So the short fat Latino dude ...
 

whom Martin pounded on until said short fat Latino dude (Zimmerman), drew his pistol and shot him, has been found not guilty of murder, by a jury of 6 women.

From this we can learn:

1) Don't pound on guys who have weapons. It's always a bad idea to swing your fists at somebody with a loaded gun at hand.

2) Our President is *weird*. WTF does this comment from Obama convey:
"If I had a son, he'd look like Treyvan Martin"

Huh?? :(

Talk about trying to shape the public's perception before the trial even began, and increase the pressure to prosecute!

3) The jury used a bit of common sense: when a guy is beating the crap out of someone, he won't be the one screaming for help. The guy screaming for help, will *ALWAYS* be the guy who's getting pounded. Neither Einstein nor Hawking assisted me in formulating this concept.

Duh!

And sadly:
4) If there wasn't a lot of national attention and pressure to prosecute Zimmerman, the district attorney would have used the common sense of #3 above, and never prosecuted Zimmerman.

Of course, the ridiculous Jesse Jackson stated after the verdict that Obama's Justice Dept. needed to do something, to fix this injustice.

Sure thing, Jesse. We'll just throw out our Constitution, Florida state laws, and our legal system, so you can get whatsoever you want.

I wish Treyvan was still around, and decided to pound the shit out of Jackson. It would be a YouTube viral video of the decade.

He'll probably be a thorn in the President's side, using whatever issues he can, unless he gets pardons for his son and daughter-in-law.

Well, what I've learned, is that a private citizen can follow and confront another citizen, scare him so much as to start a fight, then fatally shoot him, and legally, all is okay.

Martin did NOTHING at all illegal or threatening until Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.

If that is legal, your laws are messed up.

Jim Crow is back...

i get that you see americans as a complete group of fools, ignorant and violent.

did you watch the trial at all? do you understand the concept of 'reasonable doubt'? the prosecution failed, and as a liberal who hates guns, i think the jury got it right. surprise!

i won't even start with public reaction over other high profile trials. you're smart enough to get where i'm going with this.

btw, the painting of treyvon as a 9 year old who was just saving kittens isn't reality, as you may have seen in your 'learning' of the subject.

it's not a race issue. black and hispanic. the media cried 'white man.' where? that was another creation to confuse us all with our (honorable) desire to not take race into account in ANY trial, except for obvious hate crimes.

Hi Infi, nice to see you back ... wish it was on slightly happier terms.

No, I know that not all Americans are assholes. But it seems to me that some of your rules and norms foster assholishness.

well, not ALL americans, just our general policies foster such racist crap, from all sides. i can agree with that. :)

oh i'm ok, just a huge thing going on right now so i am dealing with that as best i can.

Let me 'splain how it works here Zen. There's a camp that believes guns kill people; but, when somebody gets killed and there's a gun involved they arrest and charge some person who may simply have fallen in with a bad gun. When that person goes to trial, there's automatically reasonable doubt about which was really the perpetrator ... the person or the gun. The person is therefore acquitted and the gun, which was only taken into protective custody without ever actually being arrested or charged, goes free.

People say that alcohol kills; so, we have laws that make doing things like driving under the influence of alcohol illegal. People say that guns kill; but, there are no laws making doing anything under the influence of a gun illegal!

So you see, it's not that our existing laws are messed up. It's just that the current culture is lagging in enacting laws that hold guns responsible for the people they kill; also, laws to hold people who partake of demon guns responsible for (the lesser offense) of acting under the influence of a gun. We just need a little more time to even things out.

:grouphug: to you, Infi.

Sexobon ....

:lol2:

Although a very good point in amongst all that.


Mind you, it is worth noting ...


The GUN was BLACK!!!

Zimmerman didn't "confront" Martin. Martin saw Zimmerman following him, (this is inside a private gated community, so there aren't many people out and about). Anyway, Martin tells his gf he's going to "take care of this guy" following him, and doubles back to Z's position.

Now Zimmerman starts questioning Martin. Zimmerman has already called 911 for backup, and was advised to not confront M, and he's also been advised to not bring his firearm while in a community watchman role. Zimmerman disregards that advise. He knows his rights, and he knows he has no partner, and no fast backup is available. The gated community has no police department, so the response time for the sheriff is rather long.

Shortly afterward, the taller guy has the shorter guy on his back, astride his chest, and is pounding shorty's face with his fists.

Someone is yelling for help. It attracts a witness, but the witness can't say for sure who is yelling for help, because he has a bad angle, and is too far away.

The taller guy continues to pound on the shorter guy, who can't get up. Other calls to 911 are made. Then a shot is heard. Treyvan has been mortally wounded, by Zimmerman.

Zimmerman is taken in for questioning. He has a gashed and reportedly broken nose, a swollen face, and a scalp laceration where Treyvan had bounced Zimmerman's head against the ground several times, while beating on him.

The newmedia get the picture of Zimmerman getting out of the cruiser at the station. They photoshop the picture so Zimmerman has no injuries at all, and publish it as factual.

Zimmerman's Mom and relatives claimed in court that it was Treyvan yelling for help - after first saying it was not Treyvan yelling for help, when interviewed by detectives.

Like fun! Guys who are winning fights, don't scream for help from anyone nearby.

Treyvan was 4 inches taller than Zimmerman, and at 17 years old, was on his high school football team. Zimmerman was no match for Treyvan in a fight. He's heavier, but not an athlete, and decidedly "well nourished" as they say. ;)

Zimmerman could not have retreated to safety at any time after the fight broke out, even if he wanted to, because Treyvan quickly took him down, and sat on Zimmerman, while repeatedly punching him in the face, bouncing Zimmerman's head against the concrete beneath him.

I don't believe Treyvan intended to kill Zimmerman, but he might have killed him anyway. He certainly wasn't stopping, even after Zimmerman started screaming for help. He kept on pounding away.

It's a huge loss of life, for something as trivial as being questioned by the community watchman. Treyvan's real shortfall, was failing to stay civil, when talking with Zimmerman. There was no need for a fight to ever start. Maybe a heated argument or lively discussion, but not a fight.

The fight was Treyvan's idea, and Zimmerman had every right to defend himself, in that situation.

According to FL law, Martin had every right to beat the crap out of Zimmerman. He was stalked and confronted. And had every reason to fear for his life. We now know what he did not. Martin had more reasons than he knew to fear for his life.

Nobody knows who was calling for help. But we do know who the aggressor was. 'Shorty' created the entire problem. And deserved to have the crap beaten from his body.

Martin died because he was doing what FL laws says he should do. Use as much force as possible when one fears for their life.

If Zimmerman was not carrying a gun, would he have acted intelligently? Probably. Instead he foolishly did what he had done so many times previously. So many times, he saw a black man and reported him as a suspect criminal. Zimmerman repeatedly acted on his emotions. Assumed based only on observation and speculation rather than think rationally like an adult.

Zimmerman's previous actions imply he saw black men as criminals. Is that illegal? If not, then we have one example of reasonable doubt.

I'm not exactly sure which part constitutes 'reasonable doubt'. Jurors are not talking. Required details are not specific. Not even listed here. We really need to hear the jurors interviewed. Curiously, they all have refused.

It's no longer a question of what is fair. Fair (and legal under FL law) is for Martin to seriously harm or even kill Zimmerman. Fair is irrelevant. Only relevant question is what is legal. Will Federal charges be filed against the gun for violating a human's civil rights?

Meanwhile, on 4-chan:


Attachment 44727

If someone is following you, at a distance, and you are worried for your safety, you should call the cops, or go to the nearest open business, and ask them to call the cops.

You don't try to beat the shit out of the community watchman, because he asks you what you're doing.

Martin had no fear for his life. If he knew Zimmerman was armed, he would never have started the fight, unless he could take away Zimmerman's gun, first.

Martin wasn't suicidal or dumb. Just violent and very unlucky, on that day.

Neither I nor the jurors agree with you. I've never seen or heard the guy winning the fight, screaming for help. Neither have you, because it never happens - and proves you're a blatant liar.

Another lie. Nonsense comment, totally lacking in reason.

So glad you aren't a juror. :cool:

I have. When the guy winning knew without help it couldn't end without him hurting or being hurt badly. Remember this wasn't a drunken brawl outside a bar, no posturing for the chicks or bros.

Neighborhood WATCH, not neighborhood guard.

I for one think Mr. Zimmerman was guilty but having served as a juror I believe in our justice system as a whole even if it failed here.

The fault in the outcome lies at several different levels; the Florida SYG law is flawed as it goes far beyond the "castle doctrine" of protecting your property or yourself against intruders.

How on earth does the Florida judicial code only call for 6 jurors in a capital murder trial???

Our jury selection system allows for picks and strikes from both sides but 6 white women hardly represents the parties involved, a black man and a caucasian-latino.

Sadly, every trial comes down to the lawyers on both sides. In my opinion the proscecution failed when they chose the charge of 2nd degree murder when it should have been manslaughter. The charge they chose was harder to prove. Also, trial outcomes depend on the judge, who blocked evidence the proscecution was depending on to win.

We can speculate all we want but what if the outcome had been reversed and Mr. Martin had had a gun and stood his ground and killed Mr. Zimmerman? Based on statistics Mr. Martin wold have been arrested on the spot and charged and found guilty!

The jury found Mr. Zimmerman not guilty based on the facts that the judge allowed and the legal arguments but the verdict does not exonerate him. I have a feeling he will be living in hiding and looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life, so maybe there is some justice.

Chris, I like your post. Well thought out, and expresses everything I feel about this issue.

I keep thinking, 'what if it had been my son'. I have a couple the same age, and I am almost certain that if they felt someone was threatening them, they'd confront the person, simply because their powers of reasoning out these sorts of problems are not fully developed yet. It's a medical fact. KIDs, are not equipped to deal with these sorts of situations rationally - plenty of adults are not either, which perhaps might explain why Zimmerman made such a bad decision.

This is bloody brilliant:

http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeI...m_kyle/cb39la5


Read up until

Was it Zimmerman who was getting his face (and back of his head), pounded on, in the fight with Trayvon?

Photo's say, YES!
(Note: these are unaltered photo's, not the lying touched up so Zimmerman is unharmed, photos that the media, have been showing.)

Attachment 44739

Attachment 44740

Seeing these photo's, the juror says, she was sure that Trayvon was on top, beating on Zimmerman - NOT the other way around:


and that it was Zimmerman who was calling for help, before the fatal shot was fired.

Her interview was on CNN today, with Anderson Cooper. Story and video of the interview with the juror, is widely available.

I don't see where I called Zimmerman a guard. I called him a watchman, and a community watchman.

There was a very old (about 80 year old) Japanese karate master - not just ANY master, this was one of the greatest masters (of Goju iirc). Anyway, he was attacked by 5 Japanese young thugs, and refused to even hit back. (He was still teaching Karate at that time, and was definitely able to defend himself quite well.)

His reasoning was that he would kill them if he did start fighting, but that they would not kill him. He was right, but they did beat him savagely, and in fact, nearly killed him, in a long bout of hard punching and kicking by the young men.

Reading about this in the newspaper, the young men each came to apologize to the Karate master, thoroughly ashamed.

Which probably was a very good idea, because the master had several thousand students, who would like to have met these young thugs, up close and personal. Possibly give them a free karate lesson. ;)

I've seen victors in minor physical disagreements, ask for help (for the loser, or to even end the fight), but they were just "minor physical disagreements", not a full on fight like Martin and Zimmerman were having.

I have never seen such concern in a full on fight - ever.

Ah well, if you personally have never seen such a thing, then surely such a thing cannot be.

Interesting piece in the Guardian:


But this same juror expresses confusion over the evidence she heard. As well as a gross tendency to make assumptions:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...trayvon-martin

I notice that you did NOT say YOU had ever seen the winner of a knock down drag out fight, calling for help, either. :rolleyes:

Well, have you?

No, of course not. So if you were on the jury, would you say Zimmerman was guilty beyond a reasonable double, because it's always statistically possible that he:

ripped off Martin's hoodie, and put it on (so he looked like Martin, in the fading light).

Called 911, and then shot Martin, with just the right angle of his pistol, and replaced Martin's hoodie, back onto Martin.

Laid down on the ground and pulled Martin's body over the top of him, to get the right blood stains on clothing, then beat his face with his fists, and slammed the back of his own head repeatedly on the concrete beneath him.

Because the above is what would have had to happen, for the prosecution's case to be true and in agreement with sworn testimony, from both the coroner, and the one witness (who could see clothes and general arm movements (punches going downward), but not faces, due to the dim light and distance.

I'm not saying it NEVER has happened in the world, someplace, sometime, but it's rare, VERY rare. In gentle physical altercations, I've seen the victor ask the loser to stop, etc., but never in a vicious knock down drag out street fight. It just doesn't happen.

The prosecution should have tried for manslaughter, not murder.

A year or so ago someone posted a video here of a big kid who had been regularly bullied by a little kid. Big kid was a gentle giant. Little kid was a cocky little gobshite. On this particular occasion the big kid snapped, grabbed the little kid, spun him up and over in wrestling move and slammed him back onto the ground, where he apparently broke his leg (that part of the story was later questioned).

On the evidence of the injuries, the big kid was unscathed, the little kid injured: take away the video camera and close standing witnesses that evidence points to the big kid as the aggressor.

And incidentally, I have seen one streetfight in which the winner/aggressor was yelling for help. Specifically yelling to 'get her off me!' because it was a fight between two groups of lads and lasses and he really didn't want to injure the girl.

I'd like to say I played my part in that fight, but I was just a gobby cow....never really had the fists to back it up :p

I recognise this is a different scenario, and I really haven't seen enough real fights to know what is or is not 'common' or usual in this regard.

Which is it?

Wow. I mean, seriously, wow.

Ta Nehisi Coates, at the Atlantic, and Jelani Cobb, at the New Yorker, have done an amazing job breaking down why the entire story -- from the kid's death, to the police's reluctance to investigate, to the smearing of the kid, to the exoneration of his killer -- is a quintessentially American tragedy, entirely rooted in the color of the kid's skin. In short: it wasn't murder, and that's the problem.

I'm having a hard time writing anything that isn't just paraphrasing one or the other of them. So instead of stringing together a bunch of decontextualized quotes that end up hacking apart their stellar writing, here's a few of the pieces that stood out:

Ta Nehisi Coates, "Trayvon Martin and the Irony of American Justice" -- in which he argues that "the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is not an error in programming. It is the correct result of forces we set in motion years ago and have done very little to arrest."

Jelani Cobb, What The Zimmerman Trial Was About -- on fear and correlations.

Ta Nehisi Coates, "How Stand Your Ground Relates to George Zimmerman" -- on the fact that 'stand your ground' and 'self defense' in Florida are one and the same.

Jelani Cobb, "Zimmerman, Everyman" -- "This apparent contradiction—the prevalence of racist attitudes, the disavowal of actual racism—is key to understanding the way Zimmerman has been received. His actions are understandable, even reasonable, because it doesn’t take a racist to believe black males equal danger."

That's powerful.

L'Oreal need to bring out a lipstick called Zimmerman Blood.
I'm not saying whether the photo is doctored or not... but damn his blood is bright.

And meanwhile most conservative news sources and commentators/talking heads are rallying behind the not guilty verdict and outcome, some going so far as to accuse Martin of being a dope smoking adict, and a punk thug, etc. I doubt the GOP will pick up any black voters in the near future which will only hasten their demise. And they sure aren't endearing themselves to Hispanics. :cool:

Ten black guys shot and killed in Philly since Saturday.

Nobody gives a shit about them.

In the history of civilization, I'm sure it's happened - but it's VERY rare. In my experience, it has never happened in any serious fight. Not only have I never seen a winner calling for help in a serious fight, but I've never heard of such a thing.

It's a totally different mind-set, when the fight is serious. Obviously, this was a *very* serious fight. Less than serious fight behavior, would not have been present.

Philly definitely needs a lot of help to stop these killings. Damn shame that's going on.

I’ve been giving the trial and associated larger issues a lot of thought in the past few days and my conclusion is that this trial is a reflection of two clashing perspectives whose narratives are routinely marginalized by society and/or the media. Since both narratives have been suppressed and this trial directly addressed both perspectives, the amount of attention and the emotions attached to this trial were extremely high. Also, taking power dynamics into account, it is no surprise that Zimmerman, and his narrative, wins the case.

For an initial note, I am doing my best to explain my view of the two narratives in a more or less unbiased manner. I attempt to be brief and many issues are much more complicated than how I explain them. My personal views, thoughts, and experiences can be saved for a later post.

The first narrative is, stereotypically, a particular sub-group of the white middle-class (male) community. This group is fairly well off, prefers to live in safe (possibly gated) communities, and is increasingly worried about safety and crime. I don’t believe that the majority in this group are racists like people were in the 50’s and 60’s, but they notice that a disproportional amount of crime is committed by young black males. Along with being immersed in a racist social environment (we all have) which naturally exaggerates the young black male threat, there is large cultural clash between this group and the young black community. Due to a lack of understanding of the stereotypical young black culture’s dress, music, and mannerisms, it is difficult for them to recognize the small proportion of young black males that are a threat and therefore are much more cautious and fearful around all young black males. This, in my opinion, explains the racial stereotyping that occurs and the “justification” for laws such as ‘stop and frisk’.

This narrative is marginalized because any attempt to justify racial stereotyping, whether valid or not, is considered racist. Since the term racist is essentially equivalent to ‘Nazi’ in the US and the vast majority of white people will not embrace that label, for many legitimate reasons, the push for laws that racial profile are often done quietly and the reasons are often not publically defended.

The second perspective is that of the young black male. Due to some of the reasons stated above, the majority of young black males suffer racial profiling and discrimination due to the inability to differentiate the problematic young black males from the rest of the population due to mannerisms and dress. Therefore, this group routinely gets mistrusted by the general population, get guns pointed at them by police when stopped, and are largely at risk to being sent to prison (largely due to non-violent drug related crimes). This group feels threated by the police and other institutions that are set up to protect the first group because it is largely designed, purposefully or not, to indirectly target them.

This narrative is marginalized from what seems like a combination of typical minority status, annoyance of complaints from the rest of the population, and mistrust.

The Martin-Zimmerman case reflects both narratives because the first group can sympathize partly or fully with Zimmerman while the second group can sympathize with Martin. There were various burglaries in the area, committed by young black men, so Zimmerman was more vigilant of young black men that may be committing these crimes. Martin had relatives that lived in the area and was minding his own business and felt targeted due to his skin color and dress. The fear and misunderstanding from both parties led to a fight that resulted in the death of Martin. Obviously, people from both groups will naturally defend their narrative and this explains why this case became so important to many groups.

While I will strongly argue that both narratives are marginalized, although not necessarily to an equal degree, it is clear that one narrative has complete power over the other. There is a fairly simple reason why these laws exist and why one group has essentially complete control over the other: power. It is the people in the first narrative that control politics. It is people in the first narrative that design police tactics and the ‘Stand your ground’ laws. I do not believe that, in general, the people in the first group purposely create racists laws but they design these laws around their narrative and in their best self-interests. Since they have a monopoly on the power to design and control these laws, the laws will naturally be a reflection of that.

This is obviously not an ideal situation and is an obvious injustice toward the second group. However, since this is based on power and not morals, pointing out this injustice will not solve the problem because people in the first group will not sacrifice their safety for the sake of another group. Also, the targeting of their narrative by liberals will only cause them to be more set in their views. In order for young black men to defend themselves on an institutional level, they need representation.

Same for Chicago.

When Zimmerman gets his gun back, he should demand the return of his bullet too. He can keep the gun and put the bullet up for sale on eBay.

No, that's his lucky bullet. He should have Tonto recycle that into a fresh shell, for the next hoodie that tries to sneak into the shire.

What size notch do you recommend for the handgun grip?

I wouldn't weaken it with notches if he's going to use it as a bludgeon too.

:losersmilie:

The history of "Stand Your Ground" laws, is not something I've studied in detail, but my take on it is this.

Going back before the industrial revolution, people moved at the speed of a horse (usually pulling a wagon or buggy), a sail or rowed boat, or at a walking pace. People moved very slowly, down bumpy and generally unpaved roads, carrying their food, water, and usually, what they were selling, or using as barter, that day: produce, animals, perhaps wood or iron works.

Point is, they had someplace they HAD to get to, and they couldn't just "run away" from any threat they encountered on the way. They had STUFF that would seriously slow them down. A man who felt threatened had little chance of running away to escape the threat, and would lose a substantial amount even if he succeeded, since his animals, cart, wagon, stock in trade, would have to be left behind, to make a quick get away (on just the horse, or by simply running).

Also, there were centuries in England and Europe, where wars were about as common as rain in the Spring. Men were expected or required, to fight in these wars, from time to time. Any man refusing to fight, would be dealt with severely - by his "Lordship", and possibly, by his village peers. If your neighbors had to go and fight, they don't want to have you enjoying home and hearth, instead of fighting with them.

And by God, no man would want to be labeled a COWARD, who ran away from every threat. We may all be sinners, but NOBODY wants to accept the label of COWARD.

[I mention the case of England, because our laws in the US, are based mostly on English Common Law.]

So I believe (and I have not studied this in detail), that "Stand Your Ground" laws WERE the ancient laws or customs, of England. This idea that you are required to run away from every threat, if you can, is a very modern legal requirement.

So Eric Holder is very likely a liar when he says otherwise, to the NAACP convention in Orlando, Florida, this week. He told them what they wanted to hear, just like a good little lying politician would.

If you have info on this, please enlighten me.

I thought this was a good annalysis of some of the reasons the jury reached the decision they did, that being based on the way the judge explained the law and her instructions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alafai...ef=mostpopular

Adak, I think you are misunderstanding what is known as "the castle doctrine" which most "stand your ground" laws are based on. I believe it had more to do with protecting one's home or "castle." I don't follow your connection to people being conscripted to serve in battle. I also think it worth noting that current UK laws have no such provision and that a home owner defending his/her home with a weapon is most likely breaking the law!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cele...ith-knife.html

I also don't understand your claim that AG Holder is a liar. I thought his speech was pertinent and extemely personal as to his experinces as a black man.

Origin of Castle Doctrin laws from Wikipedia:
According to 18th-century Presbyterian minister and biblical commentator Matthew Henry, the prohibition of murder found in the Torah contains an exception for legitimate self-defense. A home defender who struck and killed a thief caught in the act of breaking in at night was not guilty of bloodshed. “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the thief owes no blood-debt to the home-defender; but if the thief lives, he owes a blood-debt to the home-defender and must make restitution.”[7][8]

The American interpretation of this doctrine is largely derived from the English Common Law as it stood in the 18th century. In Book 4, Chapter 16[9] of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, he states that the laws "leave him (the inhabitant) the natural right of killing the aggressor (the burglar)" and goes on to generalize in the following words: And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with immunity: agreeing herein with the sentiments of ancient Rome, as expressed in the works of Tully;[10] quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus unusquisque civium?[11] For this reason no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process; though, in criminal causes, the public safety supersedes the private. Hence also in part arises the animadversion of the law upon eaves-droppers, nusancers, and incendiaries: and to this principle it must be assigned, that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other case.
—William Blackstone,*Commentaries on the Laws of England

To the juror who said Zimmerman's heart was in the right place:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/1...ave-had-a-gun/
Violence against women
violence against authority
alcohol problem
paranoia of African Americans

It's no wonder Martin is dead. If Trayvon had the gun that night, and killed Zimmerman, I think the outcome would have been different.

The case last year of a black woman, in the same state, being sentenced to 20 years for firing her gun into the air to frighten away her abusive husband, with the judge saying SYG didn't apply, suggests you may be right.

As I understand that case, the DA convinced the jury that they were both abusers, her shot "into the air" was aimed at the husband and narrowly missed him and the children going through the kitchen wall. Stand your ground was not allowed by the judge because she went back into the house with a gun for her car keys after leaving. She refused a three year plea bargain was convicted and got ten years plus ten for using a gun in the commission of a crime. This is gleaned from the net, I don't have a good source. Much like the current case it is tried in the press under different terms than the court case. Our judicial system is a mess but our entertainment based press is as much problem as solution.

re-Zimmerman
 

For as long as I can remember, there has been racial violence ending in death. It doesn't matter which country you're from, the law sides with the police. If you're black, you're guilty until proven innocent. In Canada, the targets have been the Native American communities. The RCMP have much to answer for in the northern parts of Alberta. It's disgusting. There's probably an actual # somewhere, of incidents like this one. I'm willing to guess the # stands around 2,000.

Tangential to the Zimmerman trial, but two really great articles that I read today:

Ta Nehisi Coates on why stop and frisk is a natural product of white supremacy:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...filing/277871/

And, from the NYTimes, a profile of a group of people taking a different tack in Los Angeles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/ma...ach-other.html

Since being outside your home is central to the Martin/Zimmerman case, I don't see any relationship to a "Castle Doctrine", which pertains directly to those who are inside their homes.

Frankly, I don't care WHAT his personal experiences are - whether he's white or black, or brown or purple. What Holder is DOING is the only thing I care about - and so far, it's been a lot on the negative side, and damn little on the positive side.

Holder has withheld documents required by law, from Darryl Issa's investigation committee. He's also lied about it, and had some of the whistleblowers, fired. Fast and Furious was a line item in his departments budget, and a special program designed and approved by retards (which includes him, since he ultimately approves everything in his department).

What is Holder's department doing to investigate and prosecute the federal crime committed by the IRS, in suppressing the conservative 501c/501c[3] applications, prior to the last election?

This was #2 on the impeachment actions taken against Richard Nixon. But under Holder, -- it's crickets singing in the night.

The Black Panthers were stationing teams of men armed with clubs, outside voting sites in Philly. Documentation and pics were made of it, by reporters.

But under Holder, -- no investigation, and no prosecution.

I haven't seen anything good come out of the DOJ, since Holder took over. Have you?

If so, what?

Adak, I'm sure you have been too busy following the Zimmerman case,
and just overlooked a previous posting about Darryl Issa's self-generated "scandals", etc.

But this was my summary in a different thread just a few days ago.

You've got to know when to hold ground, know when to give ground
Know when to walk away and know when to run
You never turn on a watchman in a gated community
There'll be time enough for protest when the day is done

Every hoodie knows that the secret to survivin'
Is knowin' who is posturing and who is packin' heat
'Cause every brawl's a winner and every brawl's a loser
And the goal is to live long enough to die in your sleep

I actually have tried to avoid the Zimmerman case details. After Martin's girl friend said Martin told her he was going back and would "fix that cracker following me", I had a very good idea of the incident, as far as intent goes.

There were a lot of mistakes made by Zimmerman and Martin, but it was Martin who made the incident into a fight.

I agree that there is some political posturing on Obama's every perceived shortfall, but that has been the way of Washington, since Nixon's impeachment. I equate that with stock cars "swapping paint" on the track.

But, the IRS scandal rises up FAR above the level of political posturing. THAT is a federal crime. The Benghazi incident was a real "I will lie to your face, and you must believe it", act by Obama. That's right up there with Bush's "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" bullshit.

One reason why several of these scandals seem blown out of proportion (in addition to the political posturing of the Republicans), is that the mainstream media gives Obama (and his administration), a nearly perfectly free pass on all of them. There's almost no heat directed back at Obama - which is quite the change, hearkening back to the days of the Kennedy's, when the media just looked the other way on a lot of Presidential mis-deeds.

Wrong. Martin wasn't "stalked". Zimmerman was keeping an eye on him, as a neighborhood watch guy/gal might be expected to. The name - neighborhood WATCH" means just that. They try to keep an eye out on people in their neighborhood.

Martin was never threatened. He told his girl friend, just before he turned back to meet with Zimmerman, that he was going to "fix that cracker following me".

To spell is out for the gentrified folk, that means Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, with violent intentions.

Either that, or Martin was a doctor, and Zimmerman was his patient. :rolleyes:

So Zimmerman got out of his car. Followed Martin by foot. Did exactly what a neighborhood watch person is NOT supposed to do. Got so close as to create a physical confrontation. And yet did not stalk Martin? Did not create the confrontation?

Not even Zimmerman would believe that.

And OJ Simpson was home watching TV when Nicole was murdered - using your logic. Wacko extremist rhetoric is alive and well.

Adak, are you responding to tw or to me. You quoted my response to tw in which I was addressing tw's notion that Martin was standing his ground. When I parodied Kenny Rogers' song The Gambler, I was implying that Martin needed to know when to hold or give ground. Even when someone is in fear for their life, standing ground just because one can isn't always the prudent course of action. Martin is now the poster child for that mistake.

I question whether any judge would apply the Stand Your Ground law to Martin as he had not yet reached the age of majority. It would set a president for all minors to perpetrate violence against adults by simply claiming they were in fear for their lives. This, even though minors as a group are generally considered to not have the skill sets, experience and maturity, to make an accurate determination like those inadequacies personified by Martin. There are many laws on the books that minors can't avail themselves of for that reason.

Additionally, the courts have routinely upheld that once someone turns and closes on an antagonist, rather than just remaining in place (standing their ground), their action demonstrates that they were not in fear for their life. The courts have also upheld that in a confrontation the first one to lay hands on another, in the absence of demonstrable serious threat to their physical self, becomes the aggressor. Many have resisted police arrest claiming that they did it in self defense while in fear for their lives 'cause the police had guns. The courts have routinely upheld that the mere presence of police officers' legally carried guns does not constitute a threat and the courts are extending that to all legally armed citizens.

Right or wrong, Zimmerman provoked only a verbal confrontation. The verdict implies that Martin initiated a physical confrontation, without adequate justification, and escalated it to such a level that his actions forfeited his right to life. Zimmerman was talking on the phone with police. Martin was talking on the phone with his girlfriend. Who intended to proceed within the limits of the law is clear. Childlike interpretation of the facts secondary to emotionally dysfunctional hoplophobia is alive and well.

I'll tell you what I know, from statements of witnesses:

1) The community (a small gated apartment community)was being burglarized "frequently".

2) Martin was walking around, at about sunset, and appeared suspicious to Zimmerman. People claim this is a sign of racism, but the vast majority of burglars are young males, between the age of 14 and 34 years old. Certainly, burglars operate at night, under cover of darkness, as well as in the daytime.

Although the prosecution dug deep for ANY sign of racist speech, posts, or acts in Zimmerman's past, they found absolutely NOTHING. Since that was the case, the judge ordered that no reference to racial profiling, could be used, by either side in the trial. The judge was a black woman, btw.

3) Martin became aware of Zimmerman following him, by the time he got back to his girl friends house. He handed her the candy he'd bought at the local store, and told her he was going "to fix that cracker", that was following him.

Note that Zimmerman is 4 inches shorter than Martin, and "well marbled" (a bit fat). In appearance, he looks a lot more like the Pillsbury dough boy, than any kind of an athlete.

4) Martin then doubled back to "fix" Zimmerman. What their verbal interaction was, I have no idea.

5) A fight breaks out between them. The witness could only see due to the fading light and distance, than the guy with the hoodie on knocked the other guy to the ground, and was punching the guy on the ground, repeatedly.

6) Zimmerman had a concealed weapons permit, and although advised not to wear it, he had brought it with him. Martin broke Zimmerman's nose, and was hitting his head hard enough to slam the back of his head against the ground. Someone was heard calling out for help, repeatedly.

Shortly afterward, Zimmerman shot Martin one time, killing him.

This may shock you, but as a Neighborhood watcher, Zimmerman is SUPPOSED to watch people, in the neighborhood. Remember, this is a rather small gated apartment community, and Martin didn't live there - he was just visiting for the weekend.

By induction, it should be elementary that Zimmerman should be watching this non-resident young male walking around inside the gated community, at sunset.

By the statement of the gf, it was MARTIN who confronted Zimmerman, not the other way around. In any case, the confrontation SHOULD have stayed VERBAL, and non-violent, but it clearly did not.

Now, do you think this Pillsbury doughboy, acting as a Neighborhood watcher, attacked a high school football player who was 4 inches taller than he is?

Or do you think that Martin tried to "fix that cracker", by breaking Zimmerman's nose, and then slamming his head against the ground a few times?

If Zimmerman had no injuries, I'd say it was the former, and Zimmerman was guilty of murdering Martin - but Zimmerman had significant injuries. Half a dozen more head slams and it might well have been Zimmerman who was killed.

Since there was no video of it, we will never be 100% certain of just how this tragedy unfolded. Given the info I have, I have to say it was Martin who was pounding on Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was defending himself.

Wendy Dorival was the civilian member of the police department who set up that particular neighborhood watch program.

Of course he did. He had a gun. That makes fools of anyone inspired by 'more power'. If thinking intelligently (ie without a gun), then Zimmerman would have done what cops told him to do. Stayed in the car rather than challenge someone who was larger. Would have done what all Neighborhood Watch are supposed to do. Only watch. Stay in the car and only watch. He had a gun which explains his confrontational attitude. An attitude only further confirmed by his exact words at 7:13.

An exact quote from Zimmerman before he goes off to confront Martin: Did Martin go inside his girlfriend's house, say that, double back, and then go out to confront Zimmerman? Of course not. Another myth generated to distort reality. We know what Martin said to his girlfriend *** on the phone - not inside her house ***. Martin told her that a “creepy-ass cracker” was following him but that he thought he had evaded him. But she said a short time later, Martin let out a profanity followed by him dropping the phone. Is that Martin stalking Zimmerman? Of course not.

We also know what Zimmerman said when he did exactly what the cops told him to not do and what is an absolute and fundamental violation of Neighborhood Watch. He took off after Martin at 7:13. By 7:17, police arrived and Martin was already dead.

If Martin had killed Zimmerman, well, according to Florida law, he was justified. Some creepy-ass cracker was following him. That means he had every right to attack Zimmerman. But we know he dropped his phone suddenly when Zimmerman suddenly confronted and somehow surprised Martin.

Somehow we know Zimmerman got out of his car to *not* follow Martin? Nonsense. How ridiculous is that assumption? How could anyone be that naive? But again, cited is where such nonsense and distortion comes from. Wacko extremist rhetoric.

Zimmerman's attitude was quite clear from his own words. Martin was the asshole who always gets away. Martin, on the other hand, had every reason to fear. Because Zimmerman was an adult acting like a child. And doing so because he was doing what nobody can do on Neighborhood Watch - carry a gun. Martin had every right, under Florida law, to kill Zimmerman. Even described Zimmerman's actions: a creepy asshole who was following him. Zimmerman was not acting as an adult on Neighborhood Watch. And was acting as a threat to Martin.

Martin was not in his girlfriend's house. However extremist rhetoric needs to distort reality.

Zimmerman was undoubtedly being a douchbag, perhaps to appease his own ego. Unfortunately, Martin responded to that by being a punk, perhaps to impress his girlfriend. Both showed serious lapses in judgment. Martin paid for it with his life; because, he was too naïve to live. Zimmerman will pay for it one way or another for the rest of his life; because, he was the adult in that situation and responsible for controlling it which he failed to do. But there are right ways and wrong ways to hold Zimmerman accountable and many are upset 'cause they can't take matters into their own paranoid hands, perhaps they're not all that much unlike Zimmerman themselves.

Every hearing Issa holds on that "scandal" ends up making it less and less scandalous.

Wrong. It was the dispatcher who told him to not go outside. Dispatchers are not cops, they are not sworn officers, at all. They have no authority to order anyone, to do anything. They advise only.

Wrong. There is no requirement that a neighborhood watcher stay in a car - or even use a car at all. The apartment community Zimmerman and Martin were in, made cars almost useless for watching anyone.

I didn't say Martin was inside the gf's house. I said he told her that.

I don't know what Martin's profanity was about, but somewhere early in the struggle, he broke Zimmerman's nose, and knocked him to the ground.

Sounds to me like Martin wanted to punch with both fists, not hold his cell phone in one hand, and punch with the other hand.

Wrong. Cops didn't tell him not to follow Martin. That was a dispatcher, who has zero authority (and never went to the police academy, either). Dispatchers are NOT cops.

Zimmerman made a mistake by following Martin on foot, without having backup. That much is perfectly correct.

Absolutely WRONG! People are perfectly free to follow you in public. Later on, that COULD be construed as stalking, but then you have to get into perceived intent, etc.

And frankly, I don't believe Zimmerman is a creepy - ass, scary dude. He's a lot more like the Pillsbury doughboy.

Or when Martin decided to fight in earnest, with both fists swinging.

So your opinion is that Zimmerman murdered a stranger he'd never met before, who had committed no crime. Then he broke his own nose, and slammed his own head into the ground several times, and somehow got the only eye witness, to see Martin on top, punching downward with his fists, into the smaller guy?

Yeah! That makes a lot of sense! :rolleyes:

If you have a private concealed carry license, you can carry a gun. They don't like you to, but it's your right to do so.

Being watched by the neighborhood watch, is not a threat. That's neighborhood watch doing what they're supposed to do.

I didn't say he was IN her house. I understood that he walked over TO her house, and was talking to her outside. Then called her later just before confronting Zimmerman.

I'm not saying Zimmerman is a saint here, but there is no way you can say he committed murder, beyond a reasonable doubt. There simply is not enough evidence to support that, and strong evidence to indicate that Zimmerman was beaten up first, and shot Martin only later, after Martin was slamming his head into the ground.

Those injuries are FACTS, not my theories, or your theories. They tend to show that Zimmerman defended himself.

Of course, Obama can't wait to weight in on this:
Obama: Trayvon Martin could have been me

He wants to just ratchet up the racial hatred, one little bit more. He knows there are already people on the net, calling for Zimmerman to be killed, ASAP.

He couldn't care less.