George Zimmerman Trial

[Bogtrotter07]

I like what you have to say here. I read above somewhere that GZ should have shot a round into the air. IMO that's hard to do when someone is between you and "the air". I'm stranded in Boston's Logan airport (I know that NEVER happens) watching CNN...it's clear CNN wants GZ to fry. Why do they care so much?

Ratings.

 

[GoIrish41]

it's clear CNN wants GZ to fry. Why do they care so much?

maybe they're against killing people walking down the street

 

[FLDomer]

Excuse me. People that don't look at color usually miss that. (Legally he is white or Caucasian.)

In all seriousness, what do u mean by "legally white"? My wife is of mixed race, Irish/white/Caucasian and Trinadaian/black. So is she white or black, she had identified herself on applications and "Other". GZ identifies himself Hispanic and Caucasian. In Florida race is not on your drivers license so in all seriousness what is "legally white"?

 

[jmurphy75]

There is a distinct difference between chance and choice.

Chance would describe many of the things you listed above. I am not talking about chance. I am talking about choice, as in the choice GZ made to follow TM and go against the advice he had been given multiple times. That choice is what I am focused on.

Yes, TM also chose to interact with GZ. However, IMO, that interaction was the direct result of GZ not following the advice of professionals.

What about the choice TM made not to go into his dad's girlfriends place instead of running thru the complex? Like connor said they both could've made many different choices, and although many keep coming back to the "he followed him" and that caused this to happen according to the law that doesn't matter.

 

[Golden_Domer]

Excuse me. People that don't look at color usually miss that. (Legally he is white or Caucasian.)

As an attorney, I have no idea what "legally white" or "legally Caucasian" means, but I would like to know--if you don't mind explaining.

What we DO know, however, is that:

1. GZ's mother, Gladys, is from Lima, Peru.
2. GZ's maternal great-grandfather was Afro-Peruvian, thus making GZ at least partially black, if only to a minor degree.
3. GZ's father is a white American of German descent.
4. GZ is a registered Democrat in Seminole County and his voter registration records lists him as "Hispanic."

Now, which part of what I just said makes him "legally white" or "legally Caucasian"?

Secondly, what does Zimmerman's race or Trayvon's race have anything to do with what transpired the night Trayvon died?

Here is GZ's voter registration information from 2002 (sorry if it's hard to see):

 

[IrishLax]

Excuse me. People that don't look at color usually miss that. (Legally he is white or Caucasian.)

The **** does that even mean? He's multi-racial and part Latino... his skin pigment is far from your typical European "white"... hell, HE HAS BLACK RELATIVES. You say he's white because either:
1. Making him "white" supports your warped view of things.
2. You don't know better.

That's "white"? Then I guess all the workers on my job sites are "white"...

Start educating yourself and stop posting crap that is flat out WRONG.

 

[IrishLax]

As an attorney, I have no idea what "legally white" or "legally Caucasian" means, but I would like to know--if you don't mind explaining.

What we DO know, however, is that:

1. GZ's mother, Gladys, is from Lima, Peru.
2. GZ's maternal great-grandfather was Afro-Peruvian, thus making GZ at least partially black, if only to a minor degree.
3. GZ's father is a white American of German descent.
4. GZ is a registered Democrat in Seminole County and his voter registration records lists him as "Hispanic."

Now, which part of what I just said makes him "legally white" or "legally Caucasian"?

Secondly, what does Zimmerman's race or Trayvon's race have anything to do with what transpired the night Trayvon died?

Here is GZ's voter registration information from 2002 (sorry if it's hard to see):

Thank you. So many, many dummies that want to make this a white vs. black thing when Zimmerman can hardly be described as white and HAS BLACK RELATIVES.

 

[IrishLax]

maybe they're against killing people walking down the street

Yeah.... because that's what Zimmerman did. He saw an innocent person walking down the street, walked up to them, and killed them.

Zimmerman said he left his truck to find a street sign so he would be able to tell the police dispatcher where he was. He told investigators that he was not following Martin but was "just going in the same direction he was" to find an address, but admitted that he had also left his truck to try to see in which direction Martin had gone.[192] The altercation began, he said, when Martin suddenly appeared while Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle. He described Martin at different points in the interviews as appearing "out of nowhere," "from the darkness," and as "jump[ing] out of the bushes."[192][193] Zimmerman said that Martin asked, "You got a ****ing problem, homie?" Zimmerman replied no, and then Martin said that he did now, and punched him.[196] As they struggled on the ground, Zimmerman on his back with Martin on top of him, Zimmerman yelled for help "probably 50 times." (See Background sounds of yelling for help in 9-1-1 calls) Martin told him to "Shut the **** up," as he hit him in the face and pounded his head on a concrete sidewalk.[193] When Zimmerman tried to move off the concrete, Martin saw his gun and said "You're going to die tonight mother****er!" Martin grabbed for the gun, but Zimmerman grabbed it first.

 

[IrishLax]

Virtually every person on this thread who is defending Zimmerman was against any type of gun control on the thread of . Those who defend Martin, were for gun control measures. I don't think this is a coincidence. It's almost like the arguments aren't really about this specific case but a larger social issue. I suspect that if a gun was not involved in this crime that there would be a lot of people switching sides. No matter who attacked who, who provoked the situation, who was on top during the fight, who had drugs in their system, I think most people drew their line based on their thoughts on the gun control issue. Also the timing of this incident made this a HUGE case in the media. Just an observation.

Not even close. I'm case and point someone who believes in gun control... but also bothered to educate myself on this case and understands the concept of BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

What is true is that gun-haters are the ones who've convicted Zimmerman simply because he was legally carrying. Pat yourself on the back.

(The irony is that Trayvon Martin illegally owned a gun... and just didn't have it on him that night).

 

[IrishLax]

I can't possibly answer all of these posts at once, and it doesn't seem like it would do much good anyways. So instead, lets try to flip the question around: did Trayvon Martin deserve to die for walking through a neighborhood minding his own business?

No, he didn't "deserve to die" for walking through a neighborhood. But in your words Zimmerman "deserves to die" even if Martin was kicking his butt and went for his gun. Yeah, that's logical.

If it were up to me, he'd pay with his life because that is what I think he deserves. There is not a fact that I can imagine that would square with what we know about the incident that would excuse this grown man from arbitrarily interjecting himself into this kid's life and then killing him. That is how I feel about it. I'm not writing a rebuttal to Dan Abrams here, I'm just giving my opinion, and you may not agree.

That opinion is just unmitigated idiocy. That's my opinion of your opinion. If you think that even if the course of events went down like:

Zimmerman said he left his truck to find a street sign so he would be able to tell the police dispatcher where he was. He told investigators that he was not following Martin but was "just going in the same direction he was" to find an address, but admitted that he had also left his truck to try to see in which direction Martin had gone.[192] The altercation began, he said, when Martin suddenly appeared while Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle. He described Martin at different points in the interviews as appearing "out of nowhere," "from the darkness," and as "jump[ing] out of the bushes."[192][193] Zimmerman said that Martin asked, "You got a ****ing problem, homie?" Zimmerman replied no, and then Martin said that he did now, and punched him.[196] As they struggled on the ground, Zimmerman on his back with Martin on top of him, Zimmerman yelled for help "probably 50 times." (See Background sounds of yelling for help in 9-1-1 calls) Martin told him to "Shut the **** up," as he hit him in the face and pounded his head on a concrete sidewalk.[193] When Zimmerman tried to move off the concrete, Martin saw his gun and said "You're going to die tonight mother****er!" Martin grabbed for the gun, but Zimmerman grabbed it first.

...that George Zimmerman still deserves to die simply because he didn't "mind his own business" then you're beyond hope.

 

[jmurphy75]

Excuse me. People that don't look at color usually miss that. (Legally he is white or Caucasian.)

Bogs it due to people like you that have such a warped view of what is true and what is believed that there will be riots in Sanford. Pull your head out of your *** and post something that you've researched and is true. You are so plugged into the media that you really just posted he was white or caucasian.

 

[connor_in]

I have heard many talk about the "facts." None of these facts about TM have been established except that trace amounts of THC were found in his system.

The facts are as follows:
1) A 'white' man with a gun pursued a 'black' teenager without a gun.
2) The teenager died.

Those are the "facts."

I will postulate that if the skin color of the man had been 'black' in this situation, or any other, he would already be on his way to fry. Or if the teenager had been white . . .

My thoughts? At the end of the prosecution the lead prosecutor told the whole story. He said something about two men involved, I think he said, "There are two people involved here. One of them is dead, and one of them is a liar. . . "

Rotroh. That is when you knew the prosecutor wasn't out for the win. After all he is a white guy in a white world. He wants and will get a tie. Zimmerman will either plead for reduced sentence, or be convicted of a lesser crime.

I think second is fitting but not provable with the police forces embarrassing procedures, and this doltish prosecution.

As far as Zimmerman. I have no respect and nothing but contempt for him. He is either the most incompetent, stupid blithering idiot, for god's sake, they only gave Barney Fife one bullet; or he is a cunning strategist the was able to coalesce the perfect storm.

Just...wow

 

[FLDomer]

EXCLUSIVE: Judicial Watch: Zimmerman Prosecution Might Have Been Forced by DOJ-Organized Pressure

Intradesting....

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

EXCLUSIVE: Judicial Watch: Zimmerman Prosecution Might Have Been Forced by DOJ-Organized Pressure

Intradesting....

Consider the source...

 

[Rhode Irish]

No, he didn't "deserve to die" for walking through a neighborhood. But in your words Zimmerman "deserves to die" even if Martin was kicking his butt and went for his gun. Yeah, that's logical.



That opinion is just unmitigated idiocy. That's my opinion of your opinion. If you think that even if the course of events went down like:

Zimmerman said he left his truck to find a street sign so he would be able to tell the police dispatcher where he was. He told investigators that he was not following Martin but was "just going in the same direction he was" to find an address, but admitted that he had also left his truck to try to see in which direction Martin had gone.[192] The altercation began, he said, when Martin suddenly appeared while Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle. He described Martin at different points in the interviews as appearing "out of nowhere," "from the darkness," and as "jump[ing] out of the bushes."[192][193] Zimmerman said that Martin asked, "You got a ****ing problem, homie?" Zimmerman replied no, and then Martin said that he did now, and punched him.[196] As they struggled on the ground, Zimmerman on his back with Martin on top of him, Zimmerman yelled for help "probably 50 times." (See Background sounds of yelling for help in 9-1-1 calls) Martin told him to "Shut the **** up," as he hit him in the face and pounded his head on a concrete sidewalk.[193] When Zimmerman tried to move off the concrete, Martin saw his gun and said "You're going to die tonight mother****er!" Martin grabbed for the gun, but Zimmerman grabbed it first.

...that George Zimmerman still deserves to die simply because he didn't "mind his own business" then you're beyond hope.

"Zimmerman said" are the only two words in there that matter to me. All the rest is a guy saying what he thinks he needs to in order to save his ***. Can't really blame him. Can't really believe him, either. He created the situation and he shot an unarmed kid. I give zero consideration to his version of events, but even if what he said is true it is still his fault because he had no right to stalk and harass the kid. If he got his *** beat for it, he should have taken it like a man, and he should still be punished for killing someone (I would still convict him of manslaughter if I were on the jury and the series of events you set forth was proven). I will grant you that if you are convinced of his version of events, then maybe my opinion that he deserves to pay the ultimate price seems extreme. I don't believe his version of events, though.

On a side note, are you related to this guy or something? What is with all the "idiocy" and "beyond hope" and "stupidest ever" comments? I get that you may have a different take on this than I do (and I think you are as wrong as you think I am), but I've always considered you to be a pretty reasonable poster. I honestly don't get the degree of anger you're posting with about this. Of all the things you're going to blow your cool about here, it is defending a guy that shot a kid?

 

[Redbar]

I also do not believe GZ's version of the story, who yells for help while they are brandishing their weapon and shooting someone. Then stops yelling as soon as the shot is fired, but testifies that they still believed the person was a threat. That is why they moved the body and sat on their arms or whatever. I am not buying his story. Probably not enough to overcome beyond a reasonable doubt, but more than enough to wonder why so many are losing it over this prosecution and anyone else who thinks he is getting away with a crime.

 

[IrishLax]

I also do not believe GZ's version of the story, who yells for help while they are brandishing their weapon and shooting someone.

Did you even read his version? If you did, then this is nonsensical... as it never says or implies that he was "yelling for help while brandishing a weapon and shooting someone."

Then stops yelling as soon as the shot is fired, but testifies that they still believed the person was a threat. That is why they moved the body and sat on their arms or whatever. I am not buying his story. Probably not enough to overcome beyond a reasonable doubt, but more than enough to wonder why so many are losing it over this prosecution and anyone else who thinks he is getting away with a crime.

I was rather neutral until I started seeing the enlightened folk in these parts start spouting off about how Zimmerman "deserves to die" and other inane, illogical dribble. That garbage is mind boggling to me and offends me as a member of the human race. I had 1 post in the first 350+ in this thread... and here was my initial take on the situation in post #407:

By the opposite logic, what happens if Martin just keeps walking home versus turning around to confront Zimmerman? A lot of "what ifs" here that could have prevented the tragedy. The more I watch this trial, the more I think Zimmerman will be convicted. Let's all be clear that if he is found "innocent" it is only by the letter of the very broad Florida law.

But I watched more and more of the trial working from home... and tried to educate myself more and more from different outlets... and it's pretty darn obvious now there isn't enough to convict him of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. It's also becoming more and more clear that people that have tried to paint Zimmerman as a racist vigilante are doing so with little to no consideration of facts, law, or common sense. Heck, just everyone here reading the Wikipedia article would go a lonnnnnnnnnng way.

 

[Woneone]

But I watched more and more of the trial working from home... and tried to educate myself more and more from different outlets... and it's pretty darn obvious now there isn't enough to convict him of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

From what I've read, with the case put forth by the prosecution, they have a hard time getting a conviction on a Manslaughter charge, let alone Murder 2.

 

[IrishLax]

"Zimmerman said" are the only two words in there that matter to me. All the rest is a guy saying what he thinks he needs to in order to save his ***. Can't really blame him. Can't really believe him, either.

Or... you know... he could be telling the truth. That's also an option.

He created the situation and he shot an unarmed kid. I give zero consideration to his version of events, but even if what he said is true it is still his fault because he had no right to stalk and harass the kid.

This is what cracks me up and infuriates me so much at the same time. You reject that it is even possible that he is telling the truth, even though the prosecution presented no irrefutable evidence contradicting his series of events. Why the prejudice? Just hate of gun owners? You dislike Latinos? Dislike "White" Latinos? There is no logical basis to just refuse to consider his series of events. And it's pretty pathetic that you would be that closed minded. It makes me shudder to think you might serve on a jury some day and decide someone's fate.

Then the second part... "stalk" "harass" "his fault"... sorry, but there is NOTHING illegal about watching someone walk around in your neighborhood and/or following them. Nothing illegal at all. Yet... you think that alone gives Martin the hypothetical right to kick his *** and/or go for his gun to kill him. That's absolutely insane. (And not how our laws work).

If he got his *** beat for it, he should have taken it like a man,

So "not minding your own business" == you deserve to get your *** kicked. And if someone goes for your gun, you should just let them grab it and shoot you. That is literally what you're saying. That is insanity. (And not how our laws work).

and he should still be punished for killing someone (I would still convict him of manslaughter if I were on the jury and the series of events you set forth was proven).

So if Zimmerman followed Martin and Martin jumped him, kicked his ***, and then went for his gun saying "you're gonna die tonight!".... you would convict Zimmerman of manslaughter. That is insane. (And not how our laws work).

I will grant you that if you are convinced of his version of events, then maybe my opinion that he deserves to pay the ultimate price seems extreme. I don't believe his version of events, though.

It is your right not to believe his version of events. But unless there is hard irrefutable evidence as to why that series of events is impossible/implausible... then as a juror, you would be legally bound to find him innocent. And as a human being, you darn sure shouldn't be calling for his head.

On a side note, are you related to this guy or something? What is with all the "idiocy" and "beyond hope" and "stupidest ever" comments? I get that you may have a different take on this than I do (and I think you are as wrong as you think I am), but I've always considered you to be a pretty reasonable poster. I honestly don't get the degree of anger you're posting with about this. Of all the things you're going to blow your cool about here, it is defending a guy that shot a kid?

The thing is... if Zimmerman gets convicted, I won't honestly care for more than maybe 5 minutes. I'll go back to my post #407 from earlier in this thread:

Let's all be clear that if he is found "innocent" it is only by the letter of the very broad Florida law.

That's how I feel with regards to Zimmerman. I think Zimmerman has a lot of blame for what happened because he put everyone in the situation that ended up being fatal. And if I was a juror, I'd probably go for "not guilty" but wouldn't ultimately be too opposed to some sort of involuntary manslaughter or aggravated assault charge if that's what my peers felt was appropriate.

The singular thing that is frustrating the hell out of me is that you are CLEARLY a very intelligent poster. You've been exceptionally intelligent and thoughtful in every other discussion topics we've ever had on this forum. Everything from healthcare to guns to whatever. And it just seemed ludicrous to say Zimmerman "deserves to die"... and the fact that you haven't really backed off of that in the face of how radical, illogical, and insane of a position of that is... is just... sigh.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

You people are giving me arse itch with all of the bickering. You act like it's your Uncle Clem ready to go to the friggin' hole on three counts of murder. Either be civil, or I'll smack ya around for a round or two... Ya'll are starting to sound like that foghorn, Nancy Grace.

 

[SaltyND24]

The **** does that even mean? He's multi-racial and part Latino... his skin pigment is far from your typical European "white"... hell, HE HAS BLACK RELATIVES. You say he's white because either:
1. Making him "white" supports your warped view of things.
2. You don't know better.

That's "white"? Then I guess all the workers on my job sites are "white"...

Start educating yourself and stop posting crap that is flat out WRONG.

Sidebar...on a completely unrelated note...Is it me or does he look like Manu Ginobili here? and I can't help but see Chaz Bono playing him in a lifetime movie of this trial...OK, I'm done with my randomness...

I personally don't believe GZ's account of what took place, but I do believe the defense has done enough to cast reasonable doubt by the letter of the law...Am I or will I be happy if/when he gets acquitted, definitely not. It's a difficult case to prosecute when the defendant doesn't have to testify and the only other person that knows what took place is unfortunately dead. I'm not one to say he "deserves to die" but I sure hope, if in fact he has been lying about what happened that night, that his guilty conscience eats away at him for the rest of his days...that is all *drops mic*

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

Sidebar...on a completely unrelated note...Is it me or does he look like Manu Ginobili here? and I can't help but see Chaz Bono playing him in a lifetime movie of this trial...OK, I'm done with my randomness...

I personally don't believe GZ's account of what took place, but I do believe the defense has done enough to cast reasonable doubt by the letter of the law...Am I or will I be happy if/when he gets acquitted, definitely not. It's a difficult case to prosecute when the defendant doesn't have to testify and the only other person that knows what took place is unfortunately dead. I'm not one to say he "deserves to die" but I sure hope, if in fact he has been lying about what happened that night, that his guilty conscience eats away at him for the rest of his days...that is all *drops mic*

I believe he'll be acquitted as well based on everything I've seen. The defense has been masterful. Hopefully that makes Nancy Grace's head explode. Her hate tonight just makes me giggle.

 

[ND NYC]

dead men tell no tales

 

[ND NYC]

on the murder 2 rap, pretty apparent that he will be found "not guilty"...but "not guilty" in court doesnt mean "without guilt"...on that i think we can all agree.

or can we?

 

[Rhode Irish]

Or... you know... he could be telling the truth. That's also an option.

This is what cracks me up and infuriates me so much at the same time. You reject that it is even possible that he is telling the truth, even though the prosecution presented no irrefutable evidence contradicting his series of events. Why the prejudice?

To be fair, the defendant here did *shoot* and *kill* the only person who could have provided testimony to refute the defendant's. Where are they going to get irrefutable evidence from? As a matter of public policy, it seems dangerous to send the message that as long as nobody else is around to see it you can kill someone and then make up a story about how you were defending yourself.

Just hate of gun owners? You dislike Latinos? Dislike "White" Latinos? There is no logical basis to just refuse to consider his series of events. And it's pretty pathetic that you would be that closed minded. It makes me shudder to think you might serve on a jury some day and decide someone's fate.

For the record, I don't hate any of the people you mentioned here. Ironically enough, I think it is specifically logic that dictates that his version of events be dismissed. What we know about this incident other than what came from Zimmerman is that you had this wannabe cop who was (wrongly) suspicious of a kid that was doing nothing wrong, and as a result of that suspicion, along with some hubris and ignorance and stupidity, he decided to follow the kid. And as a result of him following the kid, there was an altercation in which he shot the kid.

Everything I know about life tells me that if there is an altercation between the type of person that is going to go follow a kid around a neighborhood armed with a gun despite zero evidence of the kid doing anything wrong and a kid who was walking through the neighborhood minding his own business and not bothering anyone, that the former is approximately 1000X more likely to be responsible for that altercation than the latter. And since in this case the latter died as a result of the altercation and the former's explanation both serves as the only possible scenario in which he could not be guilty of killing the kid and includes a series of events that defy every reasonable inference that a person could make about what happened, I don't think he deserves to be believed.

Then the second part... "stalk" "harass" "his fault"... sorry, but there is NOTHING illegal about watching someone walk around in your neighborhood and/or following them. Nothing illegal at all. Yet... you think that alone gives Martin the hypothetical right to kick his *** and/or go for his gun to kill him. That's absolutely insane. (And not how our laws work).

It certainly isn't illegal to follow someone around your neighborhood. But Zimmerman isn't on trial for that. He is on trial for the shooting that took place as a result of his following someone around his neighborhood. First of all, the fact that he was armed and following a teenager around his neighborhood speaks to his character and credibility, and so it is relevant insofar as it allows me to dismiss his story about what happened. Second of all, I don't believe that Martin started the altercation and I do think that once Zimmerman approached Martin he had the right to defend himself (oh, the irony). I also believe the thing about Martin trying to grab Zimmerman's gun is laughably absurd and further undermines Zimmerman's credibility. I get why he is saying it, I just think it is too far fetched to be believable.

So "not minding your own business" == you deserve to get your *** kicked. And if someone goes for your gun, you should just let them grab it and shoot you. That is literally what you're saying. That is insanity. (And not how our laws work).

If Zimmerman was "not minding his own business" from inside his house and looking out the window, or standing in his driveway, then no it wouldn't warrant an ***-kicking. But following someone around could definitely make that person apprehensive about their safety and cause them to protect themselves. If Zimmerman had followed Martin around and made him nervous and Martin responding by punching him in the face, then Martin would be in the wrong and the justice system could deal with Martin. But not only do I not believe that happened, I don't believe people should have the right to take the law into their own hands and kill someone because they got beat up.

So if Zimmerman followed Martin and Martin jumped him, kicked his ***, and then went for his gun saying "you're gonna die tonight!".... you would convict Zimmerman of manslaughter. That is insane. (And not how our laws work).

If that all happened word for word and I saw videotape proving it, then I would not convict for manslaughter. I just find that whole scenario to be so utterly absurd and implausible that it is hard for me to take it seriously.

It is your right not to believe his version of events. But unless there is hard irrefutable evidence as to why that series of events is impossible/implausible... then as a juror, you would be legally bound to find him innocent. And as a human being, you darn sure shouldn't be calling for his head.

I don't think they would ever let me on a jury because it would be hard for me to follow an instruction with which I disagreed. It is my understanding that this jury will be instructed that the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self defense. I believe that if a defendant is using an affirmative defense, the burden should shift to the defendant to prove that defense beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, that would mean that Zimmerman would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was acting in self defense. Having said that, and based on what I wrote above, I don't have any doubt in my mind that Zimmerman's story is horseshit and so I would vote to convict. This thread is terrific evidence that there is no way you're going to get 12 out of 12 people to feel that way, though. For whatever reason, people seem to desperately want to believe this guy's story. I can't understand why, but it is obviously the way it is.

 

[NDFan4Life]

Funny.

It wasn't meant to be.

In all fairness though, Jesse may have not had his heart in the whole affair. He may have been involved in his son's corruption trial. You know... the apple doesn't fall far from the tree and all.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

In all seriousness, what do u mean by "legally white"? My wife is of mixed race, Irish/white/Caucasian and Trinadaian/black. So is she white or black, she had identified herself on applications and "Other". GZ identifies himself Hispanic and Caucasian. In Florida race is not on your drivers license so in all seriousness what is "legally white"?

I guess I used the wrong term. If legal authorities described his race what would he be described as? Caucasian? With what little research I have done, and it is basic, most law enforcement agencies don't use Hispanic (not just because it is not a racial group, or a race), but because it oft leads to more misidentifications and problems than it solves. IE what is one thing to your eye, may not be to my eye. Which leads back to the real point.

Though any of you may not be prejudiced, much of the GZ band wagon in this case is. And so is the area. Fifty years ago, it was the police chief from this very town that escorted Jackie Robinson off the field for trying to break the color-barrier.

And I have seen with the last fifteen years many cases within my own family of how people get treated based upon the way they look. My oldest son is bi-racial dark, and my second son has my green eyes and brown hair. We are of mixed race, too, but it doesn't show. I watched with absolute clarity, how my sons were treated differently in the same situations from the time they were punished by their (then ex) bus driver for insisting they were brothers to my oldest son having to deal with threats from a gang called the "Nazi Nigg'r Haters", without getting the same assistance and support that a Caucasian looking student would get. (I did actually have a member of the local "finest" suggest that because of his skin color, he was better suited to deal with the problem.

I know some of you think I have been too outspoken on this case, but I see and hear the same things I saw ten years ago. The ironic thing is most people then had no idea how they were contributing to situation, even when they thought they were helping. In our case, I wouldn't put up with bull shiit, and I even went as far as having our phones tapped, because we were receiving death threats. And my son cleaned up most of the problem for this school district, (literally, rubbing their faces on the floor, left a little blood behind), but they had no idea. None.

What I would like to hear is it is not okay for an unarmed 17 year old to be shot to death by anyone. Because I will tell you. Had the police handled it, he would still be alive. Maybe a better way of getting at my point, who doesn't think that GZ should have his ability to carry a firearm revoked permanently?

 

[drayer54]

I hope we can get the acquittal in today. I think it would be a telling sign back to the media that they falsified the facts and swayed public opinion that was used to bring on pressure for this case. The only people who think he is guilty are people who either convinced that Zimmerman was hunting to kill (which ignores the evidence) or they think him having a gun while going through the neighborhood is somehow a sign of aggression. There is a reason that almost all of these legal nuts on tv are saying the state has presented an inadequate case.

 

[GoIrish41]

I also do not believe GZ's version of the story, who yells for help while they are brandishing their weapon and shooting someone. Then stops yelling as soon as the shot is fired, but testifies that they still believed the person was a threat. That is why they moved the body and sat on their arms or whatever. I am not buying his story. Probably not enough to overcome beyond a reasonable doubt, but more than enough to wonder why so many are losing it over this prosecution and anyone else who thinks he is getting away with a crime.

Good post. There are tons of things in Zimmerman's story that do not pass the smell test. It appears that he has fabricated parts of his story to support his claim of self defense.As you said, the way he said he pinned Martin's hands to the ground, even though they were found under his body when police arrived on the scene. Martin was hiding and suddently appeared, even though there is no place to hide. Martin was holding his hand over blodied face even though there isn't any trace of Zimmerman's blood on Martin's hand. I don't know what happened, but I do know this. If Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong, there would be no reason to ambelish his story. Why would he do that? Probably because the REAL story would have made him sound a lot more guilty. As it stands, the story he told is simply not credible.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I hope we can get the acquittal in today. I think it would be a telling sign back to the media that they falsified the facts and swayed public opinion that was used to bring on pressure for this case. The only people who think he is guilty are people who either convinced that Zimmerman was hunting to kill (which ignores the evidence) or they think him having a gun while going through the neighborhood is somehow a sign of aggression. There is a reason that almost all of these legal nuts on tv are saying the state has presented an inadequate case.

I understand your feelings. So you can understand, for the same reason I hope we can get a felony conviction for a lesser charge this week. I don't think anything is going to finish today. Looking back at it, I don't think anyone was confident of a murder conviction.

Do you really think the media can falsify facts, or, can they do anything but that? (Depending on your point of view.) All reporting is a lie at worst or an approximation of the truth at best. Someone really smart said that.

And do you really want a clown like this continuing to carry a gun?