Today in Fox-for-the-Zimmerman-Defense news: Fox Nation's Daily Update would give you the idea that George Zimmerman is about to be acquitted. Or if he's not, he should be.
Here's what the top of my Fox Nation "Daily Update" looked like today:
Of course, Fox has already concluded that Zimmerman is the innocent victim of a racial witch hunt. If you're a Fox fan, you could be forgiven for thinking that the only purpose of a trial is to either prove you're right if he's acquitted (and adjudged innocent) or prove you're right if he's convicted (and proved to be the victim of racial politics).
Alan’s comments now discuss the testimony of Investigator Cerino, who said that he thought that Zimmerman was either telling the truth or an extremely skillful liar. (Cerino went farther to say that he could be a pathological liar, but I’m not thinking along those lines.)
Alan also seems to want to predict a race riot at the end of this trial. This is strange. I thought he didn’t want to play the race card, and here he is doing it, now for the second time.
Alan also apparently missed the discussion on O’Reilly where some very serious potential penalties for Zimmerman were mentioned. In short, the expert being questioned believes that the trial may well result in a manslaughter conviction. But even a manslaughter conviction carries a sentence of 30 years in Florida, given that Zimmerman killed a minor. The 30 year sentence would also apply due to Zimmerman’s use of a firearm in the killing.
On Hannity’s show, one of the experts made very clear that there absolutely are discrepancies in Zimmerman’s story – where he says he was just getting out to check for an address and that he was just walking back to his car rather than following and stalking Trayvon Martin. Hannity and Peter Johnson tried to shout over her, but she still got her statement out in spite of them.
Fox News seems bent on declaring the trial over every day – they just did it again on Hannity this evening. Unfortunately for Fox, the trial still has more weeks to go. I wouldn’t dream of predicting an instant outcome at this time. I only know that Zimmerman is facing serious charges and serious jail time for a very serious crime. It’s unfortunate that some people seem to want to cheerlead about it. I guarantee that neither Zimmerman nor Martin’s family would share in that idea.
You’ll probably refer to some part of Zimmerman being grilled by Cerino as a hole in his story, so I’ll offer up my reply in advance:
Cerino already admitted the grilling of Zimmerman was an attempt to get him to alter his story, which he did not do.
Cerino even bluffed Zimmerman into thinking the whole thing was recorded on Martin’s cell phone. Zimmerman was ecstatic at the notion of video evidence to fully exonerate him. Unfortunately, no such video exists.
Anyone still believing that Zimmerman is guilty of anything other than defending himself simply doesn’t believe logic or facts.
Zimmerman will walk, and the AA community will riot. Rioting over this trial makes no sense what so ever, but then again, neither does destroying your own community and infrastructure.
All of this will blow over, and the other 9,000 African Americans that die from violence this year will be ignored. That is, unless one of them is lucky enough to be killed by a “White Hispanic”.
The parsley in Alan’s ears seems to be preventing him from hearing anything except the echos in his own head. Such wilful miscomprehension is hard to take.
Zimmerman hasn’t got the nous nor the money to rig the trial and it doesn’t seem that he has any real money backing him (NRA? FNC, itself?) Wouldn’t surprise me one bit if his goose were well and truly “cooked” by his own, extremely contradictory words.
You seem to not understand that the loud argument preceded the fight. According to Zimmerman’s testimony, Martin jumped him and the fight began. Those two versions of the story are incompatible. Yet, we have Rachel Jenteal hearing the confrontation over the phone right after Trayvon Martin notes to her that Zimmerman has found him again and is walking up to him. You seem to think that Trayvon, who was nervous about the “creepy” stalker following him, should have just run right out and assumed the guy was long gone, right? Having dealt with a stalker before, I can tell you that it’s usually a good idea to wait a few minutes and make sure you’re alone before you wind up bringing your stalker to your front door, as I tried to explain to you before. I agree with your line: “You can’t have it both ways.”
You’re also a little hung up (and apparently very angry) about trying to accuse Trayvon Martin of starting the fight. You don’t know that Martin did this. From what we’ve heard from Jenteal, he was scared of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was acting aggressively toward him. As I tried to explain to you before, it’s quite possible that Zimmerman attacked Martin first. Remember that Martin was on the phone with Jenteal, who heard the confrontation, which was then interrupted by the fight. He never hung up the phone, which can indicate that he was grabbed and dropped it. But beyond that, you also seem to be losing sight that even in the midst of the fight, Zimmerman had options less drastic than to kill Martin. And that’s a huge part of this case as well. What makes Zimmerman’s initiation of the confrontation important is that you’re hoping he can claim the “stand your ground” defense. But you’re forgetting that since Zimmerman initiated the situation, he had already forfeited that defense.
Regarding the fight, you are correct that Zimmerman would not be justified to hit Martin just because he thought he had caught a “#
$ing punk”. And if he was in the middle of a fight he was apparently losing, Zimmerman would not be justified in pulling a gun and killing Martin.
Your “contention” about a lack of evidence from the prosecution comes after only the first week of trial, not counting the witness testimony you are trying to ignore. It’s interesting that you are willing to pronounce a judgment here, like the Fox News pundits, before you’ve even heard the full case. I appreciate your apology for confusing Jennifer Lauer with Natalie Jackson. Your comment about Jonathan Good is not accurate, however. At trial, he did actually refute part of his deposition testimony. He didn’t say “raining blows”. He was asked about that statement and only said “it looked like that”. Further, he was very clear with both the defense and prosecution that he didn’t actually see Martin hitting Zimmerman. (This is but one example where you’ve been cherry picking the bits of testimony – essentially culling the parts that back up your feelings about this case. That’s frankly a dishonest way to go about this – and I pointed out to you earlier that you really do need to look at the ENTIRE testimony of each person and not just the parts you agree with.)
You also neatly avoided the point of the basic fact that George Zimmerman did not in fact return to his car to wait for the police. He continued his pursuit, as noted by Jenteal in her conversation with Trayvon, and then engaged in the loud argument that all the neighbors and Jenteal heard. This argument didn’t happen by Zimmerman’s car. Unless you’re trying for that magical solution of the fight transporting the guys from Zimmerman’s car to the grass and pavement area by Good and Lauer’s residences.
You also made an unfortunate statement that Martin was somehow “lurking in the darkness”, which again would imply some kind of criminality on the part of Martin. Which would imply that walking home from the store with snacks for the game is somehow now a criminal act. You also now seem to be confused about your implication that Martin was followed on the basis of being a criminal. My statement to you, which you’re conflating here, was about the fact that Trayvon was NOT a criminal and was scared of the “creepy” guy stalking and following him. You can conflate this all you like, but your tone speaks for itself here. You seem to be convinced that Trayvon Martin was somehow the wrongdoer here – and you’ve used various words and phrases to communicate this. I have called you on this unfortunate tendency, and your only response seems to be to refer to my earlier attempts to ask you not to do this. This may be interesting as an act of circular logic, but it doesn’t erase your comments, nor does it deliver the change in tone I’ve been hoping you would make.
Now, I asked you to provide your law background to justify your repeated comments about knowing about the legal aspects of this trial. I told you that I worked as a litigation paralegal for 3 years and gave you specifics about my work there. Your response: “I guess all I can say is that this statement being in past tense is not shocking”. So not only do you have no answer for my question, but you resort to a personal insult. This is truly unfortunate, and I do hope that you’ll attach an additional humble apology along with the answer I asked you for in the prior post. Unless you don’t have a law background.
Further, when I called you on your citation of a right wing meme of “why didn’t Trayvon run home or call the police?”, you tried to go down the tangent about “right wing”. Since I’ve already answered this straw man argument quite thoroughly in my last post, I’ll just say here that we’re all well aware that this question is one that has been asked repeatedly on Fox News and AM Radio by right wing pundits. And because it’s a popular talking point for the right wing, that’s what would make it a “right wing meme”. Doesn’t mean that you are right wing yourself, but it does mean you’re quoting a popular right wing argument. Does that answer your question? It’s an irrelevant sidestreet of this matter in any case.
You then proceeded to cherry pick sentences out of my thorough answer to you regarding Jonathan Good’s testimony and the fight. You assume that the continued fighting between Martin and Zimmerman is somehow a helpful thing for Zimmerman. You confuse the notion about how the fight could have ended had the guys listened to Good, somehow now to mean that Trayvon was the responsible party here. You’ve missed the point of my statements, and you’ve actually generated a much more serious potential problem for Zimmerman here. You see, Martin was 17 years old, which means he was a minor. Zimmerman was an adult, and he was supposed to be the responsible “captain” of the Neighborhood Watch. That means the responsibility was with him to identify himself as Neighborhood Watch and to not only let Martin know but to communicate the problem to the neighbors when this went public.
You move on to announce that you intend to ignore the evidence that Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher’s instructions to him, in spite of everything we’ve already discussed – that Zimmerman wasn’t by his car as instructed, that he was heard having a loud confrontation and argument with Martin rather than keeping his distance, and that he was found in the middle of a fistfight with Martin rather than waiting for the police to arrive. Now, you can ignore this evidence, but the jury will not be able to have that luxury. You also tried to slip in another disproven idea that we already discussed – the notion that Zimmerman would be justified to ignore the dispatcher’s instructions, or alternatively that he somehow didn’t understand them. Neither of those ideas work, given Zimmerman’s training in Neighborhood Watch matters. As you put it, you can’t have it both ways.
You then asked for one witness’ testimony that conflicts with Zimmerman’s versions of what happened. To that, I’d say you can take your pick. I have yet to hear a single witness say that they heard or saw anything like Martin jumping out of the darkness to attack Zimmerman. I also have yet to hear a single witness say that they saw or heard Martin say “You’re gonna die tonight”, or that they saw or heard Martin trying to either slam Zimmerman’s head into the pavement or hold his hand over Zimmerman’s mouth and nose. (And by the way, Zimmerman’s account of this is belied by the 911 calls, if we are to believe that the “Help” cries were his – how was he screaming for help with Martin’s hand over his mouth?)
Your last paragraph is an interesting piece of conflation and supposition in itself but I’ll spare everyone the rundown. The last part is curious, though. You say you intend to end “this wonderful conversation” if you don’t hear what you want. I would offer that perhaps you should look at ALL of the facts of this case, and not just the ones you wish to see, and you may learn more. If you wish to stop posting, that is your prerogative. We’re all guests here. But I would hope that if you choose to continue posting, that you’d actually take advantage of an opportunity to learn something about this case, and perhaps achieve a better understanding of the issues at hand here.
Me: Where is the FACT that shows Zimmerman initiated the physical altercation?
You: You seem to be confused on the definition of confrontation. The facts that show that Zimmerman confronted Martin come from the multiple witness who have testified that they heard Zimmerman arguing with Martin before he started fighting with him.
So in essence, witnesses heard an argument, and the ensuing physical altercation. That doesn’t answer my inquiry as to the irrefutable evidence that Zimmerman started the altercation. No one has testified saying they witnessed (in person) the beginning of the PHYSICAL altercation that took place.
You: We also have the testimony of Rachel Jeantel, who has consistently repeated that Trayvon told her that Zimmerman had found him after he tried to run away…"
So you are going to believe this aspect of Rachel Jeantel’s testimony? OK. For her to say that Trayvon told her that Zimmerman “found him” indicates that Trayvon was aware that he had lost Zimmerman at some point, which is confirmed in the transcript of Zimmerman’s conversation with the dispatcher. Wouldn’t that have been an opportune time to return home, without fear of some “creepy ass cracka” knowing where he lived? She also testified that Trayvon told her that he was right by his home, which means he only could have eventually crossed paths with Zimmerman if he decided to double back. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways.
You: When Zimmerman continued stalking him and approaching him, Martin finally asked him why he was acting like this. Things developed from there.
Things developed from there? I’m not sure how much more clear I can be for you: THE ENTIRE CRUX OF THIS CASE depends on who initiated the physical contact. We’re going to need some information that is slightly more precise than “things developed from there”, especially in a murder case.
You: If you’re going to discuss what the eyes of the law see, then you should understand the notion of the “reasonable man” standard. It applies here.
You are correct. The reasonable man standard would indicate that someone approaching you or harassing you, but yet not engaging you physically, cannot be met with physical force. So in other words, Trayvon can’t just hit Zimmerman for following, er, “stalking”, him.
You: As for your continuing frustration, it might help your outlook if you could actually provide some evidence for your contentions.
My contention is that the prosecution hasn’t provided enough evidence to condemn Zimmerman to life in a steel cage. I’m not sure how I could provide you evidence of a “lack of evidence”. I’m open to suggestions.
You: You gave the name of a witness that didn’t exist and you’ve misquoted the witnesses who did.
I mistakenly called Jennifer Lauer Natalie Lauer. I’m sorry.
I also mentioned John Good’s use of “raining down blows” which he didn’t say at the trial, but he did say during his depositions. When asked, He did not refute this description at the trial.
You: You ask how we know that Zimmerman didn’t comply with the dispatcher? Very simple. He didn’t return to his car and was found by the neighbors engaging in a fight with Martin on the grass and pavement instead.
How those that prove that Zimmerman kept pursuing Martin, when by this time he had already stated he had lost track of Martin and was en route to his vehicle when attacked? Because Zimmerman never made it to his vehicle, therefore he kept pursuing? Very flimsy.
You: Since he was in the act of following and stalking Martin at the time he was told to back off, and since we have consistent testimony from Rachel Jenteal that he continued his behavior, there is really no room to debate this matter.
Rachel Jeantel isn’t an eye witness. She was on the phone with Martin. How could she be aware of Zimmerman’s behavior, unless of course Martin was lurking in the darkness and was relaying Zimmerman’s actions to her. She also couldn’t possibly correleate the time between when Zimmerman was advised that he “didn’t need to do that” and when the altercation occurred.
You: When you say something unfortunate like “only criminals can be followed”, you imply that Martin was a criminal and thus somehow deserving of being shot to death.
This is an easy one, I only have to look to your prior post:
You: If you want to just say “following”, you’re leaving out the fact that the pursuee was not a criminal and was understandably scared of the man following him.
That is your statement, and it suggests that in order to be “followed”, being a criminal is a prerequisite. I’ll let you reflect on that.
You: I worked for 3 years as a litigation paralegal in Oakland.
I guess all I can say is that this statement being in past tense is not shocking.
You: You ask the typical right wing meme about why Martin didn’t just run home or call the police.
How is that not a common sense question? What does contacting the police out of fear have to do with political affiliation?
You: Unfortunately, Zimmerman’s behavior sent everything over the edge.
Still no facts to back this up? Ok, I’ll stop asking.
You: He said that he saw the guys in a fight that escalated. He didn’t say that this was a situation of Martin trying to kill Zimmerman – he said it was a fight that neither guy was willing to break up.
This is a very interesting piece of information that will help George Zimmerman. It shows that objectively speaking, John good could have intervened at that time, and Trayvon would still be alive today. He ran and called the police instead.
You: Now, you seem to be conflating Zimmerman’s non-identification of himself as a reason for him to be charged with murder. Let’s correct that. Zimmerman isn’t on trial for murder because he didn’t identify himself. He’s on trial for murder because he shot and killed a 17 year old in a fight he would not have been in had he obeyed the instructions of the police dispatcher.
Once again, we have no evidence to prove that Zimmerman did not heed the operator’s advice. You keep passing this off as fact, and it is not. Any further reference you make to this aspect of the case will be ignored, unless evidence surfaces that would show Zimmerman continued to “stalk” Martin.
However, that brings up another good point. Even if Zimmerman disregarded the advice of the operator, he would not have violated the law by continuing his search, as the operator’s don’t have the authority to instruct anyone to do anything.
You: That’s more a matter of untrue statements by the defendant after he killed a 17 year old in an avoidable confrontation. If you don’t understand the impact that those untrue statements can have on jury deliberations, I’m not sure where to start.
I have an idea as to where you can start. You can start by showing me one eye witness’s testimony that is in direct conflict with Zimmerman’s version of events. So far, the only discrepancies I know of have taken place after the shot, regarding the locations of Trayvon’s arms AFTER he was already dead. The events leading UP TO the shot are what’s important, as those are the details that determine whether or not lethal force was justified.
You: This was a matter of Zimmerman initiating a confrontation that turned violent, and when he was in the middle of it, choosing to execute the other person rather than take any other step he had open to him. That’s the case being made here.
We don’t know that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. Rachel Jeantel heard fragments of a conversation, but since she is NOT an eyewitness, she could not possibly know who initiated the physical portion of the confrontation. Oh, wait, she did say that if Trayvon was planning on starting an altercation, he would have told her. That’s good to hear from her, but that supposition isn’t something that I’ll bet a man’s life on. Chances are, neither will the jury.
I’m really growing bored with your dry condescension. If you don’t begin to introduce true facts, I’ll probably end this wonderful conversation we’re having.
You seem to be confused on the definition of confrontation. The facts that show that Zimmerman confronted Martin come from the multiple witnesses who have testified that they heard Zimmerman arguing with Martin before he started fighting with him. We also have the testimony of Rachel Jenteal, who has consistently repeated that Trayvon told her that Zimmerman had found him after he had tried to run away and that Zimmerman walked up to Martin and confronted him. You may recall the embarrassing moment when the defense attorney tried to get her to say that Martin approached Zimmerman and she batted that away so quickly it made his head spin. The facts as presented through testimony are: Martin was trying to get away from Zimmerman and was scared of him. When Zimmerman continued stalking him and approaching him, Martin finally asked him why he was acting like this. Things developed from there. If you’re going to discuss what the eyes of the law see, then you should understand the notion of the “reasonable man” standard. It applies here.
As for your continuing frustration, it might help your outlook if you could actually provide some evidence for your contentions. I’ve been giving you very specific examples, as well as corrections for multiple misstatements you’ve been making here. You gave us the name of a witness who didn’t exist and you’ve misquoted the witnesses who did. When asked to explain this, you’ve avoided the discussion in favor of more attacks. Sadly, this will not help you make your case.
You ask how we know that Zimmerman didn’t comply with the dispatcher? Very simple. He didn’t return to his car and was found by the neighbors engaging in a fight with Martin on the grass and pavement instead. Since he was in the act of following and stalking Martin at the time he was told to back off, and since we have consistent testimony from Rachel Jenteal that he continued his behavior, there is really no room to debate this matter. If you want to imagine some kind of scenario where this confrontation started at Zimmerman’s car and then magically transported to the lawn near Mr. Good and Ms. Lauer, that would be interesting, but it won’t fly in court.
Your unfortunate comments about dealing with a stalker won’t fly with anyone who’s ever had to handle a situation with one. Following someone in the dark will absolutely be considered stalking by the person who is being followed – and that’s the issue at hand here. When you say something unfortunate like “only criminals can be followed”, you imply that Martin was a criminal and thus somehow deserving of being shot to death. This is truly a sad statement and one I hope you’ll humbly recant, at least to respect the families involved here. You ask the typical right wing meme about why Martin didn’t just run home or call the police. That, as the legal phrase goes, has been asked and answered. Martin didn’t want to lead a stalker to his front door – I’ve dealt with stalkers before and it’s quite unnerving. The last thing you want to do is bring them to your home and let them know where you live. As for why he didn’t call the police, who knows? Unlike Zimmerman, he wasn’t jumping to immediately call them. He was clearly hoping to avoid a problem and end the situation without a really horrible outcome. Unfortunately, Zimmerman’s behavior sent everything over the edge.
As for your legal analysis, I’m curious about your “rudimentary understanding of law”. I worked for 3 years as a litigation paralegal in Oakland. So I’ve had some experience dealing with jury trials and with evidentiary rules, as well as with depositions and trial testimony. I’ve worked in court at trial. I’m curious what your legal experience happens to be, that you feel you’re that sure of your position here.
Regarding Zimmerman’s conflicting statements and his various versions of his story, I find it hard to believe that you don’t understand that this could be a critical problem for him in a trial where he’s charged with murder. You see, if Zimmerman’s account of what happened here is deemed to be unreliable, and if he’s perceived by the jury as excusing his actions with a cover story, then it will weigh heavily against him. Because they’ll have to rely on the recorded conversations and on the other witnesses’ testimony – which are not likely to result in Zimmerman happily walking out of court without any convictions. This is why it’s crucial for him to take the stand and tell the jury what really happened here – not the versions he’s told before, not the story he told Sean Hannity – the truth. It really is the only way he can convince the jury. You seem to think that this means that we’re discussing a reversal of “reasonable doubt”. We’re not. We’re discussing a serious disconnect between the defendant’s version of events and the facts as they are being revealed in court. That’s more a matter of untrue statements by the defendant after he killed a 17 year old in an avoidable confrontation. If you don’t understand the impact that those untrue statements can have on jury deliberations, I’m not sure where to start.
Regarding Mr. Good, you’ve once again cherry picked the bits of his testimony that feel right for your opinions here. You’re missing the bigger picture – and for that you really need to read the ENTIRE testimony. He said that he saw the guys in a fight that escalated. He didn’t say that this was a situation of Martin trying to kill Zimmerman – he said it was a fight that neither guy was willing to break up. He said it was a tussle, moving from the grass to the pavement. This means the guys were actively grappling with each other on the ground and weren’t breaking it up. If Zimmerman was the responsible Neighborhood Watch “captain” you believe he was, and if he was really looking out for, as you put it, “His neighborhood”, he would have identified himself as Neighborhood Watch to Trayvon Martin in the first place, and then to the other neighbors who came out. The fact that he did not do so is mystifying to me. The fact that he didn’t try to get Good to help him as a fellow resident by shouting directly to him is mind-boggling. All he had to do was say “Hey, this guy is casing your house! I’m Neighborhood Watch! Call the police!” Instead, Zimmerman pulled a gun and killed Martin.
Now, you seem to be conflating Zimmerman’s non-identification of himself as a reason for him to be charged with murder. Let’s correct that. Zimmerman isn’t on trial for murder because he didn’t identify himself. He’s on trial for murder because he shot and killed a 17 year old in a fight he would not have been in had he obeyed the instructions of the police dispatcher. His recorded comments at the time and the testimony of the witnesses paint a fairly clear picture that this wasn’t a matter of Zimmerman passively calling in a prowler and then staying by his car to wait for police. This was a matter of Zimmerman initiating a confrontation that turned violent, and when he was in the middle of it, choosing to execute the other person rather than take any other step he had open to him. That’s the case being made here. You can argue with it if you like, but it’s the opinion of the jury that will matter here.
All I can figure out from this statement is that we know Zimmerman confronted Martin because, according to you, Zimmerman confronted Martin. Where is the FACT that shows Zimmerman initiated the physical altercation? That is what matters in the eyes of the law.
“I appreciate your admission that you’re becoming upset that you’re trying to deal with people presenting you with facts that don’t support your feelings”
Actually the main source of my frustration stems from you repeatedly referencing the presentation of facts that you haven’t presented.
“Regarding what the dispatcher told Zimmerman, you’re engaging in a bit of reaching there.”
Touché. After the dispatcher told Z that he didn’t need to do that, how do we know he didn’t comply? How do we know that he continued to, as you put it,“stalk” Trayvon? Cell phone triangulation? Eye witness testimony? I’m curious.
“If you want to just say “following”, you are leaving out the fact that the pursuee was not a criminal…"
So only criminals can be followed, and innocents are stalked. Got it.
“…and was understandably scared of the man following him.”
Which is why he didn’t go home, or contact police, despite having ample time to do either one? Interesting.
“The jury in this matter does not have the luxury you are enjoying- they will need to reconcile Zimmerman’s statements with the facts at hand.”
Not true. Anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of law would disagree.
“This is why he is going to need to testify – if he doesn’t, then the prosecution can easily show that his earlier accounts don’t hold water.”
Oh, so all the prosecution has to do for a guilty verdict is cast reasonable doubt on the defense’s version of events? I thought that’s all that was required of the defense regarding the Prosecution’s version. Maybe you should cite your source on this, just to be sure.
“But you forget to mention that Martin didn’t have Zimmerman’s blood on his hands, which you would expect had he been repeatedly hitting Zimmerman in the face and “slamming his head into the pavement”"
The lack of Zimmerman’s blood or DNA on Martin doesn’t mean that the strikes did not occur, considering it is rpossible to strike someone without picking up their blood or DNA.
“He clarified for the prosecution attorney that he had not seen Martin actually striking Zimmerman”
Good stated that he did not see “fist contact face”, but he did see Martin on top of Zimmerman, moving his arms in a downward motion repeatedly. You think the jury won’t connect those dots? He did say it could have been in an attempt to hold him down, which doesn’t speak well for Martin either. Why was he trying to hold down a person that, as described by Good, was screaming out for help?
“One of the most crucial points of Good’s testimony has been completely ignored by the right wing media: Zimmerman did not identify himself as neighborhood watch, nor did he say anything to Good, who was calling to him.”
Wow, this part right here is, hands down, my favorite out of all of your statements. I wasn’t aware that if a neighborhood watch member doesn’t identify themself to a third party while getting repeatedly punched in the face, they could be charged with murder! That’s hardly an indictment of Zimmerman’s motives. If that’s the most crucial part of the Prosecution’s case, Zimmerman walks.
Well, I’ve got to cut this short, take care!
Regarding what the dispatcher told Zimmerman, you’re engaging in a bit of reaching there. The dispatcher clearly asked Zimmerman if he was following Martin as Zimmerman could be heard running. When Zimmerman said he was, the dispatcher firmly told him “Okay, we don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman had been studying at this point for some time to be a Neighborhood Watch person. He’d been studying criminal justice as a profession. He knew quite well what the dispatcher was telling him, even if you wish to pretend that he didn’t. Unless you’re alleging that Zimmerman didn’t understand a simple instruction from a police dispatcher, which would call into question the entire notion of Zimmerman being a capable Neighborhood Watch “captain”.
I appreciate your admission that you’re becoming upset trying to deal with people presenting you with facts that don’t support your feelings. I understand that this is frustrating. But it will really help if you can deal with this in some manner other than to call people liars.
You can play with the semantics of the situation as much as feels good, but the term “stalking” is quite appropriate for a case where you have one man tracking another man in the dark. Keep in mind that you have Trayvon Martin, who has committed no crime and is understandably scared of the man who is staring at him from a car in a “creepy” manner. So Trayvon gets a look at this “creepy” guy and then runs away, after his friend on the phone tells him to get away. Zimmerman then gets out of his car and pursues him. Martin tells his girlfriend that he thinks he’s lost the guy and then says that Zimmerman has found him again in the dark. If you want to just say “following”, you’re leaving out the fact that the pursuee was not a criminal and was understandably scared of the man following him. That’s why this is a case of stalking. But I think you’re already aware of that, to be honest.
We actually do know that Zimmerman confronted Martin. By staring him down, chasing him, and then confronting Martin, Zimmerman set the fight in motion. The neighbors all attest to hearing loud arguing before things devolved into a scuffle and then someone yelling for help. You have yet to provide any explanation of how what the witnesses have testified lines up with Zimmerman’s account of Martin ambushing him, threatening him with death and “slamming his head into the sidewalk”. Because there are serious discrepancies in Zimmerman’s various accounts and you don’t seem to want to acknowledge them. The jury in this matter does not have the luxury you are enjoying – they will need to reconcile Zimmerman’s statements with the facts at hand. This is why he’s going to need to testify – if he doesn’t, then the prosecution can easily show that his earlier accounts don’t hold water. And that’s when the manslaughter conviction can come in – which is the least of his possible problems if the jury goes for 2nd Degree Murder as a conviction.
It’s interesting that you bring up Trayvon Martin’s lack of facial injuries. But you forget to mention that Martin didn’t have Zimmerman’s blood on his hands, which you would expect had he been repeatedly hitting Zimmerman in the face and “slamming his head into the pavement”. Or you would expect it if he had been holding his hand over Zimmerman’s bleeding nose and mouth. You have yet to find any way to explain this contradiction. As for Martin not having wounds on his face, it’s entirely possible that Zimmerman didn’t hit him in the face – he could have tackled him. He could have shoved him. He could have swung and missed. These guys wound up in a fight – there are hundreds of possibilities that can explain the various injuries. But the issue is that there would have been no fight had Zimmerman not profiled, stalked and confronted Martin. If he’d gone back to his car and done as he was told, Zimmerman would not now be in the situation he currently faces. And Trayvon Martin would be alive today.
Regarding John Good’s testimony, you have once again misrepresented what the witness said. What Good said was that he heard a noise outside and when he went to check, he saw the two guys in the middle of a fight on the grass, which then moved to the pavement. He said that he called to them repeatedly but neither man answered him. When he heard one of them call for help, he said “Cut it out. I’m calling 911”. When he went to call 911, he heard the fatal shot ring out. You’re giving a misrepresentation of what Good said when you say things like “raining down blows”. That’s not what Good said. That’s what Zimmerman’s defense attorney said in his attempt to put words in Good’s mouth. Good said “That’s what it looked like” – he didn’t say that he definitely saw blows hitting Zimmerman. He also said he saw arm movements going downward but didn’t know if any of them connected. He also said that he didn’t see Martin smashing Zimmerman’s “head into the pavement”, and he said that the term “ground and pound” (which has been embraced by right wing media) may have actually been something he heard from one of the police officers on the scene and not something he came up with himself. He clarified for the prosecution attorney that he had not seen Martin actually striking Zimmerman – meaning that he was seeing a continuing fight where Martin was getting the upper hand but not a situation where someone was being beaten to death. He did feel the situation was getting serious enough to call 911, but he described it as a fight getting out of control, not Trayvon Martin viciously trying to murder Zimmerman.
One of the most crucial points of Good’s testimony has been ignored by right wing media: Zimmerman did not identify himself as Neighborhood Watch, nor did he say anything to Good, who was calling to him. Just yelling “Help!” isn’t the same thing as telling your neighbor “Hey! I’m Neighborhood Watch! This guy is casing the street! Call the police!” Because Zimmerman was clearly focused on fighting Martin himself, not on working as a Neighborhood Watch “captain”.
You then backtracked on your statements to say that “the extent of Zimmerman’s injuries do not matter”. That’s not true. His injuries indicate that the was not in danger of his life, but they do show that he was losing a fistfight. And there are other ways to end a fistfight other than shooting your opponent to death. Even Mark Fuhrman admitted this last week.
Regarding Rachel Jenteal, you wrote “That was the most impeachable witness I’ve ever seen. She could not read a letter that, initially, she claimed to write!! That speaks for itself. Oh and she lied about her age, her reasoning for not going to Trayvon’s funeral, and too many other things to count”. If you don’t understand where this gets personal, I’ll just say that you called her names, as seen above, you accused her of further offenses that you did not name, and in general you took a fairly unpleasant tone toward her. Calling her “the most impeachable witness I’ve ever seen” is stating your opinion, not a fact. Not everyone agrees with your opinion.
I’m sorry if you feel that Zimmerman’s chasing of Martin is “the same old tired story”, but the recorded call to the dispatcher shows that this is exactly what Zimmerman was doing. Are you saying that there is something wrong with this tape now? Are you saying that Zimmerman and the dispatcher were lying as well?
While I don’t understand the relevance of your notion of Martin being chased by other “creepy” guys, I do take some issue with your statement about “a history of black males doing harm to the neighborhood. His neighborhood.” You see, you’re playing the race card there. The same race card you’re castigating others for playing. You’re justifying racial profiling, which is part of the problem that generated this situation in the first place. You really do need to think about that before making such statements, and I hope you’ll reconsider that position. And while we’re discussing how this was “His neighborhood”, can you explain why George Zimmerman did not respond to John Good when he could have identified himself? Can you explain why Zimmerman violated the instructions of a police dispatcher and got into a bloody fight in the middle of “His neighborhood”?
Your opinion that “Zimmerman complied with the authorities fully” omits the fact that he apparently didn’t tell them the truth. What he told the police did not line up with what the witnesses said they saw and heard. And your comment that “they decided not to charge him due to the LACK of evidence” is strange. The authorities absolutely did charge Zimmerman – otherwise he wouldn’t be on trial right now.
I agree with your statement that you can ignore the facts but the jury will not be able to do so. The difference here is that we’re trying to look at ALL of the facts here. Your summaries here have unfortunately omitted the facts that you did not wish to acknowledge. That’s fine for pundits and radio talk show hosts, but in a court of law, it doesn’t work. I have full confidence in our system of justice. I believe that the jury will dispassionately look at the facts of the case and draw their own conclusions. And THAT’s how the justice system works.
I read my post regarding Rachel Jeantel, only I couldn’t find the part where I supposedly attacked her personally. I spoke facts.
The same old tired story that Zimmerman chased down Martin and shot him in cold blood is yours to peddle if you want, just know that it is in direct conflict with the FACTS of the case.
It isn’t known whether or not Trayvon had a history of non-black people chasing him intending to do him harm.
On the other hand, it is well known that GZ’s neighborhood had a history of black males doing harm to the neighborhood. His neighborhood.
Zimmerman complied with the authorities fully, and they decided not to charge him due to the LACK of evidence to refute his story.
You can ignore the facts if you want.
The jury won’t.
You can’t make or support a charge of murder and then sit back and ask anyone to prove you wrong. That’s not how the justice system works.
There is no evidence to support your claim that Zimmerman “stalked” Martin. But by using the term stalked, you make your narrative sound much more compelling, rather than simply stating Zimmerman followed Martin.
There is no evidence to support your claim that Zimmerman initiated the contact. Following someone at a distance is not the same as initiating contact.
We DO know that Zimmerman had numerous face and head injuries. Martin had no injuries to the face or head what so ever, which would indicate Zimmerman never struck him.
A witness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman “Raining down blows” on Zimmerman, and told him to stop. Martin did not stop. The same witness testified that he believed it was Zimmerman who was screaming for help.
The audio tapes created a timeline which showed that Zimmerman had cried out for help for at least 45 seconds to a minute. The extent of Zimmerman’s injuries do not matter, only that he was in fear for his life.
What we know in this case for certain is that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin to death. We know that he was following and stalking Martin, that he used expletives while doing so, and we know that his initial response to the first witness after he killed Martin didn’t indicate he was in fear of his life. We also know that Zimmerman’s accounts of what happened have varied, and that they don’t line up with what the witnesses saw and heard. Which makes his accounts suspect, and which is why the prosecutors have been making their case for convicting him.
Zimmerman’s behavior of stalking and following Martin is a fact, whether it makes you happy or not. It appears that you are unhappy about this one, but facts are what they are, regardless of a person’s feelings about them. The dispatcher on the phone clearly thought that Zimmerman was sitting in his car reporting on what he was seeing – which would be appropriate for Neighborhood Watch. The intention was for Zimmerman to wait there and let the real police check out the situation when they arrived in a few minutes. Zimmerman knew this well, since he’d been calling them over and over again ever since he appointed himself the Neighborhood Watch guy for the area. After the dispatcher heard Zimmerman clearly running after Martin, the dispatcher then told him to stop it. Clearly, the instruction was for Zimmerman to cease stalking and chasing Martin, return to his car, and not aggravate the situation. Zimmerman clearly chose to ignore that instruction. If he had done what he was told, returned to his car and not done anything else, the police would have been there in a few minutes and the situation would have been over. Instead, Zimmerman decided he couldn’t let it go, and a 17 year-old is dead as a result.
It’s interesting to me that you are fixated on one word in my first post to you. I didn’t say that I made a “false” assertion. I said that I used the incorrect word. Your statement accuses someone of a lie. Mine offers a correction. You still haven’t corrected your own discussion of a phantom witness who doesn’t exist. I’m assuming that you are acknowledging that my correction of your statements was proper.
I didn’t argue about what names Martin called Zimmerman, but the point that really came out of that phrase for me was “creepy”. I don’t like hearing anyone use racial slurs, but I don’t know that Martin referring to Zimmerman as a “creepy XXX cracker” justifies Zimmerman shooting him to death. It sounds more to me that Martin was creeped out by Zimmerman and thought he could be a real danger to him, which turned out to be a correct impulse there.
I’m glad that you understand that the “self defense” argument doesn’t apply given what we know about this case. The testimony we have from the witnesses shows that Zimmerman stalked, followed and confronted Trayvon, with the result being a fight and then Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon. As you noted, self defense would not apply in that situation. But I understand if you feel so deeply about it that you are unable to look at the matter dispassionately.
Regarding Rachel Jenteal, I find it interesting that you are spending this time to attack her. Has she said something to you personally for you to do this? Her testimony about what happened with Trayvon Martin has indeed been consistent. Even right wing outlets have acknowledged this. Where you’re trying to attack her are areas that even Fox News has acknowledged as understandable. She is clearly someone who didn’t want to be involved in this situation and is uncomfortable with it. She didn’t want to go to the funeral for reasons that she discussed at court. She was uncomfortable discussing her age. She has noted that she cannot write cursive and has trouble reading it. She also had previously testified that someone else prepared the letter for her. You are parsing words trying to attack her here, while her testimony in court speaks for itself.
The strangest part of your post is that you seem to assume that I “feel” Zimmerman is guilty. That’s not the case. We are trying to dispassionately look at the facts of this situation. Zimmerman’s testimony is inconsistent and seems intended to justify his fatal shooting of a 17 year old. That’s not a matter of anyone “feeling” he’s guilty. It’s a matter that his behavior here is more than suspicious. It’s not helping Zimmerman that the witnesses are not corroborating his version of the story wherein Martin somehow jumps out of the darkness, attacks him and then threatens to kill him. It’s also not helping him that Martin’s condition doesn’t corroborate Zimmerman’s stories either. Do I “feel” he’s guilty? No, I but I can make an educated inference from the facts at hand that Zimmerman appears to be trying to justify a fatal shooting he doesn’t want to go to jail for doing. We’ll know what the jury thinks of his story in a few weeks, after all the evidence is in. I find it interesting that the right wing of this country seems to want to declare this trial over after only a week.
We don’t know who initiated contact. Period. We cannot send a man do jail without some evidence that would “beyond a reasonable doubt” show him to have initiated said contact.
Once again, in order to believe that George “hunted” or “stalked” Trayvon would be in direct conflict with the FACTS. No one ever ordered Zimmerman to stop following Martin; the operator at one point asked if Zimmerman was still following Martin, to which Martin replied that he was. The operator said, “We don’t need you to do that,” and that was only seconds after the operator instructed Zimmerman to “Let me know if he does anything”. Is that somewhat ambiguous? That’s for a jury to decide.
Perhaps the most telling aspect of your bias is your assertion that Zimmerman used racial epithets, which was false. While you did acknowledge that this was false, you made no mention of Trayvon calling Zimmerman a “creepy a*s cracker”, which is certainly a racial slur.
“You can’t just stalk someone, confront them and initiate a fight with them and then shoot them in the name of “self defense””
I am in complete agreement with you on this one, do you have any FACTS to suggest this is what happened? The constructed timeline based on all of the phone calls doesn’t support this theory.
Which part of Rachel Jeantel’s testimony was consistent? That was the most impeachable witness I’ve ever seen. She could not read a letter that, initially, she claimed to write!! That speaks for itself. Oh and she lied about her age, her reasoning for not going to Trayvon’s funeral, and too many other things to count. If she were the witness that was trying to exonerate Zimmerman, you’d be shooting her testimony full of holes, I guarantee it.
Everything you’ve argued so far is pretty close to the definition of reasonable doubt. But considering that you feel Zimmerman is guilty, answer me this: where is the “depraved mind” evidence sufficient to convict him of Murder 2? Before you answer, maybe you should look up the definition of depraved.
Firstly, I applaud your honesty in admitting that you were incorrect to state that Martin ambushed Zimmerman. I should note that I did not mean to write “racial epithets”. I meant to write “offensive epithets”. Zimmerman is clearly heard on the call referring to Martin as one of the “$#%@@ punks” and “@#$holes” who “always get away.”
Your quotation of a “Natalie Lauer” makes no sense. There is no “Natalie Lauer”. Perhaps you mean Jennifer Lauer, who testified on the 26th in a manner consistent with her prior deposition. Assuming that you mean this witness, whose testimony before both defense and prosecution attorneys I have personally watched, your account does not line up with the reality.
It was in Jennifer Lauer’s deposition that she discussed the “three part conversation”. But she didn’t know what the people were saying. What she did say was that it was a loud conversation, followed by the sounds of scuffling on the grass out back, followed by yelping and then someone calling out “Help”. That is not what Zimmerman has said in various of his accounts. And a three part conversation could also be:
Person 1: Why are you following me?
Person 2: What are you doing around here?
Person 1: Hey, why are you following me?
(Person 2 grabs Person 1, they scuffle, Person 2 shoots Person 1)
Now, you may feel that George Zimmerman can shoot someone to death and then just walk away from his actions, but that’s not going to fly in a court of law. Not in Florida or anywhere else in the USA. He has admitted that he was following and stalking Martin, even after he was told to stop it. He has then tried to say that Martin somehow jumped him from the dark, except that witnesses heard a conversation that doesn’t indicate someone being jumped. He has tried to change his story to say that Martin threatened him before he attacked him – except that this still doesn’t line up with any of the witnesses’ accounts.
If Zimmerman cannot explain his behavior beyond what he’s already said in inconsistent versions to different people, he will indeed have a problem in court, and he knows it. If the jury finds that he initiated this confrontation and fight, particularly after being told to back off, he will not be able to assert self defense or the “stand your ground” law. Further, even the Fox News commentators like Fuhrman have admitted that Zimmerman had other options short of killing Martin – such as wounding him or just hitting him with the gun. By shooting Martin point blank in the chest, Zimmerman eliminated all other approaches and escalated the situation into a killing. That’s a very serious matter, as the prosecution has been establishing.
Your account of the witnesses’ testimony appears to be tilted toward your hope that Zimmerman will somehow be able to get away with his actions here. You are incorrect when you say that all the witnesses aside from Rachel Jenteal have somehow corroborated Zimmerman’s various accounts. I’m quite familiar with their accounts, so I have to ask if you may be doing some projecting here. Because it sounds like you’re trying to cherry pick bits of their testimony in the hopes that it will line up with what you want to hear.
It’s truly unfortunate that you’re presenting this case as one where anyone is “winning” or “losing”. That’s exactly the kind of cheerleading that needs to be kept away from cases like this. For the record, there are no winners here. There is a dead 17 year old who was shot to death by a man who has changed his story depending on who he was talking to. Nobody is winning in that scenario, and it’s frankly a bit shameful for anyone to be trying to cheer for a verdict. This is a very serious matter, concerning a family who has lost their son and a man who may be sentenced to life in prison. My posts in this matter have reflected that seriousness. You seem to think I have an agenda. Frankly, I don’t. But again this may be a matter where you’re projecting your own feelings over the discussion we’ve been trying to engage in here.
You’ve tried to conflate some of the issues, and you’ve made some unfortunately untrue statements. Nobody is suggesting that Zimmerman didn’t have the right to follow Trayvon Martin – until he was told by the dispatcher to back off. When he disregarded that instruction and continued stalking Martin until he could confront him, he eliminated any claim he might have had toward self defense. You can’t just stalk someone, confront them and initiate a fight with them and then shoot them in the name of “self defense”. I agree with you that this would be ridiculous, as I’m sure you’ll acknowledge. Also, your dismissal of Martin’s right to be in that neighborhood is strange. Trayvon Martin was staying with his father at the home where his father’s fiancée lived. He had every right to be there. Neither you nor Zimmerman has the right to tell him that he didn’t.
Further, you may disagree that Rachel Jenteal has consistently testified about how Martin told her he was being stalked, and about how she overheard the confrontation initiated by Zimmerman. You can try to abbreviate your quote of my post, but you cannot evade the facts there. Again, you really need to look at what Jenteal was saying both in her deposition and in court, and not be thrown by your emotional reaction to her and to this case.
Regarding Zimmerman’s head injuries, you may be surprised to know that if you bang your head into something solid and hard, like a sidewalk, you will cause it to bleed. These guys were in a fight and Zimmerman was trying to avoid being hit in the face. He clearly didn’t succeed every time because he wound up with a bloody nose. Had Martin been grabbing Zimmerman’s head and slamming it repeatedly into the concrete, as Zimmerman has alleged in some of his accounts, Zimmerman would have been in no condition to pull a gun, aim it and fire it. In all likelihood, he would have had a fractured skull. But we forget that in other accounts, Zimmerman would have us believe that Martin was holding his hand over Zimmerman’s nose and mouth and threatening him in a sinister fashion. And of course that doesn’t line up with the fact that Martin didn’t have Zimmerman’s blood on his hands…
I’m honestly not sure what your MSNBC reference means. I have followed this matter through multiple resources, checking the points of view as expressed by Fox News, CNN, Democracy Now, KFI and also by MSNBC. No one outlet has dominated the coverage for me, although I have noticed a strong consistency between KFI and Fox News.
Your final comment is strange. First, you try to bring up the “race card”. I haven’t discussed anyone’s race, and I don’t know where you’re going with that. My point has consistently been that it seems that AM radio and Fox News has some kind of agenda here to either support Zimmerman or to rile their listeners/viewers up in the event he is convicted. And I made a clear connection to the shameful stories that were run both on AM radio and on Fox News about Ramos & Compean 6 years ago. I’m reminding people of that situation in the hope that it won’t be repeated here.
One final note regarding the polygraph test. Such tests are not considered reliable, particularly since it is possible to fool the test if you know what you’re doing. If you were trying to make a case for Zimmerman telling the truth, that wouldn’t be the place to start. And throwing in a backhanded insult at a dead 17 year old at the end of your post is simply distasteful. Perhaps you might think about that for a few moments and see whether that was an appropriate step for you to take.
Lies in your first post:
1. Used racial epithets to describe Martin
2. Martins friend Rachel has consistently testified…
3. Zimmerman’s head injuries are consistent with dodging punches from Martin (this one made me laugh, dodging punches causes the back of your head to bleed?)
I can tell you’ve been watching waay too much MSNBC Kevin. Of course they’ve been portraying Zimmerman as the bad guy, aren’t they the ones who doctored the audio tapes?
Everyone needs to stop taking the bait when the race card gets played. George Zimmerman took a polygraph test involving all of the details of the incident, and passed. If Trayvon were still alive, could he do the same?
Natalie Lauer was a witness for the prosecution, and she essentially verified Z’s version of events. Remember how she said she heard a three part conversation?
Person 1: do you have a problem?
Person 2: no.
Person 1: you do now! (Punch to the face)
That’s exactly the conversation Zimmerman said took place, and it just so happens to be a 3 part conversation.
“it’s quite unlikely that zimmerman will be able to walk away from this killing”
That is pure speculation on your part, so you can spare me. In order for the prosecution to have the slightest chance at a conviction, they must PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that lethal force was unnecessary. Zimmerman doesn’t have to prove he was defending himself, because the court of law states that you are innocent until proven guilty. Your little anecdote about zimmerman needing to testify in order to provide a better explanation is suggesting he must prove his innocence, which is patently false.
If you know for a fact that he confronted Martin, you could’ve been a game changer at this trial that the prosecution is clearly losing. All of their witnesses (besides the one that admitted under oath that she lies- under oath) have corroborated Zimmerman’s depositions. But I’m sure you haven’t read any of the depositions, for fear of finding facts that don’t suit your agenda.
First, the fact that the neighbors heard the escalating argument outside demolishes the entire idea of Martin somehow “ambushing” Zimmerman in the dark. Had this been the case, there would have been no argument – just a fight, and that’s not what the neighbors have testified.
Secondly, it’s quite unlikely that Zimmerman will be able to walk away from this killing. It’s actually a good possibility that he’ll be convicted of manslaughter, unless he can testify and provide a better explanation than the one he’s previously given. There is also a possibility that he could be convicted of 2nd Degree Murder, based on his actions of following, stalking and confronting Martin even after being told to stop it. The real question now is how the right wing will react in the event that Zimmerman is found guilty of either of those counts. Will they accept it, or will they repeat the Ramos & Compean scenario, where facts were ignored in favor of opinions?
Here are some basic facts from the investigation and from the trial. George Zimmerman has admitted to profiling Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman’s conversation with the police dispatcher was recorded, during which Zimmerman admitted he was following Martin and used racial epithets to describe what he thought of Martin. That conversation included the instruction to Zimmerman to stop following Martin. The residents in the neighborhood who have testified have discussed that they heard loud arguing outside which degenerated into a fight where someone was shouting for help. One of the neighbors described hearing the sounds of the initial confrontation as going by her house in a direction showing Zimmerman as having continued his pursuit of Martin against instructions, and having then confronted him in a loud enough manner for the neighbors to hear it. Martin’s friend Rachel has consistently testified that Martin was trying to get away from Zimmerman but Zimmerman continued stalking him, until the moment where he caught up to Martin and the confrontation happened. Not one witness has described anything sounding like Zimmerman being ambushed. The witnesses have described that a fight happened on the ground between Martin and Zimmerman. It appears that the fight ended with Martin on top of Zimmerman trying to hit him and then Zimmerman shooting Martin to death in response. Zimmerman’s injuries indicate that he was punched in the nose but without breaking it. Zimmerman’s head injuries are consistent with Zimmerman throwing his head back and forth trying to evade the punches from Martin. Given that Martin had no blood on his hands, and had only a small cut on his finger, there is no indication of any of the threatening behavior Zimmerman has previously alleged, such as holding his mouth and bleeding nose shut. Further, if Zimmerman’s mouth and nose were being held shut by Martin, how can he allege that he was calling for help? Not one witness aside from Zimmerman has said that Martin ever threatened Zimmerman.
These are the facts, and as one right wing icon once said, “Facts are stubborn things”.
Before anyone makes some ignorant statement about how GZ attacked TM, please include facts from the trial. The court of law prefers to rely on facts.
You forgot to include, “Its Obama’s fault; he and Holder manipulated the jury from Washington.”
Otherwise, spot on.
Zimmerman not guilty — Zimmerman and all white people are justified carrying guns to defend themselves against evil blacks armed with iced tea and candy. Martin was the aggressor. Jury gave correct decision, ignoring the “media” who wanted Zimmerman (i.e. people of non-color) guilty.
Zimmerman guilty — racially biased verdict, jury pressured by Sharpton, Jackson, the NBPP and the media to find him guilty at all costs. White people will get no justice in the court system when “defending” themselves. Gov’t will seek to ban guns, self-defense and stand your ground laws.
They will spin it whatever way to make themselves and their audiences feel good.
In the world of this narrative, somehow George Zimmerman is an innocent Neighborhood Watch guy who just wanted to protect his community from crooks when he wound up in a fight with Trayvon Martin that somehow resulted in Martin’s death. That’s the most extreme version of it. The one I heard this morning was more modulated, and a bit more sinister. On KFI today (which is the hard right wing AM radio station in Los Angeles), a morning pundit opined that Zimmerman was acting in self defense and that the jury wouldn’t consider anything that happened before the moment Zimmerman pulled the trigger. They even admitted that Zimmerman profiled, stalked and then confronted Martin after being told to back off. They think that somehow none of that matters. I’d argue that this logic betrays more than a little desperation.
It’s strange to me that the right wing is becoming so unhinged over this matter. It’s not like the facts of Martin’s death are in dispute. Zimmerman killed Martin by shooting him to death at point blank range. Even Zimmerman admits to doing this. Zimmerman killed Martin while in the midst of a confrontation he was told not to make. So the only question now Is how much of a penalty he will face. It’s possible that he could somehow get manslaughter. Or it’s possible that he could get 2nd Degree Murder. But it’s quite unlikely that he’ll just be acquitted at this point.