing my central point, with respect. If a state murders one innocent person by mistake or as the result of a flawed or deliberately framed investigation, it invalidates, imho, the entire notion of the death penalty.

Any society that just shrugs its shoulders if the innocent die unjustly deserves our contempt.

Exactly!!!! that's the great point I saw. And the family should bankrupt the whole got dam state of Texas!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

You're missing my central point, with respect. If a state murders one innocent person by mistake or as the result of a flawed or deliberately framed investigation, it invalidates, imho, the entire notion of the death penalty.

Any society that just shrugs its shoulders if the innocent die unjustly deserves our contempt.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

You're missing my central point, with respect. If a state murders one innocent person by mistake or as the result of a flawed or deliberately framed investigation, it invalidates, imho, the entire notion of the death penalty.

Any society that just shrugs its shoulders if the innocent die unjustly deserves our contempt.

---

I am against all state sponsored killing of it's citizens. I do not see execution as a legitimate use of force by the government.

I'm not sure removing protection from an individual (as in labeling them a legal "outlaw") is the same, philosophically speaking.

I haven't given it a huge amount of thought, though. Just found it an interesting concept.

Wowwwwww!!!