home

George Zimmerman Trial: Additional Thoughts?

I'm offline at work today. If there are new developments in the George Zimmerman case, or you have more to say about things we have already covered, here's a thread for them.

Keep in mind that this is not a free-for-all to attack the verdict or defense. Our commenting rules are here and fairly strict. Comments that don't comport with the rules will be deleted when I return. Don't quote an objectionable comment in your reply or that has to go too. Refer to it by the name of the person who posted it.

< Jahar's World: The Article | Cop Who Leaked Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Photos Placed on Leave >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    DOJ investigation: (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:34:31 PM EST
    "The Sanford Police Department announced on Thursday that the DOJ has placed a hold on all the evidence from the case."

    That's a quote. My comment buttons quit working again.

    I still doubt it (none / 0) (#144)
    by Jack203 on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:01:05 AM EST
    Rick Scott and Angela Corey are vile, terrible examples of the people that represent us.

    I have more faith in Holder and Obama.  Although, I don't know any of the underlings Holder has working for him.  I still think this is a ruse to temporarily appease the lynch mob so that things didn't get more out of hand.

    If I turn out to be wrong, I'll lose a lot of faith in our government.  And that is hard to do as I had very little faith to begin with.

    I doubt I'm wrong.  There won't be any trumped up DOJ civil right charges.

    Parent

    I tend to agree with you on this one (none / 0) (#148)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:29:06 AM EST
    except for the characterization of a "lynch mob".

    Parent
    Come on Semanticleo (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:13:56 PM EST
    Get on Twitter and see how those professional athletes can influence the country. Especially younger people.

    You're the one who posted the article about Twitter taking down the juror's book! Trust me, they have a lot of influence, way more than they should.

    I doubt many young people today (3.00 / 2) (#75)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:37:56 PM EST
    care about Charles Barkley. Maybe 20 years ago. LeBron James is in Miami now, maybe he has an opinion.

    Parent
    I think it is safe to say that LeBron (3.67 / 3) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:33:10 PM EST
    had an opinion back in 2012.

    Lebron James Organizes Heat Hoodie Photo In Support Of Trayvon .

    Heat Players Wear Hoodies as Statement in Martin Slaying

    Miami Heat players have delved into an area athletes usually strenuously avoid, making a strong political statement in the outrage over the shooting death of the unarmed teen, Trayvon Martin, in Sanford, Fla. After the Heat posed together in hoodies, Dwyane Wade and LeBron James made quick work of publicizing the photo via their vast audience on Twitter. Wade also changed his Twitter photo to one of him in a hoodie.

    Tweets by other athletes including Dwyane Wade after the verdict but to the best of my knowledge no tweet from James.  

    Parent

    An opinion based on a 12 year old boy and lies (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Darby on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 06:33:17 AM EST
    And distortons vs an opinion of someone who closely watched the entire trial

    Parent
    I seriously doubt that the 13 members of (4.40 / 5) (#128)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 08:07:02 AM EST
    Heat sat down with you and divulged all the various reasons that prompted them to pose for that photo. I also doubt that they provided you with a list of the athletes who watched the trial.  

    So you, like the members of the Heat, are entitled to your opinion.

    Parent

    I'm leaving it to Charlie (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:21:54 PM EST
    Pierce. I'm nearly all talked out on the topic.

    Isn't there some old saying something to the effect of if you want to keep respect for someone, keep them at a distance? I feel that way about the jury. I hope we have heard the last of B37.

    Interesting ideas at SocialCourtTV. Good points about about the prosecution's failure to search social media during jury selection, use more effective exhibits during the trial, and most of all to humanize Trayvon Martin. She uses the term 'cultural competency' that the prosecution  lacked to put TM's supposedly scary language and actions into context with his peer group. If you can't bring the victim to life, it is very hard to win, especially when the victim is put on trial to a certain extent in a self defense case. We talked about this a little the other night here:

    Why didn't Prosecution defend Trayvon's character? Because they did not want to have his text messages written in "teen speak" and his cell phone pics to be scrutinized. References he made in social media and to his friends showed a teen engaged in a bit of bravado and trying on the gangsterism of mainstream Hip Hop like the costume it is, complete with testing out a set of gold teeth bottoms.  All of these, together, would make Trayvon appear to be a "thug," until and unless these references were placed within their proper context and properly defended. Trayvon Martin was a human being, a teenager engaged in "frontin'," which actually reinforced just how much of a nerd he was; but the Prosecution can't defend what it doesn't know.

    It won't be over soon, in part because even people like me who think the verdict is probably the right one still have a severe injury to our innate sense of justice.

    The people who still (4.50 / 2) (#120)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 06:01:52 AM EST
    want to try this case will not let it go.  TM's parents have asked the President to personally intervene.  Because they can not let it go and accept the verdict, those people who think the verdict was just, who have a sense of responsibility to society can't really let it go either.  I personally don't want to see a man hounded and destroyed so that Al Sharpton and Ben Crump can have a platform for drumming up outrage and their own personal funds.

    Parent
    Sounds like Crump's using a peremptive (none / 0) (#102)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:46:02 PM EST
    PR blitz

    References he made in social media and to his friends showed a teen engaged in a bit of bravado and trying on the gangsterism of mainstream Hip Hop like the costume it is, complete with testing out a set of gold teeth bottoms.

    to soften the coming civil trial revelations

    Parent

    Lets hope George (1.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Darby on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:09:07 PM EST
    Can direct his NBC settlement to his parents

    Parent
    "They" as in young people? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:34:39 PM EST
    It seems that people in the public eye are who they choose for their role models.

    Don't forget, it was the public eye that brought about this case in the first place. I don't think we can deny it's why the DOJ is at least pretending to re-investigate. All due to public pressure and that circle leads right back to where the people marching get their ideas.

    Sheriff's Office spent about $320,000 (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by SuzieTampa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:54:19 PM EST
    on trial. This press release about the jury's activities is fun reading.  Unless, of course, you believe this should never have gone to trial, in which case, it's a big waste of our tax dollars. I'm wondering what the final bill will be for the investigation(s) and prosecution.

    too bad (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by DFLer on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 08:43:06 AM EST
    the department didn't spend more time (and $) on the original investigation the night of the incident.

    Parent
    Would have made no difference at all (4.80 / 5) (#137)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:30:14 AM EST
    Assume the investigation was perfect.  All the evidence that could be gathered, was gathered, including cooperation from the Martins.

    Julison and Crump would still have obtained the ear of a compliant press that craves a story that will sell, truth be damned.  The story would have been the same.  The facts flat out don't matter to the press.  What matters is "the story."

    If the initial reports had been "a suspected prowler was shot by a homeowner because the prowler was beating the crap out of the homeowner," the story would not have sold newspapers and created interest, and there would not be a massive public outcry. Without public outcry there would not be a special prosecutor, and without a special prosecutor, there would not be a charge, trial, etc.

    Too bad indeed.  Lots of waste.  Plenty of imperfect people involved.  You stack the blame where you want to, and I'll stack it where I want to.  We both have access to the same facts, but we don't have the same brains or sense of judgment.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#135)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:02:04 AM EST
    They came to the same conclusion the jury eventually did, so it seems they spent the right amount.

    Parent
    The incompetence is (none / 0) (#160)
    by Semanticleo on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:00:12 AM EST
    impressive.  If the investigation and the prosecution is s**t, you must acquit.  That's the crux.  Playing to the Media is part of the political interest of a DA.  Maybe they should be appointed by appellate courts.

    Parent
    You mean like (none / 0) (#163)
    by txantimedia on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:02:09 AM EST
    the incompetent BDLR?  The guy who has won 80 murder cases and lost two?  That incompetence?

    Your bias is showing.

    Parent

    So, they wanted to lose? (none / 0) (#170)
    by Semanticleo on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:20:34 AM EST
     they never really wanted to win. It was better if they didn't!

    I withdraw my charge of incompetence.

    Parent

    Whatever Barkley's influence is... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by citizenjeff on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:59:39 PM EST
    ...it's more than zero, and it was a well-expressed point.

    Quick transcript of Obama's (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by magster on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 01:32:43 PM EST
    YouTube (none / 0) (#202)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 01:37:51 PM EST
    Charles Barkley (4.50 / 2) (#8)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:36:58 PM EST
    The voice of reason

    I agree with Charles.

    Wow! I hope Charles (4.00 / 1) (#15)
    by txantimedia on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:52:56 PM EST
    is ready for the avalanche coming his way.

    Parent
    ^^^ What he said. ^^^ (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:59:17 PM EST
    I didn't listen yet, but I heard a (none / 0) (#23)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:13:11 PM EST
    "sports editorial" on the radio yesteday. It was a CBS reporter talking about the explosion of tweets from professional athletes Saturday night, and later, probably on advice from their teams due to backlash, trying to walk back what they wrote.

    He said one thing we'd know, when Sir Charles talks, he means it, and never walks back from what he said. That's true, so either way, I'd respect him for his point of view.

    Parent

    Me too (none / 0) (#57)
    by citizenjeff on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:44:25 PM EST
    Great post, Slado.

    Parent
    No. (4.00 / 4) (#210)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 02:02:24 PM EST
    He's claiming he was black 35 years ago (I know that's shocking), and as a black man, he knows what it is to have people be suspicious of you when you are not doing anything wrong.  

    That's your response to this? (3.67 / 3) (#212)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 02:07:18 PM EST
    Why not engage the rest of us and try to move the country forward in whatever small way you can?

    A note about racism. (3.57 / 7) (#131)
    by Isabela Hernandez on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 08:19:53 AM EST
    Living in a mixed race family has been both challenging and insightful for me. I want fair opportunities for all of my white, Hispanic and black relatives, but I will not stand for using perceived racism as an excuse for failure. I've long thought that Barack Obama was so easily able to capture votes from white America because he was raised mostly outside of our black subculture. His middle class grandparents and most of his friends growing up in Hawaii probably didn't make a big deal of his minor differences such as skin color and hair. Many middle class whites who voted him probably feel like he's one of their own. If he walks and talks like them, who cares about skin color? Yet the black-white cultural differences became stumbling blocks when people learned about his angry black pastor who preached against whites, etc. It's not the differences we fear (or dislike), but rather those differences that have a potentially negative impact.

    Given that, I find it surprising that people are so accepting of racial strife exhibited through the Zimmerman trial. Instead of recognizing that criminals often hide their identity with hats or hoodies and young men would be better served if we taught them to remove their hoodie if they're in a situation Martin was in, we get the Miami Heat picture belligerently glaring out from their hoodies as if it's a cultural badge of defiance. Now Crump is claiming that Trayvon was just "trying on the gangsterism of mainstream Hip Hop like the costume it is." I would posit that it does not serve us well to continue glorifying a gangbanger mentality or any other negative component of our subculture. There is a reason racism persists today, and it has to do with being recreated, not taught. Why are NYC immigrant taxi drivers wary of AA customers? Because they've been taught that blacks are dangerous? Or is it perhaps for the same reason that I feel completely safe wandering the multicultural streets of Honolulu, but go on high alert walking past young Asians in LA who look like gang members. Context is everything.

    One of the most complex components of racism is how easily a person's self identity is impacted by other members of the group. Rachel Jeantel's testimony during the trial is a perfect example of this. I've seen many African-Americans cringe when they watched her testimony. She seemed confused at times, and she was confrontational and angry with Zimmerman's attorneys, even saying she didn't understand some of the relatively simple questions. In my opinion, she appeared distrustful but also dishonest. Her demeanor and language suggested she was a product of a low-income, under-educated class of Americans that could be any race. Yet some African-Americans seemed to feel embarrassed about who she was and the way she spoke. As I sat with AA women attorneys watching her (and watching them react to her), I realized they somehow thought she represented them in spite of the differences between them and her.

    Why don't whites so easily fall prey to the same problem of association? White immigrant sub-groups may have played a key role in allowing American Caucasians to separate from others they disdain. Throughout our history, there have been waves of Caucasians from different countries. Whites have been able to distinguish themselves and their "tribe" as better than those <ethnic slurs for Polish, Italian, etc.>.

    But there are still plenty of generalizations about whites as oppressors, both from AAs and white people themselves. White guilt is alive and well, as this trial has shown us, with people of all races desperate to make this a example of white on black racism, even creating a new ethnic group, "White Hispanic," to reinforce their preconceived meme.

    The fact that some people indulge in white guilt, believing Caucasians are generally wrong or bad based on the actions of some other Caucasians indicates that our innate tendency for tribalism gets way overblown in the complex world we live in today. You don't hear many white people saying "Mother Theresa is white, and so am I, so white people must be good." Instead, you hear silliness along the lines of owning slaves is bad and in the US the slave owners were white so white people must be the bad guys. Statistically, white Americans are overwhelmingly good people who give billions of dollars every year through donations and tax money expenditures to help poorer people of other races in this country and around the world. White Americans fought and died to end this country's black slavery, while contemporary slavery in Africa where blacks still own other blacks is relatively unchallenged. I believe that's because it's easier to assign blame or assume self identity when a group is clearly delineated visually.

    I know this is a long post, but I hope we take an opportunity to learn from this racially charged homicide trial that has become a national referendum on race relations. Zimmerman was accused of killing Trayvon Martin in what was either a case of racial profiling turned into a physical conflict initiated by a wannabe cop trying to detain the suspect, or self-defense by a concerned neighbor reporting a suspicious person and following him within his rights, who was then attacked by the angry black youth who may have had a chip on his shoulder. As a parent, I tend to believe a combination of the above, with clear teaching opportunities in spite of our not knowing for sure what happened that night.

    Lession to teach young black boys and men (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:38:12 AM EST
    young men would be better served if we taught them to remove their hoodie if they're in a situation Martin was in

    At what point should Martin have removed his hoodie?

    Maybe a better lesson would be that it is better for them to walk bare headed in the rain and leave hats and hoodies to other people like me.

    Parent

    MO Blue (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:54:38 AM EST
    Could you straighten me out on one fact regarding this case?

    Did Zimmerman follow Martin after he was told by the dispatcher that they didn't need him to do that?

    Parent

    Listen to the NEN call yourself (none / 0) (#145)
    by Harold on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:01:11 AM EST
    As I did; right after the dispatcher said that, I no longer heard heavy breathing (Zimmerman would not appear to have been in great cardiovascular condition) and what I took to be ambient wind noise stopped.  Something changed, and I interpreted it as him stopping and concentrating on the remaining business with the dispatcher.

    Note when you search for it, it might be called a 911 call, although it was to the Non-Emergency Number (NEN).

    Parent

    Presumptious (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 12:37:59 PM EST
    What right do you have to tell a mother what she should and should not tell her kids about safety in a racist culture. Advice by mothers about not getting killed, arrested, or harmed because walking while black is a crime in many parts of the USA, is prudent and wise, imo.

    Really you have no idea what it is like for her.

    Parent

    "killed, arrested, or harmed because walking (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    while black"

    No argument that this occurs. OTOH her children are not at risk for walking while black. Per her comments she and her children are white.

    Really you have no idea what it is like for her.

    I, like Ms. Hernandez, do know what it is like being a white mother to white children and grandchildren in a racial culture.

    Now you may support teaching children that they must adhere to her criteria (which also teaches them to judge others by that standard), I do not. I prefer to teach my children and grandchildren not to judge people by their race, or what they wear, or what their financial situation and would hope that they are judged by the same standards.

    I will leave you now to continue to build strawmen. I have no desire to interact with you when you do this. Bye

    Parent

    White Or Black Or Mixed (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 02:19:43 PM EST
    Living in a mixed race family has been both challenging and insightful for me. I want fair opportunities for all of my white, Hispanic and black relatives,

    She, and others who have spoken about their personal experience on how they bring up their children in a racist culture, is heartfelt, and exhibits a great deal of wisdom. So please cut the crap, this is a real issue for many.

    Parent

    Ridiculous (3.00 / 5) (#141)
    by Isabela Hernandez on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:54:01 AM EST
    And a classic distortion of what I said. But clearly you don't understand the distinction between keeping your head dry and wearing clothes to make an aggressive statement. Or perhaps you think the Miami Heat had a photo shoot in the rain.

    BTW, I tell my white children and grandchildren the same thing. If you haven't done anything wrong, don't act guilty. If you dress and act like a criminal, don't be surprised if people think you are a criminal. If you want to get a great professional job, you should consider that covering your body in tattoos might be a barrier. But most importantly, people will always make judgements based on what you look like and how you act. You can get all up in arms over that and decide to be belligerent if it happens to you, or you can recognize that it's helpful if neighbors are watching out for each other and be one of the people who benefits from your neighbor's wariness.

    Parent

    Seriously? (5.00 / 6) (#147)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:22:26 AM EST
    But clearly you don't understand the distinction between keeping your head dry and wearing clothes to make an aggressive statement.

    Wearing khaki pants and a sweatshirt/hoodie are "making an aggressive statement"?  I didn't realize I should be scared of half the kids in my town.

    BTW - Geraldo agrees with you - not that I would consider that much of an endorsement.

    Parent

    Don't come to my neck of the woods (4.00 / 4) (#153)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:44:55 AM EST
    You would need to be scared of half the kids in my town and at least half of the old ladies as well. Not only do the old ladies wear hoodies they make other aggressive statements such as carrying their weapons of choice: Canes and Walkers.

    Be afraid! Be very afraid!

    Parent

    Twist, twist, twist. (3.67 / 3) (#189)
    by Isabela Hernandez on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 12:13:50 PM EST
    As usual, strawman Yman, you are twisting the words of others to pretend they're saying something inappropriate so you can get your own knickers in a twist.

    To help you understand completely:

    1. Trayvon Martin was not showing aggression by wearing a hoodie. Don't put words in my mouth.

    2. Trayvon could have realized someone was calling the police on him and he could have chosen to remove his hood to show he had nothing to hide and, hence, deescalate the situation.

    3. Trayvon WAS being aggressive if he came back to beat up the guy he thought profiled him.

    4. The Miami Heat hoodie picture was intentionally confrontative. The gist of many people to the suggestion that criminals hide their identities with hoods and hats is "Don't tell me what to wear," or "You're being racist if you tell someone to remove their hoodie." That is injecting race unnecessarily. My white and Hispanic relatives wear hoodies as well.


    Parent
    You seem to have a set criteria on what (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:27:37 AM EST
    equals dressing like a criminal and what constitutes acting guilty which you have taught to your children and grandchildren. There is only one problem with this criteria - not everyone recognizes your criteria as the national standard criteria to be adopted throughout the country, let alone in other countries. Other people just might have other criteria on which they profile people.

    I wonder how you would feel if your family members were deemed undesirable and a threat based on parameters other than your own.

    Parent

    I wonder (5.00 / 10) (#152)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:38:48 AM EST
    do you tell the young women in your family they'll deserve any unwanted attention if they wear tight or revealing clothes?

    People were not looking to make this an example of white on black racism, rather IMO, "people" were saying this is an example of what your entire post is about - the idea that one group has to conform to the norms of another group to be deemed "normal" and not be viewed in a negative light.  Indeed your post confirms exactly what many of "us" have been saying.  What makes it more ironic is your nom du jure here has a Spanish surname.  So much for the theory that there can't be bias amongst us minorities eh?

    As far as Rachel is concerned, speaking for myself only, I wasn't embarrassed by or for her.  I was disappointed that folks such as yourself (who I think are representative of the mindset of jury) would find the inability to relate to her a negative and thus write her off.  That's probably what your black-lawyer friend was upset about, YMMV.  You should ask her instead of speculating.  IMO, many of us were pissed because we knew that a key witness would not be believed because of what she looked like and how she sounded.  That's not self-hate, that's understanding the realities of a jury trial.  

    Bottom line is, I don't need to be how you think I should be.  You want to be scared of me because of the way I dress, that's your issue.  You need to get over it, not me.  Better thing to do would be to ask yourself, absent any direct interaction w/someone you deem "scary" are your fears founded in rational thought?  

    This is a free country that grants us all life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Finally, the supposed benevolence of your post is belied by these words:

    who was then attacked by the angry black youth who may have had a chip on his shoulder.

    and you hope "we" take the opportunity to learn.  You should try following your own advice.

    Parent

    Didn't think this day would ever come (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:50:38 AM EST
    I would give you multiple fives for that comment if I could.

    Parent
    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:53:46 AM EST
    extremes (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by woodchuck64 on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:52:12 AM EST
    Finally, the supposed benevolence of your post is belied by these words:

        who was then attacked by the angry black youth who may have had a chip on his shoulder.

    That's not the way I read it; her post is presenting that as one of two extreme views, not as her personal view.  

    She says:

    I tend to believe a combination of the above, with clear teaching opportunities in spite of our not knowing for sure what happened that night.


    Parent
    You may be right (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:58:57 AM EST
    My bad for not reading it properly the first time.  

    I was a bit distracted by the heat in my heart over the idea that victims (yes victims) are the ones at fault in these situations.  That there is some middle ground that needs to be achieved here is a false idea IMO.

    Parent

    Your cognitive dissonance (none / 0) (#164)
    by txantimedia on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:04:00 AM EST
    is showing.  George was assaulted by Trayvon.  That makes him a victim as well.  Yet you blame him for everything.

    Your bias is showing.

    Parent

    You're assuming (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:24:06 AM EST
    I don't blame George for everything.  I blame him for putting events in motion certainly.

    Do I believe everything he's said?  No.  That's what's you take issue with and that's not "misrepresenting."  That's a difference of opinion.

    Would TM be wrong if he just punched GZ in the face w/o provocation - certainly.  The issue always was whether there was provocation or not.  You clearly believe there was none.  I would submit we don't know that.  YMMV.

    Parent

    I would add (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:26:10 AM EST
    I stated "these situations".  Which is what the original post I responded to was about.  I.e. how should one handle one's self in public.  

    Cognitive dissonance indeed.

    Parent

    It's all good (none / 0) (#162)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:01:11 AM EST
    Some readers will notice when and which posters chronically misrepresent what they are replying to.  Not saying you are misrepresenting, just saying you don't need to point it out, it's obvious.

    Parent
    Am I a "chronic misrepresenter"? (none / 0) (#165)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:04:23 AM EST
    is that your contention?

    Parent
    My contention is (none / 0) (#166)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:06:33 AM EST
    You don't care what I think, and I have no need or interest in interaction with you.  You represent yourself with your words, that's enough for me.

    Parent
    I actually do (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:18:24 AM EST
    because that's not what I do, and if I do misunderstand something and am mistaken, I admit it.  I've been posting here for a long time and didn't just show up here w/an interest in Zimmerman.

    Having a different perspective is not misrepresenting.  Don't make allegations that you cannot back up.   Otherwise, don't make statements about me and expect me not to respond.

    Parent

    Alternate juror E54 (none / 0) (#161)
    by txantimedia on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:00:43 AM EST
    blew your theory up.
    I was disappointed that folks such as yourself (who I think are representative of the mindset of jury) would find the inability to relate to her a negative and thus write her off.
    He said he understood her and found her believable.  I did too.  So much for your stereotyping.

    Bias works both ways.  You assume, without cause or knowledge, that all six jurors didn't find Rachel's testimony credible and didn't understand what she said.  That's bias, whether you want to admit it or not.

    This is America.  You're free to believe whatever you want.  But don't kid yourself that you're the openminded one, because you're not.

    Parent

    I know I have biases (none / 0) (#167)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:11:25 AM EST
    and have no problem admitting it.  

    Why not address the points you raised instead of making this about me, hmmm?

    Do you believe we should dress and/or act in a manner that is deferential to those who make negative assumptions about us?

    Assuming I saw you on the street and your dress was a little too tight - can I call you a ho?  How about a sinner destined for he!!?

    Will you smile back at me if I follow you calling you same when you attempt to walk away?  Or will you think I deserve a punch in the nose to teach me some manners?

    Parent

    Since you asked, I'll (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by txantimedia on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 12:09:46 PM EST
    answer your questions.
    Do you believe we should dress and/or act in a manner that is deferential to those who make negative assumptions about us?
    Frankly, my wife wishes I would, but I really don't care what other people think of the way I dress so I ignore her.  However, I'm also not foolish enough to think it's appropriate to wear blue jeans to a black tie ball or a black tie to a barn dance.

    Some forms of dress are inappropriate in some contexts and not in others.  Specifically WRT to Trayvon, I saw nothing wrong with the way he was dressed, and apparently neither did George.  He never mentioned what Trayvon was wearing until he was specifically asked by the dispatcher.

    Assuming I saw you on the street and your dress was a little too tight - can I call you a ho?  How about a sinner destined for he!!?
    Why would I care?  Why should I care?
    Will you smile back at me if I follow you calling you same when you attempt to walk away?  Or will you think I deserve a punch in the nose to teach me some manners?
    I would never punch anybody.  It's always inappropriate to do so.

    If you followed me yelling names at me, I would think there was something wrong with you mentally.  If you approached me and tried to accost me, I would ask you to please leave me alone and go away.  If you attacked me, I would shoot you.

    Parent

    "deferential?" (none / 0) (#178)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:39:26 AM EST
    Do you believe we should dress and/or act in a manner that is deferential to those who make negative assumptions about us?
    Huh. Now I think I understand why Jeantel thought that after the shooting the onus was on the cops to call her. Had she called them she would have been "deferential."

    Parent
    You're not making any sense (none / 0) (#180)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:47:36 AM EST
    if the jury believed RJ, then GZ assaulted TM, i.e. "get off, get off" and thus self-defense seems a stretch to reach.

    I'm not saying that's what happened (GZ assaulted TM) simply saying your theory about belief of RJ's statements aren't backed up by any evidence she was believed thus far.

    The trial is over, not really something I want discuss anyway.

    Parent

    Self-defense may seem a stretch to reach (none / 0) (#184)
    by Harold on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:55:15 AM EST
    And that's how I was taught, and prior to this case thought it generally worked in America, but Florida law specifically allows an aggressor who does not use lethal force to use lethal force if the other party first escalates to lethal force.

    I.e. in a hypothetical where Zimmerman was the first to threaten or use lethal force his affirmative defense of self-defense would fail.

    Parent

    So does Texas (none / 0) (#187)
    by txantimedia on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 12:11:20 PM EST
    and many other states.  There's nothing special or peculiar about Florida self defense laws.

    Parent
    Only thing we have to fear is fear itself (3.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:21:30 AM EST
    Isabela Hernandez wrote "young men would be better served if we taught them to remove their hoodie if they're in a situation Martin was in, we get the Miami Heat picture belligerently glaring out from their hoodies as if it's a cultural badge of defiance."

    Some conservative shockjocks also thought that young women would be better served if we taught them to remove their vaginas if they're in a situation Sandra Fluke was in, women in the Democratic Convention were belligerently glaring out from their bodies as if the vagina is a cultural badge of defiance.

    To the conservative shockjocks and Isabel Hernandez's of the world, I can only say what FDR said many years ago "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". If one is not aware, this irrational fear can be caused by something as harmless as a hoodie or a vagina!

    Parent

    Charles is right of course (3.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Jack203 on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:23:31 AM EST
    And it is true he is just one opinion typically not worth even commenting on.

    The difference in this case is that Charles is African American.  And 90% of the African American community are delusional about this case and are extremely pro-lynch mob.  The 10% that believe similarly to Charles are fearful of being ostracized for not "keeping it real", and very likely keep their opinions silent.  As Chris Rock would say...."keeping it real....yeah real dumb"

    Charles speaking out is a big deal.  Good job Charles.  

    Please.Just.Stop (2.00 / 1) (#176)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:29:05 AM EST
    It wasn't just because TM was "wearing a hoodie".

    GZ thought he was acting suspiciously - especially while standing on a neighbor's lawn in the rain - a neighbor GZ knew not to be at home and whose house had recently been broken into.  GZ reported to a NEN (NOT 911) that TM was acting as if he were on drugs.  I don't know what TM did that night to make GZ think that - maybe it was an overreaction - but no one can ever know that.

    But it wasn't just becuase TM was wearing a hoodie.

    How about you please stop. (5.00 / 4) (#181)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:48:53 AM EST
    I was responding to Isabela Hernandez's comments where she profiles wearing hats or hoodies as a activities of criminals.

    Instead of recognizing that criminals often hide their identity with hats or hoodies and young men would be better served if we taught them to remove their hoodie if they're in a situation Martin was in

    If you haven't done anything wrong, don't act guilty. If you dress and act like a criminal, don't be surprised if people think you are a criminal.

    That sounds a whole lot like profiling in my book. Now you may support teaching children that they need to dress in accordance with her criteria when it is very obvious that not only do others not share her opinion, they wear hats and hoodies without being judged by her standards. I do not believe as she does and I will continue to state my opinion on this and other subjects regardless of whether they meet your approval or not.

    Parent

    Let's not make this about TM and his hoodie (none / 0) (#177)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:34:44 AM EST
    that's not what this is about.  Despite attempts to make it so.  Can we address the points raised by Isabella?  

    Parent
    I happen to agree with her broader point (none / 0) (#182)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:49:51 AM EST
    It's like people who dye their hair purple and then mouth off if you stare at them or say something.  Or women who wear plunging necklines and then complain that men only stare at their chests.  Was TM making a "statement" that night, was he just covering his head from the rain, or did he just like to dress in a hoodie because he thought it was cool?  I have no idea.  B

    But it IS the point - as long as the comments keep the meme alive that TM was killed because he wore a hoodie - "He was making a statement" or "The old ladies where I live wear hoodies - are we dangerous??"  - Gah! Can we please move on?

    Parent

    The "Southern Strategy" thing (1.50 / 2) (#33)
    by txantimedia on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:43:52 PM EST
    is a lie concocted by Democrats to explain why they lost the South.  The truth is it was Democrats who opposed civil rights for almost one hundred years after the Civil War.  It was Democrats who stood in the school house door to prevent blacks from entering.  It was Democrats who founded the Ku Klux Klan and the Citizens Councils that used racism to excuse abysmal behavior toward blacks.  It was Democrats who lynched and burned both blacks and their white Republican supporters.  It was Democrats who murdered Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers and Emmitt Till, and Democrats who murdered the Mississippi three (two whites and one black.)

    It was Democrats who filibustered to stop Civil Rights legislation until they finally saw the handwriting on the wall and voted for it.

    George Wallace was a Democrat.  Orville Faubus was a Democrat.  Lester Maddox was a Democrat.  Sheriff Bull Connor was a Democrat.  Senator Byrd was a Klan member and one of those who fought hard against civil rights legislation.

    The South has been wrongly accused of bigoted racism for decades while the North has escaped such accusations, despite the fact that racism exists in every state, county, city and town in America.

    The shift of Southern whites to the GOP began in the 1920s and gathered steam in the 1950's when Eisenhower became President, long before the supposed "Southern strategy" of the GOP supposedly attracting racists to their party.

    The 1964 Civil Rights act was supported by over 80% of the Republicans in Congress and less than 70% of the Democrats.

    So please get your facts straight before you point the finger of racism at anyone.

    Yes, let's remember that George Wallace (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:03:01 PM EST
    won more than a third of the votes in the 1964  presidential primary in "progressive" Wisconsin, when it was a Democratic power, and after he filed only thirty days before.

    Parent
    The Southern Strategy... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:12:43 PM EST
    ...was a very real something that the Nixon campaign did.

    And practically all of the Dixiecrats moved over to the Republican party back in the '60s and '70s.

    Parent

    Not "Democrats" (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:45:23 PM EST
    Southern, conservative Democrats.  The Southern democrats of the 1800-1900s are no more representative of the modern Democratic party than the Rockefeller Republicans are representative of the Republican Party.

    BTW - If the Southern Strategy is a "lie concocted by Democrats", someone should have told the Republican party before they sent their RNC chairman out to acknowledge and apologize for it.

    Parent

    The Republicans are (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by txantimedia on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:12:38 PM EST
    a bunch of wussified political amateurs who would apologize if the shadows got in your way.  The only difference between the current two parties is who their corruption enriches.

    Parent
    Yeah, those Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 08:27:45 AM EST
    ... always apologizing for things they didn't do.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Malcolm X (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 07:57:15 AM EST
    said that a "Dixiecrat is nothing but a Democrat".

    I agree with him.

    Making a distinction between "Southern conservative Democrats", and the rest of the party at that time is like trying to separate "moderate" Republicans like Romney from "Conservative" Republicans like Boehner. They're all in it together.

    In fact, these days, I would venture to say that there isn't a feather's weight of difference between the Democratic party and the Republican party.

    It is a choreographed dance to keep us entertained and distracted while they go on propping up the 1% and dooming the rest to support and fight endless wars.

    Parent

    in other words (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:02:24 PM EST
    all those racist people in the south were democrats.  

    BTW....as we all know, after the civil rights legislation in the early 60s all the racists became republicans.  So who cares that they used to be democrats.  Carter simply is not a racist, period.
    Drop the Byrd was a klan guy nonsense.  It was 60 years ago, he was an uneducated poor boy from a small town in WV and he later changed when he knew better.  He apologized and just was never the same guy anymore.  As far as fighting against the civil rights legislation in 64, several southern democrats did including Gore senior who was fairly liberal.  They did it because they believed there were parts of the legislation that unduly punished white children in their states for circumstances they could not control.  

    Parent

    I love how you liberals (1.00 / 2) (#154)
    by txantimedia on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:49:45 AM EST
    can excuse the most egregious behavior of Democrats without missing a beat yet hold others to a much higher standard simply because you disagree with them politically - and couldn't see the hypocrisy of your stance if it hit you between the eyes.

    Paula Dean's "sins" was more than 30 years ago, but that matter's not a whit to you.  Byrd filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, yet you give him a pass with the most ludicrous excuse ever - oh he was just a poor country boy.  He voted against Thurgood Marshall in 1967.  He urged the FBI to put a stop to MLK in 1968.  He was the only Senator to have voted against BOTH black Supreme Court nominees.  In 2001 he said "white niggers" (not niggas) on national TV, and not one Democrat criticized him for it.

    When he was a Senator, Lyndon Johnson said, "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days, and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness."

    Apparently, when he became President, the "uppityness" trumped his racism, so he signed the Republican led Civil Rights legislation.

    There are your heroes.  It's disgusting.

    Parent

    Paula Deen's "sins" (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by shoephone on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:41:46 AM EST
    You mean like... the one where she said she loved the idea of having black waiters dressed up as slaves? Not thirty years ago. Using the n-word, telling racial jokes? Not thirty years ago.

    But honestly, the depth of your defensiveness about southerners and race is not serving you too well.

    Parent

    Lots of the Past Tense of TO BE (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:02:00 PM EST
    But I guess you are from Texas, and somewhat nationalistic about it, so I see your point.

    Flashback to present tense:

    Certainly plenty of people outside of the South are racist, and plenty of people in the South are not. But here's the trouble: There's social-science evidence that, 150 years after the Civil War, Southern states do have bigger racism problems than states outside the South. And many of them are the same states that the VRA requires to seek federal approval before changing their voting laws.....

    ....The researchers' mathematical model suggests that of the seven states in the country with the highest percentage of people who are biased against black people, six are Southern states--Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina [emphasis mine]



    Parent
    I've lived in Texas (none / 0) (#53)
    by txantimedia on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:26:05 PM EST
    since 1981.  It's not been my experience at all.  In fact, I would say Texas is more accepting of blacks than many other places I've been.

    Is there racism here?  Of course!  Just as there is everywhere in America.  But most of our neighborhoods are fully integrated, and shopping in the local stores you see people of every race, creed and color, which means we're all living together just fine without finger-pointing outsiders deriding us.

    You'll pardon me for being very suspicious of a paper written by two professors who not only don't live in the South but both hale from extremely liberal states and presented in one of the most liberal rags in America outside the communist ones (like Common Dreams.)

    Parent

    ",,,more accepting of blacks.." (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:45:17 PM EST
    is not an entirely persuasive choice of words for your case, although it is a little better than  those who might use "more tolerant..."   I suppose.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:29:10 PM EST
    Hard to tell what is going on... tree through the forest and the lens of Northern Liberal Academia..

    In any case Racism is alive and well, in fact thriving in the US of A.

    Parent

    RedState (none / 0) (#105)
    by gaf on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:14:13 PM EST
    Read it on Redstate, did you?


    Parent
    those comments have been deleted (none / 0) (#119)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 02:10:12 AM EST
    President Carter (none / 0) (#1)
    by bocajeff on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 02:57:27 PM EST
    Found it interesting that he thought the jury got it right. Is it because he's a southerner? A practicing Christian? Or, he believes it from a legal viewpoint?

    Post-colonial theory (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by SuzieTampa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:06:22 PM EST
    fits the North and South nicely. The more industrial Northerners got rid of slavery when it no longer made good economic sense for them. Northern abolitionists in the 1800s had a hard road, and their opinions were not completely embraced by Lincoln or other Northerners at the end of the war. Preserving the Union was all about keeping the raw materials and cheap labor of the South.

    Northerners could have boycotted products made by Southern slave labor, but only a few did. The North devastated the South in the Civil War, occupied the South under Reconstruction and then left after cutting a political deal.

    Northerners can feel better about themselves by putting down the South and its backward culture. I was born and raised in Texas, but my parents and 2 older sisters were from the North. People usually think I'm from the North before I tell them my background. As a result, I've had to listen to Northern liberals put on fake Southern accents and otherwise pretend to be Southern so that they can indicate someone who is stupid and uneducated. Bigotry takes many forms.

    Parent

    Why (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 07:00:08 AM EST
    in the world would people put on a phony Southern accent in talking to you? If their motivation was that it would indicate someone who is stupid... doesn't make much sense to me.

    The beginning part of your comment reminded me of something Malcolm X said long ago - that in the South you knew where you were - everything was upfront - whereas in the North, they smiled at you and stabbed you in the back.

    Parent

    It's because they don't think I'm from (none / 0) (#129)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 08:15:14 AM EST
    the South, and so, we'll all be in on the joke. But even people who know I'm from Texas still do it without thinking, just as people occasionally slip and say something derogatory about Jews, even though they knew my father was Jewish.

    Parent
    Some joke... (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:52:32 AM EST
    I'm sure those folks could manage to sound stupid in any accent or no accent.

    Parent
    What does "because he is a southerner" (none / 0) (#3)
    by me only on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:06:05 PM EST
    mean exactly?

    Parent
    The stories coming out today (none / 0) (#2)
    by labrat on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 02:59:41 PM EST
    about the DOJ facilitating the protests to fire Chief Lee and to get Scott to appoint Corey are disturbing me today.

    Particularly because of the cozy connections (none / 0) (#5)
    by lily on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:25:59 PM EST
    to Martin family attorneys Park and Crump's staff
    and attorney Natalie Jackson activist mother (quoted in local papers as describing herself as "fighting white people her whole life" and father the minister of the church which hosted some events.

    Parent
    Manslaughter (none / 0) (#4)
    by DennisD on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:18:24 PM EST
    I've heard some prosecutors say that they thought they could've gotten a guilty verdict by charging some kind of manslaughter like culpable negligent homicide, whatever that is. Does anyone think another prosecutor could've convinced a jury self-defense was not justified and gotten a guilty verdict of some sort?

    Thanks.  

    But I doubt manslaughter (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by SuzieTampa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:33:57 PM EST
    would have been accepted by the parents and others who rally for "justice for Trayvon." Because politics were involved, it was important for the governor's special prosecutor to charge GZ with murder before the election.

    Parent
    Many here write about political (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:48:06 PM EST
    pressure for Corey to chagr Martin and/or to specifically charge murder 2. so far I have seen nothing but peoples' opinions. what support, if any, is there for these opinions?  (Monday morning post-verdict second-guessing doesn't persuade me.)

    Parent
    Evidence vs. public outcry (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:01:15 PM EST
    The opinion that Corey charged for political reasons is founded most on the weakness of evidence that cut against Zimmerman's narrative, plus the public forces that caused politicians to bypass the normal criminal justice process.

    The short version would be that public forces prevailed over the evidence.  That is a political trial.  Trials are supposed to be conducted or not, based on the strength of the evidence - the available facts.

    After the trial Corey said it was good to have a trial so the facts could come out.  Well, if that's the case, let's put on trial all the rape victims who used force to stop an attack.  Just so the facts can come out.  Obviously, that would be inappropriate - if the facts clearly show self defense, we don't put the atackee on trial so they can demonstrate that to the world.

    But, with the public whipped into a frenzy (2 million signature on a petition, national news, unarmed Hollister shirt kid with skittles and iced tea minding his own business is gunned down by a wannabe cop who profiled him), Corey didn't want to be the person to say "the evidence doesn't support a charge."  She was brought in to quell the public, and somebody made a decision that the only way to do that was to put Zimmerman on trial, and do everything possible to get him convicted, despite the paucity of evidence.

    Parent

    Because (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:05:46 PM EST
    Given the witness testimony and Zimmerman's injuries, there was precious little evidence to support M2.

    Parent
    Omara explains to Anderson Cooper (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by lily on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:01:55 PM EST
    that political pressure was applied to his supervisors who in turn directed 9 edits of the charging docs when he could not find probable cause.

    Corey dismantled the impaneled grand jury and took responsibility for charging the case 6 days before her re-election.

    link

    Parent

    Shorter version (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:47:06 PM EST
    None.

    Parent
    Ignoring (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 07:53:26 AM EST
    .

    The political decision to pull the original prosecutor and give the case to Angela.

    .

    Parent

    Ignoring the original post (3.50 / 2) (#132)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 08:25:10 AM EST
    ... which was not about the decision to appoint a special prosecutor, but "pressure for Corey to chagr Martin and/or to specifically charge murder 2".

    There's no evidence.

    Parent

    She was given the case (none / 0) (#196)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 12:57:16 PM EST
    .

    She was given the case because the original attorney after reviewing the evidence would not charge.  How naive can you get?  The reason for her appointment was to indict.

    .

    Parent

    That's not naivete (none / 0) (#207)
    by txantimedia on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 01:54:51 PM EST
    That's a pigheaded refusal to look at the evidence.

    Parent
    Close (none / 0) (#209)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 02:01:42 PM EST
    That's a pigheaded refusal to cite any evidence ...

    ... because there is none.

    Parent

    Manslaughter (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:37:18 PM EST
    I believe that was included in the lessor charges. IANAL..  and all manslaughter, from what I understand, is precluded by self-defense.

    Parent
    Squeaky, I have spent a lot of time (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:52:13 PM EST
    looking up stuff I wanted to know by searching this site the way you showed me. Thank you so much! Except for accounting software and Excel, I'm pretty bad on computers.

    There's enough real evidence on this site for an author to use for a book!

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:22:48 PM EST
    Several books!  and lots of wisdom between the hosts, guests and commenters.

    Parent
    As poor (none / 0) (#6)
    by Semanticleo on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:26:15 PM EST
    as the Prosecution was the jury was split, until they were convinced otherwise.

    I thought it unwise to allow Zimmerman to testify (on tape) with no cross-examination possible.  How many preemptory challenges were allowed, 10?  I should think that would have been better at 20 since 6 jurors is already a handicap.

    Parent

    You keep saying this (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:47:51 PM EST
    until they were convinced otherwise

    as if it were out of the norm. I saw a legal panel discussion about this, and even the prosecutors said it's very much the norm for a jury to be split until they go over evidence and then read the instructions.

    They said "that's why we call it jury deliberations".

    If all evidence was so strong to suggest an immediate verdict, either most would except a plea deal, or on the other hand, the state wouldn't even offer a plea deal at all knowing the evidence was there.

    This isn't some kind of deal where the others were forced to accept not guilty. The male juror wasn't even in the deliberations and he said he would have been a Not Guilty.

    I did find it interesting what he said about Juror 37, though. He said he was surprised one of them spoke out that soon after the verdict, but he was not surprised at the one who did. He said they had no conflicts as a group, but she must have had a certain type of personality for him to say that, I would think. I'd like to hear more of them in a way, but I think most of them may be influenced now by what they seen on the news, just like some witnesses that night backed back a little.

    Parent

    Have you heard (none / 0) (#17)
    by Semanticleo on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:58:05 PM EST
    if B37 was the foreperson.  My instinct tells me yes.

    Parent
    I can't tell. In her only (none / 0) (#22)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:08:36 PM EST
    interview she said "we elected a foreperson" like the judge had told them to. She seems they type to want to brag if it were her, but I'm just guessing.

    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Semanticleo on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:16:46 PM EST
    I didn't think it was ;publicized.  The courts really protect the jury system and need to keep it credible.  They have enough people who want to bug out from duty.  Then again, there are people who WANT to be on the jury.  Not good, usually.

    Parent
    "have seen" on the news. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:16:47 PM EST
    Sorry, Semanticleo, I'll learn to proofread one day.

    Parent
    I'd trade my horse (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Semanticleo on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:21:42 PM EST
    for an edit button  :)

    Parent
    You Mean House (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:39:04 PM EST
    HAhaha..  edit...

    Parent
    First you have to... (none / 0) (#68)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:14:32 PM EST
    ...trade your kingdom for the horse.

    Parent
    I thought their best shot was 782.11 (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jbsnyder on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:44:54 PM EST
    782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.--Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

    It would have still been an uphill climb, but if they had built their entire case around that they might have gotten a conviction.

    Parent

    Still (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:53:11 PM EST
    Self-defense precludes manslaughter. Cbolt suggested that the reason Corey overcharged with 2ndDegree murder was that it did not preclude self-defense.

    Parent
    Just the statutory language (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:39:08 PM EST
    Justified use of force is a defense to murder, as well as to manslaughter and the "over-use of force" which is mentioned above (and which is the statutory charge cited in the Serino affidavit/capias).

    My speculation as to the prosecutors preference for charging murder, over manslaughter, is that if the charge was manslaughter, the prosecutor has to put in writing, in the charging document, "and the use of force was not justified under chapter 776."  This is because the crime of manslaughter has that as an element.

    In contrast, the statute that describes murder (1, 2 and 3) does not recite "and the use of force was not justified," the murder statute says it was a killing, and describes state of mind of the killer, and that's it.

    So, at the front end of the prosecution, the prosecutor can avoid the formality of presenting any suggestion of self defense, as long as the charge is murder.  But if the charge is manslaughter, the charging document, the arraignment, the affidavit in support of the charge, those things will refer to the justified use of force.

    Think of it in terms of Dershowitz's criticism - he says the charging document is unethical, because it doesn't touch on the self defense evidence.  If the charge had been manslaughter, the charging document would have touched on the self defense evidence.

    On the evidence, I don't think the charging decision was ethical to begin with, and whether the prosecutor charged murder or manslaughter doesn't change my opinion on that.  By ignoring the self defense evidence in the charging document, Corey was able to delay the inevitable discussion (before a judge) over whether or not Zimmerman's use of force was justified.

    I'd say that as a strategy of misleading the public, charging murder was a brilliant choice.

    Parent

    cboldt, thanks again for useful info (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:57:35 PM EST
    and another commenter noted, as I understood the comment, that the charge was a way to get past a  grand jury?

    Parent
    Manslaughter and the grand jury (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:05:36 PM EST
    The grand jury question is "why not murder 1"?  The only charges that require a grand jury, in Florida, are those that carry a risk of death penalty, capital cases.  Murder 2 is not a capital offense, and neither is manslaughter.  Corey is always free to get a grand jury to agree that the evidence is strong enough to support a charge, and it is good public policy to allow a grand jury to agree that the evidence is strong enough.  It is economical to skip a grand jury if the evidence is really strong, and prosecutors are allowed to skip a grand jury if the penalty isn't death.

    Anyway, Corey's choice of Murder 2 over manslaughter has ZERO effect on whether or not to employ a grand jury.  She can skip the grand jury either way.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:10:46 PM EST
    She chose not to take it to a grand jury:

    Corey has had three options: to file charges against Mr. Zimmerman, drop the case, or send it before the grand jury. And despite expectations that the jury might convene this week, Corey had indicated earlier that she might not use that option, saying that she has never before used a grand jury to decide on filing charges in a possible homicide case.

    Or this:

    How can that be? Wasn't a grand jury established as far back as 1166 under King Henry II as a check on the power of the Church and the feudal barons and a shield against oppressive prosecutions, and then in 1215 through the Magna Carta as a shield against the power of the King? Indeed, the grand jury's role has always served as a buffer to protect an individual from prosecution except by "the lawful judgment of his peers" -- an explicit requirement under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If that is so, how can Zimmerman be charged without a grand jury? The answer is straightforward. In 1884, in Hurtado v. California, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not require states to use grand juries to formally charge crimes, only the federal government.

    Sure, states can require a grand jury indictment, as most do. But not Florida, unless the charge is murder in the first degree - premeditated murder -- a "capital" crime with which Zimmerman was not charged. That's why Florida used the grand jury to charge Casey Anthony with capital murder. Still, under Florida law, Corey could have asked a grand jury to consider the evidence in the case and return an indictment. But she didn't. Why?

    (The article then goes on to list various reasons why she may not have wanted to use a grand jury)

    Parent

    if she had convened the grand jury, "some (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:24:22 PM EST
    people" wouldchastize her for passing the buck and making use of amsecretive process.  

    Parent
    She is always free to show the evidence (3.00 / 2) (#56)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:31:30 PM EST
    Whether the charge is approved by a grand jury, or is issued from the prosecutor acting without use of a grand jury, the prosecutor is always allowed to proffer the evidence it will prove at trial.  It has to do this to some extent, or risk the case being tossed by the courts.

    Grand jury secrecy, even when it no bills, does not preclude the prosecutor from showing ALL of the evidence.  Heck, the town of Sanford released phone calls and police reports, and that was before a grand jury was scheduled.

    Keep in mind that the entity that wanted to lynch Zimmerman was the public at large.  The authorities were not finding enough evidence to charge him.  It was the public that wanted his hide.  Saying "there is not enough evidence" cost people their jobs - Chief Lee and Prosecutor Wolfinger to name two.

    This case shows the power of the mob.  Those who feel good about the power of the mob today, those who think it was a good thing that Zimmerman was put to the ordeal of trail (because, goes the lie, this is the only way for the facts to come out) - I promise you there will be a case where you change your mind.  You won't admit you were wrong about the Zimmerman case, but this abuse of the power of the state to go after somebody without enough evidence, that is a bad scene.

    Parent

    What was I "wrong" about? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:46:39 PM EST
    Yeah (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:28:25 PM EST
    She really had no good choice either way.

    Parent
    "INEBC" (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:47:42 PM EST
    (It's Not Easy Being Corey)

    Parent
    Yes, and this is what I meant (none / 0) (#64)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:56:08 PM EST
    in my poor wording of "get past" a grand jury.  I ought to have said "get around" a grand jury.

    Parent
    Yeah but (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jbsnyder on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:08:21 PM EST
    I was thinking along the lines of saying that the shooting was an overreaction to the beating.  It wouldn't have convinced me but it might have done so for the jury.

    Parent
    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:21:56 PM EST
    The prosecutor had the burden of proof to charge that Zimmerman was not reasonable in that he feared death.

    That was possible in this trial. Zimmerman would have been charged with manslaughter had the state disproved self-defense.

    Parent

    "convicted," not "charged." (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:51:15 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:03:24 PM EST
    Thanks Oculus...  IANAL..  and often sloppy to boot!

    Parent
    I agree with you (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jbsnyder on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:49:16 PM EST
    I knew he was going to walk back before this was charged.  But if they really wanted to give themselves the best chance of winning, that should have been the charge they argued.  

    Parent
    problem here (none / 0) (#143)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:55:30 AM EST
    then the state would have been admitting that tm was committing an unlawful act by beating and punching GZ . . . they would already at the state have been giving away the elements of the self-defense defense.

    Parent
    Is it possible.... (none / 0) (#11)
    by MikeB on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:47:40 PM EST
    ....that they had to charge him with at least murder to get around the grand Jury?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#45)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:07:14 PM EST
    I made a more detailed comment above - the only time a grand jury is mandatory is under murder 1 or some other death sentence case.

    Neither murder 2 nor manslaughter is a death penalty charge.

    Parent

    questions (none / 0) (#30)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:35:16 PM EST

    If Tm was more than 71 inches tall, why didn't the Defense hammer Dr Bao on this?

    What ever happened to the 3 guys in the 7-11? Did they purchase anything for TM?

    Did GZ's Ridgeline truck have tinted windows?

    What happened to the ping log?

    Who was the other person using Rachel's phone?

    Why didn't Chad tell Brandi/Tracy that TM did not come home and was not answering his phone?


    TM's height (none / 0) (#46)
    by rage of on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:07:53 PM EST
    Has been reported as tall as 6'4".  Speculation is the 6'4" was based on the vid of him exiting the 7-11 wearing cool kids sneekers which add a couple of inches and a hoodie which can also add inches.  There have also been claims that putting a body in cold storage may cause it to shrink a little.

    Parent
    ding, I think O'Mara/West used (none / 0) (#72)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:27:57 PM EST
    the height to have their cake and eat it, too. Remember him having the 7-11 guy stand up and say he was 5'10? Then in closing, O'Mara pointed out his height again and about TM having no muscle, etc., when they measured him and then he went over to show the height differential between himself and GZ? And then the cardboard cutouts.

    BUT, when questioning the ME's, they used the 5'11 to point out that TM's BMI (is that the correct initial?) was normal for a person of his height and weight and indicative of a good physical condition. So they used it to their advantage when they needed to.

    I'd also like to know about pings/gps. Were they never able to use the two phones to come up with any indication of where they were exactly? I guess not since they didn't use it.

    Parent

    SIAP (none / 0) (#36)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:56:18 PM EST
    Here's the Tracy Martin & Sybrina Fulton on all three morning shows.

    It's the mediaite site, which I know nothing about, but they have all the videos.

    Additional thought: when will the (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:00:41 PM EST
    attention of the public shift away from this case?

    This story has legs (none / 0) (#49)
    by rage of on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:17:40 PM EST
    GZ will likely sue NBC at a minimum.  There is a chance the Martin family may sue GZ.  Who knows what will come of the DOJ spam fest.  There are also plenty of pols and Al Sharpton types who want to keep the story alive.

    Don't hold your breath till it is over

    Parent

    There will be action against the state of Florida (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:23:58 PM EST
    Not sure it will be Zimmerman personally, but O'Mara is going after the prosecutors for Brady violations.  That's another angle that might stoke a bit of public interest.

    Federal courts allowed civil action to proceed against Nifong, in what is referred to as a "1983 action," deprivation of civil rights under color of law.  I don't think Zimmerman is sturdy enough to go there, but if I was in his shoes, I would.  I'm not saying he has a winner, just that he has at least as much of a case against Corey as she had against him.

    Parent

    And maybe action against the city of Sanford (none / 0) (#63)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:50:06 PM EST
    DOJ: Don't return gun to George Zimmerman while we're investigating - Orlando Sentinel.

    A comment there notes that seizure of Zimmerman's property without a warrant is a violation of the constitution; and it appears the feds have put the SPD in the position of seizing Zimmerman's property.

    This is illegal under Federal Law, see Walters v. Wolf, 660 F. 3d 307 - Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit 2011 - No. 10-3597.  This will be yet another 42 USC 1983 violation against the City of Sanford.


    Parent
    Kruidbos is going to sue Corey (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:12:39 PM EST
    Kruidbos is the "whistleblower" who witnessed de la Rionda playing technical games in order to withhold the evidence that was on Martin's cellphone.

    While de la Rionda had human readable reports and photos, he withheld that from the defense, and instead provided a raw data file.

    Kruidbos' case is one of wrongful termination.

    Parent

    Did you read... (none / 0) (#69)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:20:59 PM EST
    ...what Barkley said?

    They are, trust me they are. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:59:01 PM EST
    Some of those athletes have millions of followers on Twitter. I have a twitter I use for sports and follow a whole lot of sports personalities and sportswriters. The reaction of just high school kids tweeting to them was really really sad. Heartbreaking. They were very invested, I promise you.

    My step-daughter is in that age group (21 going on 13 :) ), and she and all her friends care. They can't tell you about any evidence except that TM died, but they care enough to be upset.

    And Charles Barkley is the most loved NBA commentator. He's very well known and doesn't need this case to get any attention. He's "Sir Charles"!

    You and I may not need them to tell us how to feel, but they do, and that's why we're where we are regarding this case.

    Really? Well, I'll have to go elsewhere (none / 0) (#86)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:21:56 PM EST
    to understand why, as I was basing my understanding on what I have read here -- at least in comments that were somewhat more edifying than a drive-by.

    Corey had discretion to let the grand jury (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:48:49 PM EST
    consider whatever evidence she chose to present and decide whether to charge him, and, if so, to determine the charges of the indictment.  Or she could exercise prosecutorial discretion and make those decisions instead. In my opinion, she is in the spotlight for her decisions to charge as she did. She cannot deflect the criticism by pointing to the grand jury.  In addition, the grand jury testimony is usually secret. But perhaps not in FL state criminal cases.

    Parent
    Funny (none / 0) (#87)
    by coast on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:24:07 PM EST
    Barkley famously said that he wasn't a role model.

    "At least murder" vs. grand jury (none / 0) (#94)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:58:51 PM EST
    I think my reading comprehension was okay, perhaps you can provide a more precise jab.

    I didn't remark on the question being "odd" in that it's wording suggests the more serious the charge, the more likely or easier to bypass the grand jury.  The reality is opposite that.  Less serious charges don't get a grand jury.  There is no parking ticket grand jury, or speeding ticket grand jury, or DUI grand jury.

    And even at the murder level, no grand jury is required unless the murder is alleged to be premeditated, murder 1.  No grand jury is required for murder 2 (which is what Corey charged Zimmerman with, depraved indifference to human life, hatred, ill will) or murder 3.

    I was not referring to your (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:00:51 PM EST
    reading comprehension but to the fact you must repeat your replies re grand jury and now I am regurgitating them also.

    Parent
    Ahhh ... I get it (none / 0) (#97)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:05:35 PM EST
    It is interesting how people take in so little of the information that is "out there."  I almost didn't post the second reply, figuring that saying anything once per thread is enough, and if people don't see it, it's their shortcoming / loss, etc.

    And, in hindsight, that's exactly what I should have done.  Either say nothing, or say it once.

    Not taking any umbrage at all from your remark, BTW.  Just airing my own head out in public.  I have concluded that making remarks on websites, even well researched remarks, is a complete waste of time.  I do it as long as it helps or entertains me.

    Parent

    A good modus operandi. Carry on. (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:07:22 PM EST
    Oculus, I know Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:21:23 PM EST
    doesn't want us commenting on a lawyer's ethics, etc., but have you looked up Ms. Corey? She prayed with Trayon's family the first day she was appointed.

    In 2009, she charged 230 juveniles as adults, more than the total history of that state's attorney's office combined. The total history.

    On her press conference to announce charges, this is just a sample of Monroe Freedman's thoughts. If he's not as respected as ethicist as it seemed when I looked him up, tell me and ignore me. :)

    Parent

    I meant to add, I'm not asking you (none / 0) (#108)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:23:17 PM EST
    to comment or tell me what you think. I know you won't because you aren't the type to judge members of your profession and I totally respect that.

    Parent
    The defense attorneys, I assume, are well-aware of (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:53:48 PM EST
    The Florida State Bar's procedures re ethics complaints and they are at liberty tonfile a complaint against Ms. Corey. I think they should stop bad mouthing her to the media.

    Here 's a link comparing procedures in various states re trying a juvenile as an adult.  BTW, at least in CA, such a juvenile is then entitled to trial by jury m

    Link

    Parent

    They should say "no comment" when (none / 0) (#118)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:36:32 PM EST
    asked a specific question? Like how do you feel about Ms. Corey calling your client, just found not guilty, a murderer? I can't agree. Or sit by when discovery, that even I as a layperson knows should be turned over, isn't? I'll bet there's some grateful attorneys in her district for shining light on it, if nothing else.

    It's actually words - words of her, words of the media that get me so worked up. Isn't that sad? I should throw one of my autographed footballs through the screen! That's what did me in in 2008, words, the media. I just played with my dog babies, so I feel better. :)

    Parent

    Why is Anderson cooper (none / 0) (#99)
    by Darby on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:09:02 PM EST
    Asking the Martina if they think an all white jury convicted a lblack defendant?   The white jru, with one AA, found a biracial defendant not guilty!

    For the same reason that during (none / 0) (#103)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:46:24 PM EST
    his hour special on race, he let a commentator rage on about Juror 37 saying "they" when referring to understanding the language used when just the night before he interrupted a commentator just after his interview with 37, to say that she made it clear that "they" meant Trayvon and Rachel, not a class or race of people.

    He let it go on by. It makes me wonder what else they didn't show. One other thing in that show he didn't correct which I can't remember right now. It may have been correcting that it wasn't just "George", it was also "Trayvon", a correction he also made the night before.

    The same night, on Erin Burnett's show, a commentator used the f'ing c**ns line with no correction from anyone on the panel she had.

    Parent

    Well, if I were Juror 37, as much as (none / 0) (#110)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:31:35 PM EST
    I didn't really warm to her, I might see a lawyer.

    AC just showed the "they" clip to Trayvon's parents, with no explanation of what she said to him (AC), and ask them if they thought she was referring to AA's as a group. What the heck are they supposed to think? Of course they'll think that, just like I would and did as a white person, until he clued us in on that is NOT what she meant. Even though she freely chose to go on that show, what kind of danger has he put her in now?

    He played other clips and asked their opinion. I don't expect them to think highly of her in the least, but he's putting them in a total no-win situation.

    Also, while I'm media ranting, Piers Morgan is having on Rachel again tomorrow night, "the person who knows Trayvon best". That's pretty sad if someone who only knew him two weeks since kindergarten knows him the best.

    This is the reporting I'd expect out of Fox News and why I need to turn my TV off. I guessed they noticed the huge ratings drop I wrote about earlier.

    Parent

    Jeralyn, you made need to bring out (none / 0) (#113)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:42:02 PM EST
    your flipflop post about "It's about race", then Parks' "It's not about race" again. It needs updated. Crump is on AC and it's about race again.

    If you read the transcript, see my post above about the non-definition of "they". I feel bad for Tracy and Sybrina who are smart and seem classy and are grieving. Trayvon would be proud, but they're being misled. To an extent anyway.

    I'd send AC an email, but they don't care and only want ratings.

    Parent

    Exceeded my pain threshold of propaganda - (none / 0) (#138)
    by melamineinNY on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:33:15 AM EST
    why I go to FOX for news on the aftermath of the verdict.

    Parent
    B-37 has backtracked (none / 0) (#101)
    by SuzieTampa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:15:42 PM EST
    perhaps to save herself from all the hate.  

    If (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 07:02:40 AM EST
    she is subject to pressure, and is prone to change her statements to suit her audience, her book should prove most unreliable.

    Parent
    She isn't writing a book after all (none / 0) (#130)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 08:19:21 AM EST


    Anyone remember that million dollar bail? (none / 0) (#146)
    by redwolf on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:15:36 AM EST
    Base on the evidence of trial in how can anyone find that bail reasonable?  Will Zimmerman sue the judge over it?

    martin parents interviews and (none / 0) (#151)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:38:34 AM EST
    apparently everyone and his brother is now interviewing the martin parents, who say they just can't believe how or why the jury did not convict.

    My question is for all these people who have been interviewing the TM parents . . . who are telling us such wonderful things about TM . . . How come no one seems to have asked the parents whether or not TM was beating up GZ and pounding his head into concrete?  If TM was pounding GZ's head into concrete, would using the gun have been justified?

    It was never about the hoodie (none / 0) (#169)
    by HereIBlog on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:19:03 AM EST
    Zimmerman's issue with Martin was never about the hoodie. The hoodie was sensationalized. It was a media distortion to play the race card and take focus off of the facts.

    GZ's issue (which he clearly states in the NEN call) was with how TM was acting in the rain, walking about, etc.

    God forbid (3.00 / 2) (#201)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 01:32:58 PM EST
    a person should "walk about" in the rain.  It doesn't really matter what first made GZ suspicious.  It was probably a combination of factors.  The issue most people who find him culpable of wrong-doing (if not a criminal act) is that he didn't  just let the police handle it.  If you see someone you think looks suspicious, by all means call the police--that is what they are trained to handle.  If you choose to get more involved than that, the outcome can be tragic as we have seen.

    Parent
    friends (none / 0) (#174)
    by whycoh on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:26:39 AM EST
    Aside for Rachel Jeantel (who only reconnected with trayvon in the last weeks of his life) have any of Trayvons other friends/classmates spoken out abt him?

    There's an interesting case rather like this (none / 0) (#197)
    by Harold on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    My Google Fu hasn't been able to find it, but as I remember:

    (White) guy is in his yard when several (black) women charge across the street from their house/yard and start pummeling him (the conflict was over something having to do with their children in school).  He's armed, but doesn't pull his gun and start firing until one of them very competently attacks him and specifically his head from the side (turns out she was a martial artist).  Fortunately no one died, and he is of course charged, not being as badly wounded as Zimmerman.

    The prosecution e.g. tried very hard to show he wasn't on his own property but abjectly fails, and he made a sufficiently convincing case he was in reasonable fear for his life when the attack from the side started.

    I assume this didn't become a nationally prominent case because no one died and it was very clear who started the fight (and perhaps why; I don't remember the specific reason, not sure it was in the account I read, but it was or was said to be a relative nothingburger, and of course no justification for after the fact 3rd party violence).

    Indy, God forbid GZ did anything, right? (none / 0) (#215)
    by HereIBlog on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 02:29:31 PM EST
    Indy, why do you say that GZ did not let police handle the situation?

    HereIBlog (none / 0) (#216)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 02:41:39 PM EST
    I say that because, as far as I know, there was no evidence or assertion by any party that Trayvon forced GZ out of his vehicle.

    Obama (none / 0) (#217)
    by Jack203 on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 03:04:56 PM EST
    Excellent speech this afternoon!

    Hope Jeralyn has a thread on it.  

    So, Indy... (none / 0) (#218)
    by HereIBlog on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 03:21:39 PM EST
    So, Indy, how is GZ getting out of his vehicle is equivalent to not letting police handle the situation?