Skip to main content

When I was younger, I was attacked while at school in Philly. Out of the blue, I received a punch in the head. Never saw it coming. Within seconds, I had a guy slamming my head into a windshield. If I had to estimate the amount of times, I would guess ten. I could barely gather my thoughts while it was happening and couldn't see anything but blurs.

What was I feeling at that moment? That I was going to die. The fist blows stopped for a second and impulsively I threw a punch, hitting my assailant in the cheek. Somehow I got away from them (it turned out to be a few guys).

What would I have done if I had a gun? Hard to say - but I can tell you this. I felt as if my life was being threatened and I had no idea of when, if at all, it was going to end. When you have someone on top of you, beating you like that, you have no control.

What did George Zimmerman do? He grabbed his gun and ended the assault. I don't know that I would do the same thing if I had a gun, but then again, my head was being smashed into a windshield (which broke from the pressure).

His was being smashed into concrete.

Let me ask this question: What kind of person smashes another person's head into a concrete pavement, over and over again. That appears to have been the case here. I can buy the fact that Trayvon Martin was maybe making a point. But why couldn't he have punched him when he was on top of him instead of repeatedly smashing his head into the pavement. That kind of act is beyond the pale, in my opinion.

For the record, I'm basing my opinion on the facts of the case, not hearsay. Not what some people would like the facts to be. This case wasn't very gray in terms of evidence. Zimmerman was beaten. Martin was not, short of the gun shot.

And it's a tragedy that this kid is dead due to a bad decision on his part and another one by Zimmerman. It's horrible that his parents have to endure this kind of heartache.

But I don't know about this one. Having been in this spot, I can tell you without a doubt my life was threatened. How can anyone claim, given the evidence, that his wasn't - or could have known when the beating would end. I received a concussion that put a hairline fracture in part of my skull (which, by the way, I had NO Scrapes on my skull. All internal injuries). I was lucky, but that's because a crowd gathered around.

It's tough for others having not been in this spot to speculate. But this case came down to one thing: who was being threatened. Martin had 4 minutes out of Zimmerman's site. He could have gone home. He didn't. Sad for him. Sad for everyone.

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 (6+ / 2-)

    "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose. It's how you ladle the gravy." - Felix Ungar

    by Verbalpaintball on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:15:46 PM PDT

  •  OK, so, you were following these guys, (33+ / 0-)

    when suddenly they ambushed you?

    Because if you weren't, your anecdote is entirely inapplicable.

    He could have gone home.
    Pretty sure that what he was trying to do.
  •  Did you grad a gun and follow those guys before (23+ / 0-)

    they attacked you? Did you confront or provoke them in any way?

    Also, you are basing your opinion on hearsay and not facts like you claim to be.

    The facts are that Zimmerman had some cuts, not that he was beaten or that he had his head smashed into concrete by Trayvon Martin. That story is the one Zimmerman gave, and the one you have accepted based on your own personal world view. NOT FACT.

    "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

    by ranger995 on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:26:35 PM PDT

    •  the wounds (4+ / 0-)

      came from somewhere. What is the alternate hypothesis?

      •  See my reply below (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ranger995, Tonedevil

        Never underestimate stupid. Stupid is how reTHUGlicans win!

        by Mannie on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:30:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  but it was Trayvons (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Victor Ward, Bailey2001, brooklyn137

          knuckles that had marks on them. And a witness who saw on man on another beating him.

          •  After Zimmerman stalked, then confronted (17+ / 0-)

            Martin.

            No one including the prosecution made any effort to talk about how scared Martin probably was in those moments.  Shaking head.

            •  Zimmerman should have stayed in his car (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sandbox, Mannie

              but the last time I checked it was perfectly legal to walk down a sidewalk behind someone, and it's perfectly legal to ask a question.

              We've had some garage break ins on my block, it's made everyone on edge.  I saw a guy I didn't know walking down the alley behind my house and I took a look to see what he was doing (I took my dog, not a gun).  I had every right to walk down my alley, I had every right to walk up to this guy and to say "hi there, how are you?".

              He took off running and I declined to follow, but if I see him again I'm gonna call the cops and then take my dog for a walk again.

              •  And it would have been perfectly legal to shoot U (5+ / 0-)

                A man is simply walking down an alley? And you think it's okay to get your dog and stalk him? The guy doesn't know you, doesn't know your dog, all he knows is he walked by your house, and all of a sudden here you are stalking him with a dog that may be dangerous.

                If he sees you again and has a gun, under the precedent set by Zimmerman's acquittal, he would have every right to consider you a threat and shoot you and your dog.

                Good luck to you, sounds like you will need it.

                Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

                by absdoggy on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:33:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  following and observing is not exactly (0+ / 0-)

                  stalking

                  •  if he's scared, it is (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    greengemini

                    as I understand the SYG law, even if you're wrong, as long as you feel your life is in danger it's ok to shoot.

                    Dear NSA: I am only joking.

                    by Shahryar on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:40:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Following, observing, getting out of your (6+ / 0-)

                    car and confronting is what to you?

                    OK?

                    What if you were walking along on the street by yourself and someone did that to you?

                    How would you react?

                    Would you ask them over to dinner?

                    FWIW - and I think it is worth A LOT - we do not know what Zimmerman said or did to the kid upon confronting him.

                    We will never know now what happened, but what I can tell you for certain - and as this case proves - when people get scared for their lives, they can react very violently.  Martin probably fought Zimmerman out of fear, but he can't have his day in court to make his case because now he is dead.  Zimmerman saw to that and the Florida legislature, the judge, and a ridiculously poor prosecution team all have seen to aid and abet that end result.

                    •  The guy with the gun is always right. nt (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Tonedevil

                      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

                      by ranger995 on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:23:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You describe a system of anarchy. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        greengemini, Tonedevil

                        One which would dispose someone like Zimmerman in an instant - and a lot of other people who really do not deserve to be left to the hands of fate or vigilantes.

                        Anarchy is not what I want in my country.  That's why I passionately object to the idea of "stand your ground laws".  It gives license to stupid idiots who think that might makes right.

                        When I was in college in New York, there were these people who used to sit around in the East Village on street corners with signs advocating anarchy.  They were always skinny, small, weak and high.  They had no fucking clue that they would be the first to die were anarchy to actually take hold.  Zimmerman may have "won" this skirmish, but the reality is that if he continues to instigate confrontations, one day he will be the victim who is powerless to speak.

                        If we want to drive our country to the pre-Hobbesian era where there is no social compact, I'm getting off of the bus.  It is headed off of a cliff, if that's what people want.

                    •  It's not illegal, that's the issue (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      sandbox
                    •  You are right Inclusiveheart (0+ / 0-)

                      We will never know what really happened that fateful night because all we have is Zimmerman's version of events. It's amazing to me how many people accept his word as the absolute gospel truth. I don't believe he's telling the truth. And the dead teenager can't speak to us from the grave.

                  •  Yes, it is (3+ / 0-)

                    I'm walking down an alley.  I see a guy in the house on my left looking out at me.

                    Suddenly, this guy is coming up from behind me, with a dog.  Dog = deadly weapon in all 50 states. As Fall Line describes it, he then walks up to this guy, who is doing nothing, who he doesn't know, with his deadly weapon in tow, and wants to question him?

                    Fact is, you wouldn't even need a stand your ground law at all.  I would have a justifiable reason to fear for my life at that point and would have the right to draw my weapon and tell Fall Line to back off and then attempt to leave and avoid further confrontation. And if the dog got loose or Fall Line said or did anything that appeared threatening to me, then I would have the right to self defense.

                    Be it Zimmerman or any other nosy body who thinks its okay to play neighborhood cop and challenge people like this, its wrong.

                    Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

                    by absdoggy on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:35:20 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Tell me that next time someone follows you on (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Tonedevil, dewley notid

                    a dark, rainy night.  

                •  NO, that is not true. A crime must be committed (0+ / 0-)

                  first.  If so and so attacks you first, then you can and not before.

                  •  No, that is not true anywhere in this country (0+ / 0-)

                    The right to self defense in any state would never require that a crime must have been committed against you before you can use self defense measures.

                    As I note above, if you see someone in the alley, and proceed to get your dog and go after that person to the point where you follow them and go right up to them to question them, as the commenter described, this sets up a situation where you are coming at someone from behind with a deadly weapon (a dog is a deadly weapon) and even without a stand your ground law, that person would have every right to defend themselves against a perceived threat.

                    Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

                    by absdoggy on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:36:00 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  It is legal, but it is not necessarily wise. (5+ / 0-)

                Even with your dog.  You or the dog could fall victim to someone who is far less interested in considering your life or the life of your dog to be precious - and to be rational in responding to you or your dog.

                The worst thing to do if someone breaks into your house or is in the process of committing a crime is to try to stop them.  Exceptions would, of course, be if they were causing bodily harm to someone else, but even in those situations if you have no back up, one should be really strategic about intervention so as to preserve life of the victim and oneself.

                What's so valuable in a garage that you'd risk your life for it?  What's so important in any garage that you'd risk your dog's life for it?  If you have anything in your garage - including your car - that is more important than your life or that of your dog's, I would suggest finding a better storage plan.

                Martin did not actually pose a risk to people or property as it turns out, though.  And that's an important point.  He was a kid.  Black or white - he was a kid who still did not have enough life experience - or fully developed frontal lobe - to recognize the danger he was in with someone like Zimmerman stalking him.  It isn't as if he should have to have that awareness, but he didn't and he did not run.  He didn't know that he should run.  He wasn't doing anything wrong, unlike your "suspect".  The fact that he did not run should have been Zimmerman's first clue that the kid probably wasn't guilty of anything.  But Zimmerman is an idiot and coward and now someone is dead because of that.

                Seriously, Zimmerman is the worst and most dangerous kind of coward.  He would stalk someone and confront them and when he gets scared by the fearful reaction that are a reaction to his confrontation - a confrontation that he initiated, he kills someone.  That's a problem.

              •  I dunno about you... (0+ / 0-)

                ...But I've been stalked by people with an intent to do me bodily harm before.  The only difference was that I knew that the people who were stalking me were indeed out to rough me up.  

                If I took off and tried to get away from the creepy stalker guy, and then he continued following me, I'd be fearful that the guy was going to mug me or worse.  That's an important thing to remember here -- TM tried to get away from the weird fucker stalking him and the stalker pursued.  Normal people don't do that without bad intentions or because you just did them wrong.  Cops do, but cops are cops.  Since this guy was obviously not a cop, TM would be perfectly right to assume that there was something wrong with this guy and to assume that the guy coming after him either had bad intentions or a serious mental defect.

                We don't know that Trayvon ambushed Zimmerman by anything other than Zimmerman's own testimony.  Given the fact that TM was on the phone when it happened, it sounds more like it was the other way around -- you don't chat with someone (on a phone or otherwise) while you're stalking another party; it can give you away.  Any kid who's played hide-and-seek knows this.  If anything, it sounds more like he was taken unaware by Zimmerman, who may also have been surprised when he ran into TM, even though he was looking for him.

                Frankly, at that point, if TM had been armed and shot GZ dead, I'd say that it was justified, that he could believeably say that he feared for his life.  Instead, it seems more like GZ jumped Trayvon, TM got the upper hand -- maybe, there was no real injury to the back of GZ's head, certainly not anything that would corroberate his claim that his head was being slammed against the concrete repeatedly like the OP's was against the car windshield -- and then GZ shot him.

                If you really want to cut out the racial bullshit, put a white girl in the place of the black man.  Even if we assume that Treyvon threw the first punch.

                A 17-year-old white girl is walking home from a convenience store.  An old dude in a car starts following her.  She runs off to lose him and he pursues.  A few minutes later while talking to her boyfriend on the phone, she's confronted by the same creep.  Fearing for her safety, of being beaten or mugged or abducted and raped, she attacks him.  The man shoots her.

                Do you really think that there would be jurors saying that the shooter had 'his heart in the right place' if that was the situation?

            •  Do we know he confronted him? (0+ / 0-)
          •  How many marks... (7+ / 0-)

            did Mr. Martin's knuckles have on them?

            This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

            by Tonedevil on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:29:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Whatever hypothesis is put forward to account (8+ / 0-)

        for the wounds is still just an unprovable hypothesis and not a fact. If you want to say that they are consistent with GZ's story, then that's your opinion based on the facts that exist.

        I would also disagree.

        "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

        by ranger995 on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:33:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And there is reasonable doubt (5+ / 0-)

          in the case right there.

          •  If we went with that definition of reasonable dbt (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lordcopper, jplanner, brooklyn137

            Noone would ever be acquitted. At least three of the jurors acquited Zimmerman because they believed him. And that's what it comes down to. If they didn't believe his story, they would have convicted. The prosecution failed to shoot down his story.

            •  Sorry, noone would ever be CONVICTED (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lordcopper, Kevskos
              •  I disagree because the prosecution did such a bad (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                inclusiveheart, edg

                job presenting even the evidence we lay people know, and
                refuting defense points that were exaggerations or lies.

                They let so much pass. I don't think any jury would have convicted of Murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt--because you cant crawl into someone's head and see their intent. But I do think manslaughter should have been on the table and might have been if the prosecution had done a better job.

                The only theory of the crime presented in the trial was GZ story of what happened. Since TM is dead, he can't tell his story. We rely on the prosecution in this kind of case to do that because without that the jury only has one tied togeather way of looking at things. The defense, in the closing arguments, was right in saying that the prosecution said "maybe this, maybe that'. If they did that it there must be reasonable doubt.

                They did do that. Because they did a bad job. It wasn't necessary.

            •  I disagree. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jplanner, ranger995

              If the attorneys on both sides are competent, that is not a high hurdle.  I have seen it argued many times, and have also seen many cases where the evidence was crystal clear.

              None of that was true in the Zimmerman case.

              I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

              by trumpeter on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:30:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  But in some ways it is (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                historys mysteries, edg

                The facts of the case are evidence enough. Zimmerman shot an unarmed 17 year old after getting out of his car, despite having been advised (I said advised not ordered so don't pull the legally binding stuff on me) not to and trained not to in his role as neighborhood watch coordinator. To claim self defense, for me, everything else in his story (backed up by evidence) has to outweigh those facts. The evidence is not clear whether Zimmerman is telling the truth about his story, except on a couple of key points - a fight happened, Zimmerman was on bottom when he fired, Trayvon never touched his gun, his only wounds were superficial given the circumstances. Sorry, not enough for me. At least three of the jurors acquitted because they believe that Trayvon started the fight and was looking to kill Zimmerman in retaliation for being followed. The other three acquitted because the prosecution did not make clear to them what the grounds for conviction were under the law.

                I believe there was enough to convict. At minimum, there were three people on that jury who wanted to charge him with something, knowing all the details. It was a 50-50 split, as it's been from the beginning.

                •  That does not (0+ / 0-)

                  answer my comment, and assumes facts not in evidence.

                  You did not answer on reasonable doubt.  You claimed there was a fight.  You claimed he was trained.  You claim Zimmerman was on the bottom.

                  None of that matches the evidence.

                  And it has nothing to do with my experience of reasonable doubt in the courtroom.

                  I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

                  by trumpeter on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:02:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm saying it doesn't matter (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ranger995

                    that the fundamental facts - ie, he shot an unarmed 17 year old are not outweighed by anything presented in the evidence of what happened.  In light of everything else presented, those fundamental facts alone are enough for me to believe it was not self defense, beyond a reasonable doubt.

                    •  And that (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ranger995

                      is what the prosecutor should have argued.

                      Ergo, 'reasonable doubt' would have worked.

                      I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

                      by trumpeter on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:12:14 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  The prosecution did a BAD job. (3+ / 0-)

                      They did not humanize Trayvon Martin.

                      They did no prepare the witness who was on the phone with him prior to putting her on the witness stand.

                      They did not put on a case that illustrated what Martin as the victim would have gone through.

                      They did not point out that history is always written by the victors when no one makes a effort to investigate that of the losers.

                      They did not nullify Zimmerman's claims of fear by imparting to the jury that surely this young kid was also fearful of his life.

                      They did not poke holes in obvious defense tactics.

                      The prosecution also did not convey, conjure or raise any understanding what so ever of what it is like to be not only a young kid naively walking along "slowly" when someone is following him, but also what that might mean if that kid was also black in a predominantly white neighborhood.

                      Personally, I think that the prosecutors in this case were half-hearted at best in their engagement in the trial.  I do not believe that they really cared about winning this case.

                      OR they are fairly typical of most prosecutors in this country who are so used to winning on nothing and not having to do their jobs of proving guilt, that they totally fucked this high-profile case.

                      I believe it was on some level a convergence of both a lazy sense of entitlement in the win category and also not a lot of empathy or understanding of the victim they were assigned to represent on behalf of the people.

                      •  Agreed on all counts. (0+ / 0-)

                        However, had they tried humanizing Martin, that likely would have opened the door to the 'he was a drug dealer/gun runner' smear, or Omara would have challenged because it doesn't directly relate to the immediate events.

                        •  I remember watching his friend testifying (4+ / 0-)

                          about her conversation with him just before and while he was attacked.

                          She talked about how he was trying to get home to watch some sporting event.  I would have HAMMERED that home with the jury.

                          "Normal young boy interested in sports".

                          "Normal teen talking on the phone distracted".

                          "Normal kid irritated that he's missing part of a game because he's had to go out to the convenience store".

                          There were a lot of opportunities to illustrate this kid even just during that one interview, but the prosecution did not even try.

                          I've seen prosecutors talk about dead victims in the past in ways that are not believable - where their statements about victims who are dead are barely believable, but they do it and they often win.  This prosecution team sucked.  They were timid.  They were mild-mannered.  And they asked the jury for too much.  Had they asked for manslaughter and designed their case to deliver that verdict, they probably could have won.  But they were looking for notches in their belts and didn't do the work to actually get those notches.

                          I am one of a small percentage of people in this country who views a wrongly convicted - or over-prosecuted - defendant as an affront to not only criminal justice, but also as a very serious risk to public safety.  This case, in my opinion, is a perfect intersection of the worst of the prosecution "norms" and the worst of criminal justice.

                          I actually support the jury's decision not because I think that they are correct or even remotely right, but because the prosecution was so arrogant, lazy, entitled, slimy and poor.

                •  I am not sure it is clear GZ was on bottom when (4+ / 0-)

                  he fired.

                  The prosecution ACTED AS IF that were stipulated. I heard experts on TV wonder why that was. As I did.

                  That gun was behind GZ right hip, underneath him. With 300+ lbs pressing it into the wet grass and ?soft wet ground since it had been raining.

                  Though the lame prosecution !! Let It Pass the defense gesture showing the gun in FRONT of the right hip (I noticed the non verbal lie, they did not), they did address TM legs being in the way.

                  But they missed emphasizing that the gun was under both men behind GZ pressed into the ground as it is.

                  I can't see how he could have taken out that gun. I especially can't see how TM could have SEEN the gun in the dark and rain even if his jacket had ridden up.

                  GZ made a mistake, at the very least, saying TM was going for his gun and he'd seen it. No way TM saw it. GZ said he had to shoot TM because TM was going for his gun.

                  SO then, at the least, GZ mistake right there cost TM his life.

                  Manslaughter Manslaughter Manslaughter.

      •  In his own words Zimmerman said, "I stumbled and (13+ / 0-)

        fell,... errr oh and then he pushed me and I fell".  His injuries are nothing compared to an elementary school yard fight.  What part, ZIMMERMAN WAS STALKING THE YOUNG BOY ON HIS WAY HOME, don't you understand?

        Or his head hit the ground as they BOTH were going at it.  So what?  Zimmerman started a fight and then realized he was too coward to continue so he pulled out his gun and shot a boy he was stalking who was defending himself in the heart.

        •  We don't know that (0+ / 0-)

          Zimmerman started the fight.

          •  Really? The moment Zimmmerman stalked (8+ / 0-)

            the boy while armed was when the fight started.  Bottom line you don't shoot some kid in the heart just because you might get your arse kicked for stalking him/her in the dark night and NEVER IDENTIFY YOURSELF.  He was not a cop, or security.  He was a self appointed volunteer watch guy.

            Trayvon has the right to hit first by standing his ground and defending himself from a possible jeffrey dahmer. If you think Zimmerman had the right to shoot, then Trayvon has the right to kick his arse for stalking him.

            •  yes- I remind people that TM was weirded out (3+ / 0-)

              by the creepy guy looking at him so started to run. GZ 911 tape confirms he starts to run, as does Rachel Jeantel. Then we hear on 911 tape GZ out of breath and the dispatcher Asks him if he''s going after him and GZ admits he is.

              I don't say "Stalk" because it sounds subjective and tunes out those inclined to disbelieve. We also have to explain to them to look at it from TM's point of view...unknow adult is staring at him, and runs after him when he runs away.

              When I have this kind of conversation it rams home once again how very SHITTY a job the prosecution did!! It makes me wonder AGAIN if they threw the case!

              Studies have show that White people, not just racists, have more trouble empathising with Black people than with other Whites. It's so clear in this case that some White people and the jury needed to be INSTRUCTED to see things from TM point of view. THe Prosecution DID NOT DO THIS.

              We have the 911 tape. We have proof that GZ established the tone of what was between them. Any minor chased after an unknown adult is going to be concerned, weirded out, etc. A boy TM age might feel demeaned or insulted.

              I'll tell you something. I can imagine TM going up to GZ when he saw him again and asking him why he was chasing him. AND GZ answer having a beligerant hostile disrespectful tone. And GIVEN ALL THAT PRECEDED I can imagine TM  (or any boy his age) bopping GZ in the nose.

              I can totally imagine how stupid GZ truly would view this. He cant understand that he came across as intimidating, concerning, and disrespectful to run after someone. He could not imagine what he established. He had behavied threatening and to a boy TM age that is insulting.

              I thing GZ is guilty of Manslaughter at the least EVEN IF most of his story was true (I dont believe it is). He set up the conditions of their later confrontation.

              I think the parents can win a civil judgement against him.

          •  p.s. and you don't know that Trayvon did, but (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tonedevil, Mannie, dewley notid

            we do have a witness who heard the struggle when the person she was talking to suddenly vanished.

            •  Right, I don't know that Trayvon (0+ / 0-)

              started the fight, but it's very possible he did. Even you say that in your post above.  So that's what the jury was likely thinking.

              •  COMMON SENSE can tell you no matter what (7+ / 0-)

                Zimmerman shot an unarmed kid who was waking home and minding his own business WHILE ON THE PHONE with someone.  Zimmmerman targeted the boy as a criminal, STALKED HIM (WHICH IS A CRIME) and INSTIGATED the fight!  TRAYVON HAD A RIGHT TO DEFEND HIMSELF. If SYG means you can shoot because you fear for your life, THEN TRAYVON has the right to SHG and fight a STALKER WITH A GUN.  

                You and lots of other read to much into this to the point of NUKING the tragedy.  You can argue left or right, up or down, in or out BUT TRAYVON WAS STALKED and had a right to kick the coward's arse. You meet fist with fist. Once you pull a gun in a fight you instigated your a COWARD/PUNK/STALKER/CRIMINAL.

                •  jane - GZ's following Martin was not a crime (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sandbox, breathe67, Neuroptimalian

                  The crime of stalking in Florida requires multiple events over a period of days and this tragedy all happened in about ten minutes. It meets none of the tests for criminal stalking in Florida.

                  "let's talk about that"

                  by VClib on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:57:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I see that now.. it was a crime in (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Tonedevil

                    the world I once lived. :)  Am I helpless if someone stalks me all night long for hours?

                  •  Of course not. (4+ / 0-)

                    It's never a crime for a person armed with a deadly weapon to pursue an unarmed black teenager.  My goodness, where would this country be if such a thing were a crime?

                    I'm sure you're also going to tell me this case wasn't about race, either.

                    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                    by FogCityJohn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:43:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  FCJ - It's not a crime for someone (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Pi Li

                      who has a concealed carry permit, to follow anyone on a public street one time. That is not unlawful in Florida or anywhere else.

                      jane had written that GZ was guilty of the crime of stalking. I was just letting her know that the stalking statute in Florida didn't fit the facts on the night Trayvon was killed.

                      "let's talk about that"

                      by VClib on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:59:26 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Thank goodness. (0+ / 0-)

                        How awful it would have been if Trayvon Martin had been stalked.  It's so comforting to know that Zimmerman was engaged in completely lawful behavior that night.

                        Indeed, as it turns out, in Florida it's also completely lawful to shoot an unarmed black teenager to death.

                        Zimmerman is obviously a real law-abiding kind of guy.

                        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                        by FogCityJohn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:57:14 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

          •  Whether Trayvon started the fight or not (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tonedevil

            The injuries are not serious enough to warrant shooting an unarmed 17 year old. For me, nothing in this case negates that fundamental point. I do not believe he was in reasonable fear of his life.

      •  I agree...how did the injuries get there? (0+ / 0-)
      •  I am convinced that Trayvon got lost in the dark (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        edg

        and Zimmerman caught up with him and grabbed him...that is when he said "get off, get off".  Zimmerman provoked this from beginning to end.

  •  You should have hit back with the windshield... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Avila, Shotput8

    or something.

  •  Medical Report says... (27+ / 0-)

    "The report detailed two open wounds on the back of Zimmerman’s head, one two centimeters and one half a centimeter, which did not require stitches. She described his head as “normocephalic and atraumatic’’ — normal and without injuries."

    Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/...

    How is that consistent with life-threatening head wounds from the sidewalk?

    •  also, no blood on Trayvon's hands. (12+ / 0-)

      of course, his anecdote trumps the m.e.'s data, such is the power of anecdotes.

      If the only way Zimmerman could have gotten the better of Trayvon in a fight was to shoot him, all the more reason to do what the dispatcher recommended and stay in the car.  If he was getting beaten up, well, maybe Trayvon can stand some ground too.  (I don't think Trayvon could have used deadly force, but he certainly could have used physical force, under Florida law, and the jury should have considered that.)

      Either way, this isn't a comment about reasonable doubt that Zimmerman might not have been threatened, but taking an unsworn statement that was never subject to cross examination as absolute truth.  Of course, that's what the jury did, too ("George said").

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:53:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In US measures: (0+ / 0-)

      One wound was 1/4 inch long. The other was 3/4 inch long.

      A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

      by edg on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:44:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  IF (big IF) Zimemrmans head WAS bashed (15+ / 0-)

    like he said, he sure as hell would've had more than what he did.  In my estimation (as Zimmerman's testimony was self serving and in my mind a LIE) those cuts came from just is head scraping the sidewalk when he was on bottom.

    This is giving Zimmerman a BIG benefit of the doubt.  I think he self-inflicted the wounds later (thus no Zimmerman DNA on Trayvon)

    Never underestimate stupid. Stupid is how reTHUGlicans win!

    by Mannie on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:30:02 PM PDT

  •  uh (22+ / 0-)

    zimmerman was stalking martin. this wasn't a sucker punch out of the blue. he got out of his car, knowing- according to his own defense testimony- that he was a lousy fighter, intent on not letting the "punk" "get away." how did he intend to stop the "punk" from getting away? he had a gun.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:30:53 PM PDT

  •  Why is it that you immediately empathize (20+ / 0-)

    with the one who pulled the trigger rather than the deceased person who was stalked by the triggerman?  That comes from whiteness, I think.  You may have a good heart, but you automatically emopathize with the white person.   Put yourself in Trayvon's shoes and see how it might have appeared to him.  

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:31:09 PM PDT

  •  Well... (16+ / 0-)

    I'm not sure what kind of concrete you have in Philly, but our concrete in Florida is hard as rock, and doesn't crack.  If he had smashed Barney Fife's head over and over into the concrete, Barney would have had more than two small cuts that bled very little.  The blood would have been smeared, or he would have had a hematoma, concussion, brain swelling....   Even if minor, he would have had symptoms then...the next day, the day after.....blah, blah, blah...  It doesn't pass the smell test.....   Just consider this....I fell on the ice when I was a kid...hit the front of my head and saw stars...had a large egg and bruise on my forehead for more than a few days, and felt sick for over 24 hours with concussion.  That was one smack....  Where were the large lumps?   Where was the bruising?  He had two very large bandages on the back of his head the next day that covered two cuts....one was 2 centimeters...not even an inch...and the other was .5 centimeters.  

    •  Made same point above (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NormAl1792, Ianb007, ranger995, Tonedevil

      Never underestimate stupid. Stupid is how reTHUGlicans win!

      by Mannie on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:35:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  my guess (10+ / 0-)

      is the scratches (yes scratches and nothing more) on his head are from rolling around on the concrete. Some concrete has more nubs on it and causes scratches easily. At any rate I thought there was some rolling around on the concrete enough for him to get a scratch on his head. That also explains how one is sort of more on top of his head in the back. You wouldn't get that from slamming someone's head unless you were holding them upside down by their legs and slamming them.

      •  I don't think ... (0+ / 0-)

        there was any rolling around on concrete at all. I think Zimmerman lost his balance and fell backwards, hitting his head either on the sidewalk or on the concrete rectangle around one of the inground water meters visible in the video walkthrough with Det. Serino.

        A single contact with concrete would have been enough to give Zimmerman more than two small cuts on the back of his head.

        A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

        by edg on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:12:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm from Philly, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mannie, lordcopper, Tonedevil

      and it cracks like crazy in the spring in pothole form, but rock beats head; head beats moisture; moisture beats rock.

      The law should have an element of proof about there being no opportunity or ability to alleviate the situation thru non-deadly force, mooting the issue.  Even if it was not unreasoanble beyond a reasonable an unrented rentacop felt threatened, that shouldn't be the end of the discussion.  

      I think the more distressing pro-Zimmerman bias was the jury not recognizing these actions of getting out of the car and stalking Martin as creating the underlying conditions as creating manslaughter, unless Martin is supposed to . . . do what exactly? And here, analogizing Zimmerman to a guy getting cold-cocked.

      I mean, I wouldn't otherwise believe the diarists story, but if he says it was in Philly, yeah, I can kind of see it.  (I'd also believe it about Florida, but probably not Wisconsin.)

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:01:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Another thing that doesn't add up (11+ / 0-)

      is the treatment ( or lack thereof) of his wounds at the time. Since this diary is based on an anecdote, I'll offer my own.

      I was in a car accident. A passenger in a hotel van that was broadsided by a large pickup truck. Police and EMTs were called to the scene. Shaken up but didn't feel like I was injured. Suffered a small cut from a piece of metal that flew forward from the back of the van, but the EMTs had to check us all out, ask us routine questions etc.

      They began checking me out, asked some questions and in mid answer, explaining that I wasn't in any pain but felt a tingling in my neck, I had a C collar slapped on me and ended up with my head taped to a backboard to immobilize me faster than I could say what the heck.

      Off I went to the hospital where they immobilized me even more until I could have an MRI. Fortunately, no real damage. A compressed vertabrae.

      But for this comparatively minor injury, I was strapped down and held still for almost 5 hours, in hospital for almost 7, people hovering over me making me feel that if I so much as sneezed I could be paralyzed.

      Yet we are to believe that Z was beaten within an inch of his life and all he needed was some cleanup in a police car?

      We view "The Handmaid's Tale" as cautionary. The GOP views it as an instruction book.

      by Vita Brevis on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:06:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I walked home after the attack... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sandbox

        Didn't go to the hospital right away (I was 21. What did I know). After the black eyes set in the next day, I got checked up.

        I'm not suggesting this guy was beaten as badly as you or I, but in the middle of the attack it's difficult to make rational decisions that aren't completely based on your own survival.

        At least that's my experience.

        "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose. It's how you ladle the gravy." - Felix Ungar

        by Verbalpaintball on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:06:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Which is why the "he need not be in actual danger" (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Vita Brevis, Tonedevil, godlessmath

          clause is madness. It can be a mitigating factor in sentencing and what not, but it should not absolve one of all responsibility when deadly force is involved.

          •  That is the problem, (0+ / 0-)

            sadly, it is possible Zimmerman did "fear for his life" at the time, because the guy is looney tunes. The guy is such a nut, heck, he probably sincerely believes every new lie he makes up about the incident.

            What it means is this: those with the least consideration for the value of human life are given the biggest benefit of the doubt.

        •  You got checked... (0+ / 0-)

          I got rushed to the doctor...but Zimmerman didn't need any of that....he said no...he went the next day to get his note for work.  He was calm afterward....ready to give up his gun, ready to go in the cool car with the light on top, ready to talk..... I mean really...he couldn't have planned it better.
          And yes, I am in a rage about this.......  

        •  That must have been your one and only fight. (0+ / 0-)

          Because if you'd been in more than one fight, you would have quickly learned that being in a fight does not mean your survival is at stake. It is very hard to kill someone with your bare hands. Try it sometime.

          A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

          by edg on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:17:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Did you watch the defense forensics expert testfy? (16+ / 0-)

    Cuz it was very interesting.

    He made the point that when the body has pressure applied from above, the head is going to move until it hits something that propels it back, laws of physics. In his own opinion (which the defense brushed over and the prosecution failed to pounce on), Trayvon was NOT bashing Zimmerman's head into the cement. They were wrestling and Trayvon was pushing down on Zimmerman above with a medium degree of force, which caused his head to snap back and hit the concrete. The dude was very clear that the injuries were not consistent with the idea of someone holding Zimmerman's head and bashing it. This is the defense's own witness.

    I won't bother to tell you about your own experience. Only you understand that. But from where I sit, it seems like you're lucky that neither you nor the others involved were carrying concealed weapons. And that's part of the point of all of this.

    •  I would consider it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mannie

      more likely that Zimmerman was following Martin, but not doing it well, and was shocked when Martin popped up and asked what the hell was going on.  Z then turned, surprised, and slipped (slippery ground because of rain) and fell  and hit his head, injuring himself.  At that point he started talking trash, and Martin straddled him, trying to get answers.

      I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

      by trumpeter on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:54:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You sustained injuries but (13+ / 0-)

    Zimmerman had very slight injuries. It was never verified his nose was broken, on appearances it wasn't. Zimmerman's brother and others and many in the media began saying "He sustained a broken nose" but no doctor ever said that. In fact, he was advised to go see a doctor, Zimmerman didn't think that was needed.

    I don't see your comparison at all - also a group of attackers went after you. The items in common between your attack and the Zimmerman case are almost none.

  •  I'll go with "Not." (18+ / 0-)

    George Zimmerman was a wannabe pretend cop looking for trouble.

    Trayvon Martin was an innocent kid on his way to buy a package of Skittles while watching a basketball game.

    One of them wound up unnecessarily dead.

    What part of this aren't you grasping?

    You were mugged. Mr. Zimmerman was looking for trouble and was the catalyst of his incident.

    Trayvon Martin feared for his life -- and, obviously, with good reason.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:39:48 PM PDT

    •  I think most of us, if we thought (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mannie, Tonedevil

      we were being followed in the dark with no one else around,  would run or walk away fast--that is try to get out of the situation. I know I would. So it's not apparent to me--and I assume to the jury--why a fight ensued. In which case it's entirely possible that Trayvon turned back and confronted  Zimmerman.  I guess it's possible that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. We just don't know.

      •  Per Rachel's testimony (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mannie, Tonedevil, trumpeter

        Trayvon reached his house, turned around, saw Zimmerman still coming at him and confronted. My guess is he felt cornered. It's clear as day to me that Zimmerman was pursuing him from the NEN call.

      •  He did run. (0+ / 0-)

        Zimmerman told the police dispatcher: "He's running."

        Zimmerman then chased after him.

        Martin would not have wanted to lead the creep home, so he waited to make sure Zimmerman didn't follow. When he saw the creep was still following him, Martin said: "Why are you following me?"

        Zimmerman lied and said he wasn't following.

        What would you do then? And what would Zimmerman do if you turned and walked away after he had just caught up with the "fucking asshole" who always gets away?

        A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

        by edg on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:23:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The key to your story, and what makes it (8+ / 0-)

    Different from the case at hand is this line: "Never saw it coming."  Different for two reasons--

    1--You were ambushed.  Zimmerman, though he may have had a struggle, was not ambushed.  He persued Trayvon Martin by choice, and against specific instructions.  He chose to out himself in the position where there might be trouble.  And he was armed.

    2--Trayvon Martin was the one who was ambushed. In this situation.  Walking home, he was persued.  One might say, he "never saw it coming."

    This doesn't take away from your school experience.  My son in 4th had his head smashed against the brick outer wall by an older classmate as he arrived at school one morning.  The next day there were two kids to do the smashing.  The next day, four.  He took care of it, by making an appointment with the Principal, and telling his tale.  But it traumatized him for years.  I understand that it would affect someone's actions.  But in the Sanford case, he set the situation up willfully.

    "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

    by SottoVoce on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:49:24 PM PDT

  •  You were attacked out of the blue at school? (9+ / 0-)

    Isn't that sort of like they way Trayvon was attacked out of the blue on his way home?

    Whose interest does ignorance serve? - Carl Sagan

    by spgilbert on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:51:36 PM PDT

  •  This is completely different from Zimmeran case (8+ / 0-)

    Zimmerman was the one doing the stalking and the confronting, not Trayvon. I am curious as to why you identify with Zimmerman, but not Trayvon. Do you think Trayvon didn't feel fear?

    Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

    by moviemeister76 on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:56:59 PM PDT

  •  Crazy fantasy diary -- not up to DK standards (5+ / 0-)

    There's no time or space to refute all the fantasies in this wacko diary.

    Tell your story to someone who gives a s**t.

  •  No. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mannie, janemas, Tonedevil, WakeUpNeo

    First,you don't get to shoot somebody just because you feel your life is threatened. What about when another car smashes into your car? Do you get to exit your car and shoot the driver? No.  What about when your insurance company denies you access to the drug that will save your life? What then? That would be a threat to life. Would Florida see that as a justifiable reason to kill someone in self defense? Hopefully not.

    Second,if you follow and stalk a person and that person then feels fear and tries to defend themselves, you may not then shoot that person. You started the incident. And the other person did not brandish a weapon.

    Third, the facts are simple here. This isn't complicated except for racism and the fucked up legal system in Florida. A 17-year old boy was stalked/followed and then shot as he tried to return home with some tea and skittles. And the killer is now free because the system failed.

  •  Facts? (7+ / 0-)

    You're asserting Zimmerman's version of the story as being factual, even though none of the physical evidence supports it.
    His injuries were inconsequential, and clearly not a result of his head being "bashed into the concrete."  For whatever reason you have chosen to believe Zimmerman's story, but that reason certainly has nothing to do with facts.

    Let me ask this question: What kind of person smashes another person's head into a concrete pavement, over and over again. That appears to have been the case here. I can buy the fact that Trayvon Martin was maybe making a point. But why couldn't he have punched him when he was on top of him instead of repeatedly smashing his head into the pavement. That kind of act is beyond the pale, in my opinion.
    Wait, didn't Zimmerman assert that he WAS being punched in the face 25-30 times?  Oh yeah, he did.  Are his injuries consistent with that claim? Nope. Just like the "head bashing" claim, it's unsupported by facts.  But for whatever reason, you believe the guy who has been lying to the cops, the courts, and the public for 17 months.  Nice job.

    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

    by Triscula on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:15:56 PM PDT

  •  People have made up their minds, on both sides of (8+ / 0-)

    this tragedy.  No amount of evidence, facts, or rational guessing/questioning is going to change anyone's mind.  All these diaries do is feed into one sides beliefs and feed into one sides anger.  Unless, magically, a video emerges showing exactly what happened no one will change their beliefs.  And if the video didn't show what one side wanted, they would dismiss it as fake.  It's a waste of time (me included) to keep doing this to ourselves.  Better to start listening to why the African American community is so upset with the justice system.  Better to start listening to why some are so upset with our gun laws.  Better to start figuring out what we can do as Americans to bridge these huge gaps.  It's time to stop saying, "Look how smart I am and how dumb you are for believing what you do".

    •  Yeah (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mannie, terrybuck, Tonedevil

      This diarist has posted several diaries here, so I was willing to give him a chance. But the fact that he is refusing to even engage in conversation tells me what type of person he is. He just decided to throw his middle finger up at people who are genuinely hurting right now and move on. Getting tired of white people who do that, and the fact that it happens here is outrageous.

      Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

      by moviemeister76 on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:49:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Really... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Neuroptimalian

        I was out with clients up until I just got back. Is that not acceptable to you? Here I am now for a minute, but I can't spend my evening online here.

        And, by the way, you're the one making a racial issue out of this by saying you're "tired of white people" blah blah blah.

        I am truly sorry that you are hurting over this. I can certainly understand it. It's the kind of case that can easily divide people.

        But if you look at the cold hard facts, this wasn't a racial issue, this case. If you cannot, that says more about you than me.Nor do I make any reference to it as such. To me, this is an issue of self-defense and mistakes by both parties. That's ALL it is when it comes down to a juries decision. They are not created to follow an agenda or decide based on raw emotions.

        "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose. It's how you ladle the gravy." - Felix Ungar

        by Verbalpaintball on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:18:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nope (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil

          I apologize for thinking you had dropped and left. I do understand how life can get in the way.

          But I absolutely reject your "colorblind" remarks. This was all about race. Trayvon would not have even been followed if he had been white. The juror clearly profiled Trayvon as well. The lawyers on both sides talked in very obvious dog whistle language. Just because you choose to not see race, which is a privilege by the way, does not mean it is absent.

          Plus, do not even think I and others don't recognize how you are implying that only white people (like you) are objective in this case, but people of color are not because of "raw emotions." That is a very old trick. As a white woman, I have personally experienced it many times from men who try and accuse me of being "emotional."

          And if you truly cared that people were hurting over this, you wouldn't have used the title you did. You deliberately bated people who are hurting. That is very low of you.

          Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

          by moviemeister76 on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:28:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, for God's sake (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Neuroptimalian

            It must be nice to personally believe that your take on people's intentions and inference is always right.

            As far as referring to raw emotions, there are people of ALL CREEDS AND COLORS feeling raw emotions about this case. How dare you assume that my statement is cloaked language. You know nothing about me but assume you do.

            I sense more racism in your post than you will ever find on my four years of posts - but, you know what? There's no talking to someone who is so convinced that every utterance from someone who isn't exactly like you MUST be littered with racism and disrespect.

            Hate to tell you - I grew up in a very mixed neighborhood. Went to temple university, another very diverse school. Spent most of my life in diverse company with diverse friends and family whom I love - so much so that your suggestion about my intentions are insulting.

            Something tells me, however, that you will continue to feel  that you are right no matter what. This is not an issue of race. It's an issue of an egotistic personality.

            "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose. It's how you ladle the gravy." - Felix Ungar

            by Verbalpaintball on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:10:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Wise thinking, and excellent advice: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      terrybuck, Tonedevil, taffers
      Better to start listening to why the African American community is so upset with the justice system.  Better to start listening to why some are so upset with our gun laws.  Better to start figuring out what we can do as Americans to bridge these huge gaps.
      And might sound familiar, as noted in this comment:
    •  taffers - I agree people should stop writing (5+ / 0-)

      diaries that attempt to retry the case on this blog.

      The thing that puzzles me is that so many people think this was an easy case. It was a very complex case. Even the prosecution, post the verdict, admitted that they had no clear opinion of what happened that tragic night and knew from the beginning this was going to be a very difficult case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:11:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree. Listening to the juror who has spoken (0+ / 0-)

        been very interesting.  She seems to have bought Zimmerman's story (the defenses story) completely.  And I see multiple reasons.  She doesn't seem to understand or relate to African Americans based on some of her statements.  I don't necessary see that as racist, but as simple ignorance (by the strict definition of the word).  It did sound as though the jury truly wanted to find Zimmerman guilty of something, however.  It sounds like they understood how stupid Zimmerman's actions were leading up to the fight, but as she said, stupid isn't illegal.  Listening to the lawyers on TV, the main disagreement with the prosecution, is how they failed to really tell Trayvon's side.  How they failed to even give the jury an idea of the type of person Trayvon was.  They never made it possible to relate to Trayvon as a person, with hopes and dreams and a future.  The juror kept coming back to the instructions and how, based on those, they didn't feel they had beyond reasonable doubt, to convict.  Again, lawyers were complaining that the prosecution never gave the jurors a roadmap to get to a conviction, while the defense laid out exactly how they would get to a not guilty verdict.  This is what seemed to lead to the outcome more than anything else.

        As an aside and off topic, if the prosecution team says one more time how devoted they are to the right to carry firearms I'm going to flip.  These are supposed protectors of law and order.  I would think they, more than anyone, would have seen the dangers of a bunch of armed people walking around.  Ugghhhh--don't they see that the very laws they are so in favor of, is the direct result of Trayvon's death?  Honestly, I thought the prosecution team was terrible, and the more they talk, the more convinced I am that I am correct.

         

        •  taffers - the prosecution was restricted (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pi Li

          from having witnesses who would talk about Trayvon's life, hopes and dreams. If the prosecution had people testify about Trayvon it would have allowed the defense to parade an unlimited number of character witnesses for Zimmerman and also directly attack Trayvon's character.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:08:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  you are making that common mistake again (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mannie, terrybuck, Tonedevil

    that people who support GZ make.

    You are taking the story HE TOLD about what happened and acting as if that is WHAT HAPPENED>

    See, it is One Side of what happened. We cannot hear the other side because that person is DEAD.

    I am sorry for what happened to you. I get that that experience makes you feel GZ's story is plausable emotionally.

    See, that is all it should do. Make you feel that the STORY he tells of what happened is REASONABLE given what you went through.

    INSTEAD though, you  make the mistake of assuming the STORY was what HAPPENED.

    Reminder that the prosecution SUCKED and did not present a story. The defense presented the story. Not refuted, their story seemed plausible.

    The defense told some untruths that were not challanged by the prosecution and by EVEN the data that we lay people know. I will give one example...one of the defense lawyers indicated with his hand where the gun was and he indicated in FRONT of his right hip.

    Yet the gun was in BACK of GZs right hip. GZ shows the police this on the video he made the day after the shooting. It is IMPORTANT because with a combined weight of 300lbs or more (both men) on top of the gun which was BEHIND GZ, pressed into the rain-soaked ground under the wet grass (it was raining)...it would have been very hard to get at that gun. Perhaps impossible.

    Surely something the prosecution should have raised. Surely something the prosecution should have CORRECTED of the defense presentation. But they let that pass or missed it entirely.

    There were many things like that.

    George Zimmerman told a story. YOU believe his story. George Zimmerman wanted to be a Police officer, took self defense and fighting lessons and law enforcement classes, where he'd gotten an A.

    Try this on. IF George Zimmerman made a mistake and pulled that trigger when he did not fear for his life (ie wasnt being bashed or hit), he would be in the PERFECT position to MAKE UP a story that MADE YOU BELIEVE IT.

    ALl you really know is that the story that GZ tells SEEMS plausable. All you really know is IF George Zimmerman was having his faced bashed in and IF GZ was having his head bashed against the ground, it is reasonable he pulled the trigger.

    See, it can be shown that he wasn' t having his faced bashed in. Look at his injuries. The medical examiner said he was hit once, possibly twice On The Outside. And his head may have hit the ground ONCE.

    So his experience was NOTHING like yours, jumped by mulitple people

    Secondly and perhaps more importantly, because fear of death is subjective so maybe theoretically one punch to the face and hitting head on ground once was enough to put that fear in GZ, TM body was found NO WHERE NEAR THE SIDEWALK

    ANother prosecution FAIL

    SUpposedly TM body should be at or right next to the exact location GZ head was "being bashed into concrete".
    BUT it was found on the grass, feet away (I have to look up the specifics but it is notable). There was no concrete there.

    So was GZ head bashed against soft grass and did it hit a rock once so got that minor (per medical examiner) wound?

    If not, how did TM MOVE so far onto the grass when GZ says he didn't move it? Did the fight not happen where GZ says?

    This was another  prosecution fail..

    Look,  It really seems like you are overidentifying with GZ because of the horrific thing that happened to you. This isnt one guy jumped by several. It is different. This is a teenager proflied by an adult who was SURE he was a criminal (he said to operator "f-ing punks, they always get away".). Even if TM did throw the first (maybe only, per medical examiner) punch, THERE IS NO PROOF beyond GZ" word that his head was bashed into the concrete. No blood could be found on any concrete. And TM body wasnt where GZ says he was "attacked"...it was on the grass no where near the concrete.

    It is understandable and I'd do it too. But this was not the same as what happened to you. You know for SURE what happened to you, but you cannot know for sure what happened in the GZ/TM case. Again, you only know one side of the story

    •  You are reading a helluvalot into my intentions... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sandbox, johnny wurster

      As for the attack on Zimmerman, it was corroborated in court. If you choose not to believe so, that is your opinion. Opinions are not what sway juries.

      To me, this is simple. Who attacked who. It's not black or white. If Martin looked like John Kennedy Jr. and the evidence was the same, Zimmerman should STILL get off.

      And the jury seems to agree with that basic theory - it's about who was attacked and in mortal danger. It was proven by them to be Zimmerman.

      "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose. It's how you ladle the gravy." - Felix Ungar

      by Verbalpaintball on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:11:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nothing was proven, there was just enough (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil

        reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors to give a not guilty verdict.

        You don't seem understand the what facts are or what proven means.

        There was no experiment conducted here, nothing was proven. The jury was presented with facts and told two stories that support the facts, they didn't have to decide which story was correct, they had to decide if there was reasonable doubt that GZ did not murder Trayvon but acted in self-defense. In fact, the reason why he was not guilty is that nothing could be proven.

        "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

        by ranger995 on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:20:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not corroborated in court. (0+ / 0-)

        Zimmerman didn't testify. Only his prior statements to police were entered into evidence. Those are not facts. They were simply Zimmerman's story as to what happened that night. Not exactly an unbiased witness to the event.

        A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

        by edg on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:31:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What evidence are you talking about? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mannie, terrybuck, Tonedevil

    The evidence is Zimmerman saw a black kid walking through the neighbourhood.  He thought the black kid was suspicious and followed him in his car, and later on foot.  

    Evidence shows that Zimmerman reported the black kid to 9-1-1 who specifically told him NOT to continue following the kid and NOT to get out of his own car.   Which ZImmerman not only ignored but evidence shows he was angry at this kid and believed him to be guilty of crimes he had no evidence of.

    Evidence shows that Zimmerman has a history of making an unusually high number of 9-1-1 calls with little to no evidence of actual crimes being committed or people being arrested.

    Evidence shows ZImmerman was trained with guns as well as took martial arts training.

    Evidence shows that Zimmerman, after following the black kid, specifically against the orders of police officials, confronted him and seemingly tried to apprehend him.   A fight/struggle ensued and Zimmerman shot and killed martin.  

    There is ZERO evidence that Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman.  There is only evidence of a struggle.  It could just as easily be stated that Zimmerman had the gun in hand when he confronted martin with the intent of apprehending him.  He likely grabbed Martin to drag him back to his car.  How would YOU react if a stranger at night grabbed you, gun or no, and said he was taking you back to his car?  

    Martin likely fought back to get away and in the struggle (Zimmerman fighting to hold on, Martin fighting to get away) at some point the two fell to the ground.  What looked to the witness like a fight was very likely just one person struggling to escape the clutches of another.

    We also know someone cried out for help.  What is more likely, that a young kid approached by an armed stranger who is trying to get you back to his car screamed for help, or an overzealous and armed neighbour hood watch, with marksman and martial arts training, who believed he knew more/better than the police, was screaming for someone to help him?

    Sorry, but all evidence seems to point out that this was totally avoidable if Zimmerman wasn't paranoid, angry and believing he was better than the police who told him to stop.   As such, at the very least, that hints strongly of manslaughter.  

    •  Sorry, but your "evidence" is opinion... (0+ / 0-)

      More "likely" that Martin screamed for help? It's only more likely if you believe that Martin couldn't possibly have attacked Zimmerman.

      He "likely" grabbed Martin to drag him back to the car
      Once again, YOUR assumption. Not built on the facts of the case.
      if Zimmerman wasn't paranoid, angry and believing he was better than the police who told him to stop.
      You're characterizing this guy in a way that nobody else but the prosecution (with no evidence) was characterizing him.

      Once again, this case was decided on who was in more danger. Based on what the eyewitness said, along with the damage inflicted on Zimmerman, along with so many other things, the "likely" incident that happened was that Martin cold-cocked Zimmerman.

      That's what the jury believed. That's what logic suggests, unless you know that Zimmerman was a racist guy hellbent on killing a kid that night. Nothing in his personality or his words suggest that unless you need them to to justify your belief about the events.

      I'm not particularly swayed by opinion. As I've said above, this is purely about who was losing a fight, and did they have the right to defend themselves even in a horrific way such as using a gun.

      "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose. It's how you ladle the gravy." - Felix Ungar

      by Verbalpaintball on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:30:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So is yours, oh the hypocrisy. (4+ / 0-)

        Just by the fact that you are using things like "likely" and "logic suggests" shows you are saying your opinion.

        The irony is very strong in your comments. Some self awareness you need. Clearly you have a position that is more related to your own personal experience and feelings about that experience than it is to the facts in this case. I suppose you wish you had a gun that day so that you could have killed your attackers? Well, you didn't, but you lived to see another day.

        "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

        by ranger995 on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:06:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry but I disagree. (0+ / 0-)

        Some of what I said is heresay, granted.  But pretty much EVERYTHING you've said is heresay.  

        If we are talking about evidence, there is zero evidence that martin attacked anyone.  There is only evidence of a struggle.  Only one person who knew what actually happened is alive and the other's version of events doesn't match the evidence as reported by the medical attendants who helped him.  

        If we are talking about evidence, the evidence is that Zimmerman was the aggressor based on his language recorded when he called police, his frustration, and the fact he was aggrivated enough with the situation to ignore the police and go after Martin....someone who was literally just minding his own business.

        I honestly don't see how anyone can look at that EVIDENCE and not see Zimmerman as the aggressor in that situation.  

        You say the case was decided based on who was in the most danger.  No, it clearly wasn't.  If the recent interview with one jury member is any indication, it wasn't decided on anything more than emotion and not evidence, but their own completely fictional views of what happened.  That zimmerman was minding his own business and was attacked unjustly by Martin.  That Zimmerman's taped side of the story, not even testimony under oath, was "evidence" and fact.  They clearly took things into consideration they were told could NOT be considered.

        This isn't a case of justice based on fact.  It is an example of why our modern jury system often fails.  Too many people trying to be armchair lawyers and making judgements based on the story in their heads and NOT the evidence presented.  And sorry, but you are clearly doing the same.  

        The evidence is clear, Zimmerman's take on events is questionable and doesn't match the evidence.  Zimmerman stalked and shot a completely innocent kid.

  •  Zimmerman's own account refutes you (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, edg

    By Zimmerman's own account of the incident, and confirmed by the neighbor's eyewitness account and the recording of the other neighbor's 911 call, Zimmerman had "shimmied" off the sidewalk at least 30 seconds before he fired the shot that killed Trayvon.

    Leaving aside the fact that Zimmerman obviously lied about his head being bashed against cement "dozens" of times (I can believe maybe 2 or 3 light contacts, at most), Zimmerman's head was nowhere near cement for at least 30 seconds prior to his shooting Trayvon.

    It doesn't matter if he feared for his life because his head was being bashed on concrete 30 seconds ago, what matters is if he was in mortal peril at the moment he fired his gun and killed a teenager.

    So, in the grass, knowing police were already on their way, knowing that neighbors had seen him, he is engaged in at most a fistfight with a teenager he outweighs by 50 pounds -- how can anyone think at that moment it was reasonable for him to believe this child was intent on killing him or had the ability to do so?

    .

  •  Does it both you, diarist, that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, godlessmath

    Zimmerman's story doesn't pass the stink test?

    Get on the ground and have someone get on top of you, grabbing at your shoulder and trying to smash your head down. Now pick up a toy gun as if to shoot him.

    Note the angle of the gun. Seriously. The bullet that killed Trayvon Martin went straight in.

    Where's your hand? It's a bit out to the side, of course, and the angle of your weapon is more like 45-degrees. It's certainly not straight in.

    And never mind even that - Zimmerman said Martin saw and went for the gun. Sorry, but at that point, there is no head bashing. There is a clench for the weapon, or a full retreat from someone who lost it.

    Doesn't pass the stink test.

    In addition, and just to show how poor that prosecution was, Florida has an "initial aggressor" provision, like most states...which means, if you're the aggressor, then self-defense = Bzzzzzzzz, nope.

  •  not. (0+ / 0-)

    "...i also also want a legally binding apology." -George Rockwell

    by thankgodforairamerica on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:47:10 PM PDT

    •  There is no comparison. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thankgodforairamerica

      The diarist was 21 years old at the time of his incident. He was in college. The fight took place in downtown Philadelphia. On a Saturday night. There was drinking involved.

      There is no comparison.

      A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

      by edg on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:34:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow... (0+ / 0-)

        You seem to possess,the same problem as others on this side of the argument. Wild speculation. In this case you are also wrong. I hadn't had a single drink that night. Went with a friend (who also got beaten trying to get one guy off of me) to some sci fi convention and just got down to south street.

        Why is it that you can only make your argument based on evidence that doesn't exist? Are you a republican?

        "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose. It's how you ladle the gravy." - Felix Ungar

        by Verbalpaintball on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:22:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're claiming ... (0+ / 0-)

          the people you allege assaulted you were not drinking? On a Saturday night? Downtown?

          As far as making arguments based on evidence that doesn't exist, other than your alleged personal experience, this entire diatribe, er, diary, is based on evidence that doesn't exist.

          A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

          by edg on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:22:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  the fail is strong in this dairy. Not particularly (0+ / 0-)

    surprised that the usual suspects are tipping the diarist or stating their opinions as facts here.

    open your mind or someone else will open it for you, but be careful not to open it too much for your brain to fall out.

    by carlos the jackal on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:34:50 PM PDT

  •  trayvon was peeved then afraid (0+ / 0-)

    A rare DK recognition of basic facts on the case.

     I suspected TM was originally peeved at GZ for following him. Don't know if GZ pegged him correctly. TM' s jewelry theft saga seems to be finally breaking (MDSPD corruptly was dismissing crimes such as TM' s to fake a 60% drop in school crime, which is why TM was never arrested for the theft). Seems on the same week the victims reported the same stolen jewelry to the MDPD which instead had been sitting in MDSPD storage for the last 21 months. Perhaps TM was doing research at the RATL for a later time. He would not have been too happy to have been spotted by the "Creepy Ass Cracka."

    After losing the CAC, he spent the missing 3 minutes on the phone with RJ. It would be interesting to know what actually transpired on that conversation. Did RJ discourage TM or egg him on? Certainly the latter would explain the pretend hospital visit. Either way TM was itching for a fight and wanted to teach the CAC a lesson he would not soon forget. I doubt TM would have initially wanted to kill or severely injure GZ, just make him know "who is boss."

    The fear I suspect, is ironically the screams. GZ is not a classmate. Assaulting an adult unprovoked can get TM serious prison time. With GZ screaming, the neighbors might show up, police called and TM handcuffed. GZ' s screams were an existential threat. Then when JG came out and declared he was calling 911, TM likely panicked and decided he had to shut GZ up, knock him out or kill him if necessary. Hence, the head bangs to the sidewalk. When GZ' s gun became exposed, of course the solution became obvious. TM likely indulged himself in a final cruelty, to tell a man he is about to kill, "Now you're gonna die, you Motherfu***r! That little indulgence in cruelty likely gave GZ that extra second to turn the tables. Considering the assault lasted 75 seconds, GZ showed great restraint. Ironic that the subject of his cocky final boast was himself.

    Just a speculation.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site