# Zimmerman Trial..



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Have seen every minute of the trial so far.
He is charged with Murder in the 2nd Degree.

Do you think he is guilty of Murder 2?


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Not even close to guilty of 2nd degree murder. The charges were brought due to media induced hysteria and biased reporting. The more information that becomes available the clearer picture for self defense.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

I have no clue because I haven't been following the trial that closely, and I'm not familiar with Florida law and I haven't seen all the evidence. 

What I do know is the kid was doing nothing wrong, he was walking home, and George Zimmerman should never have had that gun. If he hadn't had the gun, he wouldn't have felt emboldened enough to follow the poor kid in the first place. 

I wish these idiotic Barney Fife wannabees would leave the policing to the police. If you want to belong to neighborhood watch, fine, but don't do what this yahoo did - please!

Now a kid is dead who shouldn't be dead. Such a stupid waste.

And Thomas I believe it's the grand jury that decides whether or not criminal charges can be sought in a criminal case. Perhaps something good will come out of this, maybe it will give others like Zimmerman pause and use their heads and think before they do something so stupid.


----------



## Kevin Cyr (Dec 28, 2012)

susan tuck said:


> I have no clue because I haven't been following the trial that closely, and I'm not familiar with Florida law and I haven't seen all the evidence.
> 
> What I do know is the kid was doing nothing wrong, he was walking home, and George Zimmerman should never have had that gun. If he hadn't had the gun, he wouldn't have felt emboldened enough to follow the poor kid in the first place.
> 
> ...


 
Has it been proven he was doing NOTHING WRONG?

Why shouldn't he had the gun?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Kevin Cyr said:


> Has it been proven he was doing NOTHING WRONG?
> 
> Why shouldn't he had the gun?


The kid was walking home from the store, talking to a friend on the phone, carrying skittles and a can of ice tea, while wearing a hoodie. I'm pretty sure that's not against the law.

What isn't known for sure is what happened after the idiot got out of his car and started following the kid. 

I contend that if George Zimmerman didn't have a gun, he never would have gotten out of his car and followed the kid. 

Apparently it's very common for neighborhood watch organization to stress to their volunteers they aren't supposed to approach suspects, they are simply to observe and report. George Zimmerman was legally allowed to carry a gun, but he was not an officer of the law, and should never have started following the kid. 

I don't know if it rises to the level of 2nd degree murder, but what I do know is if the jackass had shown some common sense and not started following the kid, the kid would be alive today.

One more thing: If George Zimmerman had been a cop, the public outcry would be even louder, because no GOOD cop would have gotten himself in the cluster **** George Zimmerman inserted himself into, and wouldn't have had to shoot and kill a kid walking home from the store carrying nothing but a phone, a bag of skittles and a can of ice tea.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

The "kid" attacked a person doing his civic duty as a neighborhood watch person. Zimmerman acted in self defense and the verdict will be (should be) not guilty.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> Have seen every minute of the trial so far.
> He is charged with Murder in the 2nd Degree.
> 
> Do you think he is guilty of Murder 2?


 What do you think Joby?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Don't get it twisted, I recognize people can be licensed to carry a gun, I'm not commenting on that. What I'm saying is being licensed to carry a gun doesn't make someone qualified to be a cop or do their job. Not by a long shot.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

susan tuck said:


> Don't get it twisted, I recognize people can be licensed to carry a gun, I'm not commenting on that. What I'm saying is being licensed to carry a gun doesn't make someone qualified to be a cop or do their job. Not by a long shot.


I tend to agree with you and I have not been really following it. I gather there was another witness who was a 13 year old who was not called who would have been in the boy's defense.

This would not have happened if Zimmerman had left the boy alone. I still have not heard any evidence of the boy doing anything wrong in this case other than being black. 

I think it is likely Zimmerman got beat up by Martin acting is self defense and probably out of fear of the larger heavier Zimmerman.


----------



## manny rose (Jun 3, 2010)

Kevin Cyr said:


> Has it been proven he was doing NOTHING WRONG?
> 
> Why shouldn't he had the gun?


It has been proven he was doing nothing WRONG!! Walking home is looking suspicous?....oh I forgot it was raining.....and 16yr old in Florida shouldnt walk in the rain? Im sure though as life goes he will pay for his actions someday...or maybe more often.lol but im sure he will walk....just dont see how anyone can justify getting beat up by a 16 yr old is enough reason to shoot and kill the kid. He was a grown man, with a gun, following around a 16 yr old boy about 10 houses from where he stayed at, approached the kid probably like a tough guy( I would assume being armed and feeling the need to chase someone down) and the young boy put the beats to him! He was ashamed of himself Im sure. Justice will not be served in this case. The trial was a JOKE.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

susan tuck said:


> .... the cluster **** George Zimmerman inserted himself into, and wouldn't have had to shoot and kill a kid walking home from the store carrying nothing but a phone, a bag of skittles and a can of ice tea.
> 
> .... Don't get it twisted, I recognize people can be licensed to carry a gun, I'm not commenting on that. What I'm saying is being licensed to carry a gun doesn't make someone qualified to be a cop or do their job. Not by a long shot.





Thomas Barriano said:


> .... doing his civic duty as a neighborhood watch person. ...



Wasn't he told, recorded on 911 tapes, not to follow the kid, but to stay where he was?

I readily admit I have not watched the trial, but only recaps (including the actual 911 tapes, which I've heard over and over) on news shows.


----------



## james mackey (Mar 28, 2009)

Isn't this the same as a political thread?


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

The jury will get all of the information and hear both sides of the case. Let's see what the jury says when they've heard all the evidence.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Well...if this poll is any indication then it's going to be a very long decision making process.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Wasn't he told, recorded on 911 tapes, not to follow the kid, but to stay where he was?
> 
> I readily admit I have not watched the trial, but only recaps (including the actual 911 tapes, which I've heard over and over) on news shows.


Yes, however...the person on the phone had no legal authority to tell Zimmerman that.

I think it was a stupid move to keep following Martin because, honestly, that was not really Zimmerman's job. Plus, what good could come out if it? However, there was nothing illegal about that.

The gray area is in what happened next. Did Zimmerman instigate the altercation (which would be illegal) or just follow Martin (which I might disagree with, yet is not illegal). Did Martin get upset with being followed (a natural response, and again not illegal), or did he get upset, jump Zimmerman, and then pummel Zimmerman, smashing his head into the ground repeatedly whilst saying he was going to kill him (which is illegal)? What if both said inflammatory things to each other and there is gray area who started the fight, and what if both felt in fear of their lives? At which point did whomever cross the legal line first?

Also, I have no problem with Zimmerman or anybody else being licensed to have a gun. My problem is training. I think we should get a lot more of it, and have pretty clearly defined boundaries for using guns. I also think we should as a nation try to not be dicks. I mean, if you have a gun, you should do everything within your power to deescalate things and NOT use it. At best, whatever happens the Martin family lost a member of their family and Zimmerman's life is still pretty F'd up for the foreseeable future, whether he ends up in jail or _only_ crippled by lawyer fees, a pretty negative stigma that might stick around a long while, and the knowledge he killed somebody who it turned out was unarmed and on his back home with no evidence he was doing anything wrong and certainly nothing worthy of being killed until the situation was escalated when Zimmerman could have backed off and waited for the police. He used his discretion, and even at best he still has a lot of baggage. Any possible merits to his action are probably negated by the fact he might spend the rest of his life in jail, a social pariah, or having to deal with the stressors of being on trial for 2nd degree murder. It hardly seems worth it to me. None of what I've heard or read indicates a murder conviction, however it is still a horrible situation.

-Cheers


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

No matter what, the prosecution hasn't come close to proving 2nd degree murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt.

ABC's Dan Abrams has it right

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/abcs-dan...erman-trial-i-dont-see-how-the-jury-convicts/


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

The gun never came into play until Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked. Had he stabbed Martin instead of shooting him make any difference to those that have a problem with his concealed carry of a gun?


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

I don't have an issue with the gun in general though I do wonder why he was allowed to have one given some history; I do have to wonder though if he instigated it........the family was stuck with the prosecutor from the state, correct?

George Zimmerman had previous arrests for violence. Not exactly a squeaky clean kid.

I imagine he will be found innocent as there is not enough there and the family will hire an attorney and there will be a civil case for damages.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> The gun never came into play until Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked. Had he stabbed Martin instead of shooting him make any difference to those that have a problem with his concealed carry of a gun?


Of course not. I don't have a problem with concealed carry permits. I have a problem with those people who do things they shouldn't just because having that gun makes them feel invincible. I would feel the exact same way if he had stabbed him to death. As I see it, having the gun made George Zimmerman think he could do things he clearly wasn't trained to do. (follow a kid who was running away on a dark and rainy night). Obviously George Zimmerman was frustrated as evidenced by his statement "these assholes always get away". He wanted to be a hero, and instead he is a big fat moronic zero, and Trayvon Martin, a teenager, who was doing nothing wrong, is dead.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

So Thomas, your going for a walk to the store to pick up some goodies, and some yahoo, stops his car, follows you. Gets out and confronts as if he were a police man. You're reaction I am sure is going to be show him some ID, be polite, and try to avoid the confrontation. And I am sure you would not view that as act of aggression on your personal freedoms. And I am sure if you tried to leave and he stopped you from leaving, you would just submit to his request. Especially since he after all has no real authority to do so. You see what I am getting at. GZ confrontation was an act of aggression. It's self defense when you are going about your buisness and someone tries to infringe on your personal freedoms and you defend yourself. Whether it be you try to escape their effort to detain you, or protect yourself from violence. But it's not Self Defense when you go around confronting people and bring a gun with you in case it goes south. especially when you are infringing their rights. 

I am telling you, if I am going to the store and some guy in a neighbor hood watch stops me, and I have done nothing wrong. I am going to tell him to piss off. and if he tries to stop me from leaving, whether it be actual hands on, or just impeding my forward progress. I will escalate my behavior till I secure my freedom to move about as I wish. And if Said man pulls a gun.... That's not self defense.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

kind of redundant but a better illustration of what I am saying

GZ packed a gun with him, not for self defense. He packed because he knew that he was about create a situation that was going to cause confrontation. This is called aggression. It's kind of why a helper wheres a sleeve....Not because he's minding his own buisness and dogs attack him. But because he knows he's about to do some shit that's going to make dogs wanna bite him. And just like why a helper wears a sleeve, GZ brought a gun to maintain the upper hand in a situation in which he was about to orchestrate. That's not defensive. That's a pre-planned offensive maneuver. Sometimes to refered as a pre-emptive tactic. 

Self-defense it to prevent others from infringing on your personal freedoms and life. Not so when you go and infringe upon others personal freedoms and rights, and when they get pissed about you can even the playing field.


----------



## manny rose (Jun 3, 2010)

James Downey said:


> So Thomas, your going for a walk to the store to pick up some goodies, and some yahoo, stops his car, follows you. Gets out and confronts as if he were a police man. You're reaction I am sure is going to be show him some ID, be polite, and try to avoid the confrontation. And I am sure you would not view that as act of aggression on your personal freedoms. And I am sure if you tried to leave and he stopped you from leaving, you would just submit to his request. Especially since he after all has no real authority to do so. You see what I am getting at. GZ confrontation was an act of aggression. It's self defense when you are going about your buisness and someone tries to infringe on your personal freedoms and you defend yourself. Whether it be you try to escape their effort to detain you, or protect yourself from violence. But it's not Self Defense when you go around confronting people and bring a gun with you in case it goes south. especially when you are infringing their rights.
> 
> I am telling you, if I am going to the store and some guy in a neighbor hood watch stops me, and I have done nothing wrong. I am going to tell him to piss off. and if he tries to stop me from leaving, whether it be actual hands on, or just impeding my forward progress. I will escalate my behavior till I secure my freedom to move about as I wish. And if Said man pulls a gun.... That's not self defense.


+100


----------



## jamie lind (Feb 19, 2009)

James Downey said:


> kind of redundant but a better illustration of what I am saying
> 
> GZ packed a gun with him, not for self defense. He packed because he knew that he was about create a situation that was going to cause confrontation. This is called aggression.


Kinda like the guy that got his rott shot?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

james mackey said:


> Isn't this the same as a political thread?


how is this political?


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

James,

Interesting scenario but that's not the way it happened.
The reason why I've lived 50 years longer then Trayvon is I don't go looking for trouble and I don't go pounding on people for no reason. Too bad the kid is dead but it wasn't 2nd degree murder or manslaughter...not beyond a reasonable doubt


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Christopher Smith said:


> What do you think Joby?


I think the jury will do whatever they do. And maybe wont even actually consider the evidence very much. In order to be found guilty of Murder 2, those jurors in my opinion will have approached this case with a strong presumtion of guilt, and will not make that ruling based on the case I have been watching.

The evidence presented by the prosecution does not dismiss any reasonable doubt, most of the State's witnesses, in my opinion did far more to help the defense than they did the State's case, it was a very interesting case put on, bizarre actually.

All in all the case presented in court by the prosecution was a disaster in my opinion, even for a lesser charge.

Murder 2 requires them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ had a depaved mind and killed with malice.

Manslaugther is a more realistic charge and the case for that is still very weak.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> James,
> 
> Interesting scenario but that's not the way it happened.
> The reason why I've lived 50 years longer then Trayvon is I don't go looking for trouble and I don't go pounding on people for no reason. Too bad the kid is dead but it wasn't 2nd degree murder or manslaughter...not beyond a reasonable doubt


Too bad George Zimmerman went looking for trouble. Trayvon was just trying to get home. 

1. GZ said "these assholes always get away". What do you suppose that meant? Sounds to me like GZ had his mind made up already.
2. GZ twice said the kid was running away. So if Trayvon was running away, GZ had no business following him.
3. GZ then got out of his car and went after Trayvon.
4. GZ NEVER IDENTIFIED HIMSELF.
5. For all you or anyone else knows, Trayvon thought GZ was trying to rob him or worse, so Trayvon most likely thought he was defending himself against an attacker.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> I don't have an issue with the gun in general though I do wonder why he was allowed to have one given some history;


what is the history that he has that would leave you seemingly surprised that he was allowed to have a gun?


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Susan,

That's not both sides of the story and that's not the story told to the jury. Not Guilty


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> what is the history that he has that would leave you seemingly surprised that he was allowed to have a gun?


Arrest Record for domestic violence, and resisting arrest and getting into a scuffle with police in the past. Perhaps it was long enough ago they did not think it relevant.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer?lite


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Susan,
> 
> That's not both sides of the story and that's not the story told to the jury. Not Guilty


I already said he would most likely get off, not guilty. Doesn't make what Zimmerman did right, not by a long shot. Zimmerman went looking for trouble, and had his gun. There is no other "side". I don't care if there had been burglaries in the neighborhood, that's no excuse for what George Zimmerman did. Trayvon Martin did NOTHING wrong. He was just a kid trying to walk home from the store. 

Here's written transcript of Zimmermans call:http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/alternatetranscript.pdf


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> I already said he would most likely get off, not guilty. Doesn't make what Zimmerman did right, not by a long shot. Zimmerman went looking for trouble, and had his gun. There is no other "side". I don't care if there had been burglaries in the neighborhood, that's no excuse for what George Zimmerman did. Trayvon Martin did NOTHING wrong. He was just a kid trying to walk home from the store.
> 
> Here's written transcript of Zimmermans call:http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/alternatetranscript.pdf


what am I missing in the 911 call? that I should reading or hearing that implies that he did anything wrong?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Too bad George Zimmerman couldn't have simply followed the rules:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...1_zimmerman-community-ties-neighborhood-watch

"...Chris Tutko, director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association, said Zimmerman broke some cardinal rules.

First, he approached a stranger he suspected of wrongdoing.

"If you see something suspicious, you report it, you step aside and you let law enforcement do their job," Tutko said. "This guy went way beyond the call of duty. At the least, he's overzealous."

Second, Zimmerman carried a handgun. Police departments and sheriff's offices that train volunteers advise them never to carry weapons — though Zimmerman broke no laws by doing so because he has a concealed-weapons permit...."

"There's no reason to carry a gun," Tutko said.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> Arrest Record for domestic violence, and resisting arrest and getting into a scuffle with police in the past. Perhaps it was long enough ago they did not think it relevant.
> 
> http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer?lite


So "pushing an officer" and "resisting arrest" while drinking underage 7 years prior, resulting ultimately in a misdemeanor charge, that was tabled upon completion of an alchohol program, and CIVIL "allegations" of domestic abuse for the purpose of obtaining a restraining order against him by his ex-fiance that resulted in a mutual restraining order placed against her, that resulted in NO criminal charges, you belive is a standard for denying someone the ability to carry a firearm?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Susan, it is quite surprising reading your take on this case, when comparing it to your reaction to the thread about that Rottweiler being shot.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> what am I missing in the 911 call? that I should reading or hearing that implies that he did anything wrong?


1. Trayvon was not doing anything suspicious in the first place, He was walking where he was allowed to be walking, he had a right to be there. GZ said "he's just walking around looking about".....seriously???? The kid was walking home from the store, and George Zimmerman instead of seeing horses when he heard hoofbeats saw zebras.

2. Obviously GZ had already made up his mind that Trayvon was guilty of something: *"These assholes, they always get away. Yep" * If that doesn't give you a clue into his belligerent mindset, nothing will. 

2. Twice he says that Trayvon is running away. He had no reason to get out of his car at that point. Neighborhood Watch volunteers are NOT supposed to follow people. 

Beyond the 911 call, he NEVER IDENTIFIED HIMSELF to Trayvon. That's crucial to me. When I was a teenager, I sure as HELL would have done everything I could to protect myself from some weirdo stranger chasing me in the dark and in the rain, including defending myself if I thought I couldn't get away.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> Susan, it is quite surprising reading your take on this case, when comparing it to your reaction to the thread about that Rottweiler being shot.


Nothing similar between the two, Joby. This is a child who was doing nothing wrong and was killed. It's a crying shame. You asked if we thought he would be found guilty or not, I think he will probably be found not guilty.

Most of the rest of my comments are restricted to how I think it's a damn shame this kid got killed basically for walking home at night, and why I wish GZ hadn't carried that gun because had he not had the gun, he never would have gotten out of the car, which he never should have done, and we wouldn't be talking about this case because Trayvon would be alive.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Hardly a child and I wonder why you keep referring to him as Trayvon (like you know him?) and GZ or Zimmerman an obvious attempt to dehumanize George Zimmerman.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Hardly a child and I wonder why you keep referring to him as Trayvon (like you know him?) and GZ or Zimmerman an obvious attempt to dehumanize George Zimmerman.


Oh Bullshit Thomas. 

Trayvon most certainly was a child. He had just turned 17 when he was killed. The definition of child, whether you like it or not, is "A young human being below the age of full physical development or below the legal age of majority".

I have used both people's first and last names in various posts on this thread. I started using "GZ" after I saw James refer to him as GZ because it's easier, simple mathematics: Trayvon has 6 letters, George Zimmerman has 15 letters.


----------



## jamie lind (Feb 19, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> Oh Bullshit Thomas.
> 
> Trayvon most certainly was a child. He had just turned 17 when he was killed. The definition of child, whether you like it or not, is "A young human being below the age of full physical development or below the legal age of majority".
> 
> I have used both people's first and last names in various posts on this thread. I started using "GZ" after I saw James refer to him as GZ because it's easier, simple mathematics: Trayvon has 6 letters, George Zimmerman has 15 letters.


Trayvon has 7 letters George has 6


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> 1. Trayvon was not doing anything suspicious in the first place, He was walking where he was allowed to be walking, he had a right to be there. GZ said "he's just walking around looking about".....seriously???? The kid was walking home from the store, and George Zimmerman instead of seeing horses when he heard hoofbeats saw zebras.
> 
> 2. Obviously GZ had already made up his mind that Trayvon was guilty of something: *"These assholes, they always get away. Yep" * If that doesn't give you a clue into his belligerent mindset, nothing will.
> 
> ...


1.
Trayvon was not going HOME, he did not live there, he was staying at that place because he was suspended from school.

He was out in the rain in the dark, which is not a crime, but will draw the attention of people for sure, neighborhood watch especially. It is not an oddity that criminals operate in darkness in the rain.

Based on what I have seen it is quite possible that GZ was following TM at a reasonable distance to attempt to see where he was going, and his claim is that he was attacked while attempting to go back to his vehicle.

I dont know what the laws are where you are at, but watching someone from a distance, or even attempting to talk to them is not a crime where I live, and does not justify someone getting physically attacked.

2. "These assholes always get away"... to me is showing frustration in the fact that previous burglaries were commited, without the suspects being caught.

3. To me running away would illicit someone to be more suspicious.

There is no law against trying to keep an eye on someone you might feel is suspicious, while calling the police. I agree, not the smartest thing to do for sure, as it puts you in a more vulnerable position to possibly be attacked by a criminal. But certainly not a reason to be attacked by a person, who is doing nothing wrong.

I have an issue with the word Child being used in this case, 17 to me is not a child. Prisons accross the country have an astonishing population of "children" under the age of 18 that have commited very distrubing violent crimes. 

I lived in some pretty bad areas in Chicago and in South Bend IN, the "kids" were the ones you needed to worry about, as they were the ones commiting most of the assualts, robberies and murders, they are far more reckless and violent than most adults.

I am not saying that I think GZ was smart, or that this whole incident in not a tradgedy, but I also do not think that GZ was following TM to assault him, or attempt to corner him in anyway. 

TM although doing nothing really wrong, also I believe had the opportunity to go to the house he was staying at, but chose instead to confront GZ, I also believe he did not attempt to talk to him, which could have cleared up a lot of things. 

I was detained by an over zealous dude last year. I pulled over to use my cell phone in a bad cell reception area at night, in the rain, and talked on my phone for about 5 minutes, turns out I pulled over at the edge of a driveway of a farm owend by an 80 year old man, that had been burglarized multiple times within a month or so of that day.

I then pulled back on the road, drove the 1/2 block to my friends property, got out of the car to open the gate on his property, once I opened the gate and turned around, I was confronted by a fairly large dude, right behind me, within a couple feet of me, out of no where...He was very hostile towards me, far more hostile that GZ was I would bet on for sure. Dude was asking me what the hell I was doing around the area, why was I on the Horton's farm property and pretty much scared the crap out of me, I explained what I was doing, who I was in the area to see, and the guy followed me onto the property to verify with my friend that I was indeed visiting him. 

Not once did I ever think to try to provoke or attack the guy, who I now see quite often and we laugh about it, although it was quite unnerving when it happened. That dude WAS going to detain me until the police came, (he was about to call them), that much is certain. He was angry and intimidating, and I was pretty scared actually. Guy sure was taking protecting the neighbors property very seriously. Which is a good thing, to me, since my best friend is now a good friend of his, and that guy is a guy you can count on to help out if you need help, even if he does some stupid things that might scare or piss some people off once in a while.

IF things went differently I could have shot that guy, and he could have shot me. He has LOTS of guns. Initially I was pretty scared, then was really pissed off for a while, but never did I think to attack the guy, and since he never even touched me or assaulted me, I did not feel that I needed to "defend myself", even though he snuck up on me in the dark and the rain, and was interrogating me, when I did nothing wrong.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> 1.
> Trayvon was not going HOME, he did not live there, he was staying at that place because he was suspended from school.
> 
> He was out in the rain in the dark, which is not a crime, but will draw the attention of people for sure, neighborhood watch especially. It is not an oddity that criminals operate in darkness in the rain.
> ...


Neighborhood Watch volunteers aren't supposed to chase people, follow people around, they are just supposed to report suspicious people - that's IT. Leave the police work to the police.

Sounds to me like no matter what Trayvon would have done you would find fault with it. He's suspicious from running away from an adult that he doesn't know who's following him, then he's at fault because he defended himself against an adult by whom he felt threatened. 

Trayvon's father lived there so it most definitely was his home while he was living with his father, he had every right to be there. The fact that he was suspended from school doesn't have a goddamn thing in the world to do with this, except for people who are looking for ways to somehow blame the victim.

You have no clue whether or not Trayvon felt cornered by GZ, you have no clue how hostile GZ was towards Trayvon, or even how hostile Trayvon perceived GZ to be. What we DO KNOW is the kid already tried to run away from the situation, and GZ got out of his car and followed him, which he SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE BECAUSE TRAYVON WASN'T DOING ANYTHING WRONG.

Your situation has not one thing do with what happened between GZ and Trayvon. YOU Joby, are an adult, Trayvon was NOT. The house you were parked on private property in a house belonging to the guy who confronted you. Trayvon was NOT on private property, he was in a common area, where he was allowed to be there because he lived there with his father. The guy ASKED you what you were doing on the property OH and he TOLD you he was the old mans son. Gee would have been nice if GZ had JUST ONCE announced what the **** he was following Trayvon for -maybe if he had just told Trayvon WTF he was doing following him, Trayvon would be alive today.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

jamie lind said:


> Trayvon has 7 letters George has 6


Oh there you go, you got me, the jig is up. Thomas you are so smart, you saw through my evil ways and figured out I occasionally use Trayvon and GZ in an attempt to make everyone think Trayvon is innocent and GZ is the devil because everyone knows referring to someone by their initials is what you do when you want to make people think someone is the devil incarnate. Yeah sure that's it.

:lol::lol::lol:
Good god.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> Too bad George Zimmerman went looking for trouble. Trayvon was just trying to get home.


What evidence to you have that Zimmerman was "looking for trouble?" Your first point speaks to frustration over the recent crimes, robberies if I recall correctly, where nobody was arrested. It does not prove he was out to start something.

Your second and third point, I agree. However, those are not laws being broken and not really proving that he was looking for trouble. All I can say it I would have reacted differently.

On your fourth point, in real-time I'm not sure how it played out exactly when they were close enough to engage or what was actually said.

Your fifth point is only relevant if Zimmerman actually instigated something, or Zimmerman is lying. As stated by Zimmerman, who kind of has the wounds backing his story up, the altercation started when Martin jumped him and then started using what would easily be classified as lethal force by repeatedly smashing his head into the ground. If evidence turns up showing Martin stood his ground and Zimmerman started the altercation we are having a whole different conversation. Yet, if Martin attacked Zimmerman for following/chasing him and nothing more, then at the point Martin starts beating Zimmerman up he becomes in the wrong. To legally defend yourself, the other person has to actually do something. At this point, there is nothing but speculation that Martin thought he was defending himself. I could just as easily speculate he was angry and acting out of blind rage. I have no proof of that, nor any other motive, so it would likely not hold much water.



susan tuck said:


> I already said he would most likely get off, not guilty. Doesn't make what Zimmerman did right, not by a long shot. Zimmerman went looking for trouble, and had his gun. There is no other "side".


There is a difference between Zimmerman doing the "right thing" and being guilty of 2nd Degree Murder. Again, I would argue there is no clear evidence Zimmerman went looking for trouble. He is a licensed concealed-weapon carrier, why wouldn't he have his gun? And legally, if the story played out as Zimmerman said, he really did nothing wrong. I think chasing Martin was a poor decision, maybe even against whatever neighborhood watch rules are in place. As far as I have ever heard, it is not illegal though. I think it is horrible that Martin died. Nobody would like to be in the position his parents are in. However, if he assaulted Zimmerman for being chased, and to the extent he did, then Martin escalated the situation and shares some responsibility. Nothing Zimmerman did up until that point warranted that reaction, at least as far as the testimonies I have heard indicate. Nothing Martin did that night warranted his shooting death. The caveat to that is, once he had Zimmerman in a position where he thought his life was in danger, if we (or more importantly, the members of the jury) believe Zimmerman's story, it becomes a case of self-defense. It is still an ugly, tragic story, however if it went down as Zimmerman says it did the law should be on his side in this case.

-Cheers


----------



## jamie lind (Feb 19, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> Oh there you go, you got me, the jig is up. Thomas you are so smart, you saw through my evil ways and figured out I occasionally use Trayvon and GZ in an attempt to make everyone think Trayvon is innocent and GZ is the devil because everyone knows referring to someone by their initials is what you do when you want to make people think someone is the devil incarnate. Yeah sure that's it.
> 
> :lol::lol::lol:
> Good god.


Please don't call me Thomas. I was just helping you with the math.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

James Downey said:


> kind of redundant but a better illustration of what I am saying
> 
> GZ packed a gun with him, not for self defense. He packed because he knew that he was about create a situation that was going to cause confrontation. This is called aggression.


The problem with that is, you have to prove that. If Zimmerman was a licensed concealed-weapon carrier, he probably carried all the time. If he was doing neighborhood watch at night in an area prone to burglaries, why would he NOT be carrying just as a safeguard? You can say it was a pre-planned offensive maneuver, however you sort of have to prove that.



> Self-defense it to prevent others from infringing on your personal freedoms and life. Not so when you go and infringe upon others personal freedoms and rights, and when they get pissed about you can even the playing field.


That is a valid point, however it is not really what happened in this case.



> I am telling you, if I am going to the store and some guy in a neighbor hood watch stops me, and I have done nothing wrong. I am going to tell him to piss off. and if he tries to stop me from leaving, whether it be actual hands on, or just impeding my forward progress. I will escalate my behavior till I secure my freedom to move about as I wish. And if Said man pulls a gun.... That's not self defense.


In that scenario, you can I am going to tell him to piss off or whatever. If he puts his hands on you and you react in-kind, you are within your rights. If he impedes your forward progress you have rights there as well. However, if you "escalate [your] behavior till [you] secure my freedom to move about as I wish," what does that mean? Also, is that necessarily smart? If you lay your hands on him first, I believe you are technically and legally the one who starts the fight and he can react in self-defense. Pertinent to this case, if we believe Zimmerman, Martin was the one who first instigated the attack. Moreover, he knocked him down, beat him up, and starting slamming the back of his head into the ground until Zimmerman felt faint and then drew his weapon and fired. That is Martin breaking the law and Zimmerman legally acting in self-defense.

-Cheers


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I find this thread truly amazing. For some odd reason I can't get "Jim Crow" out of my mind--especially, the oh my god he's walking in the rain, in the DARK.

Enlightening. Back to dog training

T


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> I have an issue with the word Child being used in this case, 17 to me is not a child. Prisons accross the country have an astonishing population of "children" under the age of 18 that have commited very distrubing violent crimes.


You don't want to call him a child, good for you, don't. To me, a 17 year old is still a child, so that's what I call him, a child. Children as young as 13 have been tried and convicted for violent crimes, doesn't change the fact that they are still children.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

David Ruby said:


> What evidence to you have that Zimmerman was "looking for trouble?" Your first point speaks to frustration over the recent crimes, robberies if I recall correctly, where nobody was arrested. It does not prove he was out to start something.
> 
> Your second and third point, I agree. However, those are not laws being broken and not really proving that he was looking for trouble. All I can say it I would have reacted differently.
> 
> ...


1. The detective who interviewed Zimmerman reported that Zimmerman did not identify himself.

He had a bloody nose and a couple little scrapes on the back of his head, hardly "a bashing". We don't KNOW what Zimmerman did or what Martin was thinking or who started what. All we know is Martin got the upper hand and Zimmerman shot him. How it got to that point is not known, we only have the word of Zimmerman. There is no evidence either way.

I have said OVER AND OVER that I don't think he will be found guilty of 2nd degree murder. I don't think it rises to the level of 2nd degree murder. 

I never said I thought Zimmerman was doing anything illegal by chasing the kid. What I said was that he shouldn't have chased the kid, I think think he showed piss poor judgement, I think he had it in his mind that Trayvon was up to no good, and he wasn't going to let him get away. 

WHAT I THINK IS THE GUY NEVER WOULD HAVE GOTTEN OUT OF HIS CAR IF HE DIDN'T HAVE A GUN WITH HIM, IF HE HADN'T GOTTEN OUT OF THE CAR, NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

SINCE HE HAD THE GUN, WHAT I WISH IS THAT HE HAD SHOWN RESTRAINT AND BEEN SMART AND STAYED IN HIS CAR, LET THE POLICE HANDLE IT.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> 1. The detective who interviewed Zimmerman reported that Zimmerman did not identify himself.


I am not disputing that. I am asking, how does that prove Zimmerman was looking for trouble?



> He had a bloody nose and a couple little scrapes on the back of his head, hardly "a bashing". We don't KNOW what Zimmerman did or what Martin was thinking or who started what. All we know is Martin got the upper hand and Zimmerman shot him. How it got to that point is not known, we only have the word of Zimmerman. There is no evidence either way.


Fair enough. Look at it from Zimmerman's perspective, all rhetoric aside. A lot of this is predicated on Zimmerman not being the one to start the fight. You have a large, angry, physically aggressive young man, legally a child or otherwise, who is on top of you, punching you and yes smashing the back of your head into the ground with some force, allegedly saying he is going to kill you. At that point, how difficult is it to believe his next actions were done out of self-defense?



> I have said OVER AND OVER that I don't think he will be found guilty of 2nd degree murder. I don't think it rises to the level of 2nd degree murder.
> 
> I never said I thought Zimmerman was doing anything illegal by chasing the kid. What I said was that he shouldn't have chased the kid, I think think he showed piss poor judgement, I think he had it in his mind that Trayvon was up to no good, and he wasn't going to let him get away.


I know. I read them all.  However, you clearly think he was in the wrong (and yes, I've read all your posts so I get your points on why).

A bit of an aside. Legally speaking, what do you think he _is_ guilty of, if anything?



> WHAT I THINK IS THE GUY NEVER WOULD HAVE GOTTEN OUT OF HIS CAR IF HE DIDN'T HAVE A GUN WITH HIM, IF HE HADN'T GOTTEN OUT OF THE CAR, NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.
> 
> SINCE HE HAD THE GUN, WHAT I WISH IS THAT HE HAD SHOWN RESTRAINT AND BEEN SMART AND STAYED IN HIS CAR, LET THE POLICE HANDLE IT.


I wish Zimmerman had shown greater restraint and that Martin had made it safe and sound back home as well. I wish Martin had shown greater restraint as well. Moreover, I think better training and a mindset to deescalate things would have made this story have a better result.

The gray area is, perhaps even outside of this case (especially if you just think he should have listened to the police respondent), as a neighborhood watch what _should_ he have done, or what should people in that position do in the future? Not that I expect any consensus, just wondering at what point does it go from civic duty to infringing people's rights, what responsibility (if any) there is on the part of citizens to answer to civilians acting in the neighborhood watch, and what rules we as a society can agree upon. Just musing at this point. However, some are saying Zimmerman's (or anybody's) responsibility should have ended when the police respondent told him to stand down, while others are saying there is no legal authority in that request and that it is the right of citizens to follow somebody they think is acting suspicious. If you have legitimate concerns that somebody is going to commit a crime or may be getting away with evidence, and believe that, I think there is some gray area between what constitutes a concerned citizen doing what is right and what constitutes overzealous vigilante justice.

-Cheers


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

David Ruby said:


> I am not disputing that. I am asking, how does that prove Zimmerman was looking for trouble?


I don't think it proves he was looking for trouble. I think it's an example of a major mistake made by Zimmerman. 



David Ruby said:


> Fair enough. Look at it from Zimmerman's perspective, all rhetoric aside. A lot of this is predicated on Zimmerman not being the one to start the fight. You have a large, angry, physically aggressive young man, legally a child or otherwise, who is on top of you, punching you and yes smashing the back of your head into the ground with some force, allegedly saying he is going to kill you. At that point, how difficult is it to believe his next actions were done out of self-defense?


I believe Zimmerman shot Martin in what Zimmerman believed to be self defense, and in Florida, it doesn't matter whether or not his life was ever actually in peril, it only matters what he believed.

I do think that unfortunately since Martin is dead, we only have one side of the story. We don't know exactly how the fight started, we don't really know what Martin said, or know if Martin felt cornered or if he was just angry. We know Martin had no idea Zimmerman had a gun. 

My whole point is that Zimmerman never should have followed Martin because he is not a trained police officer. I very much doubt a competent police officer would have found himself in the same predicament as Zimmerman ultimately put himself into. This is my point, Zimmerman displayed horrible judgement, which resulted in a kid being killed. It never should have happened.



David Ruby said:


> I know. I read them all.  However, you clearly think he was in the wrong (and yes, I've read all your posts so I get your points on why).





David Ruby said:


> A bit of an aside. Legally speaking, what do you think he _is_ guilty of, if anything?


I've no idea.




David Ruby said:


> I wish Zimmerman had shown greater restraint and that Martin had made it safe and sound back home as well. I wish Martin had shown greater restraint as well. Moreover, I think better training and a mindset to deescalate things would have made this story have a better result.
> 
> The gray area is, perhaps even outside of this case (especially if you just think he should have listened to the police respondent), as a neighborhood watch what _should_ he have done, or what should people in that position do in the future? Not that I expect any consensus, just wondering at what point does it go from civic duty to infringing people's rights, what responsibility (if any) there is on the part of citizens to answer to civilians acting in the neighborhood watch, and what rules we as a society can agree upon. Just musing at this point. However, some are saying Zimmerman's (or anybody's) responsibility should have ended when the police respondent told him to stand down, while others are saying there is no legal authority in that request and that it is the right of citizens to follow somebody they think is acting suspicious. If you have legitimate concerns that somebody is going to commit a crime or may be getting away with evidence, and believe that, I think there is some gray area between what constitutes a concerned citizen doing what is right and what constitutes overzealous vigilante justice.





David Ruby said:


> -Cheers


According to everything I have read, a Neighborhood Watch volunteer is only to *report* suspicious activity. It's not the volunteers job to worry about evidence or someone getting away. The reason is most likely because going beyond reporting moves into the realm of acting on the suspicion, which can then result in confrontation - exactly what happened here. Probably that's also the reason they are not only discouraged from carrying a gun, some NeighborHood Watch organizations require their volunteers acknowledge in writing they are not to carry a a gun. 

Discretion really is the better form of valor.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I find this thread truly amazing. For some odd reason I can't get "Jim Crow" out of my mind--especially, the oh my god he's walking in the rain, in the DARK.
> 
> Enlightening. Back to dog training
> 
> T




T we finally found something we can agree on. Too bad it has to be this.

It sicking to read some of this stuff. The over arching theme to this is it's the kids fault. He wore the wrong clothes. He got suspended from school. He starting running. He should not have gotten uppity when he was confronted. He should have known his place. Yes it's the kid's fault. 

I found this a few days ago and would love everyone to distribute this to all of the other one's that don't know their place or fail to live their lifes in a way that good and normal people live their lives. 
http://www.novaslim.com/2013/07/15-things-black-must-do-in-order-to-end-racism/


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Joby if 17 is not a child when does childhood end? Just a number is needed.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> 1. The detective who interviewed Zimmerman reported that Zimmerman did not identify himself.
> *
> That same detective stated that he believed George was telling the truth about what happened, in open court.
> *
> ...


*
I agree. This is a tragedy all the way around...
One other tragic thing is of course the media coverage, especially NBC doctoring the 911 tapes, and also George's picture, in an attempt to make him appear like a white racist dude, to stir the pot from a racial standpoint, which certainly worked very well. And further crazy promotion of racial components, and outlandish opinions flying all over cable TV attempting to make race an issue in this, when I doubt race had much to do with it at all.

The only 2 things that have been proven about race in this case is that George described TM as a black teenager to the police, after being asked what he looked like, and that TM told his friend on the phone that George was a "Creepy Ass Cracker" (he is hispanic) when she asked him what George looked like, and she immediately stated, from that description alone, that George was probably a Rapist...
*


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Christopher Smith said:


> T we finally found something we can agree on. Too bad it has to be this.
> 
> It sicking to read some of this stuff. The over arching theme to this is it's the kids fault. He wore the wrong clothes. He got suspended from school. He starting running. He should not have gotten uppity when he was confronted. He should have known his place. Yes it's the kid's fault.


Hello Christopher, I know I'm only one of many posting on this here (much less debating this nationwide). However, I would point out that is decidedly _not_ what I am saying. I do not care about his clothes, about the suspension, or him starting to run when a stranger followed him. I do not even care about the pictures of him smoking pot or flashing a Glock. Last I checked, those are not offenses punishable by death, and really had no bearing on the shooting.

What I _am_ saying is, if he was being followed and even chased, then escalated it by somehow knocking Zimmerman down, punching him in the face, and slamming his head into concrete, then yes, he shares some of the fault. At that point, he turned an overzealous chasing by the neighborhood watch into an incident of self-defense. Up until that point, I do not believe Martin did anything wrong. There is a huge difference between that and saying something like he should have known his place or that he did not belong there because he was Black, had a hoodie, or anything that would lead Terrasita to bring up Jim Crow laws. This was a confrontation between a Black American and a Hispanic American, so I'm not really sure Jim Crow mentality applies, strictly speaking.

-Cheers


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> Your situation has not one thing do with what happened between GZ and Trayvon. YOU Joby, are an adult, Trayvon was NOT. The house you were parked on private property in a house belonging to the guy who confronted you. Trayvon was NOT on private property, he was in a common area, where he was allowed to be there because he lived there with his father. The guy ASKED you what you were doing on the property OH and he TOLD you he was the old mans son. Gee would have been nice if GZ had JUST ONCE announced what the **** he was following Trayvon for -maybe if he had just told Trayvon WTF he was doing following him, Trayvon would be alive today.


Susan, if Trayvon was 18, 19, 20...the coverage and opinions would still be the same, his being a minor is just a little added fuel to be used to inflame a situation as much as possible. This case fits perfectly the fuel to inflame racial relations, and also the anti-gun movement.

If TM was named Timmy Martin, and he was a white kid, I hardly doubt this would be national news, we would not even be talking about it most likely, and certainly not to this extent, all it would have is the anti-gun component, not the racial component.

Aside from all of that.. I can see now why you have drawn some of the conclusions that you have.

You concluded several things from my little story of my incident. Aside from me being an adult, all of your conclusions were wrong. 

1. (maybe 2 erroneous conclusions). I was not parked on private property when I was making the phone call, I was pulled off on the shoulder of a road, near someones driveway, (I never even came close to implying that I was on his property)nor was I on private property when I was intially confronted, I was on a roadway easement, attempting to gain access to private property via a gate.

2. The house was not owned by the person that confronted me, it was owned by an 80 year old man. (I never even came close to implying this.)

3. The man never told me he was the old mans son. (I never even came close to implying this.)

4. The man that confronted me was NOT the old man's son. (I never even came close to implying this.)

5. The man that confronted me DID NOT live on the farm with the old man. (I never even came close to implying this.)

5-6 erroneous conclusions.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Christopher Smith said:


> Joby if 17 is not a child when does childhood end? Just a number is needed.


I get the point Chris, he is a minor. Even a 50 yr old man is someone's child.


----------



## Timothy Saunders (Mar 12, 2009)

The funny thing about this is people keep talking about what is or is not against the law. A kid is dead because an adult could follow simple instructions given by the authorities. The problem here is that only one is alive to tell his side of the story. Thus reminds me of the ending of a time to kill. The question I would ask those who say gz is right. Is that a good enough reason for your kid to be dead


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> Susan, if Trayvon was 18, 19, 20...the coverage and opinions would still be the same, his being a minor is just a little added fuel to be used to inflame a situation as much as possible. This case fits perfectly the fuel to inflame racial relations, and also the anti-gun movement.
> 
> If TM was named Timmy Martin, and he was a white kid, I hardly doubt this would be national news, we would not even be talking about it most likely, and certainly not to this extent, all it would have is the anti-gun component, not the racial component.
> 
> ...


Joby sorry I got your story wrong, but in my opinion, it has NOTHING to do with what we are discussing, and obfuscates the issue at hand, so I personally won't be addressing it again, either way. If someone else wants to comment on your story, or feel it somehow represents what happened to Trayvon, that's on them, more power to them.

His being a minor is a fact, it doesn't inflame anything at all. The fact is a young life was cut very short for no good reason.

You don't think people would be upset if it was a white, asian, latino, middle eastern, whatever kid who got shot and killed for no good reason???? I think you are waaaaaaaaaaaaay off. I don't care what color Trayvon was, what GZ did was wrong regardless, and it would have been news. 

As far as the anti gun crowd, WTF are you talking about? No one here has said a word that can be construed as anti gun. People on this thread have gone out of their way to say this is not a "gun" issue.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Timothy Saunders said:


> The funny thing about this is people keep talking about what is or is not against the law. A kid is dead because an adult could follow simple instructions given by the authorities. The problem here is that only one is alive to tell his side of the story. Thus reminds me of the ending of a time to kill. *The question I would ask those who say gz is right. Is that a good enough reason for your kid to be dead*




GOOD question.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> I get the point Chris, he is a minor. Even a 50 yr old man is someone's child.


What is relevant to me is the fact he did not _look_ like a child, although the media's portrayal of him used younger pictures, seemingly to portray a more innocent and childlike image of Martin. He was a big, capable looking young man. This comes into play if and when he is involved in (and particularly if he instigates) a physical altercation and is on top of somebody punching and slamming the head of somebody else into concrete.

On the other hand, he was technically & legally a minor and I get he was doing nothing wrong leading into the fight and the resultant shooting. That changes if he started the fight. _IF_ it played out as Zimmerman said, both sides are at fault for escalating things and Martin is at fault legally for jumping Zimmerman and using what amounts to potentially lethal force. Under different circumstances Martin could have been tried for assault & battery as an adult for starting a physical altercation wherein he ended up on top of somebody and slamming their head into the ground. That is probably a long shot, and not that it would have gotten very far even if that happened unless very serious injury occurred, just pointing out legal status as a minor does not necessarily mean the courts will inherently view you that way. Minors get tried as adults with some regularity, so there is some gray area.

-Cheers


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

"I agree. This is a tragedy all the way around...
One other tragic thing is of course the media coverage, especially NBC doctoring the 911 tapes, and also George's picture, in an attempt to make him appear like a white racist dude, to stir the pot from a racial standpoint, which certainly worked very well. And further crazy promotion of racial components, and outlandish opinions flying all over cable TV attempting to make race an issue in this, when I doubt race had much to do with it at all."

Joby,

Excellent points. Also add in the 5 year old pictures of TM showing him as a twelve year old with glasses looking like some kind of nerd instead of a more current picture looking like an adult capable of slamming someones head into the pavement.

On a side note I recently read that NBC ratings are at the lowest point since 2007. Maybe people want NBC to start reporting the news instead of creating/manipulating it?


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

David Ruby said:


> What is relevant to me is the fact he did not _look_ like a child, although the media's portrayal of him used younger pictures, seemingly to portray a more innocent and childlike image of Martin. He was a big, capable looking young man. This comes into play if and when he is involved in (and particularly if he instigates) a physical altercation and is on top of somebody punching and slamming the head of somebody else into concrete.


This is what bothered me as well. The staging of the photos was wrong as was the editing of the 911 tape. Media sure helped put the label 'guilty' GZ fast enough. What ever happened to impartial reporting of the news?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> This I keep hearing all the pundits and people talking about. Hardly a "bashing"? .....a bloody nose, a couple LITTLE SCRAPES? Are you kidding me? You and others make it sound like he was scratched on his head or something, the child was on top of him, physically attempting to bash his skull into cement, and succeeding.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...injuries-from-altercation-were-insignificant/

"The medical examiner, Valerie Rao, did not conduct the autopsy on Trayvon Martin and was testifying for the prosecution. She is the medical examiner for Duval, Clay and Nassau counties, reports the Orlando Sentinel - not Seminole County, where the case is being tried.

Rao said she believed Zimmerman's injuries resulted from three impacts, one of which could have been against concrete.

"Looking at the concrete area in the reenactment I was given, it's consistent with his head having come into contact with that rough surface," Rao said, taking the stand Tuesday afternoon.

Rao said she was given photographs of Zimmerman's injuries, along with other evidence including Martin's autopsy photographs and Zimmerman's videotaped account of the fatal struggle.

*She described Zimmerman's injuries as "insignificant" and "minor."

"The individual who examined him and treated Mr. Zimmerman told him sutures were not required," Rao said. "She put a BandAid on each of them, and that was the extent of the treatment.""*


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Timothy Saunders said:


> The funny thing about this is people keep talking about what is or is not against the law. A kid is dead because an adult could follow simple instructions given by the authorities. The problem here is that only one is alive to tell his side of the story. Thus reminds me of the ending of a time to kill. The question I would ask those who say gz is right. Is that a good enough reason for your kid to be dead


Timothy, is _what_ a good enough reason?

Is Zimmerman's overzealous (in my opinion) pursuit as a neighborhood watch of a kid doing nothing more than returning from a trip for Skittles and iced tea good enough reason? No.

Is Zimmerman's self-defense of a rather large seventeen-year-old kid who is on top of him punching him in the face and in the process of repeatedly slamming his head into the side walk "good enough reason" while saying he was going to kill Zimmerman? Yes. At that point, it is hard to argue differently.

That said, the police respondent did not have the authority to tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin. Granted, I think Zimmerman should have stood down, and I sorely wish he had, yet legally that does not put Zimmerman in the wrong. Also, it is not that black-and-white. Until the point of the altercation, Martin had done nothing wrong that I can tell. Despite doing what I consider probably the wrong more of tracking a stranger he had no evidence had done anything wrong with the police on the way, up until the altercation Zimmerman did nothing illegal just things some (and to be fair, not all) consider poor decision-making. At that point, Martin had done nothing to warrant being shot and Zimmerman had done nothing to make getting punched and head-smashed on the sidewalk legally permissible. So it really sort of becomes a matter of who who threw the first punch. Had they deescalated things (either of them), this is a different story. I emphasize that because I think there is an important moral there.

The main reason I think Zimmerman should walk away from this case unprosecuted (aside from there being no compelling evidence Zimmerman set out to murder Martin) is because, unless there is evidence to the contrary, Zimmerman is not the one who escalated this to a physical altercation, to the point of this being a self-defense case. Somebody chasing you is not adequate reason to get them on the ground, punch them, and start slamming their head into the ground. At that point this went from being a case of a guy chasing another innocent guy and possibly harassment to something entirely more tragic.

-Cheers


----------



## kerry engels (Nov 7, 2010)

Timothy Saunders said:


> The funny thing about this is people keep talking about what is or is not against the law. A kid is dead because an adult could follow simple instructions given by the authorities. The problem here is that only one is alive to tell his side of the story. Thus reminds me of the ending of a time to kill. The question I would ask those who say gz is right. Is that a good enough reason for your kid to be dead


 
I would say yes, if my kid was on top of a man smashing his head into the cement. The man getting his head smashed has a legal and moral right to defend himself by any means necessary.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...injuries-from-altercation-were-insignificant/
> 
> "The medical examiner, Valerie Rao, did not conduct the autopsy on Trayvon Martin and was testifying for the prosecution. She is the medical examiner for Duval, Clay and Nassau counties, reports the Orlando Sentinel - not Seminole County, where the case is being tried.
> 
> ...


Is that not enough for one to be in fear of their life? Being punched and having your head smashed against the ground three times, one of which was against concrete, by somebody on top of you saying he is going to kill you seems a pretty serious situation to be in. That seems like a self-defense situation to me. The injuries may have been "insignificant" and "minor," however it is not like Martin just stopped, got off Zimmerman, and walked away. He was still in the act of beating Zimmerman up at that point and only stopped because Zimmerman drew his firearm. Had he not, how many more head-slams until they became much, much more serious? Really, one serious head-slam against concrete can be pretty damaging, and for all we know it is possible that Martin was just starting to beat Zimmerman's head into concrete a/o maybe Zimmerman believed that. It is hard to defend Martin's actions in that incident even if he was chased and felt harassed. Sorry, I think you are underplaying just how serious that situation is based on the events that led up to it.

-Cheers


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Sarah Platts said:


> This is what bothered me as well. The staging of the photos was wrong as was the editing of the 911 tape. Media sure helped put the label 'guilty' GZ fast enough. *What ever happened to impartial reporting of the news?*


Good question. I guess the media realized telling a good story was better business than impartial reporting of facts. There is some evidence and history that backs that up at least to an extent. Plus, some networks (on both sides of the political spectrum) seem to be just fine with pushing their agendas and opinions with selective reporting or spinning of how they present facts.

-Cheers


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Timothy Saunders said:


> The funny thing about this is people keep talking about what is or is not against the law. A kid is dead because an adult could follow simple instructions given by the authorities. The problem here is that only one is alive to tell his side of the story. Thus reminds me of the ending of a time to kill. The question I would ask those who say gz is right.* Is that a good enough reason for your kid to be dead*



No...it is not.


The question I posed is if people feel he is guilty of Murder in the 2nd degree, and if they feel the prosecution proved their case...

So far 7 people said yes that they thought the prosecution proved that he is guilty of Murder 2...

who thinks this, and did they watch much of the case?

I


----------



## Timothy Saunders (Mar 12, 2009)

David Ruby said:


> Timothy, is _what_ a good enough reason?
> 
> Is Zimmerman's overzealous (in my opinion) pursuit as a neighborhood watch of a kid doing nothing more than returning from a trip for Skittles and iced tea good enough reason? No.
> 
> ...


If tm was robbing him, yes in my mind that would be a good enough reason for me. Of course he escalated this situation. He followed, chased and caught tm. If that had been me gz might have lost his life.


----------



## Timothy Saunders (Mar 12, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> *
> I agree. This is a tragedy all the way around...
> One other tragic thing is of course the media coverage, especially NBC doctoring the 911 tapes, and also George's picture, in an attempt to make him appear like a white racist dude, to stir the pot from a racial standpoint, which certainly worked very well. And further crazy promotion of racial components, and outlandish opinions flying all over cable TV attempting to make race an issue in this, when I doubt race had much to do with it at all.
> 
> ...


This was not a tragedy all around gz put himself in this situation. He is alive being judged by 12 not carried by 6


----------



## Timothy Saunders (Mar 12, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> No...it is not.
> 
> 
> The question I posed is if people feel he is guilty of Murder in the 2nd degree, and if they feel the prosecution proved their case...
> ...


I will admit I have not been watching the case. In my mind once you disobey the police , you get what you get.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

David Ruby said:


> Is that not enough for one to be in fear of their life? Being punched and having your head smashed against the ground three times, one of which was against concrete, by somebody on top of you saying he is going to kill you seems a pretty serious situation to be in. That seems like a self-defense situation to me. The injuries may have been "insignificant" and "minor," however it is not like Martin just stopped, got off Zimmerman, and walked away. He was still in the act of beating Zimmerman up at that point and only stopped because Zimmerman drew his firearm. Had he not, how many more head-slams until they became much, much more serious? Really, one serious head-slam against concrete can be pretty damaging, and for all we know it is possible that Martin was just starting to beat Zimmerman's head into concrete a/o maybe Zimmerman believed that. It is hard to defend Martin's actions in that incident even if he was chased and felt harassed. Sorry, I think you are underplaying just how serious that situation is based on the events that led up to it.
> 
> -Cheers


It's hard to defend Trayvon's actions because he is not here to tell his side of the story. What we do know is Trayvon first attempted to run away, and Zimmerman followed him. Therefore it makes no sense to me that someone who is afraid and running away suddenly switches to purposely lying in wait, hidden in bushes and then jumping out and attacking GZ. I believe a more likely scenario is that both Trayvon and GZ felt threatened by each other. It's entirely possibly that Trayvon felt just as threatened by GZ, in fear for his own life, felt cornered, and that's why he was fighting with him. Whether or not he actually was being threatened by GZ is immaterial, just as it's immaterial to the case that GZ's injuries actually were minor.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Timothy Saunders said:


> If tm was robbing him, yes in my mind that would be a good enough reason for me. Of course he escalated this situation. He followed, chased and caught tm. If that had been me gz might have lost his life.


First, that is a hard position to argue legally or otherwise. You are saying you might have killed somebody for chasing you.

Second, that is not what allegedly happened. Allegedly Zimmerman chased Martin, at some point gave up, and Martin followed Zimmerman back to his truck, punched him in the head knocking Zimmerman down, then proceeded to punch Zimmerman in the face and start smashing the back of his head into concrete:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...secutor-angela-corey-source-police-department
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

That does not sound like Zimmerman caught Martin, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

-Cheers


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...injuries-from-altercation-were-insignificant/
> 
> "The medical examiner, Valerie Rao, did not conduct the autopsy on Trayvon Martin and was testifying for the prosecution. She is the medical examiner for Duval, Clay and Nassau counties, reports the Orlando Sentinel - not Seminole County, where the case is being tried.
> 
> ...


and the point is what? A medical examiner concluding that his "minor insignificant" injuries were not fatal? 

the testimony from the experts was also that they agreed that the injuries could have come from multiple impacts with concrete

Do you agree that someone can sustain serious injuries from getting their head bashed on concrete? even 1 time, or that it could be fatal, especially if another strong person is on top of you attempting to smash your head into it, multiple times?

Is it possible that you might be in fear of sustaining serious bodily harm, or that you could possibly be killed?

What is the point to this post, that GZ should have waited until he blacked out, or was possibly killed?

I think it is very naive to even attempt to state that having someone on top of you, fighting you and trying to take the back of your head and bounce it off the concrete, is an insignificant or minor thing to go through..

that is WEAK sauce.... right there...

Ok I get it, you think GZ is to blame, I think he also bears partial blame for sure, but all the other crap is just that...crap..

once it escalated to potentially serious injury or death, to expect GZ to do anything other than attempt to protect himself is ridiculous, in my opinion. 

that is what is at the meat of this verdict, whether he was in reasonable fear of serious injury or death at the time..

who knows, maybe if George got knocked out, it would have been over, or maybe he could have been killed or sustained much more serious injuries.


----------



## kerry engels (Nov 7, 2010)

Joby Becker said:


> and the point is what? A medical examiner concluding that his "minor insignificant" injuries were not fatal?
> 
> the testimony from the experts was also that they agreed that the injuries could have come from multiple impacts with concrete
> 
> ...


 
This is pretty much the way I see it.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> It's hard to defend Trayvon's actions because he is not here to tell his side of the story.


True.



> What we do know is Trayvon first attempted to run away, and Zimmerman followed him. Therefore it makes no sense to me that someone who is afraid and running away suddenly switches to purposely lying in wait, hidden in bushes and then jumping out and attacking GZ.


If initial reports are accurate and Zimmerman was attacked by his truck that would indicate Zimmerman at some point turned around and went back to his vehicle. It is not that hard to believe somebody who felt threatened and slighted under the influence of adrenaline, testosterone, and rage would attack somebody who chased them when they were doing nothing wrong. I do not find that hard to believe at all. In fact, Zimmerman turning away could have alleviated Martin's fear and let his anger get the better of him. Teenage boys are not immune to that sort of behavior.



> I believe a more likely scenario is that both Trayvon and GZ felt threatened by each other. It's entirely possibly that Trayvon felt just as threatened by GZ, in fear for his own life, felt cornered, and that's why he was fighting with him.


Maybe. However, that scenario is only likely if Zimmerman caught Martin, less likely for Martin to somehow have been cornered back at Zimmerman's SUV.



> Whether or not he actually was being threatened by GZ is immaterial, just as it's immaterial to the case that GZ's injuries were minor.


Well...Legally you have to draw the line at some point. That is to me where there is some uncertainty. It matters (especially in the moment) if you _feel_ threatened. However, it also matters afterward who you pin how much blame on (legally or otherwise). In the heat of the moment, I would guess both felt threatened a/o justified by what they were doing. Had it not resulted in somebody dying we could probably debated about this as a society a bit more easily. The death involved, and frankly the media turning this into an emotional, sensational, and attempting to turn it into a racially-charged issue, have all made real open discussion of this rather difficult. As it is now, this is a pretty polarizing debate.

-Cheers


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Timothy Saunders said:


> I will admit I have not been watching the case. In my mind once you disobey the police , you get what you get.


Timothy, dont understand your statement.

The police did not give GZ a command, they asked him if he was following TM, and he said yes, then they said, "We dont need you to do that". 

Even though they did not tell him to stop following him, GZ stated he did at that point stop following him.

Again, I say he is partially to blame for sure, and can say 100% for sure, if GZ was at home watching TV, this incident would have never happened.

But it did happen, and now there is a court case going on.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> and the point is what? A medical examiner concluding that his "minor insignificant" injuries were not fatal?
> 
> the testimony from the experts was also that they agreed that the injuries could have come from multiple impacts with concrete
> 
> ...


*Oh my god, Joby stop reading things into my posts that simply aren't there. The reason I brought it up at all is because YOU said:*



Joby Becker said:


> Originally Posted by Joby Becker
> This I keep hearing all the pundits and people talking about. Hardly a "bashing"? .....a bloody nose, a couple LITTLE SCRAPES? Are you kidding me? You and others make it sound like he was scratched on his head or something, the child was on top of him, physically attempting to bash his skull into cement, and succeeding.




I was pointing out that in fact it's not the "pundits and people" who said it was hardly a bashing, it was the MEDICAL EXPERT's opinion that it was nothing more than a bloody nose and a couple LITTLE SCRAPES. In fact it sounds to me like you are exaggerating his injuries for some reason.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

David Ruby said:


> True.
> 
> If initial reports are accurate and Zimmerman was attacked by his truck that would indicate Zimmerman at some point turned around and went back to his vehicle. It is not that hard to believe somebody who felt threatened and slighted under the influence of adrenaline, testosterone, and rage would attack somebody who chased them when they were doing nothing wrong. I do not find that hard to believe at all. In fact, Zimmerman turning away could have alleviated Martin's fear and let his anger get the better of him. Teenage boys are not immune to that sort of behavior.
> 
> ...


He wasn't attacked by his truck:










I POST THIS PHOTO ONLY TO SHOW WHERE THE BODY WAS IN RELATION TO GZ'S CAR. IN NO WAY AM I TRYING TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE, AND GIVE NO WEIGHT TO THE "ASSUMED DIRECTIONS" ALL THOSE INVOLVED TOOK. IT'S JUST A REALLY CLEAR PICTURE OF WHERE THE BODY WAS FOUND IN RELATION TO THE CAR.....THAT'S ALL SO JOBY PLEASE DON'T READ ANYTHING BEYOND THAT INTO MY POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> I was pointing out that in fact it's not the "pundits and people" who said it was hardly a bashing, it was the MEDICAL EXPERT's opinion that it was nothing more than a bloody nose and a couple LITTLE SCRAPES. In fact it sounds to me like you are exaggerating his injuries for some reason.


It has also been reported that Zimmerman likely had a broken nose, some sources saying it was undiagnosed with ABC reporting it was "a 'closed fracture' of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury."

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...48822_1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-trial

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zim...juries-trayvon/story?id=16353532#.UdrjCtjhfWc

I also think you have to factor into the fact this was what happened while the fight was ongoing and Martin was still in the process of beating Zimmerman up. Had the exchange with the gun not happened, there is reason to believe Zimmerman's injuries would have just gotten worse considering the circumstances. It is important to factor that into Zimmerman's mindset and the way events played out.

-Cheers


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> He wasn't attacked by his truck:


My question (rhetorical as much as anything) is how much if this has been confirmed? There are (or were) conflicting reports and I have not been able to follow the case as closely as some others have. I've seen that or similar pictures, however I have no way of knowing which picture(s) are faithful reenactments of where the incident played out and which are just somebody's mock-ups based on guesses or partial/contradictory information. I found the map you posted on a blog posted over a year ago:
http://bcclist.com/2012/03/27/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-map/

I have no idea if their information is legitimate or flawed.

-Cheers


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

I am sure there will be people on both sides of this, however Ted Nugent made comment on this case pretty recently. I thought some of you might find it interesting. I do not entirely agree or disagree with Ted, however I would not disregard it just because it's Ted as I think he definitely makes some good points.

http://younggunstv.com/ted-nugent-on-the-george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-case/

-Cheers


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

David Ruby said:


> My question (rhetorical as much as anything) is how much if this has been confirmed? There are (or were) conflicting reports and I have not been able to follow the case as closely as some others have. I've seen that or similar pictures, however I have no way of knowing which picture(s) are faithful reenactments of where the incident played out and which are just somebody's mock-ups based on guesses or partial/contradictory information. I found the map you posted on a blog posted over a year ago:
> http://bcclist.com/2012/03/27/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-map/
> 
> I have no idea if their information is legitimate or flawed.
> ...


I'm not aware of any disputes with regards to the location of Trayvons body and the location of George Zimmermans parked vehicle.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> I'm not aware of any disputes with regards to the location of Trayvons body and the location of George Zimmermans parked vehicle.


Maybe you are right. Unless I'm misreading it, this article sounded like the attack happened at Zimmerman's truck, but it could have just been somewhat poorly phrased:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...secutor-angela-corey-source-police-department

This more recent article (with some older/initial statements of Zimmerman) mentions that Zimmerman lost Martin, turned back (so he was walking back to his truck) then the two came face-to-face and then got into a fight.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...rge-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-friend

If your map is accurate, he probably overshot Martin, was coming back, and ran into Martin after he took an alternate route.

-Cheers


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

David Ruby said:


> Maybe you are right. Unless I'm misreading it, this article sounded like the attack happened at Zimmerman's truck, but it could have just been somewhat poorly phrased:
> http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...secutor-angela-corey-source-police-department
> 
> This more recent article (with some older/initial statements of Zimmerman) mentions that Zimmerman lost Martin, turned back (so he was walking back to his truck) then the two came face-to-face and then got into a fight.
> ...


I don't know what path they each chose, I think that's not known for sure. My sole purpose for posting the map was to demonstrate where the truck was in relation to where the body was found.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

David Ruby said:


> What is relevant to me is the fact he did not _look_ like a child, although the media's portrayal of him used younger pictures, seemingly to portray a more innocent and childlike image of Martin. He was a big, capable looking young man.


Yeah he was big buck. And he was one of those super scary dark ones too! If he hadn't been so damn scary he might still be alive today.

Dave how do you know that the media pictures portray him as younger than he is? Often people can look older or younger in pictures than they do in real life. The only way that you would be able to tell that is if you met Trayvon face to face. 

I'm sure if you had a 16 year old daughter and she was having sex her 40 year old boyfriend, you would also think it was OK if the boyfriend said that she looked like she was 18 years old to him.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

David Ruby said:


> There is a huge difference between that and saying something like he should have known his place or that he did not belong there because he was Black, had a hoodie, or anything that would lead Terrasita to bring up Jim Crow laws. This was a confrontation between a Black American and a Hispanic American, so I'm not really sure Jim Crow mentality applies, strictly speaking.


It does not matter that Zimmerman was Hispanic. Not one bit. I know that with your white privilege you want you to believe that Jim Crow is somehow between black and white. Its not. What it is is the systematic oppression of black people. It was a series of laws to keep black people in a lower caste. There were no laws that kept white people above, only laws that kept black below. During Jim Crow crimes against black people we're not investigated or prosecuted very often. And even when there was the prosecution it was often just a show trial.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Christopher Smith said:


> Yeah he was big buck. And he was one of those super scary dark ones too! If he hadn't been so damn scary he might still be alive today.


I only bring up his size for two reasons. First, to point out he probably did not _look_ like a kid. Not excusing the reaction Zimmerman had to him. And second, at the point Martin is in top of Zimmerman, that comes into play because, kid or not, Martin has the potential to cause a lot of damage especially if/when it comes to bashing somebody's head into the pavement.

*



Dave how do you know that the media pictures portray him as younger than he is? Often people can look older or younger in pictures than they do in real life. The only way that you would be able to tell that is if you met Trayvon face to face.

Click to expand...

*Well, there are reports of that. Just a couple stories point out the pictures of Martin were of when he was younger:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline...g-debate-over-photos-escalates-155103512.html

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...rayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-deceptive?lite

They do not show Martin as he probably looked the night of the incident. Not that it would have excused his death if they had showed him as a 6'2" seventeen year old. However, they were clearly portraying Martin as a happy, smiling, sweet-faced child and Zimmerman as a dour, overweight, scruffy man. Couple that with the doctoring of photos and 911 calls, plus using older photos, and yes, the media seems pretty culpable in my opinion based on their selective presentation of both the facts and the images they are putting out there.



> I'm sure if you had a 16 year old daughter and she was having sex her 40 year old boyfriend, you would also think it was OK if the boyfriend said that she looked like she was 18 years old to him.


Are you really implying that is the same thing? Because if you are arguing this hypothetical boyfriend truly thought or was mislead into believing my future-sixteen-year-old was eighteen is somehow less wrong than if he knew she was sixteen and committed statutory rape, o.k. To my mind, that is a different than a seventeen year old beating an older man's head into the sidewalk and the media choosing the sweet, innocent pictures of Martin from a year or so prior to the event and overlooking the photos of him closer to the time of the incident that showed him much less innocent yet showed his more physically intimidating appearance. Not that those are relevant to the case. They ARE relevant to the battle of public opinion and portraying Martin as a sweet, innocent child and Zimmerman in a negative light. They did not post photos of Zimmerman as a smiling, skinnier, clean-shaven man either even though that was a more accurate portrayal. Why is that? Again, not particularly relevant to the case, yet it does cast a certain picture to the audience. I am not the first to point that out by a long-shot.

-Cheers


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Trayvon was 5'11", and weighed 158 lbs and was of medium build at the time of his death, according to his autopsy. GZ listed himself as 5'8" and 194 lbs on the incident report he completed at the time of the shooting. I don't think it's a stretch to imagine Trayvon felt very threatened by GZ.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

I (all of the mods) understand and empathize with the passion and frustration that arises when race comes up.

This isn't the board for it, and we probably should have removed this poll-thread way back when.

But we can correct that now.

It's hard to envision the thread now becoming more reasoned and amicable.

PMs .... always available.


----------

