Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

And so the plot thickens...

Zimmerman sure looks he got the shit kicked out of him in these videos.

At 3/28/12 11:35 PM, Spretznaz wrote:

The guy had no prior indication of racism and he was also on the town watch.

According to his neighbor's and other members of the Neighborhood watch, Zimmerman had made a habit of telling people to be alert and cautious of "young black men".

I just think that because the killer was white

You mean the hispanic son of a Peruvian immigrant.

the racism card might have been an easy way out for his family in order to immediately place massive suspicion on Zimmerman.

How the Martin family is responding to what happened holds no bearing whatsoever on what actually occurred.

At 3/28/12 11:35 PM, Spretznaz wrote: The guy had no prior indication of racism and he was also on the town watch.

So the 40 something calls he made to report suspicious looking black men shouldn't be taken as an indication of anything?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/videogallery/68912193/News/Pa st-911-call-George-Zimmerman-reports-two-black-males#pl-6277 3735

At 3/28/12 11:44 PM, Camarohusky wrote: And so the plot thickens...

Zimmerman sure looks he got the shit kicked out of him in these videos.

Oh my god, looks like he got his ass more beat up than G-Fresh.

It's amazing that he can even breathe with his nose bashed in like that. Breaking your nose is a bitch.

At 3/28/12 11:44 PM, Camarohusky wrote: And so the plot thickens...

Zimmerman sure looks he got the shit kicked out of him in these videos.

Damn... Look at that weak, massively overweight bruised and battered man.... Poor bastard never stood a chance.

At 3/28/12 06:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Show his picture and say the name "George Zimmerman" and 99 out of 100 will say he's white. No one would have called him a latino until he shot the black kid.

I thought he was latino the first time I saw him.

But I guess if he's not your shade of "brown", then he can't be hispanic, isn't that right, you racist?

At 3/29/12 02:10 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/28/12 06:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Show his picture and say the name "George Zimmerman" and 99 out of 100 will say he's white. No one would have called him a latino until he shot the black kid.

I thought he was latino the first time I saw him.

But I guess if he's not your shade of "brown", then he can't be hispanic, isn't that right, you racist?

He looks hispanic to me. But he's half white and half hispanic, so shouldn't that be expected? I don't see why people are debating whether he's white or hispanic. He's both. Although technically, hispanics are a mix of whites and indigenous people of the Americas so calling him hispanic would be more accurate in my opinion. Either way he's a mix of the two.

At 3/28/12 02:28 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

Did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? if not, how did he get a bloody nose and how did the back of his head get bloodied?

Wounds can be self-inflicted. Also, was there blood on the ground where Zimmerman's head was supposedly slammed against? And I thought there were grass stains on the back of his jacket... would your head really bleed if it was slammed into the grass on a rainy day?

depends. we'll have to wait and see.

Zimmerman's story is directly contradicted by almost every witness there, as well as the fact that Martin is almost half Zimmerman's weight. There's no way that scrawny little kid could have done that.

you'd be amazed at what a "scrawny kid" can do.

It's exactly the same thing that happened to Casey Anthony, and I wouldn't be surprised if it happens here, too.

hell even Nancy Grace, the ghoul that munched on Caylee Anthony's bones for years (figuratively anyway) will now be munching on Trayvon's for years now, or at least til the trial happens.

At 3/29/12 10:04 AM, Korriken wrote: depends. we'll have to wait and see.

you'd be amazed at what a "scrawny kid" can do.

I take it you missed the new video of Zimmerman from after he was viciously beaten to a bloody pulp by Martin.

Luckily, Zimmerman is Wolverine, so all the damage that Martin did was healed up by the time this video was captured.

At 3/25/12 10:17 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Could get ugly? This thing got ugly the minute Zimmerman went home without any investigation.

Florida's law is broken. Self defense is an affirmative defense that needs to be proven by the defendant to the finder of fact just like the prosecution (I'm blanking on the burden needed, but my gut says beyond a reasonable doubt.) This would be akin to all gun crimes being perse murder and skipping the trial and the jury and sending the shooter straight to prison.

The fact that it was white on black makes the outcry even worse. (Yes, I know he's technically partially hispanic, but look at his picture, and his name. He's about as hispanic as Taco Bell is authentic Mexican food.)

ITT Guilty until proven innocent, racial profiling, ignoring black panthers attempt at vigilantism.

Does anyone spouting off here actually know jack shit about this? Or do we presume that it's more likely that the Florida police department are transparently racist rather than the possibility that we don't know what we're talking about?

At 3/29/12 02:10 AM, Memorize wrote: then he can't be hispanic, isn't that right, you racist?

Good ol' Memorize: shallow as a puddle and insulting to boot.

Based on the video his skin tone looks a good bit darker than the mugshot the news had been showing.

However, based on the mugshot, on first glance, combined with his British first name and German last name, gives the first impression of him being white.

At 3/29/12 11:00 AM, stinkychops wrote: ITT Guilty until proven innocent

No, it's actually innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It seems to be the contention of some in this thread that when an unarmed 17 year old is shot dead, there really is no need to determine what really happened in a court of law.

ignoring black panthers attempt at vigilantism.

I believe it was addressed earlier, but allow me to explore the subject a little further:

It's bad, mkay?

Does anyone spouting off here actually know jack shit about this? Or do we presume that it's more likely that the Florida police department are transparently racist rather than the possibility that we don't know what we're talking about?

There are the news reports, and they all seem to point to the fact that no charges have been pressed in a case where an unarmed teenager was shot to death in his own community, which seems very bizarre. Given some of the further information revealed about the shooter, such as the fact that he had a history of calling 911 to report what he believed to be suspicious individuals, all of them black males, there is some foundation for the claim that his actions were motivated by a perjudice towards black men. Further, because of the apparent absence of formal charges that normally result from this kind of incident, the question rises as to why this particular case was treated differently by the law enforcement officials in charge of the investigation.

True, this is where speculation enters into the conversation, but there are 3 possibilites for why the police would treat a case differently. 1) The suspect could be a powerful and/or well-connected person, 2) the person in charge of the investigation could have some sort of bias for the suspect or against the victim, or 3) the investigators could be incompent.

The first possibility would have to be eliminated, because Zimmerman doesn't appear to have any connections in high places that we know of, so that leaves either bias or incompetence on the part of the police. Whether it be racial bias, some other form of bias, or simply incompetence, I feel the the police department in question needs to be investigated to determine exactly how they managed to drop the ball on this one.

At 3/29/12 10:22 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

I take it you missed the new video of Zimmerman from after he was viciously beaten to a bloody pulp by Martin.

Luckily, Zimmerman is Wolverine, so all the damage that Martin did was healed up by the time this video was captured.

the video is grainy as hell. If he was cleaned up at the scene, it would be hard to find any blood on his head. a broken nose does bleed quite a bit so it should be on his shirt, unless his jacket was zipped up when he was fighting.

as far as the back of his head, I don't see what could be a gash, but the video is too poor quality to show minor scratches.

and for bruising, that's not such a simple topic. some people bruise easily, some people hardly ever bruise at all.

At 3/29/12 11:46 AM, Korriken wrote: the video is grainy as hell. If he was cleaned up at the scene, it would be hard to find any blood on his head. a broken nose does bleed quite a bit so it should be on his shirt, unless his jacket was zipped up when he was fighting.

as far as the back of his head, I don't see what could be a gash, but the video is too poor quality to show minor scratches.

and for bruising, that's not such a simple topic. some people bruise easily, some people hardly ever bruise at all.

The video is pretty clear to me and with how short his hair is any head wound would be clear as day. There's also no indication of blood on his shirt or jacket to indicate that his nose was ever broken nor any hospital records saying he was treated for a broken nose or head wound because IF he was injured in any way it wasn't bad enough for him to check into a hospital.

At 3/29/12 11:46 AM, Korriken wrote: the video is grainy as hell. If he was cleaned up at the scene, it would be hard to find any blood on his head. a broken nose does bleed quite a bit so it should be on his shirt, unless his jacket was zipped up when he was fighting.

It's grainy, but it's not THAT grainy. You can definitely tell that his clothes are practically spotless, no grass stains on his back or knees as would have been expected from a fierce struggle on the ground. And if his jacket was zipped up when he was bleeding, why isn't there any blood stains on the front of his jacket?

Also, isn't it standard operating procedure to get photographic evidence of any damage or bruises sustained to someone if they have been involved in a fatal shooting? I'm not familiar with how it works, but it seems like the police should have taken pictures of Zimmerman's bloody nose before they cleaned him up, if that was the case.

At 3/28/12 06:42 PM, Famas wrote: It is, because it makes it thoroughly clear that there was no reason for Zimmerman to follow Martin and get close enough to him for a physical altercation to start other than he felt like it.

Yep. He clearly intended to confront him from the start by calling the police and being on the phone with them for a while, trying to get them there ASAP, and waiting until he was informed the police were on their way to attack this guy.

He doesn't have the authority to follow him into the backyard of somebody else and trespass on their property. Where does that fall under Observe and Report?

Please cite me the law where it states that Zimm is not allowed to follow somebody while on the phone with 9-11.

Onto the private property of somebody else?

You make it sound like they hopped a fence to get there. There's a few houses in my area where you can access the backyard from a sidestreet, and if they begin fighting, it's very easy to end up in it.

In the actual definition of the word. He chased him, you can't wriggle yourself out of a dictionary definition just because you don't like it, that's not how it works.

I asked when has it been used in that context. You and I both know what the word denotes. Don't be so literal.

You're grasping at straws, and you're well aware of that. Every decision Zimmerman made after notifying the police was one that intentionally placed him in possible danger and contradicted everything Neighborhood Watch actually does, resulting in a fatal shooting that could and should have been avoided.

And every decision Trayvon made after noticing the guy behind him intentionally placed himself into danger. Here's the thing: We can argue about Neighborhood Watch's rules all day long, but that means jack shit considering that it does not affect laws.

Who's assuming this? They both had the right to be where they were. And neither of them had the right to enter somebody's private property. However, just because Martin broke the law and trespassed into somebody's backyard does not give Zimmerman any legal right to do the same.

And just because Zimmerman did it does not give Martin the right to attack him.

Martin would have an easier time defending himself in court if the two were charged with trespassing, because he could build a reasonable defense off of "I thought I was going to get shot".

Yes, let's attack the guy who you think has a gun.

....the...pro Trayvon side? Are you seriously treating this discussion as some sort of My Team VS. Your Team bullshit?

That's essentially what the two main camps are. It's "Zimmerman was/n't justified." Yes, there are third camps, but this topic is about those two.

What the fuck is wrong with you, kid.

Dawh you called me a kid.

Outlined this in a couple responses below.

Ok.

Not really, because as I've already pointed out to you, intentionally interjecting yourself into a potentially harmful situation in order to incite a conflict is indeed against the law, albeit difficult to prove in court, and it can be argued rather reasonably that it appears that Zimmerman may have indeed been doing exactly that.

"Did you intentionally confront Trayvon"
"No I was following him on the phone with dispatch"
"Fuck"

He could have been verbally threatened, Zimmerman could have initiated the physical altercation etc etc. You can't know how it went down for certain yet you seem rather confident in asserting that you do.

Yay for conjecture that no witness corroborates, not even Trayvons girlfriend.

After being told it was not necessary for the police to do their job and ignoring the fact that Neighborhood Watch groups usually ask you not to do this. He also confronted him which is not part of Neighborhood Watch and followed him onto the premises of another person's property, which again, is directly contradictory to Observe and Report.

Proof on him being the one to confront? Because I smell a lot of conjecture in here, don't you? Usually when people confront others they are the first ones to yell, and if they intend to get physically violent, especially with that size discrepancy, they usually don't end up being the ones on their back getting hit, but then again, that doesn't happen 100% of the time. But meh, yay conjecture!

Armed trespassing onto private property. Florida law states that you are not actually committing trespassing unless you are notified that your presence is not wanted on the property, however there is a clause in the law that allows for retro-active accusation of trespassing i.e "This man was snooping through my backyard while I was at work and I did not want him there".

I can't find anything that they actually ended up in the backyard besides that one chick who said the noises were coming from her backyard. There's a fuckton of blogs though saying it was her backyard, and some others saying it was the alleys between backyards. Brb searching for more.

So there's one, if the owners of the property and the Sanford police wished to purse it.

Ok, let's nail him for trespassing.

Maybe some anti-Zimmerman zealot can clear this up for me:

What exactly did the police not do in their investigation that they should have done, according to Florida law?
Why was Zimmerman at the police station if not because he was questioned as part of an investigation?

I just have a bit of trouble understanding the basis for people's insistence that there was no investigation or that it was improperly executed. The only specific detail I've heard is that the police didn't test Zimmerman for drugs and alcohol, which to me, is pretty much irrelevant (I think the police would know if he was high or drunk at the time).

At 3/29/12 02:44 PM, adrshepard wrote: Maybe some anti-Zimmerman zealot can clear this up for me:

I wouldn't call myself a zealot but go ahead.

What exactly did the police not do in their investigation that they should have done, according to Florida law?

Hard to say exactly without all the records being out but for one thing they never questioned Martin's girlfriend despite her being on the phone with Martin until shortly before he got shot which means that she could help clear up the question as to who instigated the initial conflict that led to Martin being shot. There's also the question of what evidence (if there is any) did they document that supports Zimmerman's claim of self defense. The video of Zimmerman at the police station fails to show any signs of him being in a struggle which completely contradicts both Zimmerman's claim of self defense and the eye witnesses statement that Martin was on top of Zimmerman attacking him. Unless both Zimmerman and the witness are both lying the only other possibility is that Zimmerman was allowed to clean up after the fight removing evidence that as far as the rest of us know was never actually documented.

Why was Zimmerman at the police station if not because he was questioned as part of an investigation?

No one doubts that he was questioned, the police had to get his story somehow. The problem is that Zimmerman wasn't arrested nor has he been charged with anything. Even assuming that he really was defending himself and this isn't a hate crime (a rather large assumption given Zimmerman's history of racist behavior) that's still something that should be determined in a court of law by a jury not by some cop who simply assumes that Zimmerman was telling the truth. Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin, but he ignored the dispatcher's advice and chased Martin down with his truck. Zimmerman approached Martin while armed with a gun, either Zimmerman believed Martin was dangerous and shouldn't have followed or he didn't consider Martin a threat in which case the gun was unnecessary. There's so much of Zimmerman's claim that is questionable and should be examined by a jury but there's been no arrest made.

I just have a bit of trouble understanding the basis for people's insistence that there was no investigation or that it was improperly executed. The only specific detail I've heard is that the police didn't test Zimmerman for drugs and alcohol, which to me, is pretty much irrelevant (I think the police would know if he was high or drunk at the time).

There's been some flaws in the investigation but mostly it's the fact that Zimmerman wasn't arrested when there's so little evidence that he was defending himself. Had he been drunk or high at the time of the incident would also require actual proof which would require he be tested at the time of the incident and the test results documented for use in court later.

At 3/29/12 03:50 PM, djack wrote:

Hard to say exactly without all the records being out but for one thing they never questioned Martin's girlfriend despite her being on the phone with Martin until shortly before he got shot which means that she could help clear up the question as to who instigated the initial conflict that led to Martin being shot.

Perhaps, but she probably couldn't be counted on as an objective witness, plus so much would depend on what she thought she heard on a cell phone. Zimmerman's call to the police has been recorded and no one can even tell with certainty if he said "coons" or "punks."

There's also the question of what evidence (if there is any) did they document that supports Zimmerman's claim of self defense. The video of Zimmerman at the police station fails to show any signs of him being in a struggle which completely contradicts both Zimmerman's claim of self defense and the eye witnesses statement that Martin was on top of Zimmerman attacking him.

Not true. http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/police-surveillance-video-
of-zimmerman-may-show-head-injury/
I don't know what people expected to see, as if the police would question him while blood flowed freely from his injuries.

...Zimmerman was allowed to clean up after the fight removing evidence that as far as the rest of us know was never actually documented.

The police report said he was injured and he was taken to a hospital or medical center later before being questioned. That's evidence enough.

Even assuming that he really was defending himself and this isn't a hate crime (a rather large assumption given Zimmerman's history of racist behavior) that's still something that should be determined in a court of law by a jury...

That's not how it works. There has to be a certain level of proof before an arrest can be made. According to the police chief, there had to be reasonable suspicion to arrest Zimmerman in the first place, and there wasn't.

Also, I don't see how it could possibly be seen as a hate crime, given that profiling, following, and questioning aren't crimes, no matter what their motivation, and because Zimmerman has the physical injuries and corroborating testimony that supports a self-defense claim.

...cop who simply assumes that Zimmerman was telling the truth.

Why do you assume that's what happened? Don't you think they looked around the scene, cased the neighboorhood, and interviewed witnesses?

Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin, but he ignored the dispatcher's advice and chased Martin down with his truck. Zimmerman approached Martin while armed with a gun, either Zimmerman believed Martin was dangerous and shouldn't have followed or he didn't consider Martin a threat in which case the gun was unnecessary.

Nothing you've described is illegal. Zimmerman is not legally obligated to follow the advice of a dispatcher (and it wasn't phrased as a directive, but as an neutral suggestion--"You don't have to do that"), nor it is illegal to follow someone who you think is suspicious or potentially dangerous.

At 3/29/12 12:02 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

It's grainy, but it's not THAT grainy. You can definitely tell that his clothes are practically spotless, no grass stains on his back or knees as would have been expected from a fierce struggle on the ground. And if his jacket was zipped up when he was bleeding, why isn't there any blood stains on the front of his jacket?

red jacket. it wouldnt show up easily.

Also, isn't it standard operating procedure to get photographic evidence of any damage or bruises sustained to someone if they have been involved in a fatal shooting? I'm not familiar with how it works, but it seems like the police should have taken pictures of Zimmerman's bloody nose before they cleaned him up, if that was the case.

true, but the files are sealed for now. We'll know more once the grand jury gets their hands on it. probably the same reason you don't see pictures of Trayvon's bloody body plastered on every newspaper in America. If the media could get their hands on that you know good and well they would publish it.

(Post 1 of 2)

At 3/29/12 01:19 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

Yep. He clearly intended to confront him from the start by calling the police and being on the phone with them for a while, trying to get them there ASAP, and waiting until he was informed the police were on their way to attack this guy.

I'm not sure how else you want me to phrase this. He did indeed confront him. He got close enough for a physical exchange to occur. Why would he have chased him into somebody's backyard if he didn't intend to confront the person? Was he just going to stand in the other corner of the yard, staring intently at him?

How is it not reasonable to say that Zimmerman had every intention of confronting Martin, be it verbally or physically? He went out of his way to get within spitting distance of the kid. He placed himself in potential danger, with absolutely no reason to do so other than he simply felt like it. And, as I mentioned before, and you responded to below, intentionally placing yourself in harm's way in hopes of instigating a fight is indeed against the law. That would mean premeditation on the behalf of Zimmerman, and every action he takes after deciding "I want to get into some shit with this kid" is committed under the pretense of said premeditation.

That's not unwarranted speculation either, that's something that would be argued if he were brought to court for negligent manslaughter.

Please cite me the law where it states that Zimm is not allowed to follow somebody while on the phone with 9-11.

Show me the law where he's allowed to continue said pursuit onto private property while armed. Because that's what I was talking about.

You make it sound like they hopped a fence to get there. There's a few houses in my area where you can access the backyard from a sidestreet, and if they begin fighting, it's very easy to end up in it.

Private property is private property, and according to the 911 call, Zimmerman was in the backyard screaming for help, right outside the rear entrance of the home, where the woman who contacted the police said she saw them in her backyard.

I asked when has it been used in that context. You and I both know what the word denotes. Don't be so literal.

What are you asking for here? You're arguing against the correct usage of vocabulary because you don't like the way it sounds.

And every decision Trayvon made after noticing the guy behind him intentionally placed himself into danger. Here's the thing: We can argue about Neighborhood Watch's rules all day long, but that means jack shit considering that it does not affect laws.

No, not every decision. He originally fled. Then he retreated to somebody's yard. Then he was confronted by Zimmerman. What happened after the exchange "What are you doing here? "Why are you following me?" is unknown (even though you seem perfectly fine with concluding that Martin was the aggressor who instigated the physical altercation while everybody else who considers themselves intellectually honest says "there's no way to know, at least not right now".) as there are no eyewitness accounts of who laid hands on who first, the phone call with Martin's girlfriend only indicated there was a struggle, but not who started it, and the only person who can confirm who attacked who isn't exactly what you'd call an unbiased source.

And just because Zimmerman did it does not give Martin the right to attack him.

If that's what happened, assuming Martin did indeed throw the first punch/shove, you're right. When did I say Martin would have had the right to attack him? Do you read my posts before replying to them?

All I've ever said in regards to the assault is that there's no way, at least not at the moment, of confirming who attacked who. Everybody just has to take Zimmerman's word for it.

Yes, let's attack the guy who you think has a gun.

Yes, let's presume to know what went down exactly and how a true clearheaded upstanding citizen such as yourself would react in this specific situation.

That's essentially what the two main camps are. It's "Zimmerman was/n't justified." Yes, there are third camps, but this topic is about those two.

Well, have fun treating this topic as some sort of Pokemon VS Digimon fan battle, but I'm treating it as an open discussion on a news story that has no real goal or endgame, and am simply using this as a forum to share my opinion on the matter while weighing them alongside the opinions of others.

You really sort of take away from that and cheapen the exchange when you pretend that the people criticizing your viewpoints are part of some hive-mind mentality that collaborates to argue against you and all believe the same exact thing. It's a childish sort of tone to bring in to a discussion and all it does is paint a big red target on your head that screams "I'm going to stamp my feet and call you a dumb dumb because you don't have the same opinion as me and that makes you stupid", hence the quoted text below.

Dawh you called me a kid.

Because you are one.

"Did you intentionally confront Trayvon"
"No I was following him on the phone with dispatch"
"Fuck"

Famas said: " albeit difficult to prove in court,"

Although, what you just said doesn't make much sense because Zimmerman's own account included approaching Martin and getting close enough for a verbal exchange to occur, with Zimmerman's response being audible on the other end of the phone call between Martin and his girlfriend. Zimmerman wasn't on the phone with dispatch at this point, this exchange occurred at some point after hanging up with the police. So, if he wasn't intent on confronting him, why did he exit his vehicle and engage Martin verbally as opposed to keeping view of the street from inside his car and awaiting police response?

Why would he intentionally exit the safety of his vehicle, place himself within proximity of somebody he suspected was 'dangerous", and then follow him onto private property and continue to aggravate a "suspected criminal" when he had every possible chance to avoid confrontation by staying put in his vehicle?

"I don't want a confrontation with somebody I felt threatened enough by to dial 911 over, so I'm just going to saunter up to them while carrying a loaded firearm and hope nothing bad happens". This is like claiming you don't want a confrontation when you walk into a Biker Bar with a bright yellow jacket with neon texts that says "Choppers are for pussies" and then acting surprised when there's suddenly a bunch of mustachioed men surrounding you with pool cues.

Yay for conjecture that no witness corroborates, not even Trayvons girlfriend.

You've been using unsupported conjecture in every response you've made in this and the other thread.

There are no witnesses available to support the claim that Trayvon threw the first punch and attacked Zimmerman besides Zimmerman himself. Nor vice versa. Who attacked who is an unknown factor.

Character limit be damned, I'll have to split this up. Also, just to let you know, I'm going to respond to your posts from the general thread in here, because it makes no sense to fragment the discussion between the two of us over two forums.

At 3/29/12 05:45 PM, adrshepard wrote: Perhaps, but she probably couldn't be counted on as an objective witness, plus so much would depend on what she thought she heard on a cell phone. Zimmerman's call to the police has been recorded and no one can even tell with certainty if he said "coons" or "punks."

Reliable witness or not she is still a witness and should be questioned to get her side of what happened, preferably as soon as police realized she'd been called by Martin at a time that would make her a witness so that she has the best recollection of events. I've also never heard anyone claim that he said punks, some have said it sounds like goons some think it was coons both of which are similar enough that when spoken quietly it would be difficult to tell which word was really spoken.

Not true. http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/police-surveillance-video-
of-zimmerman-may-show-head-injury/
I don't know what people expected to see, as if the police would question him while blood flowed freely from his injuries.

According to the news report Zimmerman was brought to the police station as soon as medical examiners determined it was safe to transport him (having someone examined before transferring them is standard practice when someone claims to have hit their head even if no wound is visible) which means there should still at least be blood on his clothes and at full view the video is clear enough on my computer that I should be able to easily see the stains that would result from a broken nose even on his red jacket. That image the daily caller claims is a head wound appears to be nothing more than a shadow to me and in every other scene where the back of his head is visible there isn't any sign of a head wound.

The police report said he was injured and he was taken to a hospital or medical center later before being questioned. That's evidence enough.

Actually the police report states that he received first aid in the back of a police cruiser and was then brought to the police department.

That's not how it works. There has to be a certain level of proof before an arrest can be made. According to the police chief, there had to be reasonable suspicion to arrest Zimmerman in the first place, and there wasn't.

Proof like Zimmerman openly admitting that he shot Martin. That's enough to warrant an arrest and trial to determine whether Zimmerman's actions really qualify as self defense.

Also, I don't see how it could possibly be seen as a hate crime, given that profiling, following, and questioning aren't crimes, no matter what their motivation, and because Zimmerman has the physical injuries and corroborating testimony that supports a self-defense claim.

It's not profiling to tell people to be on the lookout for any black males in the neighborhood. It's not profiling to refer to a random black person as a coon or even as a goon. It's not profiling to call the police just because you see someone walking down the street. Following and questioning aren't part of being in the neighborhood watch no matter what the motivation is either.

Nothing you've described is illegal. Zimmerman is not legally obligated to follow the advice of a dispatcher (and it wasn't phrased as a directive, but as an neutral suggestion--"You don't have to do that"), nor it is illegal to follow someone who you think is suspicious or potentially dangerous.

I didn't say it was illegal, what I said was that it makes his claim of self defense questionable. There is evidence that he killed Trayvon Martin including his own confession and there is evidence of arguably racist behavior making all of his actions questionable. That's enough to charge Zimmerman with murder and let a jury decide whether it qualified as self defense.

(post 2 of 2)

Proof on him being the one to confront? Because I smell a lot of conjecture in here, don't you? Usually when people confront others they are the first ones to yell, and if they intend to get physically violent, especially with that size discrepancy, they usually don't end up being the ones on their back getting hit, but then again, that doesn't happen 100% of the time. But meh, yay conjecture!

Again, stop being dishonest and painting me as somebody who is throwing out baseless speculation, when you are well aware of the fact that you're doing exactly that:

RacistBassist said: "Trayvon didn't know Zimmerman was armed"

RacistBassist said: "Trayvon didn't know he was being followed"

RacistBassist said: "Trayvon attacked first"

RacistBassist said: "Zimmerman didn't intend to confront Martin"

etc etc etc.

Good thing Neighborhood Watch has binding laws you have to follow that get you in trouble outside of being kicked out of the program.

You're not understanding my point. Breaking the Neighborhood Watch rules doesn't mean Zimmerman is violating the law, it illustrates the fact that Zimmerman was not acting out of any sort of necessity or obligation and simply wanted to follow and confront Martin, and lends some strong support to the idea that he might have been looking to commit vigilante justice. He was acting on his own 'authority' when he crossed onto private property while armed and got into a scuffle with Martin. Not Neighborhood Watch duty, and not at the request of the police.

If neither of those agencies deem it necessary or intelligent to follow somebody he suspected to be dangerous after fulfilling his O&R duties, what reason did he have to follow someone he felt potentially threatened by onto private property if not to confront?

Yeah, that just means he thought that somebody was following him. It's natural to assume that.

So wait wait wait wait. Trayvon assumes (correctly) that he is being followed, and yet according to you

Racist Bassist said: Trayvon didn't know he was being followed.

You do know Jedi mind tricks only work when you're wave your hand and say it slowly, right? You can't contradict yourself in the same sentence and expect anybody to agree with you. That's just straight up bizarre thinking.

And before you attempt to clarify that Trayvon only thought he was being followed, but did not know he was being followed, allow me to retort:

1.) You don't have any idea how good/shitty Zimmerman is at following people inconspicuously, and whether or not it was extremely obvious in the way he was driving that Martin was being followed.

2.) Being followed on to private property and having said follower get close enough to allegedly assault is a pretty clear indication to anybody who has any grasp of the concept of "following" that they are being followed.

3.) Trayvon motherfucking said "I am being followed". Apparently you have deemed the kid too stupid to figure out how following works though, so this one doesn't count for some reason.

Either Trayvon is one real ass mother fucker for giving no indication to his girlfriend that he was armed and deciding to confront the person, or he didn't know he was armed. Occam's Razor. If he didn't have a concealed carry permit, he would have been arrested on the spot. The police would have been able to detain him for that, and they have holsters that go inside the belt, and he was wearing a sweater that could easily conceal one if it was on the outside of the hip.

Errrr no, if his weapon was on a hip holster that was being obstructed from view by a jacket, that is concealed carry. Open carry is exactly that; the weapon must be openly visible and not obstructed from view by clothing.

This is irrelevant though, because apparently I was wrong and he does have a CCW permit.

I can't find anything that they actually ended up in the backyard besides that one chick who said the noises were coming from her backyard. There's a fuckton of blogs though saying it was her backyard, and some others saying it was the alleys between backyards. Brb searching for more.

The woman in question reported having a line of sight on both of them while on the phone with dispatch. So she either lied/misspoke in her panic, or they were indeed in her backyard as she reported.

Ok, let's nail him for trespassing.

Which would but a severe wrench in Zimmerman's claims of self defense, and would easily bring about charges of negligence and endangerment.

Occam's Razor and applying common sense, considering that if Zimm was armed, there'd be no way in hell Trayvon would turn and start yelling at him.

Occam's Razor applied here would tell me that somebody with a crime record that includes domestic violence and battery of a police officer is statistically much more likely to commit assault than a minor with no criminal record and no history of violence.

And that's not me being judgmental of ZImmerman's past, that's simply a fact based in statistics.

At 3/29/12 05:45 PM, adrshepard wrote:

Even assuming that he really was defending himself and this isn't a hate crime (a rather large assumption given Zimmerman's history of racist behavior) that's still something that should be determined in a court of law by a jury...

That's not how it works. There has to be a certain level of proof before an arrest can be made. According to the police chief, there had to be reasonable suspicion to arrest Zimmerman in the first place, and there wasn't.

You mean like Zimmerman admitting to the fact that he shot Treyvon Martin dead?

Also, I don't see how it could possibly be seen as a hate crime, given that profiling, following, and questioning aren't crimes, no matter what their motivation, and because Zimmerman has the physical injuries and corroborating testimony that supports a self-defense claim.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here with what the self-defense claim entails.

To claim self defense is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, meaning that the burden of proof lies with the defense. Similar to the insanity plea, where it is up to the defendant to provide evidence that he couldn't tell the consequences of his actions at the time of the killing, it is the person entering a plea of self-defense who must PROVE it in court. There is no doubt as to who killed Treyvon Martin: Zimmerman did. What is left to decide is WHY Zimmerman killed Martin, and if he had a good reason to do so, and that is not up to the investigators to decide. That is a matter for the courts.

I'm sick of hearing innocent until proven guilty being thrown around here. The only thing the prosecution needs to prove is that the defendant committed the act. That's it. They don't need to disprove every possibility of a justifiable homicide. Once the prosecution has proven that the defendant is in fact responsible for a killing, the ball is then in the defense's court. Now, they can make a justification, such as self defense or insanity. The prosecution doesn't need to disprove any self defense claims until the self defense claims have been made. However, now it is the defense who is making a claim, not the prosecution. The defense must PROVE the self defense claim. Self defense is NOT assumed. It must be PROVEN.

Let's follow that to its logical conclusion. I kill a man. There are no witnesses. No cameras, nothing. Just a dead body, a murder weapon and clear evidence that I killed him. Other than that the events of the killing could have unfolded in any way. If I said that he tried to kill me and I killed him in self defense, there is no way to disprove that. Therefore, should my claim of self defense be accepted based on no evidence, simply because it cannot be disproved? That's not the way the law works. I must prove I was in danger.

Zimmerman confessed to shooting Martin. Innocent until proven guilty no longer applies. He did it. Now let's see if the defense can prove that he was in danger and defended himself accordingly.

At 3/29/12 05:45 PM, adrshepard wrote: That's not how it works. There has to be a certain level of proof before an arrest can be made. According to the police chief, there had to be reasonable suspicion to arrest Zimmerman in the first place, and there wasn't.

First off, the burden for arrest is probable cause.
Second, Zimmerman admitted he shot Martin. If that isn't probable cause for some level of criminal homicide, I don't know what is.

At 3/29/12 06:53 PM, Famas wrote: I'm not sure how else you want me to phrase this. He did indeed confront him. He got close enough for a physical exchange to occur. Why would he have chased him into somebody's backyard if he didn't intend to confront the person? Was he just going to stand in the other corner of the yard, staring intently at him?

And that's where it becomes conjecture. All Zimmerman has to do is say he didn't intend to confront him. Given the 9-11 calls, and statement of the girlfriend, all of that is up in the air and the prosecution is going to have a hell of a time trying to prove that Zimmerman started the confrontation, and that it just didn't end up on the property. Until we actually know the layout of the backyard and its relation to streets and stuff, all there is is conjecture based off of what happened. That is nowhere near enough to convict someone.

How is it not reasonable to say that Zimmerman had every intention of confronting Martin, be it verbally or physically? He went out of his way to get within spitting distance of the kid. He placed himself in potential danger, with absolutely no reason to do so other than he simply felt like it. And, as I mentioned before, and you responded to below, intentionally placing yourself in harm's way in hopes of instigating a fight is indeed against the law. That would mean premeditation on the behalf of Zimmerman, and every action he takes after deciding "I want to get into some shit with this kid" is committed under the pretense of said premeditation.

If I go and confront somebody who I think is committing a crime, and they attack me, I do not lose any claim I had to self-defense. It's as simple as that. Citizens are allowed to confront people who they think are committing crimes, just not physically. There is absolutely nothing to suggest he was looking to fight, considering those kind of people usually don't end up not getting 1 hit on the other guy and on their back with that size difference.

That's not unwarranted speculation either, that's something that would be argued if he were brought to court for negligent manslaughter.

And given how burden of proof works and reasonable doubt, Zimmerman just has to deny.

Show me the law where he's allowed to continue said pursuit onto private property while armed. Because that's what I was talking about.

Again, that is not how laws are usually set up.

Private property is private property, and according to the 911 call, Zimmerman was in the backyard screaming for help, right outside the rear entrance of the home, where the woman who contacted the police said she saw them in her backyard.

I can't find anything on her actually seeing it happened. I only find her seeing the aftermath and hearing the screaming and gunshot. If my neighbors break glass in their back yard and I'm in my room, it sounds like it happened right outside in my yard.

What are you asking for here? You're arguing against the correct usage of vocabulary because you don't like the way it sounds

I'm asking for people to not be disingenuous and using words they know are loaded with different meanings generally used. I could easily say Trayvon was molesting Zimmerman when he got shot.

No, not every decision. He originally fled. Then he retreated to somebody's yard. Then he was confronted by Zimmerman. What happened after the exchange "What are you doing here? "Why are you following me?" is unknown (even though you seem perfectly fine with concluding that Martin was the aggressor who instigated the physical altercation while everybody else who considers themselves intellectually honest says "there's no way to know, at least not right now".) as there are no eyewitness accounts of who laid hands on who first, the phone call with Martin's girlfriend only indicated there was a struggle, but not who started it, and the only person who can confirm who attacked who isn't exactly what you'd call an unbiased source.

The phone calls beg to differ. You placed the words in opposite order that they were said. I'm going off of Occam's Razor. Unless Trayvon knows how to fight, I really don't see him winning the scuffle given the weight difference unless he gets the drop on him.

If that's what happened, assuming Martin did indeed throw the first punch/shove, you're right. When did I say Martin would have had the right to attack him? Do you read my posts before replying to them?

Yes I do.

All I've ever said in regards to the assault is that there's no way, at least not at the moment, of confirming who attacked who. Everybody just has to take Zimmerman's word for it.

Better go ahead and convict him based off of what might have happened

Yes, let's presume to know what went down exactly and how a true clearheaded upstanding citizen such as yourself would react in this specific situation.

Trayvon either doesn't know he has a gun, or he's got balls of steel.

You really sort of take away from that and cheapen the exchange when you pretend that the people criticizing your viewpoints are part of some hive-mind mentality that collaborates to argue against you and all believe the same exact thing. It's a childish sort of tone to bring in to a discussion and all it does is paint a big red target on your head that screams "I'm going to stamp my feet and call you a dumb dumb because you don't have the same opinion as me and that makes you stupid", hence the quoted text below.

No I do not. When I do hear people report the same misinformation though, I assume they went balls deep with it and believe most of the misinformation. Pardon me for that, I admit I was quick to assume that.

Because you are one.

Ad hominem FTW

Although, what you just said doesn't make much sense because Zimmerman's own account included approaching Martin and getting close enough for a verbal exchange to occur, with Zimmerman's response being audible on the other end of the phone call between Martin and his girlfriend. Zimmerman wasn't on the phone with dispatch at this point, this exchange occurred at some point after hanging up with the police. So, if he wasn't intent on confronting him, why did he exit his vehicle and engage Martin verbally as opposed to keeping view of the street from inside his car and awaiting police response?

Didn't the girlfriend claim both yelled? I really doubt the guy planning on "murdering" Trayvon was hellbent on making as much noise as possible and getting the police to the scene ASAP. Zimmerman already knew the police were on the way. If Trayvon went down an alley, there would be no way to know where it happened. Given the girlfriends statement, we don't even know if Trayvon did indeed approach Zimmerman when he was walking back to his car. All we know is that they both yelled.

"I don't want a confrontation with somebody I felt threatened enough by to dial 911 over, so I'm just going to saunter up to them while carrying a loaded firearm and hope nothing bad happens". This is like claiming you don't want a confrontation when you walk into a Biker Bar with a bright yellow jacket with neon texts that says "Choppers are for pussies" and then acting surprised when there's suddenly a bunch of mustachioed men surrounding you with pool cues.

Not threatened, obviously. Just thinks he's in the process of committing a crime. There is a huge difference between that metaphor (Although I do like it) and the scenario that happened. One is obviously intent for shit to go down. This case? Nowhere near.

You've been using unsupported conjecture in every response you've made in this and the other thread.

Good thing burden of proof lets me do that eh? The only gaps we need to fill in are Who confronted who and who hit first. What we do know is that Trayvon did indeed pose a risk to Zimmermans life.

There are no witnesses available to support the claim that Trayvon threw the first punch and attacked Zimmerman besides Zimmerman himself. Nor vice versa. Who attacked who is an unknown factor.

You're right. Which means snowball chance in hell of a conviction

At 3/29/12 06:55 PM, Famas wrote: Again, stop being dishonest and painting me as somebody who is throwing out baseless speculation, when you are well aware of the fact that you're doing exactly that:

Yep. I do it. But when the only argument that Zimm didn't act in self-defense is conjecture, then oops.

etc etc etc.

That's purely based off of the actions we KNOW happened. Except for the who hit who first. That's purely going off of not really seeing the person determined to fight, if that were the case, who has a noticeable size difference, ending up being the one getting completely rocked unless Trayvon has freakish strength or knows how to fight.

You're not understanding my point. Breaking the Neighborhood Watch rules doesn't mean Zimmerman is violating the law, it illustrates the fact that Zimmerman was not acting out of any sort of necessity or obligation and simply wanted to follow and confront Martin, and lends some strong support to the idea that he might have been looking to commit vigilante justice. He was acting on his own 'authority' when he crossed onto private property while armed and got into a scuffle with Martin. Not Neighborhood Watch duty, and not at the request of the police.

Necessity and obligation doesn't really mean anything given that Zimmerman acted well within his rights based off of the parts we do know.

If neither of those agencies deem it necessary or intelligent to follow somebody he suspected to be dangerous after fulfilling his O&R duties, what reason did he have to follow someone he felt potentially threatened by onto private property if not to confront?

Keeping LoS? Wondering why somebody was going onto somebody elses property? If I saw somebody I've never seen before walking onto peoples properties, yeah, I might question that shit too.

So wait wait wait wait. Trayvon assumes (correctly) that he is being followed, and yet according to you

Racist Bassist said: Trayvon didn't know he was being followed.

You do know Jedi mind tricks only work when you're wave your hand and say it slowly, right? You can't contradict yourself in the same sentence and expect anybody to agree with you. That's just straight up bizarre thinking.

You misunderstand what I am saying. While it is true that he was being followed, and that he thought he was being followed, his first impulse after that short distance isn't to immediately jump straight to attack mode, especially in an area that I only visit sometimes.

And before you attempt to clarify that Trayvon only thought he was being followed, but did not know he was being followed, allow me to retort:

1.) You don't have any idea how good/shitty Zimmerman is at following people inconspicuously, and whether or not it was extremely obvious in the way he was driving that Martin was being followed.

So let's assume it was obvious. Given that he got out to look for a street name while on the phone with police, if I saw that shit I would instantly think "He's looking for an address"

2.) Being followed on to private property and having said follower get close enough to allegedly assault is a pretty clear indication to anybody who has any grasp of the concept of "following" that they are being followed.

Again, that is assuming the conflict originated on that private property. You ever see people fight before or get knocked over? They can cover quite a distance.

3.) Trayvon motherfucking said "I am being followed". Apparently you have deemed the kid too stupid to figure out how following works though, so this one doesn't count for some reason.

Yep. Guy driving slowly at 7:00 PM on the same street as me and he's on the phone and gets out? Better go straight to attacking him since he most likely is following me instead of thinking "Shit, maybe I should see what's up first or move a little bit further to confirm"

The woman in question reported having a line of sight on both of them while on the phone with dispatch. So she either lied/misspoke in her panic, or they were indeed in her backyard as she reported.

Are you talking about Mary Cutcher? The girl who didn't see it happen?

Which would but a severe wrench in Zimmerman's claims of self defense, and would easily bring about charges of negligence and endangerment.

Based on the way the law is, Zimmerman would not get into that much trouble for the trespass, nor would it really affect the case, given the reason why he did it, and even then, that is assuming the conflict started on property.

Occam's Razor applied here would tell me that somebody with a crime record that includes domestic violence and battery of a police officer is statistically much more likely to commit assault than a minor with no criminal record and no history of violence.

You mean somebody who wasn't found guilty of those things?

Ooh, let's play statistics.

Trayvon was a young black man. He was more likely to commit violent crimes. Wait, no, we can't base things off of that.

And that's not me being judgmental of ZImmerman's past, that's simply a fact based in statistics.

So was mine.

At 3/29/12 07:50 PM, MrFlopz wrote: Zimmerman confessed to shooting Martin. Innocent until proven guilty no longer applies. He did it. Now let's see if the defense can prove that he was in danger and defended himself accordingly.

At 3/29/12 08:35 PM, Camarohusky wrote: First off, the burden for arrest is probable cause.
Second, Zimmerman admitted he shot Martin. If that isn't probable cause for some level of criminal homicide, I don't know what is.

I can only guess neither of you checked my link. This is right from there:
According to Florida Statute 776.032 :

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the
use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the
person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the
force that was used was unlawful.

This is the law in Florida. Maybe what you're saying about all shootings mandate an arrest applies elsewhere, but not in this case.
So can we move past "this has to be put before a jury" and other claims?