George Zimmerman to Increase Fundraising Efforts

George Zimmerman today announced a change in his legal defense fund. The fund will be transferred to an independent manager of George's choosing and be hosted on a website that is not affiliated with his legal team. The new website is up and running here. The site says the monies will go (in order) to: George's living expenses, costs of litigation, and if any remains, to legal fees. Neither Mark O'Mara or Don West have been paid any fees to date.

The announcement is not on the George Zimmerman legal case website maintained by Mark O'Mara. He merely tweeted a link to it.

The new site says the change is at George's request and more active solicitation of funds is likely. My translation: O'Mara was fine with accepting donations, but as a lawyer, actively soliciting funds can be dicey. By removing the fund from his lawyer's trust account and control, George can avoid many of the restrictions contained in the rules of professional responsibility applicable to lawyers, particularly as to what can be said about his case publicly. [More...]

The announcement contains this succinct synopsis of George's defense to the criminal charges:

The New George Zimmerman Defense Fund will be operated with the strong premise that George Zimmerman is innocent of the charges against him, and that his actions were justifiable self-defense with the purpose of preventing further great bodily harm or even death at the hands of an attacker who had already caused him great bodily injury.

The New George Zimmerman Defense Fund will also be operated with the well-documented assertion that George Zimmerman was the victim of a coordinated public relations attack designed to assert that George acted with racial bias, a public relations attack that was perpetrated with the intent to prejudice the media and the citizens of this country with unfounded misinformation about George, and with the purpose of profiting from a tragedy.

For an example of the latest media bias, check out the headline on the Miami Herald article on the funds change: "George Zimmerman to Sell Autographs to Pay Expenses." Equating a personally signed thank you card with selling an autograph is typical of the media bias that has infected this case since the onset.

What happens if the new website doesn't bring in enough funds for both George's living expenses and the costs of litigation? His lawyers can apply to the court to have him declared indigent, and the state will have to pick up the costs of litigation (which are different than legal fees.) Those fees could easily run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. What do they include?

Funds designated for costs associated the defense will include the following: expert witnesses, including forensic experts, medical experts, event reconstruction experts, etc.; non-expert assistants such as investigators, support personnel, IT support; discovery and investigative costs and expenses such as court reporter and transcript costs, witness fees, documented record production; defense hearing and trial support and exhibits which would include the development and preparation of presentation materials such as demonstrative exhibits and trial support services which will occur on an as needed basis.

< Wednesday Morning Open Thread: Highs and Lows | GAO Study: US Prisons Capable of Housing Guantanamo Detainees >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "Astonding"??? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Redbrow on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 12:42:51 AM EST
    At least George is actually defendant.

    When did Trayvon Martin become a defendant?

    "Proceeds support the Trayvon Martin Legal Defense Fund"            

    Are the Martin's anticipating something we don't know about yet?

    By Any Other Name (none / 0) (#9)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:31:21 PM EST
    I wonder if that really means the Justice for Trayvon Martin Foundation.

    No (none / 0) (#22)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 10:40:43 AM EST
    Much as the Martin-hating crowd wishes otherwise.

    If nothing else, what this demonstrates is (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:41:28 PM EST
    that one's fate within the legal system is fairly dependent on being able to pay the high costs associated with successfully navigating through and out of it.

    And when all is said and done where Zimmerman is concerned, it seems only fair that he be able to defray the costs of his defense by taking advantage of the notoriety and sensationalism that attached itself to this case, considering that he might not have ever needed it if not for the media involvement.

    REALLY? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Palli on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 10:14:16 AM EST
    "...considering that he might not have ever needed it if not for the media involvement."

    Sounds like you think:
    It would have been so much better if all Americans had been left blissfully ignorant of the violent death of a young kid by a volunteer "security" guard in a quiet neighborhood in the state of Florida.

    Better for whom?


    Are you familiar with the case (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 11:28:29 AM EST
    of the two "young kids" who were beaten and whose bodies were found burning on a jogging trail in the Orlando area?

    They were 16 and 18, but if Trayvon was a "young kid" at 17, then Nic Presha and Jeremy Stewart should get to be called that, too. They were also high-school students. Their murders happened in April, in the midst of news coverage of the TM case. Was their death less terrible?

    Many murder victims in metropolitan areas get little media attention. Rarely do their names get known around the world. Ditto for cases when someone gets killed by a person who claims self-defense.

    The TM case went viral only because GZ was painted as a racist monster who stalked and shot in cold blood an unarmed "young kid" while he was walking home, but he wasn't being charged because Sanford authorities were all a bunch of racist rednecks out of "To Kill a Mockingbird."  


    I've already stated twice what I think, (none / 0) (#30)
    by Anne on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 12:34:50 PM EST
    most recently in comment #18; why don't you try reading it, and stop trying to speak for me?

    I am no fan of Zimmerman, I think police departments and law enforcement and the judicial system benefit from public scrutiny and need to be held accountable for their actions.  Ditto with respect to the media, which feels no responsibility to report objectively about anything, which means that people only know what the media decides they need to know.

    It was never the problem that the media brought the case to the public's attention; the problem was that there was zero objectivity in its efforts.


    Hi, Anne (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by SuzieTampa on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 10:53:42 AM EST
    I'm not sure if you're responding to me or Palli, but I was responding to Palli.

    I don't think it's possible for people to be objective, i.e., to set aside all of their experiences, ideas, values, culture, etc. The concept of objectivity arose in journalism in the 19th century. Someone has copied an article I wrote on the subject if you're interested.

    Nevertheless, journalists should try to be fair, and I agree that the Miami Herald has been shamelessly biased in this case.

    Another issue with journalism: There's only so much time and space to report. Thus, reporters and editors are constantly making choices about what they think readers will want to know, and which stories will be easiest to deliver. You can't write every detail about everything.  


    Sorry, SuzieTampa (none / 0) (#44)
    by Palli on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 07:27:13 PM EST
    I wasn't going to post again but since you were trying to speak to me and it is another day, here goes.

    My comment and question about media may have appeared too brusque because I didn't explain the context.

    My thoughts referenced the sites I have read (including the extensive coverage here at Talkleft and some of the Miami Herald website stories).

    Without national media involvement we would not have known about Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis, Bo Morrison, Tyler Giuliano or, for that matter, Emmett Till. Scores of others didn't get media attention and our culture is the worse for it.  

    Without the www we would not know about any thank you notes either.

    That's what I meant.
    back to lurking...

    PS, I read your article on journalists as part of the story and that's also what I mean.


    These stories don't enrich our culture (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by SuzieTampa on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:00:31 PM EST
    They are usually simplified to send the message that white men kill black youth because they see all black youth as potential criminals.

    I'm pretty sure most black youth know that racism exists. So, is the message aimed at white men? The problem is that statistics show that black youth commit a disproportionate amount of crime. A number of black people as well as whites who want to think they are antiracist will still have some fear because of lived experience.

    White men killing black youth is much less of a problem than black boys and men killing one another. But it's much harder to name famous cases of the latter. They simply don't get the same publicity.

    In the TM case, the evidence so far points to him punching GZ and being on top of him. That could just as easily have been 2 young men of the same ethnic background. In the Jordan Davis case, what if Dunn is telling the truth that the youth were yelling obscenities and threats at him? That might have worried a middle-aged black man, too. What if they really did point a weapon at him? Facts have not been confirmed yet.

    What happens in our society is further polarization in which people on different sides distort the facts to fit their beliefs.

    If you're willing to read something else I wrote ... here's my take on the Emmett Till case.


    SuzieTampa, simplify the message to its core (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Palli on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 02:34:01 PM EST
    The facts are that some adult human beings-before they understand the facts-choose to use a lethal weapon to kill younger human beings.  

    Not all the young men and kids who fall victim to these SYG or Castle Doctrines are African American. In fact, my examples aren't. These kids are being killed by men with guns. Killed because these particular men think that the kids "aren't where they are supposed to be" or "aren't doing what they are supposed to do" and these particular men "got the guts" kind of power to make sure that kid knows it. Repeat, Power.

    Seems to me you are thinking racially. I wish all men would get the message.

    "I'm pretty sure most black youth know that racism exists."

    Perhaps, but they are kids. The import of that racism is disguised and minimized in contemporary American culture, no matter how wise and vigilant a parent may be. And I repeat, they are kids.

    Just like most girls know that sexism exists.
    Perhaps, but they are kids. The import of that sexism is disguised and minimized in contemporary American culture, no matter how wise and vigilant a parent may be.

    RE: your essay
    Racist sexism is a double whammy against African American females and men and it is deeply engrained into our society.

    RE: "these stories not enriching our culture"
    Until Americans understand the full accounting of gun power, we will not be a just society, rich or not.
    If you think these stories are overplayed, perhaps, it is because now more of us are telling them, making up for lost time in the news.  And, finally, I doubt if we as a nation of people could be as polarized as we have been in the past when the facts, lives and thoughts of many Americans were distorted right out of existence.

    Count me on the side of "it takes a village" and "sanctity of life" Americans.


    Back to you (none / 0) (#47)
    by SuzieTampa on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 06:13:15 PM EST
    I'm in favor of gun control. So, we don't disagree on that. I don't want adults to kill kids, but I'm also bothered when kids kill adults. Two examples: In my city, a 16-year-old is accused of shooting and killing a middle-aged security guard during an attempted robbery. This just happened. Ditto for a case in a neighboring county in which police have accused 6 kids and one 18-year-old of shooting a 79-year-old man during a robbery.

    I'm with you on the problem of men who seek power over other people. But the Dunn case is too new to know exactly what happened. In the TM case, if Trayvon had struck GZ down and hit his head on the concrete, then it would seem like TM was the one exercising power over someone else.

    I was a longtime newspaper journalist and reported on my share of crime stories. I would have been delighted if my stories had gone national.


    please stay on topic (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 08:48:05 PM EST
    the topic is George Zimmerman and fundraising, not your views on race in America.

    Suzie, I was responding to Palli. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 09:08:35 PM EST
    If you hover your cursor over "Parent" in the comment you're reading, you can see which comment the person is responding to.

    I agree that it is impossible to be completely objective; we all have biases, we are all informed by our life experiences, and we cannot help but bring that along with us, whether it's in our jobs or in our personal lives.

    Finding good journalism or good reporting is getting harder and harder; we've been sort of suckered into thinking that being so plugged in - to social media, to the internet - means we're better informed, and I don't think we are, really.  Not unless we're willing to do our own legwork, our own research from multiple sources.

    There is an enormous amount of injustice in the world, and in this country; my point in commenting on this thread was to highlight that whether one gets justice, or gets a chance at justice, has a great deal to do with whether one can pay for it.  The presumption of innocence seems to come with a hefty price tag, and far too many can't afford it.  We could get into another whole discussion on actions and consequences and accountability, but it wasn't my intention to say more than what I did: that justice is expensive and I don't blame Zimmerman for taking advantage of his  media profile to help pay for it.


    Still Not a 911 Call (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 08:36:30 AM EST
    Zimmerman's call reporting Martin was non-emergency.

    Not A Goon (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 08:43:26 AM EST
    Trayvon Martin, who mind you was a teenager that was suspected to be a member of the "goons"

    I don't believe there is evidence for that. Gangs were not perceived as a problem at The Retreat at Twin Lakes. There was no perception that the burglars were gang members. All this talk of gangs is a red herring.

    yes, there are traces of evidence (none / 0) (#15)
    by LeaNder on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 09:28:32 AM EST
    But lately I am paranoid again, it is not a usual trait of my personality. But who tells me that you are not connected to Team Zimmerman and/or the special web-studying interns he hired for the case? You simply have to connect some dots that are all out there.

    one hint (none / 0) (#16)
    by LeaNder on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 09:30:02 AM EST
    start with the image of George Zimmerman the successful preventer of crime. ;)

    Returning to the OP (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by nemerinys on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:01:59 AM EST
    The offer of sending a thank-you card "personally signed by George Zimmerman" in return for a donation, with a photo alongside the text showing printed stationery with his signature, is a blatant offer to sell his signature. Otherwise, he could chosen to send the card to a donor without having to advertise the fact beforehand, and with the same 'protection' of not showing from whom the card was sent.

    The Miami Herald pointing out that Zimmerman is indeed selling his autograph is not a matter of media bias, but, rather, pointing out the obvious.

    Wrong (none / 0) (#41)
    by SuzieTampa on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:01:02 AM EST
    The Miami Herald could say the website makes clear that donors will get a signed thank-you card, and that signatures of famous people can sometimes be resold.

    The reporter could have asked O'Mara if the intent is to sell autographed cards.

    But the reporter cannot assume that's what the website is doing.

    I hope there's a journalism student somewhere who does a master's thesis comparing the coverage of the Orlando Sentinel to that of the Miami Herald.  


    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by nemerinys on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 12:24:21 PM EST
    The Miami Herald can indeed assume when the inference is obvious.

    O'Mara/Zimmerman incurred the expense of printing Thank You cards, embossing his name on the card itself. They took the trouble to photograph said card with signature, and to use the photograph to supplement the text.

    And, again, they could have sent the card as a courteous note of gratitude without having to advertise it first. In fact, it raises the question as to whether previous donors had received a simple note, or even email, of thanks.


    Hey, (3.50 / 2) (#1)
    by Palli on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 11:11:14 PM EST
    Mr. Zimmerman has "entitlement" and "Gift" issues that are astonding!

    I have no idea in the world... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by bmaz on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 12:00:09 AM EST
    ...where you derive that judgmental and ludicrous statement. He has established a legal defense fund. there is nothing novel about that. Some are public, as this one is, some are private among family and friends. but they are remarkably common. The common goal of all, however, is to....gasp....raise money for the greater defense effort. It is NOT a statement of entitlement in any way, shape or form.

    Bmaz, please, is this as ludicrous as you think (none / 0) (#5)
    by Palli on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:05:19 AM EST
    Bmaz, I am not a lawyer and I am a citizen who believes in the right to defense.

    But I am not a beggar or do I expect to be financially supported by internet anonymous "friends" should I make a decision that results in legal action. Millions of people are caught up in the legal system for months or years and, as you say, some set up legal defense funds. (Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin or Bradley Manning come to mind.) However the Zimmerman one is first prioritized as a domestic "welfare" fund, and only secondarily as a legal defense fund.
    I see this as one more twisted morality question surrounding the deliberate death of a human by a human. There may be judicial considerations about motive and circumstance in the case but those are legal not moral. No one owes Zimmerman a living beyond public welfare- that anyone in need deserves. To think to ask for a living from strangers is to feel entitled. Does Florida exclude indicted persons from the welfare program?  (well, it is Florida, so maybe)

    Clearly, I am not a person would donate to Zimmerman anyway, but that doesn't alter the fact the it seems an unseemly ruse to me.


    Wow you don't even seem to understand what (none / 0) (#7)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:11:20 PM EST
    an "entitlement" is.

    George Zimmerman is basically going hat-in-hand begging. He has no right to any money from the larger public, and any money he gets will be from people who sympathize with his plight one way or another.

    Meanwhile, you seem to think he should be ENTITLED as a matter of law to public ally funded wellfare.

    Now, I don't know if he is "entitled" to any welfare from Florida whatsoever. He quit his job; in most states (no matter how good the  the reason - in this case personal safety) that will cut you off from the vast majority of welfare programs right there. He's not raising minor children. His wife did and could work, even though her life is at some risk too. He doesn't have a disability. He probably has too many assets even if he owns but a single car or home.

    It's not easy to get welfare in most states esp. if you are a single man or woman in "prime" working age and without children. Heck, as unique as George's circumstances are, my understanding of most welfare programs is that they are administered with little or no leeway in how they are implemented.

    I'd say George is LIKELY to eventually get at least a few million from some news organizations but it won't probably be until at least a few weeks to a few months  after the SYG hearing or trial which is the middle of next year, and he has expenses NOW.
    Anyway, you seem to have a very strange definition of "entitlement".


    READ: entitlement, gifts are in quotation marks (none / 0) (#17)
    by Palli on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 09:54:29 AM EST
    Slayersrezo: Please notice my use of quotation marks, as in the phrase "the 1% feel "entitled" to the Bush tax cuts".

    However I do feel that all people are entitled to basic public welfare if they are in need, despite the stinginess of various state and federal laws defining restrictive qualifications for food stamps, medicaid, healthcare, etc. These are the means the US attempts to abide-however imperfectly-by the UN Charter of Human Rights.
    Regarding personal responsibility and the consequences of action: Zimmerman chose to act like a volunteer "security" guard, carry a loaded weapon and use it. He deserves nothing more or less from the general public than the basic Florida public welfare he can (or cannot) qualify for under his circumstances until the case is decided. If he chooses to not work for a living because he is "afraid" for his life, that in itself is telling about his character to me and may be appropriate legal disqualification.

    I repeat, I find his public begging for domestic financial support cowardly & lazy subterfuge against facing the essential moral question of murder and personal responsibility.

    As you say, he will, no doubt, benefit someday from the media although he says he needs donated funds now. I say So What, a little suffering is good for the soul. Zimmerman and his supporters have soul searching to do but I will not hold my breath.


    Actually, I'd say it's Trayvon supporters who have (none / 0) (#20)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 10:26:49 AM EST
    Some soul-searching to do:

    A. Why they continue to overlook the fact that all physical evidence points to TM attack on GZ and not the other way around. Whatever good (fear) bad (anger at being disrespected/profiled) or other reasons Trayvon may have had for attacking George Zimmerman, attack is what he did and all the legal system is trying to do is ascertain whether George used justified deadly force or not.
    B. Why they haven't bothered -for the most part - to speak out against people like the New Black Panther party who called for violence

    Anyway, the state will decide -either at SYG or at a trial - whether this was murder, manslaughter, or justifiable homicide (i.e. self-defense), not you. Good day.


    Thet have no "soul searching" to do (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 10:48:29 AM EST
    A.  No it doesn't, and there is plenty of evidence to doubt Zimmerman's credibility.
    B.  "For the most part" - heh.  Why would they be under a duty to speak out against something that's obviously wrong?  They're no more responsible for the rantings of some tiny, fringe group than the Zimmerman supporters are responsible for the Trayvon Martin targets that were being sold at gun ranges.

    Yes, Yman (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 11:22:58 AM EST
    There's just SOOOO Much evidence to dispute that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman first that you can't produce any.

    It doesn't look like the police thought they had probable cause.

    But what do they know? Clearly YMan should have been the lead investigator.


    See if you can tell the difference (3.67 / 3) (#33)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:50:40 PM EST
    ... between what you originally said:

    all physical evidence points to TM attack on GZ and not the other way around

    and what you're saying now:

    There's just SOOOO Much evidence to dispute that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman first that you can't produce any

    It's pretty easy.

    All the physical evidence shows is that GZ was on the receiving end of a punch and/or a scuffle.  The only evidence of who started the physical confrontation is George Zimmerman's story.

    But I'd choose to ignore (B) and Zimmerman's credibility if I were you, too.


    Wrong (none / 0) (#34)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 04:03:58 PM EST
    The point is who threw the first punch or who made the first physical contact.

    Must really stick in your craw that the only one apparently punching someone was Trayvon Martin.

    And let's not forget who was on top according to pretty much all the eyewitnesses.

    We know the shot wasn't before the punches , so in YMan's magical fairlyland of candy just what did George Zimmerman do? The state isn't accusing him of starting the fight, but YOU seem to be.


    Right (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 05:06:48 PM EST
    You seem to be under the mistaken impression that because Zimmerman was the only one with injuries, this establishes as a fact that Martin must have started the physical confrontation.

    As usual, you are wrong.

    Hypothetical - B walks up to C and tries to hit C.  B misses (or C blocks the strike).  C hits B (maybe even more than once).

    B started the physical confrontation.

    See?  No candy or fairyland.  Just simple logic.

    BTW - I'm not accusing anyone of starting the fight.  I'm saying that your conclusion that Zimmerman's injuries and/or Martin's lack of injuries do not establish for a fact (as you claim) that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

    Then again, your sudden affection for qualifiers ("apparently...", "pretty much" ...) speaks for itself.


    Sorry, Slayerezo, Grief is soul-searching. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Palli on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 10:51:18 AM EST
    Palli, please limit your (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 11:34:26 AM EST
    anti-Zimmerman comments to no more than four comments a day. See our comment rules.

    Do you read my 3 comments as violating (none / 0) (#29)
    by Palli on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 12:11:46 PM EST
    your policy?  "Posts numerous times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread; or
    Posts numerous times a day and insults or engages in name-calling against other commenters or the site's authors or repeatedly makes the same point with the effect of annoying other commenters. (i.e. is a blog-clogger)"?

    If I am annoying or insulting others or repeating the same point in dialogue, I'll go back to reading for information only again.


    I guess T.M. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Amiss on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 02:34:11 AM EST
    Should have been walking through the neighborhood with an ear-blasting boom box.

    GZlegalcase responds (none / 0) (#4)
    by Redbrow on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 05:11:32 PM EST
    I quoted the final paragraph to which address the alleged '"entitlement" and "Gift" issues.'


    George has been the target of a coordinated public relations attack designed to create the false impression that George shot Trayvon Martin because of racial bias, instead of self-defense -- a public relations campaign perpetrated with the intent to manipulate the media and prejudice the citizens of this country against George through misinformation and emotional appeals. If a voice is raised with concern over profiteering, it should be tempered by two premises. Firstly, George and his family have been devastated by this event and left broke and displaced from their homes. That is a tragedy that should not be visited upon anyone who has yet to be convicted of a crime. It is the ultimate injustice when it is perpetrated on an innocent man. Secondly, if profiteering is a concern, that analysis should begin with those who crafted the misinformation blitz and racially charged rhetoric, shouted with reckless disregard for the truth, the result of which has been significant financial gain, not ruin. We speak not of the Martin family, who have suffered the tragedy of losing a son; we speak of the family's handlers and attorneys.

    So do you think this except (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Palli on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:13:00 AM EST
    explains away entitlement or validates it?

    From the first news reports, his fatal incident has many aspects that vex and challenge or confirm my belief system.


    My comment was not in any way an (none / 0) (#18)
    by Anne on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 10:12:24 AM EST
    expression of George Zimmerman's guilt or innocence; it was only meant to be a commentary on two things: the kind of justice one gets when one does or does not have the resources to hire expert legal representation, and the irony of Zimmerman being able to take advantage of the publicity that may have led to the charges, to help raise funds for his defense.

    Other than that, I made a conscious decision to back away from the case; I have my questions and there are things that don't add up for me, but I have neither the time nor the energy to devote to poring over the minutiae of so-called facts and evidence, or speculate endlessly on the motives, thoughts and feelings of all involved, including Trayvon Martin, who can't speak at all.

    thanks Annie (none / 0) (#31)
    by LeaNder on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 12:45:02 PM EST
    Thanks Annie, I am very much into minutiae, always was in fact. ;)

    But I guess, you would somehow agree with Serino, at least theoretically, that usually someone has some type of motive? Rarely a: Tonight, you gonna die! jumps randomly out of bushes?

    Rarely too a serial killer chooses someone who equally randomly pursuited him as a "burglary suspect" before? Serial coincidences so to speak. Even the seemingly random serial killer usually has whatever type of earlier connection to his prey. If I believe our criminal scientists, that is.


    Well, Gee, golly (none / 0) (#35)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 04:09:59 PM EST
    LeaNder is this the best your side can do?

    Anger(at being profiled as a suspect), fear, or the potential influence of narcotics are the three main reasons given as to why Trayvon might have attacked George from day one. Of course there are other potential ones as well if you investigate his social media, but surprisingly "hatred of whites" or "hatred of hispanics" are not things that are commonly given as his motivation on this site, as this site sticks to evidence and I don't see any evidence that Trayvon was prejudiced against whites or hispanics.

    Have you been away hiding under a snow draft in Antartica or something? It's not hard to see how this situation could have developed from poor decisions on both sides.


    slayersrezo (none / 0) (#37)
    by LeaNder on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 06:10:38 PM EST
    I am not very much attracted to the Treehouse lore, or Diwataman and their very special type of lore.

    Let's see what West will manage to dig up. That's obviously his job, in the good and bad lawyer scenario.

     The treehouse scenarios may work in fiction of a special type, but my taste was always keep it simple. Besides if Trayvon was a rather violent guy, I doubt his parents would have gone to such big length to find out what really happened. Would they have been surprised if that was the case?

    We'll see, how much we will learn in the process, I at least will stay tuned.


    There are many pieces of evidence (none / 0) (#21)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 10:31:42 AM EST
    that totally destroy your argument, but the biggest one is simple:
    The parents and their attorney did not just ask for an investigation by an outside agency - in this case the FBI - they asked for an arrest even though SYG requires probable cause of an arrest.

    They weren't just asking for an investigation into the death of their son to make sure the police were not racist or corrupt - they asked that the law be violated.

    Seriously, there's a link on the right side of this page to the legal documents and evidence in this case. I don't think you've ever read it.

    I'd try to answer some of your other questions about race but Jeralyn doesn't like that sort of thing on this site and I have no idea if my post would stay up or not. Let's just say that black people can be racist too , and leave it at that.

    Leander please copy your post (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 11:28:49 AM EST
    and save on your computer so I can delete it. You know better.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#32)
    by LeaNder on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 12:52:20 PM EST
    strictly that would have been a good idea, done more systematically. There was a time when I pondered if I should in fact. Start a web with collected censorship on TalkLeft with the respective context and a link to the rules.

    But really there is only so much time in our life, and strictly this simply was a message to Anne.

    Which part of the specific Zimmerman comment rules did I break again?


    LeaNder, Go to the Forums (none / 0) (#43)
    by RickyJim on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 12:31:08 PM EST
    We revel in discussing the evidence over there.  You will find posters who know and understand the evidence very well and can answer your concerns.

    ooooooooo (none / 0) (#38)
    by farrighthippie on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:02:35 PM EST
    Yay, what is the link to donate to george zimmerman? I will do it in a ny minute! !