trayvon martin

Trayvon vs. George: Which one would you execute?

gregladen — Mon, 15 Jul 2013 07:34:32 +0000

Trayvon vs. George: Which one would you execute?

Neither, obviously. But whatever facts you may have been using to deliberate may have been wrong:

In the end, Trayvon is the one that was executed for his crimes by George. Different George, though.

gregladen Mon, 07/15/2013 - 03:34

What Does The George Zimmerman Not Guilty Verdict Mean?

gregladen — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 07:07:45 +0000

What Does The George Zimmerman Not Guilty Verdict Mean?

First, I want to say this to George Zimmerman and his lawyer. Stop whining. You are the one who chose to kill someone, and did so, then got away with it. It is not you who lost or who has had your life torn apart or taken away or anything like that. So stop being the damn victim. No one is going to hunt you down and kill you. That's you, George. That's you who hunts down and kills people. Other people, generally, don't do that. No one is going to hunt you down and kill you or in any other way bother you. Having said that, it is true that much of the part of humanity that is aware of your existence will view you as a dangerous monster for the rest of your life, but I'm thinking that you view this as a good thing because you are the guy who hunts down and kills people. I think that is all I want to say to whiny George Zimmerman and hid Whiny Lawyer.

The big concern now is this: Black will riot in cities across the land and/or mainly whitish vigilantes will flood the streets and shoot anything with a hoodie.

For the most part neither of these things will happen. If there is one thing we've learned from the last few decades of changes in gun laws, sudden and dramatic events related to firearm use and abuse, etc. is that a) the brownish people never really go to the streets to kill all the whitish people and b) the gun nuts never really change what they do or the rate at which they do it. And, I'll add c) criminals and miscreants don't pay much attention to any of this stuff. Nothing is going to happen.

I'm not saying that there isn't going to be change. The Zimmerman trial outcome has actually helped to galvanize the anti-gun lobby a little bit, and that lobby was already in action. If anything, this event may bring into the fold a few groups that were not already as engaged. It turns out that the youth are at constant risk of being killed or maimed in this country by older males with firearms, and that this risk applies across levels of privilege, variations in skin tone, regions of the country, urban vs. rural, and all of that.

For young people in the United States, your chance of being killed by a firearm-wielding adult male, in a fire arms accident, or by a self inflicted gunshot, is much higher than the chance of dying of any disease. Guns are the new polio. Guns are the new small pox. Guns are the new plague.

Two things are starting to dawn on the American population. First, we are realizing that the possession of handguns as a constitutionally protected right to stave off an oppressive government is a failed fantasy. Imagine having the right to free speech but everyone's larynx is removed routinely at birth. Imagine having the right to free assembly and due process but we are locked in separate cages at the age of ten forever. Absurd ideas, aren't they? We are guaranteed the right to stave off an oppressive government by having a right to own firearms. That worked great with the Patriot Act. The NSA ... they never considered spying on American citizens because HANDGUNS. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies will never use Drones on US soil because .... hey, wait a minute ...

The second thing we've come to realize is that guns are actually very very dangerous. For a couple of generations we've grown up with "bang bang you're dead" style entertainment on TV and in movies, and I think a lot of people don't realize what really happens when someone pulls the trigger. People don't experience the temporary (or not) loss of hearing from the sound (especially in a closed space), the smell of the explosion that happens inside the gun, the smell of the blood that spills of the floor. When you ears start to hear again after the shots, there is the sound of the screaming or moaning or incredulous ranting ("You shot me, you shot me, I can't believe you shot me") followed by some sort of silence, the silence of a severely wounded person, the silence of a brooding son or daughter with a minor injury to the flesh but a permanent injury to their psyche having just been shot at by daddy, or the silence a person makes when they lie unconscious and bleeding out, or the silence of a corpse.

But now we have soldiers, many more soldiers, among us who know that guns are real and "bang band you're dead" is not. We have an increasing awareness of an increasing number of incidents in which all the people in a school or all the people who went to see a movie or all the people who visited their candidate for Congress or some other thing suddenly experience the terror of the blasting, the smells, the screaming, the different kinds of deathly silence, and in many cases, personally experience the tearing and exploding flesh, with the lucky ones perhaps being those who are killed quickly by some guy who has expressed his constitutional right to bear arms by firing as many bullets as possible into a crowd.

The Zimmerman verdict moves us measurably closer to effective gun control. This is not the way we should be moving away from the Middle Ages and towards a Civilized World, but it is in fact the only way we seem to be moving. There will be more stand-your-ground shootings, more archaic laws, more unjust verdicts, more mass shootings, all against the background of something close to 3,000 firearm assisted youth suicides and a somewhat larger number of deadly gunshot wounds during crime and street fighting, and no effect on what the government or big corporations do to repress or exploit the average person and no invasions from Canada or Mexico that could only be stopped by a "well regulated militia." And every now and then some truly good guy will shoot a truly bad guy, stopping the bad guy from doing something truly bad, and people will notice that a handful of such cases against thousands and thousands of gun related deaths a year is not worth it.

Above all, and please never lose sight of this, guns are toys. We are talking about the preservation of the right to play with specific toys, and the right to extend that play into the street and to involve people who did not want to play with these toys to begin with. Stand your ground is a game, it is boys with their toys playing cops and robbers. Boys with their toys build forts in their homes and protect them from invasion. Boys with their toys get together in groups and go out on the street to play army. Boys with their toys collect toys and take them apart and put them together and clean them until they are shiny. Boys with their toys go to big meetings with other boys and trade and sell and exchange and show off. Boys with their toys go to galleries where they can practice and raise their scores.

George Zimmerman was a boy with his toy, and he played cops and robbers, and Treyvon Martin died because he did not follow Zimmerman's instructions to stand down. Half this country thinks it is OK for a boy like George to take his toy into the street and make other people play and kill them when they do not. The other half is appalled. That second half, it's growing.

gregladen Sun, 07/14/2013 - 03:07

Tags

I wish you would be right about this helping gun control, but I suspect it might be the opposite. It seems to me this is a huge win for he NRA who crafted the "stand and shoot laws". The message it sends is "if you have a gun you can protect yourself and however much you created the situation, there will be no repercussions so get yours now".
What I see coming out of this is people like GZ becoming bolder. Not a good time to have skin that protects you against the sun.

What might help is if insurance companies refuse to cover wrongful death or personal injury lawsuits when firearms are involved or even allowed. Insurance carriers in Kansas just did that in refusing to cover schools where teachers had concealed carry permits.

If property can't be insured, then it can't be used as collateral for loans.

GIVE ME A BREAK !!! These are the same blacks who were celebrating in the streets when O J Simpson got away with killing two white citizens. Remember, George Zimmerman is also a minority, but because he is not black he is considered white. Obama is called black, when in fact he is only partially black. I'll bet money that the majority of tthe protesters that we see every day are living off of the government, which is why they have time to protest, instead of getting a job.

I like the insurance angle

Jerrym, no, nobody's going to give you a break. You are racist scum, STAND DOWN!!!!

Also, we're gonna take away your guns.

It means that despite a corrupt media whipping up race frenzy by "garden picking" facts to suit its purpose (then hiding behind the 1st Amendment should it incite violence), and despite a corrupt prosecutor's office, and despite a US President who indirectly targeted and PRE-JUDGED a citizen who is supposed to be presumed innocent, a brave and obviously intelligent jury impartially looked at ALL the facts (even those the Prosecutor's office tried to hide), and determined that this man acted in self defense when he was "sucker punched" and viciously beaten by a punk kid who claimed he was being followed. btw following someone, unless there is a pattern focused on an individual is NOT a crime. Furthermore, isn't the natural response to being followed to move away and evade, versus attack?

What the GZ trial tells me is that there are at least 12 others who would do the same thing. And where there is 12 there are a lot more. Be afraid, very afraid.

"Greg Laden" I think it's YOU who are "racist scum." "Jerrym" said noting racist, he only cited fact, and offered an opinion; it's just DIFFERENT from yours. Isn't THAT why you hate him, even calling him "Racist Scum." It's liberals like you who ignore the facts, and hear only what you want to hear. You pathetic libs see "racism" in virtually everything, you've even gone so far as to label Mr. Zimmeran a "WHITE Hispanic," makes it easier to bulls eye a fellow citizen even BEFORE he's had a trial, eh? I suppose it's simply an inconvenient fact that Zimm went to his HS prom with a ....black girl! Yeah, what a "racist." You need to craw back under your rock and stay there before you do even more damage to the progress this country has made in race relations...stay under your rock you pathetic little man.

Hey greg laden, why dont you come and take my gun. I have a conceal permit and I am never without it. Anyone who means to do me or a member of my familyany harm will find out that they made a big mistake. Evidently you have never read the constitution. And NO I am not a racist. I have black friends who work for a living and are law abiding citizens like me. And my son-in-laws sister is married to a black man. When was the last time you took a walk in a neighborhood where you didn't belong.? Two of my friends are in law enforcement and before the trial ended, they both said that GZ was innocent. and to llong, there were only six on the jury. Pay attention to the facts.

I agree with the gentleman that said I carry a gun and if you break into my house or confront me in the streets to cause me any harm i have 5 children to protect it's me or you and me and my family will be going home.now I do agree to Trayvon Martin should not of Lost his life.I was not there the night it happened and neither was anybody else except for Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman but in my opinion if you go to do me harm and you see I have a gun you should definitely stand down if you do not have one because I will not lose my life.

Jerrym, judging by his race baiting article Mr. Laden clearly hates anyone who doesn't think like he does...as warped and irrational as it is. (btw looks like a little wimp in his photo) I'll bet he'd quickly cower physically when confronted by anyone armed with facts and logic; that's why I said he needs to stay under his hateful little rock. Also, i'll bet HE lives in a safe little upper class neighborhood where the biggest concern is a neighbor spilling her recyclables in the street on trash day.

L Long, I' m very "afraid" that people like you reproduce!

What this verdict means is no one can in Florida walk down the street! your kids my kids can't get off the bus walk home, you can't run out of gas without the possibility of anyone following you and legally killing you! No matter of race! Think about it! Who actually had the right to defend themselves, I'd be concerned if i was walking down the street and someone was following me or if my kids called me saying some man was following them! Face it zimmerman was looking for trouble! I hope all you gun nuts that this doesn't happen to your kids! Between the gun nuts and the religious cuckoos this world is doomed! instead of being progressive your dragging us back to the cavemen days!

Sorry about the long period of moderation for new commenters, folks, I was in the car for the last several hours winding my way around floods and stuff.

Carry on!

Jerry I did not know at that time about Florida's oddness on juries. And beside few would have got the reference.
Also having taught self defense for some years, the 1st thing taught 'don't go looking for trouble'.
Also if you defend yourself with a weapon greater then what is used against you, be prepared to face a hard trial.
And As far as I can tell this kids only crime is being black and being seen by a religious bigot..."following gawds plan!" my ass!! He's lucking it wasn't me, cuz I'd still be dead but Before dying I would have done my best to get some of my blood into his mouth, and then wished him a long suffering life as he got AIDS. Might not be self defense but revenge is sweet served cold.
And jerry guess what they call a gun concealed in a purse? A really bad club. Guess what they say about guys carrying concealed? Bet I can get you 1st!

"And As far as I can tell this kids only crime is being black and being seen by a religious bigot…" Did you even watch the trial? Judging by your dopey comments, I don't think so. And if you did, apparently you don't understand that when someone ambushes and "sucker punches" you, and then continuously bangs your head into cement when your down you have a right to use deadly force IF you believe your life is in danger. Now, I don't know about you, but most reasonable people would reasonably assume their life was in danger in such a situation. (maybe you wouldn't, perhaps the AIDS you mentioned affects your cognitive process?) Again, there is NO law saying Zimm couldn't follow "the child." However, there is a law preventing attempted murder, even by 17 yo, 5'9 "children." Just b/c someone is following you is NOT a license to try and murder them, perhaps he would be alive today IF his parents properly socialized him. It sounds to me like Mr. Martin needed serious counseling more than anything else. If anyone was hostile here, it looks like it was "the child." btw, there have been 17 yo decorated combat veterans, oh, I mean "children."

This was a win because as long as the media colors everything to their own agenda, we have a problem. Put another way, if a big hurricane was brewing the mediia would switch gears. I don't what I am talking about? I worked in that world and they are chameleons and do what is best for them.

I wish Trayvon were still alive but convicting Zimmerman would have opened Pandora's Box for mob rule.

Zimmerman will pay in civil court just like OJ.

This is a sad day for this country.

The Stand Your Ground law was not part of this trial, IIRC, is that not true?

Meanwhile, dear gun nuts: You may think you are going to protect yourself against me by carrying around your pistol but from any distance at all I can drop you before you even see me coming. If I had a rifle. So, how do you defend against that?

All of you liberals are against the death penalty, right? Why should a murderer be given the gift of life for 20-30 years while he goes through the appeal process. Anyone convicted of first degree murder, where there were witnesses to the killing, should be hung IN PUBLIC. Countries with the least crime are the countries with the harshest penalties.
You're all a bunch of Monday Morning Quarterbacks. YOU weren't there, !!! All that you know is what the liberal TV stations tell you. Nancy Grace had GZ guilty weeks before the trial was over. Same for HLN.The jury had all the facts and if I'm not mistaken, it was not a all white jury.

Well MJD I'm willing to bet that you are of the white privileged class so there is no chance you need fear a ass like Zimm. There are only three parts that are of interest.
1-he DID NOT have to follow.
2-What the kid was doing WAS NOT Zimms Business.
3-What happened had how many witnesses????
The kid may have jumped Zimm but Zimm made that choice by putting his bigoted nose where it did not belong.
Phuck Zimm and his whining ass.
Yes the kid made a mistake too, but the kids actions I understand. Zimm was an ass asking for it.
In my self defense classes the 3rd rule is 'run like hell and go to the nearest public lighted area.' That may be what the kid should have done but I do not know the area so it may not have been possible.
As for Zimm? I wish him a long and guilt-filled life, filled with nightmares.
Larry...Why? If the girls convicted him, then he's convicted. why is that a pandora and letting him go is not???

Hey Steve, you got it right. IF I had a rifle. You cant walk around with a rifle.Know the laws. And if you had a rifle, you would probably shoot yourself in the foot. On the other hand, I have years of experience with firearms, including doing my own reloading.. So after you fire your rifle and miss, I WON'T.
I take my grandson to Karate classe twice a week and they are taught to only use it for self defense.

When Zimmerman didn't go to the stand and scream (like on the recording) that is when the honest people knew it was murder.
As far as the lying bigots go, fuck them and the horse they rode in on.

Some people on this thread seem to be looking so hard at bits of bark they don't see the wood let alone the trees. Here is the problem. A white man can gun down a black youth in very dubious circumstances and almost not come to trial let alone get convicted. What do you think would have happened if it had been a black man that shot a white youth. You think it would have been the same verdict? You think all you Zimmerman shills would be singing the same tune? Jerym mentioned OJ Simpson, another man who probably should have been convicted. Why wasn't he? because you had a black Jury who had learned the hard way that the justice system is totally biased against them, that it harasses them more for no reason, and it had given them no reason to trust it. an attitude that was totally confirmed in the trial. Their verdict was sane in terms of what they knew of the justice system. Why should they trust it? This trial shows we have not advanced much since then. Just to give an example - marijuana usage is the same for blacks and whites, yet blacks are four time more likely to be arrested and sent to jail for its use. This happens even in the most enlightened of states. This is not of course the only disparity in the justice system, the rich get much better served than the poor. the bigger and more white collar your crime is, the more likely you are to get away, or even get a loan from the government to fix your crimes.

I would be very interested to see the graph of percentage of US citizens who have seen someone shot in real life vs. time. I imagine you'd have rapid increases with wars (size of spike depends on number of Americans fighting) followed by a slow decrease as veterans die, plus "mini-spikes" due to immigration from places that have been in wars that the US wasn't.

There would be a baseline level of people who have seen non-war shootings, which was dramatically higher before the late C19th (when there was still a frontier in the West), and is currently due to crime/police action (mainly) and accidents. However, the actual level never gets to the baseline as the US usually gets into another war while there are still a large number of veterans of the previous one living.

I suspect the highest it's been was in either the 1780s or 1865, though the largest *number* was probably just post-Korea or maybe post-Vietnam (when most of the veterans of WW2 were also still alive).

tl;dr: Large numbers of Americans having seen real violence (certainly in the numbers we have now) is not new.

There may be an argument to be made about entertainment, but people have been getting shot in movies for 100 years now.

Sailor, if Z is white than Obama is, too. Is Obama white?

"The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may
exercise it by themselves, ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." Thomas Jefferson writing to Major John Cartwright June 5, 1824

One punch can kill. Here's a list of over 200 one punch homicide victims. http://tinyurl.com/pyphqxz

To the "Justice for Treyvon" crowd: How many times will you allow a 17 year old to punch you in the head and slam said head into concrete?

The antis always go to far. Taking self-defense off the table is absurd.

Greg, I'm sorry you didn't have any toys growing up. Molon Labe.

Ron, you'll surrender when we tell you to surrender.

Michael, the whole race thing is a bullshit issue. Biologically skin color has to do with relative benefits (according to location) of sun protection vs vitamin D absorption, but regrettably it plays a ridiculous role in society owing to history. Obama is at least as white as he is black, but the fact most people think of him as black rather than white just illustrates that screwed up thinking.
Ron, To the “Justice for Treyvon” crowd: How many times will you allow a 17 year old to punch you in the head and slam said head into concrete?
You can say that but you cannot know that is the facts of the case. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else except for Z know what happened. What we can say for sure is that if Z had not gone out that night armed and looking for trouble, TM would still be alive and Z would not have gone to trial. I don't think anyone applauds what happened that night. Up to now Z has accepted no responsibility in this tragedy. Lets us suppose for the sake of argument, that Z grabbed TM, TM was scared because he had been followed by this creepy guy who then grabbed him. Would he have had a right to thwack Z in self defense? If not why not? If so, and given that is this is quite a likely scenario for future confrontations, how do we right laws so this kind of ridiculous situation does not occur again?

OJ MURDERED TWO WHITE PEOPLE AND GOT AWAY WITH IT. why no protests, marches, etc?

You let me know when that day comes, k?

Ring my doorbell after dark and I will have one hand on the doorknob and the other hand will be holding a firearm. Here in Florida anyone has the right to shoot someone forceing their way into your home. STAND YOUR GROUND LAW in florida. Anyone who wants to commit a carjacking should go to Illinois where firearms are not allowed. Try it in Florida and you may get to meet Jesus.

@ #29...I did say that.
A) Z is armed daily. Doesn't mean he's "looking for trouble". Following is not a crime and the path he desired didn't accommodate vehicles, so he got out. There was 4 minutes where GZ lost visual contact, then he was punched, according to the facts of the trial.
B) True. Nobody applauds what happened.
C) Z made multiple statements (4-6) to police without counsel. He took immediate responsibility.
D) In your hypothetical, if person A "grabs" person B, person B has a right to self defense (especially if verbal threats are being made by A).
E) Why do you think that laws prevent situations from occurring? The State can not make you safe. Even a restraining order will not keep you safe. Even the SCOTUS has ruled that Police have NO DUTY to protect you. http://tinyurl.com/d3vdjlf ( a restraining order case)

Jerrym, sounds like you have a miserable life.

"All of you liberals are against the death penalty, right? Why should a murderer be given the gift of life for 20-30 years while he goes through the appeal process. Anyone convicted of first degree murder, where there were witnesses to the killing, should be hung IN PUBLIC. Countries with the least crime are the countries with the harshest penalties.
You’re all a bunch of Monday Morning Quarterbacks. YOU weren’t there, !!! All that you know is what the liberal TV stations tell you. Nancy Grace had GZ guilty weeks before the trial was over. Same for HLN.The jury had all the facts and if I’m not mistaken, it was not a all white jury."

I am 100% against the death penalty. If someone killed me i wouldnt want them to get it.

And eye-witnesses? you do know they are just about the worst evidence possible, right?

Also you cant state things as fact without evidence, so im gonna assume all your statements are false until you show me otherwise.

As a self-proclaimed atheist, you above all, Mr. Laden, should value evidence particularly as it applies to a court of law. Instead, it appears you're hopping on the bandwagon of the leftist media by arguing the unfortunate death of young Trayvon Martin was premeditated in the wake of completely insufficient evidence. Fortunately for America, a scrupulous judicial system trumps the inflammatory and non-vindictive rhetoric of your lot every time.

Stephen, nice one.

LLong - "Well MJD I’m willing to bet that you are of the white privileged class so there is no chance you need fear a ass like Zimm." then, There are only three parts that are of interest.1-he DID NOT have to follow (No Law Against -mjd)
2-What the kid was doing WAS NOT Zimms (Many disagree considering Zimms neighborhood was repeatedly burglarized by "children" as you libs call them -mjd )
3-What happened had how many witnesses???? (Enough to convince an intelligent jury that the facts overwhelmingly supported Zimms version of events - mjd)

You say "White privileged Class?" lol! typical divisive lib talk! If anyone is "privileged" here its "the child." Five Americans were murdered in Benghazi and this Administration's response is "Benghazi who?" One black punk thug picks yet another fight but this time with a guy that has a gun, and the President of the US gets involved...who is "privileged" again?

L.Long - "Phuck Zimm and his whining ass." I can only say that I honestly hope that one day you will experience getting your head banged into concrete after getting sucker punched JUST b/c you dared to follow someone. Judging by your past comments, who knows, such an experience (if you survived) might acutualy improve your bizarre thinking. In the meantime, "phuck" your whiny pathetic ass.

Ron you are wrong, Z still has not taken responsibility, he thinks what happened that night is fine, and as far as I an tell he would do it again. Even if he was in some way not guilty, he had a major role in the death of a juvenile, and he does not seem to appreciate that apart from guilt, maybe he had a share in what led up to it and could have handled himself in a different way.

The Zimmerman verdict just provides additional proof that my right to go about my life without fear that the next person coming down the street is not some emotionally damaged and unbalanced creature who is going to pull out his legal gun and shoot me in the midst of some hallucination, or that an unconvicted killer like George Zimmerman won't decide I don't belong on that street, start to push me around, and shoot me when I push back, has been sacrificed to the bogus right of gun fanatists and gun fetishists to carry guns where they will and, as the Zimmerman case shows, use them to take life without facing any consequence.

Why is my right to live in a society where I do not need to fear the next stranger crossing my path is secondary to the whatever ever kind of emotional fix it is that these gun lovers get from their weapons?

Sailor,
I'm sure you understand that he has had limited public exposure. He did, however, do an interview with Hannity (not his best moment).

What action are you desiring Z to take in order to "take responsibility"?

Is this the Angela Corey version of the new anti gun-rights buzz word "responsibility"? She stated after the trial that people who use firearms should do so "responsibly", as if to say that if you defend your own life with a weapon, you should willingly be jailed.

Video here (start at 17:30) http://tinyurl.com/ofxupf3

#37 Ya! RRRright, a black kid is stalked and killed some 'privileged kid' he is. Oh I see getting shot by a white guy is a privilege!!! Got It.

#38...NEVER HAPPEN because I would never do what that asshole did. Also 'bashed his head on concrete' Totally believable, Ya right. Despite what they show on TV get your head bashed on concrete and going for a gun is not all that easy. But shooting then hitting your own head on concrete is easy and believable. Prove me wrong! Where you there? Oh that's right NO WITNESSES.

Ron, simple. Neighborhood watches should carry phones, not guns, they should report, not follow. If they feel so nervous they need to be armed, let them carry some cs gas. No one ends up dead.

look you say you have a right to defend yourself i agree! At your home, business, car your family! You don't have a right to stalk someone walking down the street minding their own business doing nothing wrong stop them or question them....Especially if your not a police person, again ask yourself if someone did that to you and you don't know how zimmerman approached Martin either? Who has the right the right to defend themselves? And adult approaching a 17 yr old kid and yes he is a kid....zimmerman has a long history of a chronic cop caller and was a wanna be cop who couldn't pass the psych test! hmmm? I am in enforcement and deal with zimmermans all the time! Again he has no right none to stop anyone walking down the street! If this happened on my watch i would have arrested him on the spot! Again alot of you are missing a huge point! We all have a right to walk down the street and to defend our selfs just not in this manner.......This was second degree murder

Mike @ #44...Not only that but the police DO NOT have the right to stop you just cuz they are a pack of bigots too. They have the power to do so and they do but they do not have the right, well OK they have the right if you are darker then white, because the 'white power base' is scared spit-less by anyone darker then white.
But in this case I know Zimm is guilty just like OJ is most likely guilty., they got off and are allowed to live free. They don't scare me as I'm white and will not be walking at night anywhere Zimm or his like will be, in OJ's case no fear there as I am not blond or female. And in Zimm's case and for others like him, the rest of you darker than white...Be afraid.

Why is it that the media only showsTM at age 14? Have any of you seen a recent photo? I have. And you will be amazed at the differance. The idiots believe the news media, and the smart folks believe the facts. How many of you watched the complete trial? I put it all on TVO and saw it all. The prosecutors did a terrible job . Why else would the defense use a prosecutor's witness as a defense witness.?????

Long - "get your head bashed on concrete and going for a gun is not all that easy." and you KNOW this because? lol! However, judging by your bizarre talk I could be convinced that (perhaps early on in life) you indeed did have your head banged against something very very hard.

Long - "Oh that’s right NO WITNESSES." No knucklehead, that was the punk's problem, there WERE witnesses, enough to convince an intelligent jury that Zimm was telling the truth. Of course we also may surmise that, judging by the majority of the black communitay's reaction, NO amount of evidence would have swayed a black jury from convicting this guy; which is why most thinking people will never take them seriously.

Long - Where's your "outrage" at all the black kids killed in cities like Chicago during the VERY same week this thug was killed? Exactly where have you posted re these other deaths? Where was Jesse J and that genius A. Sharpton? Where was their outrage over the killings of true innocents? This is one big reason why most thinking people (of ALL colors) will never take phony's like YOU and other black & lib race hustlers seriously...never.

joncr - "The Zimmerman verdict just provides additional proof that my right to go about my life without fear that the next person coming down the street is not some emotionally damaged and unbalanced creature who is going to pull out his legal gun and shoot me in the midst of some hallucination" I think it's YOU who are "emotionally damaged" and "hallucinating!" Did you even WATCH the TRIAL? judging by your tarded comments I doubt it. Would you be equally scared of a black mob coming after you? Or a white mob for that matter, AFTER you had a FAIR trail, ALL evidence was considered, (EVEN the evidence the Prosecutors office ILLEGALLY tried to withold b/c the FACTS were not to their advantage. No, people like you are for MOB RULE, and one day you'll find out why most civilized people frown on that here. Maybe you should go to some African or Middle Eastern country where MOB rule is the law, bet you'll be happier there.

Noted Atheist Richard Dawkins is quoted on page 131-132 of his book "River out of Eden" as saying the following:

"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. "

It is interesting to see people who espouse this view of a random, purposeless, indifferent world becoming upset when evolved stardust formation GZ destroys evolved stardust formation TM. Justice assumes a difference between good and evil, justice and injustice. Where is the objective moral standard where we should derive these concepts from?

Dawkins, at least, attempts consistency. Either there is true and false, or the world is as Dawkins says, blind, pitiless indifference.

(OT) From Trayvon Martin to Kenneth Chamberlain

illconsidered — Thu, 10 May 2012 20:45:27 +0000

(OT) From Trayvon Martin to Kenneth Chamberlain

It is by now old news that George Zimmerman has finally been arrested for the unprovoked killing of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed, 17 yr old African American teenager on his way home from the store with a bit of junk food. It took over a month and huge public outcry to get even this small step towards justice but it is the right first step.

But in case you need something new to get outraged about I would like to call your attention to the equally, if not more, outrageous case of Kenneth Chamberlain's murder at the hands of Whiteplains NY police officers.

Police were summoned to the scene for a possible medical emergency, not a crime. It turned out to be a false alarm, but by the time they left, Kenneth Chamberlain was dead. Sounds pretty bad, right? Well, maybe the details offer some hope it was not so bad, maybe deadly force was necessary and unavoidable...

Let's see:

The knife police claimed he attacked them with turns out to have been a butter knife taken from him before they entered
the incident occurred inside Mr Chamberlain's own home
he was a 68 year old with a heart condition
against one old man, there were many police officers on the scene, some with full body armor
the medical alert was cancelled and the police told they were not needed
one of the officers replied to his protestation that he was a sick old man with "We don't give a fuck, nigger"
the police spent two hours on scene with Chamberlain telling them he was all right and did not need assistance yet they ended up breaking down his door and killing him in his boxer shorts
family members were on scene and available on the phone to deescalate the situation but the police said they would handle it themselves
the police camera mounted on the taser shows Kenneth Chamberlain being summarily tasered with no initial command to put his hands up or lie down or anything
Kenneth Chamberlain was a black man and several of the officers were already in trouble for racism charges in other cases
the medical alert monitor recorded the audio of the entire incident, which no doubt would otherwise have been brushed under the rug as easily as other similar, unwitnessed atrocities

Okay, I guess the details don't help their case. And yet the district attorney has found no reason to charge anyone with anything. Nothing. At least there will now be a federal probe but time will tell in this, as in Trayvon Martin's killing, if justice will be done or not.

Sorry to be off topic, but stories like these really make my blood boil and at least bringing a bit more attention to this case is one small thing I can do.

illconsidered Thu, 05/10/2012 - 16:45

Tags

at least bringing a bit more attention to this case is one small thing I can do.

And many thanks for doing so. I knew about the case but hadn't heard this recent development -- of the DA finding everything's just hunky dory in the White Plains PD.

Been following this, and it is tragic and unforgivable. The police acted as a gang of thugs...taunting this man about his military service, demanding to be let in so they could "take a piss". The recording is clear: at around 5 am, Mr Chamberlain kept pleading with them to understand that he was OK...that there was no medical emergency. The medical alert operator called the police several times to let them know that medical alert was resolved...their "services" were no longer needed. But the police responded as they did the family, that they needed no mediator to resolve the situation. And that situation was caused by police intentional action to demean, degrade and mock one proud , elderly man with heart and breathing problems. Dressed in Riot gear with guns drawn, outside an apartment where there was no riot and no crime reported, the police executed this poor man in his underwear...hitting him with every type of weapon that they carried. It appears they did as a bigoted act of revenge, in retaliation for Mr Chamberlain's simple assertion of his constitutional right to be safe from such tactics while in his own home. "I'm OK, Officers" "Why do you have your guns out?" But they just kept pounding and demanding entrance. I wonder if these thugs got to take their "victory piss" after killing this ex-marine. My God..where is justice in the City of White Plains? It certainly can not be found in the police department and neither the district attorney's nor mayor's office.

This is nothing more or less than 21st-century lynching. It is unforgivable.

Coby,

Do you have some official information that has been released that indicates shows that it was not self defense? Based on what the principle investigator, there is nothing contradicts GZ's statement and the witnesses to the killing.

Both cases trouble me at first blush--especially since I teach future criminologists and cops. But wait until *all* the facts are in. If, after that, it turns out that the WP police acted wrongly (even murderously) and GZ indeed acted on a vengeful hunch and murdered young Mr. Martin, then yes, at that point I will agree that this is "something new to get outraged about."

I do love my country, but I would be less than a patriot if I did not acknowledge its ills. If either of these cases is one of them I will be the first to admit it.

Sad says in the USA . . . .

PS: Vernon: What have you been up to these days? Giving up on climate change faux-skepticism as your *Raison d'Ãªtre*? If so I am sure I know why.

Like Coby, I have no information about this affair beyond that which has appeared in the media. Unlike Coby, however, I do not take it for granted that only one explanation is permitted: an innocent (indeed admirable) black citizen murdered by racist white cops. I note that a Grand Jury decided there was no case to answer. Perhaps Coby believes the Grand Jury was similarly composed of racist thugs.

As for Trayvon Martin and the 'unprovoked killing' (as Coby with his special insight describes it) we must wait and see what happened that night.

In both these cases, it appears that Coby and others have reached conclusions that fit their worldview, unencumbered by anything as tiresome as evidence.

Vernon,

I think the fact that the outside DA has finally pressed charges permits me some confidence that what has been made available publicly paints a reasonably accurate picture. (This is to explain why I don't think I need access to any special "official" information to form an opinion). So what makes me doubt a self defense claim is 1) Zimmerman's size and background as a bouncer and aggressive person vs Trayvon's 70 pound lighter teenage frame coupled with the audio of someone screaming "help" over and over and over before a gunshot followed by silence and 2) his initial claim that he was jumped from behind that is contradicted by Martin's girl friend's testimony of what she heard on the telephone and 3) the lack of any physical evidence to support Zimmerman's testimony that his nose was broken and his head smashed repeatedly against the sidewalk (including the video of him at the police station). Clearly the DA in charge has also found enough evidence to doubt his claim as they have charged him with 2nd degree murder.

BTW, I am not calling for summary conviction, nor was his family, I just think a trial should determine his innocence or guilt not police officers who could not even be bothered to check Trayvon's cell phone and find out who he was or interview anyone in the neighborhood to see if someone saw or heard something. That is the real outrage in this case for me, not Zimmerman's actions, wrong or justified.

And my "unprovoked" comment is describing the broader circumstances in that Trayvon was walking home from the store minding his own business and it was Zimmerman who sought out and instigated whatever it was that followed.

skip, I appreciate the caution about rushing to judgement and agree, but that is the whole problem, investigation and judgement were being denied in Zimmerman's case. In the WP case, whether or not it was murder, it was at the very least a serious disregard of standard procedures on many points leading to an unnecessary death with no consequences for the officers involved whatsoever (so far). If there had not been an audio recording of the whole thing, no one but his family and neighbors would have ever known anything about Kenneth Chamberlain.

And, actually no, it is not *always* necessary to have *all* the facts to know some kind of grave injustice has been done, the handful in my post really seem quite sufficient. Can anyone suggest any hypothetical additional information that could possibly come out that could explain away the above?

Someone up thread said: "I note that a Grand Jury decided there was no case to answer. Perhaps Coby believes the Grand Jury was similarly composed of racist thugs."

Grand juries in NY are secret and we have no way of knowing what information the jury was given nor what charge they were asked to consider. These things are entirely in the hands of the DA. If I had been on that jury, even with all the evidence I think I know now, I might not support first degree murder charges. With enough missing context and a general desire to trust police I might not support lesser charges either. Who knows what charges were considered and how much of the available evidence the DA shared.

So no, I have no reason to believe the grand jury was composed of anything but honest and fair minded citizens.

Coby,

I quit posting when I realized that "good" discussions here were totally non-productive and a waste of time. Not just here but at almost all blogs discussing warming or the lack of warming.

I only posted this time because your "unprovoked killing of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed, 17 yr old African American teenager on his way home from the store with a bit of junk food" may reflect the line spun by NBC but does not reflect any of the published court documents. So far nothing has been produced that counters GZ claim that TM attacked him. I do not know if it what he stated is true or not, but there is a witness listed in the reports that says that was TM on top of GZ, while GZ was calling for help. So yes, let us wait on the legal system but so far in the GZ/TM killing, it would appear that the modern lynching is being done to GZ.

reached conclusions that fit their worldview, unencumbered by anything as tiresome as evidence.

--Snowman

LOL.

Hey Snowman: Want to tell us in your own words what a trend is again? Any more secondhand Anthony Wattsisms you want to paraphrase and regurgitate for the forum? (That's Watts with a "Wa" of course.)

LOL.

Coby, you cannot on the one hand say 'I just think a trial should determine his innocence or guilt,' yet on the other declare that Martin Zimmerman 'has been arrested for the unprovoked killing'. If that is not prejudging the issue, I cannot imagine what is.

What? No jibe at me, Snowman?

I'm wounded! Watching the backhanded evidence of your humiliation is my guiltiest pleasure--next to Friday night gin and tonics. Quit playing possum and pretending to ignore me. We all know you're itching to say something ignorant and laughable. You'll cave in eventually anyway so why delay *our* gratification?

My apologies, Skip. I do indeed owe you an insult. But you know how it is: sometimes you just can't be bothered - particularly as on this occasion we seem to be more or less on the same side.

This is an unusual although not unique situation. You perhaps recall that a precedent was set when Coby and others were trying to drum up support for a petition that would have banned a new Canadian TV network before it even took to the air. Like censors everywhere, they insisted they were motivated not by an urge to silence those with opposing views, but by lofty ideals. (Remarkably, the fact that the petition had been drawn up by a US, not Canadian, group of doubtful provenance seemed not to bother them.)

I am never on your "side".

If you coincidentally share a view with me it is just Brownian motion compromising your otherwise outstanding and well documented record of absurdity.

I'll bide my time. Soon enough you will copy and paste Anthony Watt's latest nonsense, or stagger us with your technical incompetence and scientific illiteracy. I'll have my fun then.

"Trayvon was walking home from the store minding his own business and it was Zimmerman who sought out and instigated whatever it was that followed."

What a poor bit of analysis.

If I see somebody walking down my street, go out to say hello to them, they attack me and I kill them in self-defence, then by your execrable logic, I am the person who "sought out and instigated" what followed.

Your other lines of thinking are similarly flawed: Trayvon Martin was 70lbs lighter? So he was young and fit while Zimmerman was fat. This doesn't say anything about their respective motivations, actions, or ability tgo hurt each other. Appalling - right up there with witch-burning.

You've basically assumed one guy must be an innocent victim because he's black.

I tend to agree with a lot of the comments here, and I will await the evidence before reaching a conclusion on these issues. After all, that's just good science.

I did have a great laugh though, and I want to thank snowman for his comment at post #6:

"....In both these cases, it appears that Coby and others have reached conclusions that fit their worldview, unencumbered by anything as tiresome as evidence....."

The irony was overwhelming!!

a precedent was set when Coby and others were trying to drum up support for a petition that would have banned a new Canadian TV network before it even took to the air

The above statement is a purposeful lie. It is referring to this post which was about stopping proposed changes to existing Canadian legislation that was being requested by Fox News North. This new Canadian network was free to take to the air as long as it abides by the same regulations as all other broadcasters.

The regulations in issue required that any broadcast representing itself as news must not knowingly present falsehoods as facts. This is a requirement Fox has successfully defended against meeting in the US and wanted similar privileges in Canada, I leave it to readers to wonder why.

Snowman continually exploits this freedom to lie in his blog comments here, it is little wonder he would like institutions like Faux News to enjoy it as well.

Like all those who would suppress free speech, Coby takes refuge in claims of high-mindedness. There was only one purpose in the petition he urged people to support: to shut up Sun News (which has, of course, nothing to do with Fox News). Does anyone imagine that he would have been similarly outraged if the proposed network had come with green/liberal credentials more to his taste? Of course not.

I think it was the Canadian commentator Mark Steyn who observed recently that anyone can be in favour of free speech as long as it is freedom for Barney the Dinosaur to sing 'I love you; you love me.' The acid test is willingness to permit views with which one disagrees or even finds offensive.

I have mentioned before that I am a regular visitor to Canada and greatly admire the country and its people. Nevertheless, there is an anti free speech strand in Canadian society (epitomised by the infamous Human Rights Commissions and Article 13 of The Canadian Human Rights Act) that is deeply depressing in a Western democracy. Coby, alas, is very much in that tradition - the tyranny of nice, as it has been called.

"Like all those who would suppress free speech"

The speeches exhorting the faithful to kill the infidel americans are banned free speech.

Kiddie porn is banned free speech.

Or are you going to say these are all abhorrent to you, and that people should be free to spread their word on these subjects freely?

"that is deeply depressing in a Western democracy."

But if the people generally want such limitations on speech, then in a DEMOCRACY this is what happens.

Why do you hate democracy so much and merely want to dictate what others are allowed to call a democracy?

"If I see somebody walking down my street, go out to say hello to them, they attack me and I kill them in self-defence, then by your execrable logic, I am the person who "sought out and instigated" what followed."

Now, if that is what you, a strong agile fully grown and armed man say happened, then I'm left wondering how an unarmed teenager nearly half your weight left you in so much fear of your life and safety that you had to shoot that someone dead.

Let me tell you this: the Chinese authorities stated that the student run over by the tank was holding a molotov cocktail, therefore the tank commander was within their rights to mow him down, if the student did not deign to move.

And to ensure this is what is believed, they ensure that there is no footage of the incident.

YOU are that Chinese authority.

Is Wow really such a simpleton that he cannot see the difference between incitement to criminality and the expression of political views? His inability to argue coherently or even understand the nature of the debate is a constant wonder.

WoW:
"Now, if that is what you, a strong agile fully grown and armed man say happened, then I'm left wondering how an unarmed teenager nearly half your weight left you in so much fear of your life and safety that you had to shoot that someone dead."

Speculation based on who was how fat and so on reveals precisely zero about the facts of what happened.

People who prefer speculation to facts are clearly trying to drive their own political barrow.

Some speculation of my own: If the facts were on your side, you wouldn't need to speculate in this manner. Maybe. Either way, your need to change a 16kg difference in weight into "nearly half his weight" is indicative of bad faith on your part, or maybe just stupidity.

If Zimmerman was 116kg (and he looks kind of chubby), that would make Martin a lean, muscled 100kg teenager.

I don't see any sensible reason to think of a 100kg, 186cm teenager as incapable of beating the crap out of anybody.

And the rampant nonsense being emitted about this case by the PC brigade inclines me to doubt very much that Zimmerman was in the wrong.

"Speculation based on who was how fat and so on reveals precisely zero about the facts of what happened."

And WHO speculated about how fat someone was?

Oh, that was you, vinny:

"So he was young and fit while Zimmerman was fat.

Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | May 13, 2012 4:05 PM"

But then again, you're not worried about the facts. YOU MUST PROTECT THE THIN BLUE LINE.

Arseholes.

"he cannot see the difference between incitement to criminality"

Nope, Still Speech.

You're merely using a humpty-dumpty defence. It's not free speech if YOU say it isn't.

But nobody made you boss of the world.

Wow, is it really possible that you are as terminally dense as you appear? Vince Whirlwind wasn't claiming that one was fat and the other was fit. He was merely illustrating the absurdity of drawing conclusions based upon an apparent difference in weight. Honestly, Wow, you have the reading comprehension of a seven year old. No, a five year old.

you have the reading comprehension of a seven year old. No, a five year old. --Snowman

Why don't you demonstrate to us the age equivalency of your *mathematical* comprehension and tell us what you think a "trend" is?

LOL.

You begged us to just "forget it"--the same groveling plea you made a few months ago after you were caught foolishly believing and mindlessly repeating--Anthony Watts's idiocy.

But guess what, Snowman, I'll never forget it, and nor will I let you.

For the record, again: I do not oppose the free expression of political views, I oppose the freedom to use a broadcasting license to intentionally state known falsehoods under the guise of news.

Snowman, if you repeat this lie about me again, I will just delete your comments. It is too time consuming to correct you every time. It is easier for you to attack the straw man, I know, but I won't allow it again in this thread.

Supreme irony @22:
Is Wow really such a simpleton that he cannot see the difference between incitement to criminality and the expression of political views? His inability to argue coherently or even understand the nature of the debate is a constant wonder.

Is Snowman really such a simpleton that he cannot see the difference between intentional deception using the authority of a licensed news broadcaster and the expression of political views? His inability to argue coherently or even understand the nature of the debate is a constant wonder.

If we're worried about news broadcasters being intentionally deceptive, can we ask them why they use a photo of a 13-year-old Trayvon Martin to illustrate a story about what happened to a 17-year-old Trayvon Martin?

Do you think it's curious that people who (quite rightly) hate Fox News' deceptions have made no objections to this particular bit of deception?

WoW:

Let me remind you what you said:
"... an unarmed teenager nearly half your weight..."

That would make Martin not much more than 16kg, and Zimmerman not much more 32kg.

Clearly you are a deluded buffoon.

And rampant nonsense like yours only exacerbates my scepticism of the whole story.

Vince

I think that everyone would object to any news organisation which intentially misleads viewers/readers by using false or deceptive information. It's just that some - as you have pointed out - are more false and misleading (or should I say fair and balanced) than others.

As I said earlier, I think I will wait until I see the evidence before drawing any conclusions on this issue. But one thing I will conclude is that it was completely wrong for Zimmerman to shoot Martin. I don't care if he was being attacked (which is probably doubtful, but I will wait and see the evidence). It is wrong to use lethal force to fend off an attack that could probably be prevented by other means (such as not following Martin when he was told not to do so by the police).

But that probably says more about the fucked up culture of carrying guns in the USA than anything else. And anyone who doubts that there is a huge element of racism in this issue only has to read some of the news coverage and events that are occuring because of it. Take these couple of examples:

newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/14/man-sells-out-of-trayvon-martin-gun-range-targets/

www.huffingtonpost.com/the-cornell-sun/citing-trayvon-people-all_b_1496…

But the one article - if true - that causes me to lean more towards Zimmerman being guilty is this one:

http://bostonherald.com/news/national/south/view/20120504george_zimmerm…

You have to ask that if Zimmerman was inside an SUV with the windows up, why didn't he just drive away? Why did he get out of the vehicle and follow Martin? But hey, make up your own mind.

Well Coby, at the risk of having my comments deleted, here goes: the fatal flaw in your argument is that it assumes - indeed it requires - the possibility of a fundamental, objective assessment of truth. Now, this may not be a problem in the everyday realm, but it becomes a quagmire when we consider news with a political dimension.

Your definition of lying is opinion that offends your worldview. You will deny that, of course, and no doubt you are sincere in your denial. But everyone thinks he is sincere. I don't suppose there ever has been a villain (not that I am suggesting you are such) who thought 'yes, I am a thoroughly wicked individual and my policies are going to cause untold misery, but I'm going to pursue them anyway'.

The impossibility of agreeing objective reality in public affairs is the reason why truth-in-broadcasting legislation, noble though it sounds, invariably leads to the suppression of inconvenient ideas. This is as evident in the UK (vide the BBC) as it is in Canada with the CBC. How could it be otherwise? In both countries the dominant broadcaster is state funded, staffed by individuals who believe in the underlying concept. Accordingly, they relentlessly, almost exclusively, generate current affairs programming that commends itself to the liberal/left. Not that I object to that. What I do object to is the exclusion of other views. The antidote is to allow a free marketplace of ideas, one untrammelled by virtuous-sounding but ultimately corrosive notions of 'truth'. Does this mean any broadcaster can say anything? Of course not. The law already provides adequate remedies against incitement to criminality, fraud and libel. No overarching 'truth' clause is required.

But we have covered this ground before and - occupying different realities as we do - we will never agree on this or anything else. One final question, though: why do you confine your concern to broadcasters - or would you like to see newspapers (and blogs) similarly required to meet your definition of truth? Actually, that's not my final question. It is this: could you give an example of the sort of lies that your truth rules would prevent, explaining why other legislation is inadequate to prevent these falsehoods?

I don't suppose there ever has been a villain (not that I am suggesting you are such) who thought 'yes, I am a thoroughly wicked individual and my policies are going to cause untold misery, but I'm going to pursue them anyway'. --Snowman

In your very best moments, Snowman, that is no doubt exactly what you say.

A bit late, but it still deserves correction:

"It is by now old news that Martin Zimmerman has finally been arrested for the unprovoked killing of Trayvon Martin..."

The highlighted name should be "George."

"George", yes. Fixed, thanks.

Mandas, part of the problem with your analysis is that you are looking at the situation through the prism of your own culture.
Whether America's gun culture is "fucked up" or not (it clearly is) is hugely irrelevant when it is the culture in operation in this situation.
Beyond that, you do what many do and claim that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car (refer back to my "saying hello to someone on the street" scenario) - Zimmerman is perfectly entitled to get out of his car, just as he is perfectly entitled to follow somebody and perfectly entitled to talk to them.
Similarly, you say the fault lies with Zimmerman for using lethal force to fend off an attack when he could have avoided it by running away. If local culture and local law allow you to stand your ground, then that criticism of yours is invalid.

A perfectly reasonable version of events says that Zimmerman confronted an outsider in his gated community, was assaulted by the outsider, and defended himself as per the mores of his land resulting in the intruder's death.

The alternative story put about by a variety of people who mostly seem to to want to egg on some race riots to improve their ratings, plus some unashamed racists, is so full of holes and deceptions I've decided scepticism is probably a good approach.

Sorry Vince, you are wrong.

If - and I will continue to go with 'if' until the evidence is in - Zimmerman was sitting in his SUV, and was so afraid for his safety that he wound up the windows and called the police (as he alleges in the media report) - then he was completely wrong to get out of the car and follow Martin, especially as he was specifically told not to by the police.

Your 'perfectly reasonable version of events' does not sit with the facts as they are known, nor with the allegations that Zimmerman himself has made.

And I am not looking at this through the lens of my culture. I have actually lived in the USA (Alabama, which is not far from Florida as you would know), and a large part of this problem can be directly attributed to America's gun culture. If the facts are that Zimmerman got out of his car to follow Martin after he already admitted that he was afraid for his safety (I said 'if' again), then he would only have done so because he knew that he was armed and that Martin was not. Either that, or he is a complete moron (also possible I admit).

And if you - a large, armed person - gets out of your car to follow an unarmed, smaller person, then it is impossible to draw any other conclusion than you were going to confront that person with your weapon. To suggest that he was attacked for no reason, and that he was forced to defend himself, beggars belief. He may well have had to defend himself, but I would also like to suggest that would have been because Martin was fearing for HIS safety, seeing a larger man following him and confronting him. Zimmerman may well have been supposedly within his rights to stand his ground (a stupid law, but the law nonetheless), but it does not fit the information at hand that he was 'standing his ground'. Rather, it would appear that he provoked the confrontation knowing that he was armed and that Martin was not.

But of course, all this is conjecture and based on media reports and hearsay, but it does fit the information provided. Your version does not. But then, as I said, I would prefer to wait for the real evidence before I draw any final conclusions.

I am not coming at this from a racist perspective - and I would make the same hypothesis if they were both white, latino, black or otherwise. Some people obviously are, and there is definitely a large element of racism which permeates the USA, particularly in the south (I have lived there as I have said).

You are correct - skepticism is warranted. But it would appear that the police do not share your view, because if they were skeptical they would have at least questioned Zimmerman at length over his story, which appears from media reports to be full of contradictions and at odds with common sense. I wonder why that is?

Mandas - you say Zimmerman "shouldn't get out of his car" - why?
Is this a bit like the "she wore a short skirt" rape charge defence?
What you and all the limp-lefties and reformed civil-rights-advocates-turned-racists seem to be missing here is that there is nothing you do which can make you in any way responsible for a crime of which you become the victim UNLESS you provide consent to the perpetrator.

And self defence remains a legal response to being a victim of a crime.

Saying "he walked into it, therefore he's not allowed a defence of self-defence" is complete bull.

Also, you say "police told him not to follow Martin" - this is another part of the fabricated narrative which doesn't stand scrutiny so well. Do us all a favour and quote the actual words used, and the rank of the person issuing them and we can judge for ourselves whether this claim has a factual basis.

I notice you make the claim that Zimmerman intended to confront Martin with his firearm. You have zero evidence that this intent existed, and I'm not aware of any evidence that this is what in fact transpired.

You seem to be getting carried away with the black-victim-white-perpetrator narrative which is so full of obvious holes (like, Zimmerman not even being white, for starters) and transparent deceptions it would seem like a very unwise position to take if you have any respect for fact and evidence over emotions and belief.

Sadly, Zimmerman is set to become a political scapegoat who will be sent down to placate a bunch of troublemakers and racists. I doubt he will get the support Dreyfuss got, but he sure deserves it at the moment. At the moment, in a civilised society, he is to be presumed innocent of any crime. The uncivilised ruckus to the contrary is fairly unedifying.

"you say Zimmerman "shouldn't get out of his car" - why?"

He already said, vinny.

+++
If - and I will continue to go with 'if' until the evidence is in - Zimmerman was sitting in his SUV, and was so afraid for his safety that he wound up the windows and called the police (as he alleges in the media report) - then he was completely wrong to get out of the car and follow Martin, especially as he was specifically told not to by the police.
+++

However, you didn't read, did you.

"Is this a bit like the "she wore a short skirt" rape charge defence?"

Nope.

But if a woman was in fear of her safety, why did she go back to that creepy guy's house?

It's more a "why are you bringing up rape?" question.

he cannot see the difference between incitement to criminality"

Nope, Still Speech.

You're merely using a humpty-dumpty defence. It's not free speech if YOU say it isn't.

But nobody made you boss of the world.

Whinny Virlwind: Let me remind you what you said:

"So he was young and fit while Zimmerman was fat.

Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | May 13, 2012 4:05 PM"

Are you so terminally in love with Snowjob that you post here where your idiocy is skewered and your butt so hurt by your wounded and undeserved pride, just so you and that barnpot can persue your love-fest of political infantilism?

"If the facts are that Zimmerman got out of his car to follow Martin after he already admitted that he was afraid for his safety (I said 'if' again), then he would only have done so because he knew that he was armed and that Martin was not. Either that, or he is a complete moron (also possible I admit)."

Or that he wished to shoot the guy dead, to protect his wounded pride.

Pre-meditated murder.

I believe this is illegal even in Texas.

Vince, you very neatly elucidate the hollowness of your arguments with these statements in your last post:

"...What you and all the limp-lefties and reformed civil-rights-advocates-turned-racists seem to be missing here..."
"...You seem to be getting carried away with the black-victim-white-perpetrator narrative which is so full of obvious holes..."
"...Sadly, Zimmerman is set to become a political scapegoat who will be sent down to placate a bunch of troublemakers and racists...."

Well, it certainly seems that you have made up your mind doesn't it? Zimmerman a 'scapegoat' huh? Couldn't you wait for the evidence to see whether or not he actually is guilty? And of course, it is all our fault because we are all racist lefties who want to hang the poor innocent man who dared to defend himself against the black man. Way to confirm that your views on the issue are ideological rather than evidentially based!

How about you go back and read what I actually wrote, rather than trying to tear down the strawman of your own construction? You know, where I said things like this:

"...But of course, all this is conjecture and based on media reports and hearsay, but it does fit the information provided. Your version does not. But then, as I said, I would prefer to wait for the real evidence before I draw any final conclusions...."

As I said, I will await the final evidence and the trial before I draw any final conclusions. But there is one simple thing that cannot be denied. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin, and that need never have happened. If Zimmerman had remained in his car and allowed the police to do their job - and not followed Martin contrary to the wishes of the police - then Martin would be alive and Zimmerman would not be under arrest for murder. Do you get that?

Zimmerman's arrogance and belief that he was entitled to take the law into his own hands and confront someone with a weapon resulted in the unnecessary and completely avoidable death of a minor. End of story. And no spin can ever change my belief that that is wrong.

"...You seem to be getting carried away with the black-victim-white-perpetrator narrative which is so full of obvious holes..."

Actually it seems to be Vinny who is getting all het up and concentrating on the colour of the skin of the participants. Maybe as part of the persecuted minority he feels that he's being unfairly treated by having to admit that there are white arseholes out there who love nothing more than to kill an uppy nigger.

Zimmerman wasn't even a white man. The whole anti-white narrative that has been invented around this case is absolutely laughable.

And I hope you enjoy having egg on your face, as the anti-Zimmerman story continues to fall apart:

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/trayvon_martin_pics_show_zimmerman…

You lot just have to learn to give up on irrational belief and show a lot more scepticism when the media attempts to whip up a concocted story of outrage to suck you lefties in.

Let me remind WoW what I said:
"...there is nothing you do which can make you in any way responsible for a crime of which you become the victim UNLESS you provide consent to the perpetrator.
And self defence remains a legal response to being a victim of a crime."

You keep bringing up some vague story concerning some direction you imply or assert that the police may have given Zimmerman, but when I ask for details, none are forthcoming.

Like the rest of your narrative, it seems entirely based around secondary sources or pure speculation. And contrary to your assertion, Mandas, *your* version of events does *not* fit in any way with the facts that are known nor with the law.

So I will repeat another thing: It is perfectly legal to approach a stranger in the street and talk to them. It is perfectly legal to ask them what their business is. It is perfectly legal to follow them. If Martin felt he was being harassed, then there are remedies against that in civil law.

What is *not* legal, is what Trayvon Martin did, which is to criminally assault somebody in the street.

And when somebody criminally assaults you, you *are* entitled to use force against them in self-defence.

The longer this goes on, the more I am starting to think that Zimmerman is going to end up with a multi-million dollar civil rights case against the government for participating in politically-motivated persecution against him.
I hope a very good lawyer takes him on and takes these black racists to the cleaners. It must be ironic for you to be facing the fact (if you can face it, that is) that so many of these "civil rights activists" are just as bad as the racist rednecks they purport to oppose.

Look Vince:

I don't know the all the facts of this case, but guess what: Neither do you. There *is* evidence that GZ is an aggressive jerk and a bigot. It is entirely possible that he started something physical that he could not finish but with his firearm. He is the only (living) person who ever knew the whole story, and I doubt we'll hear anything self-incriminating from him.

Is there guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? My casual reading of the evidence tells me, No--but that is a far cry from your narrative of a politically correct cabal of reverse-racists railroading a straight up guy merely exercising his "right" to approach someone on the street.

The prick will most likely walk, but please spare us this quixotic gloating.

skip / wow

I wouldn't waste my time anymore on Vince. He has clearly made up his mind that Zimmerman is simply an innocent bystander that was just going about his business, when an aggressive black thug assaulted him for no reason, and he was forced to defend himself.

As I have been saying all along - I will await the evidence and the trial before drawing any definitive conclusions.

For those of us who do prefer evidence, here is some actual evidence here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/trayvon-martin-911-audio-_n_13…

I like the one where Zimmerman says:

"These assholes always get away"

I also like this exchange between Zimmerman and the police dispatcher:

"Are you following him?" the dispatcher asks.
"Yes," Zimmerman responds.
"We don't need you to do that," the dispatcher says.

It gets worse.

Snowman's favorite footy team--Chelsea--won the Champions League today. No doubt his bliss will energize another 40 posts of unmitigated stupidity.

> Like the rest of your narrative, it seems entirely based around secondary sources or pure speculation

Says Vinny, the Queen of Presumption.

If you're following someone they CANNOT have caused you to fear for your life.

NOT. POSSIBLE.

Are you paying attention, WoW?

This is the line that your source has deliberately misconstrued as a police direction,

“We don’t need you to do that,” the dispatcher says.

See? You've been conned by people emitting PR to try to turn this story into something it is not.

And Mandas, I'm very happy you are now backing away from believing the spin and are now happy to wait for justice to take its course. That's quite a change of tune there, although asserting that I'm somehow trying to say that "Zimmerman was an innocent bystander going about his business" tells me you are *still* having trouble telling the difference between what you imagine to be facts and what are really facts.

And Skip, if Zimmerman being an "aggressive jerk and bigot" is somehow relevant, then presumably we can speculate about Trayvon Martin's character in the same way? His school suspension over drugs? His facebook photos posing with handguns? Do these things give us an insight into what actually happened? Or would they be distractions used by somebody pushing a political barrow?
Luckily, contrary to what you're trying to get over, there *were* witnesses, so if the lynch-mob fails in its bid to have its way with Zimmerman, we can be reasonably reassured that it will be thanks to the actual evidence, not despite it.

WoW seems a bit confused:
"If you’re following someone they CANNOT have caused you to fear for your life. NOT. POSSIBLE."

How about we change "have caused" to something involving a different tense?
And how about we stop coming to conclusions based on "if"s, speculation, and hind-casted scenario-building and concentrate on the facts? Think you can do that?
Did Martin assault Zimmerman?
Did Zimmerman defend himself?
Those are pretty much the only questions you need to find answers for.
Not how fat they are. Not imaginary directions from police. Not how *you* imagine people should react in a given circumstance.

Its amazing what you find on the net if you look around. It would appear our friend Vince is either an Australian, a foreigner who likes to comment on Australian blogs, or has a double here in Australia.

What is equally apparent is that both Vinces are racist jerks. I found these interesting comments on the ABC "The Drum" website. They were made by someone called 'Vince Whirlwind", and relate to Australian Aboriginals and the historic "Mabo" native title case:

Exhibit : I just had an exhibition of photographs some of which had Aboriginal stone-axes as paraphernalia in the image. One viewer casually commented on 'them rocks there', never knowing what he was looking at. Ignorance is bliss but to all our detriment ...
Vince Whirlwind : Yeah, because stone age technology just has *so much* to offer us, doesn't it?

"....In any case, stone-age nomads do not own land, do not create nations, and barely qualify as societies even. ..."

What an interesting observation, Mandas.
When caught propagating lies and propaganda, eg, "The police told Zimmerman to blahblahblah", you decide to indulge in a bit of ad-hominem.

To address your tangent, how about listing for us all the benefits that stone-age technology has to offer us?
What "detriment" ensues from ignoring stone age technology?
What benefit is there in mis-applying the 19th-century concept of "Nations" to primitive societies?

Nope, an insult is not an ad hominem, Vinny.

As you all might imagine, as my scientific training is in Parks and Wildlife Management, I take a great interest in fire as a tool for ecosystem management. For those of you who are interested, here are a couple of recent papers on the subject - I have also provided a couple of brief statements from the papers you can get a feel for what they are about (there are lots of others I can provide if you would like to read them:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/vp4256q8ut700788/

".....Aboriginal people and their associated knowledge systems provide valuable alternatives to Western scientific paradigms. Aboriginal people have experienced major demographic and cultural change in the post-colonial period, including the loss of access and ownership of land. Unmanaged wildfires now dominate contemporary fire regimes. with Aboriginal burning largely restricted to some Aboriginal lands. Scientific studies have linked recent changes in fire regime to the decline of key taxa, such as granivorous birds, small-sized to medium-sized mammals and fire-sensitive vegetation types......"

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01233.x/abs…

"....Ecologists have only recently acknowledged the past history of Aboriginal burning. Its purpose was to maximise plant and animal food resources.

We are only now discovering the importance of Aboriginal land management practices to the Australian ecosystem. In the past, the European settlers dismissed Aboriginals as a primitive stone age culture with nothing to teach our obviously technologically superior culture. But we were wrong.

Unfortunately, there are still a few people who still think that the Aboriginal culture and knowledge is inferior. But we have a name for people who think that other races and cultures are inferior to their own - despite all the evidence to the contrary. See if you can guess what that name is.