April 11, 2012

Martin-Zimmerman announcement

Before the special prosecutor's announcement this afternoon in the Martin-Zimmerman case comes out, let me reiterate what has been my position from the beginning:

- Sad, messed up incidents like this happen all the time in a huge country like this. For example, I spent a lot of time in 2010 playing amateur snoop in a local incident where a bunch of law enforcement agents in plain clothes "debriefing" out behind a bar started a brawl in the parking lot and would up killing an 18-year-old violist who was either trying to kill them with his car (the shooters' story), rescue the man the out-of-uniform cops had attacked, flee, or something else. 

- It's a good thing for citizens to take an interest in unresolved shootings, such as this one in Florida or the one in my neighborhood, to prevent abuses. By the standards of my local shooting, where even the names of the shooters were not released for months, the Martin-Zimmerman case is practically a model of respectable police work. The big difference is that Zimmerman was not a real cop, so the cops were relatively even-handed. The decision not to arrest him came down not from the cops but from high up. 

- As far as I can tell, the facts are about equally ambiguous in the Florida case as in my local case. To get a better understanding of either case, I'd need a picture of exactly where each individual was at each moment. That's not impossible to put together, but I haven't done it. Hopefully, the special prosecutor in Florida has done that, although, obviously, the political pressures on her are immense. (Here's the Wagist website, which seems to have tried harder than any other media source to bring out the facts of the case.)

- Nor have I made a study of the applicable law. I'd like to know what actually happened first. 

- The initial decision not to arrest Zimmerman seems reasonable. Didn't we learn a lesson from the Dominique Strauss-Kahn fiasco? This case seems more like the Conrad Murray case, in which the doctor who gave Michael Jackson his fatal injection was not arrested for many months as the prosecutors took the time to figure out what they were doing. Presumably, Zimmerman was judged not to be a flight risk, since nobody assumed at the time that the national media would try to rouse up a lynch mob against him. In my local shooting, in contrast, the law enforcement agencies investigated themselves, engaged in what sounds like witness intimidation, and, finally, after about a year, released a report completely exonerating themselves. Only at that point did the mother of the dead violist file a large civil suit (a course of action which my wife and I advised her to pursue when we accidentally met her in the parking lot 168 hours after her son's death). I look forward to someday learning the resolution of that case, but I don't have much of an opinion on what it should be. I'm just glad it wasn't completely swept under the rug. (Let me point out that I doubt if there was ever the slightest possibility that either shooter would be arrested in the local case. The only plausible outcomes other than the whole event disappearing down the memory hole would be some kind of discipline or reassignment to a desk job for the law enforcement agents and some kind of civil suit payout.)

- Zimmerman, himself, seem like a Paul Blart, Mall Cop type, one of these pro-social pro-authoritarian youngish people I've noticed a lot of in this century. He seems way too trusting of the fairness of American institutions to wage an effective legal-political-media campaign for himself. Wagist has an account of how Zimmerman has done a terrible job of lawyering up, apparently trusting too much for his own good in the criminal justice system that he has always wanted to be part of, but never managed to join.

- Of course, that raises the question of just how much good lawyering up would have done Zimmerman in the media-political battle. For the Martin parents, there was an obvious, socially acceptable game plan: hire a black civil suit attorney who is friends with Al Sharpton, which will bring Jesse Jackson sniffing around, and then, hopefully, bring in Eric Holder, and if you roll the dice right, the big chalupa of black spokesmen, Barack Obama. All the while, the prestige press will act exactly like in Bonfire of the Vanities, to play your son up as Henry Lamb. But if you are somebody with a German, possibly Jewish, surname whose mom was from Latin America, who, exactly, is going to be your ethnic champion? Right: Geraldo Rivera! Fat lot of good that does you ...

- The big story, here, of course is not what, precisely, happened that sad night in Florida, but what it teaches us about the media and the media-indoctrinated public in the 21st Century. In contrast, nobody in the press took more than a grudging interest in the local shooting of the violist. One reason is that the victim was white, so identity politics narratives couldn't be brought into play. In contrast, the Florida case was played along the lines of 1987's Bonfire of the Vanities. (I wonder what Tom Wolfe thinks? Does it annoy him that nobody ever learns from his famous book? I suspect, though, it mostly warms the cockles of his quintuple-bypassed heart that his novel remains such an excellent guide 21st Century race hysteria).

- In Florida, the press's behavior has been both stupid and shameful even by the standards of a Tom Wolfe novel. Let me point out something that hasn't been brought up much. There has been very little interviewing of pro-Zimmerman witnesses by the press. You mostly hear their accounts through leaks from the investigation. Why are they clinging to anonymity? Because most of them are terrified of being murdered by some media-inspired hothead from Team Trayvon. Now, obviously, that makes it hard for the press to interview them. But, shouldn't the media tell us that

147 comments:

Anonymous said...

I believe the proper convention is to refer to GZ by his last name, Zimmerman, but to refer to TM by his first name, Trayvon. At least that is what the WaPo did in the story about the pending announcement.

Anonymous said...

I do not believe the critical facts about what happened that night are ambiguous at all. The Wagist has a great blog timestamping the various phonecalls and placing people's locations on a map. Its clear from the evidence that 1) Trayvon had the opportunity once he got out of sight of Zimmerman to simply go home 2) It all ended when, while on the ground and being pummeled, Zimmerman shot Trayvon.

It will be impossible to convict based on that.

Anonymous said...

Fox and other networks still show the Trayvon Martin of 14.

Anonymous said...

I concur that the Wagist site is great--lots of visuals coupled with times of and texts of 911 calls.

I believe the special prosecutor no way was NOT going to bring some kind of charges. After all, she has a career to protect and the town of Sanford is a powder keg.

Sad lynching.

Leonard said...

I'll second Nony 1:58. Go check out the coverage on the Wagist. Martin had walked past Zimmerman -- closer to his "home" -- and then he lost Zimmerman. The boy had plenty of opportunity to just go 'home' unobserved. He passed that up.

One can imagine scenarios where Martin did not double back to confront Zimmerman, but they are strained.

Why would Martin have confronted Zimmerman? We can only speculate. But he was on the phone with his girlfriend at the time. Perhaps he felt he had something to prove to someone.

RKU said...

It's really pretty hilarious. About the only people anywhere defending poor Zimmerman are the WN-types. I guess everyone else, from Left to Right is just too scared of getting Derbyshired...or maybe even Trayvoned by Al Sharpton and his friends...

I think Zimmerman's only real hope is that someone finds some clip of young Trayvon saying something nice about Castro...

Anonymous said...

Get the location changed from Sanford up to somewhere in the Panhandle and there'll be a jury nullification.

Guaranteed.

Thyme said...

Now it is up there, or even beyond, the Duke Lacrosse travesty assuming nothing comes out to implicate Mr. Zimmerman. A media lynching does not compare, as bad as it is, to a corrupt legal apparatus.

The accused has had the president of the United States himself weigh in and prejudice any jury or official.

Is Wagist the new "Durham-in-Wonderland"? Where is K.C. Johnson?

Anonymous said...

Media's playing favorites with stories should maybe called AFFIRMATIVE TRACTION. Media make sure some stories gain traction while others don't.

eh said...

With all the money he ought to get from NBC Zimmerman should be able to afford a pretty good lawyer.

Whatever else unlawful he may have done, Zimmerman is certainly guilty of stupidity for going out there to confront Martin when it was (apparently) clear neither life nor limb -- his or anyone else's -- was in immediate danger. That's the cops' job. And he'd already called them.

stupid and shameful

I hope you didn't need this case to see that the media is "stupid and shameful". And you forgot to mention the government is often stupid and shameful as well -- Obama's comment being Exhibit A.

Anonymous said...

The judge will never let in evidence of Trayvon's fb page and twitter account--all his gangbanging posturing, all his tough talk with his homies about violence and banging girls, the videos of him in his fight club, the posing wearing his gold grill, his school records of suspensions (including the finding of the screwdriver the authorites said was a common tool of the thief).

Gucci LIttle Piggy and The Wagist sites offer much of interest. It'll be interesting to see just what a judge calls inadmissable.

Long hot summer?

Anonymous said...

I keep reading that, if I'm a fairminded person, I should want this man put on trial, but I am of the opinion that a prosecutor should only prosecute the following two criteria are met:

1) The prosecution must generally believe the accused to be guilty of the crime for which he will be tried.
2) The prosecution must believe they have evidence sufficient to convince a reasonable jury of said guilt.

Putting people on trial just to see where the chips will ultimately fall is completely improper and wrong.

Anonymous said...

I think Obama administration is trying to avert a racial riot.

Bush sat on his hands over the LA Rodney King thing and let locals handle it.
Bush later went after the cops but AFTER the riot.

So, I think the federal government wanna get to this before it turns into riot conditions.

CJ said...

Yes, Wagist has made a good effort. I'll be reading them more often. And yes, what's different from the Tom Wolfe novel is that the media is actually behaving worse. This probably indicates the increased polarization since 1987 and the departure of the older generation of not-entirely-fanatic journalists.

Scott said...

If you don't do what black people say, they'll riot. BRA indeed

Anonymous said...

Where's La Raza in all of this?

Kylie said...

"Whatever else unlawful he may have done, Zimmerman is certainly guilty of stupidity for going out there to confront Martin when it was (apparently) clear neither life nor limb -- his or anyone else's -- was in immediate danger."

Exactly. And this point has been given little attention. I've not read exhaustively about the case but I have read some. Your comment is the first I've read to mention this aspect of it.

As a gun-owner, I am really perturbed that George Zimmerman exited the vehicle apparently for no reason other than to keep Trayvon Martin in sight. I don't think he should have gotten out of his car unless he saw Martin threaten someone with physical violence. In my opinion, he, an armed adult, escalated the situation by exiting his vehicle.

I don't believe that he existed his vehicle with the intent of killing Martin but once he was on foot in the open, the situation rapidly got out of hand. The fact is that had Zimmerman remained in his vehicle, the situation might not have gotten so intense. Would Martin have been as likely to approach someone in a vehicle as he would a pudgy man who was on foot?

Carrying a loaded gun should make a responsible person even more cautious about confronting trouble in public, not less. On the face of it, Martin did not seem to be following the rule about regarding your gun as your last resort, not your first option.

Anonymous said...

Since Zimmerman is a wise latino, shouldn't he have acted better? I guess the 'white' side of him made him act stupid and evil.

Whiskey said...

Obama probably NEEDS a riot. A riot allows him to argue sub-rosa "vote for me or it will be worse NEXT TIME." That's been his whole Chicago-based career, he's a one trick pony in that regard.

Anonymous said...

Of course they're charging Zimmerman. He killed a toddler licking his lollipop while in a baby carriage for Christ's sake.

Dan in DC

Faust said...

The Lynching of George Zimmerman goes forward. The prosecutor should have sent the case to a grand jury, unless they were going to drop the case. The prosecutor was afraid the grand jury would fail to vote for an indictment, after reading the police report. The Left wants riots, the longer this last the worse the riots will be, a trail ending in acquittal will lead to worse riots than dropping it now.

Anonymous said...

Well at least will get the facts now. Given what we know I don't see how its 2nd Degree murder but then I never thought Ravi would get 10 years or OJ would be found not guilty.

I agree about Zimmermann he seems to have been far too trusting. I wouldn't call him authoritarian - more like a naive guy who probably thought he was a good guy who did no wrong - so how could that nice Prosecutor charge him.

Luke Lea said...

Here is a good summary of the law:

http://volokh.com/2012/03/27/floridas-self-defense-laws/

Paul Mendez said...

Obama probably NEEDS a riot. A riot allows him to argue sub-rosa "vote for me or it will be worse NEXT TIME." That's been his whole Chicago-based career, he's a one trick pony in that regard.

I disagree.

The last thing Team Obama needs is a good old 20th-Century style race riot to remind all the nice liberal white people who already feel some buyer's remorse that electing Obama didn't really "heal our racial divide" after all.

I've assumed for weeks that Zimmerman would be charged with something, with the actual verdict being handed down some time after November 6th.

Anonymous said...

From the look of it all, there is absolutely no way GZ will be convicted if he hires a competent lawyer. The case can jump start career for some young ambitious lawyer. Hopefully there will be few willing to take a risk.

Ruh Roh. said...

This has the potential to turn out really, really badly. In order to convict a defendant in Florida of Second-degree murder, the State of Florida must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

- The victim is dead [check];
- The death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant [check];
- There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.[not check]

It is not at all clear they'll be able to come close on that last point - and if Zimmerman is acquitted the only question is how widespread and how long the rioting will last.

Perhaps they'll find a reliable judge that will disallow all sorts of evidence that Martin was enthralled with the thug silliness that afflicts so much of our "urban youth" (and thus likely initiated the conflict) or will cooperate with the prosecutor in making sure the jury is entirely black -- but otherwise this seems like prosecutorial overreach that will end with an acquittal followed by blacks burning down their neighborhoods and killing/maiming uninvolved whites.


Kylie @ 2:51: you make a good point. I am a Florida resident and have carried a concealed handgun for about two years (always loaded - what use is an unloaded gun? Yes I have a concealed carry permit). It has made me far less confrontational. Not that I was ever a trouble-seeker, but now I actively seek to avoid trouble. Carrying a weapon you're not willing to pull is pointless...pulling a weapon on someone greatly increases the chances somebody will get shot and likely die...and killing someone is serious business legally, morally, and emotionally. It should be avoided if at all possible.

It is clear to me that Zimmerman acted foolishly and I greatly suspect that Martin acted foolishly AND violently. It is not at all clear that Zimmerman committed 2nd degree murder. So now a bigger fuse has been lit.

Dahlia said...

Kylie said,
"The fact is that had Zimmerman remained in his vehicle, the situation might not have gotten so intense."

His defense is that he was getting the address so he was going the extra mile to help 911. This has a ring of truth to it.

But your point still stands. For his own protection, it was knuckle-headed to exit his vehicle when there is this guy acting suspiciously, and you don't know where he went. Dumb!

The thing is, the vast, vast majority of these crimes involve dumb decisions being made:

*Get plastered at 2 a.m. and then wander around in the hood. Or the Baltimore courthouse.

*Jawing off.

*Biking in the wee hours of militarized New Orleans.

*Getting into relationships with thugs despite living a charmed life and not needing any kind of protection from other bad people.

*Paying strange women to come to your place and take off their clothes (h/t Ann Coulter on Duke Lacrosse).

RKU,
On Palm Sunday, we had a most unusual prayer request at my mostly Hispanic church that is close to Sanford: for the rights of prisoners, especially for those unjustly accused. Never heard that one before in my years of going there.

Anonymous said...

I see this as CYA by State officials. If they had failed to bring charges, the subsquent black riot would be blamed on their failure. Now, they get to pass the buck to a jury. If Zimmerman is acquitted, the officials then get to blame the subsquent riot on the racist jury.If Zimmerman is convicted, from their point of view, that would be a perfectably acceptable outcome.

Meanwhile, the young and innocent Trayvon photos featured in news reports keep coming.I am thinking we should start calling him "Benjamin Button Trayvon."

Chester said...

Perhaps we are underplaying the degree to which this is a "Florida" issue. What I mean by that is that Florida is an incredibly weird and often screwed-up state, and a whole lot of odd/horrible/inexplicable things seem to happen there per capita relative to the other states.

This is not an American story. This is simply one of our periodic Florida Freakouts. Florida stories, as a rule, do not have national applicability, due to the uniquely absurd nature of the state itself. Any more than we'd see a story from Saipan or Pago Pago and try to draw lessons about "America" from them,

Thrasymachus said...

Things are getting ugly. Mean and sour. Non-elite whites went to the Republican Party in the 60's and 70's with the idea they were going to get some protection, and they have not received it. What was the fringe last year is the base now.

Anonymous said...

"It will be impossible to convict based on that."

Um, depends on who's in the jury.

I don't watch TV much, so can someone enlighten me: has Geraldo been the only Hispanic (yes, I know he's only half Hispanic) media figure to go against the pro-Trayvon media bias? What do regular, non-media Hispanics think about it, does anyone know?

Anonymous said...

What was the fringe last year is the base now.

Meaning what?

Anonymous said...

Meanwhile, the young and innocent Trayvon photos featured in news reports keep coming.I am thinking we should start calling him "Benjamin Button Trayvon."

That's pretty funny. I swear the BBC just showed a picture of him looking about twelve. Are we soon going to get pictures of precious baby Trayvon?

TontoBubbaGoldstein said...

Dammit! Why does George Zimmerman NOT have the right to walk around in his own neighborhood?

Golden Bear said...

At the outset, Nony (1:51), child victims are often referred to by their first name.

Kylie (2:51) appears to have hit the nail on the head (and is one of only a handful of insightful comments amongst the usual racist and mindless dribble). When Zimmerman lost sight of him, he should have waited for the police. He had no proof Trayvon was doing anything illegal, so there was no need to follow him. He, not Trayvon, unduly escalated the situation.

Ruh Roh at 3:52 believes the State will not be able to prove the third prong of second degree murder:

"There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life."

Obviously shooting him satisfies the first part. The second part will come down to whether the jury believes the girlfriend (that Zimmerman accosted Trayvon) and it was Trayvon who was crying "no, no" shortly before he was killed. If so, the jury will probably conclude that Trayvon feared for his life and Zimmerman did not have to shoot him, and that "stand your ground" was thus not applicable here.

We will now return to the blatherings about race riots and the alleged thuggish of Trayvon (as opposed to the documented violence of Zimmeraman with law enforcement and his fiancee).

Anonymous said...

It will depend on the Jury, unless there's some smoking gun we don't know of. Given Sanford's demographics it'll be a crap-shoot for GZ. Put enough soccer moms and homeboys on the jury and he's done.

Kylie said...

At 2:51, I wrote: "On the face of it, Martin did not seem to be following the rule about regarding your gun as your last resort, not your first option."

That should have been:

On the fact of it, Zimmerman did not seem to be following the rule about regarding your gun as your last resort, not your first option.

jody said...

george zimmerman, the jewish peruvian. i believe we have a new ethnic group:

the jeruvian!

now that george is a "white hispanic" on US television, will they begin referring to barack obama as a white african?

RKU said...

TontoBubbaGoldstein: Dammit! Why does George Zimmerman NOT have the right to walk around in his own neighborhood?

Exactly! Based on all the evidence I've heard, Zimmerman wasn't "pursuing" Trayvon, just walking around a bit, trying to see where he went so he could inform the police when they finally showed up after his 911 call. For whatever reason, Trayvon didn't like this, violently attacked the much smaller Zimmerman, and was hammering his head into the pavement while his victim was desperately screaming for help from the cowardly local neighbors. Doesn't exactly sound like "criminal provocation" on Zimmerman's part. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but these seem like the facts to me.

Some of the totally disgusting commenters here seem to think that neighborhood watch captains should run and hide when they see young thugs wandering around their heighborhood behaving in a suspicious manner, and may be held criminally liable if the irritated thug attacks and tries to beat them to a pulp or kill them. I just don't see how this makes a lot of sense as a general social policy.

This sort of prosecution completely eliminates the notion of reasonable self-defense. Maybe the NRA should just elect Al Sharpton as its next president, while he also succeeds Rich Lowry as editor of National Review.

jody said...

jewish people are usually democrats. peruvian people are usually democrats. 99% of africans in the US during the obama era are democrats.

and, after fact checking, it was confirmed that zimmerman is indeed a registered democrat.

how the television media has twisted a jeruvian democrat shooting an african democrat into their rigid narrative about euro american conservatives being evil racists, is rather an impressive feat.

in reality it's one reliable democrat voting group shooting another reliable democrat voting group.

Rachelle said...

I think the charges are based on fear of the black community.

Remember that in Miami a Cuban cop was prosecuted for shooting two black thugs on a motorcycle. He was convicted but the conviction was overturned when the jury admitted that they found him guilty out of fear of more riots.

At a second trial--held in Orlando where they were not afraid of Miami riots--the cop was found not guilty. There were riots in Miami, but the police [finally] stepped down hard and fast and kept them from getting out of hand.

Unless the prosecutor can illegally arrange for an all black jury, I think Zimmerman will be acquitted [or hung jury if mixed race]. Probably she is hoping the 2nd degree murder charge will frighten him into accepting a manslaughter plea so she doesn't have to put her political prosecution through the acid test of a jury trial.

Anyhow, there goes her reputation for integrity.

If she is really interested in justice, why is she allowing the Black Panthers to post 'Dead or Alive' rewards?

Maybe if they do one for the governor or her she will remember it is illegal.

What a mess.

Kylie said...

"Kylie (2:51) appears to have hit the nail on the head (and is one of only a handful of insightful comments amongst the usual racist and mindless dribble*). When Zimmerman lost sight of him, he should have waited for the police. He had no proof Trayvon was doing anything illegal, so there was no need to follow him. He, not Trayvon, unduly escalated the situation."

No, my point--and this is based on what we know now--was that Zimmerman had no need to exit the vehicle because he had no reason to believe that Martin was a physical threat to anyone else. Even Martin breaking the law by, say, doing a drug buy or breaking a window wouldn't by itself have been sufficient cause for Zimmerman to follow him on foot. The only reason Zimmerman should have followed Martin on foot was to prevent him harming another person. So far as we know, there was no question of that

*Shouldn't that be "drivel", not "dribble"?

Svigor said...

At the outset, Nony (1:51), child victims are often referred to by their first name.

Which has #^@%-all to do with this, since Trayvon "No limits n!66a" Martin was a six-foot-plus 17-year-old, not a "child."

Who leaves a "child" alone to wander around at night?

Kylie (2:51) appears to have hit the nail on the head (and is one of only a handful of insightful comments amongst the usual racist and mindless dribble). When Zimmerman lost sight of him, he should have waited for the police. He had no proof Trayvon was doing anything illegal, so there was no need to follow him. He, not Trayvon, unduly escalated the situation.

"Should" has nothing to do with it. Walking around your own neighborhood certainly doesn't amount to "escalation" in any meaningful sense (i.e., any sense other than the sociopathic aggrieved Black thug sense).

We will now return to the blatherings about race riots and the alleged thuggish of Trayvon (as opposed to the documented violence of Zimmeraman with law enforcement and his fiancee).

No, no, let's stick with George's documented violence. Do tell. Details, details. What violence did he perpetrate against law enforcement? What violence did he perpetrate against his fiance? Don't hide behind charges. Describe the violence.

Harry Baldwin said...

Dahlia said...

*Paying strange women to come to your place and take off their clothes (h/t Ann Coulter on Duke Lacrosse).


That Freakonomics guy should find out if the Duke Lacrosse case resulted in a drastic drop in employment for black strippers. If I ordered a stripper for a frat party, I would specify, "Not black, please, we can't afford the legal fees."

Svigor said...

Rev 2 for Komment Kontrol...

Media's playing favorites with stories should maybe called AFFIRMATIVE TRACTION. Media make sure some stories gain traction while others don't.

Nice one.

With all the money he ought to get from NBC Zimmerman should be able to afford a pretty good lawyer.

Right. That, and the "Free George" movement, where the public will be able to contribute to his defense.

Zimmerman is certainly guilty of stupidity for going out there to confront Martin when it was (apparently) clear neither life nor limb -- his or anyone else's -- was in immediate danger. That's the cops' job. And he'd already called them.

Right. That's the point of this whole thing. To make it very clear to Whites that the Anarcho-Tyranny is in charge of (not policing) their neighborhoods, not them.

The judge will never let in evidence of Trayvon's fb page and twitter account--all his gangbanging posturing, all his tough talk with his homies about violence and banging girls, the videos of him in his fight club, the posing wearing his gold grill, his school records of suspensions (including the finding of the screwdriver the authorites said was a common tool of the thief).

Why not? He's the alleged victim, not the the defendant.

Perhaps they'll find a reliable judge that will disallow all sorts of evidence that Martin was enthralled with the thug silliness that afflicts so much of our "urban youth" (and thus likely initiated the conflict)

Now, far be it from me to assert that the legal system always makes sense, but...that would make no sense. The defense should be allowed to present evidence that Travon "NLN" Martin was acting like a thug. Exhibit A is the fact that he liked to act like a thug.

At the outset, Nony (1:51), child victims are often referred to by their first name.

Which has nothing to do with this case, since Trayvon "NLN" Martin was a six-foot-plus 17-year-old, not a "child."

Who leaves a "child" alone to wander around alone at night? Is Martin Sr guilty of child endangerment? Child abandoment?

Kylie (2:51) appears to have hit the nail on the head (and is one of only a handful of insightful comments amongst the usual racist and mindless dribble). When Zimmerman lost sight of him, he should have waited for the police. He had no proof Trayvon was doing anything illegal, so there was no need to follow him. He, not Trayvon, unduly escalated the situation.

"Should" has nothing to do with it. Walking around one's own neighborhood certainly doesn't amount to "escalation" in any legitimate sense.

We will now return to the blatherings about race riots and the alleged thuggish of Trayvon (as opposed to the documented violence of Zimmeraman with law enforcement and his fiancee).

No, no, let's stick with George's documented violence. Do tell. Details, details. What violence did he perpetrate against law enforcement? What violence did he perpetrate against his fiance? Don't hide behind charges. Describe the violence.

Anonymous said...

That Freakonomics guy should find out if the Duke Lacrosse case resulted in a drastic drop in employment for black strippers. If I ordered a stripper for a frat party, I would specify, "Not black, please, we can't afford the legal fees."

The Duke Lacrosse guys claimed thats what they did, namely specifying white or asian.

beowulf said...

"I believe the proper convention is to refer to GZ by his last name, Zimmerman, but to refer to TM by his first name, Trayvon..."

That's because newspapers typically refer to adults by their last name and minors by their first.

beowulf said...

Who was Casey Anthony's lawyer?

Anyone who can get that chick acquitted is the lawyer you want when everyone wants to throw you under the jail.

Svigor said...

The Duke Lacrosse guys claimed thats what they did, namely specifying white or asian

Right. Their mistake was letting her in. SWPLs have a hard time doing simple, no-brainer things like that that seem callous or rude.

Harry Baldwin said...

Anonymous Svigor said... The Duke Lacrosse guys claimed thats what they did, namely specifying white or asian

Right. Their mistake was letting her in. SWPLs have a hard time doing simple, no-brainer things like that that seem callous or rude.


Thanks, I didn't know that. Another item for Derb's List: No black strippers please.

Pincher Martin said...

Golden Bear @ 5:11,

"Kylie (2:51) appears to have hit the nail on the head (and is one of only a handful of insightful comments amongst the usual racist and mindless dribble). When Zimmerman lost sight of him, he should have waited for the police. He had no proof Trayvon was doing anything illegal, so there was no need to follow him. He, not Trayvon, unduly escalated the situation."

Neither of you know what you're talking about. There's no evidence Zimmerman did anything other than attempt to keep his eyes on a suspicious stranger in his neighborhood. It's a questionable judgment call on Zimmerman's part to follow the kid, but it's not illegal. It's certainly not escalating anything, and if Trayvon responded to it by assaulting Zimmerman, then Zimmerman will likely go free.

The girlfriend's (Deedee's) explanation about what she heard over the phone is weak evidence and, if wagist's detailed chronology is to be believed, contradictory enough that it's unlikely to hold up to cross-examination.

That being said, I suspect this is not going to be a case decided on the evidence, unless there is something major out there we haven't heard about yet. I freely admit this is quite possible and, given the special prosecutor's decision to charge Zimmerman with second-degree murder, even likely. It seems hard to believe she would go for a second-degree murder charge based on what we in the informed public have heard about this case. But then again, you never know how a minor public figure is going to respond when she's in the spotlight.

But I think this case is likely to come down to jury selection. This is probably going to be a somewhat ambiguous case in which Zimmerman made several questionable judgment calls that can be interpreted different ways by your average juror (but would normally not be enough to convict). If I was on Zimmerman's legal team, I would do everything in my power to keep as many blacks off the jury as possible. And I would look for weaker black personalities -- i.e., older quiet blacks -- to fill the necessary quota.

Chris said...

It appears the difference between manslaughter and murder in the second here is depraved mind. Does depraved mind include noticing a hoodie? Or just overzealous night-watchman-ship? Or maybe the desire to carry a firearm?

Golden Bear said...

Svigor:

Do you know anything about this case? A few years ago, Zimmerman was charged with resisting a police officer (which is where the original photo of him in the orange jail outfit came from). He pled out. His former fiancee filed a report saying he was physical with her. Former co-workers said he was a nice guy, but could become angry very quickly.

Honestly, do your homework - all this info has been out there for weeks now. Zimmerman has documented violent tendencies. the rest of your post is just nonsense.

As to all of you who call Trayvon a "thug," Trayvon, unlike Zimmerman, has never been arrested in his life. He was suspended from school for tardies and having an EMPTY ziplock bag that allegedly contained weed. Fellow students said he was a nice, quiet kid. He got good grades. That what his teachers said.

He wore fake removable grills and talk BS on his twitter feed - like many silly teenagers of all colors.

You pro-Zimmerman folk are idiots, just like Zimmerman. Zimmerman called him a coon, stalked him, accosted him, wrestled with him, and killed him as Trayvon begged for his life.

And you think he is a great guy or even heroic. Pathetic.

David said...

>At the outset, Nony (1:51), child victims are often referred to by their first name.<

A 17-year-old is a child like a shark is a fish.

Jack Amok said...

Curious, after all their efforts to allow illegal aliens to vote, are the Dems just going to abandon the hispanic vote over this? I guess so.

eh said...

Text of the announcment.

Which I found overall insipid, vapid.

The parts about Martin's "sweet parents", and "the search for justice for Trayvon" seemed improper to the point of being disgusting.

What about justice for Zimmerman? And just plain justice, period.

Not one word about the justification for the serious charge. Seemed more a political speech designed to appease Blacks.

I'm willing to admit I had a bad feeling when I saw the 'special prosecutor' was a woman.

Pincher Martin said...

Golden Bear @ 7:44

"Honestly, do your homework - all this info has been out there for weeks now. Zimmerman has documented violent tendencies. the rest of your post is just nonsense.

Ancient history. He was twenty or twenty-one years old. Young guys occasionally do marginal things, and he did a couple of marginal things. That's not evidence of a pattern except, perhaps, to your pattern-starved brain. I would lay dollars to your peanuts that many in Trayvon Martin's own family have worst records, and that Travyon himself was on his way to joining them.


"As to all of you who call Trayvon a "thug," Trayvon, unlike Zimmerman, has never been arrested in his life. He was suspended from school for tardies and having an EMPTY ziplock bag that allegedly contained weed. Fellow students said he was a nice, quiet kid. He got good grades. That what his teachers said."

Good grades? Nice kid?

I would say your résumé for the young Trayvon Martin is just a bit incomplete. I believe we're talking about the same kid who publicly called himself “No_Limit_N*gga”. Who had three school suspensions, including one for having a burglary tool kit, and woman's jewelry in his bag. Who may have, according to his brother, assaulted a bus driver.

And now you're trying to pass him off as a young Grant Hill? Good luck with that.

now, now, like bullets said...

I think Rachelle has it closest. NPR described 'murder 2' as hard to make stick in this case, which led me to think that maybe the prosecutor is laying high charges to satisfy the crowds, while knowing it's hard to prove, so that Zimmerman will go free. If so, this /would/ lack integrity (or else she's keeping larger things in mind). Or per Rachelle, it's a starting position.

eh said...

You pro-Zimmerman folk are idiots,...

Actually, very few people here are what I would call "pro-Zimmerman". Mostly posters are disgusted with the media's handling of the whole thing, as well as the role of, and pandering to, what I will call Organized Blackness.

But thanks for explaining what happened in such detail. Sounds like you were there and saw it all. Did you happen to film it, e.g. on your cell phone? Please post the video; thanks in advance.

Jerk.

Anonymous said...

"A 17-year-old is a child like a shark is a fish."

I think this kid's videos of his fight club suggest he might have decided to mix it up with George once he scoped him and saw he was short and kind of dumpy looking. There was a period of a few minutes where Trayvon disappeared from Z's sight (Z was on phone with dispatcher). If you go to The Wagist's blog, you can get the visuals.

Anonymous said...

Any special prosecutor that walks into a news conference smiling for some time tells me all I need to know about her "integrity."

Her words (we must provide "justice for Trayvon" and protect the rights of Zimmerman) didn't match her body language, that is her smiling at those black folk in the first row, from the time she walked in and for several minutes thereafter. IN other words, she wanted to please.

stari_momak said...

"You pro-Zimmerman folk are idiots, just like Zimmerman. Zimmerman called him a coon, stalked him, accosted him, wrestled with him, and killed him as Trayvon begged for his life."

You know, GB, aside from the 'racist' name calling, you were actually making some good points. Zimmerman does seem like his is or was a hot head, although that is half decade ago and he seems to have sorted his life to a great degree. But then you have to ruin it with the typical Trayvon supporter drama.

'Stalk' is way overkill. 'Accosted' is not even in evidence (and likely will be a he said/she said with the 'girlfriend'.'Coon' has been disproven, begged for life is ridiculous -- even if that final scream is Martin, it is not begging but a realization that he's dealt with an armed man. The question then becomes could Zimmerman, presumably having drawn his weapon, checked his actions short of firing. Maybe the prosecutors have ballistics evidence that shows Martin was a good distance (say beyond arms reach) from Zimmerman when the shot was fired.

stari_momak said...

One other thing. Several times in my life I've been 'accosted' by folks for various 'infractions' -- unknowingly trespassing, hanging out in my car in a public, non-gated, suburban street, etc. In no case did I feel the need to start a physical confrontation with the 'accoster'. I'm sure most here have had similar encounters -- they aren't pleasant, but even as a teen I knew the best way to deal with them is a calm explanation and assertion of right (if you are, indeed, in the right)

Truth said...

" Dammit! Why does George Zimmerman NOT have the right to walk around in his own neighborhood?"

I think the question is, "Why does Travon Martin..."

Mr. Anon said...

"RKU said...

Some of the totally disgusting commenters here seem to think that neighborhood watch captains should run and hide when they see young thugs wandering around their heighborhood behaving in a suspicious manner, and may be held criminally liable if the irritated thug attacks and tries to beat them to a pulp or kill them. I just don't see how this makes a lot of sense as a general social policy."

Well said. The notion that we should retreat into our homes and let only the police deal with anti-social behavior is part of what leads to anarcho-tyranny and, eventually, to a police-state mentality. It is exactly the mentality that led to Kitty Genovese being stabbed to death while her neighbors looked on from their windows. It does not befit a free people.

Golden Bear said...

Eh said:

"Actually, very few people here are what I would call 'pro-Zimmerman'."

Uh, even cursory review of these posts indicate most folks here are pro-Zimmerman.

Eh continues:

"Mostly posters are disgusted with the media's handling of the whole thing, as well as the role of, and pandering to, what I will call Organized Blackness."

73% of Americans - not 73% of Black Americans - wanted Zimmerman arrested (based on various polls). And that is because the majority of Americans - unlike most commenting here - realize that Zimmerman's actions appear criminal and should be adjudicated to determine if he is guilty or innocent (as Steve Sailer himself has stated).

Moreover, it is clear that this tragedy has shown that the legislature needs to clarify when "stand your ground" applies (as the author of the bill - a conservative Republican - admitted). This is probably playing a big factor in the State prosecuting this case.

Lying and distorting Trayvon's character while minimizing the negative aspects of Zimmerman's is quite sad and evidences a lack of perspective and faulty reasoning.

Good Night.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone else notice her begging at the end for the trial to be held in Seminole County as opposed to somewhere else?

Truth said...

".'Coon' has been disproven, begged for life is ridiculous -- even if that final scream is Martin,"

LMAO!

So one audio evidence is valid, and the other is not?

Rachelle said...

I should point out that it is a common practice for prosecutors to overcharge with the intent of putting pressure on to get a plea bargain.

The prevailing thought [and probably true] is that if everyone wanted a trial the system would be completely overwhelmed. Nobody really wants most trials. They are expensive and take a lot of time.

The solution for the state is to make an offer the defendant can't refuse. Charge very high and let him off with a lesser charge.

Incidentally, the prosecutor in this case is based in Duval county which has a very large black population. I would not be surprised if she had her eye on the next election. I doubt that she is another Mike Nifong, but at the moment I think her reputation is going to be a bit tattered unless she can come up with the goods if Zimmerman chooses to go to trial.

RKU said...

Well, since I wasn't there I obviously can't be absolutely certain of the facts. But they do seem pretty clear to me based on bits of (fearful) eyewitness testimony, leaked bits of the police report, the high-res video, the 911 recording, character references, Facebook postings, and a few other things along those lines. Meanwhile, lots of the contrary initial MSM claims have been exploded as dishonest or outright fabrications, which certainly reduces MSM credibility on the rest. Remember how the MSM spent a week or more claiming that Zimmerman outweighed Little Trayvon by 100(!) pounds. And apparently, the MSM has also gone back to running photos of kindergarten-Travyon, and Zimmerman's bad-looking ones from years ago, which hardly seems very neutral.

Golden Bear: 73% of Americans - not 73% of Black Americans - wanted Zimmerman arrested (based on various polls). And that is because the majority of Americans - unlike most commenting here - realize that Zimmerman's actions appear criminal

Consider an interesting thought-experiment. Suppose the TeeVee and the rest of the MSM suddenly did a total 180, and everything electronic was 24/7 focused on Trayvon's endless thuggish photos and violent, crude Facebook brags and YouTube fights, all his numerous school suspensions and likely criminal activity. Meanwhile, there were endless interviews of Zimmerman's neighbors about how wonderful and upstanding a fellow he was, an absolute model (non-racist) citizen. And all of this would (I think) be totally factually correct unlike the current MSM nonsense.

There would also be lots of broadcasts of all the deadly, violent public threats made by the Black Panther leaders, and the pundits on the cable shows would be debating whether as obvious self-declared terrorists they should all just be given the summary Al-Awaki treatment, or instead maybe rounded up and put on a permanent one-way ride to Guantanamo. Why do we have a Homeland Security Department if it can't round up and immediately eliminate publicly-declared terrorists?

My guess is that three days of this heavy TeeVee treatment, and all the morons commenting here would be 1000% behind Zimmerman, even demanding that he receive a medal for ridding our world of Trayvon. That's because TeeVee defines our social consensus, and morons just love to follow the social consensus.

Personally, I'd really be embarrassed if I realized I was just a puppet dangling on a TeeVee string. But I guess morons don't tend to notice that...

Pincher Martin said...

Golden Bear @ 8:46

"73% of Americans - not 73% of Black Americans - wanted Zimmerman arrested (based on various polls). And that is because the majority of Americans - unlike most commenting here - realize that Zimmerman's actions appear criminal and should be adjudicated to determine if he is guilty or innocent (as Steve Sailer himself has stated)."

Based on various polls? I didn't realize we were determining cases based on media polls now. How convenient for the Martin family, as they seem to have the media pretty well in the bag. All that's left to do is for the media to hand out a sentence to Zimmerman. They have already publicly tried and convicted him.

"Lying and distorting Trayvon's character while minimizing the negative aspects of Zimmerman's is quite sad and evidences a lack of perspective and faulty reasoning."

I would say that your own lies and distortions about this case are more than making up for anything which has been done here by anyone on Zimmerman's behalf. I submit your "Zimmerman called him a coon, stalked him, accosted him, wrestled with him, and killed him as Trayvon begged for his life", which is as egregious in its assumptions as anything written here by those who are still willing to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt.

Based on your commentary so far, a pro-Zimmerman poster, in order to match your efforts, would have to be ready to award Zimmerman a medal for his pre-emptive effort to take out a young thug-in-training before he grew into a more serious social menace.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I am enjoying the view of RKU slowly losing restrain :-)

Does jury have to be unanimous in Florida? If yes, I'd give 95% chances to a hung jury (on account of at least a single black present), 4.5% to acquittal and only 0.5% for conviction (unless a dynamite new evidence surfaces, there is nothing to convict upon in this case; even jury intimidation won't help).

Anonymous said...

Reply to Dahlia:

I read your post with interest. But as regards the Duke Lacrosse players, I feel the mistake was not in getting strippers, but in them not being white. Had that women been white and NOT BLACK, I seriously doubt we would have ever even heard about the matter. The black race-pimps and their rent a mobs wouldn't have been involved. My advice to any white guys planning a stag, bachelor party or any other such thing, is to MAKE ABSOLUTELY 100% SURE any strippers (if you are going that route) are white and NEVER, EVER, BLACK.

Eric Rasmusen said...

Thank you, whoever it was, who posted the 3 elements of second degree murder. If I read them correctly, "depraved mind" means callous towards killing. If so, then Zimmerman doesn't even have to plead self-defense: he gets off if he convince a jury he panicked in the fight. I suppose there must be something like Manslaughter to cover that.

Maybe the prosecutor will charge that too, but thought she had to bring a charge with the word "murder" in it and did so knowing she'd lose on the 2nd degree murder.

Kylie said...

"'When Zimmerman lost sight of him, he should have waited for the police. He had no proof Trayvon was doing anything illegal, so there was no need to follow him. He, not Trayvon, unduly escalated the situation.'

'Should' has nothing to do with it. Walking around your own neighborhood certainly doesn't amount to "escalation" in any meaningful sense (i.e., any sense other than the sociopathic aggrieved Black thug sense)."



"Should" certainly does have something to do with it in this particular circumstance. Zimmerman had already called the police and been told they didn't need him to follow Martin. Zimmerman was armed, which totally changes the equation. As a armed person, he had a duty not to escalate the situation, which is what he did when he left his vehicle and followed Martin on foot. I am 100% sure my CCW instructor would say that absent his witnessing Martin harming or about to harm some other person, Zimmerman should have followed the instruction given him by the police radio dispatcher and remained in his vehicle.

You're quite right that walking around your own neighborhood certainly doesn't amount to "escalation" in any meaningful sense. But that's not what Zimmerman was doing. He was patrolling his neighborhood while armed. So when he exited his vehicle, increasing his chances of some sort of confrontation with Martin, he was "escalating" the situation--not in some sociopathic aggrieved Black thug sense but in the sense that as an armed man, he was increasing his chances for a violent confrontation, necessitating his use of his weapon. That is not what carrying a loaded gun in public is for. Your gun is your weapon of last resort, not your first option. (I realize there are times when the two are conflated.)

Both Zimmerman and Martin were in a public space where both had a right to be and Zimmerman had no reason to believe Martin was about to harm him or anyone else. Zimmerman's duty was therefore restricted to observation of Martin and he overreached that duty when he left the safety of his vehicle to follow Martin on foot.

As to what happened next, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Martin, instead of running off or backing away, approached Zimmerman, even attacked him and that then Zimmerman did need to defend himself. But again, it was Zimmerman, not Martin, who made the face-to-face (or face to back, if he was attacked from behind) confrontation possible, if not inevitable.

I hold no brief for Martin and I feel sorry for Zimmerman. I don't believe he killed Martin because the latter was a young black. I believe he was in fear for his life or even defending his life. But that was a situation he put himself in, not one in which he haplessly found himself.

Again, because apparently this is a concept either hitherto unknown or incredibly difficult to comprehend, when you are carrying a lethal weapon, you have a duty to use that weapon only in defense of yourself or some innocent person. When it comes to self-defense, you may not have a duty to retreat from imminent danger but you most certainly do have a duty not to go forward to confront such a danger, unless you are doing so in defense of an innocent third party.

I'm looking at this from the POV of a gun owner who has no interest in seeing such an inflammatory case use in further restricting her right to gun ownership. Carrying a gun carries with it extra responsibility. If you don't understand that and conduct yourself accordingly, you should not carry a gun.

Anonymous said...

Zimmerman called him a coon, stalked him, accosted him, wrestled with him, and killed him as Trayvon begged for his life.

You must have been there! The prosecution's star witness.

Kylie said...

"It's a questionable judgment call on Zimmerman's part to follow the kid, but it's not illegal."

Agreed.

"It's certainly not escalating anything, and if Trayvon responded to it by assaulting Zimmerman, then Zimmerman will likely go free."

It certainly was escalating the situation because it increased the chances of a confrontation in which Zimmerman would have to draw his gun, which is exactly what happened.

Pincher Martin said...

Kylie,

"It certainly was escalating the situation because it increased the chances of a confrontation in which Zimmerman would have to draw his gun, which is exactly what happened."

That's an unreasonable standard because so many potential sound and reasonable acts by Zimmerman could then be described as escalating the situation.

The mere fact that Zimmerman stopped his truck and took note of a suspicious stranger in his neighborhood increased the chances that he might have to draw his gun and use it. Was that also escalating the situation?

The fact he agreed to wait at the mailbox until the police arrived increased the chance that he might have to draw his gun and use it. Was that escalating the situation?

People are chased through gated communities all the time. How often does it even lead to an assault, let alone a shooting? (Forget about the gun for a moment. Just think of how often someone in a gated community is pursued without it leading to an assault.)

I think it was a questionable judgment call on Zimmerman's part, but not a deliberate and clear escalation. He ran after the kid to keep an eye on him until the police arrived, not to shoot him or beat him. We don't even have a clear sense of the distance separating the two when Zimmerman took after Martin, but based on the fact that Zimmerman lost Martin in his own neighborhood, he couldn't have been that close.

Pincher Martin said...

Kylie,

"Both Zimmerman and Martin were in a public space where both had a right to be and Zimmerman had no reason to believe Martin was about to harm him or anyone else. Zimmerman's duty was therefore restricted to observation of Martin and he overreached that duty when he left the safety of his vehicle to follow Martin on foot"

When you write this, it's pretty clear you haven't studied the neighborhood maps or the likely routes taken by both Martin and Zimmerman before their deadly confrontation -- all of which are provided at wagist's site.

Take a look at those maps and tell me how Zimmerman was going to keep eyes on the suspicious stranger from Zimmerman's truck after the stranger bolted between the residences? Zimmerman realized he couldn't. That's why he left his truck. And even then, he still lost track of Martin.

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

""Dammit! Why does George Zimmerman NOT have the right to walk around in his own neighborhood?""

I think the question is, "Why does Travon Martin..."

..... not have the right to accost and beat up someone walking around his own neighborhood?

Seamus said...

Whatever else unlawful he may have done, Zimmerman is certainly guilty of stupidity for going out there to confront Martin when it was (apparently) clear neither life nor limb -- his or anyone else's -- was in immediate danger.

Except, as best we know, he didn't "go out there to confront Martin." He went out there to *follow* Martin, so he could direct the cops toward him when they showed up.

Kylie said...

"Kylie,

"Both Zimmerman and Martin were in a public space where both had a right to be and Zimmerman had no reason to believe Martin was about to harm him or anyone else. Zimmerman's duty was therefore restricted to observation of Martin and he overreached that duty when he left the safety of his vehicle to follow Martin on foot"

When you write this, it's pretty clear you haven't studied the neighborhood maps or the likely routes taken by both Martin and Zimmerman before their deadly confrontation -- all of which are provided at wagist's site."


Right you are. I didn't study them. But I did look them over carefully before making any of my comments in this thread.

When you write this, it's pretty clear you haven't taken a CCW course.

Zimmerman had been able to contact police, who said they were on the way and for him to stay put. They didn't say they weren't going to bother with another one of his frequent calls, they didn't say to keep the suspicious-looking character in sight. He'd done what he needed to do and absent some third party being put at risk of physical harm by Martin, Zimmerman needed to stay in his vehicle. As yet, there is no evidence that Martin posed any such risk to a third party. No girl has come forth to say Martin grabbed her, no old person claims Martin pushed him to the ground. A teen wearing a hoodie and milling around an apartment complex at night looks suspicious, yes. But the very fact that no one else seemed to be around on foot means that the kid posed no risk to any third party. Even if he'd been there to buy or sell drugs or seemed to be casing an apartment, those are still not the kinds of crime to which any responsible gun-owner will respond with lethal force.

If Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and Martin had approached that vehicle in a menacing or threatening manner, beyond making sure the doors were locked and the windows rolled up, I don't think Zimmerman had any further duty to retreat. In this scenario, I think Zimmerman would have been well within his rights to shoot Martin. That's because trying to drive away thus giving Martin the time to pull a weapon if he had one could have resulted in Zimmerman being shot.

Second, let me repeat this yet again. People who carry guns legally do so to protect themselves or others whom they know or perceive to be potential or actual victims of violent crime. If they carry for any other reason, their permits should be revoked. The CCW permit is not a licence to fight crime, it's a legal imprimatur for self-defense.

Zimmerman was in no physical danger. No innocent third party was in physical danger. Ergo, no need to exit the vehicle.

Kylie said...

"I think it was a questionable judgment call on Zimmerman's part, but not a deliberate and clear escalation."

It was a questionable judgment call on Zimmerman's part that led to an escalation. When I took my CCW course, I was quite surprised at how much of it was concerned with how to avoid having to fire your weapon. We learned how to avoid those making questionable judgment calls that lead to an escalating situation in which you have to fire your weapon. It was a questionable judgment call that led to a lethal confrontation and to Zimmerman being charged with murder.

"He ran after the kid to keep an eye on him until the police arrived, not to shoot him or beat him. "

I believe that. I also believe he shot Martin out of fear for his life, not racial hatred. I also believe he's truly sorry about the whole sorry situation.

But the only legally safe way for him to follow Martin would have been to lock his firearm in his car and then follow him on foot. But of course, he wasn't going to do that. And if he wasn't going to do that, then--again, absent some third party's need for his help--he should have stayed in his vehicle. Because unless you are an officer of the law, if you advance toward a situation in which you think you'll have to use your gun, there are only a very limitted numbers of reasons why you can legally so do. And keeping a "suspiciuos-looking character" in sight is not one of them.

The fact that Zimmerman's whole life is in ruins now should go some way to validating my argument here. That it doesn't is really kind of scary. I sure don't want any of you around if I find myself in a dicey situation.

Svigor said...

Sugarbear, are you going to answer my question about child endangerment?

You seem fond of the if x didn't happen, y could not have happened style of logic.

So it should be obvious to you: if Trayvon "NLN" Martin's absentee father had not committed child abandonment (Trayvon was a child, was he not? Your words, right?), would Trayvon be alive today?

Isn't this all his daddy's fault? Didn't he "escalate" Trayvon right into the morgue?

Do you know anything about this case? A few years ago, Zimmerman was charged with resisting a police officer (which is where the original photo of him in the orange jail outfit came from). He pled out. His former fiancee filed a report saying he was physical with her. Former co-workers said he was a nice guy, but could become angry very quickly.

So, you can't describe the "violence" you referred to. You don't have a clue. And you don't care. You think you just get to substitute charges for facts.

But there is some data available. From what I've read so far, the resisting charge involved no violence. And from what I've read of the incident of the fiance, George had injuries, and she did not. I forget which of the cases had the charges dropped, and which would up going nowhere. Someone who cares might fill us in.

So, do you know anything about this case?

Honestly, do your homework - all this info has been out there for weeks now. Zimmerman has documented violent tendencies. the rest of your post is just nonsense.

No, no documented violent tendencies.

As to all of you who call Trayvon a "thug," Trayvon, unlike Zimmerman, has never been arrested in his life. He was suspended from school for tardies and having an EMPTY ziplock bag that allegedly contained weed. Fellow students said he was a nice, quiet kid. He got good grades. That what his teachers said.

Yes, there's the empty bag that stank of weed. And his general thug-aping tendencies on social media. And then there's his assaulting a bus driver, which I haven't heard anything definitive about yet, but it'll be followed up eventually. And his being caught with a bag full of ladies' jewelry and a screwdriver. And that other rumor, about his fight club videos, which I haven't seen yet.

George's neighbors all love him, apparently.

He wore fake removable grills and talk BS on his twitter feed - like many silly teenagers of all colors.

A removable grill is not "fake," it's just a grill. Many silly teenagers of all colors wind up in the pen.

You pro-Zimmerman folk are idiots, just like Zimmerman. Zimmerman called him a coon, stalked him, accosted him, wrestled with him, and killed him as Trayvon begged for his life.

And you're asking me if I know anything about this case?

And you think he is a great guy or even heroic. Pathetic.

You have to put words into my mouth and thoughts into my head to argue or disagree with. Lame.

Svigor said...

" Dammit! Why does George Zimmerman NOT have the right to walk around in his own neighborhood?"

I think the question is, "Why does Travon Martin..."


When someone puts him on trial and starts using the fact that he was walking around his father's neighborhood as evidence of a crime, you'll have a point.

73% of Americans - not 73% of Black Americans - wanted Zimmerman arrested (based on various polls). And that is because the majority of Americans - unlike most commenting here - realize that Zimmerman's actions appear criminal and should be adjudicated to determine if he is guilty or innocent (as Steve Sailer himself has stated).

27% of Americans saw through the media circus. Impressive. (Pretty close to what one would expect from the study - once referenced by Aldous Huxley in a speech, which is the only source I have - that found that 20% of the population always falls for hypnosis, 60% are variously susceptible, and 20% are immune)

Moreover, it is clear that this tragedy has shown that the legislature needs to clarify when "stand your ground" applies (as the author of the bill - a conservative Republican - admitted). This is probably playing a big factor in the State prosecuting this case.

Actually, I think that guy at Volokh Conspiracy pretty much put to bed the idea that this case has anything to do with stand your ground laws.

Lying and distorting Trayvon's character while minimizing the negative aspects of Zimmerman's is quite sad and evidences a lack of perspective and faulty reasoning.

Has anyone called you a libtard today? Because you are, and you need to hear it once in a while.

Does jury have to be unanimous in Florida? If yes, I'd give 95% chances to a hung jury (on account of at least a single black present), 4.5% to acquittal and only 0.5% for conviction (unless a dynamite new evidence surfaces, there is nothing to convict upon in this case; even jury intimidation won't help).

Agreed. Based on what I've read so far, George will walk. And any jury deliberation beyond a few hours will be strictly for show, while the jury eats donuts. And libtards will gnash their teeth. And Blacks will riot.

It certainly was escalating the situation because it increased the chances of a confrontation in which Zimmerman would have to draw his gun, which is exactly what happened.

That's not a legitimate definition of "escalation" IMO. It's not just about odds. Having the nerve to patrol one's neighborhood increases the odds of confrontation. More ways to "escalate" a situation:

Buying a gun.
Defending one's home from a burglar, rather than running out the back door.
Leaving one's home.
Visiting a bar.
Investigating sounds of a break-in.
As a law enforcement officer, responding to a call.
As an EMS tech, responding to a call.
Returning a "not guilty" verdict for George Zimmerman.

Et cetera.

Svigor said...

But the only legally safe way for him to follow Martin would have been to lock his firearm in his car and then follow him on foot. But of course, he wasn't going to do that.

So, the only legally safe way for him to follow Martin was to be a dumbass. Okay.

Because unless you are an officer of the law, if you advance toward a situation in which you think you'll have to use your gun, there are only a very limitted numbers of reasons why you can legally so do. And keeping a "suspiciuos-looking character" in sight is not one of them.

I'd like to see some black-letter law on that one. Your CCW instructor ain't blowing my skirt up.

Second, let me repeat this yet again. People who carry guns legally do so to protect themselves or others whom they know or perceive to be potential or actual victims of violent crime. If they carry for any other reason, their permits should be revoked. The CCW permit is not a licence to fight crime, it's a legal imprimatur for self-defense.

Again, black-letter law please?

Pincher Martin said...

Kylie,

"Zimmerman had been able to contact police, who said they were on the way and for him to stay put. They didn't say they weren't going to bother with another one of his frequent calls, they didn't say to keep the suspicious-looking character in sight. He'd done what he needed to do and absent some third party being put at risk of physical harm by Martin, Zimmerman needed to stay in his vehicle."

You just pointed out that "Zimmerman's duty was therefore restricted to observation of Martin". I'm merely pointing out that Martin ran to a part of the neighborhood where Zimmerman could not have performed what you consider the reasonable duty of observing Martin without leaving his vehicle.

"As yet, there is no evidence that Martin posed any such risk to a third party. No girl has come forth to say Martin grabbed her, no old person claims Martin pushed him to the ground. A teen wearing a hoodie and milling around an apartment complex at night looks suspicious, yes. But the very fact that no one else seemed to be around on foot means that the kid posed no risk to any third party."

Zimmerman lived in this Twin Lakes gated community for several years. He probably had at least a nodding acquaintance with most people in the neighborhood. By their nature, such neighborhoods are exclusive. Strangers stand out, and suspicious-looking strangers (i.e., loiterers, those hiding their identities, etc.) stand out even more. Zimmerman saw something he thought was worth calling the police about. What's the point of calling the police about a suspicious stranger in your neighborhood and then not being able to show the police where that stranger is at when they arrive?

"People who carry guns legally do so to protect themselves or others whom they know or perceive to be potential or actual victims of violent crime. If they carry for any other reason, their permits should be revoked. The CCW permit is not a licence to fight crime, it's a legal imprimatur for self-defense."

Every citizen should feel a responsibility to fight crime, and that responsibility should not be lessened just because you carry a concealed weapon.

You focus too much on Zimmerman leaving his vehicle to follow Martin. It was a questionable move on Zimmerman's part, but it also appears that decision did not directly lead to the confrontation because Martin had time to evade Zimmerman and for whatever reason chose to double-back and confront Zimmerman.

Steve Sailer said...

By the way, how sure are we that Martin "doubled-back" to confront Zimmerman? How do we know that they didn't just wander into each other by accident? I'm not sure how well Martin knew the lay of the land in this confusing layout.

Pincher Martin said...

Kylie @ 8:37

"It was a questionable judgment call on Zimmerman's part that led to an escalation."

It doesn't appear so. At least not directly. It appears Martin eluded Zimmerman's observation despite Zimmerman's best efforts to follow him, but the young kid doubled-back to confront Zimmerman for some unknown reason.

"When I took my CCW course, I was quite surprised at how much of it was concerned with how to avoid having to fire your weapon."

I'm not surprised. Every firearms course I've taken stresses safety and caution above all else.

"We learned how to avoid those making questionable judgment calls that lead to an escalating situation in which you have to fire your weapon. It was a questionable judgment call that led to a lethal confrontation and to Zimmerman being charged with murder."

Some students are better at understanding lessons they are taught than are other students.

Zimmerman's decision to leave his vehicle was just one decision made among many that night. And if Trayvon Martin doubled-back to confront Zimmerman after successfully eluding him, and if he initiated the physical assault, then Zimmerman's decision to leave his vehicle was not among the worst two decisions made that night by one of the participants.

Pincher Martin said...

"By the way, how sure are we that Martin "doubled-back" to confront Zimmerman?"

Well, I'm not completely sure, of course.

What we can be sure about is that if Trayvon Martin had simply wanted to ditch Zimmerman and get back home, it shouldn't have been a problem for him, assuming he wasn't completely lost. He had plenty of time to do so and the initial direction he ran appears to have been towards the house.

"How do we know that they didn't just wander into each other by accident? I'm not sure how well Martin knew the lay of the land in this confusing layout."

I'm not sure it's that confusing. The girlfriend's house was apparently at the end of a block of three identical residential buildings running along a street on the edge of the community. The home also appears to be in the initial direction Trayvon Martin ran, which suggests he wasn't lost and knew what direction to go when he felt threatened.

But we can be certain that Trayvon doubled back for whatever reason? No, we can't be certain.

Svigor said...

The fact that Zimmerman's whole life is in ruins now should go some way to validating my argument here. That it doesn't is really kind of scary. I sure don't want any of you around if I find myself in a dicey situation.

I think you're missing the point: that George's ruined life validates a different argument than the one you're making.

I say, it validates the argument that we live under anarcho-tyranny. Now, if you want to make the argument that the way to survive under anarcho-tyranny is to hide in your home - that anarcho-tyranny means you must let the state (refuse to) police your community - I'm right there beside you.

Golden Bear said...

Svigor:

There is no need to respond to your rantings. Your distortions of what is known so far and outright lies evidence your pro-Zimmerman views, logic be damned.

If there were a video recording the entire incident and showing Zimmerman's malfeasance, you STILL would support him.

Nony at 10:35 pm last night:

"'Zimmerman called him a coon, stalked him, accosted him, wrestled with him, and killed him as Trayvon begged for his life.'

You must have been there! The prosecution's star witness."

No, no, Nony; I wasn't there. I just pay attention:

"Coon" - unclear to some (not most), but on the 911 recording.

"Stalked" - Police told him to stop following, but Zimmerman kept on anyway.

"Accosted" - Girlfriend on telephone said Zimmerman came up, confronted Trayvon, then apparently pushed him.

"Wrestled" - Zimmerman said they wrestled on the ground, then Trayvon allegedly started bashing his head.

"Killed" - Zimmerman himself said he killed him (whether it is murder will be determined). Begging voice analyzed by two professional voice analyzers and both said it was not Zimmerman (and thus, one can conclude, it must be Trayvon).

To quote Darth Vader, all to easy . . . .

Svigor said...

There is no need to respond to your rantings.

See what I mean?

Not a word about how Martin Sr. left a "child" alone, to fend for himself, at night (Trayvon is a "child" to (at most) the extent that his father is guilty of latchkey parenting).

Not a word about the fact that the resisting arrest charge never went anywhere, and never involved any violence on the part of Zimmerman, but is somehow supposed to stand in for actual violence.

Not a word about how George was the only one to come out of his supposedly violent encounter with his fiance with any actual injuries. Not a word about how the case never resulted in a conviction.

Guilty until proven innocent, according to the lib.

And of course, he doesn't care that he was wrong about George's supposed history of violence. In fact, now he's now avoiding the subject, pretending it doesn't exist, as if he never brought it up.

Don't look for integrity in these people*, it's like looking for a needle in a haystack.

*Activist libs.

Truth said...

"if Trayvon "NLN" Martin's absentee father had not committed child abandonment "

How was he absentee when Travon was going to visit him?

Truth said...

"And then there's his assaulting a bus driver, which I haven't heard anything definitive about yet,"

Then why are you bringing it up?

"George's neighbors all love him, apparently."

So do Travon's classmates and teachers.

"..... not have the right to accost and beat up someone walking around his own neighborhood?"

No, not have the right to defend himself around an armed stalker with a gun.

"And that other rumor, about his fight club videos, which I haven't seen yet."

Way to nail that evidence down, F. Lee Bailey.

"So, do you know anything about this case?"

Are you sure you want to ask this question, Svigor?

"A removable grill is not "fake," it's just a grill."

It's considered "fake" when it's not made of real gold, Ice-T.

"And you think he is a great guy or even heroic. Pathetic"

When did he write that?

"When someone puts him on trial and starts using the fact that he was walking around his father's neighborhood as evidence of a crime, you'll have a point."

He was killed walking from the 7-11 to his residence, apparently he did not have the right.


"Has anyone called you a libtard today? Because you are, and you need to hear it once in a while"

Is he a stooopit doo-doo head, also?

"I'm merely pointing out that Martin ran to a part of the neighborhood where Zimmerman could not have performed what you consider the reasonable duty of observing Martin without leaving his vehicle."

And how long was he out of the academy? Oh, he never attended the police academy because he was ARRESTED FOR OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.

"Every citizen should feel a responsibility to fight crime,"

You're not fighting a 2nd-degree murder.

Kylie said...

"I say, it validates the argument that we live under anarcho-tyranny."

No argument there.

"Now, if you want to make the argument that the way to survive under anarcho-tyranny is to hide in your home - that anarcho-tyranny means you must let the state (refuse to) police your community - I'm right there beside you."

That's not precisely the argument I would make. And while I'd enjoy the chance to explain my view to you, personally, I have no intention of discussing it on a public forum.

See? I know when to stand my ground and when to advance. Were I to advance my argument, I would surely regret it sooner or later, probably sooner rather than later.

Kylie said...

I knew a guy who'd done six years for manslaughter.

His girlfriend, whom he did not meet until after her divorce, had an abusive, stalking ex. One night, when my friend and the girlfriend were asleep at her house, my friend heard the ex break in and shoot his German Shepherd to death. My friend grabbed his shotgun, went downstairs and killed the ex. Despite the ex having a history of stalking and abuse, breaking into the house (which IIRC was not his) and killing a dog that had not attacked him, my friend was found guilty of manslaughter. (Everyone was white, there was no racial component to the situation.) Apparently, the fact that he'd gone downstairs to confront an armed intruder rather than remain upstairs weighed against him.

I have no reason to doubt his account and people who'd known him at the time were unanimously supportive of him when they spoke of him to me. They felt he'd been unjustly convicted, that he was a man of good character and integrity. I certainly found him to be so when I knew him. Prison had made him cautious but it had not hardened him or robbed him of his humanity.

It's this kind of thing that I'm thinking about when I say that, given all we know at this time, GZ should have stayed in his vehicle. My concern is not whether or not he had a right to patrol and protect his own neighborhood but whether the fact that he left his vehicle makes it more or less likely that he'll do time. I think it makes it more likely.

Pincher Martin said...

Truthmonger,

"And how long was he out of the academy? Oh, he never attended the police academy because he was ARRESTED FOR OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE."

Are you still gibbering about how a twenty-year-old Zimmerman pushed a law enforcement officer because he was upset his friend was getting arrested at a bar for underage drinking? That charge was reduced and dropped. Plainly, Zimmerman was a dangerous fellow looking for trouble.

"You're not fighting a 2nd-degree murder."

That's because I'm too busy fighting a lynch mob.

Pincher Martin said...

"His girlfriend, whom he did not meet until after her divorce, had an abusive, stalking ex. One night, when my friend and the girlfriend were asleep at her house, my friend heard the ex break in and shoot his German Shepherd to death. My friend grabbed his shotgun, went downstairs and killed the ex. Despite the ex having a history of stalking and abuse, breaking into the house (which IIRC was not his) and killing a dog that had not attacked him, my friend was found guilty of manslaughter. (Everyone was white, there was no racial component to the situation.) Apparently, the fact that he'd gone downstairs to confront an armed intruder rather than remain upstairs weighed against him."

This must be more to this story. He had a shitty lawyer. He shot the intruder in the back as he was going out the door. Something.

You don't need a "Stand Your Ground" state to win that kind of case.

Truth said...

"Are you still gibbering about how a twenty-year-old Zimmerman pushed a law enforcement officer because he was upset "

Keep in mind the 85 IQ and help me with this: Twenty is still older than seventeen, right?

"That charge was reduced and dropped."

No it was not, he was charged with a felony and a misdemeanor originally, and the outcomes were sealed; presumably for the same reason he was not arrested for murder when the first detective on the scene wrote it up that way: Because his WHITE father is a RETIRED MAGISTRATE COURT JUDGE FROM THE LOCAL AREA.

2005-CF-009525-A-O
ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE MICHAEL
10/05/1983

07/18/2005
Div 10
OKane, Julie H

Criminal Felony
Closed

CR-RESISTING OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE
BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
2005-MM-010436-A-O
ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE MICHAEL
10/05/1983

07/18/2005
Orlando
Miller, W Michael

Misdemeanor
Closed

CR-RESISTING OFFICER WITHOUT VIOLENCE
2005-DR-012980-O

Svigor said...

Alan Dershowitz:

Dershowitz called the affidavit justifying Zimmerman’s arrest “not only thin, it’s irresponsible.” He went on to criticize the decision to charge Zimmerman for second degree murder by special prosecutor Angela Corey as being politically motivated.

“You’ve seen the affidavit of probable cause. What do you make of it,” Smerconish asked. “It won’t suffice,” Dershowitz replied without hesitation.

“Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,” Dershowitz said. “There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.”

Dershowitz said that the elements that would constitute that crime are non-existent in the affidavit. “It’s not only thin, it’s irresponsible,” said Dershowitz.

Dershowitz went on to strongly criticize Corey’s decision to move forward with the case against Zimmerman. “I think what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her presentation and overcharged. This case will not – if the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable cause affidavit – this case will result in an acquittal.”

Smerconish identified the total lack of any mention of the supposed fight that occurred between Martin and Zimmerman prior to Martin being shot. He said he was disappointed that he did not see any mention of that conflict that led to Martin’s murder.

“But it’s worse than that,” said Dershowitz. “It’s irresponsible and unethical in not including material that favors the defendant.”

“This affidavit does not even make it to probable cause,” Dershowitz concluded. “everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense. Everything.”

Pincher Martin said...

Truthmonger,

"Keep in mind the 85 IQ and help me with this: Twenty is still older than seventeen, right?"

So? Two months ago -- when Trayvon allegedly assaulted Zimmerman -- is more recent than seven years ago.

You don't have to go seven years back to discover the young Martin was a precocious punk. You do have to go quite a few years back, however, to find any even semi-serious problems with Zimmerman.

"No it was not, he was charged with a felony and a misdemeanor originally, and the outcomes were sealed; presumably for the same reason he was not arrested for murder when the first detective on the scene wrote it up that way: Because his WHITE father is a RETIRED MAGISTRATE COURT JUDGE FROM THE LOCAL AREA."

That's a fine tale - full of truthiness if not actual truth - but it will require a far better storyteller than you before I accept it.

The mainstream media -- no friend of Zimmerman -- is reporting he was originally charged with a third-degree felony in 2005, which was reduced to a misdemeanor, and finally waived after he completed an alcohol education program.

That's quite a bit less sensational than your spin.

Steve Sailer said...

Neither of these guys sounded like they'd have been a good candidate to captain a nuclear ICBM submarine.

Pincher Martin said...

"Neither of these guys sounded like they'd have been a good candidate to captain a nuclear ICBM submarine."

No, but some places in this country are heavily populated with these kind of young men. They are marginal men in marginal communities. You could probably search all day in some of them before you found even one potential nuclear submarine captain.

For all we know, the young man who graduates from high school, gets two years of community college under his belt, and mainly gets into trouble because he is overly protective of his friends and their property might be a standout citizen in Zimmerman's community. Shouldn't we be encouraging those social traits in some of our more marginal neighborhoods?

I think it's true, if a little too flip, to claim that there aren't any major differences in personality type and IQ between the cops and those they often arrest. But perhaps it's worth respecting a marginal difference when it leads one below-average bloke to successfully become a cop and another below-average bloke to become a criminal.

Similarly, I see in Zimmerman a below-average fellow struggling to be a positive force in his community. His judgment wasn't always the best, but then you don't expect a young man's judgment to be the best in many of these communities.

Truth said...

"So? Two months ago -- when Trayvon allegedly assaulted Zimmerman -- is more recent than seven years ago."

That's really not the point, we have no frame with which to compare Martin's behavior to Zimmerman's at 20, because he won't make it to 20. What we can do is compare his sense of legal compliance to that of a man three years older. I would say that without further information Martin stacks up well in this response.

Per your link:

"Contemporaneous accounts indicate he shoved an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking at an Orange County bar."

Now if A twenty-year old who spends his life imitating police officers does not respect one, why should a 17-year old respect a non police officer?

Thank you for that information on Zimmerman Sr. I looked for more background on his legal career and was unable to find it. It does seem from that, that he may have had limited influence over his son's sentencing.

And Steve, I, of all people, get sarcasm, but I would estimate that somewhere between 0-1%of your readership would be good candidates to captain an ICMB sub.

Kylie said...

"This must be more to this story. He had a shitty lawyer. He shot the intruder in the back as he was going out the door. Something.

You don't need a 'Stand Your Ground' state to win that kind of case."


IIRC, his conviction had something to do with the fact that he shot the intruder in his girlfriend's house, not his own. I'm also not sure in which state this took place.

Still, my point is that the law is quirky to the point of utter irrationality and what seems to a layperson to be axiomatically reasonable and fair can be grounds for a conviction. For example, I was utterly shocked and horrified to learn that in some locales, people in their own homes have a "duty to retreat" before they can respond to a break-in with lethal force.

Truth said...

"Dershowitz called the affidavit justifying Zimmerman’s arrest “not only thin, it’s irresponsible.” He went on to criticize the decision to charge Zimmerman for second degree murder by special prosecutor Angela Corey as being politically motivated. "

Oh, so that said by liberal, Harvard-educated, civil-rights attorney's has significance now?

I guess we know where your vote is going in November.

Kylie said...

"Every citizen should feel a responsibility to fight crime, and that responsibility should not be lessened just because you carry a concealed weapon."

No, that responsibility is lessened because I now live in "It's a black world now", the country of Eric "My People" Holder's people.

I feel no responsibility to fight crime when doing so will bring me into direct conflict with a legal system predisposed to favor non-whites over whites.

Either you do not live in the US or you are deluding yourself as to how radically it has diverged from the principles by which it was established.

Truth said...

"I feel no responsibility to fight crime when doing so will bring me into direct conflict with a legal system predisposed to favor non-whites over whites."

Is that why there are so many more (per capita) blacks in jail? Why sentencing is readily biased against blacks for similar crimes, and why crack cocaine garners the user much stiffer sentences than does crack.

Pincher Martin said...

"That's really not the point, we have no frame with which to compare Martin's behavior to Zimmerman's at 20, because he won't make it to 20. What we can do is compare his sense of legal compliance to that of a man three years older. I would say that without further information Martin stacks up well in this response."

Then compare their experiences up until Zimmerman turned seventeen.

Did Zimmerman get suspended from high school on a periodic basis?

Did Zimmerman ever get caught with a "burglary tool" and women's jewelry in his backpack?

Was Zimmerman a drug user not just in high school, but at high school?

Did Zimmerman attempt to assault adults in authority while at high school?

If you insist on a comparative frame of experience between Martin and Zimmerman, so that you might hang Zimmerman for things he did at an age Martin will never reach, then you should use the only frame of reference that's fair: what they both did until they were seventeen years old. I suspect if Zimmerman had done any of the things I mentioned above in high school, we would have heard about it by now. After all, the MSM has even reported on Zimmerman's speeding ticket.

We have no idea what Martin would have done after the age of seventeen, but based on his demonstrated precocity before he turned eighteen, I think he would have topped Zimmerman's rather pathetic arrest record. But that's merely speculation on my part. Perhaps Trayvon would have grown up to be a fine young man with a somewhat troubled youth.

Using this kind of comparative frame of reference, however, is stupid. The people here who usually mention Trayvon Martin's past transgressions are not trying to say he was more reckless or criminal than Zimmerman. They're simply trying to combat the media-created stereotype that Trayvon was an angelic-looking eleven-year-old walking home from the store before Zimmerman killed him for being black. In that sense, and in only that sense, is Martin's record useful to consider.

Pincher Martin said...

"Now if A twenty-year old who spends his life imitating police officers does not respect one, why should a 17-year old respect a non police officer?"

One reason the twenty-year-old Zimmerman might not have respected the man making the arrest was because the guy was not in a uniform. In fact, to this day, Zimmerman claims the law enforcement officer didn't expressly announce who he was (the officer disagreed, obviously), and that was the only reason he intervened on his friend's behalf.

Steve Sailer said...

My view is that Trayvon's track record up through 17 wasn't all that bad, and offered at least hope that he could have matured into a non-criminal. The jewelry thing, although unproven, is the most serious. If he'd had the same list of offenses at 14, rather than 17, obviously he would have been on a trajectory for career criminaldom. At 17, he was approaching a crisis point -- his mother had sent him to her ex-husband's to get him away from his lowlife friends in Miami for the duration of his suspension. But, I haven't heard evidence that he was in a gang yet. He mostly seemed like a wanna-be, who still had some chance of escaping the Thug Life, much as it fascinated him.

Pincher Martin said...

Kylie,

"No, that responsibility is lessened because I now live in "It's a black world now", the country of Eric "My People" Holder's people.

I feel no responsibility to fight crime when doing so will bring me into direct conflict with a legal system predisposed to favor non-whites over whites.

Either you do not live in the US or you are deluding yourself as to how radically it has diverged from the principles by which it was established."


Then what you're saying is that you're giving up and retreating into a safe cocoon, and that you're willing to surrender hostages (i.e., Zimmerman) to forestall the day they arrive at your cocoon.

Your retreat will not save you.

Poor Zimmerman. He wasn't as smart as you or me. He made the mistake of living in a marginal neighborhood and actually caring about the community. He networked with his neighbors and helped guard their property. Sure, he was a little overzealous, but he had a long track record of good deeds in his community before that tragic night.

I guess he should have moved to the suburbs.

Pincher Martin said...

"My view is that Trayvon's track record up through 17 wasn't all that bad, and offered at least hope that he could have matured into a non-criminal."

I agree. I don't think Trayvon was that bad. He might have matured into a fine young man.

But the media invited this dirt-digging and speculation by portraying Trayvon as a young choir boy who just wanted to eat his skittles in peace until the racist Zimmerman gunned him down.

Kylie said...

"Then what you're saying is that you're giving up and retreating into a safe cocoon, and that you're willing to surrender hostages (i.e., Zimmerman) to forestall the day they arrive at your cocoon."

Where did I say that? Try reading what I'm saying instead of reading things into what I'm saying.

"Your retreat will not save you."

And you and your ilk will? Don't make me laugh. I have had guns and knives pulled on me, I've been robbed and beat up. I'm not the cocooned suburbanite you apparently take me for.

"Poor Zimmerman. He wasn't as smart as you or me. He made the mistake of living in a marginal neighborhood and actually caring about the community. He networked with his neighbors and helped guard their property. "

Been there, done that. All of it. And my neighborhood wasn't even nice enough to rate any gates, though god knows we could have used them. It was right around the corner from the bus station in a city 20 miles from the state pen. So when newly-released ex-cons got off the bus and asked where cheap lodging was, they usually ended up in somewhere on my block. I was in a distinct minority--one of the very few persons in that area who had no criminal record. We didn't have many murders, true, but we had plenty of lesser violent crimes and a lot of property crime.

But you are right about one thing. GZ is not as smart as I am. I learned when to walk away from a fight and how and when to pick my fights. And yes, that included standing my ground, unarmed, and knowing I was about to get my lights punched out but also knowing that standing there taking it once was the only hope I had of not becoming a perpetual punching bag.

"I guess he should have moved to the suburbs."

Whoa, like a broken clock, you've now been right twice in one day. Yes, he'd probably have been better off there. But if that's your snide way of saying I moved to the suburbs, you're wrong again. I live in a small town in a modest neighborhood a few hundred feet from the projects.

You really need to quit being so presumptuous.

Pincher Martin said...

Kylie,

I'm just reading your words. Here you are, for example, telling me that as long as Eric Holder is AG, you feel no responsibility for fighting crime if it brings you into "direct conflict" with the legal system.

"No, that responsibility is lessened because I now live in 'It's a black world now', the country of Eric "My People" Holder's people."

"I feel no responsibility to fight crime when doing so will bring me into direct conflict with a legal system predisposed to favor non-whites over whites."


Yes, you're more than a little vague about what that "direct conflict" means, but however you can reasonably define the term, it takes no presumption on my part to see that you're generally for moving backwards, not forwards.

"You really need to quit being so presumptuous."

This comes from a fellow who just said to me, "Either you do not live in the US or you are deluding yourself as to how radically it has diverged from the principles by which it was established." [My emphasis added.]

Apparently , Kylie, you feel free to presume where I live -- even questioning my country of residence or whether I understand the principles on which this country was founded -- but I don't have the same freedom to assume you're a retreating suburbanite.

Pincher Martin said...

Steve,

"The jewelry thing, although unproven, is the most serious."

You're right that the jewelry thing is the most serious of the unproven speculations about the young Trayvon Martin's flirtation with a juvenile record.

But it's the ambiguous tweet his brother sent him that suggests he took a swing at a bus driver that is potentially the most consequential for this case.

Taking a swing at an adult authority figure, even if it is just a bus driver, is a pretty serious thing for a sixteen-year-old boy to do. If he did it, then it seems pretty clear he's capable of assaulting an adult like Zimmerman.

If Trayvon didn't do it, and he has no other record of violence, then Zimmerman has a pretty tough row to hoe in convincing a jury that the boy attacked him first for no apparent reason. Zimmerman better hope that someone actually saw the fight start by Martin jumping him.

Truth said...

"One reason the twenty-year-old Zimmerman might not have respected the man making the arrest was because the guy was not in a uniform."

...But neither was he.

"Then compare their experiences up until Zimmerman turned seventeen...."

We don't know what Zimmerman did up until he turned 17. I've not been able to find any information on his life as a minor and there's a good reason for that...it's insignificant. You probably make a grand assumption to the viewpoint that this means that he was an angel in high school, I don't see it that way. Maybe he was, we'll never know.

I do know that police departments all over the country are starved for applicants. Here in Albuquerque, the APD has taken to traveling to midwestern job fairs pimping the New Mexico weather because they cannot sell enough people on the job itself.

Zimmerman seemed to idolize the police, and applied for the police academy. His inability to get in is quite telling.

Truth said...

"But the media invited this dirt-digging and speculation by portraying Trayvon as a young choir boy who just wanted to eat his skittles in peace until the racist Zimmerman gunned him down."

Again, not the point. It is established that Martin left a 7-11 and was headed to a domicile in the complex. Everything else is pure speculation and squid ink.

Golden Bear said...

Steve Sailer said:

"My view is that Trayvon's track record up through 17 wasn't all that bad, and offered at least hope that he could have matured into a non-criminal. The jewelry thing, although unproven, is the most serious. If he'd had the same list of offenses at 14, rather than 17, obviously he would have been on a trajectory for career criminaldom. "At 17, he was approaching a crisis point -- his mother had sent him to her ex-husband's to get him away from his lowlife friends in Miami for the duration of his suspension. But, I haven't heard evidence that he was in a gang yet. He mostly seemed like a wanna-be, who still had some chance of escaping the Thug Life, much as it fascinated him."

SS, this is about as fair an assessment as one can make of Trayvon and I agree with it 100%. Trayvon's parents saw him as a bright young man who was increasingly fascinated by the insidious "thug life," which has consumed so many young men of all races (predominately nowadays, Blacks and Browns). They were trying to get him through this silly phase.

Seeing the interview with his brother, a student of information technology at Florida International Univ., was telling. The brother is a well-spoken and apparently low-key young man. He most likely was trying as well to impart some sense into Trayvon.

As Truth has been repeatedly pointed out, none of this should matter because Zimmerman's actions put Trayvon in fear of his life. So even if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, Trayvon - not Zimmerman - had the right to "stand his ground."

Truth said...

Thank you Golden Bear, and to extrapolate, people think that I am anti-Zimmerman and pro Martin, I'm not.

GZ seems like a nice guy with his heart in the right place. It would be too bad to see him serve a conviction over what is, in essence a series of bad decisions; but, if you have a few drinks and then kill someone cleaning your gun, there's a very good chance that you will be arrested.


There is a cause and effect to our actions, and sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

RKU said...

Golden Bear: Zimmerman's actions put Trayvon in fear of his life. So even if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, Trayvon - not Zimmerman - had the right to "stand his ground."

This is a joke, right? Based on simple logic and evidence, I'd say there's a 99% chance that Trayvon violently attacked Zimmerman without reasonable provocation, just the way Zimmerman claims.

First consider the two individuals. Trayvon has multiple schools suspensions, including strong evidence of drugs and burglarly, and Facebook postings filled to the brim with evidence he was hugely attracted to the "thug life." By contrast, everything that's come out about Zimmerman in recent years makes him look like an ultra-straight-arrow, a virtual Dudley Do-Right of neighborhood do-gooders.

Next, consider the situation. Neighborhood watch captain Zimmerman calls the police to report a suspicious prowler, which makes it exceptionally implausible that he decided to violently attack Trayvon instead of just waiting for official help to arrive. Meanwhile, Trayvon towered over the shortish Zimmerman---he notion that he was fearful for his life is totally ridiculous. The medical report showed no physical injury to Trayvon whatsoever (except for the fatal bullet wound), while Zimmerman had serious injuries to his nose and the back of his head. That makes it absolutely clear who struck the first blow and also who was on the ground, having his head pounded into the pavement, while screaming for help. And this is exactly what the eyewitnesses reported.

The only provocation on Zimmerman's part was his keeping an eye on Trayvon. Aggressively "eyeing" someone is exactly the excuse black ghetto thugs often cite for killing each other, so Trayvon may have felt he was in the right, but that's not the way the law works.

Frankly, compared to the (apparent) facts of this case, namely shooting some towering thug who attacked you in your own neighborhood late at night and is trying to pound your head into the pavement, the Bernie Goetz subway shooting in NYC was 100% unjustified.

I'd say there's a very good chance that Zimmerman's quick reaction ended up preventing quite a number of future burglaries, robberies, assaults, rapes, and perhaps even murders. It's a strange society that punishes such public-spirited good deeds...

Pincher Martin said...

Truth,

"...But neither was [Zimmerman in uniform]."

Yes, but Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch who called the cops when he saw someone suspicious in his community. The easiest explanation for Zimmerman's behavior over the years is that he was overzealous and simple-minded in doing what he thought was right and had found some kind of calling in life as Paul Blart, mall cop (to use Steve Sailer's borrowed reference).

That doesn't excuse Zimmerman's questionable judgment calls or his previous criminal record, but it does place them in context. And it's a heavy stretch to say that context shows him even capable of second-degree murder.

"We don't know what Zimmerman did up until he turned 17. I've not been able to find any information on his life as a minor and there's a good reason for that...it's insignificant."

Well, there you go. So much for the fair comparison between Zimmerman and Martin.

"You probably make a grand assumption to the viewpoint that this means that he was an angel in high school, I don't see it that way. Maybe he was, we'll never know."

You seem overly skeptical of our ability to find out. Hell, I know from the media that Zimmerman got a speeding ticket in 2006, but had it removed from his record because the ticketing officer didn't show up in court when Zimmerman challenged it.

That was six years ago. If I can know that kind of trivial and dated detail about Zimmerman's life, why can't I know that he smoked dope, got caught with a burglary kit, and took a swing at a bus driver in high school ten years ago?

But you're right about one thing: it really doesn't matter. Suffice it to say that neither the 28-year-old nor the 17-year-old were angels. But once we accept that point, and once we try to stick to the facts of the case, it becomes much harder to demonize Zimmerman as a racist or a murderer.

Pincher Martin said...

Golden Bear,

"As Truth has been repeatedly pointed out, none of this should matter because Zimmerman's actions put Trayvon in fear of his life. So even if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, Trayvon - not Zimmerman - had the right to "stand his ground.""

Quite a leap you make there. And you were going along so well, too, until you came to your conclusion.

We don't know if Trayvon feared for his life. Or if he just got pissed off.

And if you ever physically assault someone in public, I recommend you don't tell the presiding judge that you feel you are in the right because the man was following you.

Kylie said...

"...people think that I am anti-Zimmerman and pro Martin, I'm not.

GZ seems like a nice guy with his heart in the right place. It would be too bad to see him serve a conviction over what is, in essence a series of bad decisions; but, if you have a few drinks and then kill someone cleaning your gun, there's a very good chance that you will be arrested.


There is a cause and effect to our actions, and sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions."


My sentiments exactly. Weeks ago, I signed the petition started by Martin's parents to have GZ arrested. Surprised?

Truth said...

"I'd say there's a 99% chance that Trayvon violently attacked Zimmerman without reasonable provocation, just the way Zimmerman claims."

I get that you'd say that, and I'd love to see the equation behind your calculation.

Truth said...

"By contrast, everything that's come out about Zimmerman in recent years makes him look like an ultra-straight-arrow, a virtual Dudley Do-Right of neighborhood do-gooders."

Dudly do-right wasn't arrested for multiple felonies, nor did he plea bargin to a misdemeanor, and BTW, neither did Martin.

Truth said...

"Yes, but Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch captain..."

I guess Trayvon's clairvoyance wasn't working that night when Zimmerman followed him into an alley with a gun.

"The easiest explanation for Zimmerman's behavior over the years is that he was overzealous and simple-minded in doing what he thought was right"

That's pretty much a description of all criminals. One could say the same of Omar Thornton.

"and had found some kind of calling in life as Paul Blart, mall cop"

That's cute, but once again, there's a good reason he could not make a living out of his passion, it was probably his arrest for assaulting a police officer, which precluded his induction into the academy."


"That was six years ago. If I can know that kind of trivial and dated detail about Zimmerman's life, why can't I know that he smoked dope, got caught with a burglary kit, and took a swing at a bus driver in high school ten years ago?"

I don't know about anyone getting caught with a burglary kit, I know about someone getting caught with jewelery and a screwdriver. And I don't know about anyone taking a swing at a bus driver, I know about someone's brother asking him if he took a swing at a bus driver and him not responding.

You have to understand, there was no social media, no readily accessed public communication thread 10 years ago.

I don't necessarily think that Zimmerman was a "racist", whatever that is, anymore than most other people, but I do think that someone died from a bullet from his gun, as a direct result from his actions, and that deserves a trial.

Mr. Anon said...

"Kylie said...

But the only legally safe way for him to follow Martin would have been to lock his firearm in his car and then follow him on foot."

Horses**t. If Zimmerman had a CW permit, then he was legal. Period.

What are you saying? That it's okay to have a concealed weapon, but only if you never have it on you when it might do some good. You might as well side with the people who say that Zimmerman should have just taken his beating like a good little white boy.

Truth said...

"And if you ever physically assault someone in public, I recommend you don't tell the presiding judge that you feel you are in the right because the man was following you."

Following you..."with a gun" of course.

Pincher Martin said...

"I guess Trayvon's clairvoyance wasn't working that night when Zimmerman followed him into an alley with a gun."

It wasn't an alley. It was a walkway between a group of residential buildings. You can see it here in the first of these news reports produced just after the shooting.

You seem surprised that people make fatal accidental mistakes, but it's quite common. Trayvon thought Zimmerman was following him without cause, considered it a provocation, and almost certainly assaulted GZ because of it. Zimmerman didn't recognize Trayvon and thought he was acting suspicious, which became a much more serious concern after he was attacked by the same suspicious person. The result was a tragedy of mutual misunderstanding, but not a crime -- unless you want to charge the dead Trayvon for assault.

"That's pretty much a description of all criminals. One could say the same of Omar Thornton."

Only if you believe criminally insane means the same thing as overzealous in performing your duties. GZ was overzealous in his watch duties, but not criminally insane or (as the prosecutor believes) of "depraved mind."

"That's cute, but once again, there's a good reason he could not make a living out of his passion, it was probably his arrest for assaulting a police officer, which precluded his induction into the academy."

So what? He couldn't be a police officer, but he could still be a "mall cop" and he could still do his job well and take pleasure in it. What's wrong with that?

GZ was a neighborhood watch for eight years. He was good at it. He helped defenseless old ladies make their homes more secure by installing burglar-proof equipment on their doors; he watched his neighbors' property when they were on vacation; he even caught a burglar in the act; he socialized with people in his neighborhood so that they could get to know him and his position as watch captain.

If Zimmerman was really intent on using his gun on someone, it appears he would have had ample opportunity to do so well before February 2012.

"Following you..."with a gun" of course."

Which was perfectly legal.

Pincher Martin said...

Truth,

"Dudly do-right wasn't arrested for multiple felonies, nor did he plea bargin to a misdemeanor, and BTW, neither did Martin."

Zimmerman was arrested for and charged with one felony, which was later downgraded to a misdemeanor.

The mutual restraining orders between him and his ex-fiancee were civil actions.

Truth said...

"and almost certainly"

You're still not getting it. There is no "almost certainty" as to who assaulted whom, that's all conjecture. what there is is a bullet from Zimmerman's gun that killed Martin. Period.

Truth said...

"It wasn't an alley. It was a walkway between a group of residential buildings."

Not to split hairs, but that's pretty much what an alley is.

Pincher Martin said...

"You're still not getting it. There is no "almost certainly" as to who assaulted whom, that's all conjecture. what there is is a bullet from Zimmerman's gun that killed Martin. Period."

We have an eyewitness (interviewed in the video I linked above) who said he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman beating him up, and that GZ was yelling for help. This witness said this to the news reporter the day after the event happened - before he could be coached and without a clue as to how nationally significant this case would later become. We also have the funeral director's comment saying Trayvon's body had no physical injuries except for the gunshot wound.

So, yes, it's "almost certainly" true that Trayvon took the initiative and was beating up GZ. Otherwise, you have to believe that Zimmerman started the fight, but didn't cause any damage to Trayvon and was a hapless-enough bully to immediately have the tables turned on him so that Trayvon was kicking his ass by the time the witness looked outside and told him to stop because he was calling 911.

Yes, it's possible it happened that way, but you're getting pretty close to the grassy knoll with that kind of story.

Truth said...

"We have an eyewitness (interviewed in the video I linked above) who said he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman beating him up, and that GZ was yelling for help."

THAT...DID...NOT...INDICATE...WHO.... INITIATED...THE...FIGHT...THAT...
INDICATED...WHO...GOT...HIS...ASS...
KICKED...PERIOD!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_fVm7MFz1c

Kylie said...

"But the only legally safe way for him to follow Martin would have been to lock his firearm in his car and then follow him on foot."

Horses**t. If Zimmerman had a CW permit, then he was legal. Period."


Yes. But exiting his vehicle and following Martin while carrying a gun increased the chance of some confrontation which might result in his being found liable in court, either civil or criminal. Say he'd tripped over a rock and his gun had gone off injuring someone. Given all the circumstances, he might have been found liable in civil court. Breaking the law with criminal intent is not the only way to fall afoul of the law.

"What are you saying? That it's okay to have a concealed weapon, but only if you never have it on you when it might do some good."

No. I'm saying there was no need pressing need for Zimmerman to exit his vehicle and follow Martin. GZ had already called the police and been told that. In the absence of some evidence that Martin was physically harming or about to harm some innocent person, Zimmerman would have been well-advised to stay put. And if he had, we would not now be having this discussion.

"You might as well side with the people who say that Zimmerman should have just taken his beating like a good little white boy."

I'm not interested in siding with any people on either side. My interest is in how best to respond to a situation when carrying a gun. What course of action is practical, sensible and legal, given all the circumstances we know?

Discretion is the better part of valor. That's a lesson that came hard to me. I avoid confrontation when possible but when it's not, I find it extremely difficult to back down, even when my physical safety is threatened. This has put me in some situations not of my making but which were nonetheless dangerous. I learned the hard way to pick my fights and when to walk away from a fight.

If Zimmerman had learned that same lesson, what is the worst that might have happened, given what we know now? The kid might have tried to break into an apartment but it seems even more likely he'd just have gone back to his dad's place. There is no evidence he was looking for someone person to beat, rape, rob or kill. Absent such evidence, Zimmerman would have been well-advised--for his own sake--to stay put.

Pincher Martin said...

Truth,

I never said the video by itself indicated who initiated the fight. I said that the video, along with other complementary evidence, strongly suggests it must have been Trayvon.

Ask yourself, why does a man with a gun, and murder in his "depraved mind", continually call for help when he's getting beat up?

Ask yourself, why didn't Trayvon, the presumed victim in your mind, stop beating up Zimmerman when a witness verbally intervenes on GZ's behalf and says he's calling 911 if Trayvon doesn't stop his assault?

Ask yourself, why does Martin's body not have any injuries other than the gunshot wound if Zimmerman started the fight?

Ask yourself, why did Trayvon not just go home when he first outran Zimmerman?

You either avoid these questions or you craft an overelaborate narrative to make it appear that they really all favor the Martin family's interpretation of events.

Pincher Martin said...

Truth,

This is the kind of implausible narrative you have to build for that night's events to fit in with the known facts of the case as I describe them above:

After Trayvon noticed some strange man watching him that night, he sprinted to the home of his father's girlfriend. Unfortunately, he got lost and unknowingly doubled back in the strange man's direction.

When Zimmerman saw Trayvon again, his "depraved" state of mind and the knowledge he had a concealed weapon as backup, turned him into a bully. He pushed or took a swing at Trayvon.

But the young Trayvon quickly turned the tables on Zimmerman and began an assault that lasted over a minute. Zimmerman was unable to reach his gun during the initial stages of the assault, so he began yelling for help. No one came. Finally, Zimmerman was able to grab his gun and finish the work his "depraved mind" started him on the path to doing: kill Trayvon Martin.

Like I said, you're getting awfully close to the grassy knoll.

Svigor said...

THAT...DID...NOT...INDICATE...WHO.... INITIATED...THE...FIGHT...THAT...
INDICATED...WHO...GOT...HIS...ASS...
KICKED...PERIOD!

It does indicate self-defense. Self-defense is not predicated on not starting a fight, AFAIK. I'm amenable to seeing black-letter law on the subject, though.

Svigor said...

I know about someone's brother asking him if he took a swing at a bus driver and him not responding.

No. He didn't ask him if it happened. He stated that he heard about it from someone else, not Trayvon. He strongly implied that it happened, he didn't ask.

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

You're still not getting it. There is no "almost certainty" as to who assaulted whom, that's all conjecture. what there is is a bullet from Zimmerman's gun that killed Martin. Period."

And with Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, there are just two young white kids who were violated, defiled, and brutally murdered. Period. But the only thing you fixated on is the typical smear brought out by blacks excusing black crime - that they must have been looking for drugs, and so somehoe brought it on themselves.

Truth said...

"He strongly implied that it happened, he didn't ask."

So you're making an argument based upon teenage hearsay now?

Truth said...

"But the only thing you fixated on is the typical smear brought out by blacks excusing black crime - that they must have been looking for drugs, and so somehoe brought it on themselves."

Never once said anything of the sort. I think it's a tragedy that they were killed, not any more, or less of a tragedy than anyone else who was killed. I don't think that there's anything wrong with buying drugs, if that's your thing, and if that's what they were doing. Generally when middle-class whites end up in the hood, there is a good reason, It ain't to go shopping or sightseeing.

I don't put the victim on trial...you do.

And you don't care about Christian Channon, you care about Latavious Cobb. There are hundreds of Christian Channons killed by white people every year; nary a peep from you. You yawn until one of the black males you love so much happens to do it.

Get a hold of yourself, man.

Svigor said...

So you're making an argument based upon teenage hearsay now?

I'm correcting your misstatement of fact.

Londoner said...

"Tragedy" implies unavoidable or unintended disaster. I don't think it's an appropriate word for the very calculated and deliberate nightmare inflicted on Christian and Newsom. And even supposing it is an appropriate word, I'd say their case is VASTLY more 'tragic' than the majority of killings. Just read the details, for goodness' sake.

DO whites actually commit crimes like this one, the hi-fi murders and the Wichita Horror? If they do I don't think I've heard about them.

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

""But the only thing you fixated on is the typical smear brought out by blacks excusing black crime - that they must have been looking for drugs, and so somehoe brought it on themselves.""

Never once said anything of the sort."

That is a lie. You said that very thing in a thread in which you denied ever having said it.

"I think it's a tragedy that they were killed, not any more, or less of a tragedy than anyone else who was killed."

Yeah, "a tragedy" - poor little Letalvous Cobbins and company, robbed of a promising life by his youthful indiscretion. It was not "a tragedy". It was a crime - a vicious, evil crime, with a perpetrators and victims, neither of whose names you even got right. Yeah,.....you really care.

"I don't think that there's anything wrong with buying drugs, if that's your thing, and if that's what they were doing. Generally when middle-class whites end up in the hood, there is a good reason, It ain't to go shopping or sightseeing."

So here you are now implying the very thing you denied you said just moments ago.

"You yawn until one of the black males you love so much happens to do it."

Love? You blacks are such divas. It's always "Me. Me. Me." with you guys. We don't "love" blacks - who, when they come to our attention at all, are usually nothing but a source of trouble. Mostly we just want to be free of having to live around you.