Zimmerman's Traffic Stop: Why Wouldn't He Be Armed?

Here's the video of George Zimmerman's traffic stop in Texas. [Added: Longer version here. Sounds to me like he describes Zimmerman as a "black male, last name Zimmerman" at 2:47 in.)

Why wouldn't he have a gun with him? He's the target of death threats. Those who object should examine why he feels the need to be armed. If lawyers who view their duty to be "social engineers" as greater than their duty to be lawyers, and as a "higher calling" than being an attorney, the media and a public all to ready to declare guilt, hadn't created an atmosphere of hatred for Zimmerman, his life would not be at risk. To suggest he shouldn't be able to protect himself by possessing a lawfully acquired firearm is preposterous.

George Zimmerman shot and killed someone who attacked him. He committed no crime. He has a valid concealed weapons permit. If the media and public didn't continue to perpetuate the false myth that he is a racist and a "murderer", there might be no death threats and no reason for him to be armed at all times. In other words, you reap what you sow. [More...]

Despite being found not guilty, the man can't work, go out in public or live like a normal person. I think it's sad and unfair. When the cop who stops him asks he where he is going, he says nowhere in particular. The cop says how come? That seems to be when Zimmerman asked the cop whether he recognized him. The cop did not, but a few seconds later when looking at his driver's license, put 2 and 2 together.

Added: Transcript:

Officer: “Where you headed to?”
Zimmerman: “Nowhere in particular.”
Officer: “Nowhere in particular? Why do you say that?”
Zimmerman: “You didn’t see my name?”
Officer: What a coincidence.”

The officer checked for warrants and then let him go with a warning. There was nothing illegal about Zimmerman having a gun in his car.

Zimmerman also had a gun in the car when he turned himself in on the arrest warrant in Jacksonville in April, 2012. The police put that gun with his personal property so it could be released.to his family.

Who else in America would make national headlines for getting a warning for speeding? The media's portrayal of this event as national news is typical of its overblown, slanted coverage of everything related to his case since February, 2012. It needs to stop using Zimmerman as its personal punching bag.

< O.J. Simpson Granted Parole on Some Counts | XKeyscore: Real time Internet Monitoring Program >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Because Maybe... (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:10:36 PM EST
    ...he has come to the conclusion that guns have cost him way too much or that just because he's not in jail, he might actually feel bad for taking a life even if it's legal.

    Not everyone on the planet believes guns are the solution to violence.  And the fact that a man who shot and killed someone legally isn't carrying one, even though he can, is pretty damn compelling, especially when people have threatened to kill him.  

    But, that rather obvious point was missed entirely because you're so focused on the evil media and how they can't let GZ go, much like Talk Left, that the actual scraps of real news, that's he's not packing, doesn't really matter.  Because that would mean, god forbid, someone who knows a thing or two about the reality of carrying and using a gun, doesn't fit the mold you keep trying to cast.  

    Two sides of the same coin.  

    This comment confuses me (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:54:26 PM EST
    Zimmerman was armed when the officer pulled him over for speeding in North Texas. Per Jeralyn's link:

    When Zimmerman was pulled in a gray-colored Honda pickup with Florida tags he told the policeman he was armed. The officer instructed him to put the weapon in his glove compartment and said that if after checking his background, and if there were no criminal issues, he could go on his way. The entire incident was captured on the officer's dashcam.

    At some point Zimmerman asked the officer if he recognized him from television and the officer said he did not.

    I watched the clip (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 10:13:07 PM EST
    I watched the clip . . . it seems to me as if the officer said leave the firearm in the glove compartment and don't load it. . . .

    To Clarrify... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 11:52:39 AM EST
    ...I misread that he wasn't packing.

    Your out look fascinates me. (none / 0) (#5)
    by redwolf on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:46:54 PM EST
    To you it's like guns are witches wands or the one ring.  Do you believe that guns have a life and power of their own?  Do they corrupt people's souls?

    That kind of deadly power in your hand? (3.67 / 3) (#19)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:34:44 PM EST
    You DON'T think it could possibly affect a person's psyche or the way they interact with the world in a negative way?


    The two times I had guns pointed at me in anger sure changed me forever, and, weirdo that I am, made me dislike firearms even more, made me less inclined to ever even hold one much less want to buy one.

    A gun is power. Deadly power on fingertip demand. And absolute power, as we know, can easily have a very corrupting influence on the mind of the empowered.

    That's how power goes. And it ain't changing. Have your guns, I know that cat isn't going back into any bag in the wild west USA. They just are not my thing, baby. Not at all.



    A positive effect. (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Blast Freezer on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:39:33 PM EST
    "You DON'T think it could possibly affect a person's psyche or the way they interact with the world in a negative way?  Really?"

    I don't know what training Zimmerman had.  But every concealed carry class I've heard of goes into detail about the potential consequences if you use lethal force to defend yourself, even if the use of force was justified. I need not describe those consequences, because from the Zimmerman case we all know what they are.  

    Potentially being charged with a crime, losing everything you have, and being bankrupted by legal fees provides a tremendous disincentive NOT to use lethal force except when necessary.  When you carry a gun you don't flip people off in traffic, pick bar fights, or do anything else that might provoke someone else to violence.  If anything, carrying a gun makes someone less likely to provoke other people.

    When Zimmerman got out of his vehicle on February 26 I don't think he had any idea that that action might end up in a violent confrontation.  He was expecting the police to show up at any moment.  He was expecting that the young black man would flee the area, not hang around for a fight.  In that context I don't believe that Zimmerman's possession of a handgun had any effect at all on his actions prior to being attacked.


    A person can take all the classes, (none / 0) (#129)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 09:28:12 AM EST
    study the manuals, read up on the law, make sure he or she understands the legal and financial consequences of shooting, and possibly killing, someone else - and that's all well and good.  People should do that even if the law doesn't require them to.

    But that's all theory, and cannot possibly replicate the experience of being in a situation where one might have to use one's weapon, and it certainly cannot replicate or predict one's reaction to killing someone, even if in self-defense or defense of family.

    And it's all well and good for you to theorize what Zimmerman was or wasn't expecting Martin to do, but again - that theory may or may not be an accurate assessment of Zimmerman's thought process.

    He may well have thought Martin would flee, but isn't it reasonable to think that whatever education or training he had included some emphasis on being aware of and prepared for the possibility that these kinds of situations can be extremely fluid?


    You are correct, Anne (none / 0) (#139)
    by txantimedia on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 10:11:54 AM EST
    He may well have thought Martin would flee, but isn't it reasonable to think that whatever education or training he had included some emphasis on being aware of and prepared for the possibility that these kinds of situations can be extremely fluid?
    The problem is it's human nature to become complacent, despite efforts to not do so.  Given that all his previous encounters involved people running away when spotted, it's not out of the realm of possibility that he assumed the same would happen in this case.

    It didn't, and that will (and already has) change his life forever.  It only takes one traumatic experience to completely alter your thinking on something you previously thought you clearly understood.


    The effect does seem to be positive (none / 0) (#166)
    by Thorley Winston on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 02:46:14 PM EST
    I know that there was a study done a couple of years ago in Texas showing that CCW holders were less likely to commit crimes (both violent and non-violent) than the general population.  

    You can find the statistics (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by txantimedia on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 04:54:29 PM EST
    In 2011, there were 518,625 active CHLs, but only 120 total convictions.

    Overall - The general population over age 21 is over 15 times as likely to commit any offense listed by DPS as are CHLs

    Assault - The general population over age 21 is over 26 times as likely to commit an assault as are CHLs

    Burglary - The general population over age 21 is almost 100 times as likely to commit a burglary as are CHLs

    Terroristic threat - The general population over age 21 is over 20times as likely to commit a terroristic threat as are CHLs

    Prohibited Weapons - The general population over age 21 are almost 30 times as likely to be convicted of possessing prohibited as are CHLs

    The guy that had this study done also says that Texas CHL crime stats are better than Texas LEO crime stats, but he won't release the numbers, because he doesn't want to offend LEOs.  (He works with the legislature on CHL-related legislation.)

    A car is a deadly weapon (4.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Payaso on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:30:58 PM EST
    So is a knife, a baseball bat or a match.

    Are you differentiating.. (none / 0) (#16)
    by unitron on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:32:19 PM EST
    ...between having it on him in a holster versus having it in the glove box?

    If not, I'm wondering to what article you're replying.


    Oops (5.00 / 14) (#2)
    by sj on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:18:00 PM EST
    I didn't mean to end up here. I need to get out quick.

    When I Was in Texas (none / 0) (#150)
    by msaroff on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 12:48:18 PM EST
    If you had a gun in the car, it had to be in a locked case, and in the trunk, and the trip had to be for the purpose taking the gun from one place to another.

    I just looked it up, and the law has changed.

    Nothing about Zimmerman, but I was surprised about the lack of arrest until I realized that the law was changed.

    On Zimmerman, I think that any attempt at name dropping during a traffic stop is simply wront.


    I don't think it was name dropping (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    I think the media is playing it that way, but it seems that GZ was just testing the waters to see how the cop would react (especially since he had a gun).  Would the cop overreact?

    In the olden days... (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by DebFrmHell on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 01:18:15 PM EST
    if you traveled more than three counties, you were allowed to carry a weapon.  I kept mine on the front passenger seat.  Never made any attempt to conceal it.  I locked it in the trunk when I was away from the car.

    Having a gun is no big deal.  What you don't see anymore are the big gun racks that used to be mounted in the rear windows of trucks anymore.  I don't remember seeing that many racks that were empty.

    Naturally our local news started with "George Zimmerman is in trouble with the law again!"  I tweeted them back the definition of integrity.

    Zimmerman has a CCP. He is legally entitled to have a weapon with him.  Texas recognizes resident permits from Florida.  

    This was a basic traffic stop and he was issued a warning ticket.  Why it is news is beyond me.  It is a yawner.  


    Response (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Cylinder on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 02:26:46 PM EST
    It's very clear that Zimmerman reminded the patrol officer who he was in response to that officer's concern over why Zimmerman was vague about his destination. There was no name-dropping or appeal to celebrity.

    DPS Officer: Where you headed to?

    Zimmerman: Nowhere in particular.

    DPS Officer: Nowhere in particular!? Why do you say that?

    Zimmerman: You didn't see my name?

    DPS Officer: Huh?

    Zimmerman: You didn't see my name?

    DPS Officer: Nuh-oh. [Looks at DL, pauses] What...uh...what a coincidence.

    Zimmerman: Sir, I'm sorry...

    DPS Officer: Are you clear of warrants and stuff?

    Zimmmerman: Absolutely

    Very clearly Zimmerman was trying to give the DPS Officer the missing piece of the puzzle here. It's pretty clear by the officer's demeanor that once that piece fell into place, his suspicion was satisfied and the police just wanted to make certain that Zimmerman had no warrant/condition/hold, etc..

    You could claim that Zimmerman's celebrity got him out of a speeding ticket, though that stop was not very different than a normal citizen might encounter. The variance was that one would usually expect a hassle when you don't answer to your destination. Cops don't like that generally. Zimmerman was under no obligation  to report his destination or even tell the patrol officer his reason for being vague. Instead, Zimmerman was cooperative in bring the backstory to the officer's attention.


    Maybe I'm cynical (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 05:00:14 PM EST
    But Zimmerman's stop was news for two reason's;

    Anything with Zimmerman in the title makes the media money.

    Puts the information out widely on Zimmerman's truck, model, color, and license, to make it easier for others to find him.


    I don't get it (1.00 / 0) (#169)
    by mm on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 03:21:17 PM EST
    I'm George Zimmerman.  Oh woe is me, I'm going nowhere in particular?  Seems to be a bit of a narcissist.

    I didn't get it either... (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 03:29:18 PM EST
    and I guess he didn't see the irony - and neither does Jeralyn - in the fact that for all the keening and wailing over how this poor man who didn't do anything wrong is being mercilessly hounded, a member of law enforcement didn't even recognize him.

    In Fornay? (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by DebFrmHell on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 04:38:32 PM EST
    IDK.  But it seems to me that he didn't visually recognize him but he did recognize his name for the connect.  Not everyone followed the case like we have.

    If I were GZ, I would have told him that I was just so freaking happy to be away from Florida that I couldn't do it fast enough.

    I am glad he is able to go anywhere he wants now.  He paid a big enough price for a political prosecution, IMO.


    Silly (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Cylinder on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 04:18:37 PM EST
    It's just ridiculous to abandon objectivity wholesale like that. Nowhere does Zimmerman lament his condition nor ask for special favor because of his celebrity. He was explaining his answer. It's like the 9-11 conspiracists - facts be damned.

    I think it's highly likely (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by txantimedia on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 04:46:44 PM EST
    that after his experience with law enforcement, particularly his wife's perjury charges, that he's keenly aware that everything is recorded, and he's not about to give his location or destination away in light of the threats he's received.

    Name dropping?! (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Char Char Binks on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 11:05:38 PM EST
    Aren't we SUPPOSED to give our name, and our driver's license, to a police officer in a traffic stop?  And isn't name dropping giving the name or names of SOMEONE ELSE, usually a celebrity or official, in order to influence or impress someone?  Remember, he didn't say, as was falsely reported, "Did you see me on TV?", he said "Did you see the name?", the name ON THE I.D., the name that he is legally required to give, the name the cop SHOULD HAVE ALREADY READ.  Why would George give his destination, knowing that there are people who are bent on harming him, even killing him?  "Nowhere in particular" is a perfectly good answer, under the circumstances.  I would probably have said, "I won't tell you", or "None of your business", or something like that.

    Hmm... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Adirolf on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:24:51 PM EST
    Actually, as I recall, the last one we know of who asked George Zimmerman what he was up also didn't get a good answer, and things went very bad after that.  

    Well, the last one did not have a gun of his own (1.00 / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:43:52 PM EST
    Up "to" (none / 0) (#4)
    by Adirolf on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:32:48 PM EST
    Sorry. But just noted it was Forney TX...Used to drive through there often...Always thought it would be a good spot to start a "catering" business.

    It would really be ironic (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Payaso on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:05:17 PM EST
    if the cop stopped him because he looked Hispanic.

    with out of state plates (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:11:40 PM EST
    a distinct possibility

    That's funny (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:43:14 PM EST
    In Texas we have such a diverse population that if cops were stopping people for racial reasons they'd be stopping people all day every day.  If you watch the tape you'll notice that he tells him to try to slow down and lets him off with a warning.  Very typical of Texas cops.

    I didn't get off with a warning last year when I (3.67 / 3) (#141)
    by Angel on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 10:22:09 AM EST
    was stopped for allegedly speeding.  I got caught in a construction zone speed trap - drove down a hill and around a curve and lo and behold there's a sign of changing speed limit and the cop happened to be sitting AT the sign location and turned on his lights...I hadn't even had time to react to the sign to change my speed.  Because it was in a construction zone the fine was double, plus you can't get that particular ticket erased from your record by taking defensive driving.  So, no, I'd say that letting someone off with a warning is not typical in Texas.  I wouldn't be surprised that the cop let Z off because of his notoriety and his desire to not get involved with any situation having to do with him because of it.

    Hey there AmericanPsycho - (2.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Angel on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 02:37:26 PM EST
    It's okay to disagree with my comment but troll ratings aren't acceptable.  I'm not a troll and this isn't spam.

    I have a feeling Mr. Psycho has been (2.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 02:43:34 PM EST
    here before, under another name.  And I don't imagine he's too worried about the rules.

    You're probably correct about both thoughts. (2.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Angel on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 02:45:23 PM EST
    I'm not troll rating you (none / 0) (#176)
    by AmericanPsycho on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 04:58:58 PM EST
    I just don't like your comment so I gave it a 1.

    Giving a "1" is the very definition of (2.00 / 0) (#179)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 05:05:56 PM EST
    "troll rating;" if you strongly disagree with the comment, give it a 2.

    Or use your words and express what it is you object to.

    Based on some of your comments, I don't really care what you think, but if you're going to comment/read here, you ought to at least play by the rules.


    I looked at the comment policy (none / 0) (#180)
    by AmericanPsycho on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 05:12:25 PM EST
    it doesn't describe comment ratings.

    This is what Jeralyn has said on 1 ratings (none / 0) (#181)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 05:18:35 PM EST
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 01:28:59 AM CST
    no one should give a 1 rating based on point of view. A 1 is for a troll comment or site violator or an unintelligible comment. I can't erase ratings for individual comments, only all ratings by a particular commenter.

    Thanks blue. (none / 0) (#182)
    by AmericanPsycho on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 05:23:24 PM EST
    don't sweat it too much (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 09:44:51 PM EST
    both Anne and Angel have been known to pass out plenty if 1s, when someone has had the nerve to disagree or state their opinions without the proper amount of respect.

    It would, except not. Didn't happen. (none / 0) (#30)
    by CreamCity on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:12:45 PM EST
    CreamCity? THE "CreamCity"?? (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 09:52:49 PM EST
    If so, welcome back.  Very welcome back.

    I think I got too excited (none / 0) (#78)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 10:23:36 PM EST
    "Cream City" - who posted literally thousands of intelligent, articulate comments on TalkLeft before quitting in November 2010, and who is much missed around here - had a space in her moniker. Not to cast any aspersions on the new commenter "CreamCity," but s/he doesn't use that space, and I strongly suspect that if the original were back, she wouldn't change that detail.

    Peter, i too had a brief moment of excitement (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 10:47:12 PM EST
    when I saw the "CreamCity" moniker. Then, like you, I saw the lack of a space in the name and concluded our Cream City had not returned.

    Sad, so sad.


    I am quite convinced the former (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 02:29:55 AM EST
    "Cream City" is commenting here now.

    Indeed, Cream City's departure (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 04:59:23 PM EST
    has seemingly left us all "to wanda lonely as a cloud."

    Me too, though I did get (none / 0) (#148)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 12:20:53 PM EST
    excited with this new one just in case I was wrong...did not notice the lack of space in the name.

    Looked Hispanic (none / 0) (#85)
    by Char Char Binks on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 11:08:47 PM EST
    The cop called him "white".  I wonder if that's on his license.  I thought it was simply "Hispanic".

    If this was a "civilized" society (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Payaso on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:07:46 PM EST
    people would not need guns to defend themselves.

    Unfortunately this is the real world.

    Evidently my comment was not clear (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:19:13 PM EST
    What confused me was Scott's comment which sounded to me like he thought that Zimmerman was unarmed when he was stopped in Texas.

    I would be in Peru (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Visteo1 on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:37:48 PM EST
    visiting relatives, with paid armed guards.  My guess is that it is cheap to hire a couple bodyguards there.  I would not feel safe in the states without the Secret Service protecting me.

    Trust me (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:40:59 PM EST
    he will feel safe in Texas.  That's probably why he's here - where cops don't freak out because you're armed and ask you to get out of the car and speadeagle, and where citizens take carrying guns in stride, as a natural part of life.

    Well, except for (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:39:34 PM EST
    certain places....

    And, Texas cops are imo the worst....They put people in jail for routine traffic violations if they feel like it....


    I don't suppose you could (none / 0) (#65)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 09:08:09 PM EST
    provide a link for such a silly statement?

    Ah, Clear Now (none / 0) (#17)
    by Visteo1 on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:33:33 PM EST
    I was wondering about possible sarcasm, but I think he was answering Jeralyn's lead off question:

    "Why wouldn't he have a gun with him?"


    That would make sense (none / 0) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:37:57 PM EST
    I think I better join CG and get out of the Little Hangleton graveyard and back to the safety of Hogwarts.

    I would say stay out (none / 0) (#25)
    by Visteo1 on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:00:55 PM EST
    of Middle-earth to avoid the Eye of Sauron...but I think that to be a post on the NSA.

    My Apologies (none / 0) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:33:50 PM EST
    I better grab a Portkey and get out of the Little Hangleton graveyard and back to the safety of Hogwarts.

    I deleted your comment (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:56:19 PM EST
    Slightly longer version... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by unitron on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:26:54 PM EST
    ...of dashcam video here.

    But it still doesn't start soon enough.

    And remember, half of what's reported about this will probably be slightly wrong.

    (think "iced tea" and "the 911 operator told him to stay in his car")

    For instance, George probably didn't actually mention television, just "You didn't see my name?", as in his name on his operator's license and registration.

    And the gun was probably in the glove box the entire time.

    At last check, Huff Po (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Char Char Binks on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 11:25:56 PM EST
    still has this story up with that easily-checked error about what George said in place.  Maybe they want people to think George is basking in his celebrity status, and actually asked the cop if he recognized him from TV.  And his comment about going "nowhere in particular" is being touted by commentators there as another of his many "lies".  I suppose they think George should tell everyone with a grudge against him of his whereabouts.

    That's a shame (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:07:57 PM EST
    How dare that cop issue Zim a warning! It's an outrage!

    I have here the world's smallest violin . . ..

    No one said (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:04:59 PM EST
    he should not have been given a warning. I clearly said a warning for speeding with no other illegal conduct should not make national news -- and would not but for it's Zimmerman.

    Is it an outrage? (none / 0) (#197)
    by Char Char Binks on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 11:11:07 PM EST
    Do we know how much over the speed limit he was going?

    I believe (none / 0) (#199)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 06:18:05 AM EST
    Zimmerman was going about one Florida license plate over the limit.

    What is VERY confusing in the longer video is that the cop is in traffic, behind three other vehicles and Zimmerman's truck is nowhere in sight. The cop goes into the left hand lane to pass one car in the right lane, then a truck ahead of that car speeds ahead and the car in the left hand lane moves to the left and the cop passes both of those cars. The truck in the right hand lane pulls away in front of the cop, and the first we see Zimmerman is that he is already at the side of the road with blinkers on.

    A longer version of the dash cam by an hour or so is available, but I haven't seen it.

    Latest "hot" news is some sharp ear detected the sound of an iphone shutter about 29 seconds into the common version of the video, so the officer may have some splainin to do.


    Looks like he is out in public to me (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:42:13 PM EST
    Driving around in broad daylight in a nice truck. Also seems to me, at least from reading the media, that there are just as many people on his side as not - do we know he has not been offered jobs?

    I just think you are assuming a whole lot of things about his life now, with no proof except his own word.

    quite a lot on his side (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by woodchuck64 on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:08:10 PM EST
    According to the Pew Research poll, fully a third of the country is satisfied with verdict and around 44% of the country thinks the issue of race is getting more attention than it deserves (if you roughly extrapolate the poll results to all whites/blacks/Hispanics in America), so I would not think Zimmerman would have any trouble.

    The sad part-- to me anyway-- is that Zimmerman will probably not register as a Democrat any longer.


    his lawyer has said so (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:08:26 PM EST
    it doesn't matter how many people support him. All it takes is one loony to decide to kill him. Perhaps you missed this article

    I did see that article (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:27:02 PM EST
    My thought was that if the attackers had called him an 'effing punk' they would have still made their point and not been charged with a hate crime.  

    How many people were beat up for iphones and wallets in DC before the GZ verdict?

    I don't see how this relates to a credible death threat on GZ, or that it matters. He was worried enough to carry a gun regularly before all this happened.


    Before all this happened... (none / 0) (#97)
    by unitron on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 07:12:14 AM EST
    ...the gun was for 4 legged threats.

    Number of people on each side (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 04:00:02 AM EST
    ignores the dynamic of the situation. The number of people willing to do actual harm to Zimmerman may not be that large, but a much larger group might be more than willing to reveal his location exposing Zimmerman to real harm from the smaller group.

    Zimmerman supporters have no direct counter to that action regardless of numbers.


    If only... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Cylinder on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:54:58 PM EST
    If only Osteen, de la Rionda and Corey had pulled up as the DSP officer was walking back to his patrol car - that would be funny.

    Are strong lasers like police use (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Teresa on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 12:11:34 AM EST
    legal for non-law enforcement? I think I'd try something like that. I believe O'Mara when he said the threats are vicious and have drastically increased since the verdict, so I don't know what the answer is. I think if someone attacked him and he did shoot, he'd be unlikely to be found innocent again just because. I agree with the poster above, go to Peru.

    I got a kick out of Marc Lamont Hill of HuffPo and other places leaving Piers Morgan speechless tonight. Piers had him on as the anti-GZ-with-a-gun guy and Hill said that since he was found not to have committed a crime, he was doing nothing illegal now having a gun and that he probably does need it due to being the "most hated man in America". The situation is too sad to see it as funny, but it was kind of priceless to see Piers quickly change the subject after saying something almost under his breath about having his own thoughts about, which he's expressed three times that I've seen since the verdict.

    I don't know what the answer is. Kind of a rock and hard place. I think I'd hire body guards if there's enough donation money and skip the gun just because I'd freeze in fear of using it again anyway. Maybe he can, maybe he only thinks he can.

    Depends on state law (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 07:23:38 AM EST
    Taser devices are not considered firearms by the United States government.[56] They can be legally carried (concealed or open) without a permit in 43 states. They are prohibited for citizen use in the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island,[57] as well as certain cities and counties. Their use in Connecticut, Illinois, and Wisconsin[58] is legal with restrictions.[59]



    If you mean Tazers (none / 0) (#92)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 05:20:38 AM EST
    No I am pretty sure there are both police only chemical sprays and Tazers, illegal for non police use. Both are marginally effective against an unprepared person, and I suspect but don't know for sure that there might be ways to protect yourself from both types of devices making them all but useless.

    Any guess on what a team of 24/7 armed guards for Zimmerman might cost?

    I disagree, if Zimmerman is forced to defend himself again the chances of conviction will be MUCH less. Its public knowledge that he is armed, so any type of assault might be considered life threatening. Hopefully he only words to police would be, I want my lawyer.


    As is usual, the dissent has the better of it (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by scribe on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 08:50:15 AM EST
    in the case of Drake v. Filko, decided yesterday by the Third Circuit.  This case attacked the constitutionality of New Jersey's absurdly stringent permitting requirements for a concealed-carry permit.  The individual plaintiffs - all denied permits - included the owner of an ATM stocking business (carries huge amounts of cash), a previous victim of an interstate kidnapping, and a civilian FBI employee who'd been told officially he and her family had been targeted by terrorists.  
    In the event anyone continues to question the law-abiding nature of the average concealed-carry permit holder, the dissent provides hard data:

    The counterintuitiveness of the idea that limiting handguns to those who have a special need for self-defense reduces misuse or accidental use is borne out by the experience of other States that issue handgun permits on a shall-issue basis, which is what New Jersey's Handgun Permit Law would look like without the justifiable need requirement. For example, Florida has issued 2,525,530 handgun carry licenses since 1987. Concealed Weapon or Firearm License Summary Report, http://licgweb.doacs. state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf (last visited July 16, 2013). To date, Florida has revoked only 168 licenses--0.00665%--for crimes involving firearms. Id. In Texas, of the 63,679 criminal convictions (not just those in which firearms were used) in 2011, only 120--0.1884%--were attributed to individuals licensed to carry handguns. Conviction Rates for Concealed Handgun License Holders, http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf (last visited July 16, 2013).

    In addition, although not all States keep detailed statistics on crimes committed by permit holders, many States keep statistics on permit revocations. For instance, Michigan issued 87,637 permits for the year ending June 30, 2011, but revoked only 466 of them. Concealed Pistol Licensure Annual Report, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/2011_CPL_Report_376632_7.pdf (last visited July 16, 2013). Tennessee issued 94,975 handgun carry permits in 2011, suspended only 896, and revoked just 97. Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit Statistics, 34

    http://www.tn.gov/safety/stats/DL_Handgun/Handgun/HandgunReport2011Full.pdf (last visited July 16, 2013). North Carolina has issued 228,072 permits in the last 15 years but has revoked only 1,203. North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit Statistics by County, http://www.ncdoj.gov/CHPStats.aspx (last visited July 16, 2013). The reasons for these revocations are unclear, but even if we assumed that all of them were because of misuse or accidental use of handguns, the rate in Michigan and North Carolina is 0.5%, and in Tennessee it is 0.1%.

    links in html format please (none / 0) (#135)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 09:50:15 AM EST
    Sorry about that (none / 0) (#158)
    by scribe on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 02:25:12 PM EST
    I just CTRL+C and CTRL+V the blockquote directly from the opinion.  Saw it as soon as the posted comment popped up and I'm all "aw, hell...".

    Zimmerman is traveling in a open bed truck (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 06:12:16 PM EST
    Doesn't that pose a problem in some states with a pistol, permit or not? Trucks have no trunk. Unless he hires local licensed armed guards, seems like plenty of places Zimmerman can't safely go.

    YMMV (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Cylinder on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 06:26:56 PM EST
    An open bed truck usually isn't a problem in jurisdictions that a sedan would suffice. In Arkansas, you can carry a weapon in a vehicle without a permit and not en route to a sporting use or on a  "journey" if it is unloaded, inaccessible and stored without ammunition in the same compartment. If the vehicle only has a single compartment (e.g. open bed truck), you can store it in a separate, locked container that's not a glove compartment and without ammunition.

    Of course in Texas, you can store it with ammunition and without a permit in the glove box. If you have or can foresee children in the vehicle, you have to have a locked compartment or a firearm lock.


    Federal law requires (none / 0) (#192)
    by txantimedia on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 06:42:09 PM EST
    that a firearm be in a locked compartment separate from ammo when traveling interstate.  However, possession of a concealed weapon permit overrides that in the states that honor the permit.  George's Florida permit would be honored in every state he has to pass through to get to Texas, so he would be in compliance with the law throughout the trip.

    In Texas you can carry a loaded weapon in your car without a permit, but it has to be concealed from view.  The glove box is fine for that purpose, or you can wear it on body and concealed.  I travel with a Kingston holster, which places the weapon between my calves within easy reach in case of an attempted carjacking.  It's not visible from either window, so it's considered concealed.


    the state admitted he punched Zimmerman (4.33 / 6) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:49:15 PM EST
    the photos don't lie.

    No one saw the beginning of their physical encounter. Martin had no signs of being hit. Teh state never claimed Zimmerman hit him first. The state even conceded Martin was on top during the struggle.

    You need to accept the facts beyond change. Or at least not try to obfuscate them here.

    I did reach the conclusion Trayvon initiated (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Visteo1 on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 09:11:49 PM EST
    ...I guess it was the lie detector results (not entered into evidence)
    ...And Serino's testimony that he thought George was telling the truth (that was not allowed to be considered per Corey)

    I would go on about the other evidence that WAS allowed, but it is more circumstantial in nature....Except George's own words, but that ties into the lie detector results.  

    Why did we never hear more about TZ being on the porch when he was attacked?  Does anyone know if this came up in depositions of Green, Tracy or Chad???


    George Zimmerman will be speeding (3.67 / 6) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:41:35 PM EST
    and armed and recorded and dashcammed in every state that isn't Alaska and Hawaii.  When not pulled over armed, he will rescue anything...anyone.  If you feel you may need a rescue tomorrow tweet him tonight, he'll be there.  Kittens in trees also welcome, no rescue too small.  Best self promoter EVAH

    Makes Paris Hilton look like a rookie

    After reading that other story (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:29:31 PM EST
    I might consider having him guard my shower.

    You are a soft touch (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:41:24 PM EST
    For a talented FACE :)

    Pardon me, (3.67 / 3) (#23)
    by Zorba on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:51:22 PM EST
    But I don't give a rosy rat's @ss what George Zimmerman is up to from now on, and I sincerely wish that the media would just stop reporting on him.  He has to live with what he did for the rest of his life.  And, frankly, I hope that it eats at him.  But I really don't think that I want to know his every movement.

    About Feeling Sorry (3.67 / 3) (#24)
    by chrisvee on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:53:52 PM EST
    Well, he may be finding out what the difference is between being legally culpable and being morally/ethically culpable - or at least what it's like to be perceived as such by a goodly number of people.

    Taking a life is a serious thing. There's no promise that gets made to people that they get to resume their life unaltered just because what they do is legal.  

    getting your nose broken (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:02:38 PM EST
    and head smashed against the ground is serious too. And while it's a shame the attacker lost his life, if that was the only way GZ could stop the attack, I don't see the reason to feel "culpable" at all. Sad that it happened, sad for his family, yes. Regretful a teenager lost his life? Yes. Culpable? No. Wrong word.

    Yay! (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by chrisvee on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 06:14:28 PM EST
    I got a '1' rating. Now I really feel like I've made it here.

    I don't know that's the only way he could stop the attack. I'll agree to the fact that Zimmerman believed it was the only way.

    Right word for me.  Culpare, to blame, culpa, guilt.

    In his shoes, I would feel moral guilt.


    How do you know (none / 0) (#191)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 06:37:43 PM EST
    what he does or doesn't feel?

    When we don't know, (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 06:46:49 PM EST
    we can use the verb "may."

    Oh, wait. . . .


    Oh Goody. (3.54 / 13) (#14)
    by CreamCity on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:30:04 PM EST
    So glad GZ is free and re-weaponized so that he can go around, follow people he finds suspicious, kill them, then claim self-defense.  

    What a world.

    Are you back, CreamCity? (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by christinep on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 09:23:16 PM EST
    Did I miss something? Or am I just now dreaming? If you are back, I hope that you will consider sticking around for awhile ... and writing.  (Even tho I disagreed at times, your comments were thoughtful, way beyond knee-jerk in any direction; and, you weren't afraid to offer some practical proposals.)

    Of course, if it is not "you," then excuse the interruption.


    See my comment (none / 0) (#79)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 10:25:47 PM EST
    not easy by any stretch (3.00 / 2) (#34)
    by woodchuck64 on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:30:51 PM EST
    He also has to sustain some nasty looking injuries, be flat on his back screaming for help, and then somehow manage to get off a single shot which almost magically kills his opponent  instantly.

    Almost any other conceivable series of events would not have let him claim self-defense and get away with it in this political climate.  No injuries, GZ would have likely gone to jail.  No screaming, no witnesses seeing him on his back, jail.  

    And with no perfect shot to the heart, TM wouldn't have died, no murder charge.  Or if there was a second, killing shot, GZ would have very likely gone to jail.  It's astonishing how so many things went so completely and utterly wrong in that encounter.


    Amazing isn't it? (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Visteo1 on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:04:39 PM EST
    I did learn one thing.  I will NEVER EVER agree to take a lie detector test.  If I pass, I may stand trial for murder.

    You might pass a VSA test (2.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 09:44:45 PM EST
    Just make sure they only ask two questions related to the shooting.

    These tests assure one of two results: (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 10:12:44 PM EST
    1. You're telling the truth


    2. You're a sociopath


    what's more (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by morphic on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 09:26:38 AM EST
    convincing is during the interview directly after the shooting when Serino claimed the confrontation was taped. Zimmerman appeared to be delighted.

    BTW - A little irony ... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 01:12:24 PM EST
    ... in the control questions they asked during the VSA:

    1.  Is your name George?  YES
    2.  Is the color of the wall green?  NO
    3.  Is today Monday?  YES
    4.  Did you confront the guy you shot?  NO
    5.  Is this the month of February?  YES
    6.  Were you in fear for your life, when you shot the guy?  YES
    7.  Are we in the city of Sanford?  YES
    8.  Have you ever driven over the posted speed limit?  NO
    9.  Am I wearing a watch?  NO

    Isn't that just the luck?  Driving for years without ever exceeding the posted limit and he gets pulled over the first time he does it.

    The control questions were (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by ding7777 on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 02:09:19 PM EST
    Is the color of the wall green?  NO

    Have you ever driven over the posted speed limit?  NO

    Am I wearing a watch?  NO

    where GZ was rehearsed/instructed to LIE.


    Not quite (none / 0) (#167)
    by woodchuck64 on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 03:17:19 PM EST
    That was a control (C) "probable-lie" question probably not rehearsed.  From Wikipedia's Polygraph article:
    Some of the questions asked are "irrelevant" or IR ("Is your name Fred?"), others are "probable-lie" control questions that most people will lie about ("Have you ever stolen money?") and the remainder are the "relevant questions", or RQ, that the tester is really interested in. The different types of questions alternate. The test is passed if the physiological responses during the probable-lie control questions (CQ) are larger than those during the relevant questions (RQ)

    So we can presume that Zimmerman had a larger response to his probable-lie about never speeding than to his questions about the shooting incident, thus passing the test.


    I'm wrong (none / 0) (#168)
    by woodchuck64 on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 03:20:30 PM EST
    Please ignore my comment.  It was a fully rehearsed "lie" as AmericanPsycho points out.

    That was one of the control questions. (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by AmericanPsycho on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 02:10:23 PM EST
    The person conducting the voice analysis asked him to respond that way when asked.  Here's the interview, forward to 58:05



    D@mn (none / 0) (#160)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 02:29:49 PM EST
    It was much funnier the other way ...

    Yes, it was. (none / 0) (#163)
    by Angel on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 02:38:10 PM EST
    That's hysterical. (1.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Angel on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 01:18:54 PM EST

    The Media (none / 0) (#58)
    by PM on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:30:35 PM EST
    Another point the media never, ever reports...

    G.Z.'s gun rep.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by the capstan on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:30:25 PM EST
    "In other words, you reap what you sow."

    Yep--that's happening.  (Maybe not quite the way J.M. meant, but, yes.

    How Come We Know About This? (none / 0) (#32)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:18:11 PM EST
    Do news organizations have access to traffic stop information and dashcam videos and are constantly scouring them for celebrity involvement?

    Good question. i believe the answer is YES (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:32:32 PM EST
    Also I believe the cops first words after he got back in his car were 'you will not believe who I just pulled over'. I'm sure that news spread pretty fast.

    Lots of people monitor (none / 0) (#104)
    by txantimedia on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 07:33:49 AM EST
    police radio.  It could have been anybody.  The video is public property, so one person who heard the transmission could have alerted TMZ who then called and requested a copy.

    Or it could have been the cop.


    Comments misrepresenting the (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:10:42 PM EST
    evidence and speculating on personal, alternative theories of guilt deleted.

    You've missed a couple (none / 0) (#115)
    by rickroberts on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 08:19:35 AM EST
    Plenty of people still want to re-try the case.

    I delete them when I see them (none / 0) (#134)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 09:48:44 AM EST
    and I only read through comments a few times a day usually.

    more z news to come (none / 0) (#75)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 10:20:16 PM EST
    even if Zimmerman is not pulled over again, there will be the trial of his wife on perjury . . . and there is the lawsuit against nbc . . . and there is the motion for sanctions against the prosecution.  So, we will be hearing about the life of Zimmerman for the next year!

    Most of that will... (4.25 / 4) (#173)
    by DebFrmHell on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 04:45:10 PM EST
    go to the forum.  That is why it is open and Jeralyn has expressed no interest in following the civil suits.

    And Zimmerman news crops up every now and then and the topic remains active out here on the main board...  

    Ironic how many people wish he would just go away keep gravitating to his threads to complain about it.

    Opinion...If you don't want to discuss it reasonably don't read the threads. Seems kind of simple to me.  There are some articles that Jeralyn has written out here that don't interest me so I don't read them.  And I certainly wouldn't go on a thread to complain about the coverage.


    I thought it would be (none / 0) (#80)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 10:29:58 PM EST
    Ironic if the cop ordered him to get out of his truck and follow him.

    TMZ made the initial media report as far as I can tell. More interesting to see how each media outlet spins the story than anything material about it. I wonder if he needs to change vehicles now that video is out?

    I wonder if we will hear about people with the same model and color being harassed?

    I'll be interested... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Thanin on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 05:48:29 AM EST
    to see how well you fair here by 2015, when this site will become completely and aggressively biased towards the Democratic candidate.  Well, assuming you last long enough around here to see it.

    Spartans do not ask (none / 0) (#95)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 06:49:02 AM EST
    How many are the enemy, only where they are.

    What is the point of posting on site that agrees with everything you say to start with?


    Not sure if you're getting... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Thanin on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 07:53:40 AM EST
    what I mean by completely and aggressively biased, as in, comments that support the republican candidate can get limited to four posts a day or even flat out deleted, while those that support the Democratic candidate aren't affected.

    It has kind of happened already when the TM/GZ conflict first became news and some conservatives, new to this site, thought they'd get to spout their political stupidity here with reckless abandon.  They didn't seem to enjoy the treatment.


    There's one thing that's disappointing (4.50 / 2) (#110)
    by txantimedia on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 08:06:32 AM EST
    to me about Jeralyn's site - the 200 comment limitation.  I expect the bias toward the liberal side, and that doesn't bother me.  I comment on HuffPo as well.  That's because I enjoy engaging with "the other side" and I have thick skin.

    I don't go into the fever swamps though, because there's not much point.  Here at least most of the people that comment are intelligent and think through their answers.

    Jeralyn's rules are her rules.  Her site.  Her rules.  I have no problem with that.


    The 200 comment limit is a combination (none / 0) (#118)
    by scribe on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 08:41:28 AM EST
    of hardware and software limitations, not an arbitrary decision to cut off speech.  It came about, IIRC, back in the days of parsing out the facts in the Valerie Plame case and the Libby trial, where threads over 200 comments tended to take forever to load and crashed the site.

    also the 2007 primaries and (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 09:37:48 AM EST
    the Duke Lacrosse case. Too many people refreshing comments at the same time and the server crashes. We made modifications and put in the 200 comment limit. While TL is on its own server and its a big one, storing 11 years of posts and 5 years of comments, it can only do so much. Many more people read this site than comment at it. During the primaries, Libby, Duke and Zimmerman's trial (not the proceedings leading up to it) traffic surges to anywhere between 20,000 and 40,000 different users a day reading the posts. Normally, the past year, it's only 5,000 or so. Huge difference.

    Understood (none / 0) (#142)
    by txantimedia on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 10:34:03 AM EST
    And I have no problem with that.  Technological limitations are part and parcel of being on the internet.  I appreciate your willingness to provide a place to discuss legal cases in an atmosphere of sanity and evidence analysis.  I get really tired of the back and forth from both sides without regard to the subtleties of cases.  My biggest beef is the wholesale slinging of falsehoods from both sides to "support" a point of view.

    For example, I'm sick and tired of hearing that George should have obeyed the order not to exit his car.  It's plainly false and the transcripts of the NEN call prove it.  I'm equally tired of the Trayvon doubled back and ambushed George stuff.  No one knows what George or Trayvon did during that four minute interval, and no amount of speculation will change the fact that we have no evidence to support anyone's theory about that gap.


    Just sitting on the porch... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Visteo1 on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 11:53:32 AM EST
    Does anybody know if Green, Chad or Tracy were deposed about statements made regarding Trayvon being on the porch?

    Jeantel seemed to put Trayvon at that location at one point.


    It's (none / 0) (#184)
    by morphic on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 05:55:27 PM EST
    pretty hopeless, since so many believe only what they want to, but Rachel Jeantel was positive Trayvon Martin went home.

    "He was already by his house." Jeantel replied. 'He told me."

       (the phone disconnected, twenty seconds later there was a reconnection, and two minutes later, the confrontation begin. IF Jeantel is right, Martin would have been at his father's girlfriend's house, south end, at the time Zimmerman was standing in one place, at the north end of the development.) The speeding with a gun amounts to nothing.


    "By his house" (none / 0) (#186)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 06:03:01 PM EST
    ... could mean almost anything, including at the "T".  She was not "positive Trayvon Martin went home".  

    I think that's stretching it (none / 0) (#189)
    by txantimedia on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 06:23:16 PM EST
    more than a bit.  In the context of the call "right by his father's house" means just that.  However, just because that's what Trayvon said it does not mean that's literally where he was.  He could have been lying to Rachel for reasons known only to him.  We'll never know where he really was except for the times he was recorded on video, the times that George claimed, on the NEN call, to have seen him and the time of the altercation.

    Everything else is speculation fed by one's personal POV of what happened.


    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 10:24:32 PM EST
    I think that's stretching it more than a bit.  In the context of the call "right by his father's house" means just that.

    In the context of an approximately .8 to 1 mile walk from the 7-11, how far is "right by", exactly?  5 feet?  10 ft.?  100ft.?  I only ask because you say it means "just that", which suggests you have a precise idea of what Martin/Rachel meant by that statement.

    I told my daughter today that I would be going "right by" our house and could pick her up after lunch, by which I meant I would be only 4 blocks away.  Who knew I was "stretching it".


    or even what "just that" (none / 0) (#208)
    by Char Char Binks on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 12:01:41 AM EST
    means, except that it means Trayvon wasn't lost or didn't know how to get to BG's apt., as some anti-Zimmerman people have said.  We know he had 4 minutes to go 80 yards, and apparently chose not to do so.

    I meant to say (none / 0) (#209)
    by Char Char Binks on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 12:05:30 AM EST
    "I don't know what 'right by', or even 'just that'" means.

    Brandy Green stated "He (Trayvon) was (none / 0) (#195)
    by Visteo1 on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 10:27:58 PM EST
    sitting out on the porch and this man killed him.  Are you serious?" 2/27/2012

    Tracy Martin made a statement about  Trayvon on the porch during an interview.  

    Chad was home that night.  Neither Tracy nor Brandy were home at the time of the incident.  Both Tracy and Brandy would have seen Chad at home and asked about Trayvon.  It just seems likely that Chad said something about the porch.

    Was Chad deposed?


    Chad is just 14 (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 08:52:48 AM EST
    He had a VERY simple story and stuck with it. I suspect a decision was made early on that no serious cross would be directed to him when he testified due to his age and the ease of falling back on I was playing games with headphones on.

    I recall something about Trayvon leaving for the 711 via the back sliding door, and that struck me as really odd since he had no way to lock it from the outside.

    Chad testified, he was the first prosecution witness, but I do not believe he was deposed. There was a TV interview though.


    He had to be since he (none / 0) (#198)
    by Teresa on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 11:13:38 PM EST

    I didn't follow it as closely, by a long shot, but the media paid for depositions of some of the people that testified in the Casey Anthony trial. I wish they would this one.

    I clicked on some of those depositions and they were huge files. They were of her parents and brother, so I'm not sure how many, or if any others, were published. I'd like to see a few in this one.


    sorry but... (none / 0) (#200)
    by AmericanPsycho on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 07:02:43 AM EST
    who's porch are we talking about?

    Brandy Green's Porch (none / 0) (#206)
    by Visteo1 on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 05:00:54 PM EST
    This is the home Trayvon was staying at.  I have since seen TL pages devoted to that and links to the comments made.

    Why ask? (none / 0) (#109)
    by rickroberts on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 08:04:20 AM EST
    Why do police ask people where they are going and then act surprised or even peeved when the person refuses to answer or says something like nowhere in particular?

    It's a free country. It is none of a cop's business where I am going.

    A cop recently stopped me on my bicycle and treated me as if I were a criminal for refusing to present ID.

    they ask about your travel plans (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 09:58:13 AM EST
    as part of their drug courier profiling, hoping for an inconsistency that gives them the opening to ask for consent to search or call in the dogs.

    People don't realize they don't have to answer these questions. Or know they can answer by asking, "Am I free to leave?" If you are free to leave, do so without providing more information.

    It's astonishing how many people agree to a search because they don't realize they can refuse.


    Not too long ago, someone posted (none / 0) (#143)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 10:44:14 AM EST
    video of people being pulled over and asked to provide proof of citizenship, only instead of meekly complying, these people challenged the stop, challenged the cops' authority to pull them over, their need to see the proof, and just kept at it until, finally, the cops just let them go on their way.

    I think one of my favorites was the person who asked the cop if he had proof of his own citizenship.  And kept asking, much to the cop's frustration.

    It was inspiring and instructive.


    YouTube is your friend (none / 0) (#144)
    by rickroberts on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 10:49:15 AM EST
    There are lots of these videos online. It's fun to grab a drink and view them for a couple of hours. Emboldened citizens.

    Yup - all I read into GZ's answer is that (none / 0) (#149)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 12:25:02 PM EST
    it was his polite way of answering vaguely instead of saying it was none of the officer's business.

    Well (none / 0) (#116)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 08:21:25 AM EST
    You can get a traffic ticket while riding a bicycle, since you are supposed to be following the rules of the road. It wouldn't be unheard of for him to ask for your driver's license (even though you don't need one for a bike).  Depending on the jurisdiction, you actually could get points!

    I understand that (none / 0) (#117)
    by rickroberts on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 08:24:14 AM EST
    Cops seem to routinely ask people for ID when they are stopped walking or riding a bike.

    There was a landmark ID case (none / 0) (#121)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 08:54:52 AM EST
    in California I recall from a long time ago about not being required to show ID, but I don't recall the details. Guy walking near the beach as I remember.

    Google just schooled me on Terry and Hibel, so I guess I am free to go.


    Jesse Jackson's comments (none / 0) (#122)
    by SuzieTampa on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 08:55:10 AM EST
    I hope general case news is allowed on this thread. Jesse Jackson recently called FL the "Selma of our time"; compared Gov. Rick Scott to George Wallace; and called FL the "Apartheid State." (Our slogan is the Sunshine State.)

    He and other people we cannot name want a special session to discuss Stand Your Ground, which would be a money-wasting dog-and-pony show because there would need to be a 2/3rds majority of a majority Republican House to override Scott's veto.

    no this is off topic (none / 0) (#137)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 09:58:59 AM EST
    Please keep this to GZ's traffic stop and the media coverage of it. Thanks.

    Would like to (none / 0) (#185)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 05:57:19 PM EST
    but I don't see anyway to join the Zimmerman discussion forum. I sent a couple emails to talkleft@gmail.com but no reply or action after a few days.

    maybe try AOL (none / 0) (#202)
    by ding7777 on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 02:37:54 PM EST

    Thanks (none / 0) (#204)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 03:39:03 PM EST
    giving aol a try, the instructions for registration say talkleft@gmail.com

    FYI this site prohibits the use of profanity (none / 0) (#127)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 09:18:46 AM EST
    From Jeralyn's Comment Policy section:

    Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Censor software employed by law firms and businesses has blocked TalkLeft in the past for these types of violations. It is far easier for us to ban an offending commenter than to get reinstated by the software censors.

    I'm not 100% sure that the word p!ssed qualifies but better safe than sorry.

    no, p*ssed off is okay (none / 0) (#132)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 09:45:34 AM EST
    if used occasionally and not about other commenters or this site. It's the actual profanity that is prohibited due to censor software at law firms and businesses and some libraries that search for profanity and spam (like certain medication names) and certain body parts or slang for the oldest profession that are the problem. That's why we ask commenters to use asterisks in place of some letters if they feel they must use those words. Getting unblocked can take days of research to identify the censor program, the appropriate person to contact to getting unblocked and then getting restored. I'm not willing to go through that (once was enough).

    That's great. (none / 0) (#130)
    by Thanin on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 09:34:00 AM EST
    Personally I hope you both stay around.  I've had a blast reading the comment section of blogs these past two presidential election cycles.  Especially the day after the elections.

    the topic here is Zimmerman (none / 0) (#133)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 09:46:58 AM EST
    enough about liberals v conservatives and Texas. It's off-topic.

    J (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 03:28:16 PM EST
    you've taken the trouble to attempt to use the attorney's reference to herself as "a social engineer" against her, but you won't allow any discussion here of possible alternative meanings of the term social engineer other than the one that casts her actions in the worst possible light..

    I have to call foul.  


    Not sure how else you'd spin this (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 03:48:01 PM EST
    "I have a greater duty beyond being an attorney, and that's to be a social engineer," Rand shot back. "And when the law doesn't get it right, I believe that we have the right to peacefully, and morally, conscientiously object to the decision of the jury."

    She's absolutely wrong.  It is NOT her job.  If she wants that to be her job, then she needs to not be an attorney with clients who are interested parties.  Her duty, as an officer of the court, is to represent her client to the best of her ability and to respect the verdict of the jury.  Period.


    Jasmine Rand (none / 0) (#210)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 01:59:27 AM EST
    is the Martin's attorney, her duty is to vigorously pursue their interests, collecting money, which includes a lot of PR work.

    I don't think anybody in Crump and Parks see's themselves as officers of the court bound to some ideal of fair treatment or anything else. They are to the legal system what pro wrestling is to the Olympic sport.


    So, Zimmerman gets stopped in (none / 0) (#138)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 10:01:39 AM EST
    Texas, you post the video of the Texas cop who pulled him over, you post a portion of the transcript of the exchange with the Texas cop, and Texas is off-topic?

    For the record, I wasn't the one who started this particular sub-thread about Texas cops, so not only am I hard-pressed to understand why you singled me out here, but in another thread, you deleted a comment of mine for no reason that I can discern.

    I'd like to understand, and I'd like to be able to keep up with what is and isn't on- or off-topic, but it all seems like a - pardon the expression - moving target.



    no discussion of liberals vs conservatives in (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 10:19:19 AM EST
    Texas and other individual cases in Texas that are not similar to this one and reputation of TX cops is off topic.

    As are discussions of any commenter's political leanings on matters unrelated to Zimmerman.

    Sometimes rather than delete, I post a comment asking people to stay on comment. If there are too many such comments so that people who come here looking for reactions to the topic discussed in the post, here the Zimmerman traffic stop and media coverage of it, they get deleted.

    Since you objected that my comment was attached to your comment as opposed to the first few on the topic that I didn't delete, I've now deleted all of them.

    You've been here long enough to know what's on topic or not. My post addresses three things: Zimmerman's traffic stop, why he would be armed and the legality of it, and media coverage of the incident.


    If I were ZMan... (none / 0) (#183)
    by turbo6 on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 05:49:01 PM EST
    Don't know where to go?

    I think I'll just lay low in Idaho.

    Its catchy, would make a great T shirt and just random enough to work as a hideout me thinks.