George Zimmerman's Cultural Roots

CNN Legal Analyst Mark NeJame steps up his role as investigative journalist in the George Zimmerman case. Last night on Piers Morgan's show, he revealed the above photo of Zimmerman's multi-racial family, including his black great-grandfather and Peruvian grandmother and mother.

He received the photo from the Zimmerman family.(Background here.)

Mark's comments: He may have been skeptical at first but this photo changed his mind. He does not think Zimmerman was motivated by race in what whatever encounter he had with Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26.

This thread is devoted to all things Zimmerman-related.

< John Edwards: Curing Undue Prejudice | John Edwards: Judge Denies Defense Request to Dismiss >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Why (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri May 11, 2012 at 06:27:08 AM EST
    Is this relevant if the prosecution has not introduced race as an issue?

    But if we are going to discuss race as an issue, some of the counter evidence to the implication of this picture have been declared off limits.

    Are statements on race by Zimmerman confirmed to have been made by him now open for discussion?  The identity of his parents or grandparents clearly does not impact his ability to stereotype based on race.  There is clear and unequivocal evidence of that.

    Still no answers, but more (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Anne on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:32:27 PM EST
    deleted comments.

    plenty of answers (none / 0) (#174)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 12, 2012 at 02:50:33 AM EST
    read through the comments.

    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 11, 2012 at 02:34:09 PM EST
    In my opinion, George Zimmerman's ethnic background is irrelevant to the case, and there is little question that he in all likelihood identified Trayvon Martin as a potential neighborhood troublemaker by some application of profiling, be it racial / age-based stereotyping or whatever.

    While I'll grant the defense its posit that the defendant's grandparents are / were probably good people, the core question remains unanswered, i.e., whether or not a rational person can reasonably conclude that Zimmerman's life was actually endangered by Martin when he fired the fatal shot that killed him.


    more than life endangerment goes w SYG (none / 0) (#123)
    by willisnewton on Fri May 11, 2012 at 03:06:37 PM EST
    I think the prosecution may be hoping to prove that GZ was not acting in self-defense by virtue of being the aggressor of some sort, and so that even though in the end he may have felt his life was in danger, it was not while he was acting in a lawful manner that he shot and killed the youth.  

    IANAL, however.  But I think when you say

    the core question remains unanswered, i.e., whether or not a rational person can reasonably conclude that Zimmerman's life was actually endangered by Martin when he fired the fatal shot that killed him.

    ...that you are not getting "the whole enchillada."  The core is more complex that that.  

    I do agree that GZ seems to have exhibited prejudice against the youth from the start.  Is that the same as profiling?  IANAL.  Is it the same as racism?  I don't think so.  But if he WERE indeed a racist at heart, it might be a contributing factor to his actions later on after he determined the kid was black, would it not?

    I just don't know how one proves in court any of this.  Corey doesn't care to, it seems.  


    right from the start (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri May 11, 2012 at 06:49:14 AM EST
    the cries of "racism" and the hysterical fever pitch they reached made me uncomfortable.
    I was involved in mob like behavior once on the playground as a child and it has haunted me ever since.
    Sometimes the conclusion jumped to by the majority is correct and I am wrong, but I never regret taking the time to let the truth be proven.  People's lives can be ruined in the interim.  ABG is right, just because you have a black grandfather doesn't mean you can't be racist.  Having a white grandmother didn't seem to keep Obama from thinking there is shameful behavior typical of white women.
    But ABG is wrong if he thinks latent racism in Zimmerman proves he killed TM in malice rather than self defense.  We simply do not know yet.

    Mark NeJame (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by vicndabx on Fri May 11, 2012 at 08:54:07 AM EST
    another person living in the bubble of his own preconceptions, now free to influence the jury pool on matters tangential to the case.  What happened to FL lawyers "associated" with the case supposedly "on notice" by the judge?  Clearly if you are receiving photos directly from the family you're associated w/the case.  Please tell me how he's no different from Ben Crump, lambasted here?

    I think he said he got it from a friend (3.50 / 2) (#211)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat May 12, 2012 at 04:11:20 PM EST
    of the family. Unless fake, this photo is a fact, to be read however people want. It's different than Ben Crump spinning the story, or inviting people who will play fast and loose with the facts.

    Huh? (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Addison on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:07:57 AM EST
    This photo, and the family tree it represents, is irrelevant to the issue of race-based profiling.

    Black or Latino blood doesn't somehow "innoculate" you from making race-based assumptions, nor does it biological prevent you from making bad choices based on those assumptions.

    Mark NeJame is a clown. I hope he's being well-paid for intellectually smashing a cream pie in his own face on national tabloid TV. That his foolishness is repeated here, well, I hope it's just to highlight the ridiculousness of his statement and not to endorse it in any way...

    Wait - so Mark NeJame is now an (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Anne on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:42:05 AM EST
    "investigative journalist?"  I thought he was a criminal defense attorney hired by CNN to provide "play-by-play" commentary on high-profile criminal cases, and provide explanations of the technical legal aspects of the cases and the proceedings.

    And the result of his "investigation" so far is the conclusion he reached from a photograph the family gave him?

    Good grief.

    "After a thorough investigation... (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by kdog on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:51:44 AM EST
    of the Zimmerman family photo album, CNN has determined George Zimmerman has a black grandpa who was quite the snappy dresser..."

    The Pulitzer is assured...lol.


    But, might the person (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by oculus on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:04:11 AM EST
    who added the tags have also " darkened" grandfather's face?  (2008 primary reference.)

    If so (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by jbindc on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:11:06 AM EST
    they probably work for NBC, sicne they already have experience altering things related to this case.

    Moral of the story... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:12:55 AM EST
    take the modern media for what it is, another vehicle to sell detergent...with a few exceptions that even fewer pay any attention to.

    Don't forget (4.00 / 3) (#66)
    by jbindc on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:31:18 PM EST
    The picture they kept showing of Martin was taken when he was a small 12 year old boy - versus the much-heavier 8 year old mug shot of Zimmerman.

    Amazing what pictures can do to tell a story -even if it isn't true.


    The pictures again? (3.60 / 5) (#73)
    by ks on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:44:20 PM EST
    Ok, you want strict accuracy?  Let's take the most recent pictures of both.  Let's see for Zimmerman that would be him leaving the courthouse and for Martin that would probably be in a casket.  Better now?  

    The whole picture whine is silly.  It's SOP for the media.   If there are not any publicly available pictures, they take what they can get.  In Martin's case it was from his family which was not unsusal for victims at all and unfortunately for Zimmerman, he had mugshot so they used it.  When they were provided with another of Zimmerman (the work one) they used that one.  


    I don't think it's silly (4.00 / 3) (#79)
    by jbindc on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:51:05 PM EST
    Media experts - people who study how media images influence how we think about issues - have taught time and time again about how images are presented to the public and how they shape our view of issues.  Politicians know this - and it's certainly proven every election cycle when we see who the media favors most.

    If the only picture the family had to give was of a 12 year little boy, my bet is Benjamin Crump was behind it, because HE would know that a picture paints a thousand words. It certainly would cause a bigger outcry to see a "little boy" killed by a "big hefty man"  - how could Zimmerman be afraid of a little boy? than to hear that Martin had about 5 inches on Zimmerman.

    Even Coates' contines to erroneously refers to Zimmerman as "having 100+ pounds" on Martin - he gets that from the images he chooses to view.

    But obviously, you know so much better. <snark>


    Photos... (3.67 / 3) (#101)
    by ks on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:16:47 PM EST
    The family is not required to give photos that you think are appropriate to suit your opinion.  It's not unusual at all for victims familes to provide the media flattering photos of their deceased loved ones.   A more recent picture wouldn't have changed the dynamic much.  Martin still was a minor kid and Zimmerman still is a grown man.  What kind of pictures are you looking for?  The one "recent" one that I saw, Martin looked older than the ones I think you are referring to, but otherwise unremarkable.  

    While I realize that in some circles Martin is getting "bigger" and Zimmerman is getting "smaller" by the day, complaining about the available/provided pictures simply because they don't fit the narrative, at least not on the Martin side, some want to promote strikes me as silly.  

    Speaking of silly, Coates's ramblings on this matter are of little interest to me and he absolutely embarrassed himself on Piers Morgan show.


    Then (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by jbindc on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:20:45 PM EST
    It's obviously too complex a subject for you.  

    Showing a picture of a 12 year old tells a very different story than showing one of a a 6 foot + football player. The reason you can't see the problem with that just shows that you obviously think Zimmerman is a racist who targeted a little boy and nothing (including facts to the contrary) are going to change your mind.


    "Football player"? (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Yman on Fri May 11, 2012 at 08:52:33 PM EST
    So if we don't like using older photos of Zimmerman because they aren't accurate (despite being the only publicly available photos early in the story), why do some people keep referring to Martin as a "football player"?  Martin played youth football in his early teens, not high school football.

    At 6'3", 160 lbs. is a skinny kid - more like a cross country runner than a "football player".

    But that doesn't sound as scary.


    Martin and Football (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 12, 2012 at 02:43:20 AM EST
    I searched the articles for the word 'football'.

    The first one quotes one person saying Martin played football 'in his early teens', but doesn't say he didn't play in high school. It might be that particular source didn't know what Martin did in high school.

    I thought the second article implied Martin did play football in high school, though it didn't say whether he did last season.


    The first article states ... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Yman on Sat May 12, 2012 at 06:33:10 AM EST
    He used to help me," Fulton said, voice breaking. Trayvon -- who was known as "Tray" or "Slimm" -- played youth football during his early teens and helped his father coach Little League baseball, said Fulton, whose sister, Sybrina Fulton, is Trayvon's mother
    , suggesting he used to play football and making no mention of playing football in high school.  The second article states
    When Martin entered high school, his childhood goals of a career on the football field were replaced with his dreams of working with airplanes
    , and cites his former football coach.  There's nothing implying he played high school football.  It also says
    During high school, Martin also volunteered his time at the concession stand at Forzano Park where he played football since age 5, on a team coached by Horton and his father.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by ks on Sat May 12, 2012 at 10:47:17 AM EST
    And the continued comparisons to pro football players is absurd. As if relative size is the only difference between the two.  

    Hmmmm (4.00 / 3) (#158)
    by jbindc on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:50:47 PM EST
    6'3" against 5'9"?  

    I put my money on the guy who's 6'3" every time. People who know will tell you height is more important in a fight.

    Why not initially release Martin's current school year photo as opposed to his 6th grade one?

    Oh wait - that wouldn't tell the right story.


    Neither of which ... (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Yman on Sat May 12, 2012 at 06:20:56 AM EST
    ... addresses my point.  You cry foul about the photos, but the photo of Zimmerman was the only publicly available photo of him when the story broke.  I have no idea where the press got the Martin photo (funeral photo?), and I don't care.  Martin was a tall, skinny kid who played youth football, yet you refer to him as a "football player" because it makes him sound scarier/more physically threatening.

    BTW - I put my money on the armed guy every time - or in a close-up struggle, the more muscular "bouncer".  Oh, wait, ...

    ... he used to be a "bouncer.

    Gotta "tell the right story".


    "People who know"? (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by ks on Sat May 12, 2012 at 01:17:50 PM EST
    Your people who know don't really know.  The idea that height is more important (whatever that means) in a fight is rather dubious.  In terms of betting, good luck.  You're going to need it if you think a 6'3" guy will beat a 5'9" guy every time.  

    but when was the last time you were in a fist fight? Have you ever?

    There is a reason they list boxer's and ultimate fighter's height and reach, in addition to weight (which is usually about equal).

    A big reason.

    Though, again, height and reach is not definitive, especially with trained fighters. However, in the real world...


    "In the real world"? (none / 0) (#229)
    by Yman on Sun May 13, 2012 at 02:07:13 PM EST
    ... what?  It is definitive?

    Height and reach are more of a factor in boxing matches where the Marquess of Queensberry rules generally apply and fighters are maneuvering to keep their distance if they have a reach advantage, as opposed to a street fight, particularly one up close involving grappling/wrestling on the ground.


    Aren't there some tall and skinny (none / 0) (#157)
    by oculus on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:04:45 PM EST
    footballskinny football players?   I am thinking of Harvin and Woodson.

    Sure, but not ... (none / 0) (#182)
    by Yman on Sat May 12, 2012 at 06:24:03 AM EST
    ... many, and not in Martin's league.  Harvin was 4 inches shorter and @25 lbs. heavier.  Woodson 2 inches shorter and @ 40 lbs. heavier.

    Checkout some of (none / 0) (#199)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 12, 2012 at 10:31:46 AM EST
    your pro cornerback size.... 6' or so in the 170-180 size range.. But they are fast and in great shape.

    3 inches shorter and 20 lbs. heavier (none / 0) (#210)
    by Yman on Sat May 12, 2012 at 03:55:22 PM EST
    Not to mention pro football players, as opposed to youth football.

    Not complex at all (1.00 / 1) (#108)
    by ks on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:31:18 PM EST
    There were several photos of Martin provided to the media or that are available (e.g. Red shirt, football gear, family ski trips, etc.) and he was not "12 years old" in all of them. You are only focusing on particular ones for whatever reason.  <snark>

    There are also several phots of Zimmerman avaliable now as well.  So what's the problem?  Pick and choose as you wish.


    Proving my point , thanks (3.50 / 2) (#110)
    by jbindc on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:32:46 PM EST
    "Available now" - Now, being the operative word.

    You're welcome but.... (none / 0) (#112)
    by ks on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:41:58 PM EST
    The Zimmerman work ID photo has been available previously and widely used and, overall, complaining about photos at this point is pointless.

    What universe do you live in? (3.00 / 5) (#188)
    by Gandydancer on Sat May 12, 2012 at 07:47:14 AM EST
    In mine they kept using the 7-year-old perp shot long after "smiling Zimmerman" was made available.

    Apparently the real universe (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by ks on Sat May 12, 2012 at 11:45:22 AM EST
    Ah, the mysterious and undefined "they" rears it's head.  I'm sure you were only looking to confirm your opinion but in reality the work id picture was widely used by "them".  

    Again, this picture thing is silly at this point.  There are plenty of images of both Martin and Zimmerman in the public domain.  


    Again proving my point (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by jbindc on Sat May 12, 2012 at 12:12:44 PM EST
    There are multiple photos out NOW.  But when the media firestorm hit, there weren't and certain opinions based on faulty information got formed.  Like yours, I suspect.

    Again, no (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by ks on Sat May 12, 2012 at 12:27:26 PM EST
    You can repeat it all you want but that won't change the fact that the Zimmerman work id photo has been out before NOW and was certainly out during whatever criteria you are using for the "media firestorm".  It was out even before O'Mara was his attorney.  

    Look, I'm sorry there apparently aren't any negative photos of Martin in the public domain for you to obsess over and all that's left is trying to exaggerate his football playing or HS suspensions but you'll survive and again, at this point, the photo thing is a silly whine.  


    Trying to decide whether to (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:34:03 AM EST
    finally bucket the photo albums of my presumed ancestors, as their unalloyed Caucasian-ness may work against me in the future.    

    Anne, that was the primary reason (none / 0) (#166)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 12, 2012 at 12:20:17 AM EST
    I posted it. If you'll notice, I linked to my earlier post on O'Mara's statements at a court hearing that he worried about a continuing relationship between the Zimmerman family and NeJame, and that NeJame would be given "exclusives" and "additional insights" for his CNN commentary.  (The Zimmerman family initially tried to hire NeJame, but he declined the case, deciding to take the  TV analyst gig instead and referred the Zimmermans to O'Mara.)

    That's likely exactly what happened here. But instead, NeJame portrays his exclusive possession of the photo as the result of his investigatory work. It's laughable. It's far more likely, in my view, the result of the Zimmerman's feeding it to him because he has developed a continuing relationship with them. They (the family) give him things to get their message out.

    If NeJame had opined differently on the meaning of the photo -- if he had said this photo was irrelevant to any issues in the case, the Zimmermans would dry up fast as an exclusive source for him.  (O'Mara would like that -- he wants to be in exclusive control of information released about his client.) So of course NeJame is going to put a favorable spin on the photo.

    Of course, Crump and other Martin family supporters would also dump any news reporter that didn't favorably report on exclusive information they provided to the reporter. If ABC hadn't favorably reported on Trayvon's phone friend in its exclusive story, or hadn't described the police video  (which it was given exclusively at first) as showing no visible signs of injuries, ABC would be out of the loop with these sources.

    That's why it's so important to ask, when anyone gets an exclusive, where did this come from? It's almost always from someone who provided it with the expectation it would be presented favorably to their point of view.

    As I have emphasized before, race is not "a crucial issue" in the state's case. I'm surprised that so many people have focused on whether the photo supports NeJame's view as opposed to why NeJame is offering it in the first place and describing it as the fruits of his "investigation."

    Also, and this is not directed to Anne, but to everyone, as I said in post discussing the media's inaccurate reporting that race would be a crucial issue in this case:

    What's not allowed: your opinion that the defendant is racist, or conversely, that his suspicions about Trayvon were justified.

    I question your characterization of OMara, Jeralyn (5.00 / 0) (#177)
    by willisnewton on Sat May 12, 2012 at 05:11:29 AM EST
    These are great insights on NeJame's relation to the parties at hand.  

     but I'm not so sure about this part:

    O'Mara would like that -- he wants to be in exclusive control of information released about his client.

    Are you suggesting that this release of a quasi-favorable photo was somehow a case of his client acting without his approval or consultation?  Because if so, that's a lot more significant to the upcoming case than the potential contents of the photo itself.   George Zimmerman has shown himself to be a client that is prone to doing things before he consults his lawyer - from the first, speaking to police without the benefit of counsel, to his hijinks with his self-made website and the funds he controlled and spent without telling his lawyer or the court, and his family's actions in speaking to the press and writing letters to the NAACP, if those are indeed genuine.  

    It's equally important that Zimmerman's family be coordinating their actions through counsel, too.  These people may feel they are acting in George's best interest, but if they are acting without the benefit of counsel they run the risk of losing another lawyer, i'd say.

    Instead I would guess that O'Mara considered the relative benefits of releasing this photo on his defense website vs releasing it through CNN and NeJame and that the action was co-ordinated through the "team" as it were.  

    Has the photo since appeared on the defense site?  And if so, does it do so as a scan of the original, or is it an embedded link, video or screen shot of the photo's appearance on CNN, thus giving it legitimacy of a sort?  

    Let's be frank, O'Mara is behaving as if this trial is going to be lost or won in some regard in the public realm as well as in the courtroom.  Either he had a hand in this, or he doesn't (and lost control of his client or client's family, which is dangerous).


    What NeJame said is (none / 0) (#167)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 12, 2012 at 01:13:23 AM EST
    "I had a family member give it to a friend who gave it to me." So it was his relationship with the family that resulted in him getting the picture. He also says "We gave it to you [Morgan or CNN] today." Not sure who the other person in "we" is.

    As to what led to him getting the photo he says when he first heard about the case he presumed Zimmerman shot Trayvon "in part based on bigotry and racial profiling" because of media reports, , but "as I started getting into a role as an analyst and such, I started asking questions

    Later he says, "As I've come to realize and find out from my investigation he was raised in a multi-cultural integrated family in large part by his grandmother who is half-black."


    "If ABC hadn't... (5.00 / 0) (#191)
    by Gandydancer on Sat May 12, 2012 at 08:02:28 AM EST
    ...described the police video  (which it was given exclusively at first) as showing no visible signs of injuries, ABC would be out of the loop with these sources."

    You have some info on where ABC got the police video, and that the source was hostile to Zimmerman?


    If NeJame or anyone else can show me (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by ruffian on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:08:28 AM EST
    one call to the police Zimmerman made to report a suspicious looking white stranger walking in his neighbor it would go a lot further than this photograph.

    Exactly. Or just one call he made (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:29:05 PM EST
    about a suspicious looking woman, or suspicious looking elderly person, etc.

    Because if he didn't that would mean he's also sexist and ageist in addition to what you've already determined as racist?

    Ya know, if you really wanted to, you could contact Mark and maybe he'd look into your query.

    There are phone numbers and email addresses all over his company's website.

    But if doesn't do what you request, does that mean he's ruffianist?

    Just pulling your leg.


    I felt the tug.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:37:08 PM EST
    I just think a data analysis of the people GZ has found suspicious would be a lot more illustrative of his views than his family history is. Doesn't that make sense?

    Honestly, no, I really don't. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:43:49 PM EST
    I think it would be more illustrative of the people he viewed, than his views of people.

    ftr, I don't think either has much validity in revealing his "views of people."


    I think calling the police on someone he (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:50:29 PM EST
    viewed is a pretty good indication that he was suspicious of that person. I just want to get to what exactly makes him suspicious when he sees someone. Maybe there is no pattern - to me,  that would lend credence to claims that race had nothing to do with this incident.

    What makes him suspicious (none / 0) (#83)
    by jbindc on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:54:42 PM EST
    (Or anyone suspicious) would very much depend on the time and place, no?  From the reports, there had been a series of young black man allegedly breaking into houses in the neighborhood. At the time of his calls, would it be more likely than not that he (or anyone) might be more suspicious of strange young black men in the neighborhood?  I don't know.  

    Were ALL his 911 calls to report on young black men?


    That Would be Zero (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 12, 2012 at 06:20:54 AM EST
    Were ALL his 911 calls to report on young black men?

    None of them were.

    On September 23, 2005, Zimmerman called 911 to report a white male loitering at his sister's door. For some reason the sister called Zimmerman, and he called 911.

    Except for that, all of Zimmerman's 'suspicious person' calls were non-emergency.


    Well, of the GZ calls listed, (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun May 13, 2012 at 01:03:33 PM EST
    and not including his calls about TM, there were 4 black males identified in his calls, three Hispanic males, two white males, around a half-dozen males with no race identified, one woman (also no race), and two pitbulls with one identified as white and brown.

    Oh yeah, and several about potholes, kids playing dangerously in the street, and garage doors left open, etc...


    Thanks! It may not matter to the legal case (none / 0) (#184)
    by ruffian on Sat May 12, 2012 at 06:43:14 AM EST
    but it matters to my opinion. Knowing that, I am less likely to see his initial actions as race-related (once the altercation started, I never thought the shooting itself was race related).

    That is my question (none / 0) (#88)
    by ruffian on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    If they were not, that would be a great fact for his family or legal team to put out there. Better than this photo.

    I do not know how he made the leap from the young black men that were accused of breaking in the houses to this particular young black man. He may never have to say.

    I realize it probably will not have anything to do with the charges against him, since they seem to hinge on who did what in the physical altercation.


    Well, (none / 0) (#87)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    let's say I got a ticket for failing to stop at at stop sign.

    Whether or not I have a history of not coming to a full and complete stop at stop signs has no bearing on whether I'm guilty of doing so at the particular stop sign for which the cop gave me a ticket.

    Actually, I'm mostly just bored today, it would be interesting to hear his other calls.


    It probably has no bearing on the (none / 0) (#91)
    by ruffian on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:07:58 PM EST
    case at all.  He is not on trial for erroneous 911 calling.  Just something to know in order to make my personal judgement of his behavior - which I know he is dying to find out ;-)

    As you can see, I am bored too.


    Yes it does make sense (none / 0) (#76)
    by ks on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:48:25 PM EST
    It's way more relevant than an old picture of his great-grandfather. Especially since he apparently though Martin was engaging in the behavious he previously found suspicious.  

    how about the call he made (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:15:02 PM EST
    to report a child was wandering alone at a school and he was afraid he was lost. The child was 7 to 9 and the 911 report says Zimmerman was concerned for his safety.

    He called the police often. (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Addison on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:27:45 PM EST
    Not sure what the point is here. He called the police about all sorts of things. No one is saying that he only ever called the police because he was suspicious. Some are saying that he only called the police that night because he profiled Martin as a potential burglar.

    And, of course, the 7-9 year old wasn't doing something so overtly suspicious like, uh, "looking at houses" while talking on the cell phone to his girlfriend (imagine that: staring at a house while talking on a phone in a dense condo development - such aberrant deviousness!), or acting like he was vaguely "up to no good", whatever that means.

    So...for a number of reasons the 2nd grader was deemed outside of the profile of a burglar, it seems. That doesn't mean much of anything.


    Data point in his favor (none / 0) (#106)
    by ruffian on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:26:56 PM EST
    Another Not-911 Call (none / 0) (#179)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 12, 2012 at 05:34:38 AM EST
    Look on the report at 'Call Source'. 'TEL' indicates a non-emergency call.

    Suspicious White Guy (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 12, 2012 at 05:30:09 AM EST
    June 24, 2007,, Zimmerman made a non-emergency call to report a group of three men, two hispanic and one white. One of them had a 'slim jim', a tool for breaking into cars. They told the police they were locked out of their own vehicle.

    They actually had a visible tool associated (none / 0) (#196)
    by ruffian on Sat May 12, 2012 at 10:02:49 AM EST
    with crime - reasonable cause for suspicion. Still, a data point in his favor. Looks like the majority of the calls were for specific behaviors- maybe not ones I would have called 'John Law' about, but still, I can see the cause for concern.

    Sounds like GZ had actually seen the suspects in the neighborhood break-ins. I wish there was some indication that he thought Trayvon looked like them in some way other than his skin color.


    your kidding me (3.00 / 3) (#212)
    by michele on Sat May 12, 2012 at 06:00:08 PM EST
    my local crime blotter in Berkeley and Oakland is choke full of robbery/burglary suspects described as YBM wearing hoodie, been that way for years, and it is not a local phenomena, the "uniform' serves a purpose, or did you really not know this already.

    Do you have any numbers re how many (none / 0) (#214)
    by Mary2012 on Sat May 12, 2012 at 07:18:39 PM EST
    innocent teenagers get pulled in to this vortex just because someone thinks they look suspicious?

    And have you come across any youths who carry a so-called burglary tool (such as a screwdriver) where it turns out they were carrying it as some kind of protest/ identification with others like themselves or are they just not believed?

    Do all of these "suspects" get jury trials?


    If the uniform serves a purpose (none / 0) (#221)
    by ruffian on Sun May 13, 2012 at 06:42:13 AM EST
    for the ones that do bad, it is because of vague descriptions like that.  Do people even bother to look at other features? Such vague descriptions are potentially fatal for the innocent.

    My point is that GZ actually saw the other suspects, or at least he said so in his calls to the police. He had more than a 'blk male in a hoodie' knowledge. Did TM look like them or not?


    Wearing a hoodie ... (none / 0) (#222)
    by Yman on Sun May 13, 2012 at 08:44:34 AM EST
    ... is now a criminal "uniform"?


    My white, middle-class town is suddenly full of criminal suspects.

    Who knew?


    I (none / 0) (#93)
    by lentinel on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:09:53 PM EST
    at least give Z the fact that he didn't identify the person he found suspicious by anything other than by the behavior of the individual.

    The racial identification came only after he was asked by 911.

    Eg: He didn't say, hey there's this black guy wandering where he shouldn't be. You know. Slam dunk racism.

    As to the specifics of your post, it would be interesting to see if there is a pattern to his calls - and that he indeed only called if he saw black people. I don't know what the facts are for that.


    Not racism (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by jbindc on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:11:46 PM EST
    Eg: He didn't say, hey there's this black guy wandering where he shouldn't be. You know. Slam dunk racism.

    Please explain how this is a racist statement.


    You mean the spoken to the operator (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by ruffian on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:14:19 PM EST
    racial identification came only after he was asked. I am wondering what was in his head when he dialed the police.  This photo is not evidence of that one way or the other.

    Also, please note (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by vicndabx on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:18:43 AM EST
    The man in the picture is Z's great-grandfather, the woman is his grandmother.  

    What NeJame seems to fail to understand (at least from the clip) is that just because you look black, doesn't mean you identify yourself as black - which is what would be relevant to any defense of Z that alleges roots tied to black culture.  I doubt very highly, this Native American looking man considers himself anything other than that - Native American.

    Your boy NeJame needs to stick to the law and not pontificate on sociology.

    No one has endorsed (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 12, 2012 at 02:04:50 AM EST
    NeJame's views (at least I haven't) but calling him "your boy" is inappropriate.

    I'm not interested in the substance of his comment so much as his using his position as an "analyst" to pass on information obtained from the Zimmerman family as fruits of "his investigation." If you follow the link in my post, you will see it's about a court hearing at which O'Mara expressed this his concern about NeJame's continuing relationship his client's family. NeJame is not a commenter here, speculating on case, he's creating news as a paid network commentator.

    I've made the same criticisms of other network reporters passing off spoon-fed information from Team Crump as the results of their independent investigation.


    What evidence? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by redwolf on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:25:01 AM EST
    He didn't wasn't even sure of the kid's race until he came towards him per the 911 call.  According to the 911 call Travyon was looking inside houses and Zimmerman appeared to think he was looking for something to steal.

    No. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Addison on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:08:11 PM EST
    According to the 911 call Travyon was looking inside houses and Zimmerman appeared to think he was looking for something to steal.

    That's not factually accurate. Read the transcript. Zimmerman said that Trayvon Martin was looking AT houses, not IN them. Huge difference. Someone looking at houses can be lost, bored, curious -- it takes a preconceived notion to link looking at houses (especially conjoined condos in a dense neighborhood) as inherently suspicious and worth calling the police over.


    Non-Emergency Call (none / 0) (#146)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 11, 2012 at 06:27:59 PM EST
    Zimmerman said that Trayvon Martin was looking AT houses, not IN them.

    That's correct.

    Also, not a 911 call.


    "Looking inside houses"? (none / 0) (#51)
    by ks on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:58:57 AM EST
    Yeah, there plenty of "evidence" for that and btw, I think ABG is talking about Zimmerman's MySpace page rantings.  

    And I told him he could not (none / 0) (#171)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 12, 2012 at 02:05:25 AM EST
    discuss the comments of those pages.

    the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#164)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:26:02 PM EST
    was deleted. It presented disputed information as fact.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by ks on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:27:55 PM EST
    The double standard is as obvious as it is jarring.  Anyway, NeJame's "investigation" is so facile it's laughable and it represents the type of dubious media analysis or report that has been routinely criticized here.  

    I mean where do you start with this one?  A lawyer and media analyst gets a photo from the defense/family which shows Zimmerman's apparently dark skinned Peruvian grandfather (I think it's actually his great-grandfather) who may or may not have identified as Afro-Peruvian and based on his analysis of that photo only, he concludes that race could not have been a motivating factor for George Zimmerman?  That's so transparently absurd I'm not sure what else to say about it. I guess it's a spin on the old "some of my best friends are..." but still, it's pretty ridiculous.

    Oddly enough... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by CuriousInAz on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:39:34 PM EST
    There are many posters that are critical of Nejame for his comments,  yet they were not critical of the "legal experts" that came to opposite conclusions over the last couple of months...

    Opposite of what? (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by ruffian on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:45:24 PM EST
    imo CNN made the mistake... (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by kdog on Fri May 11, 2012 at 03:09:00 PM EST
    of competing with Fox News by trying to be just like Fox News.

    It's the same mistake newspapers and magazines made trying to compete with televison news, they made the articles shorter, less in depth, and added more photos to be more like tv...and we've seen how that worked out for newspaper and magazine readership.

    answer: On his way to the store (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by ding7777 on Fri May 11, 2012 at 05:55:14 PM EST
    when he noticed a suspicious person

    if he wasn't looking for a mark in his crimestopper fetishist way, what the hell was he doing?

    Yeah, let's just have sympathy for those (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri May 11, 2012 at 06:13:43 PM EST
    poor burglars. Why call the police on them? So what if some of them break in to our homes at night while we are asleep. We could always grab the kids and leave our house so as not to disturb their activities.

     "looking for a mark in his crimestopper fetishist way"

    On February 2, 2012, Zimmerman's call to the police may have stopped a burglary in progress. If a neighbor helped stop a crime at my house, I'd be pretty grateful.

    I don't think you get it. Perhaps your anti-cop mentality has gotten the better of you. Abusive police who act like thugs deserve to be reined in, but that doesn't mean there's no place for police protection and intervention in our society. Maybe Zimmerman is or was a jerk. But armed burglars are not some minor problem that we can ignore.

    Crazy talk (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by ks on Fri May 11, 2012 at 07:07:06 PM EST
    That's just blatant bigotry.  

    that comment was (none / 0) (#163)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:22:13 PM EST
    offensive and deleted.

    NY Times gets it wrong (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat May 12, 2012 at 09:53:12 PM EST
    The latest NYT story on the case says prosecutors have accused GZ of racial profiling.

    The reason this case got national publicity is it was sold as an example of white racism against African Americans. Yes, many of us understand that people of different ethnicities can have stereotypes of others -- as well as their own group. But that's not the dominant argument.

    Back to the photos: The 2005 booking photo of GZ was all the media had for a while -- he didn't release other photos. The family declined to release any photos except the one where he looks like he's about 12. But the media should have done a better job of asking why not, or pointing out to readers that the family had chosen not to release any photos of him at 16/17.

    I've linked to this before, but some have speculated that Crump did this because supporters of Martin Lee Anderson, his other well-known case, thought the case was hurt by a photo of Martin looking not-so-innocent.

    What Prosecutors? (none / 0) (#217)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 12, 2012 at 10:05:01 PM EST
    They didn't say it was the same prosecutors who are prosecuting Zimmerman. Maybe they meant some of the cable show 'legal analysts'.

    The report also calls SYG a 'gun law', and omits the 'reasonably' from 'reasonably believes'.


    Lovely photo... (4.20 / 5) (#8)
    by kdog on Fri May 11, 2012 at 08:57:39 AM EST
    damned if I know what it has to do with the homicide, George Zimmerman ain't even in it.

    It is impossible to know if Zimmerman is racist and/or prejudiced unless you're in his head or know him personally, and I don't think it really matters anyway...what matters is whether he committed a criminal homicide or a justifiable homicide.  And regardless of the legal outcome, what really matters is he choose to play crimefighter that fateful evening with disasterous results.  Whether he picked his mark by race or age or dress or out of a hat, the end result is the same.

    he didn't chose to play anything (4.00 / 3) (#77)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:49:50 PM EST
    he chose to be the crime watch guy which is what he was. Nice prejudicial spin though, congratulations on passing media hi-jinks 101. He also didn't pick his "mark".  He wasn't out looking for someone to kill.  What is wrong with you?  Even the most cynical of media pundit blaming Zimmerman has suggested he went out looking for a "mark", someone to victimize.

    What is wrong with you? The facts (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Towanda on Fri May 11, 2012 at 07:56:47 PM EST
    that Zimmerman has stated are that he was on errands, not being "a crime-watch guy."  

    He was not on his self-appointed "patrols."

    I will restrain myself from stating what I think of people who have to take a gun everywhere, even on errands.  But look what happens.

    So I also will refrain from stating what I would call those guys.  But it's not "crime-watch guys."


    I'll bet that he felt he was (4.00 / 3) (#220)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 13, 2012 at 06:15:41 AM EST
    always on patrol going out and coming home.  That you don't think that way is fine.  You think poorly of him for having that mind set, okay.  But I am also guessing you have never lived in one of the more transient areas of Florida.  They have gun permits there and if you have a permit you have the right to carry a weapon.  Anyone who lives in a area where there is regular crime knows that going in and out of your home or your car is the time you are most likely to be a victim of crime.  
    When I lived there in the 80s and 90s a friend was car jacked in Aventura.  My son had a knife pulled on him for his gold  chain and cross.  We lived in a nice upper middle class area of Plantation and that's where it happened.  Luckily Polly gave up the car and my son gave up the necklace and neither was hurt. But I can not blame Zimmerman for being paranoid about crime, particularly since there had been recent break ins in his neighborhood.

    Has it ever occurred to you or any other (4.00 / 3) (#225)
    by Mary2012 on Sun May 13, 2012 at 10:04:23 AM EST
    Zimmerman supporter for that matter, that maybe Trayvon Martin felt he was about to be the victim of a crime? that he had not only himself to worry about but also a little brother waiting for him at home?

    I would think it would cause most people -- at the very least -some concern to find a strange man following them, wouldn't you?

    There are probably a lot of people here who have either been a victim of crime or know of someone who was; still others that understand at some point it might happen to them or a loved one.  

    I have and I'm sure many others have as well, spent plenty of time over the years learning & planning what to do and what not to do should anything happen, things they can do to keep themselves safe, etc.

    It seems to me one of the many points in all of this is that there are right ways to go about keeping yourself safe and/ or "fighting crime", and there are wrong ways to go about it.

    Yet I never seem to hear that from the pro-Zimmerman side.

    That I haven't (& in addition to all the things I have heard), is beginning to give me a feeling, a 'sense', correctly or incorrectly, of what Zimmerman's mindset was that night, what set him on his course, and why. It feels like I've been 'seeing' and 'reading' his mindset.

    Perhaps in the same vein one thing re Zimmerman himself that really stood out for me -- something very, very basic -- was the fact Zimmerman left his own bike outside in plain view and it was stolen.  What did he expect???? Was he surprised by that?  Ticked off "they got away"?

    It might seem like such a minor thing and yet....



    Right on (3.29 / 7) (#161)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:36:57 PM EST

    I will restrain myself from stating what I think of people who have to take a gun everywhere, even on errands.

    I know what you mean.  I think the same thing about those people that wear a life jacket on every boat outing or wear seat belts on every car trip.



    Hard to so easily kill somebody (4.33 / 3) (#186)
    by kdog on Sat May 12, 2012 at 07:40:33 AM EST
    in an instant with a life jacket or seat belt though...you'd have to get real close and strangle them.

    Life jackets and seatbelts (3.50 / 2) (#209)
    by Yman on Sat May 12, 2012 at 03:54:17 PM EST
    As if guns are just safety equipment.



    Probably not out looking to kill... (2.33 / 3) (#185)
    by kdog on Sat May 12, 2012 at 07:38:55 AM EST
    but definitely out to make trouble. Looking to jam up an innocent teenager with John Law.  

    Where I'm from dropping a dime on somebody and surveilling them on such baseless "suspicion" is intending to do them harm...victimizing them.  Not to mention packing heat in the process.  It's no way to treat a fellow human being.  And I say that living in a neighborhood that has break-ins too, including my own crib.

    What's wrong with me? I don't know, I would never surveil a pedestrian with a gun and call 911 over baseless assumptions.  I'd like to see what is wrong with that acknowledged.  


    I was trying to think of what level of (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by ruffian on Sat May 12, 2012 at 09:38:50 AM EST
    "suspicious behavior" it would take for me to call the cops on a kid in the neighborhood. I think I would have to see him actually breaking and entering a house. At best, I would help catch a crook, at worst I might get a beer at the White House.

    Come on Kdog (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 12, 2012 at 10:20:52 AM EST
    but definitely out to make trouble. Looking to jam up an innocent teenager with John Law.

    You know better than that.


    Still Not a 911 Call (2.00 / 0) (#189)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 12, 2012 at 07:48:25 AM EST
    Zimmerman reported Martin on a non-emergency call.

    Naturally (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by sj on Sat May 12, 2012 at 08:00:43 AM EST
    focus on the least important part of the comment.

    What's Important? (none / 0) (#192)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 12, 2012 at 08:08:12 AM EST
    Sorry, I'm not interested in your sentiments. I am interested in getting facts correct.

    It was still meant to result in police coming (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by ruffian on Sat May 12, 2012 at 09:35:53 AM EST
    out to hassle Martin, just not as fast and not on high alert with guns drawn, not that that was needed with GZ armed.

    I Don't Care (1.00 / 1) (#197)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 12, 2012 at 10:10:57 AM EST
    Every time the '911' error is repeated, it perpetuates the misconception.

    I'm not interested in discussing the propriety of Zimmerman reporting Martin. I'm just correcting a factual error.


    Kdog (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:12:52 AM EST
    The issue was raised by the likes of Al Sharpton, et al.

    Jesse Jackson on Zimmerman's release (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jbindc on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:18:33 AM EST

    "We are disappointed that the bond was set so low", said Rev. Jackson.  "Tomorrow Mr. Zimmerman's freedom will be restored.  This decision cheapens black life. Justice should serve as a deterrent.  The U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI must play a critical role in this matter because this is a Civil Rights case.  Racial profiling and killings have become a national pattern."

    Hmmmm (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by jbindc on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:13:21 PM EST
    A "2" rating.  People apparently don't like when the truth doesn't agree with their world view of this topic....

    Dam facts. (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:16:18 PM EST
    Excuse me. "Some people." (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:15:47 PM EST
    You are correct (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jbindc on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:23:18 PM EST
    My bad

    I reserve the right ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 11, 2012 at 02:36:47 PM EST
    ... to agree with you only when I like what you have to say. Other times, why do you hate America so much?

    Ha! (none / 0) (#119)
    by jbindc on Fri May 11, 2012 at 02:46:51 PM EST
    It's a real issue... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:26:49 AM EST
    I'm just not sure how much it relates to Zimmerman the individual, if at all.

    I think it safe to say it definitely relates to how the authorities handled the investigation...first the inaction, then perhaps an overreaction due to the inaction and public outcry.


    It relates to (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:27:47 AM EST
    Potential jury pools, and potential public reactions if he is found guilty or acquitted.

    Anne, this blog (3.50 / 2) (#19)
    by me only on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:45:09 AM EST
    is owned by a defense attorney.  Is she biased?  Like you, me and everyone else in the world, of course she is.

    She is taking a certain point of view on this, one that is more favorable to Zimmerman than say Racialicious did.  Does this surprise you?  She defended Timothy McVeigh.

    You pronounced "I'm done" several weeks ago, but that lasted for what, a day?  BTD apparently has your viewpoint and he has refrained from criticizing Jeralyn in every thread.

    What is and isn't the issue. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Addison on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:54:36 AM EST
    The issue isn't viewpoint or advocacy, it's the ground rules governing the discussion.

    No one expects their opponent in Scrabble to not play the best word available to them.

    But once it's determined that proper nouns aren't allowed after you try to play "Hirohito", it's rather unexpected that they'd then try to play "Mozambique" a few turns later...


    This isn't Scrabble (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by me only on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:44:48 AM EST
    Frankly my wife changes the ground rules during our arguments all time.  Sometimes the past is admissible and sometimes it isn't.  It depends on whether or not it helps her case...

    TalkLeft isn't a marriage. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Addison on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:57:39 AM EST
    Nope, too many irreconcilable differences (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by ruffian on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:10:23 PM EST
    Talkleft is a forum (none / 0) (#43)
    by me only on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:14:18 AM EST
    between people.  It is not a game where all the rules are published.  But keep on with your analogy if it suites you.

    Jeralyn spoke of certain basic rules. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Addison on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:40:31 AM EST
    It is not a game where all the rules are published.  But keep on with your analogy if it suites you.

    You are, of course, obviously and provably wrong. There are rules, Jeralyn makes them.

    General commenting rules, as published:


    She can change them, she can suspend them, she can make special ones for certain topics. No problem. People are just asking if this represented a rule change or a rule clarification or what.

    And the issue of whether race is allowed as a part of the general discussion, or of specific discussions (and which ones), is something that has generated some confusion.

    Add to this Jeralyn's previous comment, lambasting CNN for creatin news through the speculation and opinions of know-nothing experts:

    CNN seems so anxious to jump from news reporting to news creating, even retaining experts to render opinions that may or may not be valid, it is jeopardizing its journalistic integrity. The public wants the facts, not more speculation by dueling experts.

    ...and I think we can see that the confusion is warranted. Race is taken off the table entirely for a certain thread on the indictment, and in another thread CNN "experts" are lambasted, but then we get this post. It's worth discussing what the ground rules are for this forum of people.

    Which brings up the following point: the idea that because something is a "forum between people" means it doesn't have published, stated, or accepted rules is ridiculous. The two are not mutually exclusive, and in fact most "forums between people" have published rules. I've tried to figure out why you're making such a ridiculous argument -- and I can't figure it out. If you're just clowning me or trolling me, please just stop. Please.


    I state the groundrules often (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 12, 2012 at 01:35:21 AM EST
    especially when it comes to the topic of race. For example, in this post on the Miami Herald's false claim that race is a crucial element in the case, after outlining all the reasons that statement is false, I wrote:

    What is up for discussion are the reporting by the Miami Herald, the propriety (or lack thereof) of the lawyers' public responses in light of the Court's order on extra-judicial comments, and the use of social media by lawyers to address inflammatory material that appears elsewhere. What's not allowed: your opinion that the defendant is racist, or conversely, that his suspicions about Trayvon were justified.

    I also said in that post:

    I will continue not to allow character attacks based on the contents of Zimmerman's or Martin's personal My Space, Facebook or Twitter pages here. Should either the State or Zimmerman actually seek to admit the contents of these accounts, then will it be a valid subject for discussion.

    Similarly, since at this time, no notice has been given by either party that they will seek the introduction of any social media account, there's no reason to discuss how the judge might rule on such a request. (Obviously, that would entail a discussion of the sites' contents.)

    Perhaps it would be clearer if you just remembered that quotes from comments here show up all over the internet, including on legal news sites, as coming from TalkLeft, but not specifying its a comment to what I wrote rather than what I wrote. If your comment contains something I not only disagree with, but also something I would wince at to see associated with my name or TalkLeft, it's likely going to be deleted. And if it's something that is potentially libelous or stupendously ignorant, it's likely to get you banned.

    Nor are readers allowed to personally insult me. I've given so many warnings on these topics, and yet, it's always the commenters who have been here a long while who suddenly don't understand the rules.

    I get it, you disagree with the rules. Fine, you can comment on another topic or at another site. But please don't disguise your disagreement as confusion based on as me being unclear  or varying from the general commenting rules when I've repeatedly stated what applied in this case.

    If the new commenters joining in a discussion of this case get it, so should older commenters.

    If you have a question, email me. If you aren't sure and you post your comment anyway, save a copy on your computer so you don't lose your work if I delete your comment.


    Sorry, Forgot the link (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 12, 2012 at 01:49:13 AM EST
    it's here. That post is just an example of how I set boundaries for comment topics in threads discussing Zimmerman. Each thread may set different limits, depending on the topic, but they share the same features: No personal attacks on Zimmerman, Trayvon or other commenters, no declarations Zimmerman is guilty, no turning the topic from one on Zimmerman to one about your personal  views on race and race problems in America or personal experiences with racial prejudice, no representing your personal opinion as undisputed fact, no misrepresenting disputed information as undisputed fact, no repeating racially charged or objectionable language found on other sites, no profanity, no posting potentially libelous comments, etc.

    For which, I, for one, am very grateful. (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:11:54 PM EST
    funny (none / 0) (#63)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:26:19 PM EST
    every man I have ever been in a relationship with has done the same thing, of course I never have as I am sure you have not.

    Well, Teresa I wholeheartedly concur. (none / 0) (#82)
    by me only on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:53:48 PM EST
    Please don't put me into this (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:42:05 AM EST
    I have my opinions, and I have chosen to mostly not express them here.

    Sorry, (none / 0) (#55)
    by me only on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:15:14 PM EST
    however, my point was that you chosen to not express them here, showing an immense amount of restraint (well mostly, I think you deleted a few comments, but still).  Anne should try doing the same.  She was the one who said she was "done."

    Look, I don't have sympathy, I have to toe the line around here more than anyone.  Its not like I agree with 6.4879% of the "centrist" economic policies around here, but I only really bash you because of your love for A) the Gators, B) the Yankees, C) Real Madrid.

    (And the fact that you jinxed Cancellara...)


    So we all agree (none / 0) (#30)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:18:21 AM EST
    That her view towards Zimmerman is relatively favorable?

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CST on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:20:54 AM EST
    And frankly, predictable for those of us who've been commenting here a while.  There's a reason it stuck to the open thread for some time.

    It's pretty up front, and how just about all criminal cases are covered on this blog.  It's nothing if not consistently pro-defense.


    I thought (none / 0) (#37)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:45:07 AM EST
    at one point it was argued that the arguments presented in posts were objective and without bias.

    If everyone agrees that all of the posts by Jeralyn on this case have to be viewed as the post of someone sympathetic to the defense, it removes a little of the frustration I was having in reading some of the posts and comments.


    never said (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:09:37 PM EST
    see our mission statement. All cases are viewed from the lens of the rights of the accused.

    TalkLeft is not a neutral site. Our mission is to intelligently and thoroughly examine issues, legal cases, candidates and legislative initiatives as they pertain to constitutional rights, particularly those of persons accused of crime.

    And the topic is Zimmerman,not TalkLeft.


    I would like to use (none / 0) (#103)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:19:35 PM EST
    Zimmerman's twitter account to disprove the concept that his diverse background prevents him from being racist.

    Can I?


    No (none / 0) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:48:18 PM EST
    the contents of his twitter account, or Trayvon's twitter's account will not be discussed here unless someone moves to admit it in the court case.

    Nor may you accuse GZ or anyone of being a racist. Anyone who calls anyone else a racist on this site will be banned.


    OK (none / 0) (#126)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri May 11, 2012 at 03:17:53 PM EST
    I do not understand why evidence showing he is not racist is allowed and evidence showing that he is racist is not.

    They seem equally prejudicial given that we do not know exactly how the prosecution will structure its case.

    But those are the rules.


    Re: "I do not understand" (none / 0) (#127)
    by vicndabx on Fri May 11, 2012 at 03:28:17 PM EST
    it's a defense blog.  Very different from a blog where one can just make random comments.  I certainly do not always agree with it, but I respect it (not saying you don't) and post (or not) comments bearing that in mind.

    The blog (none / 0) (#129)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri May 11, 2012 at 03:36:15 PM EST
    Has a defense slant but purports to be a place where cases can be fairly discussed with a defensive slant.  On this particular issue, a very sharp point was made that issues of race should not be raised until they were entered into court by either side. So having it raised (either pro or con) when there was no action by the lawyers contradicts the rule we thought we were following.

    I hadn't posted on the case since I got in trouble for discussing banned case topics a few days ago, and am only commenting no because I was so surprised to see this story given the prior position.

    I respect Jeralyn and this blog and despite my role as villain here on many issues, I enjoy the comments and posts a great deal.

    That doesn't mean I believe everything posted here is right or consistent.


    You're not a villain. (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by lentinel on Fri May 11, 2012 at 04:03:29 PM EST
    It's just annoying when you become a shill.

    Yessir, it's a crazy old world, isn't it. (none / 0) (#130)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 11, 2012 at 03:42:35 PM EST
    The only person you have (none / 0) (#42)
    by me only on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:11:16 AM EST
    ever met without bias and totally objective is ME.

    Of course, you haven't really met me, but you can surely figure my point.

    What Jeralyn has attempted to do is to prevent gross speculation.


    Guy, I don't know if my perspective helps, (none / 0) (#115)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 11, 2012 at 02:24:26 PM EST
    but the way I look at cases discussed at TL, as varied as DSK, John Edwards, and Zimmerman, are not  being sympathetic to the defense, but being committed to the rights of the accused and the best defense for which the defendant is entitled.  In the DSK case, it never added up for me, but that was not to say that DSK was saintly. But, then, the charges did not relate to his potential for canonization either.   It may wind up, such as in the case of Blago, as what would be a fair sentence for him given the verdict.  

    As for the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin and the defense for Zimmerman it involves understanding Florida law, including the applicability or not of SYG, and, of course, the facts as they are known and can be interpreted.  That does not mean that the family of Trayvon should have acted in any other way than they did since they lost their son and did not feel that justice was being done.  And, that includes marshaling resources toward their goals, such as the effective efforts of Reverend Al Sharpton and others.

    Of course, in determining the best defense for the accused, it is important to understand the prosecution perspective as well.  So, I think all TL. discussions and comments that are not wildly speculative help to shape our point of view and are educational.


    I don't think so. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by lentinel on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:14:07 PM EST
    Jeralyn is interested in the rights of the defendant.

    She is interested that they be given the benefit of the doubt.
    She is interested that they receive every opportunity to defend themselves.

    As far as I read, she hasn't expressed her opinion about the guilt or innocence of this guy - just about the nature of the evidence that will potentially be presented at trial.


    lentinel is correct (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:15:28 PM EST
    I have not expressed an opinion other than to presume him innocent, which he is and will be until and unless a jury finds otherwise.

    My primary interest is in preserving Zimmerman and every defendant's right to the presumption of innocence and a fair trial -- and battling the public presumption of guilt, which too often is fostered by media bias or misreporting.

    Defending someone's rights is not an endorsement of his actions or character. But attacking a defendant's character, portraying disputed "facts" as undisputed truths, inferring guilt from unnproven or disputed "facts", and presuming  a defendant acted with a state of mind that, if true, would likely result in a guilty verdict at trial,  all serve to deprive a defendant of his rights -- at least  in the court of public opinion.

    This is a public site, but it is also a personal one. I have no obligation to host comments that include such attacks and presumptions.

    It's one thing to discuss the possible impact of reliable and relevant information that is supportive of the prosecution's case. It's another to declare someone guilty based on such information -- or on misinformation or irrelevant information. I've been pretty tolerant of comments of the first type. But I have no intention of allowing comments of the second type.


    As opposed to The Nasty Coates (none / 0) (#35)
    by me only on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:42:44 AM EST
    and his portrayal, sure.

    Jeralyn appears to be refuting the narrative that Zimmerman gunned down a black kid for no reason other than the kid is black.

    It wouldn't hurt my feelings if Jeralyn has a favorable view of short, balding men.


    Coates is biased (none / 0) (#38)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:45:34 AM EST
    So am I.

    Coates lambasted the media (none / 0) (#41)
    by me only on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:08:31 AM EST
    for its mistakes without ever apologizing for his.  He continues to perpetuate the idea that Zimmerman outweighed Martin by "almost 100 pounds."  From a guy who claims to have lost "about a third of himself" over the last several years, a normal person would assume that he understands that people's weight isn't static.  Of course, its Coates and logic need not apply.

    Coates (none / 0) (#46)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:29:47 AM EST
    is one of the most consistent blogger there is and completely reverses position based on facts.

    The thing is: many of us think the media screw ups were way less material than you seem to think they are.


    Right (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by me only on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:09:19 PM EST

    "What I know is that I care much more about him being charged .. What always rankled about this case wasn't that Zimmerman might not see a jail cell (that's what judges and juries determine)..."  April 11th, 2012.

    Factually incorrect, Zimmerman like everyone else, got to see a jail cell because he was arrested and charged with a crime.

    When you combine his first comment with

    "Speaking personally, my initial interest was really on the Stand Your Ground defense, and still is is. It is not clear to me--even now--that Zimmerman actually violated Florida's law."

    Well that's great, he wasn't convinced that Zimmerman had committed a crime, but all he really cared that he be charged with one!!!!  (The obvious is, I am not convinced that the Hispanic guy over there is here illegally, but lets arrest him anyway so that we can do a thorough investigation.)

    And no one on the prosecution or the defense has used the Stand Your Ground statute.  They might, but that doesn't change the fact that Coates is just covering for his stupidity.

    CNN put out a tape that sounded to Coates like Z said "c00ns."  Coates "I hear it clear as day."  He even updated that his friends heard it.  When CNN cleaned it up more and it became clear to all non-racists that Z said "punks."  Utter silence on the part of Coates.

    Coates has been consistent that Zimmerman was much bigger than Martin.  Facts haven't changed his opinion on that at all.  

    Coates is as consistent as any politician, consistent in doing what is good for himself.


    These are all very (none / 0) (#62)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:23:25 PM EST
    silly comments, but I have no urge to spend time on this defending Coates on the issue. If you think he's a hack, have fun with that.  I don't.

    In a national forum (3.50 / 2) (#74)
    by me only on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:44:50 PM EST
    Coates has dragged Zimmerman through the mud for his own purposes and noting that is a "silly comment."

    Coates doesn't even rise to the level of hack.  If he had attended a decent High School he would have failed Freshman English.


    Ugh. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Addison on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:59:56 PM EST
    Coates doesn't even rise to the level of hack.  If he had attended a decent High School he would have failed Freshman English.

    He didn't fail English at BPI because he was a hack or bad at writing. He failed because he was somewhat troubled and didn't turn in a required paper. Of course, that's quite irrelevant to his writing abilities now -- which are self-evidently good even if you don't agree with him.


    Deleted Comment - take 2 (none / 0) (#218)
    by Lora on Sat May 12, 2012 at 11:15:16 PM EST
    Not entirely sure why my comment was deleted.

    (perhaps a certain word was forbidden?  A strong but clear opinion mistaken as a presentation of fact?  Suggesting that certain acts that might be construed as biased are probably common to many people?)

    Anyway, I shall try again.

    I have heard three versions of the tape that contains an alleged slur made by Zimmerman.  1) the original.  2) a "cleaned-up" version (CNN).  3) a different "cleaned-up" version (Also CNN).

    In NONE of them did I hear anything that could be taken for the word "punks."  In ALL of them, what I heard sounded like the aforementioned slur, with the third version sounding more distorted.

    IN MY OPINION, whether or not Zimmerman said a slur (and, from what I heard, I believe he did), it has nothing to do with the case.

    IN MY OPINION, many if not most of us have probably muttered a slur under our breath on occasion without any actual enmity toward a particular group.  IOW, uttering a rare biased slur under one's breath does not a hateful person make.

    I believe, that if any of us had a tape in which it sounded as if we whispered a biased slur, and we were charged with murder against someone from the group which the slur was about, that EVEN IF we said the slur, we would never, ever admit it.

    I do hope this post conforms to the rules.  If not, I'd appreciate an explanation.


    this is the 10th time (none / 0) (#219)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 13, 2012 at 03:23:42 AM EST
    at least you have written about your opinion that GZ uttered a racial slur. The state has said in its affidavit he did not. Since the state is prosecuting the case and decides what evidence to produce, what you think you heard is not going to be a part of the case. It is not material to anything under discussion at this site. Please stop bringing it up. Had you not done so at least 10 times, insisting you were correct, and ignored all my warnings to stop stating your opinion as fact, I would probably have more tolerance for your comment now. But I don't. This is the last time you will state your opinion about the call on this site, unless the state reverses course and agrees with you, which would make it an issue in the case.

    And since you now agree it has nothing to do with the case, why are you even bringing it up?

    I doubt that most people have at one time or another issued a racial slur at another person. And I'm not going to allow this thread to get hijacked into a debate about it.

    Fair warning: Comments in response to this one about what you heard or whether you think many people have issued racial slurs and what that says about them will be deleted.


    10 times??? but I will obey. (none / 0) (#223)
    by Lora on Sun May 13, 2012 at 09:37:05 AM EST
    I was simply objecting to a "stated FACT" that I felt was not a fact.  That's why I brought it up.  I really didn't think I brought it up before so many times.

    I do not recall any other warnings or requests from you to me specifically on this particular case, or any that I understood to include me.  I've been trying to follow this thread closely and if I missed them I apologize.

    I thought I stated my opinion as OPINION, abeit strongly.

    I doubt that most people have at one time or another issued a racial slur at another person.

    Jeralyn, that's not what I said.  I merely said...well, never mind.  I don't want to get in any more trouble.

    But I will no longer express any opinion as to what I believe I heard on the tape, as per your most recent request.  

    I did not and do not deliberately attempt to flout your rules.


    Just skimmed back over my comments (none / 0) (#224)
    by Lora on Sun May 13, 2012 at 09:48:17 AM EST

    I can't find a single one about the, um, you know.  Are you sure you aren't confusing me with someone else???


    Nope (3.25 / 4) (#200)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 12, 2012 at 10:34:20 AM EST
    It was literally a life or death struggle for Trayvon, was it not?

    If Martin hadn't attacked Zimmerman there is no reason to believe he would have been shot.

    What?!? (none / 0) (#208)
    by Yman on Sat May 12, 2012 at 03:52:46 PM EST
    If Martin hadn't attacked Zimmerman there is no reason to believe he would have been shot.

    We don't know who "attacked" who ... nor whether any such "attack" justified the use of deadly force.


    Race is clearly an issue. (3.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:42:56 AM EST

    The entire purpose of the "paper of record" to falsely describe George Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic" seems to have no other purpose that to cast this tragic event in racial terms.  However you slice it, he is certainly blacker than Liz Warren is native American.

    Cui bono?  There is a close election coming up and having the black population energized and in fear of white racists shooting black children out of race hatred is certainly good for one of the political parties.  Who did the New York Times endorse anyway?


    Smith, Storro, Knox, Sweeten -- GOP operatives? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Addison on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:51:15 AM EST
    So every time, in an election year, some white woman kills her kids or gets "kidnapped" or throws acid in their own face and claims that a dusky-hued person did it, and suddenly it becomes a big national story designed to fearmonger among the white population, that's a Republican plot? Because, uh, "cui bono", QED?

    Just trying to figure out your unified theory on this one...


    Try not to strain ... (none / 0) (#215)
    by Yman on Sat May 12, 2012 at 08:22:45 PM EST
    ... anything - with all those leaps of logic and jumps to conclusions.

    Mr. O'Mara's decision (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:25:23 AM EST
    to challenge the huge married to Mr. NeJame was prescient. Good call.  

    "Judge" (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:26:42 AM EST
    the judge wasn't married (none / 0) (#102)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:19:21 PM EST
    to NeJame but to one of his partners who practices civil law.

    Sorry. I left out a word. (none / 0) (#111)
    by oculus on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:38:58 PM EST
    My Italian/Delaware Indian great-grandmother... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Dadler on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:22:45 PM EST
    ...reserved her most vitriolic racism for two groups in particular: wops and injuns.

    Interesting photo, and I think it could potentially help the defense, but it is also opens MANY other cans of worms that WOULDN'T help the defense. Depends on how good the lawyers are and what kind of brain cells are occupying the jury seats.

    We shall see.  

    We should reserve judgment until (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:35:03 PM EST
    tagged photo of patrimony is available for inspecdtion.  

    Than what does? (none / 0) (#89)
    by me only on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    How else do you prove that you are not a racist?

    "axiomatic rules" and, in fact, went and googled it, you did throw me for a loop with the phrase "internal boas" and I had to stop reading at that point...

    Well, boas have never spoken to me. (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 11, 2012 at 02:59:37 PM EST
    From what I've seen on the National Geographic channel, they much prefer to squeeze the life out of small animals before devouring them whole, head-first.

    before or after the profile them? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by willisnewton on Fri May 11, 2012 at 06:35:13 PM EST
    they are in intestinal snake.... lol (none / 0) (#116)
    by willisnewton on Fri May 11, 2012 at 02:32:54 PM EST
    sorry,  that was a typo

    internal bias.  

    I woukdn't want a case of internal boa constrictors....  sounds painful.  

    and IANAL or a math major, so by axiomatic rule I mean "if x, then y." in a general sense.    


    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#165)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:27:50 PM EST
    for including profanity.

    You're really misrepresenting what (none / 0) (#124)
    by rjarnold on Fri May 11, 2012 at 03:08:02 PM EST
    NeJame said. He did not say that this proves it "could not have been racially motivated." He said that he did not believe it was racially motivated (but people could still come to what conclusions they want).

    And the fact he had a black great-grandfather wasn't the only thing he cited, he also pointed out comments from his family, friends, and neighbors and the fact that he mentored black kids.

    Obviously if he said "because he had a black great-grandfather there is no way he could have done something racist" that would have been an absurd argument, but that's not what he said at all. He was just giving a personal conclusion based on how he read the facts.

    And he leaves out the most obvious point that when he first called the dispatcher he did not know the race of the kid, which I think is the most important indicator that he wasn't acting on racial prejudices that night.

    I (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by lentinel on Fri May 11, 2012 at 03:57:31 PM EST
    am not arguing whether or not Z. acted on a racist impulse.

    I am reacting to the article above that says that Mark changed his mind about Z's motivation based on the photo.

    Z's history or ancestry proves nothing about what may or may not have motivated him that evening.


    I have no problem with him (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by rjarnold on Fri May 11, 2012 at 05:40:02 PM EST
    changing his mind. And if you watched the clip he didn't change his mind just because of the photo (which I agree would have been stupid.) He also said he realized much of what he had heard about the case wasn't factual, that GZ was raised by a half-black grandmother, that GZ mentored african-american kids, and that he talked to people that new GZ.

    And he doesn't say it "proves" anything, he says people can come up with whatever conclusions they want, and that it's just his opinion that it wasn't racially motivated. I don't have a problem with any of that.


    I still (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by lentinel on Sat May 12, 2012 at 02:47:45 AM EST
    have to say that talking to people who knew Z, looking at his Z's history, looking at a photo of his grandparents, etc. prove nothing about Z's motivation that night. One way or the other.

    It's fine that Mark said that anyone could make up their own minds, but based on what exactly? He did say that the photo influenced him to change his mind, did he not? He did offer an opinion that Z was not racially motivated. And I ask, based on what? How could he get into the state of Z's head that night?

    And if Z's motivation for calling was just a general dislike of "punks" who had gotten away with burglaries, does that change anything?

    It seems to me that what we need to know is what happened during the struggle. Who provoked a physical encounter. And under what circumstances did the gun discharge.


    Bum Rap (none / 0) (#135)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 11, 2012 at 05:27:38 PM EST
    Mark's comments: He may have been skeptical at first but this photo changed his mind.

    I'm sorry, this just isn't true. Follow link. Read. Listen.

    I haven't read all the comments, so someone may have beat me to this. But what I read were several people criticizing Mark NeJame, apparently without having checked the source.

    Huh? (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by Addison on Fri May 11, 2012 at 05:39:11 PM EST
    Did you listen to it? I did before I commented.

    The photo is the upfront proof given by him. It's on the screen throughout the whole first few minutes of his statement -- and he brought it to the set so that would happen. He discusses the photo and the Zimmerman family tree it represents before anything else, and gives it an undeniable primacy in his "case" for changing his mind about Zimmerman. Without any question the photo (and what it portrays) is used as a reason why he changed his mind. That's worth criticism.


    Other Things (none / 0) (#145)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 11, 2012 at 06:17:55 PM EST
    NeJame says 'in light of this and other things', and talks about the other things.

    I did before I commented.

    And your comment didn't repeat the inaccuracy I'm objecting to. Do you mean to defend it now? I'm sorry, what you're saying isn't completely clear to me.

    Well... (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by Addison on Fri May 11, 2012 at 06:30:20 PM EST
    Well, I criticized NeJame. I called him a clown who'd intellectually pied himself in the face for money by parading the photo around. I defend that comment.

    That NeJame included some other information later doesn't mean much to me. I don't think it's relevant. The photo was presented as "proof" (or, at least, rationale for his change of heart) before anything else. It was presented as valid evidence.

    I think that's silly, and that he later included some other information is interesting, but why bring the photo into it at all? Because he thought it mattered or wanted to pretend it mattered or imply that it mattered. That's the pie in the face. If that's not what you were talking about, nevermind.


    Is this testimony allowed in this discussion? (none / 0) (#150)
    by willisnewton on Fri May 11, 2012 at 07:05:02 PM EST
    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. Now, sir, you had a phone at some point and you agreed to turn over that phone to the police so they could make a copy of what was in there, right?

    ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And in that phone did you receive or send text messages sir.

    ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you ever make any reference to a reverend?

    O'MARA: Objection, your honor. Outside the scope.

    this is from CNN's rush transcript of bond hearing.  

    JUDGE LESTER: Sustained.

    Another Hoodie Angle (none / 0) (#153)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 11, 2012 at 07:39:26 PM EST
    I've always been skeptical of Dee Dee's claim that Martin 'put his hoodie on' because he noticed Zimmerman watching him. The rain wasn't reason enough to pull the hood up?

    WSWS on right-wing racial politics (none / 0) (#175)
    by Andreas on Sat May 12, 2012 at 03:08:18 AM EST
    The professional politicians of race, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, played a particularly cynical role. Together with their supporters in the International Socialist Organization and other pseudo-left groups, Jackson and Sharpton used the Trayvon Martin killing as an opportunity to insist that race, not class, is the fundamental issue in American society. The more immediate aim is to prepare the ground for the reelection campaign of Barack Obama, who is now presiding over a massive assault on the working class of every race.

    Behind the right-wing racial politics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton
    By Tom Eley, 1 May 2012

    this thread is now closed (none / 0) (#230)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 13, 2012 at 04:22:33 PM EST
    Thanks for your comments.