Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Saturday, July 13, 2013

George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty of Murdering Trayvon Martin

Posted by on Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 7:20 PM

What. The. Fuck.

George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who fatally shot an unarmed black teenager, igniting a national debate on racial profiling and civil rights, was found not guilty on Saturday of the second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin. He also was acquitted of manslaughter, a lesser charge.








 

Comments (175) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
raindrop 1
Respect the verdict and move on.
Posted by raindrop on July 13, 2013 at 7:26 PM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 2
I hate to say it, but I'm not surprised.
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://www.danlangdon.com on July 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM · Report this
3
How is that possible?
Posted by peacocktweets on July 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 4
And contrary to what Raindrop says, I hope they don't "respect the verdict". I hope they burn the place down. Absolutely shameful.
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://www.danlangdon.com on July 13, 2013 at 7:28 PM · Report this
5
And the 21st century has our Emmett Till.
Posted by Smartypants on July 13, 2013 at 7:29 PM · Report this
deadrose 6
It seems the laws were written to make it almost impossible to find someone guilty (unless of course they're black). Rather like the laws here that make it almost impossible to find a cop guilty when they shoot unarmed civilians.

Repeat after me, "I was afraid for my life". Now you can get away with murder.
Posted by deadrose on July 13, 2013 at 7:29 PM · Report this
MacCrocodile 7
@4 - By "the place" I assume you mean Florida, because that place has had it coming a long time now.
Posted by MacCrocodile http://maccrocodile.com/ on July 13, 2013 at 7:33 PM · Report this
keshmeshi 8
@6,

Even that psycho guy who beheaded his neighbor post-murder claimed self-defense and got away with it. So I guess I'm not surprised. Disappointed, yes. Surprised, no.
Posted by keshmeshi on July 13, 2013 at 7:33 PM · Report this
9
Headlines: "Florida jury declares open season on people you don't like."

Posted by TechBear on July 13, 2013 at 7:35 PM · Report this
10
@ 6 You mean like OJ? I am not pleased here but lets not overreact.
Posted by Seattle14 on July 13, 2013 at 7:39 PM · Report this
treefort 11
That is entirely fucked up. It's like the 1940's again. Fuck....
Posted by treefort on July 13, 2013 at 7:39 PM · Report this
MacCrocodile 12
@10 - That was California, and he was famous. Not the best comparison.
Posted by MacCrocodile http://maccrocodile.com/ on July 13, 2013 at 7:50 PM · Report this
Doctor Memory 13
Disappointed, but basically not surprised. Florida, with malice aforethought, wrote themselves a loophole in their murder laws that you could drive a mack truck through. Unsurprisingly, someone did.
Posted by Doctor Memory http://blahg.blank.org on July 13, 2013 at 7:52 PM · Report this
Simone 14
I'm not surprised. This is Florida after all.
Posted by Simone on July 13, 2013 at 7:53 PM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 15
1, That's precisely what the conservatives did after Obama was elected, both times. They respected the will of the people and moved on.

Yep.

Sure did.
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on July 13, 2013 at 7:54 PM · Report this
16
@ 12 Still a black man, yes a celebrity but if he was a black celebrity in the 1960s you think he gets off then. And its not like white men are always acquitted. With Emmett Till we knew it was racism, hell his murderers said as much. But here while it may feel like racism we don't know for sure. Not saying it isn't just we don't no for sure.
Posted by Seattle14 on July 13, 2013 at 7:54 PM · Report this
MacCrocodile 17
@16 - Oh, you're right. Absolutes aren't useful here, so I guess racism must be over, after all.
Posted by MacCrocodile http://maccrocodile.com/ on July 13, 2013 at 7:59 PM · Report this
18
“Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder."
— Syreeta McFadden
Posted by mirepoix on July 13, 2013 at 8:02 PM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 19
Seattle14 dear, leave race out of it for a moment. Zimmerman stalked an innocent person, and killed him. Even if Treyvon fought back - which is very much in doubt - Zimmerman bought that fight upon himself.

Ironically, if it is true that Treyvon Martin fought back, then it is Treyvon who stood his ground.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://www.danlangdon.com on July 13, 2013 at 8:03 PM · Report this
Phoebe in Wallingford 20
@15: A jury trial is not about who's the better candidate as an election is not about the verdict that is reached by a jury.
Posted by Phoebe in Wallingford on July 13, 2013 at 8:08 PM · Report this
21
@ 17 I never said that we still have racism, but can we be 100% sure it was racism in this case.

@19 We can't go off feelings we need to look at the evidence, and in this case the jury had reasonable doubt that self defense was not justified. If you want to be mad, be mad at the state for not meeting their burden.
Posted by Seattle14 on July 13, 2013 at 8:16 PM · Report this
22
@19 Catalina, that's exactly what I was thinking, thank you.
Posted by Erica Tarrant on July 13, 2013 at 8:16 PM · Report this
raindrop 23
What is it with this twitter feed from a self-appointed PC Angie Dickenson? At least the Kardashians had the good sense to name their kid 'North' instead of 'Lindy'.
Posted by raindrop on July 13, 2013 at 8:18 PM · Report this
24
I'm not saying (and don't think) the verdict is right, but is anyone surprised? And if you are, have you ever been to America?
Posted by MRM on July 13, 2013 at 8:19 PM · Report this
gttrgst 25
Trayvon Martin's lawyers were state prosecutors, so it shouldn't be surprising if they sandbagged the job.
Posted by gttrgst on July 13, 2013 at 8:24 PM · Report this
Purocuyu 26
Yes, I'm An Evil, Evil Man, BuT I Hope Everywhere Zimmerman Goes For The Rest Of His Life, Black men Get In His Way, And Stand Their Own Ground. He Deserves No Less.
Posted by Purocuyu http://littlevictorygarden.tumblr.com on July 13, 2013 at 8:26 PM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 27
This is a travesty. Seriously Florida, wtf? How is this okay?

@23 - Raindrop doesn't like Lindy? That's a pretty awesome endorsement of her talent and insight considering.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on July 13, 2013 at 8:38 PM · Report this
28
@1, You're probably not black

@4, +100

Stand your Ground is a defacto black code. Any white or non-black person that feels threatened by the presence of a black person has license to shoot to kill that black person without fear of repercussion
Posted by neo-realist on July 13, 2013 at 8:43 PM · Report this
TomJohnsonJr 29
On a gorgeous summer evening, the shittiest result possible. Fuck.
Posted by TomJohnsonJr on July 13, 2013 at 8:45 PM · Report this
30
And, as a byproduct of the FLA statutes, the Martin family has no recourse in state courts for civil damages. That part is even more fucked up.
Posted by Action Slacks on July 13, 2013 at 8:50 PM · Report this
christianflkr 31
god knows how many times I've wanted to shoot an unarmed 17 year old and get away with it. Thanks Flori-DUH!
Posted by christianflkr on July 13, 2013 at 8:50 PM · Report this
dnt trust me 32
@27
ya know, I really do hope, and I'm terribly guilty of it, that this is my last namecalling. Namecalling is such a great Slog tradition, fostered by our dear Slog Authors, but I have to stop. so let me put it this way, can someone else just shout "IDIOT" into Lindy West's face?
Posted by dnt trust me on July 13, 2013 at 8:58 PM · Report this
33
I cannot believe this happened. I'm shocked.
Posted by BallardBoy on July 13, 2013 at 9:04 PM · Report this
Tacoma Traveler 34
When does the riot start?
Posted by Tacoma Traveler on July 13, 2013 at 9:04 PM · Report this
35
I hope everyone knows that even though Zimmerman has been found not guilty George Zimmerman's life is never going to be the same. He will not be able to live where he is. He'll likely change his appearance, move and even perhaps change his name. Zimmerman did not escape from this unharmed. Of course non of this would have happened if he would have minded his own damned business and did what his superiors asked him to do and that is to wait for law enforcement. He thought he was a hot shot and could do as he wanted. He will pay for this.
Posted by Weekilter on July 13, 2013 at 9:06 PM · Report this
36
Maybe now somebody will shoot Zimmerman. In self-defense, of course. Perfectly justified.
Posted by GermanSausage on July 13, 2013 at 9:14 PM · Report this
Frank Blethen's vodka distiller 37
Standing your ground only applies to white people in Florida.
Posted by Frank Blethen's vodka distiller on July 13, 2013 at 9:16 PM · Report this
seatackled 38
I want Martin's family to hire the lawyer that the Goldman's used to sue O. J. Simpson.
Posted by seatackled on July 13, 2013 at 9:30 PM · Report this
scary tyler moore 39
there is a vigil going on right on at Cal Anderson park.
Posted by scary tyler moore http://pushymcshove.blogspot.com/ on July 13, 2013 at 9:35 PM · Report this
antiuser 40
Stop calling him a neighbourhood watch volunteer. He was not a member of any registered neighbourhood watch groups, and even if he was, he broke two of the major rules set by the National Sheriffs Association for neighbourhood watch groups: never carry any weapons and never follow or confront suspicious persons. Zimmerman is a vigilante and a wannabe cop, who caused a confrontation by stalking Martin when he should have stayed in his car talking to the cops.
Posted by antiuser http://antiuser.org on July 13, 2013 at 9:47 PM · Report this
42
@35, you may be a believer in karma but it isn't a logical belief. George Zimmerman's life will be just fine from now on, especially if he stays in Florida.
Posted by sarah70 on July 13, 2013 at 9:55 PM · Report this
seatackled 43
Whether he stays in Florida or not, he'll get in trouble again.
Posted by seatackled on July 13, 2013 at 10:00 PM · Report this
44
I was going to say how I'm not that surprised (well, actually, a little) and how this is basically legalized murder of unarmed black teen boys, because all black teen boys are dangerous, aggressive gang members, and how Trayvon would have been headed to death row if he'd had a gun that night and had stood his ground against Zimmerman.

Instead, though I'll quote these two opening paragraphs from a year-old CBS story that was brought up on Twitter:

"(CBS News) JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A Florida woman who fired warning shots against her allegedly abusive husband has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.

"Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville had said the state's 'Stand Your Ground' law should apply to her because she was defending herself against her allegedly abusive husband when she fired warning shots inside her home in August 2010. She told police it was to escape a brutal beating by her husband, against whom she had already taken out a protective order."

She has a young teen daughter. Twenty years in the slammer for her. So I guess Stand Your Ground doesn't work for everybody, even if you're about to get beat up by your abusive partner or ex. Maybe it depends on who you're shooting?

Really, who are you allowed to shoot?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-5743…

Posted by floater on July 13, 2013 at 10:12 PM · Report this
Fnarf 45
What a disaster. I hope this stains you, Florida.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on July 13, 2013 at 10:23 PM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 46
@32 - No, but it's awesome you don't like Lindy either.

Also, why would you of all people ever give up name calling? Your comments would have to be more than masturbatory fantasies for your Stranger/Slog hate-on. And if you couldn't publically stroke yourself into a blustering tizzy over stuff posted on Slog, what would your purpose in life be?
Posted by Pridge Wessea on July 13, 2013 at 10:25 PM · Report this
47
As for the people who loved Trayvon, all I can say is suck it up, swallow this and move on. Life sucks, sometimes specially if you're part of a mostly lower class minority. It's way, way easier to beat up on them. And racism in 2013 America is definitely very real.
Posted by floater on July 13, 2013 at 10:25 PM · Report this
Fnarf 48
@28, and the converse: if you are black in Florida you can't use Stand Your Ground as a defense. Remember Marissa Alexander, who is now serving a 20 year sentence for firing a warning shot into the wall when her husband violently attacked her.

Stand Your Ground means "it's OK to shoot black people". Period.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on July 13, 2013 at 10:26 PM · Report this
johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt 49
Old George will get a nice book deal and maybe a movie deal. He'll most probably get a Fox News gig as well. Lets not kid ourselves about his new earning potential.
Posted by johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt on July 13, 2013 at 10:45 PM · Report this
refusetofear 50
Apparently Florida's so called "Stand Your Ground" doesn't work for black women. Huff Post just posted a story about a black woman who was sentenced to 20 years for simply firing warning shots against her attacker. The fact that he was her husband must be the problem. Florida has got to be one of the worst states in the country for this kind of crap. It seems to an outsider that if you're black in Florida, your guilty of something.
Posted by refusetofear on July 13, 2013 at 10:48 PM · Report this
51
Chuck D on Twitter:

"MichaelVick went to prison for killing dogs,Zimmerman was let free after killing a blackman.All we need to know about the USA justice system"
Posted by floater on July 13, 2013 at 11:00 PM · Report this
52
It is interesting that the same liberal leaders and SLOG journalists, who used every ounce of political muscle to promote ME, have had little or nothing to say about this case.

I mean where is our inevitable madam President Hillary on this?
It seems The Coalition doesn't help its members unless there is something in it for them.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on July 13, 2013 at 11:07 PM · Report this
dnt trust me 53
@46

What to say. You raise some good points. Aside from name calling, I make some ok comments, I believe. I've told jokes and puns on Slog, I once thanked commenter "rob!" (Where has he been?) for providing a link about the early scaly bodies of dinosaurs. But it's true, the masturbatory fantasies and the flustering tizzy you speak of is close to home. If you don't mind, could you suggest a few healthier ways to fantasize masturbatorily? You don't have to share your own personal preference, TMI. Thanks for your input.
Posted by dnt trust me on July 13, 2013 at 11:09 PM · Report this
Reverse Polarity 54
What a fucking disgrace. Florida's legal system is a travesty. A black boy armed with Skittles is dead and a racist coward with a gun walks free. Disgusting.
Posted by Reverse Polarity on July 13, 2013 at 11:19 PM · Report this
ScrawnyKayaker 55
How much suck would a headline suck if a headline could suck suck?

About as much as this one. [head-desk]
Posted by ScrawnyKayaker on July 13, 2013 at 11:31 PM · Report this
56
I don't really disagree with the verdict. The prosecution was working with shoddy police work and a crafty murderer. Reasonable doubt was not exceeded and the jury did their job.

I think Zimmerman successfully abused a really, really shitty law--that he was proven to have studied--and a top-to-bottom racist justice system. The parallel with Marissa Alexander's miscarriage of justice makes it all a fucking travesty.
Posted by Lumpmoose on July 13, 2013 at 11:48 PM · Report this
57
Given Florida's barbaric, radical and anti civil society "Stand your ground" law, this verdict is no surprise.

That American Conservatives eagerly preen, and crow, about spilling blood all over a centuries long trudge towards civil society, choosing to instead embrace anarchy, is no surprise. After all what is Conservative thought in the US today if not anarchy of the individual over the State?

That Zimmerman was even out there that night claiming a right to commit violence in the name of the State is a collapse of the conservative State.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on July 13, 2013 at 11:55 PM · Report this
Lew Siffer 58
He wasn't guilty of defending himself, but guilty of putting himself forcefully into a situation requiring violence to defend himself. Legally I guess that means innocent. Sort of surprised.
Posted by Lew Siffer on July 13, 2013 at 11:55 PM · Report this
59
Did NOBODY see how terrible the State's witnesses are? This isn't a backwards Florida law or a backwards Florida jury, it's the prosecution failing to meet its burden of proof. Even without the crazy version of no-retreat that FL has, when a defendant raises a self-defense argument, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting with reasonable force to violence or the threat of violence. The fact that Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin without any good reason doesn't make him the first aggressor. The government doesn't get to put someone in a cage just because we think he's a racist asshole.

If the two men switched places, it's a lot more likely that Trayvon Martin would have been found guilty on the same evidence than George Zimmerman. That's racist. That's unjust. But it doesn't mean that the outcome in this case was wrong, or that the jury did a bad job, or that the laws themselves are racist. Black men and women are staggeringly more often the victim of juries who go with their horrible, irrational gut instinct instead of considering the evidence as presented in the case. Harping about this one undesirable outcome only dilutes the real problems in our criminal justice system, which are the result of unfair processes.
Posted by Angry Sam on July 14, 2013 at 12:21 AM · Report this
60
1) I've been to Sanford, FL before, and my partner actually lived (and owned a house) there for some time. That part of Florida has some serious racial problems. Pretty openly, evenly aggressively prejudiced whites and blacks forced to live side by side. So yes, there's absolutely a racial dimension to this case.

That being said,

2) If you want change, I'd focus on the "stand your ground" law. It encourages the kind of behavior Zimmerman engaged in.

And don't bother telling Floridians that you don't like the law. Tell Disney, tell Universal Studios, tell the theme parks and tourist traps how much you'd love to visit their attractions, but gosh, Florida just sounds way too dangerous what with all the "stand your ground" vigilantes. And that you'll be vacationing somewhere safer instead.
Posted by Corydon on July 14, 2013 at 12:54 AM · Report this
61
@59, "Black men and women are staggeringly more often the victim of juries who go with their horrible, irrational gut instinct instead of considering the evidence as presented in the case. "

That's what happened here. A kid with a bag of candy doing nothing but walking home was approached by a man with a gun who was told "not to persue". A kid with a bag of candy apparently tried to defend himself (standing his ground?) against a person with a weapon and was killed. The fact that if the shoe was on the other foot that Trayvon would have gone to jail is indicative of a bigger problem in America of black teens being perceived by non blacks as less than human and very disposable, particularly a community as conservative, pro gun, pro stand your ground and RACIST as Sanford FL.
Posted by neo-realist on July 14, 2013 at 1:06 AM · Report this
62
@59, Black men and women are staggeringly more often the victim of juries who go with their horrible, irrational gut instinct instead of considering the evidence as presented in the case.

That is just what happened in this case. He shot a black kid minding his own business with nothing more than a bag of candy; a kid he was told "not to persue". A kid who may have tried to defend his unarmed self against a gunman (Standing his ground?). The view you expressed that if the shoe was on the other foot then Trayvon would have gone to jail is very indicative of a broader problem in America of black teens being perceived by non-blacks as being worthless, particularly in a conservative, pro gun, pro stand your ground and RACIST town such as Sanford, FL.
Posted by neo-realist on July 14, 2013 at 1:18 AM · Report this
63
#56

I agree! The jury was correct in that the appropriate charge was neither 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, but 1st degree (premeditated) killing.

Zimmerman studied, prepared and trained for the day he could stalk and slay a victim with impunity. He crafted the perfect crime with the assistance of cooperative racists who he cozened up to a year in advance.

He was a hunter who awaited his prey in his SUV until Trayvon Martin came stumbling along like a gazelle in the path of a cheetah. He stalked and slayed, and when giving a statement recounted not just the event, but the whole entire plan from enlisting himself in neighborhood watch, to his list of unsubstantiated 911 calls to the eventual real kill.

Zimmerman is a psychopath, not a racist. But he set himself up as the pivot between racists and people who thought this was a case about race. It was, but not the killing -- the justification!

In that sense there is one winner, Zimmerman, who is the Last Man Standing, by dint of playing half the country against the other half and walking away unscathed after killing a kid.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on July 14, 2013 at 1:41 AM · Report this
64
All white jury
Posted by bleepinbleep on July 14, 2013 at 2:48 AM · Report this
venomlash 65
It makes me a bad person for wishing this, but I hope someone shoots Zimmerman, and let the dead bury the dead.
Posted by venomlash on July 14, 2013 at 3:13 AM · Report this
66
As other have mentioned, Florida's selective application of "stand your ground," as shown in the comparison between this ruling and the wrongful conviction of Marissa Alexander, demonstrates that this is no law, but a license for certain people to be able to pass lethal judgment on others on a whim. Florida is unfit to be a state.
Posted by MemeGene on July 14, 2013 at 4:09 AM · Report this
Paul Pearson 67
@1: "Respect the verdict and move on."

No. There is nothing about this verdict that's respectable. What you are saying is that it's okay to instigate a completely unnecessary skirmish with a boy who was minding his own business. There is no way you can respect that verdict unless you are a fucking idiot, or have your finger on the trigger of your gun-slash-love-object anytime you see someone a shade darker than you who has the nerve to walk in your neighborhood bearing a sinister bag of Skittles and lethal doses of iced tea.

"Move on?" Fuck you. We've just moved backwards.
Posted by Paul Pearson on July 14, 2013 at 4:33 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 68
Just a couple of odds and ends here.

1. The law is not about "justice." It's about proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't know about you guys, but I wasn't there when this came down. I've still got one hell of a lot of doubt about what happened. So did the jury. Based on that, they did the right thing.

2. Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law was not even used as a defense in this case. They (correctly) felt they could win without it. Stop bringing it up as an "excuse" for why this happened — it's irrelevant.

3. Marissa Alexander left the scene, went to her car to get a gun, and then returned to shoot the guy. If that's not premeditated murder, nothing is. Sorry, that one's a fail.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on July 14, 2013 at 4:48 AM · Report this
Paul Pearson 69
@42: "As for the people who loved Trayvon, all I can say is suck it up, swallow this and move on. Life sucks, sometimes specially if you're part of a mostly lower class minority."

Why do I get this feeling that you love playing hackey sack and albums by Sublime?

If you loved Trayvon, then "suck it up"? Like it's a fucking smoothie? Is that what you're saying?

Maybe this is off-topic, but which character do you identify with more: Bill or Ted?
Posted by Paul Pearson on July 14, 2013 at 4:57 AM · Report this
70
I guess none of the Slog commenters have been potential jurors on a murder trial. As the judges always state, the accused is presumed innocent. It is the state's responsibility to show that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If they fail to do so, then the verdict must be not guilty.
Posted by WestSeven on July 14, 2013 at 5:16 AM · Report this
Paul Pearson 71
@70 - I understand the reasonable doubt part. I understand the state didn't make its case. I guess it just hurts too much for me. The implications scare me. Zimmerman made a decision to stalk a guy. He went hunting. He created the conflict, he pursued it, he orchestrated it. He's an enemy of the state.

I appreciate your points but this was still a miscarriage of justice. Zimmerman was found not guilty. That does not mean he's innocent.
Posted by Paul Pearson on July 14, 2013 at 5:26 AM · Report this
Paul Pearson 72
Oh, oh, @42 again: "Life sucks, sometimes specially if you're part of a mostly lower class minority."

Yeah. You got any plans to change that, motherfucker? You have any desire to change that? Or are you just complacent and happy with how lucky you've had it?

"Life sucks." Fucking moron. Make life suck less.
Posted by Paul Pearson on July 14, 2013 at 5:31 AM · Report this
Paul Pearson 73
All my comments directed at @42 should have been directed at @47. Sorry. I'm blind with rage.
Posted by Paul Pearson on July 14, 2013 at 5:34 AM · Report this
Paul Pearson 74
But last thing, at @47 (correctly) now: "Racism is real."

Yep. It is. Got any strategies to change it? Stop "floating" and make a difference.
Posted by Paul Pearson on July 14, 2013 at 5:37 AM · Report this
75
I was almost certain the jury was going to hand down the manslaughter conviction. I thought the prosecution proved at least that much. This was jury nullification.

@45 Indeed. Very much indeed.

@36 @65 If I saw Zimmerman, I'd be afraid for my life. I would, really. So should everyone.

I don't suppose there's a federal criminal case here? For violating Martin's civil rights, or something? Or are the Feds cowed by the NRA?
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on July 14, 2013 at 5:38 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 76
@75, yes, the feds could file a case for violation of TM's civil rights. That's what Al Sharpton is agitating for right now. But let's get real here — if you think Al Sharpton is ever making sense about anything, you need to reconsider your position.

No, the feds probably won't file anything, and not because of the NRA. Sheesh, where do you get these ideas? No, they won't file anything because their case would be just as shitty as the one that has already been shot down in state court.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on July 14, 2013 at 5:53 AM · Report this
77
The big takeaway from this might be that if you have the money to hire the best defense attorneys, they'll likely outclass and run rings around the local prosecutors employed by some small city. Even if a locality had the money, and even if prosecutors-for-hire existed, I wonder if the law would even allow them to hire someone to handle a case.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on July 14, 2013 at 5:59 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 78
Unless you feel that Zimmerman broke his own nose, then gashed up the back of his own head, and paid off several witnesses he never knew, I am not sure how you can declare beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not protected under "Stand your Ground," a law fraught with problems.

The prosecution never had a case, and never presented one. They were doomed from day one, and anyone with half a brain saw it coming.

It certainly is not Justice in a Platonic sense, but unless you decide that the rights of the accused are bullshit if the accused is hated enough, then you have to chalk this one up to preserving those rights, and hope that the asshole gets the pants sued off of him.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on July 14, 2013 at 6:18 AM · Report this
delirian 79
@65: Yes, you are a bad person for suggesting this. Vigilantism is orders of magnitude more damaging than occasionally letting the guilty go free. And vigilantism kills not only the guilty, but shitloads of the innocent. Your failure to acknowledge this fact means that you are not qualified to have a discussion on crime and punishment with the rest of the grown ups. It is ironic that you would suggest vigilantism to ensure justice for a black man when exactly that thing led to the deaths of thousands of innocent black men in this country. Unless you have some phenomenal argument on how the latter was justified, I would ask you to kindly fuck off.
Posted by delirian on July 14, 2013 at 6:39 AM · Report this
80
@60, I am very familiar with Sanford too and I knew the day I heard about this murder and where it happened that that fat coward would get off scott free. I never for a single minute believed the women picked for that jury would do anything but let him off. Central Florida (and all of the South for that matter) is a horrible, backward place.
Posted by Jersey on July 14, 2013 at 6:54 AM · Report this
81
I knew he'd get off but I also know a couple other things about this case. I knew there would be no riots, black people are not in the same position politico-socially as when the Rodney King trail took place. We have a black president now, people know that change is possible via political avenues now. Also I am willing to bet that after this travesty we're going to see minorities seriously make demands and effectively mobilize to change this draconian shift backwards. I also know the minority population will win.
Posted by Jersey on July 14, 2013 at 7:16 AM · Report this
Dr. Z 82
The sympathies of the LGBT community as a whole are with the African American community now. Lesbians and gays understand how it feels for the murder victim to be put on trial, and for the killer to go free. That the killer was found "not guilty" rather than "innocent" (as Zimmerman's brother has been braying) is no comfort at all.

Someone should write a play putting the jury on trial for racism. Nothing will bring Trayvon back but that at least would make the injustice visible, and would be a more constructive option than riots or more vigalante violence.
Posted by Dr. Z on July 14, 2013 at 7:41 AM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 83
I think the "beyond a reasonable doubt" argument is just something for the racists to repeat to make them feel smart.

Take the color out of this: Martin was committing no crime at the time of this altercation. He was stalked by Zimmerman. Either he attacked Zimmerman in self-defense, or Zimmerman attacked him, but the point is Martib wasn't doing anything but walking. Zimmerman was the instigator. That is the only thing we know "beyond a reasonable doubt"
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://www.danlangdon.com on July 14, 2013 at 8:21 AM · Report this
Clara T 84
#81 give it a little time the riots still have a fighting chance
Posted by Clara T on July 14, 2013 at 8:28 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 85
You're correct, Catalina. That's the only thing we know beyond a doubt. And that, alone, is not enough for a conviction. Except in your mind.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on July 14, 2013 at 8:54 AM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 86
So I could decide to follow you in one of your unarmed moments, 5280 dear, pick a fight with you, and then kill you, and say it was self-defense?

Don't worry, I won't do it. Slog wouldn't be the same without you. Besides, me + a firearm = ridiculous.
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://www.danlangdon.com on July 14, 2013 at 9:01 AM · Report this
87
@83: The fact that Zimmerman likely profiled Martin doesn't make him a murderer. The fact that he followed Martin for no good reason, despite the 911 operator's instructions, doesn't make him a murderer. Even confronting Martin wouldn't have made him a murderer. The jury wasn't convinced that Zimmerman was the first person to act violently, and that's why he was found not guilty.

But yeah, go ahead and write people off as racist for thinking that the government shouldn't get to put a man in prison based on a gut feeling we get from reading the news. That's a lot easier and probably more satisfying. And don't forget to tune in to the Nancy Grace show!
Posted by Angry Sam on July 14, 2013 at 9:04 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 88
Um, I don't have any unarmed moments. But yes, if you were reasonably in fear for your life, that would be legal.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on July 14, 2013 at 9:04 AM · Report this
89
@ Paul Pearson:

Bill.

Actually, I've never seen the movie, and I'm not coordinated enough to play hackey sack. I do like Sublime, though.

I do find it amusing that you think I've been "lucky" in life. That one's pretty funny. Well, I have perfect health and I'm fairly good looking (ha!), so maybe I have been "lucky" in life. You can't put a price on good health!

As for leaving it to me to change the ills of the world (such a noble thought), let me turn it back on you. What are YOU doing to eliminate racism? What are your plans for changing human nature? Hmm... Sign me up when you get your campaign going.
Posted by floater on July 14, 2013 at 9:19 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 90
"Police in Sanford, meanwhile, said they will return the Kel-Tec 9mm pistol used to kill Trayvon Martin to George Zimmerman."

— The Christian Science Monitor
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on July 14, 2013 at 9:21 AM · Report this
91
@87, I just want to say that considering the facts of the case and the politics and culture of Sanford, this was not a nice, neat and sterile judgement of facts; You can't divorce the real possibility that the jurors, particularly after reading about the experiences of others who been in and lived in Sanford, brought their conservative and racist political and cultural baggage to their decision.
Posted by neo-realist on July 14, 2013 at 9:33 AM · Report this
blip 92
@90, I know decency is a constant struggle for you, but this is one of those times when it would be really nice if you could try to muster some. Put your phone down and go shoot something, please.
Posted by blip on July 14, 2013 at 9:40 AM · Report this
93
It's Jury Selection, Jury Selection, Jury Selection

I don't mean to sound as if I'm parsing here, but the truth of the matter in these high profile cases, and various insurance-involved cases (malpractice suits, etc.), is that much money and effort goes into precision jury selection.

When I heard the make-up of the jury, all women, all mothers, I feared that Zimmerman would be found not guilty; it seemed the greatest probability given their jury selection.

Personally speaking, the one and only time I finally made it to the point of jury selection (it was a medical malpractice lawsuit, and the majority of the jury members had been selected, but the attorneys were planning on excluding several, so the largest pool of jurors was brought in for voir dire, thirty in all, with the least likely to be selected at the very end of the line, which naturally meant I was number thirty juror possibility [never chosen, 'natch] --- being at the end afforded me the position of being next to the four Jury Selection Consultants [three men and one woman] and overhearing their whispered remarks --- said remarks pointing to the targeting of the blandest people possible, those most likely to never have questioned the status quo!).

Had this been in earlier times, but in the present tense, and a random cross section of that town been chosen, in all probability Zimmerman would have been justifiably convicted, as he should have been!

Now Zimmerman can pick up and his gun, and no doubt in the future make another attempt against an innocent victim.

Perhaps, like Ernesto Miranda (he of the Mirandizing or Miranda Warning), eventually his karma will catch up with him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_wa…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v.…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Mi…

More...
Posted by sgt_doom on July 14, 2013 at 9:44 AM · Report this
94
@91: It's more or less impossible to tell how a jury arrived at a verdict, and racial bias is always a real concern (usually more for a defendant than the State). What I object to is people who decide that the *only* way the jury could have reached this verdict is if it had the same racial bias Zimmerman seemed to have.

Only two people knew who took the first violent action: Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. The prosecution had an uphill battle from the start for this very reason. While it's possible that the jury was motivated by racial bias, it's also not ridiculous to suggest that an actually impartial jury would have come to the same conclusion.
Posted by Angry Sam on July 14, 2013 at 9:55 AM · Report this
95
Of what people?
By what people?
For what people?
Posted by MikeBoyScout on July 14, 2013 at 10:19 AM · Report this
monkey 96
Civil suit time. Wreck the fucker's life.
Posted by monkey on July 14, 2013 at 10:39 AM · Report this
97
@96 Arguably not on the table. FL law also provides shelter from civil cases.

Ref: FL 776.032
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/inde…
Posted by Action Slacks on July 14, 2013 at 11:01 AM · Report this
beelzebufo 98
I live in one of the whitest and racist states in the country, and even I know:
that verdict is fucked up.
Posted by beelzebufo on July 14, 2013 at 11:06 AM · Report this
venomlash 99
@68: Um, not remotely. She was in the garage and had the gun in her hand. When her husband saw the gun, he threatened to kill her. There was no space between her feeling threatened and firing the shot.
But you know why it's not premeditated murder in her case? BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T SHOOT THE BASTARD. And given that the warning shot went into the ceiling and nowhere near him, you'd have a tough time even making a case for attempted murder.
Posted by venomlash on July 14, 2013 at 11:07 AM · Report this
100
Compare & contrast the Brereton/Salters encounter, in downtown Seattle.

An apparently intoxicated man, of mixed race but 'black' by prevailing social convention, picks an argument with a woman on a bus. The exchange escalates, her party exits, flips him off, he then exits and approaches her in anger, she produces a concealed handgun and shoots him in the chest (Nicked in the aorta, but he recovers.) She is taken into custody but not charged - and becomes the celebrated party in this incident by consensus of the Slog.
Posted by RonK, Seattle on July 14, 2013 at 11:59 AM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 101
When did that happen?
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://www.danlangdon.com on July 14, 2013 at 12:13 PM · Report this
kitschnsync 102
Wow, some serious ego gymnastics from Lindy West there. Yeah, the Zimmerman verdict is totally all about validating her. Mmmhmm.
Posted by kitschnsync on July 14, 2013 at 12:16 PM · Report this
YLB 103
There's a lot of crazy talk in this thread. Zimmerman's a bit of a dumbass, wannabe cop ok but that doesn't make him a premeditated murderer. The gated community where the altercation occurred had had many break-ins and home invasions. Zimmerman and his wife's actions led to one kid who committed a home invasion being put away for five years. The neighbors weren't going to say bad things about Zimmerman.

The prosecution was botched big time. I don't get how they expected to sell second degree murder to a jury. A lesser charge of manslaughter was in the cards but Zimmerman would have probably skipped on that as well. All evidence presented, as thin as it was, supported self defense on the part of Zimmerman.

It's a tragedy. We're all supposed to feel bad about this. But hanging a dumbass out to dry in a show trial is bad too and intolerable.
Posted by YLB on July 14, 2013 at 12:18 PM · Report this
104
Don't feel too superior about Florida and its stand your ground law. Washington State has the exact same doctrine, by common law instead of by statute. Washington calls it "no duty to retreat," but functionally it is pretty much identical (minus perhaps some procedural differences--I understand Florida might require a pretrial hearing on the issue).

Makes sense to me. If some bully says "I am going to kick your ass" and starts walking toward me, I don't understand why I should be legally required to run away instead of fighting back. (No duty to retreat applies to all self-defense situations, not just lethal force; I believe stand your ground is the same.)

In the recent conversation on Slog about street harassment of women, a woman recounted an anecdote about hitting a guy in the dick after he repeatedly groped her in a bar. Without "no duty to retreat," she is going to jail unless she can prove that she could not have gotten away.

Too many people think of stand your ground as something that empowers bullies. I'd argue it empowers people to resist bullies. And taking it away would empower police and prosecutors at the expense of everyone else.
Posted by Adversary on July 14, 2013 at 12:39 PM · Report this
105
@armchair quarterbacks re Zimmerman.

Here's a guess. You weren't there the night a young man lost his life so you don't know what happened.

Here's another. Not one of you was a juror in Zimmerman's trial, so you don't even have the evidence they reviewed in coming to their verdict.

Oh, and you have another shooting incident of whose facts you're also ignorant for comparison.

So what you do have is a trial by press in which you've come to all sorts of ill educated conclusions based on your own biases.

Nobody is asking you to like the guy or approve of anything he did that night, just to allow him the same benefit of doubt you'd demand under similar circumstances.

Oh, and you can drop both the bs racism arguments, which the prosecution itself stated wasn't an issue and the bogus 'stand your ground' arguments which the defense didn't raise.

Posted by Seattleblues on July 14, 2013 at 2:29 PM · Report this
106
The most depressing thing to me about this entire spectacle has been that no one in the media seems to even bother raising the most obvious lesson of the tragedy: Zimmerman should not have been carrying a gun. All other factors, what Zimmerman did, what Martin did, whether racism was a factor, are all moot if Zimmerman does not have the power to kill in his nervous little hands. But alas, the last thing we can have is any questions about concealed carry laws. After all the whole point of those laws is so that paranoid amateurs like Zimmerman can go around playing Batman.
Posted by matt! on July 14, 2013 at 3:11 PM · Report this
107
@105, the jury instructions for justifiable use of deadly force include the stand your ground language. So, it is hardly a bogus issue. Dig:

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
Posted by California on July 14, 2013 at 3:39 PM · Report this
108
Once again we have a failure of the language used by our legal system. The jury didn't actually find that Zimmerman was innocent of murder or manslaughter. They found that there was a reasonable doubt and that there was insufficient evidence to convict. The jury has to limit themselves to what was presented at trial.

Zimmerman undoubtedly created the situation that led to Trayvon's death. If the prosecution had focused on manslaughter, they might have maybe been able to get a conviction, but even that was probably a long reach, sadly.

If Zimmerman had stayed in his damned car like the dispatcher told him, Trayvon would still be alive today. I can hope that haunts him for the rest of his life. Unfortunately, it's hard to charge someone with that, especially in Florida.
Posted by NotYourStrawMan on July 14, 2013 at 4:26 PM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 109
Like O.J. Simpson, and Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman finds himself not guilty in a court of law, but guilty in the court of public opinion. None of us were at the scene of any of these crimes, so none of us know what happened.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on July 14, 2013 at 4:29 PM · Report this
110
Re the Marissa Alexander case, please note
1) She (not her husband) violated the protective order;

2) She didn't just stand her (then unlawful) ground, but she returned to her car to retrieve her firearm and reentered the house;

3) Her sentence was enhanced 10 + 10 under Florida's unconscionable but inflexible mandatory minimum sentencing laws; and

4) She was run through the system by the same out-of-control, rightwing, hang-'em-from-the-yardarm supervising prosecutor (Angela Corey) who irresponsibly pushed the Zimmerman case to trial.
Posted by RonK, Seattle on July 14, 2013 at 4:49 PM · Report this
111
#109

No we don't know what happened that night, and that is key to a 2nd degree murder or manslaughter charge of this being done in the heat of the moment.

But this isn't a heat of the moment killing.

This is a planned, callous stalk and kill conceived by Zimmerman months in advance.

The error of the prosecution was in focusing in the night in question, which Zimmerman had masterfully disguised as the victim attacking him.

The real murder was set up over a period of months and months. The time in which Zimmerman studied every facet of the law, and became best buddies with police and positioned himself as both hero and victim.

Many nights Zimmerman sat in his car, reporting every black kid who walked down the alley as a potential burglar - even an 8 year old!

This was Murder One. Premeditated. The fight was irrelevant. Zimmerman was hunting kids. And he found one just tall enough, and big enough so no one would question his kill. That is what the jury should have been told.

Zimmerman got away with murder.

And everyone helped.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on July 14, 2013 at 5:10 PM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 112
111, Yeah, that sort of dramatic speech doesn't really do so well in a court of law. You can't really prove any of that, unless you've invented a way of recording his thoughts and intentions and are able to play them back for a jury.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on July 14, 2013 at 6:46 PM · Report this
Rujax! 113
@105...

WHEW!!!

I'm sure glad the outhouse lawyer "lostinhisownasshole" seattleblues weighed in.
Posted by Rujax! http://rujax.blogspot.com/ on July 14, 2013 at 7:48 PM · Report this
Paul Pearson 114
@89 (Bill)

Fair question. I talk with people. I talk with friends, neighbors, and strangers if I'm up for it. I don't have tons of "causes" per se, but the two biggest for me personally are marriage equality and, well, this. Sometimes I write about them. Sometimes I ill-advisedly make drunken comments on pre-existing posts. But basically, I try to have an ongoing conversation.

No, it's not necessarily a labor-intensive act. Yes, sometimes I go on a bit self-righteously. Yes, there are tons of people doing this job better than me. There are tons of people doing better *jobs* than me. Sometimes, like last night, I get so despondent and hopeless about these kinds of events that I don't know what I'm supposed to do. It doesn't feel like anything works or will work again. So all I can do is tenuously hold on to my standards I've placed for my behavior, stop myself when I'm falling too far below them, try to make sense of it, and re-open the lines of communication.

Maybe that's a lame answer, it kind of feels squishy to me in fact. But that's the answer I have. Thanks.

Posted by Paul Pearson on July 14, 2013 at 11:39 PM · Report this
115
The county prosecutor -- any county prosecutor, not just in Florida -- doesn't make much money, nor is there much money for his/her assistants. No county, anywhere in the country, has much money for anything. You don't get expert legal help from poorly-paid governmental attorneys.

The gun lobby, on the other hand, has tremendous financial resources, and the gun lobby is what paid for Zimmerman's defense attorneys.
Posted by sarah70 on July 15, 2013 at 12:04 AM · Report this
lolorhone 116
@78: "Unless you feel that Zimmerman broke his own nose, then gashed up the back of his own head, and paid off several witnesses he never knew, I am not sure how you can declare beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not protected under "Stand your Ground," a law fraught with problems."

If I was pursued by a stranger in a car, who then got out of that car and ran up to me in darkness without identifying himself, without answering the entirely sane question "Why are you following me?" and without any cause outside of profiling, I'd say that any aggressions that I committed should be covered under Stand Your Ground laws, not my stalker's.

This is disgusting.
Posted by lolorhone on July 15, 2013 at 12:49 AM · Report this
117
I'd like to add another similar example to this discussion that bears reflection: Yoshihiro Hattori. He was a Japanese exchange student who was going to a party with his homestay brother in 1992 (in Louisiana). They went to the wrong house, rang the doorbell, then walked back to their car. The owner of the house yelled, "Freeze!" and Hattori misunderstood and greeted him. Hattori was shot and killed. The shooter was acquitted.

It is sad that things do not seem to have changed since then, but this trend has to be stopped.
Posted by MemeGene on July 15, 2013 at 1:19 AM · Report this
Chris in Vancouver WA 118
I know I'll be labeled the next Grand Dragon of the KKK for saying this, but the jury got it right in this case. Trayvon threw the first punch, was banging Zimmerman's head on the concrete, and was saying "I'm gonna kill you". How could the defense find not find him not guilty?

Don't get me wrong, I don't view Zimmerman as a "good guy wronged" in any sense. I find those "neighborhood watch" types pretty creepy (Trayvon called him a "creepy-ass cracker", a better description I couldn't come up with in a million years), but, in this case, I think any reasonable person would, if they were armed, and had a strong young man straddling them and banging their head on the sidewalk, have acted in the same way.

The purpose of the criminal justice system is not to "create a better society" or anything like that. It's just to decide if someone broke the law or not. That's all.
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on July 15, 2013 at 10:48 AM · Report this
119
People are focusing on how "Zimmerman created the situation".
Well, he did in part, but Trayvon Martin also had a part in creating the situation.

If someone is following you,
if someone "profiles" you,
you still DON'T have the right to get violent with them.

All the physical evidence points to Martin starting a fistfight with Zimmerman
- not knowing that Zimmerman was armed.
Zimmerman finished that fight with a gun.

The event was an avoidable tragedy.

Zimmerman could have avoided it by staying in his car
(although he had every right to get out of his car -
this was the neighborhood he lived in
& he had every right to be there,
just as Trayvon did).

Trayvon could have avoided it by NOT THROWING THE FIRST PUNCH.

This verdict was the correct verdict.
Posted by Robby on July 15, 2013 at 12:09 PM · Report this
120
Couldn't the prosecution have gone for reckless endangerment or negligence? Zimmerman got out of his car when the cops told him not to. Isn't that enough to say he was being reckless? (I agree - murder was an over-reach).
Posted by pffft on July 15, 2013 at 1:03 PM · Report this
121
@119 Consider a scenario.

So. You're mom, or wife, or sister, is walking home. It's dark. The streets are deserted. The neighborhood is known for crime. She notices a car following her, it's occupant glaring at her. For blocks.

She decides to shortcut through a side street and a yard. He still follows. Then she see's or hears the occupant get out of his car and begin following her on foot. She yells at him to leave her alone. He doesn't.

She starts to maybe panic seeing that her peruser is much heavier than her and his body language is suggesting hostility. She decides to reach into her purse and make ready Mace or pepper spray, or she prepares herself for some sort of non-lethal self defense - like say a punch to the nuts.

The man then runs toward her yelling aggressively. So she preempts what she assumes is an attack with self-defense action (as anybody who has fought knows the first-est with the most-est usually wins a fight).

She initiates her action and it succeeds on knocking her perceived attacker down. In her fear she yells and screams at him "I'll kill you!."

Her peruser now pulls his gun and shoots you mom, or your wife, or your sister dead.

of course in your world he goes to court. He get's off.

Please tell you mom, your wife or sister that you don't think they have any right to defend themselves or physically resist if they are followed at night by a larger man. And if they do their stalker has the right to KILL them. Because after all it's all about who throws the first punch. Please tell any woman - any VICTIM f crime - this.

Posted by tkc on July 15, 2013 at 1:23 PM · Report this
Chris in Vancouver WA 122
@121 - "Please tell you mom, your wife or sister that you don't think they have any right to defend themselves or physically resist if they are followed at night by a larger man."

Martin was 4 or 5 inches taller than Zimmerman.
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on July 15, 2013 at 1:37 PM · Report this
Chris in Vancouver WA 123
If Zimmerman had been convicted, it would have been the court system saying to all Americans,"sorry folks, you're just going to have to let that guy beat the crap out of you." How is that justice?
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on July 15, 2013 at 1:40 PM · Report this
lolorhone 124
@119, 123: And you know Martin threw the first punch how? And how is a man who stalked a teenager in his car, then on foot, against the instructions of police, without identifying himself, without answering the teenager's question "Why are following me?", and without any reason other than profiling the victim here?
Posted by lolorhone on July 15, 2013 at 1:53 PM · Report this
125
@122

Funny how Martin get's bigger and scarier as time goes on.

No. Martin was THREE inches taller. Zimmerman was thirty pounds heavier.

The morning after the shooting, an autopsy found that Martin's body was 5'11" (1.80 m) long and weighed 158 lb (72 kg).

CITE: http://www.tampabay.com/news/a-review-of…

Where Zimmerman is reported to be 5' 8" and 200lbs.

CITE: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/…

As a former boxer let me tell you if it was possible or legal in the ring to trade reach for mass I'D DO IT EVERY TIME. It's why every combat sport known has weight classes and NOT tallness classes.

If a grown man can't handle a lone 150lb teenager that he out ways by nearly 30lbs then that man is a gigantic pussy who certainly has no business patrolling a neighborhood.

Why is it that every internet tough-guy suddenly immediately goes all pussy and fearful and suddenly turns a punch - that they provoke - into a perfect deadly scenario that justifies shooting somebody?
Posted by tkc on July 15, 2013 at 2:06 PM · Report this
126
@124 - "And you know Martin threw the first punch how?"

I don't know for sure, and neither do you.

Disregarding Zimmerman's story completely,
going ONLY on the physical evidence,
this is what we've got:

Zimmerman has injuries consistent with being beaten on by Martin.
The ONLY injuries on Martin are the gunshot wound
and knuckle abrasions which are consistent with beating on Zimmerman.

If Zimmerman ever threw a punch at all, it didn't land.

@121 - in Florida that might actually be the law. It wouldn't be my preference.
In my preferred world, words are words and violence is violence.
Responding to mere words with violence is wrong.
Posted by Robby on July 15, 2013 at 2:15 PM · Report this
127
@123

it would have been the court system saying to all Americans "sorry folks, you're just going to have to let that guy beat the crap out of you."


No. It would be saying don't let your crocodile mouth pick fights that your hummingbird ass can't handle.

It would also be saying you don't get to cowboy around with a hand gun like it gives you the right to do anything you want to people smaller than you.

This court would also be saying that maybe you should use a bit of diplomacy, tact and guile rather than immediately going to force to handle a what is a non-criminal non-hostile confrontation.

Like. Yelling from you car window "Hey Kid! Hold on a second. Sorry to scare you, man. My name's George. I'm on the neighborhood watch. But there have been burglaries in the neighborhood. You seen anything suspicous?"

Insead of... well, stalking and shooting a kid.
Posted by tkc on July 15, 2013 at 2:18 PM · Report this
128
@126 and none of that would have happened if Zimmerman would have let a kid who was minding his own business go home with his candy and soda instead of provoking a fight.

If self defense applies at all in this case it favors Martin.

Look. If I tell somebody to quit stalking me around a dark deserted neighborhood and they get out of their car and come at me yelling, I am sure as fuck going to try to knock their asses out before they throw a punch. And so would ANY reasonable person.
Posted by tkc on July 15, 2013 at 2:25 PM · Report this
Chris in Vancouver WA 129
@127 - All of that was nullified when Trayvon threw the first punch.
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on July 15, 2013 at 2:26 PM · Report this
130
"No. It would be saying don't let your crocodile mouth pick fights that your hummingbird ass can't handle."

Seems to me that's exactly what the court DID say with this verdict.

Martin started a fight he couldn't finish.
Based on the physical evidence alone,
he was the first to escalate the confrontation to violence.

Posted by Robby on July 15, 2013 at 2:27 PM · Report this
131
Responding to mere words with violence is wrong.


Really? So if somebody stalks your mom in a dark deserted neighborhood and tells her they want to rape and kill her, in your opinion she has no moral authority to use violence - even non-lethal violence?

While I can't see into your heart and know for sure I do know that people who seem to identify with racist policies also see the moral world in the most starkly black and white terms.
Posted by tkc on July 15, 2013 at 2:32 PM · Report this
132

@128 - "none of that would have happened if Zimmerman would have let a kid who was minding his own business go home with his candy and soda instead of provoking a fight."

What physical evidence is there that Zimmerman "provoked a fight"?

He had every right to get out of his car and look around.
This was the neighborhood he lived in.

Posted by Robby on July 15, 2013 at 2:32 PM · Report this
133
Attention Rapists:
Apparently according to Robby and Chris you have carte blanche and a general thumbs up to stalk Robby and Chris's moms and then shoot them when you are done.
Posted by tkc on July 15, 2013 at 2:37 PM · Report this
Chris in Vancouver WA 134
@127 - "This court would also be saying that maybe you should use a bit of diplomacy, tact and guile rather than immediately going to force to handle a what is a non-criminal non-hostile confrontation.

Like. Yelling from you car window "Hey Kid! Hold on a second. Sorry to scare you, man. My name's George. I'm on the neighborhood watch. But there have been burglaries in the neighborhood. You seen anything suspicous?"

And maybe Trayvon could have acted with diplomacy and tact, also.

It just points up the fact that there are no winners here, no good guy/bad guy. Everyone seems to have a wildly oversimplified version in their heads of what went down that night, and I seriously doubt that it was like that at all.
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on July 15, 2013 at 2:37 PM · Report this
135

@131 - "So if somebody stalks your mom in a dark deserted neighborhood and tells her they want to rape and kill her, in your opinion she has no moral authority to use violence - even non-lethal violence?"

Yeah, Yo Mamma too.

Seriously, what does that have to do with this case?
There's no evidence at all, physical or otherwise,
that Zimmerman ever made any kind of verbal threat to Martin.

Martin may have FELT threatened because he was being followed,
but that's all.

So your pulling this shit about somebody making
verbal threats right out of your mamma's ass, aren't you?
Posted by Robby on July 15, 2013 at 2:37 PM · Report this
136
@132 Martin was staying there too. And Martin had the right to walk around HIS neighborhood with out being stalked by a total stranger.

Zimmerman provoked it by getting out of his car - after being told to stop following Martin BY Martin and LEO authorities - and yelling at a total stranger. That is also evidence you seem to not want to note.
Posted by tkc on July 15, 2013 at 2:41 PM · Report this
137
@134 First you're all black and white morals with no grey area. And now you're all "it's complicated."

There are so many facts you are stubbornly and unreasonably unable or too blinded by a racist society to consider.

Zimmerman and the violent criminal record. Zimmerman was an adult (Martin was a minor). Zimmerman was larger. And finally Zimmerman had a gun.

All of the onus and moral obligation to NOT escalate the situation to a potentially fatal conclusion was on Zimmerman. He should have knows he could have been seen as an attacker to younger, smaller, black teenager.

A teenager, BTW, who is part of social cohort that is keenly aware they are about ten times more likely be violently attacked than mostly white Zimmerman.

Posted by tkc on July 15, 2013 at 2:48 PM · Report this
lolorhone 138
@130, 132: So now you DO know that Martin was the aggressor? I thought we both didn't know (a fact which, BTW, I never disputed). Your assumption that since Martin's body had no marks aside from the bullet wound he had to have been the aggressor and the instigator is bullshit. One can start a fight and never land a punch.

"He had every right to get out of his car and look around. This was the neighborhood he lived in."

It was Martin's neighborhood as well. He had every right to be there. And Zimmerman was not "look[ing] around." How is the armed stalking of a teenager against the warning of the police, in a car and then on foot, "look[ing] around"? And how is that not an act of aggression?
Posted by lolorhone on July 15, 2013 at 3:23 PM · Report this
Chris in Vancouver WA 139
@133 - Had Zimmerman been convicted, it would have been, attention punk-a** teenagers, you have carte blanche to jump and pound on anyone you like.
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on July 15, 2013 at 3:32 PM · Report this
140

@138 - "So now you DO know that Martin was the aggressor?"

AGAIN - I don't know for sure.

Based on the physical evidence alone that is what it looks like,
so that's the closest thing to fact that we have to go on.

"Your assumption that since Martin's body had no marks aside from the
bullet wound he had to have been the aggressor and the instigator is bullshit"

… bullet wound AND knuckle abrasions …

I think it is MORE LIKELY based on the physical evidence alone
that Martin was the one who escalated the confrontation to violence.

If Zimmerman actually started the fight,
he did it without leaving any physical evidence of it.

Posted by Robby on July 15, 2013 at 3:39 PM · Report this
lolorhone 141
@139: Martin's a punk-ass teenager for buying Skittles and walking home? For defending himself against a man who was demonstrably stalking him, in a vehicle and on foot, never identified himself, and didn't bother to answer his question "Why are you following me before any physical confrontation happened? And how do you know that Martin threw the first punch? And even if he did, can you really call that the FIRST act of aggression in this situation?

But Martin is the punk here. Right.
Posted by lolorhone on July 15, 2013 at 3:45 PM · Report this
lolorhone 142
@140: You didn't say it was MORE LIKELY that Martin was the aggressor. You said "Martin started a fight he couldn't finish. Based on the physical evidence alone, he was the first to escalate the confrontation to violence." (@130) That's why I called you on it. Oh, and characterizing getting shot through the heart and lung as "losing the fight" as opposed to "being murdered" is extremely telling.
Posted by lolorhone on July 15, 2013 at 3:54 PM · Report this
143
@139 A few posts ago you were claiming Martin was 6' 4" monster. Now he's a also "punk?" Seem you are desperate to color the victim.

Let us remind you it was Zimmerman who was bigger. Zimmerman who had a gun. Zimmerman who had NO authority to arrest anybody.

And finally Zimmerman who had violent criminal record - who'll also be probably going to trial for sexual assaulting his cousin soon as well, BTW.

But Martin is this monster punk teenager who inexplicably attacks a larger Zimmerman.

Jesus. I suppose this kind of racist horse shit shouldn't be any more shocking the highly predictable trial itself.
Posted by tkc on July 15, 2013 at 3:59 PM · Report this
Chris in Vancouver WA 144
@141 - They're both punks, UFC-wannabe Zimmerman was just older, that's all.

The big question is, if it were a black adult male who shot a white teenager, would you feel the same way? How would the equation change?
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on July 15, 2013 at 4:04 PM · Report this
145

@142 - "You didn't say it was MORE LIKELY that Martin was the aggressor."

It's cumbersome to say "MORE LIKELY" every single time I talk about the case,
so sometimes I just leave that out.

In that case I was responding to somebody who was trying to sound tough or "street",
not rigorously intellectual.

I was responding to this:
"... don't let your crocodile mouth pick fights that your hummingbird ass can't handle."
Posted by Robby on July 15, 2013 at 4:08 PM · Report this
lolorhone 146
@145: "Street" and "rigorously intellectual" are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by lolorhone on July 15, 2013 at 4:16 PM · Report this
147
@144 First I'd like you to acknowledge were wrong about Martin's height. And once you do that consider you might be incorrect about a number of things you assume to facts.

Second. Yes. If any adult went out of his way and stalked and provoked a fight with a smaller unarmed teenager, yes. I would feel exactly the same way. My morals and compassion are not conditional on the color of a persons skin.
Posted by tkc on July 15, 2013 at 4:34 PM · Report this
lolorhone 148
@144: "The big question is, if it were a black adult male who shot a white teenager, would you feel the same way? How would the equation change?"

The equation doesn't change with me. If an older black man with a violent criminal record and no authority stalked an unarmed white teenager for no other reason than that he felt that the teenager didn't belong in his neighborhood, without identifying himself, without answering the teen's reasonable inquiry "Why are you following me?, while carrying a gun and then fatally shot him, he should be in jail. The deep injustice is that I'm quite certain were this the case- if Zimmerman was black- he would have been convicted, conservative talking heads would not have put the white teenager on trial along with his murderer, and I doubt very much that a national outrage would have to have happened in order for the police to file charges to begin with. Switch the races here and I'm fairly certain justice happens- which is to say injustice is the reality here, and it is false and childish to assert that race played no role.
Posted by lolorhone on July 15, 2013 at 4:46 PM · Report this
Chris in Vancouver WA 149
@147 & 148 - OK, I'd like to take back the "punk" & "punk-ass" (I'm home from work now so I can say naughty words on the Internet, yay!) comments I made earlier. I never knew Trayvon, so I really can't say.

tkc, sure, I'll correct myself. Trayvon was 3" taller than Zimmerman, not 4 or 5 as I said earlier. Both were under 6'. As to who could take who in a fight, it's hard to say, but until Zimmerman pulled his gun, Martin was certainly getting the better of Zimmerman.

For me, it's when it becomes a physical confrontation, that's where I feel that Zimmerman legitimately acted in self-defense, and would thus HAVE to be acquitted, regardless of anyone's feelings about racial justice (which is something that should ALWAYS be a goal of civilized society, but should play no role in a criminal courtroom.)

At that point, it's just a fight, not really any different than a drunken fight over a woman outside of a bar on a Saturday night. In a sense, Trayvon's & Zimmerman's race were taken out of the equation at that point. It doesn't matter if it's white adult-black teen, black adult-white teen, both white, or both black, given that situation - AND ONLY THAT SITUATION - and disregarding everything that happened before, I feel that any reasonable person of any race who's armed, given any racial combination, would at least pull their gun, and a big percentage would pull the trigger, and damn the consequences.

So, sadly, I don't see how you CAN'T acquit creepy (and maybe racist) George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin. It sucks, but the court system needs to always acknowledge self-defense as a defense, even when we may not want it to. Who knows, any one of us might need it sometime.

I don't own a gun, I've never been into guns, but have no aversion to them, either, and I've tried to imagine if I was in Zimmerman's situation, what would I do? I'm pretty sure I'd at least pull the gun and point it at him and start yelling crazy-ass shit, and , while I'm not comfortable admitting this, I might have even done the same thing Zimmerman did. Of course, for me, Trayvon's race would have played no role, and I wouldn't have been stalking some 17 year old in the first place.

tkc & lolohorne, I appreciate your answers to my question, but I would ask, that perhaps you two aren't being so color-blind in THIS situation? Yes, this DOES look like "Angry White Guy Murders Black Kid", and of course, that does happen still today (remember the black guy that was dragged behind a truck in TX?), but it's quite a bit more complicated than that. I really believe that, to get at the real truth of this case, you've got to put away preconcieved notions about race.
More...
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on July 15, 2013 at 6:15 PM · Report this
lolorhone 150
@148: I really believe that trying to extricate race from this case is not just impossible, but would be disingenuous. It's not all that complicated- Zimmerman was the aggressor in every sense of the word. Anybody who's been demonstrably stalked by an armed and hostile stranger who refuses to identify himself has been put on the defensive. The reason for Zimmerman's insistence on pursuit, false sense of righteousness, and stated need to bring a weapon to the situation are all inextricably tied up in race. Which, yes, enrages me but does not blind me. Any way you slice it, a grown man hunted a teenager in dark night and killed him. The physical confrontation would have never occurred had Zimmerman stayed in his fucking car like the police told him to. If you think all of that doesn't matter, you and I have to agree to disagree.

P.S.

It's lolorhone.
Posted by lolorhone on July 15, 2013 at 6:41 PM · Report this
Chris in Vancouver WA 151
@150 - "Zimmerman was the aggressor in every sense of the word."

Until he pulled his gun during the fight, how so? He was watching Trayvon, suspicious of him, thought he had done something criminal or was about to, but that's not being the aggressor. It's being an asshole, but it's not being an aggressor. I suppose one could say that he became an aggressor when he got out of his car, but who was the aggressor and who was the aggrieved party swung 180 degrees when Trayvon threw that first punch.

If things had gone down a little different, say, if, before ever laying a hand on Zimmerman,Trayvon said, "I'm gonna fuck you up!" and/or raised his fists, and Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot him, then I'd say, yes, it's murder. But that's not how it happened.

"Anybody who's been demonstrably stalked by an armed and hostile stranger who refuses to identify himself has been put on the defensive."

Please tell me how Trayvon could have known that Zimmerman was armed. Do you really think he would have jumped Zimmerman if he had known that?

"The reason for Zimmerman's insistence on pursuit, false sense of righteousness, and stated need to bring a weapon to the situation are all inextricably tied up in race. Which, yes, enrages me but does not blind me."

I put it to you that my way of seeing this case is more race-neutral than yours. And I put it to you that that does NOT make me a racist (outside of the residual racism all white folks have).

"Any way you slice it, a grown man hunted a teenager in dark night and killed him."

Gross oversimplification.

" The physical confrontation would have never occurred had Zimmerman stayed in his fucking car like the police told him to."

I'll agree with that.

Sorry about mispelling your username, no disrespect intended. Have a good evening.
More...
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on July 15, 2013 at 7:22 PM · Report this
Chris in Vancouver WA 152
lolorhone, I do acknowledge the role that race plays in this case, I just feel that the self-defense claim is legit and trumps any racial aspects of the case. Ultimately, you don't convict someone just because he's a jerk, or a racist, or a racist jerk, and it kinda-sorta sounds like that's what many are doing here. Mob rule ain't pretty, even when it's from the left.

As a point of historical record, I thought the cops who beat up Rodney King should have been convicted, and I protested their acquittal.
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on July 15, 2013 at 7:44 PM · Report this
lolorhone 153
@151, 152:

1) I never called you a racist.
2) How do you know Martin threw the first punch?
3) "Gross oversimplification": It's what happened.
4) You think being followed, in a car and on foot, isn't aggressive?
5) Considering that Martin was stalked by Zimmerman who was angry/frustrated enough to ignore a police warning and pursue him on foot, how do you come to the conclusion that he "jumped" Zimmerman? And what about Martin asking Zimmerman "Why are you following me?" and Zimmerman ignoring him not to mention never identifying himself?
6) I put it to you that the way I see this is that race-neutrality is impossible here if one is to take into account the whole picture.
7) I don't want mob rule. I want a world where you can't pursue a black kid with a gun at night for no reason and not get called the aggressor. I want a world where shooting a child you had no business pursuing in the first place has legal consequence.
Posted by lolorhone on July 15, 2013 at 8:18 PM · Report this
Chris in Vancouver WA 154
@ 153

1) It was proactive, I suspected my first statement might make you think that.

2) Well, again, as far as the chain of events, much of what we in the general public have (as opposed to what the jury had), was Zimmerman's statement. Obviously, if he was lying through his teeth, all bets are off. I tend to believe his version of things was largely true. I suspect you don't.

3) Agree to disagree.

4) I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect not in a legal sense. I don't know why you think that the outcomes of criminal trials should be based on what's for the betterment of society. To assure JUSTICE FOR ALL (you've heard that one, haven't you?), criminal trials must only concern themselves with the immediate facts of the case, with no allowances for personal biases that can create inferences as to what really happened.

5) See #2

6) I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you're saying that the scales of justice actually SHOULD be tipped in favor of oppressed minorities. If that's what you're saying, I couldn't disagree more, and I'm a member of an oppressed minority (I'm gay).

7) I want those things, too, lolorhone, but I also want a world where you can't be put in prison for the mere act of defending yourself if physically attacked.
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on July 15, 2013 at 9:10 PM · Report this
lolorhone 155
@154:

Re: #2: No, I don't tend to believe his version of events.
Re: #4: I'm never said the outcomes of criminal trials should be based not in fact but "for the betterment of society" or for the 'greater good' or some other type of bullshit. Honestly, you're starting to sound highly condescending here. Since we have limited objective evidence, Zimmerman's anger, his failure to heed the police warning, his failure to identify himself, his failure to answer Martin (who tried to engage him first verbally and non-violently), and his gun lead me to believe he was the aggressor here. I'm not a lawyer either, but it seems like quite a bit of circumstantial evidence against Zimmerman's victimhood in the matter.
Re: #6: Not what I'm saying at all. AT ALL. Zimmerman's motives for pursuing Martin, the police's profound lateness in charging Zimmerman (which was finally achieved by national outrage), that Martin himself was basically tried alongside Zimmerman; these things don't have racial neutrality. My argument was not that justice should therefore have no racial neutrality; it was that race was a factor here and to pretend otherwise is a distortion. I'm gay AND black and I want equal treatment in society and in court, not a leg up. This includes acknowledging when being gay and black is a factor in how people respond to me and people like me.
Re: #7: I think it's laughable to assert that Zimmerman was merely "defending [himself] [from] [physical] [attack]", for reasons that I've explained earlier, but I suppose that's mostly covered by Re: #2.
Posted by lolorhone on July 15, 2013 at 10:49 PM · Report this
lolorhone 156
Odds and ends:

@1: Your smug arrogance only makes you look like a callous fool.
@16: O.J. got off because he had the money to do so. There was no other reason for it.
@96: Seconded. With funding from the NAACP and the ACLU.
@99: And yet they managed to do just that, successfully. Here's a link about Florida for levity's sake. Lord knows I need it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4EqcPWpN…
Posted by lolorhone on July 16, 2013 at 12:42 AM · Report this
lolorhone 159
@158: Trayvon Martin's family has shown more class, restraint, and eloquence towards Zimmerman, Zimmerman's idiot brother (who has repeatedly defamed Martin before, during, and after the trial), and the system that failed them and their son than you've ever shown to anybody here on Slog, Noicons. Now you're suggesting they be sued by the man who murdered their son? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Posted by lolorhone on July 16, 2013 at 12:24 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 160
At that point, it's just a fight, not really any different than a drunken fight over a woman outside of a bar on a Saturday night.
So . . . if the party losing that fight were to shoot the opponent and claim self-defense, that strikes you as legitimate?

Frankly, an armed person killing an unarmed person should always, unequivocally be a crime; the details only serve to determine what crime and how long the sentence should be.
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on July 16, 2013 at 4:16 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 161
It sucks, but the court system needs to always acknowledge self-defense as a defense, even when we may not want it to.
Shouldn't a plea of self-defense make some reference to an actual threat to one's life, as opposed to the mere perception of threat?
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on July 16, 2013 at 4:25 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 164
@163 - Why, then, would we not assume that having been stalked for several blocks by an armed stranger in your own neighborhood would not ALSO be rational basis to assume necessity for self-defense, thus justifying Martin's actions as those of a person exercising reasonable force in defense of self?
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on July 16, 2013 at 5:36 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 166
If you stalk me for several blocks and refuse to answer a query as to what you're doing, I can assure you that you would walk away ... "marked."

Of course, I'm in my 40s and white, so if I'm being stalked, it's more likely to be muggers than vigilantes. But I see no reason to show one quarter and not the other.
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on July 16, 2013 at 6:00 PM · Report this
167

@164 - "Why, then, would we not assume that having been stalked for several blocks by an armed stranger in your own neighborhood would not ALSO be rational basis to assume necessity for self-defense"

Because being followed ("stalked") isn't going to do you any bodily harm.
Just being followed doesn't hurt you.

Someone can follow you all day long
and that still won't cause you any bodily injury, will it?

If the person following you starts hitting you,
THEN you have the right to self defense.

If you decide to hit someone for following you,
the person you hit has the right to self defense even though they were following you.

Why is this so hard?
Posted by Robby on July 16, 2013 at 6:18 PM · Report this
169

Similarly, if you leave your laptop on the table
and someone picks it up & tries to walk away with it,
you can't claim self defense if you shoot them.

Even thought they were stealing your laptop,
they weren't doing you any bodily harm.
Posted by Robby on July 16, 2013 at 6:22 PM · Report this
170


if you hit a person who is walking off with your laptop,
and that person has a gun,
that person can shoot you and claim self defense …
even though he was walking of with your laptop.

why?

because you were putting him in danger of bodily injury.
Posted by Robby on July 16, 2013 at 6:27 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 172
@169 & 170 seem incompatible. That I can't shoot them makes sense; that I can't take whatever non-lethal means I deem necessary to stop them from making off with my property seems, in fact, counter to the spirit of "stand your ground" . . . assuming, unlike many of my peers, that the intent of the law, whatever the flaws of the ordinance itself, are essentially legitimate.

If you don't understand why we find it "hard," Robby, entertain the possibility that reasonable people can find your reasoning . . . unreasonable.

@171 - In most states, my even hitting someone back after their hitting me would constitute assault with a weapon. Probably wouldn't negate a self-defense plea . . . unless I happened to kill them (which is plausible), and they turned out to be unarmed.

I think that if we are to offer the right of any individual to literally or figuratively "outgun" a prospective opponent in a way that is held to be legally measurable (bearing arms, being trained in deadly arts), then taking a life of a less armed citizen should matter. Always. Under any circumstances.
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on July 16, 2013 at 7:04 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 174
@173 - And if someone follows me in the dark for long enough, I will likely have a reasonable belief that I'm in danger of imminent bodily harm.

Make note of it.
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on July 16, 2013 at 7:33 PM · Report this
lolorhone 175
@173: And you know Martin threw the first punch how?
@174: Thank you. Jesus Christ, the contortions of logic people will make in their quest to not seem racist.
Posted by lolorhone on July 16, 2013 at 9:02 PM · Report this
lolorhone 177
@176: No, the law recognizes Zimmerman's paranoia as reasonable cause to use deadly force. That's what everyone's pissed about. Glad you're all caught up now.
Posted by lolorhone on July 16, 2013 at 10:43 PM · Report this
lolorhone 180
@178, 179: I'm a gay black man. Liberal, sure, but I have not wet the bed since I was a toddler. And though I've felt guilt in my life, I've never been ridden with it. I have plenty of friends, but none of them are thugs, at least none of them self-identify as such. Who knows how you would characterize them? Some of them even wear hoodies.

As for the "witnesses", they saw the fight already in progress, not who initiated it. And seeing as how Zimmerman stalked Martin in the dark against the advisement of the police while armed, he was already the aggressor and for damn sure not a "victim".

Oh, and the "whatever race they may be" caveat was a nice touch. Too late though, you already sounded like the presumptuous, self-righteous racist prick I'm now convinced you are. Don't like that? Tough shit.

P.S.

It's "unanimously".
Posted by lolorhone on July 17, 2013 at 12:11 AM · Report this
lolorhone 183
@181, 182:

I don't know where to begin. From the top, then:

1) What did I ignore? I know you ignored Zimmerman's armed stalking of Martin against police advisement repeatedly, but what did I ignore?
2) "You're living proof that you can be black, gay and desperately stupid, self-righteous, and endlessly fucked up." Was anybody really trying to prove that? Now you're just trying to hurt me.
3) "And yes, tell your thug friends of any race that if they do a beatdown on the wrong man..." You're not listening at all, are you? I told you I didn't have any thug friends. And if I did, we would most certainly not want to "do a beatdown", if for no other reason than your phrasing hits the ear wrong. "Do a beatdown?" is sort of like saying "Make a porn."
4) "So many black race-baiters are always demanding that whites be "honest." Well, I learned a long time ago that you'd better never ask a question unless you are prepared for the answer." You thought I was white a post ago, what hard truths have you summoned from Bullshit Mountain? Your own presumptions? Because that I'm more than prepared for.
5) "If you really think Zimmerman was guilty, then consider his acquittal payback for O.J. Simpson, the Tawana Brawley fiasco, and the frenzy over the Duke basketball team. Karma's a bitch, ain't it?" In all seriousness, this is the most sickeningly racist thing you've posted yet. All black people are not the same past and potential defendant. The court system is not a competition of who can reduce the numbers and demean the most individuals of each race. And even if it was such a disgusting construction as that, white people would still be winning by a country mile. Do you know how many unanswered-for murders of black people by white people there have been in this country? If black people were to collectively hold any white person alive now responsible for those deaths the streets would run with blood, honorless injustice and misdirected revenge. You consider a black child's death at the hands of a white man 'payback' for a completely unrelated crime that took place before he was even born? Because the defendant was black and the victims were white? This is your idea of karma? This is how you really think? Which one of us is a "race-baiter"? Which one of us is "endlessly fucked up"?

Seriously, don't even bother addressing my questions, I'm done with you. Have an angry, empty, misinformed life.
More...
Posted by lolorhone on July 17, 2013 at 2:05 AM · Report this
184

BTW, I also was a Trayvon supporter initially.

I began to change my mind after reading the entire unedited transcript of the 911 call,
and all the additional info that came out afterwards has only tended to make me believe
that GZ was acting in self defense.

I wasn't there, I don't know everything, I could still be wrong.
But that is my opinion based on the evidence,
and trying to see the events BOTH from GZ's and from TM's point of view.

It seems to me that those who strongly identify with TM seem unable to put themselves in GZ's shoes, and some of GZ's supporters are just blind racists for sure.
Posted by Robby on July 17, 2013 at 8:46 AM · Report this
185

Roderick Scott case -
black man shoots unarmed white teen,
found NOT GUILTY by reason of self defense ...

{sarcasm}
how the hell does that EVER happen here in AmeriKKKa ... ?
{end sarcasm}

... and why doesn't it get ANY PRESS?

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_sto…

Posted by Robby on July 17, 2013 at 9:25 AM · Report this
lolorhone 188
@185, 186:

I can say a lot worse things about Zimmerman and I have. You've chosen to ignore them or disagree with them and that's fine.
Martin was teenager with the munchies walking back to his Dad's condo from the store.
Being black does not mean hating white people. Defining being black as hating white people does mean you're a racist.
Assuming all black people are homophobic is racist.
Assuming you know a goddamn thing about what defines black people is presumptuous and racist.
Assuming I give a fuck about O.J. Simpson is presumptuous and racist.
Rating one life more highly than another based on the race of the dead person and the race of the one who killed them is racist and enormously evil.
Something has made you callous and very angry. I have nothing left to say to you.


Posted by lolorhone on July 17, 2013 at 12:19 PM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 189
@181 - " I started out sympathetic to Martin until everything came out."

Please show us on Slog where you have ever been sympathetic to Martin.

Bonus points - show us where you have ever been sympathetic to anyone non-white.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on July 17, 2013 at 12:46 PM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 190
@188 - You are a stronger man than I for having seriously engaged with Mister Brainwashed Noiconswerphone, who continues to impress on us all how much of a horrible human being it is.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on July 17, 2013 at 1:16 PM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 192
@192 - I feel sorry for all of us that you whack off to dead black kids.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on July 20, 2013 at 9:03 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy