Martin Family Attorneys Now Say Case Not About Race

Lawyers for the Martin family now say the case is not about racial profiling or race.

An attorney for Martin’s family, meanwhile, suddenly declared Thursday that the high-profile case was not about race.

“It’s not about racial profiling,” Daryl Parks told reporters. “He was profiled (criminally). George Zimmerman profiled him.”

....Asked why he changed his take on the matter, Parks replied: “We never claimed this was about race.”

Really? Then why did Benjamin Crump say race was "the elephant in the room." Racial injustice was the core of their argument. It was always about race to them. Race was what they used to transform this local shooting into a case of national importance. [More...]

Q. Many people see this as a story about race. Is it?

Crump: "It shouldn’t be about race. But race is the elephant in the room. Nobody believes that if you make Trayvon Martin white [and the Neighborhood Watch volunteer black], there’s no way he would not be arrested, and that’s the unfortunate and tragic truth of the matter. There is a double standard. That’s why race is involved in this case.

It is the state, not Team Crump, that has alleged since the beginning that Zimmerman profiled Martin as a criminal (not that he racially profiled Martin. )It's good that Team Crump is now acknowledging the difference, but it is laughable to claim their new position isn't backtracking.

< Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Indicted for Boston Bombings | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Big Lie (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by friendofinnocence on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 03:27:02 PM EST
    Parks saying race is not involved in the Zimmerman case may be the biggest lie I personally have ever heard.  Is there a single person in the country besides Parks who believes this to be true?

    Of course race is involved (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:50:07 AM EST

    Describing the target of your punches as  "creepy a$$ cracker" is a hint.



    Could it be they're starting to... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by melamineinNY on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 03:29:50 PM EST
    confront facts? Is the trial not going their way or what?

    realizing that the image (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:17:17 PM EST
    they were trying to portray of GZ as an angry racist white guy and TM as an innocent child  hunted down and murdered in cold blood just isn't flying.  People are tired of the constant race baiting.

    The racial aspect has been debunked (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Payaso on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 03:40:55 PM EST
    at least as far as GZ.

    Jeantel has made clear where the real racial animus is.

    LOL.... (3.43 / 7) (#10)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 03:43:53 PM EST
    slang = racial animus.  OK.

    Creepy a**ed cracker is slang (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:22:35 PM EST
    just like worthless ni**er is slang.

    "Not about race" (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by scribe on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 04:08:12 PM EST
    What a crock of horsesh!t.

    What was it the Obama said, that if he'd had a son he would have looked like Trayvon?

    Not about race.  Nope.  Not a bit.

    (Of course, given the way the Obama administration has played out, one is compelled to wonder if a notional Obama son would have shared an inclination toward bullying, fighting and aggression with Trayvon, too.  Apple not falling far from the tree and all....)

    "Not about race" (none / 0) (#123)
    by idoubtit on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 06:44:59 PM EST
    What was it the Obama said, that if he'd had a son he would have looked like Trayvon?

    You do know all black people don't look alike, right?


    yeah right sure (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 06:30:37 AM EST
    Obama was talking about their similar facial features and the size of their ears. D'oh

    Game Change (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 04:14:58 PM EST
    I think that Crump's change is in response to Dee Dee's cross where she implied that Martin had profiled Zimmerman.

    The state's entire case rests on proving that Zimmerman profiled Martin as a criminal. With the weakening state case, all the ducks have to be in a row.

    If the case wasn't about race (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by David in Cal on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 04:24:57 PM EST
    someone ought to tell our President. Recall that Mr. Obama injected himself into this controversy by stating the Travon Martin resembled his hypothetical son

    "This is not about race" (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Jack203 on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 07:05:12 PM EST
    The scheme teams about face is definitely a bit confusing.

    I could be wrong, butThe only thing that changed.  The only reason I can think of them.  Is because of Rachel's testimony that Travyon used an insulting racial term against white people.

    I think they pay their consultants to do crappy analyses and the best solution they came up with was to go on national television and with a straight face say

    "This is not about race"

    In anyone believed a word that came out of the scheme teams mouth to begin with should have already been ashamed of themselves.

    Sorry (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Jack203 on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 07:06:55 PM EST
    awful grammar

    Why do you keep reading? (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:16:30 PM EST
    Jeralyn is a defense lawyer and she argues cases from the defense perspective. If you want the prosecution perspective, you can read almost any of the more liberal media.

    If you find her coverage "grossly offensive," you ought to read blogs in which people can post false information and character attacks.

    Here are some reasons why some of us think this is a big deal and we want to scream about it:

    1. This case would never have become an international cause celebre if TM's parents, their lawyers, their PR person, Congresspeople, celebrities, etc., had not suggested that GZ was a racist monster and Sanford authorities were racist.

    2. People have suffered material consequences because of the racism meme. GZ's parents had to move because of death threats. The media has besieged Twin Lakes residents, and some of them felt they had to move.

    The chief of police in Sanford had to resign, and Det. Serino was busted down to patrol.

    Businesses have lost money because of crowds; some people think Sanford is a hotbed of racism; other people are afraid of violence from protesters. (The latter isn't racist. After all, the DOJ has people there to calm the African-American community, and we have the unusual arrangement in which some ministers get reserved seating in the hopes that they will report to their congregations that the system was fair.)

    1. Eye/ear witnesses have been dragged through hell, and in some cases, held up to public ridicule because of the media coverage.

    2. The anti-racist movement is hurt because you can't call something the civil rights case of the century, as Crump did a couple of months ago, only to have your law partner tell people that this case has never been about racial profiling.

    3. GZ faces life in prison even though no evidence has been presented so far to show that he acted out of depravity. Imagine for a moment that GZ really did shoot in self-defense. Then an innocent man would have been sent into hiding out of fear for his life; be financially ruined; and have an uncertain future. Will he have to remain in hiding?

    Media and the racial angle (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:25:22 AM EST
    The media went all in on this. Referring to Zimmerman as a white guy as long as they could, and then White Hispanic (an ethnicity they apparently just discovered). Continuing to show the same pictures of Trayvon as a little kid long after they should've had other ones. NBC editing their tape to explicitly paint Zimmerman as racist. Running the black/white photo of Zimmerman and his 'non-injuries', when the color photo gave much more detail.

    Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 05:09:59 PM EST
    For people of color, it's very important to understand the precise dynamics that occurred that night. If Trayvon Martin acted out of aggressive anger toward a perceived white person because he's been taught that white people are racist toward his people, and society doesn't contradict that meme, then we do a disservice to all other young, angry African Americans who might behave similarly in the future. If Zimmerman aggressively attacked Martin, then the message to young African Americans should reflect how to protect themselves. But pretending the situation is something that it is not simply stirs up racism on both sides.

    In addition, the media narrative and the political accusations of racism in this case create anti-white hostility that interferes with solving contemporary racism. It's like being angry at white people because slave owners were white people. The vast majority of Caucasians in this country did not own slaves when it was legal, and many of them died fighting a war to end slavery. And still the meme taught in our schools is white people bad, black people picked on and justifiably angry. Meanwhile, right now there are dark skinned slaves in Africa who are owned by other dark skinned people, and no one's doing much to stop them. We need to be honest with ourselves and solve the problem of contemporary racism without simplifying and changing reality to fit into the comfortable, historical black and white picture.


    in addition (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 06:48:16 AM EST
    the majority of young black men killed by gunfire are killed by other young black men. People who are all upset by gun laws permitting guys like Zimmerman to carry should worry about those who carry guns when they have no right to them.  Where is the outrage over that?  Where is Obama saying all those victims would look like his son?

    Did anyone see the AC interview with (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Teresa on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 10:11:34 PM EST
    Trayvon's step-mom? Or ex-step-mom shortly before he died? She said she doesn't think it's racial, it was the young guy looking suspicious to GZ who shouldn't have gotten out of his car.

    I didn't know that TM lived with her (Alicia I think is her first name) and Tracy Martin. They broke up right before the shooting. She said TM spent 90% of his time with her and Tracy. She is the one who went to his ballgames, took care of him when he got sick, etc.

    She said he chose to live with them. She said if he got sick when he wasn't home (I took that to mean at his real mom's) he called for them to come and get him. She said he rarely spoke of his mom, but she had never spoken anything bad about his mom to him.

    It was interesting. She didn't come across as bitter to me about being left out of the "family". She came across as sincerely hurt and crushed by his death. She said at first Tracy kept her updated about what was going on and then all of a sudden he didn't. I wondered if the lawyers told him to just let the "real" parents be in the media. It's odd, even though she and Tracy are divorced or broken up if they were married. (I can't remember that part.)It hurt her deeply that someone didn't allow her to sit on the front row for his funeral even though she raised him.

    I don't know which replay of AC will be the Zimmerman case rerun, but it was interesting if you're interested in the case or just Trayvon.

    It makes me wonder why his biological mom is getting all the public sympathy and this other woman raised him. Maybe I bring my own prejudices here. I raised a step-daughter fulltime. I was most definitely the "real mom". If something like this happened, her biological mom would be the one grabbing the spotlight without doubt. My now ex-husband wouldn't allow that myth to continue, though. Anyway, it was interesting. She cried and I felt heartbroken for her.

    I saw that... (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by MikeB on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:17:44 AM EST
    ....and she looked like a very genuine person. But it also made me a little angry. When the state charged Zimmerman with murder with little to no evidence, it's not only the lives of the Martin and Zimmerman family that gets affected. I felt bad for Rachel - she should not have been thrust into this position. The state is destroying the lives of all witnesses in trying to create a crime. They have become the pawns in this nightmare. And that was my exact takeaway from the interview with the step-mom - scorched earth in advancing a solution in search of a problem.

    equal partners (none / 0) (#83)
    by friendofinnocence on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:45:42 AM EST
    It appears to me the State is not pawns, but equal partners with Crump and company.  Corey has been in the courtroom, probably to let Bernie know he can be replaced if the verdict doesn't turn out correctly.

    When the court breaks for lunch, I wonder if her and Parks head for Micky D's together?

    Anyway, one would presume there isn't enough confirmation bias on the planet for Corey not to have figured out by now she is on the wrong side of this case by now.  But, we all knew when she presented her ridiculous Information of probable cause at a press conference she was never going to back down.


    it was incredibly sad (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:43:13 AM EST
    her love and heartbreak for her son (I don't think "stepson" does it justice) were so evident.

    She said some interesting and surprising things. She said she doesn't think GZ racially profiled Trayvon. She said she's positive that Trayvon didn't start the fight (I do). She said he would never have done that, but she also said she's never heard him use the racial terms Rachel attributed to him. So there were things she didn't know about him, which is probably true of all parents.


    Yes, very sad. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Teresa on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 02:28:32 PM EST
    She came across, to me, as the most genuine person in his life. That's not fair for me to say without being part of his life, but I mean all the public interviews with those that know and love Trayvon (that I have seen).

    I felt very sorry for her. And confused as to why they made her just disappear as if she never existed.

    I think she said that parents can't know everything a child does (like his language), which I agree is true.


    It was heartbreaking to watch her. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by melamineinNY on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:57:59 PM EST
    I feel such sympathy for her and it's clear why she was frozen out. Probably at the point they decided to make it a race thing and go for the HOA and civil $$$$. Watching her I came to view Trayvon as a much more sympathetic, ordinary teen of his time and place, maybe even better. And after watching O'Mara make so much of a few abrasions and a bloody nose earlier that day, as he needed to, it wasn't hard to entertain other scenarios of mutual misunderstanding and wonder if FL will rethink what constitutes "self-defense." After all the posturing and race baiting, probably not. It remains a tragedy all around that a young man is dead who, even if he started the altercation, never imagined that his opponent would have a gun or feel a need to use it in what was almost certainly intended to be nothing more than an adolescent's idea of a little power play.

    Yes, she made me view Trayvon (none / 0) (#122)
    by Teresa on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 06:35:14 PM EST
    as a real person.* Not just a dead 17 year old, but just a human being. I think it was because she spoke of him with no agenda, no anger, just pure heartbreak.

    *I don't mean I didn't view him as a real person before the way that sounds. I guess it's that she made me view him as my daughter was as a 17 year old. It's hard to explain, but I think you know what I mean and were similarly affected by seeing her.

    I just want to know why she was made to disappear. She's extremely sympathetic. Do you think it's because she has no standing in a civil case?


    My reply to your question (none / 0) (#144)
    by melamineinNY on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 08:35:03 AM EST
    disappeared for some reason.

    No need to find fault... (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 07:15:12 AM EST
    when there is obvious fault imo.  Aware of Sanford's "crime problem", which is probably part (if not most) of the reason why Zimmerman was so paranoid and suspicious of strangers.  We're all a product of our experiences.

    The robbery rate is Sanford can explain his behavior, but in my opinion does not excuse it.


    I disagree (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Jack203 on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:24:28 AM EST
    with alot here.

    Obama was specifically asked about by reporters about the Trayvon case which was exploding nationally thanks to awful, atrocious, horrendous media coverage....especially Matt Gutless and the NBC editors that made it a racial thing.

    Obama responded with a couple sentences in support of the family.  Since then, he has specifically stayed far away from this case.

    Matt Gutless and the media members who initially created the BGI narrative will hold a huge responsibility if there are bloody and destructive riots after GZ is acquitted.  I would guess no on the riots right now...but you never know.

    My wife was a Hillary supporter.  I an Obama supporter.  Nobody ever called her racist.

    Why would you possibly think Obama set back race relation 40 years?  The BGI has existed for a long time and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future.  The recession has hit the black community more than any other community in America.  It is amazing they are not more angry, and I bet having a black president has something to do with that.  Maybe they will be after GZ is acquitted though.

    this is not the place (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 07:26:59 AM EST
    to discuss this.  But good for your wife.  Just think about this, Bill and Hillary Clinton got called racist, why not the rest of us? It happened. Try google.

    He (none / 0) (#71)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:38:07 AM EST

    He could have said it is inappropriate to comment on an ongoing investigation. However, cementing this as a racial ,after would certainly be helpful in whipping up the black vote for the 2012 election.



    Crump Had a Job to Do (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by rcade on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:32:35 AM EST
    When Benjamin Crump was hired by Trayvon Martin's family, George Zimmerman had not been charged with a crime. Crump's job was to provoke the public to outrage so that there'd be pressure to arrest him.

    As other lawyers would do in his situation, he put the best spin he could on the facts at hand. The initial photos released of Trayvon Martin were several years old, and this was probably the biggest reason the incident became a national scandal. If they had released a photo of him from his 17th birthday three weeks before his death, the public would've been less likely to see the shooting the way the family did -- as an innocent child shot to death walking home from 7-11.

    At this point, Crump is irrelevant, except as someone who could help the public accept or reject the verdict. I hope he'll keep saying it isn't about race. I live in Florida and don't want to see riots if Zimmerman is found not guilty.

    You have got to be kidding (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by bmaz on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 05:37:25 PM EST
    It is NEVER a lawyer's job to wrongfully whip up racial hatred and unrest in a community, and Crump was borderline, if not well over the line, of ethical propriety.

    Martin Family Attorneys Now Say Case ... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by unitron on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 10:09:38 AM EST
    ...Not About Race.

    Then they said "Thank for being a wonderful audience, we'll be here all week, be sure to try the waitresses and tip the veal."

    pretty much (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:13:30 AM EST

    Liabilty? (4.40 / 5) (#65)
    by labrat on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 05:51:06 AM EST
    These are not nice people. They don't do anything without a calculating reason, in my opinion.

    I think they are worried now. They deliberately whipped this country into a frenzy about a poor little innocent black boy skipping home with his skittles and tea who was hunted down and shot by an angry white dude, and he was getting away with it because of RACIAL injustice. "Justice for Trayvon" - not about race??? Laughable.

    The trial is going badly. They are reading the tea leaves, and they are now trying to mitigate any liability for any race riots that might break out when the "not guilty" verdict is announced.

    Sadly, again, MSM has just played along. They all dutifully pronounced this statement in their reports without challenging them about their prior narrative. It's like there has been collective amnesia by the media of all the prior acts of the "Justice for Trayvon" team. I did not hear one peep from any reporter or analyst that said anything about their antics for the past year and a half. Crickets.

    It's disturbing.

    The two different quotes ... (4.25 / 4) (#14)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 03:49:32 PM EST
    ... from Parks and Crump appear to be discussing two different issues.  In Crump's case, he was referring to his opinion of the role of race as it relates to the decision to not arrest Zimmerman:

    It shouldn't be about race. But race is the elephant in the room. Nobody believes that if you make Trayvon Martin white [and the Neighborhood Watch volunteer black], there's no way he would not be arrested, and that's the unfortunate and tragic truth of the matter. There is a double standard. That's why race is involved in this case.

    Park, OTOH, was not referring whether race played a role in the decision to not arrest Zimmerman, but whether they claimed it played a role in Zimmerman's alleged profiling of Martin:

    "It's not about racial profiling," Daryl Parks told reporters. "He was profiled (criminally). George Zimmerman profiled him."

    While I don't necessarily agree with Crump, I don't see any inconsistency in their statements, since they're talking about two different issues.

    Not really (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 04:44:19 PM EST
    The Martins told Congress Trayvon was profiled because of his race:

    As a special prosecutor weighs seemingly contradictory witness accounts about the death of Trayvon Martin, his parents told members of Congress on Tuesday afternoon that they believed their son was a victim of racial profiling and hoped national attention focused on the case means he did not "die in vain."


    Ben Crump, an attorney for Martin's parents, told the panel that the family was convinced  Martin was targeted for special attention because of his race, arguing that tougher laws against profiling might have averted the shooting.

    Not really - not (3.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 05:06:59 PM EST
    The statements indicating the opinion of Martin's parents were not the statements that were the subject of the post.  Moreover, the opinions of Martin's parents are irrelevant to the consistency of the statements/positions of Parks/Crump.  I'm doubt O'Mara would appreciate having the statements/opinions of Zimmerman's family members attributed to him.

    Crump's Statement 03/27/12 (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 05:20:13 PM EST
    "We honestly believe that Trayvon Martin is dead today because he was racially profiled," Crump said. "Because of that, this escalated, and it led to an altercation where George Zimmerman ... killed ... a 17-year-old, unarmed teen who only had a bag of Skittles and an Arizona iced-tea can." [emphasis mine]



    So the fact (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 05:30:46 PM EST
    That the Martins and Crump (who speaks for the Martins) both told a panel of some members of the House Judiciary Committee (unofficial) hearing on racial profiling, that they believe Trayvon was killed because he was racially profiled is irrelevant to the fact that Crump and Parks are now walking back their position?

    You should try reading slowly (2.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 06:36:54 PM EST
    ... or maybe just focus on what I actually said, rather than what you interpret my statements to mean.  The new statements you introduced were not those that were the subject of this post and were alleged to be inconsistent.  

    Park's statement might be inconsistent with Crump's prior statement where he was stating the opinion of the family (and possibly, his own), but it's difficult to say.  Park's statement was:

    "It's not about racial profiling.  He was profiled (criminally). George Zimmerman profiled him."

    The criminal case isn't about racial profiling.  It's not an allegation made by the prosecution or an element of the offense.  Which, of course, is not the same thing as saying race played no role in the profiling of Martin.

    He also said:  "We never claimed this was about race."  This is probably inconsistent with Crump's prior statements to Congress, but it depends what he means.  If he's talking about the profiling in general - as opposed to the criminal case or the elements of the offense - it's inconsistent with Crump's prior statements.

    Either way, these statements weren't the subject of the post that were alleged to be inconsistent.


    maybe just focus on what I actually said... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by lily on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 06:43:40 PM EST

    Parks, who also is president of the National Bar Association, said he does not believe the Justice Department will pursue federal hate crime charges against Zimmerman.

    Even without hate crime charges, Parks said it's clear that race played a role in Trayvon's killing and that the family believes Sanford police actively covered up the racial component to protect Zimmerman.

    "Trayvon's situation is very tragic for this family and, I think, for every black person who lives in America," Parks said. "We all know many situations where the person of color was not given the benefit of the doubt. That's a subtlety in America that a lot of people don't talk about."

    ...Parks said he hasn't seen any photo or video evidence documenting any injuries sustained by Zimmerman during the altercation with Trayvon. He also said Trayvon's girlfriend, whom attorneys say spoke with him just moments before his death, has yet to give a statement to police.


    Parks (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 07:10:25 PM EST
    Daryl Parks, an attorney representing the Martin family, said the case raises questions about racial profiling and lethal force by civilians. [emphasis mine]



    "Raises questions"?!?!? (2.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 08:20:25 PM EST


    Once again - these statements are not the ones alleged to be inconsistent that I was addressing in the original post.  Not sure why some people seem to have trouble understanding that, but I have a pretty good idea.

    Moreover, saying this case "raises questions" about racial profiling (or even that race played a role in the profiling of Martin) is not necessarily inconsistent with Park's statements today:

    It's not about racial profiling.  He was profiled (criminally). George Zimmerman profiled him.  We never claimed this was about race

    Is Parks talking about the case in general when he said "It's not about racial profiling" and "We never claimed this was about race"?  Or was he discussing or the prosecution/elements of the criminal case?  You'd have to ask him

    Either way, not the statements that were the subject of the post.


    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 08:39:51 PM EST
    Despite whether you think the murder was about racial profiling, Parks and Crump have done a 180º.  Spilt hairs as much as you want.

    Parks made the comments after prosecutors spent several days arguing that Zimmerman profiled the 17-year-old specifically because he was black. Asked why he changed his take on the matter, Parks replied: "We never claimed this was about race."

    The denial is due to the Judges order that the State cannot use the term racial profiling in the case, so they do everything but..

    Racial profiling may not be mentioned by the state. Profiling without reference to race is allowable, such as profiling by clothing or age. (the state has previously claimed Zimmerman profiled Martin as a criminal.)

    Again, I say, so what? (none / 0) (#62)
    by vicndabx on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 12:36:46 AM EST
    This is the clarity that many sought.  It's no longer about race-baiting.  It is about the judgments we pass on another w/nary an idea about the person we are judging.

    People should be happy, and I say that w/o snark or sarcasm, but yes, a little irony.


    The mainstream media (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:21:30 PM EST
    has written over and over that this case is about racial profiling, even after the prosecution didn't mention race when accusing GZ of profiling. No one on the side of TM's family corrected them.

    When people wore hoodies in marches, etc., to protest, they weren't protesting discrimination against all people who wear hoodies.


    Liability (3.67 / 3) (#138)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 07:11:03 AM EST
    I am wondering if Crump and team race bait weren't planning on a big pay day after the criminal trial when they sued the City of Sanford and the Police department?  It seems to me that having brains they might be seeing that slip away and have decided that they have to protect themselves against the lawsuit I am hoping Zimmerman will bring against them should he be found not guilty.

    Good Lawyering (2.67 / 3) (#4)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 03:33:26 PM EST
    involves adjusting tactics, no?  I would think you'd be applauding their flexibility.

    Lawyers trying/involved in cases (2.25 / 4) (#3)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 03:32:17 PM EST
    say lots of things, most of it geared to moving public sentiment in their client's favor.

    I don't find this remarkable or even noteworthy, because when all is said and done, it's about the law, the testimony and the jury, not what the lawyers are saying on the courthouse steps.

    I'm kind of surprised you're making this much of it.

    This is more than just lawyers (3.67 / 3) (#156)
    by MiddleOTheRoad on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 03:47:21 PM EST
    promoting a story that helps their client. It's about a massive misleading of the public, with tragic consequences. Starting with the little boy picture of Trayvon, the politicians and public figures claiming the poor little African American was hunted down and murdered, to the incessant inane repetition of poor defenseless Trayvon (referring to him by first name only, of course) only having Skittles in his pocket to defend himself from the big bad racist murderer. The increase in racial tension from this irresponsible media deception resulted in attacks on unrelated white people. Who knows how much other damage has been done because people feel more justified in hurting or stealing from "the other" now that they believe white(ish) Zimmerman murdered defenseless little Trayvon.  

    I swallowed the original media tale hook, line and sinker, until I saw a real picture of Martin, and imagined him wearing a hood and hanging around a neighbors house. Then he seemed like many, many other angry young men I've known. Bored, looking for some action, pissed off at the world, and willing to do incredibly horrible damage to other people for personal gain, or even just for fun. What I find surprising is that so many people are unwilling to accept that it's not profiling to recognize that many young men commit crimes left and right, often angry, violent crimes. We survived as a species by being able to differentiate lions from songbirds and edible plants from poisonous ones. Assessing danger is innate; it's indelibly carved into our psyches. Is it so hard to understand why Zimmerman would think a stranger is acting suspiciously when he lives in a neighborhood that has been frequently burglarized? In fact, many of those burglaries were committed by black men, but no one is supposed to notice or mention that. So when did profiling become a dirty word?

    If Martin did what the testimony suggests, come back to attack Zimmerman, then the profiling was spot on.


    Well of course you are (3.25 / 4) (#58)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:53:20 PM EST
    why would anyone be upset that someone would use race to railroad another person on murder charges?

    civil lawyers suspicious (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by friendofinnocence on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 11:32:06 PM EST
    Yes, Crump interviewing Rachel with Sybrina sitting next to her at the table was intimidating, according to Rachel.  Because no one I've heard seems to think this kind of setup is conducive to getting to the truth, Rachel's testimony is permanently tainted, IMO, and she is the star witness used by Corey to create the Information that indicted Zimmerman.

    Wolfinger had it right, and had a Grand Jury scheduled.  Corey stopped real justice right in its tracks when she cancelled it.


    um, so what? (2.00 / 1) (#63)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 12:52:10 AM EST
    since none of the martin family's lawyers have anything whatever to do with the case in the courtroom, their opinion, and $.50, will get you a small coffee at 7-11. as a professional matter, with their constant yapping to the press, it just seems like these people must have violated a few ethics rules, aside from just being gauche.

    The lack of charges... (1.67 / 3) (#8)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 03:43:10 PM EST
    initially, until public outcry, can be about race, while the case itself is not.

    I don't think it unreasonable to think if Trayvon was white that George Zimmerman would have been charged a lot sooner.

    I personally don't think Trayvon being black made Zimmerman suspicious of him...I think George Zimmerman was/is suspicious of anybody and everybody he didn't know personally...judging by his dime-dropping habit.  Stranger at the front door, call the police.  Kids in the street, call the police. Drunk pedestrian, call the police.  


    If it appeared to self-defense (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by rjarnold on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 03:52:08 PM EST
    then there shouldn't have been an arrest regardless of race.

    And if Trayvon was white then there would not have been a public outcry over the case, which is what prompted the special prosecutor, which is then what prompted the arrest.


    "And if Trayvon was white..." (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by unitron on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 12:22:04 AM EST
    ...then George would have been Hispanic a lot sooner.

    There is clear cut self-defense... (2.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 03:57:54 PM EST
    like when you shoot a guy in your living room with a crowbar in his hand...that should not lead to charges.

    Zimmerman's claim to self-defense is not at all clear cut...claims such as his are why we have trials.  I think there is enough reasonable doubt that he should be found not guilty...as our system demands.  Better to let 10,000 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man.


    Zim and the Neighborhood Watch (3.67 / 3) (#80)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:33:19 AM EST
    I saw the testimony of the woman who trained him for Neighborhood Watch, and was surprised.

    She testified that they ENCOURAGE you to call the non-emergency line at the drop of a hat. I guess Z has to be the kind of guy who would want to, but when your trainer specifically tells you to call if you see ANYTHING you don't like, it makes him look slightly less loony. After all, she trained him.

    I couldn't believe they don't tell people not to carry guns. That floored me. I realize they're legal, but I assumed they'd say if you want to be official neighborhood watch, leave the piece at home. I'd go in my house the second I saw them coming.

    And she said Trayvon's actions could be considered suspicious. Walking while raining. Scary.


    Except (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:38:05 AM EST
    (While I don't agree with gun-carrying), he actually WASN'T on patrol that night, was he?  He was on his way to Target and happened to see Martin.  So being "official neighborhood watch" doesn't really have anything to do with your comment, does it?

    Okay, I have a question: (2.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:46:24 AM EST
    even if someone wasn't "on duty" with the watch, why wouldn't you identify to the dispatcher that you were part of the watch team?  Wouldn't that tend to lend your call a little more oomph?  You could still say "I'm not actually on patrol tonight - just on my way to the store, but...?

    As I read the transcript again, it just doesn't make any sense to me why he wouldn't have mentioned it.  I mean, he tells them first thing that they've had break-ins in the neighborhood, so why not give them the rest of the story - that you're part of the watch team?


    You could be right (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:59:53 AM EST
    I don't know. But he did give his name, so maybe he thought when the dispatcher pulled it up, the computer might have a history and a designation -"Neighborhood Watch" - since he had called in before.

    I have no idea.  But I just wanted to dispel the (what I believe is a) myth that keeps coming up "Why was he on patrol with his gun?"


    I'm not absolutely positive about this but I (none / 0) (#86)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 12:34:42 PM EST
    believe the communications person from the sheriff's department who testified about the calls was asked if they kept a list of people who called which they could refer to if necessary.  I believe she answered "No."  

    Not Relevant Information (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 12:39:42 PM EST
    why wouldn't you identify to the dispatcher that you were part of the watch team?

    IMO, It would only be relevant information if there were a string of false reports of break-ins in the neighborhood. IMO, Zimmerman did not want to waste time with bolstering his credibility. His mind was fixed on the suspect, not on his own credibility.

    Also, since he had called in many times in the past, his habit was most likely to just report and not make smalltalk.


    I don't think this is correct. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 12:54:15 PM EST
    IMO, It would only be relevant information if there were a string of false reports of break-ins in the neighborhood. IMO, Zimmerman did not want to waste time with bolstering his credibility. His mind was fixed on the suspect, not on his own credibility.

    Also, since he had called in many times in the past, his habit was most likely to just report and not make smalltalk.

    They played five of his calls while the sheriff's department communication person was on the stand and in at least one of those calls he identified himself as part of the neighborhood watch.  


    OK (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 01:14:13 PM EST
    Maybe not a habit, but if 4 out of 5 times he did not identify himself as neighborhood watch, it appears that he typically did not mention that he was neighborhood watch on these calls.

    I think that the main reason he did not typically mention his status as neighborhood watch, is that it was not relevant information for the calls. It was likely that he focused on relaying information about the suspect, not his status as a credible caller.


    I don't necessarily think that being a part of the (none / 0) (#93)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 01:22:00 PM EST
    neighborhood watch group makes one a more "credible caller" anyway.  Sheesh.  The guy called on everything from kids playing in the street to potholes in the road to open garage doors.  I'm trying to find out exactly what didn't give him a reason to call.  LOL  

    Isn't that the job (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 01:39:07 PM EST
    of "neighborhood watch"?  The "kids playing in the street" was actually about "Kids are habitually playing in the street at dusk and running in front of cars."  Sounds like a safety concern to me. I guess he could have waited to call 911 AFTER some kid got hit, but YMMV.

    Potholes?  Who else was reporting them?

    The "garage door open" was because there had been a rash of burglaries, the cops had told the Neighborhood Watch crew (just the night before) to report anything suspicious, and the neighbor whose door was open, was one who normally didn't leave it open all night long.

    Seems like a little more information actually changes the story.


    The SPD Snitch instructor (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by cboldt on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 01:46:00 PM EST
    The lady who came to RTL to instruct the residents when to snitch to the cops told them that open garage doors are either an invitation to burglary, or a sign that one had been committed.  She testified about Zimmerman's open garage door call in the Zimmerman trial, and thought it was a good snitch.

    If he had known it was going to be used against him, I wonder if he would have snitched.


    I was a neighborhood watch volunteer (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by donatella on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 05:47:17 PM EST
    for 3 years when we lived in TX.  We were to call the homeowner if the garage door was left open.  

    I patrolled on Wed mornings with a neighbor.  Once we had to call a resident to tell them they had a sprinkler gusher. Never had to call the cops. An altogether boring volunteer job.


    I think potholes belong to another city (none / 0) (#98)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 01:54:53 PM EST
    department, perhaps the Public Works Department. Road maintenance isn't normally the domain of the Police or Sheriff.  

    They had a HOA so why not contact the HOA Board and suggest a "friendly reminder" to all of the residents that they should close their garage doors if they don't want to be subjected to a burglary, especially if there were burglaries going on in the vicinity?  

    There are many other ways to solve problems than dialing the police every time you see something. And people complain about the police not having enough time to take care of "real" problems".    


    Lessons learned the hard way (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by cboldt on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 02:08:49 PM EST
    HOA reminder to keep garage door closed?  I doubt I'd have even read it, because I'd throw HOA newsletters in the trash, unread.  Even if I did read a suggestion, I doubt I would change my habits.

    I'd have ignored the open garage door, kids running in front of cars, etc.  Probably nothing happens, but if there was a burglary, the neighbor will learn better because it's one of those "hard lessons;" and if something happens to one the kids, same thing.  Gotta' break eggs to make an omlet.


    Missing the point (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 02:16:38 PM EST
    Yes, the HOA could put out a "friendly reminder", but that wouldn't done anything that particular night - a "friendly reminder" could take weeks. Isn't it better to ask the cops to take 5 minutes and drive by and take a look around and see if everything is ok (especially in an area recently plagued by break-ins)?  It's not like this is taking up hours of police time, and it's actually what cops on patrol are supposed to do when they aren't attending to emergencies.  So, do you not want them to do their jobs?

    It's my understanding that the one about potholes was that it was impeding traffic (as opposed to getting it fixed, which yes, would be another city department) - someone needed to block off the road and/or direct traffic around it.  Again, within police jurisdiction, and not at all unusual.

    If you actually listen to the calls, he is calm, he says things like "This isn't an emergency, but I'm concerned for their safety." He never, that I have heard so far, and as kdog likes to put it, "drops the dime" on anyone - he is calling about things in concert with public safety (which again, IS the responsibility of the police).

    I guess he could have ignored these and let someone else deal with them.


    Not missing the point, but here was mine: (none / 0) (#105)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 02:42:04 PM EST
    There are many other ways to solve problems than dialing the police every time you see something. And people complain about the police not having enough time to take care of "real" problems".

    Let's see (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 02:50:50 PM EST
    Controlling traffic when there are potholes that are impeding it - a "real" police problem.

    Worry that a neighbor ahs a problem or may have had their garage broken into - real police problem.

    Kids playing in the street, possibly putting themselves in danger, or interfering with traffic - real police problem.

    What's not "real" about any of these problems?


    How about this one: (none / 0) (#108)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 03:15:47 PM EST
    22.    Sept. 22, 2009 - 6:00 p.m.
    Type: 911
    Subject: Disturbance
    Report: "Yellow speed bike ... was speeding and weaving in and out of traffic and doing wheelies"

    Tell me, please, exactly what the police are supposed to do about that.  This one is sort of like the kids playing in the street, it's activity that is going to happen, people are going to do unsafe things, and more than likely a call to the police is going to resolve nothing.  

    That's the point of my message that you didn't get - there are other ways to solve problems than calling the police!  As for me, I'd just ignore the yellow speed bike, I'd probably tell the kids myself to get out of the street, I might even stop my vehicle and knock on nearby doors with the message that these kids are in danger.  And in the long run this would probably be far more effective than waiting for the police to show up (at which time the kids may or may not still be playing in the street.)  You get my drift?  


    So, you are a vigilante (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by cboldt on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:13:29 PM EST
    You would knock on strangers doors and have the audacity to criticize them as to their children's conduct?  What if one of these strangers took umbrage?  And you would be the one who provoked the confrontation, you know.

    Same with speaking to the kids directly.  That might be taken as threatening, and a parent might react with use of force to protect their child from what the parent perceives as a threat.  You'd be in a similar legal situation as Zimmerman, having to justify a behavior that, if you have simply avoided it, none of the harm would have followed.

    You are free to do what you want, but your mindset strikes me as at least a busybody, and maybe worse.


    Oh, please, get real. (3.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 05:14:47 PM EST
    As far as being a busybody, I was attempting to point out that someone else was the busybody.  Just try to be neighborly instead of calling the cops every time you see something you don't like!  I've got people in my neighborhood who peek out their curtains and think the Girl Scouts are casing their house when they're going door to door selling Thin Mints!!

    Peeking out the window is different (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by cboldt on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 05:58:17 PM EST
    You said you would knock on strangers doors to tell them their kids were playing in the street, or you would confront the kids directly.

    If you want to peek out your car window, fine. But you said you thought it was proper to confront strangers or their children, and I think that is busybody behavior, at best; you are sticking your nose into strangers faces.

    Calling it "neighborly" is a rationalization, and quite similar to the rationalization that got Zimmerman into trouble.  If he'd minded his own business and gone to the store, none of this would have happened.  You should follow your own advice, and (in the hypothetical situations you described yourself being in) should mind your own business.

    If you are talking with people who are not strangers, that is an entirely different situation.  You might have come to an agreement where your neighbor lets you instruct their children.


    No. (3.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 06:34:23 PM EST
    A vigilante is an individual or group who undertakes law enforcement without legal authority. Informing neighbors their kids are playing in the street and are apt to get hurt is neither vigilante nor busybody behavior.  Now, if I thought everything that went down in my neighborhood was my business, then I'd be a busybody.  

    My neighbor who peeks out the curtain is just a paranoid fool.  


    Well, other people can label you (3.00 / 2) (#125)
    by cboldt on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 07:23:20 PM EST
    You don't have to agree, of course.

    And, my remark was about you confronting strangers, or strangers' children.  People you don't know.  Being confrontational, perhaps in a friendly way, but still speaking without being asked to.  Maybe ordering them around, asking them what they are doing, that sort of thing.

    This is just a low key version of "One man's terrorist, another man's freedom fighter."  The person who engages in the behavior will always claim to be on the right side.

    Zimmerman claims he was just looking out for his neighbors, you think he's kooky at best.

    You think where you draw the line on appropriate timing to get involved yourself, or call the cops (or not) is correct.  Other people think you draw the line in the wrong place.  No big deal, that's the way the world is.  You think you are right, somebody is going to find you wrong.  And if you stick your nose in other people's business, then it starts to look like you are acting like Zimmerman.


    What a he-uuuuuuuuuge stretch you've made (3.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 08:22:00 PM EST
    from my saying that I MIGHT knock on a door and tell someone their kid is playing in the street and could be in danger and comparing that to what George Zimmerman did the night of February 26, 2012.  A mighty huge stretch and a mighty ridiculous one at that.

    As for what I might think about George Zimmerman, you simply don't know.


    You said you would probably insert yourself (3.00 / 2) (#127)
    by cboldt on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 08:39:10 PM EST
    Your post is right above.  You said you would probably talk to children you did not know.  You would probably involve yourself.

    I don't care what you think about Zimmerman or his actions. I'm simply making the observation that you, like Zimmerman, are willing to stick your nose into other people's business.

    The fact that you think your position is righteous is just like Zimmerman thinking his position is righteous.  You don't get to be your own judge.  Some people will find your action reasonable, some won't.


    Angel, Angel, Angel.... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 08:17:33 AM EST
    some people just don't get where you and I are coming from on this.  Or don't wanna get it.  You couldn't be more clear...we're well into agree to disagree territory with those that see nothing wrong with George's behavior.  I think the fundamental difference is some people are trusting until there is proof otherwise,  and others are suspicious and fearful until there is proof otherwise.

    All I know is how I wanna live, believing in the basic goodness of people until they give me reason to think otherwise...and I want neighbors like you! ;)


    Or you are naive (3.00 / 2) (#142)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 08:23:50 AM EST
    or terrible neighbors.

    Different strokes, different folks.... (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 08:37:49 AM EST
    But you don't fool me old pal...I know you'd rather live next door to me than George;)  I bring the mail over when it's delivered to the wrong address, bring the garbage cans over when they roll down the street, always have a cup of sugar or milk to give away, lend a hand when there's work to be done, all that neighborly sh*t!

    Yes (none / 0) (#148)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 08:42:06 AM EST
    And if something was not right in the neighborhood, or if there was a potential hazard, or if you thought my house was getting broken into, or if you thought I was in danger, I also know you'd call the cops (depite what you say) to protect me and my stuff and not try to go into an unknown situation by yourself.  :)

    Yes... (none / 0) (#149)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 08:59:05 AM EST
    key word "danger"...if I think my neighbor is in danger, and I can't defuse it myself, that's the exception to my golden rule.

    But I only wanna live next to you if you will knock on my door if the music or party is too loud...call the cops for that, or the sweet aroma coming from my yard, and you're dead to me! ;)


    Ya, totally simpatico. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 08:28:49 AM EST
    I think I'm done with posting on the Z threads for a while.  Too many other things going on that need my attention anyway.  Harvested most of my basil yesterday and made tons of pesto which will be going to friends and neighbors with a little saved for ourselves.  Peaches will be canned in a couple of weeks depending on the crop, then tomatoes, peppers and potatoes will be coming in.  I love the summer vegetables and canning and sharing the bounty with those I love.  

    It's so f*ckin' hard... (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 08:41:47 AM EST
    to let some of these beliefs and views I am hearing go without counter point though...somebody has to speak for the non-tattling non-ninnying unarmed peacemaking live and let live-ers!

    The problem is... (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by MikeB on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:01:22 AM EST
    You have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. There was enough trouble in that neighborhood that the watch was needed. Home values were sinking because of it. But regardless of what precipitated it, the fact remains that Zimmerman was getting his a$$ handed to him by Martin. He took this for almost 40 seconds. Zimmerman had no way to know what his injuries actually were, but nobody knows what injuries he would have sustained had he waited any longer.

    How is that view from the cheap seats?


    I see (2.33 / 3) (#152)
    by Jack203 on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 02:49:26 PM EST
    George is a tattletale.

    What can I say?  I wouldnt be surprised if that's the next direction the persecution goes.  What the hell, all they have is throw shit against the wall and hope it sticks anyway.

    It amazes me how much the state reminds me of a shady defense attorney desperately trying to meet the "reasonable doubt" threshold.

    Except this time, the persecution are the ones that need to exceed reasonable doubt.


    oh please yourself (3.60 / 5) (#129)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 10:49:42 PM EST
    he was according to court testimony a model neighborhood watch person.  We got it right from the neighborhood watch coordinator.  You just can't adjust to the idea that maybe he really did feel that his life was in danger and did what he felt he had to do.  Maybe he isn't a gun hugging crazy redneck racist on step up from trailer trash cracker.  

    Oh, please, yourself. (3.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 07:47:09 AM EST
    If he felt his life was in danger from a person on a yellow bike weaving in traffic and doing a wheelie, kids playing in the street, or because a pothole might swallow him then I would call him paranoid.  Because those are the calls of which I specifically spoke.  And do not ever say that I called him a

    "gun hugging crazy redneck rapist one step up from trailer trash cracker."

    Those are YOUR words.


    I understand what you're saying (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:22:49 PM EST
    But in every example so far, while it could have been handled differently, there is no argument for saying the NEN COULDN'T have been called.  A biker weaving in and out of traffic and doing wheelies can get a traffic ticket. And actually, they should. Don't get me started on bikers here in the city who want it both ways - for cars to watch out for them, but to also not have to obey the rules of the road.

    You don't know if he or someone else told the kids to get out of the street and they didn't listen.  Nowadays, many kids would tell you to f@#$ off. I doubt you (or anyone) would spend that much time, and probably would just go on past it, until you heard about the "tragedy, that some kid got hit - isn't that a shame."  (Most people would go about their business and ignore it and "let their parents worry about it" - I probably would too).  I seriously doubt you, or anyone, would go door to door looking for the parents if they weren't around.

    See the thing is, the way all this has been portrayed in the media - like that's all he does is sit and look out the window, looking for trouble.  That's what I though after reading about it here and everywhere else. "HE CALLED 911 ON KIDS PLAYING IN THE STREET!!"  (No, he called the NEN because he thought someone might get hurt, or they would cause an accident).  "HE CALLED 911 BECAUSE OF A POTHOLE!" (No, he called because it was causing traffic problems).  "HE CALLED 911 BECAUSE OF AN OPEN GARAGE DOOR!"  (No, he called because it was late and dark, and he was concerned about his neighbor).

    But then I actually listened to the calls.  They don't sound like a person who's upset, who's angry, who's paranoid - they sound like a person who is calm, cool, and collected and is just concerned that someone is going to get harmed and who is looking out for his neighbors. I guess if I was sitting on the jury and heard all those, my thought would be, "So what?"


    I never heard the calls at trial (none / 0) (#111)
    by labrat on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:50:14 PM EST
    Are these the one's that they played for the jury? I expected them to be about "f'ing punk" burglers who kept getting away? I thought they were to supposed to show how his frustration with burglers getting away over and over led to a boiling up of rage against assholes and that he wasn't going to let one more get away this time!!!!

    Potholes? Garage doors? Kids in the street? Seriously?


    No, those calls are among the 46 that GZ (none / 0) (#114)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 05:14:12 PM EST
    made to the police over a period of time.  The calls below are the ones played in court the other day, in addition to his call about Trayvon Martin.

    -- August 3, 2011 -- Zimmerman reports seeing a "black male" who looked like the person who robbed a neighbor

    -- August 6, 2011 -- Zimmerman says there have been break-ins in the area, and he saw two possible suspects he described as black males in their late teens

    -- September 23, 2011 -- Zimmerman says a neighbor's garage door is open and explains that the neighborhood watch is encouraged to report unusual occurrences

    -- October 1, 2011 -- Zimmerman reports two suspicious black males "loitering"

    -- February 2, 2012 -- Zimmerman reports a black "gentleman" walking around the neighborhood who keeps going up to a house and walking around the side, but Zimmerman says he does not want to approach the man.


    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by Jack203 on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 02:45:45 PM EST
    The persecution played the 5 out of the 46 calls that Zimmerman said the word "black".

    But oh yeah, race has nothing to do with this case.

    It would be funny if the stakes weren't so serious.


    I haven't suggested that he was upset, angry (none / 0) (#116)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 05:27:00 PM EST
    or paranoid, but now that you've brought that up, some of those calls just seem to me to have sort of a "tattletellish" quality to them.  Come on, calling the police when you've seen someone weaving in traffic and doing a wheelie on a bike?  Calling about kids playing in the street when it's highly unlikely that nothing will be done about it by the police?  It just seems weird to me. Sure, the police can do something about those things, but they probably won't because by the time they get to the scene the person on the bike can't be located, or the kids scamper into their house and the adults (if there are any inside the houses) promise to make the kids stay out of the street...but they're out there again the next day. Mature people learn and understand that some problems can't and won't be fixed, and they learn to quit worrying about them.  

    Suggestion; listen to your local police scanner (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by lily on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 12:12:01 AM EST
    use your internet access to listen online to your city police dept scanner, you will be surprised to learn that GZ complaints pale in comparison to the vast majority of "nuisance activity" calls depts receive.

    The new NW program at RVC was trying to establish a functioning  partnership because the neighborhood was under served without regular beat patrols.Review the testimony of the HOA president where this is discussed. One of the primary strategies under serve neighborhoods are advised to do is call in everything, get it documented, the data drives resource allocation. Some of calls fit under the category of prevention through broken windows policing, attention to the small stuff, cops always tell NW to make all concerns known,the squeaky wheel syndrome. We did not hear from the  beat cop accompanying the NW coordinator to the meeting, their presentation would have included stuff like prevention i.e. open garage, call us, we can check it out, etc.  If you had ever participated in NW this stuff would be all too familiar.


    "If you see it, report it" (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Payaso on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 06:54:40 PM EST
    Maybe if everybody got more involved there would be less crime.

    non-emergency (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 02:57:42 PM EST
    the NEM is used for dispatch to other county service departments

    Zimmerman isn't the only caller (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by cboldt on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 01:42:02 PM EST
    "During the months before he shot Martin, Zimmerman called police about once a month"

    Zimmerman's Twin Lakes Community Was on Edge Before Trayvon Shooting - The Daily Beast - Amy Green Mar 28, 2012

    From January 1, 2011 through February 26, 2012, police were called to The Retreat at Twin Lakes 402 times. During the 18 months preceding the February 26 shooting, Zimmerman called the non-emergency police line seven times.

    HLN After dark Facebook

    That 402 calls number sources back to a Miami Herald Article, Shooter of Trayvon Martin a habitual caller to cops - Frances Robles.

    IMO, the whole neighborhood expects too much from the police, a busy-body commune.


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 01:43:57 PM EST
    I haven't followed his call list, but neighborhood watch does not put him on my list of people I would want to have anything to do with. Still, just because the guy is a jerk, does not mean he is a depraved racist murderer. This whole case is very sad, lots of victims here, imo. And in the end, I do not see anyone being better for it, more likely worse.

    Jerk?? (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by lily on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 12:23:44 AM EST
    GZ organized the crime watch after his neighbor, a mother with her children, were victims of a hot prowl. Two guys entered her home mid-day, she locked herself in the bathroom with her babies. She moved out within a few months due to the trauma of the experience. And you think he is a jerk for organizing to reduce the negative impacts of crime.  

    Well, that's the point of making it a legal deal (none / 0) (#99)
    by cboldt on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 01:55:47 PM EST
    In any shooting, there is a wake of damage that reaches beyond the dead people.  And, imperfect as it is, the law tries to make the person responsible for the damage, own up to it.

    IOW, the trial is about assigning fault, blame, attaching criminal liability.  The state assigns the blame for all of this damage on Zimmerman.  That taint is permanent.  All the trial is for is to decide if he has to pay with his liberty.

    Now, some people think that blame should be assigned to Martin, because they think Martin hit Zimmerman without having a good reason to do that.  But the state says that theory is bogus.  Zimmerman could have avoided this entire chain of events, so he's responsible.


    Patrol??? (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by lily on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:39:59 PM EST
    Neighborhood watch programs do not patrol the streets. The Guardians Angels do, but NW is simply an outreach, organizing and communication function between community/city admin/ police depts. I know thousands of people who participate in highly organized neighborhood watch programs, Oakland, Richmond, Berkeley CA.  I have never heard of any group doing patrols. Occasionally during spikes in violent crime folks will put together informal  group dog walks in the evening not to track down criminals but to make their presence visible and to push back on the fear with comes with violent crime.

    This entire "on duty" "patrolling the streets" is just more of the Crump disinformation campaign.

    How many of their lies have to be exposed before  people stop repeating them?


    jbindc (none / 0) (#87)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 12:38:08 PM EST
    You're right; I wasn't being clear that he wasn't on neighborhood watch that night. I also don't know if he carried when he was on NW. I was just very surprised that they wouldn't prohibit it.

    They might (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 12:57:35 PM EST
    Prohibit it, or rather, discourage carrying a weapon while on patrol.  But if he was running an errand, and was carrying, and he came upon this scene, then I don't think those prohibitions or recommendations would apply.

    RZ was particpating in NW that night (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by lily on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:43:58 PM EST
    but your idea of NW is inaccurate. When he called in suspicious behavior he was following the guidelines and taking the recommended action outlined in NW program.

    Well (none / 0) (#92)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 01:16:09 PM EST
    He was going to Target.

    In the video reenactment defendant said he (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 10:36:44 PM EST
    was going to the grocery store. Of course the Target he intended to go to maybe had groceries.  

    Nice (none / 0) (#160)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 11:08:20 PM EST
    Double entendre.

    But then again self defense is precluded for murdering puns of loaded dry goods.


    NW didn't patrol (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 06:34:46 PM EST
    That misconception won't go away. The trainer said she doesn't tell people not to carry guns. She was so pleased with GZ that she asked him if he would like to join the citizen-patrol team that works more closely with police, but he declined.

    The defense of the indefensible (3.40 / 5) (#21)
    by Jack203 on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 04:16:56 PM EST
    "I don't think it unreasonable to think if Trayvon was white that George Zimmerman would have been charged a lot sooner."

    You have not an ounce of evidence of this.  But just more evidence how completely full of shit your side is when you claim this is not about race.    

    Review the 45 seconds of screaming for HELP, the police clearly thought (and are right) was GZ and then review self defense laws.

    "I personally don't think Trayvon being black made Zimmerman suspicious of him"

    Well you're right.  It would be hard to pick a worse object of your race fueled lynching than GZ.  There is zero evidence there is a racist bone in his body and a significant amount of evidence that he is not.


    Your attacks are indefensible (none / 0) (#38)
    by Towanda on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 06:51:27 PM EST
    Leeeeeave kdog alooooooone.

    It was unreasonable to charge him at all (none / 0) (#12)
    by Payaso on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 03:47:04 PM EST
    Trayvon's race was irrelevant.  There was no probable cause to believe a crime was committed.

    Probable cause (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Blast Freezer on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 04:30:24 PM EST
    "There was no probable cause to believe a crime was committed."

    Certainly there was no probable cause for second degree murder.  There's no doubt about that at all.  Of all of the disturbing aspects of this case, the second degree murder charge was perhaps the most disturbing.

    That said, I think the State could reasonably have investigated the case to see if Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter. Just to be clear, I personally think that this is a standard self-defense case:  disparity of force through a position of advantage that justified the use of lethal force.  

    But why the state charged GZ with second degree murder instead of manslaughter is a mystery to me.


    I believe (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 04:37:30 PM EST
    the State WAS still investigating the case.  They just did not charge Zimmerman quickly enough for some.

    zimmerman (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by morphic on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:15:26 AM EST
      What's there to investigate? It was four minutes from the time Trayvon took off running, to the time the phone call ended, add another minute and a half until the confrontation, more or less, and the fact that twenty seconds after Zimmerman left his truck, the wind noise and breathing slowed down. That gives Trayvon about three minutes to get away, and yet the body is less than a minute from the entrance to the path leading to the T. Any allegedly intelligent state prosecutor should have seen that Zimmerman's story is more plausible than the fact he was chasing after Martin.

    Just becaue (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:20:42 AM EST
    you think his story is more plausible does not mean that the police and prosecutors were just going to take his word for the sequence of events and not investigate the fact that someone was killed.  There were witnesses to interview, forensic testing to be done, measurements to be taken, etc.

    Formalities (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 05:11:05 PM EST
    One of the elements of manslaughter, recited right in the Florida manslaughter statute, is "without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776."

    When the state charges manslaughter, the charge/information asserts that, and the affidavit of probable cause would have to summarize the evidence that supports the assertion.

    By charging Murder 2, the state is able to duck the formality of formally asserting that the killing was without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776.


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by bmaz on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 03:42:56 AM EST
    I have, from the start, thought this was a too little understood part of the charging process. It was not just that Corey wanted the flashier bigger charge, but that it was the path that allowed the least question of her charging as it meant the state itself did not have to address the justification issue affirmatively. Which is ethically challenged prosecution by my book.

    A unarmed dead teenager... (2.25 / 4) (#16)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 03:54:54 PM EST
    with a bullet hole in his chest and George Zimmerman with a smoking gun isn't probable cause?  OK.

    Bo probable cause is George Zimmerman having no probable cause to profile Trayvon Martin as a criminal that begin this tragic chain of events.


    as DeeDee might say, (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by jpe on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 06:11:25 PM EST
    that is retarded.

    That is retarded (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 08:14:38 PM EST

    Sir! (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 08:21:10 PM EST
    (Funny only if you saw her testimony.)

    A retarded edit... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:31:53 PM EST
    to be sure...and I'm not under the pressure of the witness stand! ;)

    s/b Speaking of probable cause, it is Zimmerman having no probable cause...


    If a six foot tall (2.00 / 1) (#155)
    by MiddleOTheRoad on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 03:22:11 PM EST
    young man is on top of you smashing your head against the ground, are you going to hold off on protecting yourself in case he's not 18 yet?

    It's the "smashing" that seems to be in (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 05:54:52 PM EST
    question, especially after hearing today's testimony.

    Zimmerman called for help (3.00 / 3) (#158)
    by MiddleOTheRoad on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 08:37:23 AM EST
    for more than half a minute. That tells me he's not a blustering, gun toting troublemaker. I'm surprised Zimmerman waited so long, given how fast head injuries can incapacitate you. If someone bigger than me had me pinned and had the OPPORTUNITY to knock me out by banging my head against the ground, I would have shot him immediately.

    Huh? What does this even mean? (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 03:37:34 PM EST
    "It's not about racial profiling," Daryl Parks told reporters. "He was profiled (criminally). George Zimmerman profiled him."
    Is he trying to say "The court case is not about racial profiling, although GZ did in fact profile TM."?

    Profiled as a criminal when he was not. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 03:41:29 PM EST
    Ah, thanks. (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 03:48:37 PM EST
    Yes he is involved (none / 0) (#26)
    by friendofinnocence on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 04:46:48 PM EST
    At least to the extent that he has been in the courtroom, not being excluded from attending for being a potential witness as Crump has been.  Crump was in the courtroom on day one, but was asked to leave at the same time Zimmerman's parents.

    i deleted the comment you are (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 07:22:04 PM EST
    replying to. It was false information. Parks is Crump's partner and has repeatedly been on TV advocating against Zimmerman.

    one among other factors (none / 0) (#75)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:09:08 AM EST
    I have no problem with race being ONE of several factors involved in profiling. Terrorists looking to blow up planes might eventually get around to using more 80-year old Irish grandmothers or 14-year old black kids from Chicago, but until then you'd be better served looking for Middle Eastern men between certain ages IF they're also traveling alone, pay cash, one way ticket, etc.

    Did GZ consider TM's race as a factor in his profiling? Probably. Maybe. It wasn't the only factor, or he'd be calling every time he left his house; it was a pretty diverse neighborhood. And yes, I know he called a lot. I guess a lot of the breakins were young black kids, so if it was a white kid but had all the other factors he considered suspicious, would he have kept driving? My guess is he would have called, but it's only a guess. He called about all sorts of stuff.

    Now I'm confused (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 01:57:09 PM EST
    a couple of days ago I commented that I like to discuss things with my poker playing buds and that they all agreed that the testimony of the young lady  re the cell phone conversation didn't help the prosecution but guilt/innocence  still broke along racial lines.

    It was deleted. I just assumed it was because of the race comment yet now we have a thread devoted to the race component.

    Sometimes up is down and down is up. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 02:00:33 PM EST
    Go figure.

    probably off topic on that thread (none / 0) (#135)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 06:26:02 AM EST
    but not on this one.

    The thread was about her testimony (none / 0) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 03:47:55 PM EST
    Next week... (none / 0) (#150)
    by unitron on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 10:02:28 AM EST
    ...we'll hear how they never called that watermelon drink ice tea.