Skip to main content

he was going to be in trouble with the law for what he had done.

I just got through reading this article:

http://www.reuters.com/...

I found the following to be the most interesting new information I got from the article.

The article states:

"Zimmerman understood the magnitude of his situation right away, said Joe Oliver, a family friend and colleague of Zimmerman's at mortgage risk management firm Digital Risk LCC.

"The day after, he went into his job to let them know what was going on," said Oliver, who has spoken to Zimmerman at least twice since the shooting. "That is the last I know of anyone seeing George."

Zimmerman and his wife moved out of the townhouse they rented in the Twin Lakes complex almost immediately, Oliver said, and they are now living in seclusion."

This struck me as very telling.  If Zimmerman felt he was in the right and that the law was on his side, why would he do these two things... right away.  This is way before anybody was talking about this in the media.

I do believe that this is a strong indication of Zimmerman's being overwhelmed by his own conscience and consciousness of guilt.

Also, sort of unrelated, I believe that the most important evidence will be time.  The cell phone records of Trayvon's girlfriend will reveal what time that call terminated.  The various 911 calls will nail the exact moment that the shot was fired.  I think it will become obvious that there wasn't enough time between those two events for all of the things that Zimmerman has stated were true.

I think I'm too obsessed with this case, but I really hate injustice.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (328+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Olympia, hoof32, jfromga, jennyp, AspenFern, Statusquomustgo, Hanging Up My Tusks, jdld, GeorgeXVIII, PsychoSavannah, Avila, semiot, hopeful, teachme2night, Lying eyes, Brooke In Seattle, Stella 4 Obama, deep, librarianman, JVolvo, Smoh, LaughingPlanet, BentLiberal, DRo, commonmass, Sun Tzu, NYFM, Tolmie Peak, rubyclaire, Gowrie Gal, Mary Mike, dmhlt 66, mconvente, Dvalkure, Avilyn, glorificus, BarackStarObama, rantsposition, happymisanthropy, kevinpdx, weck, chuco35, Lily O Lady, rapala, farlefty, tiponeill, Proud Mom and Grandma, maggiejean, leonard145b, Ekaterin, mikeconwell, Matilda, annominous, too many people, theKgirls, uciguy30, one of 8, karmsy, bnasley, davelf2, Hopefruit2, jadt65, Bob Duck, eyesoars, LynChi, allergywoman, Mayfly, Actbriniel, Vicky, rubyr, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, Eric Twocents, cybersaur, AllanTBG, Tonedevil, myboo, Kaina PDX, tommyfocus2003, la urracca, No one gets out alive, moviemeister76, DuzT, Renie57, trumpeter, vacantlook, side pocket, litoralis, gatorcog, Yellow Canary, looseleaf, doroma, Marjmar, SallyCat, NormAl1792, skybluewater, UncleCharlie, NJpeach, indres, MikeBoyScout, Russgirl, A Citizen, WisVoter, Keone Michaels, DBunn, pgm 01, dotsright, dadadata, Eileen B, zenox, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, LarisaW, Ditch Mitch KY, Lefty Ladig, Hayate Yagami, Siri, MA Liberal, SoCaliana, gladkov, sb, Its a New Day, majcmb1, davidseth, Little Lulu, lina, GAladybug, Mentatmark, Habitat Vic, middleagedhousewife, Wee Mama, howabout, Chaddiwicker, edsbrooklyn, Bluesee, astral66, white blitz, MidwestTreeHugger, elwior, offred, Floande, skyounkin, retLT, AlyoshaKaramazov, royce, ljb, Empower Ink, Words In Action, mungley, Amber6541, hwmnbn, AnnieR, JoanMar, orphanpower, Aaa T Tudeattack, cosette, Happy Days, Unit Zero, mkfarkus, vigilant meerkat, mod2lib, flowerfarmer, ichibon, SoCalSal, Lusty, kml, roadbear, Louise, Brinnon, Carol in San Antonio, MartyM, Crabby Abbey, BlueInRedCincy, rogerdaddy, cotterperson, S F Hippie, worldlotus, Imhotepsings, democracy inaction, Nebraskablue, WI Deadhead, seefleur, rambler american, Matt Z, whoknu, mujr, emidesu, rimstalker, bumbi, nuclear winter solstice, janmtairy, flavor411, alnep, ladybug53, mamamedusa, chira2, blueoasis, Prospect Park, aj2k, miracle11, 3goldens, sockpuppet, Bailey Savings and Loan, zerelda, millwood, armadillo, zozie, Lilyvt, MadRuth, Ducktape, zukesgirl64, SadieSue, Paddy999, mahakali overdrive, Trim Your Bush, Temmoku, lapin, Bridge Master, dwayne, ColoTim, third Party please, Dumbo, anafreeka, x, political mutt, eru, socalmonk, SueM1121, prettygirlxoxoxo, rb608, real world chick, texasmom, RandomNonviolence, Oaktown Girl, MadamE, sdf, Trotskyrepublican, deha, Onomastic, Chris Jay, Diogenes2008, MNGlasnant, journalschism, Debs2, thomask, doingbusinessas, Nailbanger, science nerd, antirove, Texknight, Dazy, Lawdog, 1BQ, Princess Vespa, brook, prgsvmama26, devis1, bobatkinson, Stuart Heady, sabo33, yellow cosmic seed, solliges, TrueBlueMajority, elkhunter, greengemini, Going the Distance, Larsstephens, Plantsmantx, raster44, ord avg guy, Bule Betawi, Lizabet, YucatanMan, pixxer, janl1776, MaryCh, Quicklund, Shockwave, trueblueliberal, Chi, nomandates, sunbro, congenitalefty, Shotput8, David54, ChuckInReno, camlbacker, Sychotic1, vjcalaska, Lujane, fhcec, duufus, AbominableAllStars, maf1029, topazOR, glendaw271, BMarshall, beka, GenXangster, TomFromNJ, Kentucky Kid, edie haskell, Nina Katarina, KnotIookin, ScantronPresident, BlackBandFedora, kishik, JBL55, psnyder, LSmith, donaurora, sherlyle, legendmn, madgranny, jeanette0605, hyperstation, chipoliwog, vivian darkbloom, poorbuster, Clytemnestra, sidnora, jw1, PBen, entrelac, DianeNYS, niteskolar, Peace JD, aitchdee, BYw, TexDem
  •  You are not the only one (186+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hanging Up My Tusks, jdld, Neon Mama, PsychoSavannah, Avila, semiot, teachme2night, Lying eyes, deep, JVolvo, Smoh, gramofsam1, commonmass, rubyclaire, Liberal Mole, dmhlt 66, Dvalkure, glorificus, Avilyn, Lily O Lady, farlefty, Proud Mom and Grandma, leonard145b, mikeconwell, annominous, too many people, theKgirls, uciguy30, davelf2, Bob Duck, RichM, eyesoars, allergywoman, Mayfly, Actbriniel, Vicky, rubyr, cybersaur, AllanTBG, Tonedevil, myboo, redcedar, Kaina PDX, tommyfocus2003, la urracca, moviemeister76, ahumbleopinion, Yellow Canary, looseleaf, doroma, Marjmar, SallyCat, NormAl1792, UncleCharlie, NJpeach, indres, A Citizen, WisVoter, pgm 01, dadadata, Tako Taco, Ice Blue, LarisaW, Lefty Ladig, Fury, Siri, Ginny in CO, SoCaliana, gladkov, MA Liberal, majcmb1, Little Lulu, GAladybug, Beetwasher, blue mom red town, middleagedhousewife, Wee Mama, howabout, edsbrooklyn, astral66, MidwestTreeHugger, elwior, offred, Floande, skyounkin, AlyoshaKaramazov, ljb, Words In Action, muddy boots, AnnieR, Aaa T Tudeattack, tbirchard, vigilant meerkat, flowerfarmer, Noelle in MPLS, ichibon, Mindful Nature, SoCalSal, kml, roadbear, Louise, MartyM, True North, S F Hippie, worldlotus, Imhotepsings, democracy inaction, Fe Bongolan, seefleur, rambler american, Matt Z, emidesu, your neighbor, alnep, ladybug53, mamamedusa, chira2, blueoasis, Prospect Park, PinHole, aj2k, 3goldens, sockpuppet, Lilyvt, MadRuth, Ducktape, SadieSue, Paddy999, Temmoku, Bridge Master, dwayne, third Party please, political mutt, eru, rb608, RandomNonviolence, Oaktown Girl, sdf, Onomastic, Chris Jay, Hastur, MNGlasnant, Debs2, Tom Anderson, thomask, doingbusinessas, Nailbanger, science nerd, Texknight, Dazy, rgjdmls, ridemybike, brook, Princess Vespa, prgsvmama26, liberalconservative, NY Writer, solliges, TrueBlueMajority, Going the Distance, raster44, Bule Betawi, YucatanMan, janl1776, Shockwave, Chi, nomandates, Shotput8, camlbacker, Lujane, topazOR, glendaw271, BMarshall, beka, GenXangster, Nina Katarina, kishik, CoExistNow, JBL55, donaurora, sherlyle, jeanette0605, stevie avebury, hyperstation, chipoliwog, aitchdee

    'obsessed' with this case.  Others obsessed are every mother, father, sister, brother, grandma, grandpa, aunt, uncle, distant relative, friend - anyone seeking justice for this child and his family.  And especially those of us that just want the senseless killing of our children (be they walking down the street or sitting in a classroom) to stop.

  •  Seclusion is what he needs from now on.... (15+ / 0-)

    ....if he gets off on this, I predict someone, someday, wil stand their ground on him.

    If corporations are people, what am I??

    by suspiciousmind on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 01:11:47 PM PDT

  •  Not sure I agree (23+ / 0-)

    His realizing it was a "big deal" is not the same as admitting guilt under these circumstances.

    Look at it another way - let's say you hit and kill a pedestrian whose was jaywalking after coming out between two cars at night while drunk (this is not REMOTELY like this situation, but bear with me). You were sober, driving the speed limit, stopped immediately.

    Don't you think you'd mention this to friends and employers the next day?

    If he'd "bragged" to people he'd killed an illegal intruder, and more so if he couched it in racist terms, then it might be significant in multiple ways. But (reading your summary, not your article) I don't see anything of major significance.

    NOT defending Zimmerman or excusing him - just don't want the case against him to be based on evidence of something other than his actual likely guilt.

    •  It wasn't just that he (52+ / 0-)

      went in and told his boss about it the next day, but that his friend says no one (presumably including his employer) have heard from him since.  That, coupled with immediately vacating the community he was compelled to protect, make it obvious, to me, that he felt an immense inner compulsion to "flee" his life.  I mean, you don't just give up your job and your residence unless you feel an incredible amount of pressure... and yet no external pressure was yet occurring.

      •  well ... (22+ / 0-)

        ... you wouldn't want to be talking to your lawyer in places you could be overhead, or make any casual talk about the case.

        Also, really: he killed a man.  Whether justified or not, I imagine that sits with you for awhile.

        •  He killed a man, but he is not owning up to (29+ / 0-)

          what he did.  He is hiding behind "friends" and family to create an alternate reality.  If what has been said was true, he would have not needed to go underground.  He was off the hook, walking away with no charges just like others like him who have done the same thing.  He had no way of knowing that this case would be the one which broke though in the media.  If he really were innocent, he would have just "held his ground".

          “when Democrats don’t vote, Democrats don’t win.” Alan Grayson

          by ahumbleopinion on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 02:28:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hear, Hear!!! (19+ / 0-)

            This is the point I meant to make.  If George Zimmerman felt he had done nothing wrong, and certainly he had grounds to believe himself safe from prosecution by the fact that the police let him leave the police department, he could have gone about his normal business, perhaps even accepting the praise from those in his community who found him heroic.  His actions are what makes me smell a rat... and, yes, I am referring to Zimmerman.

          •  How do you know what he's doing? (19+ / 0-)

            We still have a presumption of innocence in this country, and the accused has rights.  He is allowed to maintain his silence and privacy until and unless the police request to speak with him again, and he is in his full rights to invoke Miranda when that happens.

            •  I work in the legal system and I fully support his (21+ / 0-)

              presumption of innocence.  I don't know what he's doing, but I know what he's not doing... going to work where he worked before he shot Trayvon and living in the townhouse where he lived before he shot Trayvon.  This was my whole point for writing this diary, that is plays to a legal concept of "consciousness of guilt," which will almost certainly be argued at trial, should one occur.

                •  But why would he expect it? (15+ / 0-)

                  He would have to have extraordinary powers to foresee what this case has come to mean across this nation.  He killed some black kid.  He didn't expect anybody to care, particularly since the police released him.  

                  •  It's entirely reasonable (8+ / 0-)

                    to expect a shitestorm after you kill someone, no matter how justified you think it may have been. No special powers are needed for this. He probably didn't foresee it being on MSNBC, but local media, it's totally reasonable to foresee that. I knew a guy who was sweating out a DUI arrest because it might appear in local paper and his busy body neighbors might read it.

                  •  I don't see why he wouldn't have expected some (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    worldlotus, ColoTim, Thorby Baslim, Pozzo

                    notice from media right away even if the 10 o'clock news.  It was the murder of a minor, in a gated community...the minor had yet to be identified.  It was going to be broadcasted one way or another.

                      I would have expected him to take a leave of absence from work....to recover (if he was really injured), to regroup (if really innocent... it had to tramatic...he could have been a mental case at this point)  or to avoid what he surely knew would be a news story....even if just local.  I honestly would have thought it was way odder, if he had just went back to work, next day, as if nothing happened.  That would have been really weird if you think about it.  

                    It is even entirely possible he was told by police to avoid the cameras, or that the cameras would be coming.  Also I am certain he was told by police and definitely by his lawyer to not talk to anyone about the case,  thus also told to go home, pack up and  go stay with relatives.    

                •  There was no media shitstorm for weeks after (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  blueoasis, worldlotus, JaneEyrez

                  this happened.  He moved out immediately. Just sayin'.

                  What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

                  by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 09:26:27 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  not relevant (0+ / 0-)

                    To whether he expected one or not. It's reasonable to leave a house near the ocean when there is a forecast of a hurricane coming. The actions doesn't become unreasonable if the hurricane heads out to see or hits a day or so later than you thought. Again, I don't see why it's unreasonable to foresee at least local media pressure coming after you kill an unarmed teenager in a gated community, even if you do think the law is on your side.

                    •  Interestingly though, it was a *gated* community (0+ / 0-)

                      which would have worked to reduce his exposure to the general public.  Theoretically, gated communities limit exposure to passers by.

                      Oddly enough, this particular gated community had an unfenced section used by many residents and visitors to walk in and out of the complex without keys or codes.

                      It seems if they were that worried about burglaries, perhaps they should have closed to the unfenced section?  Then you'd only have to watch the entrances to see that no one "extra" slipped in with actual residents.

                      I can see both sides of this argument, but in toto, I tend to agree with the diarist more.

                      What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

                      by YucatanMan on Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 09:56:22 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  not necessarily (0+ / 0-)
                        which would have worked to reduce his exposure to the general public.  Theoretically, gated communities limit exposure to passers by
                        .

                        The media aren't the "General public." And it's quite obvious from what is happening now that the nature of the community won't prevent the media from  making inquiry. As I posted earlier, I don' t think he anticipated being the subject of protests  around the country or of speeches on the floor of the House of Representatives or the Larry O'Donell show, but it is reasonable to antipate some form of media pressure when you kill someone who was not armed. I've seen things way less controversial than this make it "big" if you will, in local tv, newspaper and radio and now, the internet.
                         The nature of the community arguable makes it more of a story as we normally don't hear much about a killing in a "gated community."

                •  He thought Trayvon... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  worldlotus

                  Was an "intruder". The police didn't even notify or seek to know the identity of Trayvon and it took Trayvon's father to report him missing to be shown a photo of his son, dead. As far as anyone knew that night and the following day (according to information out there so far and the timeline), Trayvon was a total stranger to the community. Someone up to "no good" and what gave Zimmerman the ability to declare his action under "stand your ground".

                  Zimmerman at that time had no reason to fear ANY media scrutiny.... Not even community scrutiny since his whole premise for making that 911 call, following, and confronting Trayvon is based on the fact that this was a stranger to the gated community and did not belong there!

                  There is so much friggin' back tracking on stories it isn't funny.

                  If Zimmerman truly felt he had a legal standing, why run and hide.  Maybe it is simply that he realized he fucked up.  And royally.  Trailing someone and shooting him? That is murder in the first degree.

                  Even the writers of that law stated that once Zimmerman stepped out of his vehicle and confronted Trayvon, he had no defense with that law.

                  Why was it necessary for the parents attorney present Trayvon's girlfriends statement and phone records. If the police did their job, thus would not have been necessary. Why did it need that Trayvon's dad had to go through his son's phone records to track back and create that timeline to see who Trayvon may have been talking to.

                  This case stinks of incompetence at the least.... But i bet more likely its some sort of cover up.

                  That's my rant.

                  All the suffering of this world arises from a wrong attitude.The world is neither good or bad. It is only the relation to our ego that makes it seem the one or the other - Lama Anagorika Govinda

                  by kishik on Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 06:06:46 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I can't believe you're saying this (14+ / 0-)

                Shielding oneself from an onslaught of supposition about his culpability isn't evidence of "consciousness of guilt".

                Trying to cover up a crime can show that. Fleeing the nation where the crime allegedly occurred can show that.  Trying to hide evidence can be evidence of that guilty conscience.  If there's evidence that he fabricated evidence (in this case, broke his own nose or scraped his own head AFTER he shot Trayvon would be that kind of fabricated evidence, but since there were witnesses around the entire time from right before he shot him until the cops got there, there's NO possibility that he created that evidence), then that can be a sign of consciousness of guilt.

                Being readily available for the cops, but avoiding the public spotlight, is NOT evidence of consciousness of guilt!

                •  Having watched the police video (0+ / 0-)

                  it looks to me like he fabricated the story of his broken nose, at the very least.  

                  If the Republicans ever find out that Barack Obama favors respiration, we'll be a one-party system inside two minutes. - Alan Lewis

                  by MadRuth on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 06:23:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  How about presumption of innocence for Trayvon? (7+ / 0-)
                •  But what if Trayvon initiated the physicality? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  raster44

                  What if Zimmerman was trying to follow him, and lost him, and then Trayvon came up to him, and as his girl friend has already told us, Trayvon began the verbal interaction with Zimmerman, and challenged him about why he was being followed?

                  And what if Trayvon hit Zimmerman first, as Zimmerman has said?

                  Sure, Zimmerman was following Trayvon and it's unlikely that Trayvon was doing anything besides wandering around a strange neighborhood in the rain. But following Trayvon isn't a crime. Hitting someone else first isn't justifiable simply because someone is following you, even IF the person following you has no legit reason to be following you!

                  •  But following CAN look like stalking to some- (11+ / 0-)

                    -one who knows that he belongs where he is. And Trayvon did! At some point, George needs to shove his suspicions in his pocket and as he was advised by 911, knock off the pursuit and wait for the cops ... who George has been told are on their way.

                    Trayvon, on the other hand, only knows he's being followed, possibly staked out for something bad. Trayvon has no idea - not by anything we've heard George say he said - that he's being followed by a Neighborhood Watch guy with any more right to be tracking him than Trayvon had to be there in the first place.

                    Now we have no idea whether and who, if either, hit who ... So I'm not going to give a follower/stalker with a gun a lot of latitude until what he did starts sounding reasonable after he was told to back off by the 911 dispatcher: "We don't need you to do that."

                    Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

                    by TRPChicago on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 05:36:48 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Of COURSE Trayvon was irked (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      raster44

                      And OF COURSE Zimmerman should have listened to the directive from the police dispatcher.

                      Who's ever said anything differently? Yeah, that's right - no one has, and so your strawman argument is just that - made of straw and easily dismissed.

                      Hitting someone simply because they're following you isn't justifiable. Even if you're black and young and fearful that the person following you could threaten you. But in this case, Trayvon is the one who CHALLENGED Zimmerman. His girl friend tells us that Trayvon talked to Zimmerman first.

                      And we DO know that Zimmerman was hit. Multiple witnesses, including cops, have told us that Zimmerman was bloody. He didn't hurt himself AFTER the event, as witnesses were right there. And so YOUR assertion that we don't know who hit whom is not accurate. We DO know that Trayvon hit Zimmerman.

                      •  "Irked"? Following, perhaps stalking, IS ... (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Plantsmantx, worldlotus, blueoasis

                        ... threatening. You have to read details one particular way - and regard inconvenient others as "straw and easily dismissed" - to be as certain as you are, particularly that Trayvon was the "challenger."

                        But even if he was, Trayvon knew he had a right to be where he was and very clearly, George didn't. George took it upon himself - against police advice - to advance on his suspicions. From then on, the details - such as they are - are muddy and conflicting.

                        Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

                        by TRPChicago on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 08:20:58 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Your logic is bass ackward. Hitting someone is (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        kishik

                        not okay?  But shooting someone is just fine?  Someone you stalked with a gun as a self-appointed vigilante?

                        •  Oh...and don't forget.... (0+ / 0-)

                          If you ask someone following you, why are you following me, according to dolly madison, this is verbal aggression, and sound reason for someone to use for self defense argument.

                          All the suffering of this world arises from a wrong attitude.The world is neither good or bad. It is only the relation to our ego that makes it seem the one or the other - Lama Anagorika Govinda

                          by kishik on Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 10:31:41 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Yes, hitting in response to stalking is not okay (0+ / 0-)

                          Shooting someone if they're beating you up, you can't escape and you fear serious physical damage might happen to you IS okay.

                          It's not okay to initiate physical violence simply because you're irked.

                          Show me some evidence that Trayvon felt in fear of his life - and remember, HE initiated the verbal confrontation. Staying away from someone you fear is out to hurt you/kill you is the way people behave.

                          My logic is great. The problem with many here at DK is they ran with assumptions and now that those assumptions are being refuted, they're lashing out at those who are refuting those assumptions.

                          The defense of self-defense requires that one have a reasonable fear that something even worse will happen if one doesn't act in self-defense. We don't know who threw the first punch. If it was Trayvon, he became the aggressor. That's all I've been saying - that we don't KNOW who threw that first punch, and so the assumption that you all keep making, that Zimmerman had no right to self-defense, is a flawed conclusion that you're unfairly leaping to!

                          Just because Zimmerman was the INITIAL aggressor doesn't mean that Trayvon couldn't have become the aggressor later in the interaction. The fact that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor doesn't mean that he lost all rights to claim self-defense IF Trayvon elevated this from one guy unreasonably following another into a physical altercation with one man getting his head beaten upon the edge of the sidewalk.

                          And that's the point that you all refuse to acknowledge, and that's your shortcoming, not mine.

                  •  you talk about evidence (13+ / 0-)

                    but I have seen no evidence that Trayvon hit Zimmerman first. He was being followed for no reason.  If you can stand your ground with a gun, surely you can stand your ground with your fist if you are being stalked.

                    If the Republicans ever find out that Barack Obama favors respiration, we'll be a one-party system inside two minutes. - Alan Lewis

                    by MadRuth on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 06:28:20 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  God, can you NOT read? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      raster44

                      I swear.

                      Go back and read what I wrote.

                      I never said that there was ANY evidence that Zimmerman was hit first. Never said anything that could be interpreted that way.

                      And yeah, it's likely that Trayvon could have TOO claimed that he was simply standing his ground because he feared what Zimmerman might do to him, but without any evidence that he had good reason to believe he was at risk of being hurt badly or killed, he couldn't have sustained that claim. Zimmerman, on the other hand, has evidence that Trayvon began the verbal interaction AND has physical injuries that document that he was being hit and beat up by Trayvon.

                      Zimmerman WAS following Trayvon without cause it appears and he should not have failed to abide by the dispatchers directions, but that didn't give Trayvon carte blanche to physically attack Zimmerman. And once that happened, IF it happened the way Zimmerman claims, Trayvon became the aggressor. And remember, the girl friend backs up the assertion that Trayvon was the verbal aggressor, and that in response, Zimmerman didn't say anything aggressive at all.

                      •  Wtf? (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        worldlotus, donaurora, MadRuth

                        This is verbal aggression?

                        "what are you following me for?"

                        According to Trayvon's girlfriend, that is what he said. Your stance is that this is verbal aggression?

                        You are accusing othrs of leaping to conclusions. I eonder about your own leaps to what you push forward as fact in your own arguments.

                        All the suffering of this world arises from a wrong attitude.The world is neither good or bad. It is only the relation to our ego that makes it seem the one or the other - Lama Anagorika Govinda

                        by kishik on Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 06:17:49 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  It's not "my stance" - it's reality (0+ / 0-)

                          It was an aggressive comment.

                          He initiated the verbal interaction. He was challenging Zimmerman following him. That's aggressive in ANY language.

                          •  Oh... So next time... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MadRuth

                            I ask someone who does not identify themselves in any manner as someone like in neighborhood watch or undercover cop "why are you following me"' i sure as hell better be suited up with a bullet proof vest because they can shoot me based on my simple question.

                            Really. Okay. Fine. Again, your opinion.

                            All the suffering of this world arises from a wrong attitude.The world is neither good or bad. It is only the relation to our ego that makes it seem the one or the other - Lama Anagorika Govinda

                            by kishik on Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 10:27:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yet again with the strawman argument? (0+ / 0-)

                            Trayvon was NOT shot immediately after that question, though, was he?

                            Of course he wasn't.

                            The point was that Trayvon initiated the verbal confrontation. IF he then threw the first punch, he became the aggressor, despite the fact that Zimmerman was, undeniably, the first aggressor.

                            And after he threw that first punch (if he did), he STILL wasn't shot - and it wouldn't be justified self-defense HAD he been shot at that point in time. It wasn't until a minute of more of grappling on the sidewalk and the grass, with one person desperately calling for help, that the shot occurred.

                            So, no, it's not MY opinion. That's YOUR faulty conclusion that you leapt to without anything to support that conclusion.

                            I understand you're reluctant to admit to your errors here - too bad, so sad.

                      •  Oh, so Trayvon was being stalked, but he should be (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MadRuth

                        allowed neither a verbal defense (Why are you following me?) nor a physical defense (unarmed) if feeling his life was threatened?  His life WAS threatened, clearly.

                        Zimmerman was very, very wrong in his actions here.  He was armed.  He followed.  He provoked.  All for no good reason other than his own prejudices and suspicions.  His was a litany of mistakes of his own doing.  This guy should never, ever become a police officer, which is (was) his aspiration.  

                        •  I NEVER SAID that Trayvon shouldn't have said it (0+ / 0-)

                          Never, not once. In fact, I've repeatedly said that Trayvon would be able to assert, perhaps successfully, that he had the right to defend himself because he feared for his life, using the stupid Stand Your Ground laws!

                          So there goes YOUR entire argument against me, fool.

                          We don't KNOW that his life was in danger BEFORE he started beating up Zimmerman. Things changed between the time he confronted Zimmerman about following him and when he was shot. Things changed a lot if HE threw the first punch.

                          Zimmerman WAS very wrong. He WAS the first aggressor. It's undeniable - which is why I have NEVER once denied that.

                          The problem here is YOU guys who fail to acknowledge that things changed IF Trayvon threw the first punch and thus began the physical altercation, and IF Trayvon truly had Zimmerman on the ground, banging his head into the edge of the sidewalk.

                          It's not shortcomings in my arguments that are being exposed here.

                  •  i am going to guess (7+ / 0-)

                    that you have never been followed by someone whom you feared was going to kill you.

                    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
                    Real journalists know that lies do not bring "balance" to truth! (h/t elwior)

                    by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 08:57:47 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  He felt threatened. Trayvon feared for his life. (0+ / 0-)
            •  He should be sitting in silence in jail (8+ / 0-)

              but that is not going to happen. The police and DA have too much invested in his innocence for that to happen.

              •  If there's sufficient evidence to indict him (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                raster44, jconn

                Then he should be in jail.

                But cops and prosecutors, who've seen much more evidence than we have, haven't arrested him yet - and that's because, despite your beliefs, the evidence doesn't yet support an arrest.

                Why are you so disrespectful of our justice system that you believe that there's this cabal of conspirators who are disregarding the evidence and allowing him to stay free?

                See, I respect our justice system, and without evidence to indict that justice system, I trust them. And right now, there's no evidence (plenty of supposition, but no evidence) that the justice system has ignored any evidence.

                You CLAIM that they're conspiring to keep a guilty man out of jail - but what evidence do you have of that? And what I'm looking for is evidence, not supposition.

                But see, I already know that you have NO evidence of any malfeasence by the justice system here.

                •  Actually, you're quite wrong. The police (8+ / 0-)

                  investigator wanted him arrested, but the prosecutor didn't, justifying his decision on the Stand Your Ground law.

                  Who says there is a "conspiracy"?   Well, I don't, for one.

                  But there is a hell of a lot of sloppy police work, poor decision-making, lack of concern over murder, "John Doe" - do I need to explain that part?, and more.

                  It looks like one royally-f'd up city and county.

                  All that aside, your repeated statements that "suppose Zimmerman's story is true" seems to ignore all sorts of real evidence that the story has more holes in it than swiss cheese.  You have to be a real apologist to believe "if Zimmerman's story is true."  

                  And by the way, "God can you NOT read" is coming close to behaving dickishly.  Fair warning and all that.  You've come into someone else's diary and should comport yourself appropriately.

                  What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

                  by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 09:35:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thank you for defending my diary... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    worldlotus, kishik, YucatanMan

                    Sort of just kidding.   I haven't posted many diaries so I couldn't understand why suddenly I wasn't able to reply to anything.  This morning I finally saw that I had somehow gotten signed OUT.  Boy, am I embarrassed.

                  •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    YucatanMan

                    For saying what you wrote more diplomatically than I'd ever be able to. (sorry for ending in a preposition.... I'm too POed at the moment to ensure grammatical correctness!)

                    All the suffering of this world arises from a wrong attitude.The world is neither good or bad. It is only the relation to our ego that makes it seem the one or the other - Lama Anagorika Govinda

                    by kishik on Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 06:27:11 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  so, there were such things as a lynch mob (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adam B, waytac, cap76, raster44

            And they would track people who weren't really guilty of a crime and hang them anyway.

            The idea that if he wasn't guilty of anything, he'd have no reason to hide just isn't supported by facts. We don't have literal lynch mobs nowadays, but there's still legitimate fears by people who aren't guilty of being assumed to be guilty when tried in the court of public opinion.

            If what he has said is true, given what we've seen from the media and the DK community at large, we'd see that he had every reason to go into hiding!

            And if he killed a man in self-defense after that person physically attacked him, then he is, in fact, owning up to THAT. If he killed him in self-defense, then he shouldn't "own up" to murdering someone, since taking a life in self-defense isn't murderning someone.

        •  Nit-picking (15+ / 0-)

          he killed a 17 yr. old, not yet a man.

          Politics is like sports, it doesn't build character it reveals character.

          by Sassy on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 02:34:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  He killed an unarmed 17 year old (16+ / 0-)

          boy, not a man

          "It's like, duh. Just when you thought there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, the Republicans go and prove you're wrong" Molly Ivins

          by Lefty Ladig on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 02:57:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Slight Correction: (6+ / 0-)

          He killed a child.

        •  It doesn't seem to sit with him enough to (0+ / 0-)

          keep him from lying to family and friends about it.

          What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

          by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 09:25:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Forever (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Adam B, worldlotus
          Also, really: he killed a man.  Whether justified or not, I imagine that sits with you for awhile.
          Irrespective of the road that this case takes, there will not be a single day in the life of George Zimmerman where he will not think about what happened that rainy night.

          How he chooses to remember the incident, and how he deals with the memories, will significantly affect his life for the better or for worse.

          I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

          by Wayward Wind on Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 12:19:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I have to agree. He was thoroughly integrated (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duufus, blueoasis, BMarshall, worldlotus

        into that townhouse community and, apparently, was their long-time "go-to" man for neighborhood watch.

        In other words, he should have had every expectation that the community would greatly appreciate his protecting them against this dangerous, "maybe on drugs," burglar.

        Instead, he vanished from his workplace.  He moved out of his house.  He left the immediate area as fast as possible.  

        Why didn't he stay to receive the "appreciation" due after this manly act of protection of all the residents?

        Because that narrative is not remotely true.
        And because he has a Jekyll-and-Hyde personality when it comes to being "security." And because he is guilty as sin and should be behind bars, now.

        This case didn't become a "big media deal" for weeks after.  Why does he run immediately?

        In my view, your diary is right on.

        What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

        by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 09:24:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Would this hypothetical person also pack up and (33+ / 0-)

      move within a day or two?  Nope.

      GZ knew what he did.  He knew it was murder - which is why he immediately spun his tall tales (cried for help, broken nose, head pounded on concrete, fight of his life (GZ's brother)).  

      He boogied before the truth came out.  My .02

      To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt 1918

      by JVolvo on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 01:26:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Admitting guilt? He wasn't charged with anything (6+ / 0-)

      in the first place. It was barely investigated. We are only hearing about it because the case was not investigated. If he had been charged we wouldn't even know it happened.

      AND WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT HEALTH CARE IN 2011? -- Susan from 29

      by voracious on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 02:40:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  HE MOVED BOTH HE AND HIS WIFE (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      worldlotus, YucatanMan, blueoasis

      OUT OF THEIR APARTMENT!!!!!!!


      may we not be strangers in the lush province of joy - Charles Wright

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 03:32:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the question is why (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DollyMadison, rubyr, Sharon Wraight
    Zimmerman and his wife moved out of the townhouse they rented in the Twin Lakes complex almost immediately, Oliver said, and they are now living in seclusion."
    Were they perhaps getting threats? Too much speculation already.
    I think it will become obvious that there wasn't enough time between those two events for all of the things that Zimmerman has stated were true.
    On the 9/11 call with the shot recorded, the shot is heard 41 seconds in. Add in the time to

    Hear a disturbance
    Decide it is not nothing
    Get the phone
    begin speaking to the operator

    and were talking between one and two minutes of confrontation i'd guess.

    •  If they left immediately (14+ / 0-)

      who would they have been getting threats from?

      And of that one to two minutes, fully 30 seconds on the 911 calls is someone screaming for help.  Just try to imagine someone being in that level of fear for 30 seconds and then as soon as the shot is fired, the screaming stops... bam, literally.

      I think this was the time that in Zimmerman's decided this "asshole" wasn't going to get away... not if he could help it.

      •  the qoute is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DollyMadison, VClib

        "almost immediately" and we don't know if that means days or hours. And you're living about 1000 feet from the father of the kid you just shot to death. Might also have been layer advice.

        Except the only witness says it was Zimmerman screaming.

        •  Two things... (14+ / 0-)

          The father didn't live there.  He was merely visiting his fiancée.

          There have been two audio experts who have put the screams through an analysis and both say it isn't Zimmerman.  Without regular audio of Trayvon, they made no declaration about whether it was him screaming.  I feel sure that regular audio will be provided in due course.

          •  wasn't one of them this guy? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DollyMadison

            "The examiner can only work with speech samples which are the same as the text of the unknown recording."

            http://www.owlinvestigations.com/...

            •  Tom Owens was one of them. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              uciguy30, elwior

              I guess we could assume he was from that company, unless the last name is just a coincidence.

            •  The audio experts aren't telling us everything (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              eatbeans

              The ONLY fair way to listen to the scream and make ANY credible comment about who it was or wasn't would be to compare the voice heard with ALL the possible contributors to the noise - and all they've done so far is compare it to one person.

              •  This is incorrect. Owen did not say the screams (15+ / 0-)

                WERE from Trayvon.

                He said that the screams WERE NOT Zimmerman.

                Tom Owens used forensic audio software to analyze the screams to come to this conclusion.  His method was he compared a voice sample that is positively identified as George Zimmerman - his 911 call- to a second voice sample that is unidentified, the screams

                His conclusion is the screams are not made by the same person who made the 911.  Hence it's not George Zimmerman.     Just as DNA test can say if my DNA matches the DNA at the scene, here we have forensic audio test that says Zimmerman is not the person makeing the screams for help.

                The reason Owen didn't comment on Trayvon is he doesn't have a voice sample of Trayvon to compare against.

                •  there must be samples of Trayvon's voice available (0+ / 0-)

                  His phone voice-mail message, if nothing else. Hopefully, more -- from family home videos, conversations with friends, maybe his gf taped him, or at a party, or?

                  It will come out in due course.

                  I'm currently rationing my T&R for any Trayvon diaries, for anything truly newsworthy, i.e. new facts or testimony.  :-)

                •  Ah, yeah, what I said was EXACTLY correct (0+ / 0-)

                  These kinds of experts can NOT say that it's NOT someone until they rule out ALL possible contributors.

                  This is NOT akin to DNA.

                  As I said, quite clearly, above

                  The only way to say who it IS or IS NOT is to evaluate every potential contributor. It's not acceptable to make those kinds of judgments without knowing how closely those vocal tones match each possible contributor.

                  •  You are wrong. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    solliges, blueoasis, worldlotus

                    George Zimmerman's voice has specific characteristics that make it identifiable.  If another recording of a voice lacks those characteristics, that is a strong showing that it is not George Zimmerman's voice.

                    By the way, "Dolly", you always make tendentious arguments like the one you just made in this case.  Cut it out.

        •  "Except the only witness says it was Zimmerman (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          worldlotus, Nailbanger, Chi, blueoasis

          screaming."  Incorrect. There are many more than one witness. Also, voice analysis now says it was Trayvon screaming.

          "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

          by rubyr on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 02:12:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  nope (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DollyMadison

            just one who saw it

          •  No analysis says (6+ / 0-)

            It's Travyon. Two experts say its very probably not Zimmerman, though.

          •  voice analysis now says (11+ / 0-)

            it WASN'T Zimmerman screaming.

            It did not say that is WAS Trayvon.  

            Those are two different things.  Didn't have the material to say the latter.  Did have the material to say the former.

            Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

            by a gilas girl on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 05:37:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, they did NOT have the material to say that (0+ / 0-)

              Now, they SAID IT, but if you ask any reputable audio expert, they won't even TRY to make that kind of assertion until they've looked at all the possible contributors AND they've had the people repeat the exact same comments to try to match them.

              That's why the cops, when they have ear-witnesses, make the folks in the line-ups say whatever it was that the witness HEARD. They don't ask them to say some random, different thing - because it's not a fair comparison.

              If I were in fear for my life, my voice would NOT sound very much like my voice in every day language.

              Again, ask a real expert who's not simply trying to make a name for themselves - you don't decide based upon the evidence they have that it couldn't have been Zimmerman's voice.

              •  NO, the cops corrected ear witnesses when they (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                YucatanMan, duufus, worldlotus, blueoasis

                said it was Travon screaming.   There was no effort to find justice, only to cover for Z.

                These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel. Abraham Lincoln

                by Nailbanger on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 08:05:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's NOT what the cops did (0+ / 0-)

                  An EARwitness tried to claim that she knew who had made the comment.

                  The cops didn't try to coach her. This has already been debunked on other diaries that made that same assertion - she could NEVER testify as to who the person crying out was. All she can testify to is what she heard.

                  The cops believed, based upon the evidence THEY HAD, that Zimmerman was the one crying out - and they TOLD that earwitness that, based upon their knowledge, it wasn't the person who was shot who was crying out.

                  Now, if we had no evidence, it might seem plausible that the person LOSING the physical altercation might be crying out for help. Or that if one person were holding another person at gunpoint, that person being threatened with a gun would cry out for help.

                  And that earwitness, knowing that Trayvon was the one who was shot, thought/assumed that Trayvon fit one of the two profiles -but as an earwitness, she doesn't GET to "assume" who it was. The cops explained who it was who was getting the worst end of the physical altercation - Zimmerman - and the eyewitnesses tell us that Zimmerman was never holding Trayvon at gunpoint.

              •  Dear Dolly, (5+ / 0-)

                Tom Owen is "a real expert" and he is not "trying to make a name for himself".  I work in the audio field and I know who the top forensic voice analysts are.  Tom Owen is one of them.  His is exactly who you go to in an important case when you need top quality voice analysis.

                Now, please stop talking about stuff that you don't know anything about.

                •  Top experts in the field (0+ / 0-)

                  would NEVER make a declaration of who the voice was NOT when they didn't have

                  1. Comparable comments to try to match up to the sounds heard on the 911 tape.

                  2. All possible contributors to judge against making those similar sounds/saying the same words.

                  3. At least SOME audio from all possible contributors.

                  If you truly are "in this field", then you'd know this. And acknowledge this. And so would have the experts who were cited here.

                  He could easily be an expert - but that doesn't mean that he could fairly make the claims he did here, given the evidence he had.

        •  Easy enough to prove (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MadRuth

          Zimmerman knows whether he was screaming, or Trayvon.

          When Zimmerman gets his day in court, he can call experts who will testify as to whether that is his voice on the 911 tape.

          One expert has concluded it is unlikely to be Zimmerman's but the test will be more conclusive if he provides whatever voice sample is required.

          •  Burden of proof (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DollyMadison, VClib

            It's for the prosecution to prove it was Martin, not the reverse.

            •  so (0+ / 0-)

              give Zimmerman his day in court.  That's all I'm asking for. He should welcome it.

              If the Republicans ever find out that Barack Obama favors respiration, we'll be a one-party system inside two minutes. - Alan Lewis

              by MadRuth on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 06:44:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No one should "welcome" being a defendant. (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DollyMadison, cap76, VClib, Pozzo, worldlotus

                All kinds of shit can go wrong.

                •  Yeah (6+ / 0-)

                  and all kinds if shit can go wrong when you stalk a kid when the 911 operatore asks you not to.  I bet Trayvon's family wishes he could be a defendant instead of a dead body.

                  If the Republicans ever find out that Barack Obama favors respiration, we'll be a one-party system inside two minutes. - Alan Lewis

                  by MadRuth on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 07:06:32 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  He didn't "stalk" a kid (0+ / 0-)

                    He did follow him, but that's not illegal.

                    He did ignore the directive of the police dispatcher, but again, that's not illegal.

                    He says that he didn't initiate the verbal confrontation between the two of them. Trayvon's girl friend confirms that!!!!!

                    He says that he didn't start the physical confrontation either.

                    The fact that he was following a young man who apparently wasn't doing anything wrong didn't give Trayvon the right to express his irritation with Zimmerman for following him with a punch to the nose - so, if that's what truly happened, then Trayvon became the aggressor and Zimmerman had a right to defend himself!

                    All kinds of shit went wrong - but again, if things were like Zimmerman says they were, then Trayvon escalated the events well above the initial irritation into the events that followed. Simply following Trayvon doesn't make Zimmerman the sole bad guy here, and his actions don't justify Trayvon's initiation of a physical confrontation.

                    •  "if that's what truly happened" (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      YucatanMan

                      Trayvon would have been justified under the Stand Your Ground law. He was certainly justified in being afraid for his life. Your scenario is based solely one what Zimmermansaid.  Sadly, we can't ask Trayvon, but we can ask Zimmerman to at the very least tell his story under oath.

                      If the Republicans ever find out that Barack Obama favors respiration, we'll be a one-party system inside two minutes. - Alan Lewis

                      by MadRuth on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 07:47:47 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yes, Trayvon COULD have made that assertion (0+ / 0-)

                        But he would have to show evidence to the cops that he had a reasonable basis upon which to demonstrate that he truly feared for his life and his safety.

                        Without any wounds, Trayvon might could have had a tough time doing that, but yeah, he could have attempted that claim, you're right.

                        But see, I said that same thing WEEKS ago, and so you pointing it out to me as though it's a wondrous insight that I'd never thought of? Totally bogus strawman argument.

                        You're right - the law STINKS. It takes away the obligation to attempt to retreat from an imminent physical altercation, and allows one to claim the right to self defense without trying to retreat first.

                        And no, my scenario is NOT solely based upon what Zimmerman said. As I've repeatedly explained, his girl friend tells us that Trayvon is the one who initiated the verbal confrontation. Zimmerman is the one who had multiple injuries. There's no disputing that Zimmerman was getting beaten up.

                        •  Seriously? (9+ / 0-)

                          "Why are you following me?" is initiating a verbal confrontation?

                          If the Republicans ever find out that Barack Obama favors respiration, we'll be a one-party system inside two minutes. - Alan Lewis

                          by MadRuth on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 08:18:01 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, making the first comment IS (0+ / 0-)

                            When one speaks first, they are the ones INITIATING the conversation.

                            I swear, this ain't rocket science.

                            And demanding to know why someone is following you is a confrontational comment. There's no other way to describe it.

                          •  You keep talking about rocket science (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kishik, Lilyvt

                            and you can't even construct a coherent argument. My sig line used to be " don't argue with an idiot, they'll only take you down to their level and then beat you with experience." I am now belatedly taking that advice.  Bye now.

                            If the Republicans ever find out that Barack Obama favors respiration, we'll be a one-party system inside two minutes. - Alan Lewis

                            by MadRuth on Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 06:32:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  PS.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MadRuth

                            I love your old 'sig' line!

                            I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

                            by Lilyvt on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 07:26:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Really? For real? You are serious? (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          solliges, worldlotus, blueoasis, MadRuth
                          Zimmerman is the one who had multiple injuries. There's no disputing that Zimmerman was getting beaten up.

                          What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

                          by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 09:47:48 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah, I'm serious (0+ / 0-)

                            Multiple witnesses have told us that Zimmerman was hurt after the event with blood in two places on his head.

                            No witnesses have said that he was just fine after the incident.

                            EMT took care of him at the scene - do they take care of people who aren't hurt in the town YOU live in? In every town I've ever lived in, EMT's, unless they're doing a drill, don't provide medical care to people who don't need medical care.

                    •  Suddenly, you know exactly what Zimmerman did (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      solliges, worldlotus, blueoasis, MadRuth

                      and whether it was "stalking" or "following?"

                      How do you come about your knowledge?

                      How do you know for a fact that Trayvon initiated a physical confrontation?

                      Do you have video?

                      Or do you simply chose to believe one story over another? And why do you believe that particular story?  What gives it extra credence in your mind?  

                      What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

                      by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 09:46:36 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Dolly, (6+ / 0-)

                        in case you hadn't noticed, likes to stir up argument for the sake of argument.  I recommend you disengage with "her".

                        •  Personally, I think there's more to it than that. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MadRuth

                          I'd like to hear more "Dolly" reasoning, because I suspect that would put the icing on the cake.  

                          What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

                          by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 10:57:11 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  No, I don't do that (0+ / 0-)

                          I DO like to disabuse people who post in public forums on this site of their nonsensical, disingenuous arguments.

                          In this particular thread, someone else said, contrary to all the evidence we have, that it could have been Trayvon crying out for help because he had a gun being held on him - but the eyewitnesses say that never happened.

                          And then all I continued to do is REPLY to people who replied to me with dishonest, confused, or insulting posts - that's NOT equivalent to "stirring up an argument for the sake of an argument".

                          But thanks, once again, for the baseless personal attack. I LOVE IT when folks like you, who can't actually refute a thing I've posted, choose to declare your failure to be able to do that by making a personal attack. Just love it - thanks for outing yourself as one of those people.

                      •  I don't "suddenly" know anything (0+ / 0-)

                        I have always known that "stalking" is a legal term to describe an illegal behavior. Zimmerman wasn't doing anything illegal.

                        And I don't KNOW, nor did I EVER say that I KNEW, that Trayvon initiated the physical confrontation.

                        Your poor reading comprehension along with your flawed perceptions added to your bias on this subject are your shortcomings, not mine.

                        I've said that Zimmerman says that Trayvon initiated the physical confrontation. I've also said that we don't know who did start THAT. What I've argued against is that Zimmerman starting the overal interaction between the two people by following him doesn't mean that Trayvon couldn't have become the aggressor at another point in their overall interactions, and that Zimmerman couldn't have then been justified in using self-defense!

                        I don't believe one story over the other. See, that's YOUR side's problem - that you have convinced yourselves that because Zimmerman at one point in time followed Trayvon, that he could never assert self-defense - and that's bullshit. YOUR side thinks that because Zimmerman could have been racially profiling Trayvon, that it means that he can't claim self-defense ---- and he can still claim self defense, even IF he shouldn't have been following Trayvon (he shouldn't have been) and even IF he was following him because Trayvon was black - and if he was doing that, he of course shouldn't have been!

                        The issue isn't that I side with Zimmerman. The issue is that too many here at DK have leapt to unsustainable conclusions without the evidence to support those conclusions. IF Trayvon threw the first punch, and IF Trayvon was the guy on top on that brawl in the sidewalk/grass, then Zimmerman DID have the right to defend himself.

                        And that last sentence is what this is all about. And that idea, that Zimmerman COULD react to shooting another person in self-defense in his own neighborhood by going into hiding, isn't evidence of "consciousness of guilt", which is what this diarist asserted.

                •  Amen to that... (0+ / 0-)

                  I would never want to be arrested, much less tried, because as as a wise man once said, "There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip."

                •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

                  Does anyone on this blog think that Troy David or the West Memphis Three should have "welcomed" their respective trials?

            •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

              I think that one is 50-50 with the jury deciding.

              It's an issue of fact, not a determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But, obviously, should the jury find that it was Zimmerman's voice, his chances of acquittal go way up.

              Which reminds me, I expect Zimmerman to get a major upgrade in terms of legal firepower. I don't see local Orlando guys handling this case. Certainly not from the first chair.

      •  Maybe I'm all wet, but someone screaming for (11+ / 0-)

        that length of time is NOT the person who held the gun, it was the person who feared he was going to be shot by the person in possession of the gun.  That would be Zimmerman.

        While I am perfectly willing to wait for the investigations, I also admit to being intrigued by this case.

         

        •  I think that didn't come out like I intended! (7+ / 0-)

          The someone screaming would be Trayvon, the person with the gun was Zimmerman just to clarify.

        •  Huh????? (0+ / 0-)

          There's no evidence, none whatsoever, that Zimmerman was ever "holding the gun" on Trayvon.

          There is, however, eyewitness evidence from multiple witnesses that one person was getting the shit beat out of them by another person, and so it's quite likely that the person being beaten would be crying out for help, and if he SHOT the person who was beating him, once he had shot that person who had been hurting him and making him cry out, he'd stop crying out!

          That length of time fits perfectly with the person who'd been getting beaten up that entire time.

          •  Umm Dolly, Zimmerman had the gun. (8+ / 0-)

            What part of Zimmerman shot Trayvon do you not understand?

            This is not disputable.  

            •  It is. You're not reading Dolly correctly (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DollyMadison, VClib

              The question is whether Z brandished his weapon and warned Martin or not.

            •  Read again what I wrote (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jconn
              There's no evidence, none whatsoever, that Zimmerman was ever "holding the gun" on Trayvon.
              And there's no evidence that he was holding a gun on Trayvon. Did he, at some point in time, PULL a gun and shoot him? Of course. But there's no evidence that he was holding a gun on Trayvon at any point in time.

              I didn't need your help to explain to me that Zimmerman shot Trayvon.

              There's no evidence that someone was screaming  because they had a gun  being held on them. In fact, ALL the eyewitnesses tell us that the two of them were involved in a brawl in the ground up until the shot was fired, and so there's absolutely NO CHANCE that Zimmerman was holding a gun on Trayvon, and so it's not possible that the hollering was from someone who had a gun being pointed at them.

              •  Is it ignorant of you, Dolly, to claim Zimmerman (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MadRuth

                shot a person without holding a gun on that person?

                Do you live in Florida? What is your inclination to heap your unabashed confusion onto this calamity?

                You are obviously ungrounded. I am paying attention because you are a self-appointed authority on the matter, just as George Zimmernman was a self-appointed enforcer. You are as dangerous as he is. The NRA owns and operates you.

                By thinking you are furthering your case as expert witness for George Zimmerman, you are showing how nonexistent it is.

                You are articulate but wrong.
                You can have the last word.

                Honesty is not a policy, it's a character trait.

                by Says Who on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 10:32:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Holding onto a gun to shoot someone (0+ / 0-)

                  Is NOT equivalent to "holding a gun" on someone.

                  Is English NOT your first language, because otherwise I'm baffled as to why this would confuse you.

                  The phrase "holding a gun on" someone means pointing it at them WITHOUT firing it - threatening them with the gun and making them do what you want them to do what you want them to do WITHOUT shooting them with it!

                  Having a gun holstered, then pulling it out (holding it) and shooting someone is NOT equivalent to "holding a gun on" someone.

                  And, if you'll scroll back, you'll see that the OP was talking about how Trayvon might have been crying out for help because he had a gun pointed at him - but the witnesses tell us that THAT didn't ever happen - that they were on the ground, brawling, and that Zimmerman was NOT "holding a gun on" Trayvon.

                  I HATE people who use their carry permits to carry guns wherever they go, behaving as though at any moment they might need to use that gun for self-defense.

                  But the laws in our states say that IF one is being confronted with physical violence such that they fear for their lives, they can use deadly force to stop that attack - and in Florida with their Stand Your Ground law, they don't even have to TRY to retreat first.

                  I don't support the Stand Your Ground law - never have.  I don't think that Zimmerman should have been carrying the gun, nor do I think he should have been following Trayvon.

                  But that doesn't mean that IF what he says is true, that Trayvon not only threw the first punch but then had the upper hand in a physical confrontation and THEN that Zimmerman feared for his life, he couldn't use deadly force to protect himself.

                  •  You can have the last word, Dolly, (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kishik

                    but you pretend to be ignorant of three facts...
                    - George announced he was stalking Trayvon
                    - George murdered Trayvon and admitted it, which you approve
                    - George is evading justice because his, and your, case is indicative that he is a ruthless murderer.

                    Can George get a fair trial? He obviously does not know what a fair trial is, because he narrated his own lynching of an innocent child. (Hope those words make you cringe, Dolly, and I dare you to prove my words inaccurate with real evidence, not another of your sniveling retreats.)

                    Dolly, you are accessory to murder by justifying it.
                    What a tool you are — the NRA is to be congratulated for educating you and erasing any sense of decency you had. If you still want the last word, explain how your favorite murderer called a pedestrian a fucking coon and shot him dead. And how that is acceptable to you.

                    That is what all evidence has established.
                    I am surprised you support murder.

                    Think if you used your powers for good instead of evil!

                    Honesty is not a policy, it's a character trait.

                    by Says Who on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 01:12:34 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Wrong, wrong, and wrong (0+ / 1-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Hidden by:
                      MadRuth

                      Zimmerman was NEVER stalking Trayvon. Stalking is illegally following someone, and he did NOT do that.

                      There's NO evidence Zimmerman "murdered" Trayvon. Murder is the illegal taking of someone's life, and there's NO evidence that Zimmerman did that.

                      IF Zimmerman was threatened with physical harm, and IF Zimmerman was the first person to throw a punch, then he's not evading justice. He is guilty of justifiable homicide and is NOT guilty of murder.

                      IF Trayvon threw the first punch, he's NOT "innocent".

                      It's too bad that YOUR distortions and falsehoods don't make YOU and your ilk more uncomfortable.

                      Real evidence? Apparently you wouldn't know what that was if it hit you in the face and broke your nose.

                      And no, I do NOT approve of what Zimmerman did, but the LAW in Florida allows for that behavior.

                      But, scum that you are, you leap to unsustainable conclusions because you can't actually refute a thing I've written.

          •  Hey Dolly, the evidence IS clear George "held... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            indres, MadRuth, Lilyvt

            ...  a gun" on Trayvon. That's one of the sure things about this case.

            Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

            by TRPChicago on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 05:44:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, you're 100% wrong (0+ / 0-)

              The eyewitnesses tell us that up until right before the gun shot happened, the two were on the ground, fighting.

              NO ONE was holding a gun on anyone else.

              Zimmerman SHOT someone, but the eyewitnesses tell us that he did NOT hold a gun on Trayvon. Holding a gun on someone and shooting them are NOT equivalent.

              I swear, this ain't rocket science - why does it apparently baffle so many people?

              •  Wow, Dolly, has the NRA done a job on you! (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TRPChicago, YucatanMan

                Honesty is not a policy, it's a character trait.

                by Says Who on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 07:51:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, but thanks for the baseless personal attack (0+ / 0-)

                  I hate guns. I've never owned a gun, and never will. I don't think that people should carry guns into public areas and I don't like concealed handgun permits.

                  And nothing in ANYTHING I've ever written at this site could justify your offensive comments.

                  Well, except for the fact that I've destroyed a bunch of arguments among those who have a kneejerk belief that Zimmerman can't possibly plead self-defense, that is. And so because I've destroyed arguments, people like you tend to make baseless personal attacks - somehow you think that they've valid substitutes for real arguments.

                  Here's a clue. They aren't.

                  Holding a gun on someone long enough to make them cry for help for a minute or so is NOT equivalent to pulling a gun from a holster and shooting someone else with it during a struggle.

                  •  You are inventing. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    YucatanMan, kishik, MadRuth

                    George stalked Trayvon. George killed Trayvon.
                    I have not personally attacked you, Dolly.
                    Stop defending illegal gun use. Stop playing victim.
                    You are a diversionary tactic of the NRA. Let me repeat,
                    Wow, Dolly, did the NRA ever do a job on you!
                    I don't care if you have no compassion, but don't fault me for telling you that your argument is ridiculous, misplaced, indefensible, and a waste of time, especially yours.
                    Show that evidence and nobody gets hurt.

                    Honesty is not a policy, it's a character trait.

                    by Says Who on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 08:38:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I haven't invented anything - you're a liar (0+ / 1-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Hidden by:
                      MadRuth

                      Zimmerman did FOLLOW Trayvon. He didn't "stalk" him.

                      He did KILL him.

                      And you DID personally attack me, by alleging that I was parroting the NRA, and I've done nothing that could be fairly interpreted that way.

                      I have plenty of compassion, and I've repeatedly said that Zimmerman was wrong for following Trayvon, you dumb shit, and so YOUR misinterpretation of what I've said IS, undeniably, a personal attack.

                      The issue is, given Florida's self-defense laws, IF Zimmerman wasn't the first to start a verbal confrontation, and IF Zimmerman wasn't the first to throw a punch, his folllowing Trayvon when he shouldn't have does NOT remove from him the right to defend him, even with a gun, in self-defense after someone else starts a physical altercation.

                      The Stand Your Ground law sucks. It was a terrible idea, to give people the right to insert themselves into potential hot spots without any need to make any attempt to retreat.

                      Just because I understand the law better than you do isn't MY failing - it's yours.

              •  But how can you shoot someone if you're not ... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Says Who, worldlotus

                ... "holding a gun" on them? Ricochet? Gun dropped and went off? Shot self-administered by Trayvon? Or aimed at himself by him? Fingers of both guys on the trigger?

                Lacking any indication of those possibilities, we're talking about the length of time passing as George got his gun in firing position in his hand, and aimed at Trayvon, and pulled the trigger. Yes, on this point, I suppose I am "baffled," so ...

                How much longer than that amount of time would meet your definition of "holding a gun on"?

                As for "eyewitnesses," what I've read is not clear about who was doing what to whom. True, I could have missed something in this maelstrom of conflicting reports and commentary. (Which may muddy potential witness testimony so much that the prosecution has enough leeway not to bring charges.) If there were any reliable eyewitnesses, this case would be much clearer.

                Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

                by TRPChicago on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 08:09:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                  I swear, there's a HUGE difference between PULLING A GUN on someone and HOLDING a gun on someone.

                  And WHY is it so fucking hard for folks like you to keep comments in context?

                  The issue was someone's assertion that it could have been Trayvon crying out for that minute or so because there was a gun threatening him that entire time. But that's not possible, because there were witnesses who saw Trayvon and Zimmerman on the ground, wrassling, during that time that the crying out for help was happening!

                  Holding a gun and shooting a gun are not equivalent.

                  •  Can you shoot a gun without holding the gun? (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    YucatanMan, worldlotus, MadRuth

                    True, you can hold and not shoot, but not the other way around.

                    Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

                    by TRPChicago on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 08:22:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Again, YOUR failing at keeping comments in context (0+ / 0-)

                      Is YOUR failing. This ain't rocket science.

                      Holding a gun on someone so that they cried out for help for a minute or two AND suddenly pulling a gun out and shooting them aren't eqiuvalent. The latter is NOT "holding a gun on someone". Of COURSE you're going to be HOLDING the gun when you shoot someone, but that's not equivalent to holding a gun ON someone - which means pointing your gun toward someone and REMAINING in that position.

                      Why fools like you feel the need to continue to defend your indefensible comments.....!?

                      •  So, "holding" = "for a minute or two". (0+ / 0-)

                        No wonder we're disagreeing.

                        Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

                        by TRPChicago on Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 11:40:22 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  NO, you're being dishonest and disingenuous (0+ / 0-)

                          The discussion is about the idea, pushed by the OP, that Trayvon could have been the one crying out for help for a minute or so because he was being held at gunpoint.

                          Of course someone has to hold a gun to shoot it, but that's not equivalent to someone HOLDING A GUN ON another person.

                          Holding a gun on someone else means that you're pointing a weapon at someone, threatening to use it, but NOT using it.

                          We aren't "disagreeing". You've been failing to acknowledge, all along, that there's a difference between someone holding a gun and using it in a moment and someone "holding a gun on" someone.

                          I've never said that "holding" = for a minute or two. The discussion has ALWAYS been about "holding a gun on" someone. Always. And people who can read comments in context would have always known this. If you didn't, that's your shortcoming - that's NOT an example of us "disagreeing".

                  •  Folks like you? (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    solliges, blueoasis, Lilyvt, MadRuth
                    And WHY is it so fucking hard for folks like you to keep comments in context?
                    Obnoxious line has now been crossed.

                    What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

                    by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 09:51:08 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No, that line was crossed by those replying to me (0+ / 0-)

                      When THEY failed to keep comments in context.

                      When THEY failed to acknowledge that the issue is NOT that Zimmerman was, at one point in time, HOLDING the gun when he shot the gun, but the issue was HOLDING THE GUN ON SOMEONE when they were yelling for help - which NEVER HAPPENED, according to all the witnesses.

                      And so, the original supposition - that the yelling for help could have come from Trayvon as he was crying for help because a gun was being pointed at him? Totally bogus. And all the people who continued to push it, after it was refuted many, many times? They're the ones who were obnoxious. All I did was point out that they were being obnoxious. All I did was point out THEIR failures to keep comments in context.

                      This ain't rocket science, yet it baffled them. Accurately pointing out their shortcomings after they've unfairly attacked me is NOT obnoxious.

              •  Actually, eyewitness accounts are not at (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MadRuth

                all consistent or clear on those points, as far as we are aware at this point.

                You're really close to trolling in this diary.  You are now insulting the intelligence of many people and coming pretty close to behaving dickishly in someone else's diary.

                What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

                by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 09:50:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Actually witnesses are 100% consistent on that (0+ / 0-)

                  They have all, without fail, described the two men as being on the ground for a significant period of time.

                  No one has described a time before the gunshot when one person was holding a gun on the other.

                  Accurating pointing out what we've heard from witnesses and fighting back against misinformation isn't trolling under ANY fair definition of that word.

                  There's no evidence, none whatsoever, that what Zimmerman has done since the shooting is evidence of "consciousness of guilt". Even FP'er Adam B has tried to disabuse people of that notion in this diary, yet to you, that's trolling apparently, because it's refuting the premise of the diary.

                  •  Dolly, in the course of your comments, ... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JaneEyrez, kishik, MadRuth

                    ... you have called me and other commenters "dishonest and disingenuous" and "dumb shit" and referred to us collectively as "fools like you." And you put down comments and honest discussion with phrases like "And WHY is it so fucking hard ..."

                    I get that you feel strongly about your point of view and strongly adverse about ours. But the over-the-top language you use to express your indignation may be why you're getting observations such as "You're really close to trolling."

                    Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

                    by TRPChicago on Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 12:34:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  You talk alot about evidence (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            YucatanMan

            but you don't really have any.  Where is the sworn testimony of the multiple witnesses?

            If the Republicans ever find out that Barack Obama favors respiration, we'll be a one-party system inside two minutes. - Alan Lewis

            by MadRuth on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 06:46:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  We do SO have evidence (0+ / 0-)

              Several people saw these two in the minute or two before the shot was fired. The two males were on the ground, brawling. There wasn't one person holding a gun on another person, and so it's not possible that what caused the hollering was one person having a gun held on them!!!

              This ain't rocket science.

              •  Several people who? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                YucatanMan, duufus

                Have they given official statements or affidavits? What we do know is that Zimmerman followed Trayvon after being told not to, that Trayvon was unarmed, and that Zimmerman killed him with his gun.

                If the Republicans ever find out that Barack Obama favors respiration, we'll be a one-party system inside two minutes. - Alan Lewis

                by MadRuth on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 07:22:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  They have done both (0+ / 0-)

                  They have talked to the media as well as the cops, and many have now talked to the special prosecutor as well as the FBI which was on site yesterday and today!

                  We DO know that Zimmerman followed Trayvon after being told not to, that Trayvon didn't have a weapon, and that Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon.

                  So what? That doesn't make Zimmerman criminally liable IF, as he asserts, he didn't initiate the verbal interaction OR the physical altercation! And we KNOW, via the girl friend's story, that it was Trayvon who started the verbal interaction - he went up to Zimmerman and HE (Trayvon) asked him, in an irritated way, why was he(Zimmerman) following him.

                  IF, as appears to be the case, Trayvon was irked that Zimmerman was following him for no good reason - and Trayvon had EVERY RIGHT to be irked by that - that did NOT give Trayvon the right to hit Zimmerman.

                  And if that's how it went down, then Zimmerman had the right to defend himself after he was on the ground with Trayvon beating up on him IF he thought that his life or his health were seriously threatened.

                  No one was "holding a gun" on another person during the time that the extended hollering for help was going on. They were brawling on the ground. Witnesses saw them, and heard them. Simple, basic and easy to understand.

                  •  Links (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    YucatanMan, duufus, blueoasis, Lilyvt

                    to some proof of your assumptions?

                    If the Republicans ever find out that Barack Obama favors respiration, we'll be a one-party system inside two minutes. - Alan Lewis

                    by MadRuth on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 07:54:56 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No, I will NOT provide those links (0+ / 0-)

                      All this info has been on TV shows, in diaries on this site, in the news, etc, over and over again. If you don't already know it, then you're too poorly informed to be trying to educate ANYONE else on this topic.

                      •  False summarizations. Insults. Offensive commenter (6+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Says Who, duufus, blueoasis, MadRuth, Lilyvt, kishik

                        What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

                        by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 09:52:19 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Busted! (5+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        YucatanMan, duufus, MadRuth, Lilyvt, kishik

                        You got nuthin' and you know it. How easy it would be to verify if you weren't just a tool of the NRA trying to lie your way through a civil discussion of a stalking murderer and his teenaged victim and a corrupt law enforcement agency and a cover-up of the evidence and a hack named Dolly Madison hellbent on justifying murder?
                        With all the credibility of a self-appointed watch commander with a loaded gun and a truck and a history of abuse and a racist vocabulary, Dolly self-righteously sniveled...

                        All this info has been on TV shows, in diaries on this site, in the news, etc, over and over again. If you don't already know it, then you're too poorly informed to be trying to educate ANYONE else on this topic.
                        Bye, Dolly!
                        We're trying to have a civilization here!

                        Honesty is not a policy, it's a character trait.

                        by Says Who on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 10:50:17 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Huh, busted? (0+ / 0-)

                          Really? You don't already KNOW that there are multipl witnesses who've stated that the two men were brawling, one on top of the other, and there wasn't ONE man holding a gun on the other one which was causing the one who was having the gun held on him to cry out for help?

                          And no, people here are NOT trying to have a "civilization" here - they're trying to have an echo chamber, where people push debunked talking points and not be corrected - like the wrecked diary that stated without ANY proof that the cell phone was missing, or like the repeated comments that Trayvon's body sat in the morgue for 3 days - neither of which are true.

                          Or like THIS diary, where there's NO evidence of consciousness of guilt in his desire to shield himself from public scrutiny after shooting someone.

                          •  You might not think so, but I can assure you (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MadRuth

                            that in trials the sudden relocation of the defendant from his residence and quitting of his job, in the absence of any current threat of prosecution or media onslaught, would rightly be argued as proof of consciousness of guilt.  Like all accusations, it would be considered and accepted or rejected by the jury.   If GZ considered his actions to be legally defensible, what would you think would be his reason for hiding out and letting others speak for him?

                            I never led, I never followed, I never joined.

                            by JaneEyrez on Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 11:17:17 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, it would not (0+ / 0-)

                            As a profesionally-trained person in this field, I can assure you, as FP'er Adam B did yesterday, that you're entirely wrong about this!

                            One needn't ONLY feel pressure from courts and the cops or the media to determine that there might be a need to relocate from the neighborhood where a serious allegation of criminal behavior happened.

                            You're out to lunch on this topic.

                            I've already talked about, in OTHER posts, why someone might hide out, as MULTIPLE other people have done too. Read the comments in your own diary to see what others have said.

                            You can't "assure" me of anything. You've misunderstood what "Consciousness of Guilt" is.

                          •  The point I was making... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MadRuth

                            is this:  GZ was taken into custody and questioned/held for five hours.  He was then released with probably standard instructions for not leaving the locality or making himself unavailable to law enforcement for further questioning.  We know now that law enforcement wanted to charge him and were told not to, or to hold off on charging him, by the State Attorney's Office.  GZ may have had an apprehension by the time he was released that the police weren't really buying his version of events and that there was a high probability of charges being brought.

                            GZ is the only living person who absolutely knows what happened before he pulled the trigger.  Most of the eyewitness accounts, such as they are, were people who couldn't see very well because it was already dark.  Some of their accounts were "corrected" by law enforcement at the scene because they did not back up GZ's story.  In light of further evidence which has come forward in the way of 911 calls and the video of GZ at the police department, I think you will find that some of those people will either change their story or be less sure of what they saw and/or heard that night.  But GZ knows what he did and if he knew what he had done was wrong and he felt that he was about to be arrested, then his decision to vacate his apartment and quit his job would be what in criminal trials the jury is instructed to consider as "consciousness of guilt," as follows.

                            "The flight of a person immediately after the commission of a crime or after he is accused of a crime is not sufficient in itself to establish his guilt, but is a fact which, if proved, may be considered by you in the light of all other proved facts in deciding whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. The weight to which this circumstance is entitled is a matter for you to decide."

                            So if a future jury decides that he was not exercising a right to self-defense and that, therefore, he is guilty of at least manslaughter, then this behavior post incident would be bolstering of their belief in his guilt.

                            I never led, I never followed, I never joined.

                            by JaneEyrez on Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 12:23:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yet again, you're horribly wrong (0+ / 0-)

                            The cops know where he is right now, and he's readily available to them.

                            And he didn't demonstrate "FLIGHT". I swear, doesn't it embarrass you to be so terribly wrong, so often?

                            Protecting oneself from unwanted attention from the neighbors and the media is NOT equivalent to FLIGHT.

                          •  How do you know that the cops know where he is? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MadRuth

                            Are you being given special information not available to the rest of us?  You are making an assumption in your usual boorish and obnoxious manner.  I fail to see why you cannot express your opinions without insulting everybody in the process.   I have up to now tried not to insult you in turn, but really it becomes quite plain that bullying people is the only way you can express your beliefs.

                            In future if Zimmerman is tried in a court of law and the argument of consciousness of guilt is made by the prosecution in a criminal trial or by the plaintiff lawyer in a civil trial, I shall expect you to apologize.  

                            You must have a special relationship with Zimmerman that allows you to know so much about his state of mind in order to opine that he fled from "unwanted attention," especially at a time when there was no such problem and no necessary expectation that it would arise in the future.  You consistently state many things about his actions, none of which have been established except by his own statements and some "witnesses" who could see very little in the dark.  I suppose you do know that eyewitness evidence is just about the least reliable evidence there is and has been proven time and time again to be faulty.  Yet you seem determined to believe every published report as if it is unquestionably true.  

                            I never led, I never followed, I never joined.

                            by JaneEyrez on Fri Apr 06, 2012 at 10:36:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How do I KNOW this? (0+ / 0-)

                            No, I'm not privy to special info. I simply read the news AND I'm well informed on legal matters. His lawyer has asserted that the cops know where Zimmerman is, and he can't LIE about that kind of a thing without being subject to disbarrment.

                            It's YOU who made unreasonable assumptions, not I.

                            It's almost certain that Zimmerman will NOT ever be tried in a court of law - there's no evidence that he started the fight and there's plenty of evidence that Trayvon started the fight - remember, Zimmerman has a broken nose and the funeral director said that Trayvon had no evidence of a punch on his face.

                            We know that people who are accused of crimes like this are subject to unwanted attention - it doesn't take a rocket science to know that, but apparently it baffles you - that's, once again, YOUR shortcoming, and not mine.

                            And "no expectation" that the unwanted attention" might  happen? Again, just because you're a fool and an idiot doesn't mean that Zimmerman was - thinking that there'd be no reason for one to get unwanted attention is ridiculous, and the ONLY reason you're asserting that now is because you're still, desperately, trying to justify the unjustifiable assertions you made in this diary.

                            His leaving his home is NOT "consciousness of guilt." It NEVER WILL BE an example of that. You're wrong. You can refuse to acknowledge that, but your failure to acknowledge that won't CHANGE the fact that you're denying the undeniable.

                            And no, liar, I do NOT, nor have I EVER, asserted anything about his behavior. What I've consistently talked about are "IF" statements - and we DO have evidence here. You, on the other hand, have NO evidence of YOUR assumptions.

                          •  You are your own echo chamber (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kishik

                            enjoy it.

                            If the Republicans ever find out that Barack Obama favors respiration, we'll be a one-party system inside two minutes. - Alan Lewis

                            by MadRuth on Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 06:35:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Show the evidence. Stop saying it exists. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                YucatanMan, MadRuth

                Hey, Dolly, was Zimmerman authorized to be in the gated community? Did he live there or just hunt there?

                If there was blood on George, whose blood was it?

                A coward dies a thousand deaths, a brave man dies but once.
                So where is this coward George Zimmerman, and is he still armed?

                Honesty is not a policy, it's a character trait.

                by Says Who on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 07:58:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  hmmmm.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MadRuth
            No evidence, none whatsoever, that Zimmerman was ever "holding the gun" on Trayvon.
            Really?  No evidence whatsoever?  None?
            Well, none except that the gun belonged to Zimmerman, and someone (very probably NOT Zimmerman according to the voice analysts) was screaming for help (something one doesn't do out of the blue, but something one might do if the person who has been following you is scaring the sh*t outta you with a gun) and the unarmed young man Zimmerman was following wound up dead.
            When someone shoots someone else it's a pretty well established fact the shooter held a gun on the person shot.

            I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

            by Lilyvt on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 06:56:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  WHY is this so difficult for so many to get? (0+ / 0-)

              There is NO EVIDENCE THAT ZIMMERMAN WAS HOLDING A GUN ON TRAYVON.

              This ain't rocket science. Shooting someone with a gun is NOT EQUIVALENT TO holding a gun on them.

              We've heard from multiple witnesses who've said that they saw the two brawling on the ground for at least a minute, if not two, before the gun went off. The hollering was going on WHILE THE TWO OF THEM WERE ON THE GROUND!!!!!!!!!

              Of course, sometimes, a person who DOES have a gun being pointed at them hollers for help. But in this case, there's NO EVIDENCE THAT ZIMMERMAN was holding a gun on Trayvon, and there IS evidence that Zimmerman was NOT holding a gun on Trayvon - they were wrassling on the ground WHILE the hollering was happening!!!!!!

              Someone holding a gun and then firing it is NOT equivalent to someone HOLDING A GUN ON SOMEONE!

              Lord, figure this out.

              •  I disagree.... (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                YucatanMan, duufus, worldlotus, blueoasis

                And as far as figuring this out....
                An innocent young man is dead and a self styled wannabee cop (with a gun and with some anger problems and who clearly doesn't listen to authorities when they tell him to stop following the young man) is the killer of the young man.
                There is a whole lot of faux 'evidence' being tossed about, lots of lies are being circulated to fog the horror of the incident, lots of misinformation is being 'leaked', but the inescapable tragic fact remains, a young man is dead for no reason at all, the semantics of 'holding a gun on' a person vs. 'shooting' that person notwithstanding.

                'Lord, figure this out.'
                We're trying to.

                I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

                by Lilyvt on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 08:38:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, an innocent young man (0+ / 0-)

                  Who might have thrown the first punch, and who might have then been pummelling another guy on the ground. He HAD been innocent. He WAS unfairly followed, and even perhaps racially targeted - but that doesn't mean that he couldn't have become the aggressor, and IF he did become the aggressor, then, according to state self-defense laws, Zimmerman had the right to defend himself with deadly force if he felt that his life or health were in serious jeopardy.

                  Of COURSE Zimmerman killed him, and if he hadn't inserted himself where he didn't need to be, this never wouuld have happened - and that's where the Stand Your Ground law stinks up the place! That law allows someone to insert themselves where they shuoldn't be (but where they have a legal right to be) and then use deadly force without trying to retreat first!

                  But that doesn't make Trayvon "innocent" IF he threw the first punch.

                  And no, most people here are NOT trying to figure this out. Most people are trying to fit the evidence into their preconceived notions about what they think should be the case.

                  They're assuming bad faith from the cops, alleging that the cell phone is missing, because the cops didn't use the cell phone to contact the parents right away - ignoring the facts that cops don't USE cell phones to contact next of kin, that cops need to get subpoenas to get cell phone records, which take days, and that cops had no reason to believe that Trayvon lived in that neighborhood. That's just one example, of many, of how people here are NOT trying to figure this out. If they were, we wouldn't see claims that Trayvon might have been being held at gunpoint while he was crying out for help, when witnesses have told us that it never happened that way.

                  •  sigh.... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MadRuth, kishik, Tonedevil

                    Never mind.
                    There is no 'what if' about an innocent young man who is stalked by an older man (much larger than the young man) for doing absolutely NOTHING.  Add to that the anger issues of the larger older man, and add to that the fact that the older larger man was specifically told to stay away from the kid, and add to that the older larger guy had a gun.
                    Just exactly what is there not to get about this?
                    The younger man was murdered, and even though that fact doesn't fit into some delusional faux witness's foggy recollection, the fact remains the larger older man with the gun and no discernible wounds walked away from the murder site unaided.
                    This case has been mishandled from the start, by the police, by the state's attorney's office, by pretty much everyone and that's why the DOJ and the FBI are getting involved.  What's not to get?
                    This should go to trial.  And be judged by a jury who will be able to listen to all these 'stories' under oath where perjury is a crime.
                    And btw, if I was being stalked by some man larger and older than I and he menaced me with a gun you can damn well be sure I'd protect myself, even if I only had a box of skittles and an iced tea.
                    What's not to get?

                    I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

                    by Lilyvt on Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 07:15:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's not my fault you don't understand the law (0+ / 0-)

                      The LAW says that one CAN be the initial aggressor and then another person can become the aggressor!

                      The older guy DID make multiple errors here - but not ONE of his errors, IF Trayvon threw the first punch, were criminal errors - if Zimmerman didn't start the physical altercation after following Trayvon, then simply following Trayvon, with a legal carry permit, isn't ILLEGAL.

                      This ain't rocket science.

                      IF Trayvon was the one who initiated the physical confrontation, THEN he was NOT murdered. Zimmerman killed him, but it was NOT murder, since murder is the illegal taking of another person's life.

                      An abortion provider is NOT a murderer, despite the claims of many anti-abortionists. And IF Trayvon threw the first punch, and then he had the superior position in the brawl on the ground, and Zimmerman actually suffered serious injuries and feared more were to come, then it's legal for him to have defended himself with lethal force.

                      And, as I have REPEATEDLY said, yeah, Trayvon, IF he felt threatened by Zimmerman, could have defended HIMSELF and claimed self-defense and used the Stand Your Ground defense too! But the fact that, at one point in the interaction between the two men, Trayvon could have claimed self-defense DOES NOT MEAN that at another time, Zimmerman couldn't make the same claim!

                      •  sigh.... (0+ / 0-)

                        Once again, Just a sad sigh....
                        What a terrible burden it must be, to be the only 'rocket scientist' involved here.

                        signing off....bye.

                        I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

                        by Lilyvt on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 06:57:53 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  There was no evidence... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MadRuth, Lilyvt

                Contrary to your adament statement.  How the hell do you know he wasn't holding a gun at Trayvon. How do you know that Trayvon in fact was the first person to throw a punch. How do you know that Zimmerman didnt attack first, but was winding up being the loser in the fight.

                All the suffering of this world arises from a wrong attitude.The world is neither good or bad. It is only the relation to our ego that makes it seem the one or the other - Lama Anagorika Govinda

                by kishik on Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 06:40:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Witnesses have told us that (0+ / 0-)

                  That there wasn't a time when they heard the crying out for help when Zimmerman was holding a gun on the other guy there - they were hearing the crying out for help when the two of them were on the ground, wrassling!

                  I don't KNOW who threw the first punch, and anyone with a fair amount of reading comprehension would know that I never CLAIMED to know who threw the first punch. I also don't know who began the physical interaction. I DO know that, based upon what the girl friend said, Trayvon started the verbal interaction, and that's ALL I've said.

                  I swear, if you don't know even these basic things about this case, and you can't even read what I've written and understand it, when I've been quite clear, repeatedly, then YOU need to refrain from embarassing yourself by pretending that you do understand what's going on.

  •  zimmerman's call log (26+ / 0-)

    this has not been released yet.  my guess, hunch, is that George called his father immediately  after the shooting and before the police arrived.  if I'm right, everything else that happened that evening started after that call.

  •  I think you are off in the wrong direction. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WisVoter, indres

    Zimmerman should be getting here even if we give him all benefit of all doubt.

    He shot an unarmed man.

  •  In the article, it states that (14+ / 0-)

    Trayvon is shot and rolls on his back.  Wasn't he found laying on his stomach with his hand beneath him?

    "Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but has not solved one yet" — Maya Angelou

    by hyper on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 01:22:20 PM PDT

  •  You're not too obsessed at all. (27+ / 0-)

    On the contrary, I'm concerned that America's attention will shift all too soon and this tragedy will be dismissed as old news before a trial even begins.

    Mark Twain said "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." So to a man with a gun, what did Trayvon Martin look like? -- Max Minton

    by teachme2night on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 01:22:36 PM PDT

  •  It also seems to be a very well coordinated (32+ / 0-)

    PR effort behind the talking points pushed by Zimmerman's family members and attorneys. Everything they say appears to be so calculated and on point, even shifting strategically with new story lines, it seems clear that they are being advised by PR pros. Is it crackpotish of me to wonder if the NRA or some related wingnut group might be paying for this?

    •  Could Be But Wouldn't Need to. Revenge for OJ (7+ / 0-)

      would be a sufficient motive to have thousands of voices out trying to spoil the jury pool. Plus the family members have obvious personal motivation.

      However the extremity of the lies could point to common message sources.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 01:28:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I read somewhere yesterday that (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe wobblie, elwior, YucatanMan, Chi, blueoasis

      some wealthy person from Texas who is a gun fanatic has given $10,000 to Z's defense fund

    •  Innocent or guilty ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pozzo, DollyMadison, VClib

      ... isn't that smart?

    •  dad's a former judge (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      indres

      I'm sure he knows how to talk to people and frame a hypothetical situation most favorably for his kid.

      Snarka snarka snarka!

      by Hunter Huxley on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 02:01:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hunter the dad was not a judge (10+ / 0-)

        That does not mean that he didn't give the son some good advice as he understood the criminal justice system.

        Here is what we know about the father.

        We now have confirmation of Zimmerman's actual position, which was indeed Virginia magistrate (not magistrate judge, certainly not U.S. magistrate judge as many sources still report, certainly not retired Florida judge as many others report):

            We then contacted the Virginia Supreme Court to confirm Robert Zimmerman’s employment.

            Kristi Wright with the Department of Legislative and Public Relations wrote us this email in response:

            “Robert J. Zimmerman served as a full-time magistrate from 2000-2006. Please be advised that in Virginia magistrates are judicial officers, but they are not considered "judges" and do not possess trial jurisdiction. More detailed information on the role of the magistrate in Virginia is available on Virginia's Judicial System Website.”

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 02:29:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  interesting (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          This case just gets weirder and weirder. I thought this was straight up judicial nepotism.

          Thanks for the info.

          Snarka snarka snarka!

          by Hunter Huxley on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 02:58:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Where are you getting this information? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sukeyna, worldlotus

          Who is this "we"? Did you personally speak with someone in the Virginia courts system? Who contacted "Kristi Wright"?
          Media is STILL reporting that Robert Zimmerman is a retired "magistrate judge". It was on MSNBC on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell last night. He talked about it with Trayvon's parents and showed a clip of Robert Zimmerman saying that he did not mention to police or the state's attorney the night of George's arrest that he was a "retired magistrate judge". Maybe that job is more than some kind of little court clerk. Maybe that job holds some power. And just how did Zimmerman get appointed to it in the first place? I find this confusing. People are so very quick to discount the background of Zimmerman's father.
          Surely someone on the Last Word did some research...

          Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

          •  orphanpower - Virginia magistrates are not judges (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adam B, MNGlasnant, YucatanMan

            Here is what is on the Virginia Judicial System website. If you look at the website you will see that magistrates in Virginia are not judges.  

            MAGISTRATES

            In many instances, a citizen's first contact with Virginia’s Judicial System comes through the office of the Magistrate.  A principal function of the magistrate is to provide an independent, unbiased review of complaints of criminal conduct brought to the office by law enforcement or the general public.  Magistrate duties include issuing various types of processes such as arrest warrants, summonses, bonds, search warrants, subpoenas, and certain civil warrants.  Magistrates also conduct bail hearings in instances in which an individual is arrested on a warrant charging him or her with a criminal offense.  Magistrates provide services on an around-the-clock basis, conducting hearings in person or through the use of videoconferencing systems.

            The magistrate system for the Commonwealth is divided into eight regions, and each magistrate is authorized to exercise his or her powers throughout the magisterial region for which he or she is appointed.  Each region is comprised of between three and five judicial districts.  There are magistrate offices located throughout Virginia, including at least one in each of Virginia’s 32 judicial districts.
             

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 03:50:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Been to the Virginia courts website. Already read (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sukeyna, worldlotus

              what you quote in your comment.
              But it still does not tell me what Zimmerman did or where he was located in Virginia's multi-tiered judical system. What was his authority? Are there any records?

              Robert Zimmerman apparently thinks he is a retired judge. He says that on the MSNBC video. He says it to the local reporter. Lawence O'Donnell refers to Zimmerman as a retired judge in his interview with Trayvon's parents last night on The Last Word.
              If you have actual evidence or research that indicates that Zimmerman had a lowly clerk position with no power and did not actually hold the title "Virginia Magistrate Judge" please offer it.

              •  orphanpower - the quote (5+ / 0-)

                in my comment from someone in the Virginia Judicial Sytem PR group was sent to a fellow DKOS member who put it in a comment to me. It's the most definitive statement that I have seen and the duties as described match what is on the website. Zimmerman's father continues to self-identify as a magistrate judge, but that is not the official Virginia title for the job. I don't believe that Zimmerman's father is a lawyer, although I haven't nailed that down yet. To date no one has shown any connection between the father and the SPD or the States Attorney for the 18th District so I am not sure that his role in Virginia has had any impact on his influence in Florida.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 04:51:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Not a clerk (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                indres, blueoasis, worldlotus

                The description of a magistrate's duties given above do not describe the work of a clerk. A clerk processes paper.

                It seems clear that the magistrate in VA decides whether to grant bail, whether to authorize arrest warrants or search warrants (etc.).

                He might not have been a trial judge, but he would certainly be quite familiar with how the criminal justice system works.

              •  That description sounds like a judge to me. A (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                indres, blueoasis, worldlotus

                lowly clerk does NOT evaluate evidence provided to determine if there is probable cause to issue an arrest or search warrant so yes he is a judge regardless of what that site says (though he is not a trial judge).  Remember the duck test? If it walks like a judge, talks like a judge, and quacks like a judge it is probably a judge regardless of what some website says.

                There is no saving throw against stupid.

                by Throw The Bums Out on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 05:23:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  It seems coordinated but not spectacular (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emidesu, sockpuppet, MadRuth, Nailbanger, Dazy, Chi

      I'm a media coordinator and I think their PR effort has been pretty damn disastrous. The Martins have come off looking better at every turn.

      However, I do wonder if the company that George and Joe Oliver work for are the ones handling the coordination.

      •  They kept changing their stories a lot (5+ / 0-)

        Not a lawyer and I could be wrong, but if GZ is talking the case to his father, brother, co-workers, can't they be compelled to testify? As far as I know, privilege only extends to your spouse.

      •  I think the NRA is handling it. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis

        They may have simply put the family in contact with someone at no cost to them.  I agree-it seems to be being handled pretty poorly.  It stinks pretty badly to disparage a 17 year old victim.

        Would you be available or willing to go all over CNN, etc., to talk about a coworker in a jam?  Why would anyone want the notoriety?

      •  What company is that, by the way? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis

        I haven't heard what type of work he was doing at the time.

        And I do wonder how he's paying the bills now that it appears he has abandoned his job.

        Was Joe Oliver a current co-worker or former co-worker?

        What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

        by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 09:55:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Dopeman - I have a somewhat different take (5+ / 0-)

      The early Zimmerman representatives were embarrassing clowns. I am not sure they have found expert PR advice or if someone just told all the Zimmerman parties to STFU and the silence has looked strategic.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 02:25:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  George's Yea-Sayers are being advised by someone (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sockpuppet, indres, blueoasis

      ... who has read the Florida Criminal Code on "excusable homicide."

      Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

      by TRPChicago on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 05:46:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Zimmerman and tribe are obsessed with Z getting (13+ / 0-)

    a "fari" trial.  This is rather ironic in that Zimmerman chose to serve as e cop, jury, judge and executioner for Treyvon Martin.  

  •  Zimmerman isn't the one(s) with the Problem (8+ / 0-)

    George Zimmerman is Done.

    It;s the police, prosecuters and elected officials that have a Cloud upon their Heads.

    Notice: This Comment © 2012 ROGNM

    by ROGNM on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 01:42:11 PM PDT

  •  couple of interesting items (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    worldlotus

    i haven't seen or read elsewhere.  i didn't know Zimmerman was married, or that he lived at the Twin  Lakes community.  

    was he/is he employed?  

    my understanding is that Tracy Martin, Trayvon's father, lived in this community.  is it rental property or homes that might have a homeowner's association?

    •  Trayvon's father lives in Miami (17+ / 0-)

      and he drives down to visit his fiancée who lives in this gated community.  

      I have read that Zimmerman is married, but no information beyond that.  He must have been employed or he would have had no boss to report the incident to.  I assume he is on a leave of absence, either permanent or temporary, depending on how his employer feels about his notoriety.  

      I don't know if you're aware of this, but he was attending a community college and they have removed him from their student roster because of their fears of what having him as a student could create on their campus.  

      Evidently due to the economic downturn in Florida (which I should know because I lived there until about five years ago and lost a lot of money when I sold my house), this gated community saw the townhomes lose about half their value, at which point many of them became rentals.  This evidently created a situation where people didn't recognize the new people, which probably created more of a sense of unease in Zimmerman's mind, as well as the more established members of this very small community.

    •  there is a HOA and they met after the shooting (8+ / 0-)

      to rein in George.  They were worried about the liability since he was claiming to be part of a NW though the PD denied that there was really a NW at place in the community.
      It seems the homeowners were letting George play cowboys and Indians until it appeared his shenanigans were going to land them in civil court

      •  Well, it's too damn bad, but it's too late (8+ / 0-)

        There is a newsletter from the HOA that says to contact George Zimmerman with any security concerns, therefore any future civil case would most probably bring in the HOA.

      •  Is that factual or guesswork? I haven't seen that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Avila

        particular aspect, so that's why I ask.

        If they did meet and discuss "our George problem," I'd like to read the coverage of that.  Thank you!

        What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

        by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 09:59:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks for the links! I don't see an indication (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Avila

            (maybe I missed it -- it's late after a long day of tornadoes here) that the HOA of those townhomes had any sort of meeting to discuss the case.  

            I don't mean the minutes or official notice or anything else. Just someone from the HOA saying to someone in the media that they had a meeting to discuss the shooting.  Or anyone else, actually, saying that the HOA had a meeting to discuss the shooting.

            What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

            by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 10:52:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  My apologies: there is THIS: (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Avila, solliges
            At an emergency homeowner’s association meeting on March 1, “one man was escorted out because he openly expressed his frustration because he had previously contacted the Sanford Police Department about Zimmerman approaching him and even coming to his home,” the resident wrote in an email to HuffPost. “It was also made known that there had been several complaints about George Zimmerman and his tactics" in his neighborhood watch captain role.
            I wonder why the guy was escorted out?  The HOA couldn't stand for the thought that "their man" was a murderous jerk?

            What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

            by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 10:55:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  read my last link; since most HOA only carry (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              YucatanMan, Avila

              insurance for its officers while every member of the HOA could be held liable in a civil trial, my guess is they did not want their members starting to think about what the HOA being sued would mean to them.
              Just a guess but if there is a civil suit which manages to breach the HOA insurance, you may see individual HOA members suing the HOA officers for allowing George to have his little NW. After all the rule for the losers in civil cases is to try to pass the damage downstream as much as they can  

      •  From this link, which you kindly provided, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Avila, solliges

        it seems the HOA didn't like complaints about Zimmerman, especially after the shooting and in the presence of the police chief and a council member:

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

        What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

        by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 10:59:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Good article... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Avila

      NY times article

      It outlines what JaneEyrez wrote in response....

      All the suffering of this world arises from a wrong attitude.The world is neither good or bad. It is only the relation to our ego that makes it seem the one or the other - Lama Anagorika Govinda

      by kishik on Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 06:45:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No 17 year old thug says "what's up homie?" (28+ / 0-)

    That doesn't even register as ironic at that age. What, did he learn that word watching Fresh Prince on Nick at Nite?

    But that's exactly the phrase that a paranoid out of touch racist 28and year old would make up.

  •  Respectfully, I find this rehashing of long- (5+ / 0-)

    distance speculation within speculation a bit much here already. Not like this kinda thing hasn't taken DKos over before, but come on already. What is this really offering or adding to this bender of a conversation?

  •  FACT IS... i'd have left town too... ----> (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DollyMadison

    i do believe zimmerman is guilty based upon all i have heard

    BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT

    if i were white
    if i carried a gun
    if i shot and killed an unarmed black guy

    EVEN WITH THE LAW ON MY SIDE
    EVEN WITH MY DAD THE JUDGE

    not knowing the family of the man i killed

    i would not be hanging around my house and neighborhood for a while

    that isn't guilt, that is smart

  •  Has he already fled the jurisdiction? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    teachme2night, elwior

    No arrest, no bond.....Nobody knows.

    Romney is campaigning to be President SuperBain; his cure is to cut wages, end pensions, let companies go bankrupt, and let the assets of production go dark or be sold to China. He really thinks thats the best of all possible Americas.

    by Inland on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 02:20:49 PM PDT

  •  Mahalo for your obsession.... (8+ / 0-)

    This is very important!  Please keep working the media.  I will post links elsewhere!

  •  He could have feared a backlash (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DollyMadison

    no matter whether he thought he was in the right or not. Maybe even a lynching. Perhaps these were irrational fears, but this isn't proof of his own knowledge of is personal guilt.

    On top of that, he could feel personally responsible for tracking and killing an unarmed kid even if he doesn't believe he's legally in the right.

    Not buying it. Sorry.

    Politics ain't beanbag--Mr. Dooley

    by LeftCoastTimm on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 02:54:04 PM PDT

  •  From a resident right after the murder: (11+ / 0-)

    I saw a report about one on the residents who saw the murder scene right after Zimmerman shot Trayvon.

    1.  She said that Zimmerman got up and walked around, without difficulty.  He had no concussion or other major injury.

    2.  She said that Zimmerman "gave the universal sign for 'I messed up' when he put his hands up to his head" as he walked around.

    I'm sure George's first thought was how to get out of the "mess" he caused.  

    •  which means the stories the Zimmermans are telling (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      indres, YucatanMan

      are nonsense.

      There still could have been a fight, but it seems the Zimmerman family is hyping the fight to try and portray it as a life or death affair. Here's the quote from the brother

      He was barely conscious. His last thing he remembers doing was moving his head from the concrete to the grass so that if he was banged one more time, he wouldn’t be, you know, wearing diapers for the rest of his life and being spoon-fed by his brother.
      The part in bold is so telling.  It feels like a very deliberate and very clumsy attempt to manufacture the story to fit the facts.... like the fact that it has been reported that Trayvon was facing away from the concrete (his feet towards the concrete and most of his body in the grass.)

      Also who thinks like that while in a fight?  Also if someone is kneeling on your arms and banging your head down, how exactly do you move your head?

      However clumsily they are doing it, they are trying trying to influence the jurors.  Hoping that even if they can't make this argument in quote, perhaps a juror will bring this up in the deliberation room.

    •  That's pretty lame. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DollyMadison
  •  I too am obsessed... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    worldlotus

    with justice.
    Zimmerman should stand trial at the very least. If a jury finds him innocent, so be it  - and I hope folks wouldn't riot over that kind of decision. Personally I would hope for at least manslaughter in the second degree at minimum.
    But for him to simply walk, and for Trayvon's name to be pulled through the mud, is just too much.
    No Justice, no peace.

    Isn’t it ironic to think that man might determine his own future by something so seemingly trivial as the choice of an insect spray. Rachel Carson, Silent Spring

    by MA Liberal on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 03:03:05 PM PDT

  •  As much as I want to see Zimmerman brought (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ZappoDave, DollyMadison

    to justice, I don't really support the idea that "someone knows they're in trouble" is evidence of a guilty conscience all by itself.  The law does this to try to prove that a guilty party can't take the insanity defense, but I think it's not backed up by reasoning, because there's more than one possible reason for a person trying to cover tracks.  Sure, a guilty conscience is a possible reason, but so is fear of the law even without a guilty conscience.  All it requires is a fear of punishment, which is NOT the same thing as having a conscience.

    Fear of punishment is NOT the same thing as having a guilty conscience.  If you break a law you don't agree with, you can take measures to avoid the punishment and yet not feel any guilt while doing so.   Any time someone is faced with a law they don't agree with, they will still try to avoid punishment from it when breaking it even while feeling proud of what they are doing.  For all the George Zimmermans out there taking steps to avoid punishment and backlash for a terrible act, there's also Harriet Tubmans taking steps to avoid punishment for good acts against unjust laws.

    Taking steps to flee the area and pack up and go is NOT evidence that George Zimmerman feels guilt.  It's only evidence that he knows he could be in trouble and face a backlash.  That's not the same thing.  Everything we know about him seems to indicate that he's exactly the sort of bigoted ass who doesn't feel guilt at all over what he did.  At any rate the mere fact that he fled the area and moved is not evidence of a guilty conscience.  It is merely evidence that he expects punishment and backlash.  It's only a guilty conscience if he believes that punishment and backlash is well deserved.  The fact that he believes it will happen is not evidence that he believes he deserves it.  Hey may genuinely have deluded himself into thinking he's been wronged.  He's just that sort of asshole.

  •  One thing never mentioned. (4+ / 0-)

    The lady who called 911 and reported someone screaming. You could easily hear the screaming and the very instant the shot was fired, all noise stopped immediately.

    If Zimmerman was the one on the recording, would the noise stop at once? I don't think so, I believe he would have still been yelling for help.

    I also think he has had a lot of time to make up a story. The police seem to have no interviewed him. The story said he was in the back seat relating what happened..Great police work. If you give a person enough time they can make up a story that seems true.

    •  Correct, the gun could have gone off in mid- (0+ / 0-)

      "helllp" if it was GZ, but makes sense that it immediately stopped when TM was shot.

      The recording that I heard was just sickening in the reality of what happened. You heard, quite literally, someone die.

      What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

      by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 10:10:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Number 1 IMHO is (7+ / 0-)

    That Zimmerman was told to wait in his car until the police came.  He did not do that.  Once he left his car and stalked Trayvon Martin, he was the agressor and has zero right to claim any form of immunity under SYG.  He knew exactly what he was doing when he left his car.  He is guilty of murder.

    "Growing up is for those who don't have the guts not to. Grow wise, grow loving, grow compassionate, but why grow up?" - Fiddlegirl

    by gulfgal98 on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 03:23:55 PM PDT

    •  About leaving the car (4+ / 0-)

      Someone posted a diary with the timeline prepared by one of the networks.

      They said:
      Zimmerman was on the phone to the police until 7:15, when he hung up.

      The first police arrived at 7:17. Trayvon was dead by then.

      My suspicion is that Zimmerman was talking to the police while he went in pursuit of Trayvon, on foot, and that he hung up when he had almost caught up with him. If that's the case, then audio experts will probably be able to discern that from the tape of the 911 call.

    •  Yes, he WAS the INITIAL Aggressor (0+ / 0-)

      That doesn't mean that he couldn't then be attacked by Trayvon and have the right to defend himself.

      Not sure WHY you folks seem to miss THAT point.

      He didn't "stalk" Trayvon. He was trying to follow him, then trying to find him after he lost sight of him. That's NOT illegal. It IS aggressive, but it's not illegal, and it doesn't deprive him of the right to defend himself if someone else starts a physical altercation.

      Being followed, and being irked by it, doesn't give anyone the right to punch someone else! It doesn't make the person who followed him guilty of murder. You're wrong.

      •  absolute BS (10+ / 0-)

        If he was the initial agressor, then he has no right to claim immunity.  The phone messages and the 911 tapes show he was the agressor.  If an unarmed person is defending himself against an agressive person, that does not give the agressive person the right to kill the unarmed defender.

        Once someone initiates a confrontation, they lose the right to claim self defense.  

        "Growing up is for those who don't have the guts not to. Grow wise, grow loving, grow compassionate, but why grow up?" - Fiddlegirl

        by gulfgal98 on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 06:42:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, you're wrong - legally AND morally (0+ / 0-)

          It sure DOES give one the right, if one is confronted with greatly escalated violence and aggression, to defend oneself in self-defense.

          He states that he lost Trayvon, and after he couldn't find him, then he was walking back to his vehicle.

          Clearly, you do NOT understand how self-defense laws work. I do.

          We have NO evidence that Trayvon was "defending himself" against an armed person. We have NO evidence to tell us that Trayvon knew that Zimmerman had a gun, first off. And secondly, it is NOT legitimate to "defend onself" from someone who's following you by hitting them!! You do NOT get a free pass to escalate it to physical violence without a serious belief that if you don't escalate to physical violence, you'll be hurt or killed. There's NO EVIDENCE that Trayvon had that kind of fear from a guy following him. In fact, Trayvon, based upon what the girl friend tells us, sought out a verbal interaction with Zimmerman - it was Trayvon who first talked to Zimmerman.

          We have NO EVIDENCE that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation, and THAT is the ONLY "confrontation" that mattered. No one, not even a 17 year old unarmed young man, has the right to escalate a verbal confrontation to a physical one simply because they're irked that they're being followed. Trayvon had EVERY RIGHT to be irked that he was being followed - but that didn't give him the right to punch Zimmerman in the nose.

          •  It does if Zimmerman grabbed ahold of Trayvon. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            solliges, worldlotus, blueoasis, gulfgal98

            Aside from that, you have clearly already determined the facts in the case.

            You don't have any links or any proof of the facts you claim (and yes, I read all your claims in this diary, including your capital letters) and you should really get a grip on yourself.

            Do you have some type of panic thing going on here?

            What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

            by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 10:13:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, I have NOT determined anything (0+ / 0-)

              What I've REPEATEDLY written is that IF Trayvon hit first, after being the first one to initiate a verbal confrontation, then HE became the aggressor.

              We ALL have ALL the "proof" I've discussed here. We've all had access to hear what the girl friend said - that Trayvon began the verbal confrontation.

              Of COURSE it changes things if Zimmerman started the physical confrontation. There's NO reason for you to assume that I didn't already understand that - yet it's the faulty, fatally-flawed conclusion you leapt to. That's all on your shoulders, and is your shortcoming, not mine.

          •  So... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            worldlotus

            if, and I don't think this was the case, but IF Trayvon punched him, Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon in the chest and kill him.  That's what you are saying, correct?  A punch in the nose, gives anyone a right to shoot to kill?   Trayvon, who was stalked by Zimmerman, had zero rights, but Zimmerman had THE RIGHT to kill him because of a punch?  I don't think it happened the way you portray, but if that's your reasoning, then we better all watch out, because any ruckus could wind up in death according to you.  

            •  Yet again, another totally faulty conclusion (0+ / 0-)

              No, if you are punched once in the nose, you do not have the right to shoot someone. But that isn't all that happened, is it?

              What happened IF Trayvon was the one who first escalated it into a physical confrontation is that Trayvon became the aggressor.

              Trayvon was not "stalked" by Zimmerman. "Stalking" has a specific legal meaning, and it didn't happen here.

              The Stand Your Ground law specifically, and the self-defense laws in almost every state, allow people to use deadly force if they think that they're in potential serious bodily harm or risk of death from the person who's attacking them.

              One punch doesn't qualify, typically, for that standard. But that isn't when Zimmerman shot Trayvon, is it, according to his version of the events OR what witnesses saw?

          •  So if the other party is dead... (0+ / 0-)

            Killed dead, it allows the killer to simply say self defense and if there are no witnesses, according to you, nothing can be proven and this the killer is in the right.

            Yeah. Fine. Let that remain your opinion.

            All the suffering of this world arises from a wrong attitude.The world is neither good or bad. It is only the relation to our ego that makes it seem the one or the other - Lama Anagorika Govinda

            by kishik on Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 06:21:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If there's evidence that the killer could have (0+ / 0-)

              Feared for his life, and no evidence that refutes that evidence, then yeah, they get to claim self-defense.

              Zimmerman followed Trayvon when he shouldn't have. I think concealed handgun licenses give people license to shoot to kill when they shouldn't - I HATE guns and carry laws.

              But IF Trayvon threw the first punch, and then was pummelling Zimmerman and he thought he might die or be seriously injured from an attack he couldn't seem to escape - remember, neighbors heard someone crying for help for a minute or more, then yeah, he has the right to self-defense.

              In order to claim self-defense, the prosecutor and the cops have to see evidence that there was a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. One can't simply claim that.

              So, yet again, another strawman argument knocked down.

      •  Ironically, the "stand-your-ground" law (5+ / 0-)

        says you can use deadly force if you "reasonably" believe that your life is in danger, and you do NOT have the responsibility to run away.  Couldn't Martin have reasonably believed that the unidentified man running after him with a gun was a danger to his life?  And thus was he not entitled under Florida law to punch him in the face, or worse?

  •  Searching the body is better evidence (4+ / 0-)

    Witnesses describe him patting down the body.   He was probably looking for something to plant next to it to make the case for self defense -- kind of like the Police in Seattle opening the knife of the woodcarver that they shot to make it seem like the officer was threatened.    (The first photos of the scene showed it closed, oops!)

    •  Although the best evidence is the lies (6+ / 0-)

      Innocent people do not lie, and either Zimmerman is not telling the truth or his family is very confused about what he says happened.   One story is that he was ambushed, yet the other is that they had a long conversation.    Both can't be true, and neither is likely to be.

    •  No, witnesses do NOT describe that (0+ / 0-)

      They describe him holding Trayvon down. Not patting him down.

      •  "Holding him down". AFTER the shot. Btw, I read (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YucatanMan, blueoasis

        the description as Zimmerman straddling Treyvon's body & "pushing" down...

        Which caused a visceral reaction in me upon reading it.

        If true, why?  Why?!

        •  Because he didn't know that Trayvon was dead (0+ / 0-)

          He didn't know that he'd shot him through the heart and killed him instantly, and so, once he got out from under Trayvon, he was holding him down to keep him from threatening him again with physical violence that had scared him so badly the first time it had happened that he'd shot him in self-defense!

          I swear, this ain't rocket science.

          He was NOT "patting him down", which was the allegation of the previous poster.

          •  Then he would have shot him again. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            worldlotus, blueoasis

            If you have a gun and you are still worried about the guy you just shot, then you just shoot the guy again.  It is sort of what you do with a gun.  You don't hold them down.  That doesn't seem logical to me.

            •  No, you don't always do that (0+ / 0-)

              It's not true.

              IF, as Zimmerman has claimed, you've shot someone ONLY to keep them from hurting you badly or killing you, you do NOT keep shooting at them, in fact.

              When you're simply trying to stop what you believe to be a life-threatening situation, and clearly that has stopped happening  - either because the person you shot was immediately killed and so isn't continuing to attack you, or because the gunshot was enough to make them stop attacking you - you do NOT always keep shooting until you're sure that person is dead.

              You're wrong.

              •  You can't seriously mean that (0+ / 0-)

                This is your quote "he was holding him down to keep him from threatening him again with physical violence"

                So you are trying to say he shot him in the chest.  Trayvon was face down.  Zimmerman was STILL worried about being threatened with physical violence, so he put his hands on him.  I generally try to be civil in these discussions, but that is preposterous.  I used to be an Army officer and I have spent plenty of time working out with FBI agents and police officers.  If you are still concerned about a guy that you just shot, you move away from them, shoot them again, or both.  You do not move toward them and place you hands on them unless you are trying to make an arrest or give first aid.  By your own account Zimmerman was trying to do neither.

          •  You are quite the George Zimmerman defender (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            worldlotus, blueoasis

            even reading his mind to us now.

            Fascinating the depth of insight you have into George Zimmerman.

            What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

            by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 10:16:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Again, I'm not defending Zimmerman at all (0+ / 0-)

              I'm simply pointing out that IF what Zimmerman has said was true, he had the right, under the self-defense laws in virtually every state, to shoot Trayvon.

              Zimmerman being the initial aggressor in following Trayvon didn't remove that right of self-defense once the fight happened IF Trayvon threw the first punch.

              But the issue HERE is that the OP said that Zimmerman was patting Trayvon down, and there's no evidence of that - witnesses have told us that he was holding him down as one sees on TV being done by cops to keep someone under their control.

              It's not "reading his mind" - it's accurately describing what the witnesses have told us!

              Fascinating the antipathy you show for the facts when they have to compete with the faulty conclusions you've already drawn.

      •  Why would anyone "hold down" a person (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        worldlotus

        they had just shot in the chest?  Insure he is dead by keeping him from breathing?  One report says Zimmerman was pushing with both hands on Martin's back.  Nice. Very helpful.

        What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

        by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 10:15:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  before reading your diary, (7+ / 0-)

    I went to the link and read the entire article.  The exact part that stood out to you stood out to me too.

    Zimmerman moved the fuck out of his apartment BEFORE this became a thing in the media.  He KNEW he fucked up and shot a kid for no good reason.

    good work!!


    may we not be strangers in the lush province of joy - Charles Wright

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 03:29:12 PM PDT

  •  this is the new term for (0+ / 0-)
    they are now living in seclusion."
    "they skipped the country", which is exactly my guess as to where the zimmerman's are, out of the country. hence, the inability of anyone to locate them.

    and i don't think a sense of guilt or conscience had anything to do with it, as much as a sense of "oh jesus, i fucked up big time, i need to get the fuck out of here, before this blows up, and they haul my sorry ass off to jail!"

    it was only a matter of time, before this went big-time public, and either mr. zimmerman realized this, or (more likely) someone close to him did, and advised him to get the hell out of town.

    the next step, in this logical progression, is for family and friends to start laying the groundwork for a temporary insanity plea. we'll be told he's had "emotional/behavioral issues since childhood, had a bad experience with a black kid in kindergarten, etc.

    one thing he should seriously consider, is securing at least moderately competent legal counsel, the guy who supposedly is representing him now is a buffoon.

  •  I haven't read the linked article yet. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Demeter Rising, indres, solliges

    Does the article indicate when Zimmerman learned that he had killed his neighbor's son? Iirc, Mr. Martin learned of his son's death about 12 hours after the killing. Zimmerman likely learned Trayvon's identity not long after that and had to confront his personal demons about killing a person who had every right to be walking in that neighborhood.

    I wouldn't make much over Zimmerman's seclusion. The cops and prosecutors certainly know where he is.

    The sh*t those people [republicans] say just makes me weep for humanity! - Woody Harrelson

    by SoCalSal on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 04:37:28 PM PDT

    •  Sanford PD updated the Residents at Twin Lakes 3x (6+ / 0-)

      February 27th, the day after the shooting, the Sanford PD distributed this Neighborhood Notification about the shooting.   If Zimmerman received these notifications, he would have known that he shot a resident of the communtity the very next day.  

      On Sunday the 26th in the early evening hours, the Sanford Police Department was called to your community in reference to a report of a suspicious person. While enroute several residents called regarding a confrontation between two individuals that involved a gunshot. Upon arriving at the scene, one of the individuals identified himself as being involved in the confrontation and that he shot the other individual. He was secured and taken to the Police Station for interviews. The other individual was found to have succumbed to the gunshot and was pronounced deceased at the scene. Late this morning the deceased was identified as another resident of the community.
      On February 29th another update went out including the names of Martin and Zimmerman.  
      Sanford Police Investigators continue the death investigation of Trayvon Martin at The Retreat at Twin Lakes Townhomes. Police have determined that George Zimmerman was serving in the role of neighborhood watch member, when he and Trayvon Martin had an encounter which resulted in the shooting death of Mr. Martin. The facts, circumstances and evidence of that encounter are still being investigated.
      Mr. Zimmerman was taken into custody/investigative detention immediately following the shooting. He continues to cooperate with investigators and is not under arrest at this time.
      And another update on March 12th saying they were near completing the investigation and ready to turn over the case to the States Attorney's office.   Still asking for witnesses or anyone with information to come forward.
      As of Monday March 12th, 2012, the investigation into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin continues by Sanford Police Department. Investigators are finalizing details in preparation to turn the case over to the State Attorney’s Office. The Sanford Police Department feels the investigation will be completed today. There will be a meeting of the investigative team this afternoon to ensure all investigative tasks have been completed. We have canvassed the community several times in an effort to identify all witnesses. We ask if there is anyone with information we have not yet spoken with please contact us at 407-562-2881.
      •  Thanks for that. It's logical that police would (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        have advised Zimmerman to leave his residence to avoid confrontation with Trayvon's father. And with other neighbors, for that matter.

        The sh*t those people [republicans] say just makes me weep for humanity! - Woody Harrelson

        by SoCalSal on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 06:44:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Timelines (7+ / 0-)

    Regarding the question about the timing:

    Someone posted a diary with a timeline that one of the networks came up with.

    As I recall, it showed that Zimmerman ended his call with the police at 7:15.

    The call between Trayvon and his friend ended at 7:16, IIRC.

    The police were there by 7:17.

    So I interpret this to mean that Zimmerman was on his cellphone to the police and that he was in pursuit of Trayvon while he talked to the police (7:11-7:15), probably very close when he hung up.

    Within moments, he was confronting Trayvon.

    As I see it, Zimmerman's story (as retold by his supporters) that he confronted Trayvon, and left him, only to have Trayvon sneak up from behind to jump him, just can't work within a two-minute time frame. Much less the part where Zimmerman was being assaulted, head banged into sidewalk, etc.

    •  I haven't seen a single person assert that (0+ / 0-)

      That he confronted Trayvon, then left him.

      From the girl friend, she says that the FIRST time they interact is when Trayvon spoke to Zimmerman, demanding to know WHY he was following him. The shooting occurred within a minute or two of that - and so no one is saying that there were TWO separate contacts.

      And so, there goes your strawman argument.

  •  I cried more tears for Trayvon today (7+ / 0-)

    when I saw this article.  The screams on the 911 tape are haunting.  I have avoided listening to it but have heard it played several times.  My 17 year old son's voice sounds exactly the same when he is stressed and yelling.  His normal voice is deep, but when he gets into it with his older brother the voice goes up an octave and sounds almost exactly the same.  It is heartbreaking to me and his poor mother had to hear that and know it was her son crying and there was nothing she could do to protect him.  The father said when the police showed him the picture to identify him, there was a tear on Trayvon's cheek.  Heartbreaking, just heartbreaking.  

    Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world--and never will. Mark Twain

    by whoknu on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 05:11:23 PM PDT

  •  I'm totally obsessed and I hate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dazy, blueoasis

    crime stories. Hell I even kind of like Nancy Grace now...

    Ever since the very first moment I heard about this I've been thinking about it and watching every single thing about it from dawn 'til dusk, Twitter, researching and thinking about everything.

    It's just crazy. Obviously we are witnessing a huge cover-up right before our eyes. Shouldn't they be able to tell the bullet trajectory by now?

    I hate seeing this shit almost as much as I hate Fox News. Frank Taffe and Joe Oliver are obviously full of shit.

    You can just feel the doubt being casted working its magic in people. I'm just glad MSNBC & others are staying with this and not accepting bullshit. Hopefully the FBI and DOJ will piece all this together easily and we are just witnessing a bunch of intentional confusion.

    If this guy gets off on some little technicality of manufactured doubt then no our justice system does not work. Shocker.

    •  Nancy Grace, right? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      solliges

      She's usually so salacious to me, I can hardly handle it. But when she's on, she's on, and I almost like her these days too for the way she sees the obvious in this insane situation gone deeply awry.

      What sticks in my craw the most is the Chief of Police being on the scene on a Sunday night and the State's Attorney phoning it in that same night saying to just let this guy go out of the damn blue before any proper procedures of arrest go through...that started the madness that is now ensuing. I wake up each day now looking for the long overdue news that he has finally been arrested and NOW the investigation will CONTINUE as it should have in the proper way from the beginning. It is the only way true justice can be done to both Trayvon and George Zimmerman, to be honest. I think GZ is guilty, but let it be tried in a proper way. Right now, it's all news media analysis, and it's not such a great way to get any defense or prosecution done.

      Waiting with bated breath...

  •  Sounds to me like (5+ / 0-)

    Zimmerman shot Trayvon to shut him up.

    Stop his immediate crying as well as to prevent him from talking in the future.

    My bet is Zimmerman attacked Martin, hurt him to the point where Martin was crying and crying out for help.  Obviously Martin was incapable of fleeing from Zimmerman.  Either Zimmerman was preventing Martin from fleeing or Martin was physically incapacitated to the point he couldn't flee.

    Whichever it was, something happened that made Zimmerman realize he was in real trouble.  His father was a magistrate and he carried a handgun.  I think it's highly probable that Zimmerman was fully aware of the "Stand Your Ground" law.

    I also find it highly probable that Zimmerman knew exactly what he was doing when he shot Martin and killed him.

    You know why Zimmerman moved away so fast.  Because he could.  He wasn't in jail.  He wasn't under investigation.  He moved because no one told him not to.

  •  Not conscience (0+ / 0-)

    But not stupid, either.

    It appears there was a tremendous amount of tush-covering going on.

    That "head wound" that did not (despite one frame of ABC video) appeared pretty miraculously the second day.

    So have the witnesses.

  •  I believe that Zimmerman is afraid to show (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, blueoasis

    his face because his face will not show the types of bruising and contusions typical of being beaten for more than a minute by a person sitting on his chest.
    And the back of his head will not show the kinds of bruising and swelling consistent with having been beaten on the concrete for a minute or more.

    What is shown in the '"enhanced" police video are scratches that he probably gave himself by using the sight of his pistol or his car keys, because he needed to show some type of wounds.  But they are the wrong type of wounds.

    If he has remorse for his acts and his victim and victim's family, running away is not usually the way that is expressed.
    Running away may be a sign of remorse for having gotten himself into such a mess, but not the acts that got him there.

  •  Heart wrenching detail in the Reuter article: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YucatanMan
    When they were seated he pulled out a photo. It was Trayvon, dead at the scene - his eyes rolled back, a tear on his cheek, saliva coming from his mouth. "From that point, our nightmare," Martin said.
    (emphasis mine)

    May the Martin family & tthose who loved Treyvan find comfort & peace.

    Something that seems at odds to me is that the initial redacted police report posted here (by Meteor Blades) showed Treyvon's stats (address/DOB, etc) yet this article states:

    At the time of the shooting, Trayvon Martin was not carrying identification - only $22, a cellphone, and the now familiar bag of candy and can of iced tea. His body, taken to the Volusia County Medical Examiner's office, was tagged as a John Doe.
    (emphasis mine)

    While this article fills in many gaps (for me), there still remains ommissions and/or contradictions from one media source to another.  Sadly.

  •  There is a very interesting jigsaw puzzle (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dazy, YucatanMan

    to be fitted together here of the different 911 calls, and the girlfriend call to Trayvon.  Ambient noises will probably make a part of that, as will phone records as to time of day for each call, and cell phone station records triangulating each call to its location.  Once this is all going to put together, it's going to actually make a very neat model timeline of everything that went down.

  •  Striking, what is conveyed in the Reuters article- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YucatanMan

    the realization of the steps necessary for the Martin family to know justice is served.  The necessity to know who to contact or have ties to.  The neccesity to have to involve the media just to insure justice is served.

    So many overarching tragedies.  Too many.

    It should not have to be this way.

  •  where's the arrest? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dazy, YucatanMan, blueoasis

    Enough of this nonsense.  This man needs to be arrested and stand trial.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 07:43:42 PM PDT

  •  You are one of life's losers if you HAVE to kill (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dazy, a2nite, YucatanMan, solliges, blueoasis

    someone in self defense.  That was the conclusion my three brothers and I, lawyers all, decided 30 years ago.  This whole concept af a "right" to kill, to "stand your ground" is sick.  

    I have argued this with nutcases many times over the years.  They ask in apparent stupid amazement "You mean if I find someone [in my front room, in my yard, with my TV in his hands, etc, etc] I don't have the right to kill them?"  I tell them that if they have to ask the question, the answer is NO. You never have the "right" to kill someone as far as I'm concerned.  If you kill someone, you had better have only one thing to say: "I had no choice."  I don't care what the law is down in FloriDUH.

    A right answer to the wrong question is a wrong answer.

    by legalarray on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 07:48:11 PM PDT

    •  Well said. There is no "right" to kill someone (0+ / 0-)

      to defend yourself, only the last option, the last choice.

      What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

      by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 10:20:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm not defending him (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, Pozzo

    'cause what I think he did was wrong, wrong, wrong, but....

    Hiding in this case doesn't show either guilt of innocence.

    He may be afraid for his life and/or the media circus that would descend on his home.

    Don't let your personal inclinations lead you into making unwarranted conclusion.

    "Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know, that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom. " - Death (Terry Pratchett character)

    by Thorby Baslim on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 08:21:16 PM PDT

  •  So, count me in as this not proving much (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib

    Look, the most infuriating, aggravating thing to me about this whole case--wait, the second most, obviously, considering that an unarmed 17-year old young man is dead for no reason I can discern so far except for not looking like who George Zimmerman though should be walking through that community at that time--is the fact that presumption of innocence before guilt allows so many aspects that seems so ghastly wrong to me not let me draw that conclusion before a better accounting is made or mostly until the evidence is presented in a court of law (not saying that the kind of speculation here isn't something I engage in or maybe is even healthy--as folks pointed out, it's what's fueled the demand for justice for Trayvon).

    For example: we are now getting some very damning reports and handling of the evidence of the case, and that's unacceptable at the very least, perhaps much much worse.  However, totally independent of that as a matter of police actions at the scene, it has in fact not been clear to me that in any case, given this hideous "shoot if you feel threatened" law (I know, that's not what it says exactly, sigh) that the police were in any constitutional position to arrest George Zimmerman at the scene of the crime.  That sucks.  It's awful!  But it's the law that was passed and is in effect at the time of the incident.  I'm not an attorney, and perhaps I'll change my mind on that point when folks who are and are working for the state in a criminal proceeding and/or the Martins in a civil proceeding make that case, but it's unclear to me at this point that the police at the scene/D.A. advising did believe they had cause to detain Zimmerman beyond questioning given any evidence they have and his countervailing and rights under this abhorrent  law.

    Similarly, what you say simply suggests someone who is aware of, more likely is getting counseling on, the blowback they are about to receive, being so visibly free and not under any indictment after such a horrific incident, regardless of whether they are "innocent" (since they're almost certainly getting that advice from someone who would be working hard on his behalf to prove there's nothing to be innocent of).  To keep Z. out of the spotlight of media or of being put into any position where he could jeopardize what is likely to be turning into at best a tenuous argument of complete impunity sounds like a more likely motivator here, regardless of how righteous Z. himself may be or may not be feeling about what just went down.  Even if you buy that he had no idea the attention this would draw (and given what we know about him, it's not likely he'd have ever envisioned a 17 y.o. black youth's spontaneous advocates could ever raise his death to anything resembling what's happened), he or someone around him would at least say: look, this is going to at the very least become the story locally and regionally for quite some time to come, perhaps until there is some official statement from a district attorney at the very least.

    Even if he thought he was "innocent", he'd know damned well he's not about to be written off by all as doing-what-a-guys-gotta-do and going his merry way without attention in the short term.  And even if he's psychotic enough to not grasp that, there's plenty of people around him (who have worked hard with the RWP to defame an innocent Trayvon) to disabuse him of that notion and get him out of the public eye, and any press/public/without-attorney-present reachability, fast, without necessarily truly fleeing.

  •  I don't believe Z was returning to his truck (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YucatanMan, solliges, blueoasis

    And I think he signaled as much in the call he made to dispatch. He had given them directions from the front entrance of the community to both the mailboxes and directions to where his truck was parked (just around the corner from the clubhouse and mailboxes, and which he couldn't give an address number for because it was "at a cut-through" - how do you look for house numbers or perform the claimed "looking for a street sign/which street he was on" by going on paths that are bounded by the back yards of houses?).

    12 seconds before the call ends (3:53 mark), he asks dispatch to have the police officer to call him on arrival so "I can tell him where I'm at." This comes all of 6 seconds after he agrees to meet them at the mailboxes, which, if he's on the cut-through or between the back yards of the long rows of townhouses (and this would make his "Oh crap, I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is" at 3:35 when starting to give the dispatcher his home address make much more sense) he would have to pass his truck to get to.

    •  "So I can tell him where I'm at" clearly shows he (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, willisnewton

      is not just "stepping out of his SUV to see a street sign" but leaving the area of the truck to pursue Trayvon.

      Zimmerman knows he is going to be behind the townhouses, not visible to police, so he needs them to call him as he is pursuing Trayvon.   He's not beside or anywhere near his clearly visible, easily locatable truck.

      He's a lying sack.

      What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

      by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 10:23:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Remember the days when there was no ambiguity (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sukeyna, YucatanMan, blueoasis

    in shooting an unarmed minor in the eyes of the law? There must have been at least a short time before our society went insane...If I remember those times correctly, those were good days...The fact there's even an argument now makes me wonder if this is societal progression, we're in a bad state of affairs.

    There are only 2 things in life I believe about religion: There could be a God and I'm sure as heck not him.

    by Irixsh on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 09:14:55 PM PDT

  •  I have one parent... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    who was lighter than me. The other was darker. They married in the 50s... in Chicago. I've had the dubious, if character building experience of being called a nigger and a honky in the same day, within an hour.

    I don't think you're too obsessed with the case. I really hate injustice too.

    What th' heck do I know, I work for a living...

    by SamuraiArtGuy on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 10:23:15 PM PDT

  •  Compulsion to solve a crime before (0+ / 0-)

    all the facts are known to one is a rather harmless, amusing form of vigilantism.

    Moderation in most things.

    by billmosby on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 10:31:32 PM PDT

  •  Travyon's story is personal for me, my friends and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kishik

    family. As a Black man, since the age of 18, I've been profiled for walking or driving while being Black.

    •  Until this case became national news... (0+ / 0-)

      I never realized that black males have to conduct themselves so very carefully when they're out of their homes.  I am so sorry for that.  Do you remember when Chris Rock (I think it was) talked about being on a plane and when he walked down the aisle from the restroom an old lady clutched her purse like she was afraid he was going to take it.   He did an extremely funny riff on envisioning him running off with her purse and being pursued... but you and I both know, it's not funny.  

      I think we all walk around with a set of unconscious filters that we are applying to other people.  Some people are uncomfortable with older people, street people, mentally ill people, people wearing godawful plaid golfing slacks, teenagers, whatever it might be.  Those unconscious filters make it difficult to "see" the person before us and to deal with them appropriately.  I had an awesome moment once when I realized that God sees us without any filters at all and loves us despite our flaws.

      I never led, I never followed, I never joined.

      by JaneEyrez on Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 06:05:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

skybluewater, Louise, Thumb, Kaina PDX, Chi, Lawdog, MadRuth, lapin, Avila, LynChi, chuco35, cotterperson, SanJoseLady, hyperstation, rubyr, WI Deadhead, davelf2, Dazy, susakinovember, whenwego, ScantronPresident, AlyoshaKaramazov, mkfarkus, retLT, hopeful, sidnora, aitchdee, Lilyvt, Texknight, psnyder, MA Liberal, solliges, texasmom, NYFM, hoof32, raster44, zerelda, mungley, lonespark, Vicky, vacantlook, rambler american, Josiah Bartlett, Gowrie Gal, sb, Dirk McQuigley, A Citizen, kbman, maybeeso in michigan, Bluesee, 3goldens, Unit Zero, BluejayRN, LarisaW, revbludge, Tonedevil, democracy inaction, PBen, offred, KnotIookin, one of 8, elkhunter, TN yellow dog, YucatanMan, eru, Beetwasher, Sun Tzu, Fury, skyounkin, Little Lulu, sunbro, rb608, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, Shotput8, peacestpete, Ekaterin, zozie, orphanpower, fhcec, barbybuddy, kishik, martini, third Party please, Keone Michaels, myboo, vigilant meerkat, sherlyle, cybersaur, Clytemnestra, Russgirl, Yellow Canary, liberalconservative, seefleur, Dvalkure, deha, blueoasis, gatorcog, SadieSue, JVolvo, tommyfocus2003, OMwordTHRUdaFOG, Pilgrim X, willisnewton, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, suspiciousmind, Statusquomustgo, Temmoku, kml, AllanTBG, sea note, Quicklund, Aaa T Tudeattack, FlamingoGrrl, pgm 01, asilomar, Habitat Vic, Debs2, devis1, edsbrooklyn, Mary Mike, la urracca, noofsh, Matt Z, rantsposition, Bridge Master, uciguy30, leonard145b, trueblueliberal, Empower Ink, rogerdaddy, mconvente, davidseth, OleHippieChick, mamamedusa, Sixty Something, elwior, Fe Bongolan, Therapy, mikeconwell, Lujane, royce, RandomNonviolence, hwmnbn, Hanging Up My Tusks, alnep, glendaw271, TexanJane, emidesu, Mayfly, Irixsh, dmhlt 66, lgcap, Diogenes2008, JBL55, legendmn, maggiejean, prettygirlxoxoxo, Bule Betawi, rubyclaire, litoralis, greengemini, socalmonk, bobatkinson, Dopeman, Nebraskablue, indres, BlueInRedCincy, shalca, aunt blabby, leavingthezoo, petral, aj2k, hyper, kevinpdx, stevenwag, sfarkash, Knarfc, mahakali overdrive, astral66, Larsstephens, Lefty Ladig, commonmass, Renie57, roadbear, LaughingPlanet, NJpeach, fidellio, teachme2night, Proud Mom and Grandma, luvsathoroughbred, Crabby Abbey, Things Come Undone, 2questions, duufus, JoanMar, pixxer, ericlewis0, dwayne, Actbriniel, Quantumlogic, Onomastic, yellow cosmic seed, MidwestTreeHugger, ozsea1, Bob Duck, sabo33, Stella 4 Obama, donaurora, poorbuster, SoCaliana, CoExistNow, Haf2Read, Lusty, zukesgirl64, IllanoyGal, thomask, BarackStarObama, beka, SueM1121, LSmith, worldlotus, MadamE, chira2, sound of progress, Hayate Yagami, too many people, MikeBoyScout, Mentatmark, ArtemisBSG, No one gets out alive, longtalldrink, ridemybike, leathersmith, janl1776, Mindful Nature, Siri, IndieGuy, ahumbleopinion, Hopefruit2, done lurking, S F Hippie, a2nite, farlefty, Trotskyrepublican, kellius, AspenFern, Nztorg, doroma, sexgenderbody, Noddy, GAladybug, maf1029, live1, Hammerhand, Lizabet, Blue Dream, Prospect Park, Lily O Lady, Chaddiwicker, nomandates, glorificus, mizglory, LiberalSage, Says Who, weck, entrelac, Noctem Aeternus, topazOR, lina

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site