George Zimmerman Trial

[GoIrish41]

It's quite clear at this point that no matter what anyone else thinks, even jurors that were there got every single minute of the trial, you are going to take the counter argument and basically claim they are wrong and//or are ignoring important facts. Have you thought that maybe others are actually right and you are in fact ignoring important testimony and facts?

No.

I think it is easy to conclude from watching the interview of the juror that they ignored important testimony and facts, and they gave him a pass for ... what was that legal distinction they made? ... oh yeah, "because George's heart was in the right place". This was their decisiion (which I have said numerous times I've accepted) even though he shouldn't have gotten out of his car or followed Martin, and exercised poor judgment.

 

[GoIrish41]

The gun part...I guess its plausible that he would not have gone w/o it. As to how that then translates to mindset...I don't know. If Zimmerman wore that gun every day, or a lot...it may or may not have been a conscious decision to follow BECAUSE of the gun. Even if I cede that point that the gun was the catalyst to Zimmerman being willing to follow...I do not agree it says anything about his intent to do anything other than ...follow.

When I hear a bump in the night I don't usually go outside w/o a bat or a gun...and I'm sure as hell cautious/scared...and I sure as hell don't want to hit or shoot someone...but I trust me and my judgment over the dude in my shed. The judgment is only mine if I have the power. The bat/gun likely tilts the power in my favor. So if I ascribe my view of things to Zimmerman, I can see how the gun would be the catalyst, and still not speak to any bad intentions.

I'm with you that Martin's alleged behavior is unlikely, on its face, w/o a witness...and there was a witness who seemed to testify he had an opportunity to "go inside". His alleged unwillingness to go inside says what? Maybe nothing...but it makes a confrontation instigated by him a little more plausible.

And yea, I don't doubt these guys tussled a bit...seems plausible Zimmerman might even have grabbed at Martin thus the "get off". But w/o an eye witness, I can't be sure what Martin meant. Seems on its face to be, don't touch me...but I've seen "get off" used in a number of ways including ...go away.

I do think in the civil case, the "get off" part of Janteal's story will be the pivotal point...that is her credibility as a witness in a criminal proceeding lent doubt to the entire situation...maybe not so much in a civil action.

good post. I wouldn't lead a creepy dude following me through the neighborhood to my doorstep when the only person home was a 12 year old boy.

I can appreciate your thoughts on the carrying of the gun, and it is certainly something to think about. But, I also think it is highly suspect that he would have followed Martin if he wasn't armed.

 

[BGIF]

George Zimmerman to Get Gun Back | Video - ABC News

If I was him, I'd sell this thing on gunbroker. I bet it would draw big bucks. I'd bid on it.

Getting his gun back is The Law at work. Zimmerman committed no crime. He meets the legal requirements to possess it. If Angela Corey believes he's a murderer, as she's stated, she should take legal action to block him.


Putting that gun up for auction and bidding on it, is repulsive. It wasn't used to kill Jesse James, Billy The Kid, Dillinger, Dhamer, or even Cody Jarrett.

It also wasn't used to kill Lincoln, Ghandi, The Kennedy Brothers, MLK, nor Medgar Evers.

It killed a 17 year old who like many 17 year olds acted out against someone he perceived to disrespect him. A 17 year old who committed bodily harm to another person and lost his life in the struggle. It's like a lot of other guns that killed 16 people including a 5 year old and a 7 year old in Chicago over the 4th of July weekend. And kill people in NYC, Miami, Detroit, L.A. and those Other city where protestors are demonstrating against the verdict.

The difference between this gun and those is it was legally owned, legally carried, and legally fired.

To paraphrase from Mark O'Mara, "Let's not turn a tragedy into a travesty."

 

[drayer54]

Completely agree.

 

[GoIrish41]

Getting his gun back is The Law at work. Zimmerman committed no crime. He meets the legal requirements to possess it. If Angela Corey believes he's a murderer, as she's stated, she should take legal action to block him.


Putting that gun up for auction and bidding on it, is repulsive. It wasn't used to kill Jesse James, Billy The Kid, Dillinger, Dhamer, or even Cody Jarrett.

It also wasn't used to kill Lincoln, Ghandi, The Kennedy Brothers, MLK, nor Medgar Evers.

It killed a 17 year old who like many 17 year olds acted out against someone he perceived to disrespect him. A 17 year old who committed bodily harm to another person and lost his life in the struggle. It's like a lot of other guns that killed 16 people including a 5 year old and a 7 year old in Chicago over the 4th of July weekend. And kill people in NYC, Miami, Detroit, L.A. and those Other city where protestors are demonstrating against the verdict.

The difference between this gun and those is it was legally owned, legally carried, and legally fired.

To paraphrase from Mark O'Mara, "Let's not turn a tragedy into a travesty."

As uneasy as it makes me that this guy gets to carry a gun again, I have to agree he should get his gun back. I agree without reservation that it is repulsive to try to profit from a gun used to kill a kid.

 

[drayer54]

I'm not sure he has a job lined up or an easy way to get one right now. Bills don't pay themselves.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm not sure he has a job lined up or an easy way to get one right now. Bills don't pay themselves.

Author. Bet on it.

 

[drayer54]

Author. Bet on it.

The NBC lawsuit and maybe a book. I can't imagine anyone would hire him. I wouldn't want the attention.

 

[GoIrish41]

The NBC lawsuit and maybe a book. I can't imagine anyone would hire him. I wouldn't want the attention.

Then lose it all when he loses the civil suit. I agree he is almost unhireable. Can't say I'm disappointed that he will have to struggle after what he did.

 

[phgreek]

good post. I wouldn't lead a creepy dude following me through the neighborhood to my doorstep when the only person home was a 12 year old boy.

I can appreciate your thoughts on the carrying of the gun, and it is certainly something to think about. But, I also think it is highly suspect that he would have followed Martin if he wasn't armed.

On being followed, maybe so, good on Martin if that's what he was thinking...at 17 I doubt I would have thought it through much...if I were aware someone was following me in a strange place...and they creeped me out, I likely would have gone to where I was staying, and locked the doors and/or called the cops.

For whatever reason that's not what happened here...and either or both of going inside or calling the cops would likely have kept Martin alive as well as a number of things Zimmerman might have done differently.

 

[GoIrish41]

On being followed, maybe so, good on Martin if that's what he was thinking...at 17 I doubt I would have thought it through much...if I were aware someone was following me in a strange place...and they creeped me out, I likely would have gone to where I was staying, and locked the doors and/or called the cops.

For whatever reason that's not what happened here...and either or both of going inside or calling the cops would likely have kept Martin alive as well as a number of things Zimmerman might have done differently.

No doubt they could both have done things that would have kept this incident from happening. It is really too bad that they didn't. That said, I give the benefit of the doubt to Martin bucause on that night, he was the only one minding his own business.

 

[connor_in]

The NBC lawsuit and maybe a book. I can't imagine anyone would hire him. I wouldn't want the attention.

Here's the thing about that...this guy is not OJ Simpson, a very recognizables face. If he changes his name after things settle down and adjusts his weight again, no one will recognize him walking down the street in a couple years.

 

[GoIrish41]

Here's the thing about that...this guy is not OJ Simpson, a very recognizables face. If he changes his name after things settle down and adjusts his weight again, no one will recognize him walking down the street in a couple years.

Maybe, but his face has been out there -- fat and not as fat -- for a long time. This think has at least another 6 months to a year before its over with civil trial and the distant possiblity of a federal trial. I don't think it will be very easy for this guy to fade into the woodwork. I know I'd be moving if I were him. The whole world knows where he lives.

 

[connor_in]

SIAP but I just saw this (was from yesterday)

What do you guys think about this?

Civil rights charges against Zimmerman would be difficult, Justice officials say - The Washington Post

 

[Ndaccountant]

Just something I thought was interesting. On the radio, there was a guy talking about how the racial undertones in the media were a driving force of public emotion. He said he found it curious that people refer to GZ as a white Hispanic yet, people don't refer to the President as a white-African American. Why did people feel compelled to label GZ's race that way?

 

[phgreek]

Just something I thought was interesting. On the radio, there was a guy talking about how the racial undertones in the media were a driving force of public emotion. He said he found it curious that people refer to GZ as a white Hispanic yet, people don't refer to the President as a white-African American. Why did people feel compelled to label GZ's race that way?

My honest opinion...I think the race peddlers got out in front and the media seized on what they were saying before anyone took time to dig, but the pivotal game changer was the president and congress people weighing in as they did...it was as simple as this: a light skinned guy shot a dark skinned guy(edit:kid)...light skinned guy's name gave no hint of his ethnicity, so off they ran with it.

When facts came out about the case and Zimmerman...too late to retreat...so he had to be some part white thus justifying all the stupid comments by the president, congress people, and the reverend Sharpton et al....I get the reverend..thats his reflex and his turf, but political leaders weighing in on this and the media FAILING AGAIN to be journalists...those are THE issue that were the force multipliers here. If they refrain...this is different...way different.

Tragic enough w/o that...in fact more tragic because folks will for sure miss some potential teachable moments contained in this mess, and they'll dismiss it as a race-based attack...thanks for that political "leaders" and "media".

 

[BGIF]

Just something I thought was interesting. On the radio, there was a guy talking about how the racial undertones in the media were a driving force of public emotion. He said he found it curious that people refer to GZ as a white Hispanic yet, people don't refer to the President as a white-African American. Why did people feel compelled to label GZ's race that way?

Hispanics are generally considered in one of 3 or more categories, White Hispanic, Black Hispanic, Hispanic, Mixed, etc. Google "Are Hispanics White?". Different countries have different descriptions. One South American country used to classify race by observation and changed it 10 or 20 years ago to let people declare for themselves. The country went from something like 10-20 white to 80-90 white.

A day or two ago ACamp posted a T-shirt that Mexicans, at least some Mexicans, don't want to be considered Hispanic, American, Latina, white, or black. They want to known as Mexicans.

In this case the Sanford cop wrote "White" on his report. The media ran with that particularly Reuters who were the first of the majors to jump on this story. Reuters made it front page news internationally.

What doesn't get discussed is that it was Benjamin Crump, the Martin Family's Attorney, who had a public relations specialist feed the media the civil rights aspect. That picture of a 12 year old football player was released for shock value, and it worked.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Hispanics are generally considered in one of 3 or more categories, White Hispanic, Black Hispanic, Hispanic, Mixed, etc. Google "Are Hispanics White?". Different countries have different descriptions. One South American country used to classify race by observation and changed it 10 or 20 years ago to let people declare for themselves. The country went from something like 10-20 white to 80-90 white.

A day or two ago ACamp posted a T-shirt that Mexicans, at least some Mexicans, don't want to be considered Hispanic, American, Latina, white, or black. They want to known as Mexicans.

In this case the Sanford cop wrote "White" on his report. The media ran with that particularly Reuters who were the first of the majors to jump on this story. Reuters made it front page news internationally.

What doesn't get discussed is that it was Benjamin Crump, the Martin Family's Attorney, who had a public relations specialist feed the media the civil rights aspect. That picture of a 12 year old football player was released for shock value, and it worked.

Exactly. The Martins, et. al, got in front of the story and controlled the narrative.

Zimmerman just did some police interviews and ate about sixty cheesecakes.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Hispanics are generally considered in one of 3 or more categories, White Hispanic, Black Hispanic, Hispanic, Mixed, etc. Google "Are Hispanics White?". Different countries have different descriptions. One South American country used to classify race by observation and changed it 10 or 20 years ago to let people declare for themselves. The country went from something like 10-20 white to 80-90 white.

A day or two ago ACamp posted a T-shirt that Mexicans, at least some Mexicans, don't want to be considered Hispanic, American, Latina, white, or black. They want to known as Mexicans.

In this case the Sanford cop wrote "White" on his report. The media ran with that particularly Reuters who were the first of the majors to jump on this story. Reuters made it front page news internationally.

What doesn't get discussed is that it was Benjamin Crump, the Martin Family's Attorney, who had a public relations specialist feed the media the civil rights aspect. That picture of a 12 year old football player was released for shock value, and it worked.

Have you ever described someone as a white Hispanic or black Hispanic? I have not and I can honestly say I never recall hearing Hispanics described that way. I get that Hispanic isn't a race, its a culture by the purist of definitions. By how often in politics is it described as the black vote, the white vote and the Latino vote? By the strict definition, out President is multi-racial, yet not a peep is really mentioned about that when his race is discussed.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Have you ever described someone as a white Hispanic or black Hispanic? I have not and I can honestly say I never recall hearing Hispanics described that way. I get that Hispanic isn't a race, its a culture by the purist of definitions. By how often in politics is it described as the black vote, the white vote and the Latino vote? By the strict definition, out President is multi-racial, yet not a peep is really mentioned about that when his race is discussed.

I think in the Census and Affirmative Action questionnaires they ask if you're "White Non-Hispanic". (Basically they're asking if you're totally worthless, race-wise). But that's the only place I've heard it.

 

[GoIrish41]

SIAP but I just saw this (was from yesterday)

What do you guys think about this?

Civil rights charges against Zimmerman would be difficult, Justice officials say - The Washington Post

I think if they charge him it would have to be for a hate crime -- ie, he killed him because he was black. IMHO, there is absolutely no evidence that is the case. I do think he profiled Martin, but all race aspects of this case end there. Justice would be foolish to take on this case -- let's see how much they are willing to bend to please their political base.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Slate's William Saletan published this yesterday:

In court, evidence and scrutiny have exposed these difficult, complicated truths. But outside the court, ideologues are ignoring them. They’re oversimplifying a tragedy that was caused by oversimplification. Martin has become Emmett Till. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using the verdict to attack Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which wasn’t invoked in this case. The grievance industrial complex is pushing the Department of Justice to prosecute Zimmerman for bias-motivated killing, based on evidence that didn’t even support a conviction for unpremeditated killing. Zimmerman’s lawyers have teamed up with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, inadvertently, to promote the false message that Zimmerman’s acquittal means our society thinks everything he did was OK.

It wasn’t OK. It was stupid and dangerous. It led to the unnecessary death of an innocent young man. It happened because two people—their minds clouded by stereotypes that went well beyond race—assumed the worst about one another and acted in haste. If you want to prevent the next Trayvon Martin tragedy, learn from their mistakes. Don’t paint the world in black and white. Don’t declare the whole justice system racist, or blame every gun death on guns, or confuse acquittal with vindication. And the next time you see somebody who looks like a punk or a pervert, hold your fire.

This thread, and the media coverage in general, is an on-going example of the power of confirmation bias. Liberals naturally sympathize with Martin as the minority youth unfairly profiled and gunned down by an armed vigilante. Conservatives identify with Zimmerman as a well-meaning neighborhood watchman who's now getting publicly crucified by racial demagogues. Both sides have no problem with assuming the worst about their assumed aggressor, and outright ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit with their preferred narrative.

Meanwhile, we're steadily moving toward war with Syria (and ultimately Iran), and the NSA is wiping its as$ with the Constitution. But pay no mind to the man behind the curtain! We'll just create a racial controversy out of wholecloth that will dominate the media cycle for months on end. It's Huxley's Spectacle in action.

 

[irishpat183]

Then lose it all when he loses the civil suit. I agree he is almost unhireable. Can't say I'm disappointed that he will have to struggle after what he did.

You're assumign that he loses the civil suit....Not that he won't, but it's still an "if".

 

[GoIrish41]

My honest opinion...I think the race peddlers got out in front and the media seized on what they were saying before anyone took time to dig, but the pivotal game changer was the president and congress people weighing in as they did...it was as simple as this: a light skinned guy shot a dark skinned guy(edit:kid)...light skinned guy's name gave no hint of his ethnicity, so off they ran with it.

When facts came out about the case and Zimmerman...too late to retreat...so he had to be some part white thus justifying all the stupid comments by the president, congress people, and the reverend Sharpton et al....I get the reverend..thats his reflex and his turf, but political leaders weighing in on this and the media FAILING AGAIN to be journalists...those are THE issue that were the force multipliers here. If they refrain...this is different...way different.

Tragic enough w/o that...in fact more tragic because folks will for sure miss some potential teachable moments contained in this mess, and they'll dismiss it as a race-based attack...thanks for that political "leaders" and "media".

It is difficult for me to blame the media for this. The did what they do. I think race certainly played a significant role in the frenzy, but I also believe there were other pieces of this case that were just as compelling. For example, the debate over gun control was raging toward a fight in Congress and this case had a lot to point to as an example on one side or the other. I think the gun control aspect is also the piece that was the place the line was drawn that divided those who supported Martin (gun control) and those who supported Zimmerman (unilateral access to firearms), at least as much as race did. In many ways, this case became a battleground for that debate.

Post trial, I think the media is going absolutely apesh*t over the race angle. To me, that waters down the legal arguments of this case and turns it into something that is absolutely unprovable.

I think it would have been irresponsible for the president not to respond to questions about this case when asked. Once the racial aspect of this case played out in the media, it became part of what was driving social discourse in this country. You might not like what he said about the case, but it is unfair to suggest that he should have burried his head in the sand and act as if this huge social issue should have gone without comment from our leader. He was demonstrating leadership that he often takes a lot of (undue) crap about not showing. His post trial comments were very responsible and measured -- calling for the acceptance of the verdict and nonviolece. He also dovetailed into the gun control aspect of the case, which I thought was more than appropriate.

 

[irishpat183]

Hispanics are generally considered in one of 3 or more categories, White Hispanic, Black Hispanic, Hispanic, Mixed, etc. Google "Are Hispanics White?". Different countries have different descriptions. One South American country used to classify race by observation and changed it 10 or 20 years ago to let people declare for themselves. The country went from something like 10-20 white to 80-90 white.

A day or two ago ACamp posted a T-shirt that Mexicans, at least some Mexicans, don't want to be considered Hispanic, American, Latina, white, or black. They want to known as Mexicans.

In this case the Sanford cop wrote "White" on his report. The media ran with that particularly Reuters who were the first of the majors to jump on this story. Reuters made it front page news internationally.

What doesn't get discussed is that it was Benjamin Crump, the Martin Family's Attorney, who had a public relations specialist feed the media the civil rights aspect. That picture of a 12 year old football player was released for shock value, and it worked.

Exactly. The Martins, et. al, got in front of the story and controlled the narrative.

Zimmerman just did some police interviews and ate about sixty cheesecakes.

I wonder if Zimmerman dare sue Benjamin Crump? If thtere is anything there, that is....

Hell, I would. GZ's life has been destroyed. Not that I'm unsympathetic to TM's family...but there is another party here, who has been aquitted in our system, that was unfairly portrayed by the media as some racist killer.

 

[GoIrish41]

You're assumign that he loses the civil suit....Not that he won't, but it's still an "if".

I'm predicting, or as you would spell it "predictign"

 

[Bluto]

Slate's William Saletan published this yesterday:



This thread, and the media coverage in general, is an on-going example of the power of confirmation bias. Liberals naturally sympathize with Martin as the minority youth unfairly profiled and gunned down by an armed vigilante. Conservatives identify with Zimmerman as a well-meaning neighborhood watchman who's now getting publicly crucified by racial demagogues. Both sides have no problem with assuming the worst about their assumed aggressor, and outright ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit with their preferred narrative.

Meanwhile, we're steadily moving toward war with Syria (and ultimately Iran), and the NSA is wiping its as$ with the Constitution. But pay no mind to the man behind the curtain! We'll just create a racial controversy out of wholecloth that will dominate the media cycle for months on end. It's Huxley's Spectacle in action.

So the most interesting line from that quote since everyone is talking about race is the final line. What does a "punk" look like. If you asked me just out of the blue I would say some dude in a leather bomber, Doc Martin boots and liberty spikes. Or is it a black kid in a hooded sweatshirt? The thing that is alarming to me is that this misperception along with a gun can easily lead to an innocent person being killed. It has happened on a more occasions than I care to remeber due to the police (who are trained to handle these situations one would hope) making an error in judgement. Now, imagine an armed general populace with all it's inherent biases, stereotypes and irrational fears having to make spilt second life or death decisions. To me that is a pretty scary proposition and frankly if I lived in certain parts of Florida I would feel pretty unsafe going for a run after dark. Don't I have a right to not fear for my life any time I decide to go jogging? Doesn't that impinge on my persuit of happiness? So much for personal freedom.

 

[BGIF]

Media went after best story, not truth

This is a transcript of a 4/20/12 interview by Steve Inskeep, NPR, and Greg Deggans, Tampa Bay Times. Sorry, I can't cut and paste. It's a short piece. Deggans explains how the Crump's PR guy reached out to his media contacts in different markets and how the media then played the story to fit their target audience.

Keep in mind this isn't a post verdict article but was written over a year ago on 4/20/12. The family/Crump wanted an arrest and didn't want to wait for the Grand Jury scheduled by the local States Attorney Wolfinger.

 

[phgreek]

It is difficult for me to blame the media for this. The did what they do. I think race certainly played a significant role in the frenzy, but I also believe there were other pieces of this case that were just as compelling. For example, the debate over gun control was raging toward a fight in Congress and this case had a lot to point to as an example on one side or the other. I think the gun control aspect is also the piece that was the place the line was drawn that divided those who supported Martin (gun control) and those who supported Zimmerman (unilateral access to firearms), at least as much as race did. In many ways, this case became a battleground for that debate.

Post trial, I think the media is going absolutely apesh*t over the race angle. To me, that waters down the legal arguments of this case and turns it into something that is absolutely unprovable.

I think it would have been irresponsible for the president not to respond to questions about this case when asked. Once the racial aspect of this case played out in the media, it became part of what was driving social discourse in this country. You might not like what he said about the case, but it is unfair to suggest that he should have burried his head in the sand and act as if this huge social issue should have gone without comment from our leader. He was demonstrating leadership that he often takes a lot of (undue) crap about not showing. His post trial comments were very responsible and measured -- calling for the acceptance of the verdict and nonviolece. He also dovetailed into the gun control aspect of the case, which I thought was more than appropriate.

I disagree...the media screwed the pooch here again...journalism would dictate multiple sources including Mr. Zimmerman himself would be used to verify MR. Zimmerman's ethnicity...thus allowing the media to be a source of fact and reason in the face of folks jumping to conclusions...thus stemming the racial component within hours...that's not what happened here

I agree the gun debate has added to polarization...

I disagree with the characterization of what the president said early on. My expectation would be that he put out the obligatory, lets let justice take its course...nothing more...nothing less. His "if I had a son" sh!t was uncalled for and inflammatory.

 

[phgreek]

Slate's William Saletan published this yesterday:



This thread, and the media coverage in general, is an on-going example of the power of confirmation bias. Liberals naturally sympathize with Martin as the minority youth unfairly profiled and gunned down by an armed vigilante. Conservatives identify with Zimmerman as a well-meaning neighborhood watchman who's now getting publicly crucified by racial demagogues. Both sides have no problem with assuming the worst about their assumed aggressor, and outright ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit with their preferred narrative.

Meanwhile, we're steadily moving toward war with Syria (and ultimately Iran), and the NSA is wiping its as$ with the Constitution. But pay no mind to the man behind the curtain! We'll just create a racial controversy out of wholecloth that will dominate the media cycle for months on end. It's Huxley's Spectacle in action.

this citation really covers my thoughts on this post trial in that folks will miss some lessons...great find. I agree with a lot of your additional commentary as well...my opinions are based on my world view...and although I try to assess the evidence, and acknowledge things that don't make sense regardless of in whose favor they exist...I wouldn't pretend I'm not Zimmerman leaning here. And yes this will be a long term and ongoing issue that will certainly dominate the media cycle.