Are you Team Trayvon or Team Zimmerman?

[Carmady]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Zimmerman's story (as far as I can tell, and it isn't very far) is that Zimmerman went up to Martin and asked him what his business was.

From what I've read, Zimmerman told police he got out of the truck to look at a street sign and was attacked from behind.

If that was his story at the time, the location of the body (in the backyard or between houses?) could make it implausible, as well as the girlfriend's statement that Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him, and possible 911 call evidence that Zimmerman had gotten out to follow Martin rather than to check a sign.

[Nars Glinley]

Unless he was captain of the neighborhood followers, Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck and watched.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Carmady

From what I've read, Zimmerman told police he got out of the truck to look at a street sign and was attacked from behind.

Seriously, is it so hard to look things up?

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...von_marti.html

The Orlando Sentinel reported that George Zimmerman told police he lost 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in the neighborhood he regularly patrolled and was walking back to his vehicle last month when the youth approached him from behind.

=========================

Where are you getting this "he got out of the truck to look at a street sign and was attacked from behind" crap from? I have seen this repeated a few times already.

[Carmady]

Originally Posted by Terr

Seriously, is it so hard to look things up?

I did look it up. The first result that appeared was this one.

"Police said Zimmerman told them he got out of his vehicle to get a look at a street sign, and Martin attacked him from behind"


Of course, this article may be wrong.

Also, unless I missed it somehow your article does not appear to say what Zimmerman gave as his reason for getting out of the truck?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Carmady

Also, unless I missed it somehow your article does not appear to say what Zimmerman gave as his reason for getting out of the truck?

AFAIK it's in the 911 calls. There is no indication exactly why - he probably got out to follow Martin. But it wasn't "to look at the street sign".

[Carmady]

Originally Posted by Terr

AFAIK it's in the 911 calls. There is no indication exactly why - he probably got out to follow Martin. But it wasn't "to look at the street sign".

No, it almost certainly wasn't. Which is why IF he gave that reason, it would destroy his credibility.

It also seems odd that he would get out of his vehicle to follow Martin if he had lost him already. And it is odd if the body was found in a back yard or between houses. And it is odd if Martin asked him why he was following him, and Zimmerman promptly turned his back and ignored him after following him intently for so long.

Would you follow someone you suspect to be a messed up criminal, following them through a back yard, and then all of a sudden turn around leaving yourself vulnerable when they asked you why you were following them?

It's just an odd story any way you look at it.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Carmady

No, it almost certainly wasn't. Which is why IF he gave that reason, it would destroy his credibility.

He did not.

It also seems odd that he would get out of his vehicle to follow Martin if he had lost him already. And it is odd if the body was found in a back yard or between houses. And it is odd if Martin asked him why he was following him, and Zimmerman promptly turned his back and ignored him after following him intently for so long.

Huh? The girlfriend reports (if you believe her) that the conversation was: Martin: "Why are you following me?". Zimmerman: "What are you doing here?". Then the sounds of the scuffle. So Martin's question could have been while Zimmerman was turned away. When Zimmerman answered, he'd definitely turn to Martin.

Would you follow someone you suspect to be a messed up criminal, following them through a back yard, and then all of a sudden turn around leaving yourself vulnerable when they asked you why you were following them?

You're making things up.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Shodan

I don't know what happened. Zimmerman's story (as far as I can tell, and it isn't very far) is that Zimmerman went up to Martin and asked him what his business was.

That's not the official story. According to the press, Zimmerman claimed that Martin ambushed him, demanded to know if he had a problem, and then--when Zimmerman said no and supposedly reached for his cellphone--Martin proclaimed "Well you do now" and then decked him in the nose and proceeded to batter his head against the sidewalk.

Notice how Zimmerman took care to mention that he reached for his cellphone. Whoever said that everything in his story is oh-so convenient is dead on. Zimmerman wasn't chasing anyone. No sir! It was Martin who came after him. And he didn't pull out his gun in an attempt to intimidate the kid. Why gosh, that's crazy talk! It was his phone that he reached for, you see? Cuz of course if you thought a drugged out weirdo was about to start some mess with you, bursting up out of alcoves and stuff in the darkness like an angry pterodactyl, pulling out the gun on your hip would be the last thing on your mind. You'd go for your phone first, duh. And you'd make sure to tell the cops this, too. And also, Zimmerman didn't lay a finger on the kid or do anything that could be legally construed as assault. In fact, it was Trayvon who assaulted him. And he didn't just hit him. But battered him. Holy mother of God the man was battered. Of course we can only take his word for that since there seems to be a shortage of medical evidence attesting to this. But OMG, battered.

Everything in this statement smells funky. I don't know why anyone would give any weight to Zimmerman's portrayal of events. He sounded like a paranoid lunatic on the 911 call and his statement sounds the same way.

[Carmady]

Originally Posted by Terr

He did not.

Cite?

I don't know where the article got that idea from, and I don't know if it is true, but you haven't said where you have your information from either.

Originally Posted by Terr

Huh? The girlfriend reports (if you believe her) that the conversation was: Martin: "Why are you following me?". Zimmerman: "What are you doing here?". Then the sounds of the scuffle. So Martin's question could have been while Zimmerman was turned away. When Zimmerman answered, he'd definitely turn to Martin.

But you just said Zimmerman claimed to be attacked from behind. Why would he ask a suspected messed up criminal "what are you doing here?" and then immediately turn his back on him?

Originally Posted by Terr

You're making things up.

You just now claimed to know for sure what Zimmerman's story was, despite having no cite to back you up.

I never claimed to know, and did provide an article to explain why I gave any credence at all to one possibility.

Who is making something up?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Carmady

But you just said Zimmerman claimed to be attacked from behind. Why would he ask a suspected messed up criminal "what are you doing here?" and then immediately turn his back on him?

"when the youth approached him from behind". Reading is hard, isn't it?

[Carmady]

Originally Posted by Terr

"when the youth approached him from behind". Reading is hard, isn't it?

Yes, I did misread that line.

Did you find the cite to explain your certainty about Zimmerman's story?

As far as I know there isn't a really good explanation for why he got out of his vehicle. If he lost Martin why get out? Why walk between houses and through back yards (if that is indeed what happened)? Were they playing hide and seek?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Carmady

Did you find the cite to explain your certainty about Zimmerman's story?

I can dig around. Or you can go through the 911 tapes. It's there.

As far as I know there isn't a really good explanation for why he got out of his vehicle. If he lost Martin why get out?

Why not? Apparently he was following him. Apparently, again, he thought he was up to something no good in his neighborhood. That's not a crime and is not in any way illegal.

[Harborwolf]

Originally Posted by Terr

Why not? Apparently he was following him. Apparently, again, he thought he was up to something no good in his neighborhood. That's not a crime and is not in any way illegal.

Though it's possible that Trayvon was walking through the neighborhood and felt threatened because some unknown person was following him through his neighborhood and assumed that Zimmerman was up to no good.

Neither assumption is more logical than the other. Both saw someone suspicious acting in a potentially nefarious manner. The only problem is that one had a gun, and that the law makes it more difficult to do a proper investigation. There seems to be an assumption of complete innocence on the part of the shooter and a presumption of guilt on the part of the victim. I'm well aware that innocent until proven guilty is a rather important part of our justice system, but it seems this law wants to make proving someone guilty unnecessarily difficult. As was said by Bricker, whereas self defense would be a trial defense normally, it's seems to prevent a trial at all in Florida.

[Carmady]

Originally Posted by Terr

I can dig around. Or you can go through the 911 tapes. It's there.

No, it's not there. The question is about what Zimmerman told the police afterward.

It is possible that he got out of his vehicle to chase Martin, but then lied about it later, saying he was checking a sign. IF he lied about that it would hurt his credibility about everything else.

[colonial]

Florida legislators who sponsored the state's stand your ground law
have said that the law does not apply in this case:

(link):
Fla. 'Stand Ground' lawmakers call for arrest

(from link):

...Former state Sen. Durell Peaden and current state Rep. Dennis Baxley said the law they wrote in 2005, which allows someone who feels threatened to "meet force with force" without backing down first, was being misapplied in the shooting death of the 17-year-old, the Miami Herald reported.

"They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid," Peaden, a Republican, told the Herald. "He has no protection under my law."

...Peaden and Baxley said that 911 tapes showing that Zimmerman followed Martin despite a dispatcher's request to stay away appeared to show that the 28-year-old crime watch volunteer was the aggressor.

"The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Herald. "When he said, 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."

The pair noted, hwoever, that they didn't know all the facts of the case and their opinions could change if new details were uncovered.

In other developments I have just signed this online petition; I hope everyone
who is on Trayvon's team signs it:

(link):
Prosecute Zimmerman

(petition text):

Prosecute the killer of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin

Greetings,

I'm writing you today to call for justice for Trayvon Martin and his family.

Trayvon Martin was only 17 years old when he was gunned down by the Neighborhood Watch captain George Zimmerman. All Trayvon did was go to the store to get his brother some Skittles.

According to police, George Zimmerman admitted to the shooting and killing of Trayvon Martin. Why has he not been charged and his case been handed over to prosecutors?

Trayvon Martin was unarmed when he was shot by Zimmerman. All he had in his hands was some candy when he was followed and approached by Zimmerman - who ignored instructions from police not to confront the young man.

Please uphold justice.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Harborwolf

Though it's possible that Trayvon was walking through the neighborhood and felt threatened because some unknown person was following him through his neighborhood and assumed that Zimmerman was up to no good.

It is possible as well.

Neither assumption is more logical than the other. Both saw someone suspicious acting in a potentially nefarious manner. The only problem is that one had a gun, and that the law makes it more difficult to do a proper investigation. There seems to be an assumption of complete innocence on the part of the shooter and a presumption of guilt on the part of the victim.

Both could have been acting in self-defense.

[kaylasdad99]

This thread has so many long posts. It would be a lot easier on me if the admins would change everybody's title to either "Team Trayvon" or "Team Zimmerman" for this thread only.

Admins?

[aldiboronti]

Originally Posted by you with the face

I don't know why anyone would give any weight to Zimmerman's portrayal of events.

Perhaps because it's been corroborated by witnesses?

"That is the account Zimmerman gave police," the paper said, "and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say."

BTW I have no Team. I just don't like the sights and sounds of a mob rushing to judgment.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by colonial

Florida legislators who sponsored the state's stand your ground law
have said that the law does not apply in this case:

They don't get to decide whether it applies or doesn't apply in this case.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Shodan

"Supposed" according to who? The law? Not as far as I can tell.
I'm sure it can. But as far as I can tell, it does not constitute, or justify, assault and battery.

Regards,
Shodan

So let me get this straight. I can stalk you through the night scarring the crap out of you (per the girlfriend's testimony), ignoring your questions about why I'm acting like a creeper, and you can't defend yourself from that perceived threat.


What's your address? I'd like to have some fun.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by aldiboronti

Perhaps because it's been corroborated by witnesses?
.

If this is being claimed by he same authorities who failed to follow up on major clues (like Martin's phone), who announced that Zimmerman felt the need to defend himself in the absence of a complete investigation, and who witnesses say did a dodgy job of taking their statements--even reportedly going so far as to correct things they said so that they fit with Zimmermans statement--I am not inclined to believe them.

[colonial]

Originally Posted by Terr

They don't get to decide whether it applies or doesn't apply in this case.

They would know better than anyone what they intended when they drafted the law,
wouldn't they?

Of course, it is a well-known fact that legislators have a knack for passing ambiguous laws,
and that the courts are likely to resolve ambiguity in favor of a criminal defendant.

Hopefully Florida's SYGL is clear enough not to stand in the way of putting this Zimmerman bastard
where he deserves, which is behind bars.

[rogerbox]

Except there was nothing at all suspicious about Trayvan to zimmerman except for his blackness.

[gamerunknown]

you can't defend yourself from that perceived threat.

Oh, you can, but then you're no longer an innocent party but a threatening black athlete that wants to kill his ex-wife.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by colonial

They would know better than anyone what they intended when they drafted the law, wouldn't they?

The language of the law trumps the supposed intent. There is nothing in the law that says that it doesn't apply.

[XaMcQ]

I'm Team 'Cops were lazy, incompetent morons', so we no longer have a snowflake's chance in the hot place of getting decent evidence of what really happened. My general impression is that they showed up, found a black kid dead and an off-white guy who looked a little roughed up and said 'self-defense, case closed'.

[colonial]

Originally Posted by Terr

The language of the law trumps the supposed intent. There is nothing in the law that says that it doesn't apply.

I prefer the interpretation of those who drafted the law over your interpretation.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by colonial

I prefer the interpretation of those who drafted the law over your interpretation.

They didn't "interpret". They just claimed. Read the law. Point to any language that would hint that it doesn't apply in this case.

[colonial]

Originally Posted by Terr

They didn't "interpret". They just claimed. Read the law. Point to any language that would hint that it doesn't apply in this case.

Listen asshole, for someone who drafted a law to "claim" such-and-such about the law
obviously connotes that he "interprets" the law in such-and-such a way, that it is his informed legal opinion.

What the drafter in question has not done is provide an explanation, a legal brief.
Frankly since the Florida legislature did its share to create this mess I would think
some such statement of intent and interpretation would be forthcoming from it.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by LonesomePolecat

Well, if I understand all this correctly, and I'm not at all sure that I do, the police investigation was done on the spot and lasted for two or three hours, if that. At the very least, the case should have been referred to the DA's office. Any case involving violent death deserves more than that.

ABC is reporting as follows:

The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.

But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney's office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn't enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News.

Recall that earlier you said this:

I have to agree the police were much too quick to dismiss the case as self-defense.

It looks to me like you may be guilty of the sin of which you accused the authorities: Making up your mind based on too little information.

[you with the face]

Sounds like someone is trying to CYA all of a sudden. Sanford PD is more dysfunctional than I thought.

[elucidator]

Our very good friends over at ThinkProgress have compiled the cites for various themes running through this narrative. You got your "This guy looks like he’s up to no good, on drugs or something. " quote, the ever popular "street sign examination" doozy, and, everbody's favorite, the "bloody nose". Cites include links, publications, the whole magilla.

Joe Bob 'luc says "Check it out!"

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...tin-1995-2012/

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Terr

They don't get to decide whether it applies or doesn't apply in this case.

Why not? They could just introduce a bill of attainder against Zimmerman and declare him guilty by legislative fiat.

[elucidator]

Typical, gotta be some fancy Yurpeen car. Can't use a good plain ordinary legislative Ford, or Chrysler.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by you with the face

If this is being claimed by he same authorities who failed to follow up on major clues (like Martin's phone), who announced that Zimmerman felt the need to defend himself in the absence of a complete investigation, and who witnesses say did a dodgy job of taking their statements--even reportedly going so far as to correct things they said so that they fit with Zimmermans statement--I am not inclined to believe them.

So basically you just believe whatever you want to believe no matter what the actual facts say. Gotcha.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

So basically you just believe whatever you want to believe no matter what the actual facts say. Gotcha.

That you assume Facebook rumors, the statements of a police department whose history of racism IS THE CENTRAL ISSUE HERE, and hypothetical statements from unnamed "witnesses" that contradict actual statements from witnesses who have identified themselves and produced recordings that corroborate their story, constitute "actual facts," says a hell of a lot about your own opinion regarding white people murdering black people for no reason without legal consequence.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

That you assume Facebook rumors, the statements of a police department whose history of racism IS THE CENTRAL ISSUE HERE, and hypothetical statements from unnamed "witnesses" that contradict actual statements from witnesses who have identified themselves and produced recordings that corroborate their story, constitute "actual facts," says a hell of a lot about your own opinion regarding white people murdering black people for no reason without legal consequence.

I'm agin' it.

Also, as soon as I hit submit I knew someone would respond like this. By "actual facts" I meant both what we think is the case now and what comes out late as actually being the case. I was indicting you with the face's method of determining the truth, not what she currently thinks is the truth.

The police are the investigative arm of the justice system, so if she's just going to dismiss every single thing the police say, then it's apparent she's living in a faith-based reality system.

Finally, funny that you mention the police department's history of racism being the central issue. Your post is the first I've heard of it.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Finally, funny that you mention the police department's history of racism being the central issue. Your post is the first I've heard of it.

I know, your people think this is about nonexistent gold teeth and "self-defense" including the right to stalk and assault children if they are the wrong color for Real America. It's not, though.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

I know, your people think this is about nonexistent gold teeth and "self-defense" including the right to stalk and assault children if they are the wrong color for Real America. It's not, though.

Who are "my people" exactly? All the other atheist libertarian tax lawyers out there?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

nonexistent gold teeth

Are you sure they are non-existent?

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Who are "my people" exactly? All the other atheist libertarian tax lawyers out there?

People on the conservative blogosphere who unleashed a torrent of racism in response to this case; people who think it's okay for a white man to patrol around his neighborhood looking for blacks to murder; you know....racists.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Terr

Are you sure they are non-existent?

Still no sources saying that's a real photo of him besides conservative blogs (ranging from "The Wagist" to the ever-delightful "chimpout.com", which is on the first page of results for "Trevyon Martin gold teeth). I've noticed a weird tendency of people on the right to pick up on whatever their compatriots have pulled out of their asses and act like anyone who doesn't accept it's true is not living in reality.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

People on the conservative blogosphere who unleashed a torrent of racism in response to this case; people who think it's okay for a white man to patrol around his neighborhood looking for blacks to murder; you know....racists.

Why are those people "my" people?

[Sampiro]

Spike Lee provides some uninformed assholery. He needs to get his ass on Twitter and do what he can to make sure everybody gets the "Wrong address: ABORT" message. (Though if something did happen to the poor old couple he'd probably be arrested before Zimmerman was.)

[Normal Phase]

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/sourcin...tin_photos.php

Just so it's clear.

[Absolute]

This issue is really bringing out the worst in everyone. From the racist wingnuts, to opportunistic attention whores like Sharpton, to the crazy liberals (including some on this board) who are almost literally frothing with outrage over their own frenzied imaginations of what Zimmerman was thinking and doing.

I have been only loosely following the case for the past week or so, and from my perspective what happened is relatively straightforward: Zimmerman is an overzealous wannabe cop who gets off on playing badass by being a neighborhood watch captain, he thought Martin looked suspicious, and followed him through the neighborhood to see what he was up to. They got into some kind of scuffle, and Zimmerman, not much of a badass after all, probably panicked and shot him.

The cops showed up and decided the evidence did not support arresting Zimmerman. Whether they did a thorough job of documenting that evidence isn't really clear.

While this is a regrettable situation all around, unfortunately, being an overzealous wannabe cop is not illegal. Following people through a neighborhood is not illegal. Getting out of your car to follow a person is not illegal. Ignoring things the 911 dispatcher says is not illegal. And nor is shooting an unarmed man who is attacking you.

What it comes down to is who actually initiated the physical confrontation, and we simply can't tell given the evidence that's been made public.

Personally, I find I hard to believe that Martin could not have outrun Zimmerman if it came to that, and Zimmerman does not strike me as the type of person with the guts to actually start a fight. But this is all just speculation.

[GuanoLad]

I'm on the side that says murder is wrong.

[Carmady]

Originally Posted by Absolute

The cops showed up and decided the evidence did not support arresting Zimmerman.

The lead investigator did not believe Zimmerman's story and did, in fact, recommend charging him with manslaughter at the time.

Originally Posted by Absolute

Personally, I find I hard to believe that Martin could not have outrun Zimmerman if it came to that, and Zimmerman does not strike me as the type of person with the guts to actually start a fight. But this is all just speculation.

Martin did not know the situation, did not know why Zimmerman was following him. Zimmerman knew that he was armed (in violation of neighborhood watch guidelines) and following a suspected criminal (despite the police saying they didn't need him to), thus creating a potentially deadly situation.

It doesn't make sense to say "either could have avoided the other" when only one of them knew what was happening.

Martin initially noticed Zimmerman following him in a truck. Most likely he left the road to wait for it to clear. Zimmerman continued to follow him, eventually leaving his vehicle. Martin still didn't know what was going on. Reportedly he asked Zimmerman why he was following him and Zimmerman refused to answer. But at this point, likely close range and face to face, discovering finally that his fear was not an illusion, it was too late to turn his back and run if Zimmerman revealed he was armed or tried to grab him. Try it yourself... spend the night being chased by someone you discover is an armed lunatic, then turn your back on him when he comes at you from close range.

(but don't blame me if you get shot in the back)

[gamerunknown]

According to the Think Progress compilation, the arresting officer did not arrest a lieutenants son for beating up a black homeless guy. I guess that would qualify as a history of racism?

[Blank Slate]

What happens if Zimmerman stays in the truck? The cops come and question Martin, no doubt frisking him as well since captain crimefighter found him suspicious. A typical experience for young, black males. There were nearly 700,000 "stop and frisks" in NYC alone last year, with minorities accounting for 87% of the friskees. Multiply that across the nation and it's not hard to understand where the anger and resentment towards the police comes from.