View Full Version : The Trayvon Martin incident
I'm really surprised no one has brought this up yet. I wasn't quite sure where to post this.
Maybe people are afraid to voice their opinions?
There's so much that isn't known about what really happened. Its been in the media that its a cut-and-dried murder, but the more I hear about it, the more confusing it becomes.
I have learned that there's very little I can say about non-whites, so I'm not sure what all I can say here without getting flamed.
I'm having a hard time understanding all these protests and marches being held when we don't have all the facts yet.
I tend to agree with Geraldo Rivera in that wearing a hoodie can get you into trouble, because its the garb of alot of young black criminals.
I also agree that Zimmerman shouldn't have gone after him with a gun.
Its interesting that the picture chosen for the media was of an innocent looking young boy, but not of some of his more recent poses where his pants are half-way down and he's giving the finger.
There's just so much conflicting information coming in. But I am concerned about the violence that may come from this. Even if everything is handled properly and Zimmerman is found innocent (if only because of the "Stand your Ground" law), there will be so much rioting. The new black panthers have put out a bounty on Zimmerman's head. There have also been flyers distributed "Wanted Dead or Alive".
And another thing that concerns me is that no one seems to get upset with the black-on-black violence in their communities. Recently, in the city close to here, a 16 year old back youth shot 5 other young black youths. Where's the outrage there? Where's the protesting there? Seems the only ones concerned are a few of the black ministers (who try to do alot to help the black youths).
I'd like to have a conversation about this case in Florida, hopefully without people calling me a racist.
Any opinions about it? Or is this something everyone wants to avoid?
Another aspect that we need to touch on is the specific law that keeps Zimmerman from being arrested "The Stand Your Ground" law.
To me that is the crux of the issue, more so than the colors of skin.
(And I am all for justified armed self-defense. But chasing a kid down is not 'standing your ground'.)
And hoodies -- all color kids get flack for wearing them. When I lived in an area that there literally were no people other than whites-- when you read the local police blotter -- suspect 'wearing hoodie'.
It's definitely touched a nerve beyond this specific incident.
I watched a segment with a younger black reporter with the Washington Post - when his family moved to urban Newark after being in rural NJ his parents went to great pains to teach him how to get along in the 'real world'
The rules he was given:
1) Don't run in public
2) Don't run with anything in your hands in public
3) Don't EVER get fresh with the police if confronted (which he said should be universal, but his parents said esp. for him)
I have only kept up with the periphery of this story.
There are also pictures of me flipping birds in my teen years on record -- thank goodness it was before social media.
I don't know how we'll ever get the real facts of that afternoon/evening.
My plan is to wait on facts, not media speculation and social media yammering.
I think we have processes for that. If I recall, they often involve trials, and juries.
I don't watch the news so I don't know anything about this, but I'm surprised at the comments about hoodies. Pretty much everyone I know owns a hoodie. My 64 year old, ethnically Jewish, upper-middle class dad owns a hoodie. He got it from the Catholic seminary where he attends catechetical training classes. My little blond toddlers have hoodies. I see my two next-door neighbors (both named Johnson, actually) out walking their dogs in their hoodies all the time. One is a 60-something white actuary. The other is a 40-something black buyer for Whole Foods. I think his hoodie is actually from his kid's university (University of Wisconsin). It wouldn't occur to me that a hoodie was a dangerous thing to wear or would get you pegged as a gangster.
There are also pictures of me flipping birds in my teen years on record -- thank goodness it was before social media.
:) Every picture we have of my 55 year old aunt is of her flipping the bird. Every. Single. Picture. That's going to make for a fun 80th birthday photo montage someday...
loosechickens
3-26-12, 3:52pm
Well, I suspect that a lot of the outrage has to do with the fact that a young teenager, doing nothing wrong, being in a place he had every right to be, ended up dead. As the facts emerge (IF they are ever able to emerge, since the Sanford Police department saw fit to test the dead victim for drugs and alcohol, but allowed the shooter to depart, with his gun, wearing the clothes he was wearing, and untested for any drugs and alcohol, which might have enabled the fact finders to ascertain such things as how close he was to the victim when he shot, from gunpower residue, etc., and completely destroyed any ability to ascertain stuff from the crime scene, as they did not secure it, either), we may know more.
But, until that time, all we have to go on is a self appointed neighborhood watch guy, who was known for, shall we say, overzealous cop wannabe behavior over the past year, and armed with a 9mm handgun, for his own reasons (racism?, stereotyping? who knows?) thought that this young teenager, who was minding his own business, in a place he had every right to be, was someone who should have been confronted (against the advice of the police dispatcher), and when that confrontation was over, one person, the unarmed person minding his own business was dead, and the other allowed to simply walk away from the scene.
Every black parent in this country knows that could have been THEIR son. Most black people have had ample opportunity to experience being the object of someone's stereotyped reactions, whether it be a storeowner who follows them around in the store, police who stop and frisk them because the car they were driving "looked to expensive for them to own", and even if educated, wearing a suit and tie, or anything else, have been humiliated, endangered and singled out for scrutiny not experienced by other groups.
Much the same thing happens to Hispanic folks here in the southwest, where there are fewer blacks, but just as much racial prejudice.
The idea that because he was wearing a hoodie, which HUGE numbers of people wear, means that somehow he DESERVED to be confronted, is as ridiculous as any teenaged girl in a short skirt or revealing blouse deserves to be a target of a rapist.
I think people here want to shy away from this subject, because they know it will be ugly. And just as when you started the thread about being upset because "those people" (not your ethnic or racial group) were having TV channels catering to them, you're probably going to get some pushback from this one.
Maybe you just haven't walked in their shoes, have limited ability to put yourself in their place, or just don't understand, but every black person in this country knows that they, or their kids are endangered by men like George Zimmerman. It hits a chord that goes far deeper than this particular incident, or the poor policing that happened afterward, with many people, not just black people, or members of other minorities. But with anyone who understands how inner prejudices often affect outer actions.
And it SHOULD upset gun rights advocates....because a clearer example of misuse of the intent of the "stand your ground" law could hardly be found. That law is intended to help out someone who is confronted in the middle of the night by an intruder in their home and fears for their life, not a wannabe cop, on his self appointed rounds, going out of his way to confront someone, who ends up dead. This case is likely to affect "stand your ground" laws, which would be a shame, because it was clearly anything BUT that.
There is public outrage, because something happened that we SHOULD be outraged about. A young person, doing nothing wrong, paid with his life. As to why THIS particular case? I suspect it is because Trayvon Martin's parents are educated, articulate, able to marshall support from media and people, and because this young man was NOT a criminal, not a juvenile delinquent, had never been in trouble with the law, and was simply minding his own business, going home from the store, and frightened that some strange man was following him. Please remember that Trayvon Martin had every right to be exactly where he was, doing what he was doing....it was George Zimmerman, who because of inner prejudices, or perhaps only over zealousness in his self appointed role, who grossly overstepped, and happened to be the one person in that confrontation with the means to kill someone.
That said, it is why I think people are so upset, and all these marches are going on. For myself, I'd be willing to simply wait, as bae says, for the legal stuff to sort itself out. Until there WAS an outcry, it seems pretty cut and dried that not much investigation was done by the Sanford Police, who have a poor record in these kinds of things, but now that state and Federal people are doing the investigation, other than so much evidence having been destroyed or ignored until it was no longer possible to gather it, we will, eventually have some answers.
But to expect black folks, who have seen this particular sad story play itself out over and over and over, perhaps expecting them to be that patient might be asking too much.
LooseChickens:
Very well said!
Plus, why the heck didn't Zimmerman obey the 911 dispatcher who told him to back off and wait for the police?
Originally posted by CathyA.
The new black panthers have put out a bounty on Zimmerman's head. There have also been flyers distributed "Wanted Dead or Alive".GOOD! My husband and I watched 60 Minutes, last night, and they reviewed the case thus far. I have absolutely nothing positive to say about the case (or the law). God bless the Martin family.
I'm just glad I don't have to sift through the "facts". Sure wish they'd had camera footage they could look at. Now Zimmerman's lawyer is saying that the Martin boy was beating him up and going for his gun. Someone is also saying that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.
I'm just saying that this is a very complex, interesting case. And watching both sides is interesting.
The problem with ordinary people carrying a gun is that they aren't trained like police officers are. If Zimmerman hadn't had a gun, there probably wouldn't have been a problem, other than maybe a fist-d-cuffs.
Loosechickens..........where did I say "those people"??
And I have a couple hoodies myself, for pete's sake. Do I wear the hood in warm weather so you can't see my face? No. Its become a young black man's "garb" and it gets associated with crime.
I'm not making any judgements until the facts are in. I'm just asking questions about both Trayvon and Zimmerman.
Can't I try to make sense of things without people thinking I'm bigoted? Doesn't that make you bigoted by pigeon-holing me, based solely on my asking questions? (I guess this is mostly directed at LC).
The Sanford police department screwed up. Zimmerman screwed up. But I'm questioning if he actually just walked up and shot Trayvon, or if he was attacked by him and then Zimmerman shot at that point in self defense.
Nobody wins here. But its definite.........Zimmerman shouldn't have pursued. He no doubt regrets it now!
And as I asked before.........where is the outrage when young blacks shoot/kill other young blacks, for no good reason? Like I said, we had this horrible thing happen here recently and I do wish both the black and white communities would show more outrage about these crimes too.
loosechickens
3-26-12, 5:15pm
I am certainly not the one saying that hoodies have become "young black man" garb, (except to people like Zimmerman, perhaps, as that idea would come as a surprise to most of us, since a large percentage of peoole wear them. You are saying that, perhaps because you hold that view, which was apparently shared by Zimmerman. Perhaps you are having difficulty understanding just as you had difficulty understanding why other groups had tv stations that catered to them. Both those things come from seeing an "other", which does make it difficult to understand. And of course black people are just as upset about black on black violence. It is just that it is harder to get the media or some law enforcement involved, unless the victims are white, or white people are involved.
Honestly, I think we would all do best to wait for this case to be investigated and what evidence is left to be examined. Because right now it is more of an ink blot test of racial attitudes in this country than anything else.
loosechickens
3-26-12, 5:21pm
Well, a friend of Zimmerman's says the person calling for help was him, but witnesses who actually heard the cries said it sounded like a young boy and ceased abruptly after the shot was fired. I am sure that is a question that can be answered forensically.
And if I am not mistaken, it was a chilly, rainy night, and it does not take much chill for a person who lives in Miami to feel cold and want to be bundled up.
Okay, lets wait for the facts.
loosechickens
3-26-12, 5:28pm
That is probably best, for sure. Because all any of us are doing at this point is just spinning our wheels.
Well, I suspect that a lot of the outrage has to do with the fact that a young teenager, doing nothing wrong
Ah, but isn't that the question? If he indeed attacked GZ, is it your position attacking someone who verbally confronts you is not wrong?
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326,0,7640147.story
Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.
Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police.
Zimmerman fell to the ground and Trayvon got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, he told police.
Zimmerman began yelling for help.
Several witnesses heard those cries, and there has been a dispute about whether they came from Zimmerman or Trayvon.
Lawyers for Trayvon's family say it was Trayvon, but police say their evidence indicates it was Zimmerman.
One witness, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him — and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.
Zimmerman then shot Trayvon once in the chest at very close range, according to authorities.
When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody lacerations to the back of his head.
The idea that because he was wearing a hoodie, which HUGE numbers of people wear, means that somehow he DESERVED to be confronted, is as ridiculous as any teenaged girl in a short skirt or revealing blouse deserves to be a target of a
rapist.
You stretch this too far. TM's dress may have provoked the moral equivalent of an unwanted catcall or proposition, but you have to wait and see what provoked the physical contact. Catcalls at a girl in a short skirt are impolite, but don't justify someone beating the whistler's head into the sidewalk.
And it SHOULD upset gun rights advocates....because a clearer example of misuse of the intent of the "stand your ground" law could hardly be found. That law is intended to help out someone who is confronted in the middle of the night by an intruder in their home and fears for their life, not a wannabe cop, on his self appointed rounds, going out of his way to confront someone, who ends up dead.
You are confusing stand your ground with the castle doctrine. SYG is meant to apply outside the home, and you have to consider that 776.041 may very well cover this anyway, in which case there is no misuse.
because this young man was NOT a criminal, not a juvenile delinquent, had never
been in trouble with the law,
I wouldn't make this about the victim's character. We all agree you should be able to walk down the street without harassment, even if you were suspended from school for drug possession. As for him having the right to be doing what he was doing, we really need to wait until the facts settle out, because what some witness versions have TM doing is attacking GZ and pounding his head into the sidewalk while GZ was crying for help and then going for GZ's gun. I'm not saying that's right, but until we know the facts the most we can say is GZ was morally wrong to harass people and that lead to tragic results. Whether it is criminal or not isn't really clear yet.
Mighty Frugal
3-26-12, 9:03pm
This story angers me so much I can certainly understand the Black Panthers demands. Just horrible what happened to Trayvon.
From what I read, he was talking to his girlfriend right before this all went down. It does seem that Zimmerman was just picking on him and he was just trying to run home and out of the rain. So sad and I for one am waiting for justice to be served.
loosechickens
3-26-12, 9:32pm
I think they will probably, now that the incident is actually being investigated, instead of the shooter's story simply being accepted by the police and allowed to walk away without undergoing tests for drugs or alcohol, his gun not even being confiscated as evidence at the scene, and the clothes, etc., he was wearing not even being taken as evidence, etc., lots of those questions may well be able to be answered.
the phone records will show exactly when he was talking on his cell phone to the young lady friend, and the exact time of the gunshot can also be ascertained from the 911 tapes, so how much time was available for either him talking on the phone and being jumped by Zimmerman, at which point the call was abruptly ended, or for him to end the call and decided to confront Zimmerman, and how long that confrontation lasted, or if Zimmerman jumped him and he then tried to defend himself before the nearly 100 pounds heavier Zimmerman ended the confrontation by shooting him.......that time frame will show a lot.
But as has been said, despite the fact that George Zimmerman is not likely to be the most reliable of witnesses, and it's likely that his story would put himself in the best possible light, and unfortunately the other party is DEAD, we may never know. And unless and until we do, what is the point of trying the case here? We simply do not know the answers.
Two people met, one was unarmed, one had a 9mm gun, and only one survived. That's really all we know. That the one with the gun was the one that walked away and the one that was unarmed and walking home from a store died. End of story? Maybe, unless you find yourself wondering what gave George Zimmerman, who was not even on his self appointed rounds as a neighborhood watch cop wannabe, but was on his way home from the store himself, found it necessary to confront this young man. Once you ask yourself that kind of question, a whole rats nest opens up as to why that young man was even targeted as suspicious, not to mention the fact that often folks have a lot of bravado, as long as they are the one with the gun. So perhaps much more willing to confront than they might have been otherwise. It seems certain that Trayvon didn't see George Zimmerman and call the cops on HIS cell phone to report a suspicious character. Nope, he seemed to be afraid of this unknown man who was following him. Wouldn't you have been? even if you didn't know the guy had a gun he was more than willing to use?
I don't even pretend to know all the answers, but until I do, you'll forgive me if I have a bit more sympathy for an unarmed teenager walking home from the store than I do for the guy who had a long record of calling the cops about "suspicious people", mostly who were of color, since apparently others didn't seem suspicious to him, who was armed, and who was willing to shoot that unarmed person and kill him. And who followed the kid, even after the police dispatcher said not to....it's easy to be the big brave cop wannabe when you've got the firepower and your on your way to confront an unarmed teenager. Although in George Zimmerman's fevered mind, who seems to see lots of stuff suspicious and is pretty paranoid about some folks, I'm sure he thought he was doing the right thing. that's the problem with having preconceived ideas about situations. It colors your actions, and it seems to have colored Mr. Zimmerman's. By what we know as yet.
Let's HOPE that we can find out the truth. So much evidence was damaged, lost or ignored, we may never know, because the Sanford Police department was at best incompetent, and at worst complicit in this mess, as they have been in other situations with people of color, homeless people, etc. in the past. I've spent some time in Sanford FL. It might as well be Mississippi. .
Two people met, one was unarmed, one had a 9mm gun, and only one survived. That's really all we know.
That is just not true. There is solid witness testimony that TM was on GW beating him. There may be legitimate questions as to what got them there, but there is evidence concerning the circumstances of the shooting itself and GZ's story is backed by some witnesses and physical evidence. There may be more to the story, but let the investigation sort it out.
Wildflower
3-26-12, 9:55pm
This is a tragedy for sure, but let's not forget that Zimmerman was beaten with obvious injuries from this young man. They found Zimmerman injured and bloody. There are witnesses that saw it happen. That is why they ruled it self defense. I really think people need to hear all of the facts before they hang this man....
And I think Black people need to have an uprising in outrage for all the Black on Black killings like they have the Trayvon Martin case. Every night on the news here in Kansas City there is yet another murder being reported of another Black on Black killing. Why do they keep killing each other like this? I don't understand.... Rarely if ever is it Whites, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians, etc. just Black on Black. It is sad...
Before anyone calls me racist - I have many Black friends. A Black doctor performed surgery on me just last week. I, myself am Native American. I have Hispanic and Black neighbors. I have an adopted Asian grandson. Please don't call me racist. And I don't believe CathyA is racist either. She is just brave enough to confront this topic...
Loosechickens, should they try Zimmerman before they convict him, or is it too late?
So many factions with agendas to sell you have seized onto the incident that at this point all you can do is watch the circus parade by and count the clowns.
Fascinating to see what peoples' reactions reveal though.
loosechickens
3-26-12, 10:51pm
"Loosechickens, should they try Zimmerman before they convict him, or is it too late?" (Alan)
------------------------------------------------------
I am afraid that because the Sanford police simply accepted his story, did not test him for drugs or alcohol, did not document and photograph any injuries he had, did not take the gun for evidence at that time, and allowed him to simply leave, wearing the clothing he had on at the time, losing what might have been critical forensic evidence, and without securing the scene, assessing him medically, having him examined at a hospital right then so any injuries he might have had be known, and it known that they were not inflicted afterward, the chances are that George Zimmerman will not even BE tried, much less convicted, so we won't really know what really happened.
The state and Federal folks will do what they can to reconstruct, etc., but so much possible evidence was destroyed, lost or contaminated, that it's unlikely that he won't walk whether guilty or not. If there is somewhere to point the real finger of blame here, it would certainly be at the Sanford Police Department for extremely sloppy policework. Which will probably prevent George Zimmerman from really being able to clear his name if he is innocent, or to be tried and convicted if he isn't.
In the end, George Zimmerman may have as much animosity against the police who did not do what should have been done so that his name could be cleared, as Trayvon Martin's family has because they feel his death was not sufficiently examined. It's a lose/lose all the way around.
I think that all of us come into this kind of an inkblot situation with our own biases. those of us who have seen minorities repeatedly get less than fair justice, often feel threatened ourselves with people who probably shouldn't be armed, packing things like 9mm guns while going to the store, will tend to feel more sympathy for the dead person, who has no more chances for any kind of a do over.
And for those of us who are committed to the idea of carrying weapons anywhere we go, defend to the death the right to pack heat, whether emotionally, tempermentally or otherwise showing the ability to have the judgement not to use it unwisely, as well as those with some racial biases and others will see a put upon upstanding citizen, just trying to protect his neighborhood, even if unasked, and being pilloried by the leftists and the gun control people for being a patriotic citizen.
And, of course, every shade of grey in between.
Which is why, as bae says, it's mostly watching the parade, knowing the players, knowing the preconceived ideas we each come to the party with, and the beat goes on......which is why I think I'm more or less finished even revisiting this thread. Honestly, it is depressing in the extreme.
My plan is to wait on facts, not media speculation and social media yammering.
I think we have processes for that. If I recall, they often involve trials, and juries.
+ 1
Which would, of course, first involve an arrest & charges. I had no prob in my hoodie as I traveled around Oakland & to Seattle today...
Seems to me that Zimmerman has been tried and convicted already........without the facts. Isn't it also unfair to condemn him without the facts, just as it would be to condemn Martin without the facts? And the picture used for Martin is one at a younger age. I read somewhere (don't know if its true), that he's also over 190# and is 6'2" now. There is just as much "spin" on both sides. I fear there will be a huge forward momentum that can't be stopped, in spite of the facts, when they emerge.
I told my sons never to get ****y with police, keep hands in plain sight if you get pulled over, ask if you can get the insurance papers out of the glove box before reaching for it, look respectable, be respectable......not much different then any family of any race tells their sons I imagine. I always question when I see a "black" family saying they teach their sons that, shouldn't every race?
I guess I will be more careful wearing my "My dog walks me" Hoodie. Maybe the lady on the trail I walk should not wear her Yellow "Don't tread on Me" Hoodie. We both get opinions of each other by those hoodies. Funny how clothes make the person, then again that is a saying for a reason I suppose.
sorry I did not know that was a bad word :(
mtnlaurel
3-27-12, 10:19am
I told my sons never to get ****y with police, keep hands in plain sight if you get pulled over, ask if you can get the insurance papers out of the glove box before reaching for it, look respectable, be respectable......not much different then any family of any race tells their sons I imagine. I always question when I see a "black" family saying they teach their sons that, shouldn't every race?
I guess I will be more careful wearing my "My dog walks me" Hoodie. Maybe the lady on the trail I walk should not wear her Yellow "Don't tread on Me" Hoodie. We both get opinions of each other by those hoodies. Funny how clothes make the person, then again that is a saying for a reason I suppose.
sorry I did not know that was a bad word :(
Since I initially brought up the Jonathan Capehart interview, I am going to post it here.
Capehart definitely emphasises that the approach police with respect part is for all races.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/walking-in-trayvon-martins-footsteps/2011/03/04/gIQAo4RtTS_blog.html
Maybe, if Mr. Zimmerman had waited for the police to come, if there had been enough reason to merit the police to come, then none of this would have happened and Treyvon would have had the opportunity to respond respectfully to lawfully appointed authorities (as pathetic as the Sanford p.d. abilities seem to prove).
Right now it seems like an individual citizen carrying a deadly weapon was following a possibly stoned young person (and told not to do so by the police) after a munchy run.
I have been a young stoned person on a munchy run before.
(which we don't yet know for a fact if Treyvon was on drugs at the time, I'm going by the article that East River posted that stated Zimmerman "called police and reported a suspicious person, describing Trayvon as black, acting strangely and perhaps on drugs')
It sounds to me that Mr. Zimmerman found exactly what he was looking for that day - trouble.
And as various details of Treyvon's school behavior problems come out -- it sounds like he paid the ultimate price for getting started down the wrong road.
What a sad, terrible event.
I do hope that we will be able to learn what happened that day.
That is just not true. There is solid witness testimony that TM was on GW beating him. There may be legitimate questions as to what got them there, but there is evidence concerning the circumstances of the shooting itself and GZ's story is backed by some witnesses and physical evidence. There may be more to the story, but let the investigation sort it out.
Well, considering the boy was being stalked, and being young and probably not having the best judgement, why is everyone assuming it was only Zimmerman who was 'standing his ground'? Zimmerman was stalking a young man who, I think it has been proven at least to this point, was only going to the store to get some candy and on his way home. He was being stalked by a stranger, which is enough to scare anyone. And that stranger, who was stalking and menacing, had a gun. If the young man was on top of him, don't you think it was to get a gun away from a total stranger who was threatening him? I wouldn't try to grab a gun from someone, but I can think of plenty of young men, lacking experience and getting angry at someone who threatened him, who would. Do you think that just maybe it was the young man who was 'standing his ground'?
Yossarian
3-27-12, 11:12am
Well, considering the boy was being stalked, and being young and probably not having the best judgement, why is everyone assuming it was only Zimmerman who was 'standing his ground'?
I don't know who everyone is. From my POV I just hate to see another Richard Jewel, Duke Lacrosse, Tawanna Brawley media trial so pointed out the agenda driven spin LC was shilling has major flaws. Let's wait until all the facts are known.
And your use of stalked is telling. We know GZ followed TM. Sometimes looking out for our for neighbors is good, in this case it seems unwise, creepy and potentially immoral. But it was unlikely illegal and I don't think it would justify being attacked
Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.
Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police.
Zimmerman fell to the ground and Trayvon got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, he told police.
All we know for sure is at least one verision of events doesn't look good for TM and and why you are now hearing about TM being suspended for drugs and vandalism, being caught with potentially stolen goods, and sporting his gold teeth and attacking a bus driver. To some people it adds credence to GZ's version, which is probably wrong too and why this shouldn't be a media trial.
Let's wait until all the facts are known.
Apparently though quite a few folks on the forum *already* know the facts. They must have been eyewitnesses, and also participated in the police questioning. I look forward to reading about their testimony, if there is enough evidence to move ahead to charge and try Zimmerman.
I wonder where you could even find a jury in America for the trial, given how much coverage of "the facts" there has been so far?
Apparently though quite a few folks on the forum *already* know the facts. They must have been eyewitnesses, and also participated in the police questioning. I look forward to reading about their testimony, if there is enough evidence to move ahead to charge and try Zimmerman.
I wonder where you could even find a jury in America for the trial, given how much coverage of "the facts" there has been so far?
I think it's fair for us to air our opinions and kick things around as things unfold.
This forum is a virtual front porch.
I don't watch the news so I don't know anything about this, but I'm surprised at the comments about hoodies. Pretty much everyone I know owns a hoodie. My 64 year old, ethnically Jewish, upper-middle class dad owns a hoodie. He got it from the Catholic seminary where he attends catechetical training classes. My little blond toddlers have hoodies. I see my two next-door neighbors (both named Johnson, actually) out walking their dogs in their hoodies all the time. One is a 60-something white actuary. The other is a 40-something black buyer for Whole Foods. I think his hoodie is actually from his kid's university (University of Wisconsin). It wouldn't occur to me that a hoodie was a dangerous thing to wear or would get you pegged as a gangster.
Yep. I'm wearing a hoodie now. It's pink - that's the "colors" for us LA SoCal middle-aged female gangsta-ettes. We are a dangerous, violent bunch - we may be having PMS AND hotflashes at the same time :-)! We are the elderly sister gang to the "Crips", known as the "Crypts" :-)! Here in SoCal hoodies have long been a part of surfer culture - normally worn with shorts as I am doing now - and are worn by everyone esle around here too.
As far as this case - I haven't heard enough about it yet to form an opinion, but it seems on the surface that Zimmerman acted totally inappropriately for the circumstances (armed vs. unarmed) and should have been arrested - or at least investigated more thoroughly - at the time of the shooting. Especially in light of all the facts that are coming out much later. While I don't agree that it was a "hate crime", I do think that he used excessive and unnecessary force if there was a physical altercation (and I believe there was). He appeared to be, as Loose Chickens said, "an over zealous cop wanna-be" rather than a racist. In any case, his actions should have been investigated further. Just because you are allowed to carry a weapon, and allowed to shoot someone under certain conditions of self defense, doesn't mean that a shooting will be automaticly justifiable.
Wildflower
3-27-12, 10:59pm
A few more facts on Zimmerman - his father is white, his mother hispanic. His neighbors say he is a stand up guy and they all liked him, no one was afraid of him, including his black neighbors. He was not racist. He was the Captain of the Neighborhood Watch in the gated community. He always reported suspicious things to the police. He was licensed to carry a gun. He walked the neighborhood often with his dog keeping an eye on things. Things went very wrong that night, but anyone that knows this man doesn't believe he did anything but act in self defense....
Yep. I'm wearing a hoodie now. It's pink - that's the "colors" for us LA SoCal middle-aged female gangsta-ettes.
I wore my hoodie out working in the woods today.
http://shopruger.com/images/4690_L.jpg
Navy blue, made by Carhartt, with a Ruger logo on it, given to me by Mike Fifer, Ruger's CEO. I have to confess I wasn't carrying a Ruger firearm while wearing it though, I figured the peavey, axe and chainsaw were sufficient to repel boarders :-)
I wonder if I was profiled as a thug logger?
I'm finding it hard to believe that some of you all can't differentiate between hooded sweatshirts and "hoodies". Maybe you haven't been around many of these youths to realize that its a statement for them.
The "hoodie" with this group is worn as a statement, along with sunglasses. You'll find in most banks now a sign at the door that says "No hoodies/hats/sunglasses". This certain look has become THE look for a certain group of people, and many times its associated with aggression. Seriously.........how can you not differentiate this? I wear a hooded sweatshirt myself.
A few more facts on Zimmerman - his father is white, his mother hispanic. His neighbors say he is a stand up guy and they all liked him, no one was afraid of him, including his black neighbors. He was not racist. He was the Captain of the Neighborhood Watch in the gated community. He always reported suspicious things to the police. He was licensed to carry a gun. He walked the neighborhood often with his dog keeping an eye on things. Things went very wrong that night, but anyone that knows this man doesn't believe he did anything but act in self defense....
Well, it would appear Zimmerman isn't as squeaky clean as some think. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/27/10894561-zimmerman-accused-of-domestic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer
http://rollingout.com/culture/george-zimmerman-son-of-a-retired-judge-has-3-closed-arrests/
I base my opinion of Zimmerman being racist on the audible part of the 911 tape where he says to send police, then says under his breath, Fu----g coon!
When he said that, all the 'black friends' testimony go out the window.
As one article I read put it, The Stand your ground law isn't there for the loser in a fist fight to pull a gun and shoot the other person.
As one article I read put it, The Stand your ground law isn't there for the loser in a fist fight to pull a gun and shoot the other person.
I'm not sure what article you read but the Stand Your Ground law actually states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first, so if the rules of engagement for the use of deadly force are met (to protect your life or the life of another), I'd question that blanket assertion.
In most jurisdictions I am familiar with, the claim of self-defense is disallowed if the conflict was initiated by the person making the claim.
jennipurrr
3-28-12, 10:33am
I'm finding it hard to believe that some of you all can't differentiate between hooded sweatshirts and "hoodies". Maybe you haven't been around many of these youths to realize that its a statement for them.
The "hoodie" with this group is worn as a statement, along with sunglasses. You'll find in most banks now a sign at the door that says "No hoodies/hats/sunglasses". This certain look has become THE look for a certain group of people, and many times its associated with aggression. Seriously.........how can you not differentiate this? I wear a hooded sweatshirt myself.
Maybe I am off base but I have always thought that a hoodie was a hooded sweatshirt??? I got my BIL a hooded sweatshirt for Christmas with a teams logo on it and we all referred to it as a hoodie.
My bank does have the no hoodies, hats, sunglasses signs...and I admit a hoodie, or even a baseball cap makes it a lot easier for cameras to not pick up on you if you are robbing the bank. Obviously they want your face exposed when you walk in the bank. But, I work on a college campus and see hooded sweatshirts/hoodies all the time. All the kids wear them, that's why I was really outraged about the Geraldo comment and mystified by the opinion that that is what the thugs wear. What young person, black, white, asian, doesn't own a hoodie? Honestly, if I think about any crime I associate with wearing a hoodie, its the unabomber.
I live next to a really bad/impoverished area that happens to be mostly black. So, to be a bit un-PC, I am definitely acquainted with the "thug life" look. Wearing a hoodie is not even in the realm of what these folks dress like. Realisticly though, these people are likely committing all sorts of crimes, but they are not generally straying into residential areas to burglarize...they are the stereotypical corner boys, selling drugs.
We also have had multiple break ins in my neighborhood because of its proximity to this area, and the people we (neighbors) have caught in the act dress nothing like Trayvon Martin. In general, they look and dress like crack heads. That is who generally burglarizes and takes stuff off of garages here, drug addicts, not teenage boys. We have several families in the neighborhood who have teen boys, black, white and hispanic, and they all have a similar look. I don't have any concept of what the hoodie, aggressive look is...my city is over half African American and I have honestly never seen this look.
I have several black male friends who have told me similar experiences to those being shared in the media about black people being more scrutinized than other races for criminal behavior, and so I have to believe this is true. One of my friends, when we were teens, was in an upscale department store and detained for several hours on suspicion of shop lifting. He was student council president and the son of a doctor. It was the most ridiculous allegation and turned out to be baseless. I was talking to another friend once about the whole "driving while black," thing...was it really true? I didn't really believe it. They were probably just pulling over suspicious people who also happened to be black. He had been pulled over multiple times for no reason than being in the white part of town at a late hour, or even with no explanation. He has always driven a boring sedan and never looked suspicious in any way. Honestly, at the time I was floored that this happens. I have never been pulled over and asked to explain why I am in a certain part of town. I would be outraged if this was systemically happening to me on a regular basis. Now, I do have to mention I am in the deep south, which even compared with FL still has a different level of racism. We don't really know for sure if race was a motivating factor in this incident, but after hearing these personal experiences from educated, clean cut, law abiding black men, I will have to say that I think race could have been an issue, even an unconscious stereotype.
But, I work on a college campus and see hooded sweatshirts/hoodies all the time. All the kids wear them, that's why I was really outraged about the Geraldo comment and mystified by the opinion that that is what the thugs wear. What young person, black, white, asian, doesn't own a hoodie?
Like you I associate hoodies with college kids as much as anything. I lived in jeans, t-shirts and hoodies in college.
I thought of this thread last night when I was out walking after dark with DH and a young black man in a hoodie (hood up, it was windy) came up behind us and politely excused himself as he passed us. It would not have occured to me to be afraid of him, or think he was a gangster because of his attire, in large part because we were both wearing some version of the same thing. Jeans, a shirt and a hoodie. It made me a bit sad to think that others might see this kid, who was carrying his groceries home, from the look of things, as a suspicious person because of his clothing. I don't think anyone blinks an eye when I, a 33 year old white woman, pass them.
If I were all alone I might have been a bit more nervous because as a woman I am always a bit more nervous about people I don't know when I am walking alone after dark, but it wouldn't have changed my behaviour, just my awareness level.
I would assume the "no hoodie and sunglasses" rule at a bank is because it's a common thing for bank robbers to wear because it conceals identity to some extent. I'd imagine they'd object to wearing masks too. :)
In most jurisdictions I am familiar with, the claim of self-defense is disallowed if the conflict was initiated by the person making the claim.
well that makes sense.
Well, seems the US, has "about", every law (possible) covering off average citizens (the right) to take care of someone if need be (with a firearm), but I wonder when US Congress, is going to get off their duffs and pass a law, "an eye for eye"? That way, when someone wants to act like a Charles Bronson or Dirty Harry (gone bad), family members, loved ones, friends, acquaintances, and anyone else (interested), can take it upon THEMSELVES, to even up the score!
What if: Zimmerman didn't even pull his gun out until he started getting beaten? See, that's the problem. We will probably never know the truth.
So much of both sides has been spin. I fear we might never know the truth.
Yes, Zimmerman used racial slurs and had a gun.......but we'll never know what really happened after that. Perhaps it was as awful as first reported. Or maybe the tables got turned and the hunter became another victim.
To make assumptions on either side is unfair. But I'm not sure fairness will enter in to the equation for either of them.
That's what bothers me. It seems like the truth is un-figure-outable for sure.
... I wonder when US Congress, is going to get off their duffs and pass a law, "an eye for eye"?
Such a law would be outside the bounds granted Congress by the US Constitution.
That way, when someone wants to act like a Charles Bronson or Dirty Harry (gone bad), family members, loved ones, friends, acquaintances, and anyone else (interested), can take it upon THEMSELVES, to even up the score!
I read that the New Black Panther Party has offered a cash bounty for Mr. Zimmerman, before he's even been arrested or charged. And the Spike "Do The Right Thing" Lee has been Tweeting Zimmerman's home address (except that he messed up, and directed the lynch mobs to some poor other couple's home...)
Lex talionis / ayin tachat ayin doesn't necessarily include private parties acting to exact private revenge, generally the opposite. Thousands of years of development of the concept of reciprocal justice exist in the Talmud and studies of the Torah, and they pretty much reject the private revenge motive you, Mrs-M, seem to be advocating. If you want to reject the rule of law, and go back to tribalism, go for it. Why don't y'all try it out in Canada for a while first though, and tell us how it goes.
I know what you are saying, CathyA. According to 60 minutes (along with investigative and forensics), TM weighed 140 lbs, while the killer weighs 250 lbs, yet according to interviewed neighbours, cries and whimpering was overheard, conducive of those from a young teen, not a grown man. Additionally, the killer claims that TM was on top of him and beating him. (I don't buy it). Furthermore, the killer should have been immediately apprehended, arrested, and tossed into the slammer, simply on the grounds of not listening to directions from dispatch as to stop following and pursuing TM.
This is just one more fine example of another tragic case and event related to guns. (AGAIN). But, just like in the past, where we have all watched tragedies like this unfold, we will also see further tragedies (just like this one) unfold again and again in the future, courtesy of overly free gun-laws in the US.
I see it much the same as a lit cigarette in dry tinder. High time someone came along and stepped on it and put it out!
Originally posted by Bae.
I read that the New Black Panther Party has offered a cash bounty for Mr. Zimmerman, before he's even been arrested or charged.If the killer would have listened to dispatch and "backed off" like he was told to do, would TM be dead (today)?
Furthermore, the killer should have been immediately apprehended, arrested, and tossed into the slammer, simply on the grounds of not listening to directions from dispatch as to stop following and pursuing TM.
In most parts of the United States that I am familiar with, emergency services dispatchers are not sworn law enforcement officers, and you are under no legal compulsion to follow their instructions or advice. Please cite the Florida code that would allow an arrest for ignoring a dispatcher....
If the killer would have listened to dispatch and "backed off" like he was told to do, would TM be dead (today)?
Who knows? Not I, the facts haven't even been brought forth and evaluated yet. We have juries to perform that function here in the USA.
But does "not listening to an emergency services dispatcher" justify a group of violent avowed racists issuing a bounty on a man who hasn't been even charged with a crime yet? You're OK with that? Mob "justice" and lynching?
Side-step me if you will, Bae, but the bottom line remains elementary. If the killer would have listened to the advice from dispatch and backed off, TM would be alive today.
Side-step me if you will, Bae, but the bottom line remains elementary. If the killer would have listened to the advice from dispatch and backed off, TM would be alive today.
Given that you didn't interview Mr. Zimmerman or the witnesses or see the physical evidence presented or the timeline/reconstruction of events, as might happen in an actual trial, I don't see how you can know that...
I've been on the jury in several long, complex trials, and the media reports often seemed a bit different from the actual information conveyed in the courtroom...
Originally posted by Bae.
But does "not listening to an emergency services dispatcher" justify a group of violent avowed racists issuing a bounty on a man who hasn't been even charged with a crime yet? You're OK with that? Mob "justice" and lynching?In this case, you bet! And what a message it sends to other wannabe heroes who might be considering mirroring the same. If anything at all, it will make a few people think twice before acting and IMO, that's a good thing.
In this case, you bet! And what a message it sends to other wannabe heroes who might be considering mirroring the same. If anything at all, it will make a few people think twice before acting and IMO, that's a good thing.
Wow. Just wow.
Originally posted by Bae.
Given that you didn't interview Mr. Zimmerman or the witnesses or see the physical evidence presented or the timeline/reconstruction of events, as might happen in an actual trial, I don't see how you can know that...It's not all that difficult. TM, at the time the killer called dispatch, was still alive, wasn't doing anyone any harm, wasn't carrying a weapon, and wasn't acting aggressively.
You'll find in most banks now a sign at the door that says "No hoodies/hats/sunglasses".
Not where I live have I ever seen that. I must live really in hicksville.
Originally posted by Bae.
Wow. Just wow. Oh, come now... From our perspective (and where we reside), it's sickening to watch the continued carnage unfold in a country where "the law is the gun".
From our perspective (and where we reside), it's sickening to watch the continued carnage unfold in a country where "the law is the gun".
Except, of course, as has been pointed out repeatedly in other threads, that's not how things work here in *reality*, it's just how you, Mrs-M, in your imagination, *think* they must work.
In Canada, the killer would have had the book thrown at him. The end. Unless you are involved with law-enforcement or high-level security, you are NOT permitted to carry a gun. (The way the law should be).
Do gun-control laws work? Absolutely, in some cases they do, making for a much more stable (and safer) society. If there's any doubt as to whether gun-control laws work or not, pause for a moment and reflect on TM, the young man who's life was taken so tragically. Now, alter the country where this took place. If TM, was in our country (Canada) at the time and the same unfolded, TM would still be alive, because the neighbourhood watchman wouldn't have had a gun to turn on him.
As if it's not bad enough already where everyday ordinary people (innocent people minding their own business) occasionally end up being statistics, I can't imagine having to be fearful of a neighbourhood watchman, someone who should be a friend. Reiterates to me how broken the gun-law is in the US. But, as has been pointed out repeatedly in other threads, I am well aware that the watchman was qualified and trained (professionally).
If TM, was in our country (Canada) at the time and the same unfolded, TM would still be alive, because the neighbourhood watchman wouldn't have had a gun to turn on him.
It's a pity some people take such pride in denying others the basic right of self defense. If TM pounded GZ's head into the sidewalk until he was dead we could all just toast the event as an epically Canadian victory for spineless victimization. The case is a tragedy no doubt, but the bigger tragedy will be if people use this as fuel for ignorant demagoguery. If GZ was an aggressor he gave up the right of self defense and should be prosecuted. If TM was the aggressor, which you can question but so far is the only evidence made public, you can't lionize an alternative that would have destroyed a victim's life. Oh but wait, you watched a tabloid TV episode so you know what happened with enough certainty to call for the abrogation of the rule of law. How ironic given your false characterizations of the actual rule of law and it's relation to firearms ownership.
Originally posted by East River Guide.
It's a pity some people take such pride in denying others the basic right of self defense.To what capacity? When someone else has a gun pointed at you? Or when someone else gets the upper-hand (in a fist fight) and bloodies your face for you, and there's not a darned thing you can do about it? Is that your definition of "basic right of self-defense?
To what capacity? When someone else has a gun pointed at you? Or when someone else gets the upper-hand (in a fist fight) and bloodies your face for you, and there's not a darned thing you can do about it? Is that your definition of "basic right of self-defense?
The applicable standard in this case is the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the defender or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
Originally posted by East River Guide.
The applicable standard in this case is the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the defender or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.The only pity I see, is far too many US citizens (gun-owners) can't see daylight past the ends of their gun barrels.
can't see daylight past the ends of their gun barrels.
I have no idea what that means.
For advocates of trial-by-media, mob justice, and lynching:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/spike-lee-incorrectly-tweets-address-of-george-zimmerman/
Spike Lee Incorrectly Tweets Address of George Zimmerman
An elderly Florida couple has been caught in the cross hairs of the Trayvon Martin shooting case due to an incorrect tweet by Spike Lee and others.
The director retweeted an address said to belong to George Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon Martin dead on Feb. 26, to his 250,000 followers, according to website thesmokinggun.com. But the address was incorrect and has caused the couple to go into hiding.
David McClain, 72, and his wife Elaine McClain, 70, are now living in a hotel and said they are concerned for their safety.
“We’re afraid for our lives,” Elaine McClain told WKMG-TV in Orlando.
McClain said her son’s middle name is George and his last name is Zimmerman, but he hadn’t lived at the residence since 1995.
Elaine McClain has heart problems, and when contacted by ABCNews.com, said she was not doing well and was heading out to a doctor’s appointment. McClain said she and her husband parked around the corner from their home and were briefly stopping by to grab clothes and other necessities.
The tweet originated from an account with the twitter handle @MACCAPONE, The Smoking Gun Reported. The account, which is the handle for a Los Angeles man named Marcus Higgins, tweeted the address at various celebrities. Lee was the only one to retweet it.
The director was active on Twitter today, retweeting negative messages he has received since sharing the McClains’ address.
Elaine McClain said Lee owes her and her husband a “big apology”.
As for now, the official word from Lee’s representatives? “No comment”.
Isn't this fun?
I see no benefit in sensationalizing the case beyond that of what it already has been.
http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n550/dmcummins/efT0w13327043411332901424.jpg
I don't know if that one is legit, but this one is. There were plenty of distortions in the initial media stories. Most reports I have seen have TM at 160 lbs and GZ at a bit more at the time of the incident.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7256/6880346932_b70c64c87d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/73138905@N05/6880346932/)
What is the timeline for this case to go to trial?
Edit to add: Nevermind, silly question --- the investigation is still pending, right?
Sorry - I use this board more like Google than a discussion forum.
I had heard that the above pic of Trayvon, with his pants falling down and flipping off the camera isn't actually him at all.
I guess we can't believe anything we hear/see/read. So we'll just have to wait. And who knows even then, whats true and not true. :(
I wore my hoodie out working in the woods today.
I wonder if I was profiled as a thug logger?
Probably a whacko -grizzley Adams mountain man survivialist off living in some backwoods shack doing God only knows what! They wear hoodies too ya know -ala Ted Kasinski :-).
But yes, Cathy A, I do know what you mean by the difference between the "gang" look and just someone wearing a hoddie. It's the whole package - baggy pants, etc.. But around here in SoCal (30 miles south of L.A.) you really can't tell the difference between a gangbanger and the school's valedictorian. While the schools do ban certain attire and gang-colors from the classroom, outside of school everyone dresses the same. Maybe that's not the same where you live but it certainly is here.
Lastest up-date is the video showing GZ NOT bloodied or bruised or even dirty like you would expect if he had been in a very violent physical attack. That was something I wondered about a few days ago when they said he was interviewed by police for 5 hours right after the shooting but didn't need any medical attention. Definetely a factor that I felt could be used to implicated GZ for even the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter at the very least. That combined with the kid being shot in an open area not on someones private property. But even though the police felt he should have been arrested for involuntary manslaugther charge - or higher -the DA didn't think they had enough evidence for arrest, let alone a conviction (and getting a conviction is often all the DA really cares about) so released him.
What is the timeline for this case to go to trial?
Edit to add: Nevermind, silly question --- the investigation is still pending, right?
Sorry - I use this board more like Google than a discussion forum.
First he has to be arrested and charged with something - and those charges could be for a variety of things with murder in the first degree being the highest (that would not likely be the case anyways) - and that won't happen until an investigation is done to see if they even have enough evidence to charge him with anything. After that, then there may possibly be a trial...or not. He could plead out to a lesser charge, or evidence that was gathered during the investigation could be thrown out even before trial (I see that as a likely possibility being that none was gathered and a long time period has passed since the shooting), etc... I wouldn't hold your breath!
If you were talking about the Statute of Limitation, then none exists for a murder trial and a perswon can be tried at anytime. But if it's for a lesser charge - say involuntary manslaughter,justifiable homicide, murder in the second or third degree then this is Florida's: Florida has a limit of four years in which the prosecution must be initiated for manslaughter (and second and third degree murder as well).
In the news today a town in northern Indiana is trying to make it unlawful to wear your pants 3" below the top of your undies. haha
Too bad its come to this. I want to know what keeps those pants up? Don't they fall down, when they walk? :0!
Maybe glue or sticky tape or velcro is involved? :laff:
In the news today a town in northern Indiana is trying to make it unlawful to wear your pants 3" below the top of your undies. haha
Too bad its come to this. I want to know what keeps those pants up? Don't they fall down, when they walk? :0!
Maybe glue or sticky tape or velcro is involved? :laff:
I think that most schools around here banned gang colors, clothing, shoes, hairstyle and even certain hip-hop dances a couple of decades ago or longer. They even banned wearing certain sports team jackets and logos because they are considered gang attire. Back when I was a Criminal Justice major a thousand years ago, I did a senior year report on LA street gangs - and specificly female gangs - and there are all kinds of crazy things associated with clothing, etc... As far as how they keep their pants up - they don't! If you watch them they are constantly trying to hold them up with their hands. Kind of a pain in the butt when you are trying to run from the police and your drawers keep falling down :-)!
jennipurrr
3-29-12, 5:10pm
I am so sick of the media coverage of this incident. It is ridiculously hyped and is turning into another Caylee Anthony spectacle. I hate that all the so called news shows are giving so much time to this. News in this country has turned into nothing but tabloid trash.
LOL Spartana...........about the pants falling down when running from the police! Probably makes it a bit easier on the police.
Jennipurrr.........I find that NBC is the worst. The national news and the local news on that network is the most tabloid-ish.....even with the weather forecast. It is pretty ridiculous.
I find that NBC is the worst.
I have a hard time understanding this given the stakes:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/nbc-to-do-internal-investigation-on-zimmerman-segment/2012/03/31/gIQAc4HhnS_blog.html%20#
...the “Today” segment took this approach to a key part of the dispatcher call:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
Here’s how the actual conversation went down:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
The difference between what “Today” put on its air and the actual tape? Complete: In the “Today” version, Zimmerman volunteered that this person “looks black,” a sequence of events that would more readily paint Zimmerman as a racial profiler. In reality’s version, Zimmerman simply answered a question about the race of the person whom he was reporting to the police. Nothing prejudicial at all in responding to such an inquiry.
I have a hard time understanding this given the stakes:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/nbc-to-do-internal-investigation-on-zimmerman-segment/2012/03/31/gIQAc4HhnS_blog.html%20#
Where is Mary Mapes to take the fall when you need her?!!! Oh I know, that's another network--like that makes a difference in mainstream media.
Today when I heard this story I had to look twice at the news agency--it IS NBC, not MSNBC. What a joke they are.
http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_20304405/2-forensic-experts-say-its-not-george-zimmerman?source=rss
Well, whether you are sick of it or not, I'm guessing the family of that young man isn't 'sick' of trying to find the truth. It would appear that Zimmerman's account of the incident isn't exactly truthful. he loses credibility with every passing day. Now whether anyone thinks this guy should be arrested or not, we have to ask ourselves, if this were a black man vigilante, with a gun, self appointed to 'protect' his neighborhood, and he had shot and killed a young, unarmed white boy simply on his way home from the store to buy candy, do you think the black man would be walking free for a month?
Zimmerman had the gun, he was stalking this unarmed young man, who had every right to be in that neighborhood, he followed him, confronted him, and the young man is dead. Zimmerman had the gun, not the young man. Zimmerman. Zimmerman was looking for trouble, not the young man. Zimmerman. As bae said, the one with the gun can't really claim self defense without some very very close scrutiny. The close scrutiny part is what's missing in this.
As bae said, the one with the gun can't really claim self defense without some very very close scrutiny.
That's not what I said.
I'm surprised so much of this thread has been devoted to the appearances of Zimmerman and Martin. How is that at all relevant to the fact that Martin was pursued by Zimmerman when the police told Zimmerman to back off and then Martin was shot dead by Zimmerman?
This discussion about Martin's weight, his clothing and the fact that he flipped the bird in photographs has nothing to do with whether or not he was such a threat to the man who was pursuing him that night that he needed to be shot dead to be stopped.
We do not know that Martin was attacking Zimmerman beyond what Zimmerman has said. Witnesses who have stated that they saw one on top of the other and beating going on couldn't tell who was on top of whom.
Additionally, I would guess that the vast majority of youth who wear their pants 3" below their boxer waistbands never have to pull them up when they're running from the police because they are never running from the police. And probably most suspects running from the police are wearing their pants at a height where they don't need to pull them up while they are trying to outrun the police.
There seems to be a lot of stereotyping going on in this thread. I don't get it. The reality is that a seventeen year old boy coming home from a convenience store got shot dead when a man who was told to back off pursued him. I think it's a tragedy and I can't understand why anyone would try to disparage the reputation of a dead boy regardless of whether or not they believed him to be murdered.
There seems to be a lot of stereotyping going on in this thread.
There seems to be a lot of assuming of facts not yet in evidence going on in this thread.
I can't make a whole lot of sense of this story yet.
Foremost, I'm sorry that a young man is dead. That is simple enough.
I think the only facts that we have is that he was wearing a hoodie, and that he was carrying skittles and iced tea. And that he was 'black.' (I prefer to use African american, Caribbean american, african, or the individual's preferred term for recognizing their own background, but in this instance, because I do not know the young man's or his family's preferences, I'll use a general "black.")
THere are also a gun involved, and a man who had the legal right to own and carry that weapon (which is technically following gun control laws).
Beyond that, there is a lot of conflicting information -- as well as a lot of ugly statements.
most of my friends who are mothers of black children (mixed race, adopted from africa, african and caribbean american, among others) are very, very upset about this, consider how delightful their children are (yes, into teens and young adulthood), and fear that they would be a victim in such a circumstance, a simple circumstance of living in a wealthy, suburban neighborhood having gone to the convenience store to get snacks.
Many of my friends, you see, live in wealthy suburban neighborhoods -- even gated communities -- with their black sons who wear hoodies and walk to the local store for candy.
So, they're a bit freaked out.
they would be a victim in such a circumstance, a simple circumstance of living in a wealthy, suburban neighborhood having gone to the convenience store to get snacks.
Maybe when the facts are all known there may be an easy answer. As it stands there seem to be a lot of contributing factors, but I'm not sure living in a wealthy neighborhood is one given the apparent crime rate. You can't have group guilt for individual actions and I don't pretend to know what GZ was thinking that night, but I wonder what percentage of people would, if they were being honest, admit to being more suspicious of certain people given a history of prior victimization. This reminds me in some ways of the discussion we had about Juan Williams (oh, the irony) comments on boarding a plane with certain types of people, once you consider the local circumstances:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/zimmerman-neighbor-rash-robberies-young-black-men-trayvon-145647987.html
"My house was being robbed, and George on his nightly rounds watched this burglary in progress, called Sanford P.D., waited for them, and helped ensure that nothing bad happened to my house," Taaffe said. "And it's documented in the 911 call for February 2." ...
Taaffe said that "young black males" were the perpetrators in the attempted robbery of his home. "We had eight burglaries in our neighborhood all perpetrated by young black males in the 15 months prior to Trayvon being shot," Taaffe said. "It would have been nine."
Wow........its been awhile since anyone posted on this. It should be over this week.
I found it sort of strange that they had both mothers testify that it was their son's voice yelling for help, but I guess if one mother was questioned, then the other needed to be too.
Its hard to believe that they would convict Zimmerman. There are just too many unknowns. I just hope its the fair judgement. But I guess we'll never know for sure.
I hope there aren't any riots.
What do you think would have been the trajectory of this entire sordid affair if Zimmerman had been black, and Trayvon white?
What do you think would have been the trajectory of this entire sordid affair if Zimmerman had been black, and Trayvon white?
We would never have heard of it. The President would not have chosen to comment on it, NBC news would not have edited tapes to highlight perceived racial bias and the term "white hispanic" would not have been coined.
What do you think would have been the trajectory of this entire sordid affair if Zimmerman had been black, and Trayvon white?
If they had both been black, it would have never made the news. How many young black men were shot dead last week by other young black men "protecting their neighborhoods"? Did you see any hand-wringing over them?
rodeosweetheart
7-8-13, 4:50pm
Redfox, why do you post this question, "What do you think would have been the trajectory of this entire sordid affair if Zimmerman had been black, and Trayvon white?" when the defendant does not self-identify as white?
Why do we assume everything in this country is determined by race? I was just on a jury that dealt with a civil case in my hometown here, which is historically predominantly African-American. Both defendant and plaintiff were African-American. Jury had African-American and Euro-Caucasian members. We decided the case on the facts, did the best we could to determine the facts, as that was our charge. I chatted a lot with one other juror--we sort of gravitated towards each other as being anxious types. We both found being on the jury incredibly stressful. She was African-American and about 30 years younger than I. She thought the African-American lawyer was incompetent. She said she was probably distantly related to both parties--everyone in our neighborhood is related to somebody. No one liked any of the lawyers, neither local nor from the big city, but we worked really, really hard to discuss the facts, examine the evidence, and do exactly as the judge instructed us.
What informed everyone's thinking was not what is this person's color or background, but what is the law, what happened here, how does the law apply.
She said to me (and I was thinking the same thing) Thank god this isn't a murder case--I would fall apart. Neither of us liked to sit in judgment over another human being. My heart goes out to the jurors, who are probably doing the best they can under very difficult circumstances. They are definitely candidates for "juror stress", which is a recognized psychological phenomeon and can produce PTSD. My heart goes out to two mothers, as the idea of listening to someone screaming and identifying that as one's son, possibly in his last moments on earth--how can we conscript such horrors for our own ideological bully pulpits?
Rodeosweetheart, good question! Since the heart of this case as it's been covered IS race, I consider it an interesting thought experiment to reverse the races & see how that might change one's thinking about it all.
For me, if the assaliant had been African America & the victim white, I believe that, like Alan said, we would not have had commentary about it at the national level. Instead, I believe that the assailant would have been jailed immediately, had no defense fund, and likely convicted without any media coverage at all.
And, to Alan's comment, the concept of white Hispanics has been around for a long time. Some Hispanic's self-identify as white, some as Latino. I didn't understand that the defendant in this case specifically does not identify as white, thank you for sharing this.
I live in a part of Seattle where many young African American men have been shot in the last several years. The SPD has under investigation by Dept. of Justice for the truly appalling way that people of color have been treated here. The lack of attention to these murders has been quite apparent to even local politicians. Race always factors in public life.
Since most all acts of murder are intraracial, I'd like to see more focus and conversation in that area. If the goal is reduce the number of murders, this is where we need to focus. The BJS reports that:
From 1980 through 2008— 84% of white victims were killed by whites (figure 19). 93% of black victims were killed by blacks.
iris lilies
7-9-13, 9:19am
... If the goal is reduce the number of murders, this is where we need to focus. ..
Oh I don't think for a moment that the goal of those bleating about this incident is to reduce the number of murders.
I have a question for Alan, or maybe bae, or anyone really who cares to answer it.
Suppose you were walking through your neighborhood at night, and you suddenly became aware that someone was stalking you, what would you do?
I have a question for Alan, or maybe bae, or anyone really who cares to answer it.
Suppose you were walking through your neighborhood at night, and you suddenly became aware that someone was stalking you, what would you do?
If it was my neighborhood I would probably know the neighborhood watch guy and tell him its just me. Or I could always call 911 or go nock on one of my neighbors door and ask for help. I probably would not attack him and try and bash his head against the pavement.
I fear we will never know what REALLY happened. I'm sure Martin didn't know the neighborhood watch guy (since he just moved there), but hopefully Zimmerman told him who he was.........but maybe things happened so fast, there wasn't any time for that. I can't imagine they will find Zimmerman guilty..........but you never know.
If I thought I was being followed, I'd probably run to a house/condo close by, and be calling 911. I just can't imagine that Zimmerman just ran up to him and started fighting him.
Has anyone noticed how much weight he has gained since the incident?......probably 50#. I'm surprised no one has brought that up, since it might look to some that he was so big, compared to Martin.
I have a question for Alan, or maybe bae, or anyone really who cares to answer it.
Suppose you were walking through your neighborhood at night, and you suddenly became aware that someone was stalking you, what would you do?
I think you'd have to define 'stalking'. If it were someone walking behind me, I'd let them know by a look behind that I knew they were there, then go on about my business. If they were invading my space, attempting to question me improperly or doing something that made me feel threatened, I'd call 911 and then, depending upon the level of threat I perceived, confront them.
I'm not sure why you'd direct the question to bae or me although I'd guess it's because we're known to be concealed weapon carriers. So, if you're really wanting to know if I would pull out my weapon and either threaten or deliver deadly force against a person following me, the answer is no. Deadly force is only used to prevent death or serious injury to yourself or to others, not as a response to feeling uncomfortable.
I have a question for Alan, or maybe bae, or anyone really who cares to answer it.
Suppose you were walking through your neighborhood at night, and you suddenly became aware that someone was stalking you, what would you do?
I would maneuver to a position of advantage, and thusly force my "stalker" to reveal his/her intentions.
I would not initiate the use of physical force. I would however be prepared to respond to any force offered towards me.
I think bae is the only one who answered this honestly enough.
Maybe you would be so cool, calling 911 and all Alan, but I think you probably would more likely turn, say 'Hey, WTF are you doing? Why are you following me?'
Remember, it's night, which means it's dark, and you are minding your own business when this happens. You are going to be surprised, then frightened, then angry. I do believe you would confront the guy. You may not come out swinging, but it's dark, the guy is itching to 'be a cop' or whatever, you really don't know, maybe he's going to rob you, or beat you up, and things get out of hand pretty quick in tense situations.
I ask this question because, most people don't ask themselves this, or answer it honestly. Most women, I think, would run (home or to a neighbors because that is our training from day one, really) and most men, who are fairly sure of themselves (and all 17 year old young men are sure of themselves) would turn and say something like the above. Most would not run away. Or stop to call 911 ( "here, hold on a moment while I ring up 911...that's a good stalker") or identify themselves (why should they, it's their neighborhood, and really, who 'identifies' themselves to would-be robbers?)
I do believe 9 out of 10 men would turn and confront, just like I assume Travon Martin did. Zimmerman confronted, even though he was told not to and actually pursued to confront, with the added emboldening 'id' of a gun.
We do know many facts here. The kid was simply walking home from a store. He did not rob the store, he was not peeking in windows, or smashing lawn ornaments etc..Just walking home. He did not confront, or threaten Zimmerman, or even know he was there until Zimmerman confronted him.
Zimmerman, a cop wanna-be, self appointed neighborhood watch person with a gun (police tell neighborhood watch people to never carry a gun) sees the kid and calls the police. They tell him directly to not follow the kid. He ignores the cops and gets out of this car to follow, then confronts. I suspect the kid realized he was being followed at some point and turned to confront his stalker. Maybe Zimmerman already had his gun drawn, he certainly had the safety off. If the kid did throw a punch then that was his miscalculation, and probably more a symptom of being 17. Wasn't he, in fact, standing his ground? Somebody stalked him, threatened him, and he stood his ground. Isn't this kind of situation, in fact, what stand your ground is for? You are threatened and you use force to stop the threat? Zimmerman wasn't threatened until he forced himself into the situation.
Zimmerman WAS the threat!
Unfortunately he also had the gun. I don't think Stand Your Ground was designed to absolve the winner of a fist fight when it turns fatal. Zimmerman started this fight by simply being there with a gun. He was LOOKING for a fight. Travon Martin wasn't. But he was thrust into one by Zimmermans actions, just as bae, honestly, would be thrust into a confrontation by his stalker.
I don't believe Zimmerman set out that day to kill someone, but he did. It happened, and the person he killed was an innocent kid walking home from the store. He should pay the price.
Frankly I don't understand why the right (on Fox it's practically hysterical) is so adamant about defending this guy. It's either a gun thing or a race thing.
You misunderstand my words then. I would not be "thrust" into a confrontation by my mere presence, nor by giving off non-prey signals, unless my "stalker" was indeed bent upon violence, in which case I would respond in an appropriate manner, as is my duty and right.
I woudn't call 911. Cell phones don't work here, and law enforcement response time is ~30 minutes. I have a radio with me at all times that communicates directly with county dispatch, but, well, I'd be the first responder if they paged out...
I think bae is the only one who answered this honestly enough.
Maybe you would be so cool, calling 911 and all Alan, but I think you probably would more likely turn, say 'Hey, WTF are you doing? Why are you following me?'
You know, I spent nearly 30 years escorting high profile, well known people and have been in the situation you describe more often than you might imagine. Your depiction is an emotional response, not a professional response. You ask me what I would do, I told you not only what I would do, but what I have done.
Also, words are not force. Whoever initiates force is the aggressor. I wish more people understood that.
Peggy, I think you're making some assumptions, that just haven't been proven. Yes, Zimmerman was following him, but we don't know for sure who was the actual aggressor that led to the fight. Yes, Martin was "innocent" in that he was just walking back to his dad's/girlfriend's apartment, minding his own business......but no one will ever know the truth as to who actually did the beating up. And I don't believe that Martin is an innocent, in a larger respect.
I have a question for Alan, or maybe bae, or anyone really who cares to answer it.
Suppose you were walking through your neighborhood at night, and you suddenly became aware that someone was stalking you, what would you do?
As a woman who also carries a concealed weapon I would simply cross the street or get out of the way of the person - stop to let them pass or see if they continue to follow me. If they continued to follow me or seemed physically threatening in any way (not just verbal) I'd probably try to get out of their way much faster - maybe go to a near by house (although I admit that would seem very unnatural to me even if it's the best thing to do I think) and call 911 - but would be ready to protect myself physically (or others if needed) if he/she made violent advances on me. That wouldn't mean branishing my gun, not unless they had a weapon, unless there was no other choice. I also carry a can of mace with me when I walk at night or alone on remote hiking trails so that would be the first thing I'd use if someone who was unarmed became physically violent with me. I wouldn't do anything if they verbally threatened me, or even just questioned me like a neighborhood watch person might, just move out of their way far enough to feel safe.
if the assaliant had been African America & the victim white
From the facts in evidence that seems to be the case this time
From the facts in evidence that seems to be the case this time
??
And I don't believe that Martin is an innocent, in a larger respect.
What do you mean...?
From the facts in evidence that seems to be the case this time
??
As Yossarian correctly points out, the facts in evidence seem to indicate that Trayvon Martin initiated force against Zimmerman, making Martin the assailant and Zimmerman the victim.
As Yossarian correctly points out, the facts in evidence seem to indicate that Trayvon Martin initiated force against Zimmerman, making Martin the assailant and Zimmerman the victim.
Oh, I see. Thanks for explaining that. The state of FL sees it otherwise, quite obviously. And, my query, of course, was what if the older assailant & younger victim had reverse races? The quote from the article, below, underscores the cultural context behind my proposed thought experiment.
Interesting how we all hear different facts, eh? Probably the crazy terrain of the media. Nonetheless, here is another news story. She does a much better job than I of explaining why & how race is such a potent backdrop to this story, as with so many stories.
From today's NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/us/zimmerman-case-has-race-as-a-backdrop-but-you-wont-hear-it-in-court.html?src=recg&pagewanted=all
Excerpt:
"For African-Americans here and across the country, the killing of Mr. Martin, 17, black and unarmed, was resonant with a back story steeped in layers of American history and the abiding conviction that justice serves only some of the people."
PS -- I have a hard time believeing that the teen assaulted the adult. If Mr. Martin was indeed stoned, a hughly plausible theory, the defense narrative of him pursuing an older, bigger, unknown person in the dark is laughable. And, being stoned tends to render one less than physical. All in all, I think the teen jumps twitchy neighborhood armed dude is pretty silly.
"“Profiling, stereotyping, the disparity in treatment of African-Americans when it comes to criminal matters, how imbalanced it all is in the eyes of African-Americans,” said the Rev. Lowman Oliver, the pastor at St. Paul Missionary Baptist Church in Sanford. “That’s why so many eyes are on this case. It’s nationwide and international.” "
"“We are going to have to have a dialogue in this nation about racial matters,” Mr. Oliver said."
Yes.
rodeosweetheart
7-9-13, 2:54pm
"Rodeosweetheart, good question! Since the heart of this case as it's been covered IS race, I consider it an interesting thought experiment to reverse the races & see how that might change one's thinking about it all."
But this is a useless exercise, imposing your own ideas about race and racism and then discussing a hypothetical. I thought the heart of this case was about the facts, about who did what to whom and whether a man should be convicted of murder. If you are talking about coverage, then why are you not interested in the fact that the man who is on trial does not self-identify as "white"? Why should you impose your views of black/white dichotomy as being the reality here, when at least one party to this situation has already said he is not "white"?
I guess my question is that why do observers, consumers of the media, get to define what this case is about because of a certain way of looking at the world, defining the population as being in group or another? Isn't this the same racism--where the ruling class--in this case, the noninvolved media-consumer, gets to define "who is a what", and therefore what happened--that has plagued our country for the last 400 years?
And I say "our country", as I have had relatives settle this country, immigrating since 1630 and helping to form Rhode Island, in search of religious freedom (Gov Bradford threw my grandfather out of Salem for not being a Puritan), so it is as much my country as it is the latest immigrant who has been sworn in as a citizen, regardless of what any of our skin color, religion, politics, or gender may be. And that is the way it should be--all of our country.
Rodeosweetheart, my intent in raising the question is to engage is the larger dialogue about race in America. I am always most interested in how current events elucidate our national status, especially on the big issues. Since I am not in the courtroom, absolutely I cannot define what this case is about legally. It is the sociology that intrigues me, and the perspectives of my fellow & sister SLF participants.
All of us bring our cultural context with us, whether we have been in this country for generates or for months. One of the big questions that race & cultural identity underscores is what is an American? I look forward to any comments!
Oh, I see. Thanks for explaining that. The state of FL sees it otherwise, quite obviously. And, my query, of course, was what if the older assailant & younger victim had reverse races? The quote from the article, below, underscores the cultural context behind my proposed thought experiment.
No, the state of Fl doesn't necessarily see it otherwise, they're doing their job in trying the case so that the facts can come out in a neutral forum. Again, the assailant is the person who initiates force against the victim, not the one who followed or questioned, but the one who initiated force. Evidence from the trial suggests that the older person was not necessarily the assailant, regardless of so many's wishes.
Do you know why the Lady of Justice wears a blindfold?
Well, silly me, believing that since the state brought charges against the accused, this is who they are naming as the assailant.
Well, silly me, believing that since the state brought charges against the accused, this is who they are naming as the assailant.No, they have named him the defendant. Facts will determine whether or not he is the assailant. Let's not put the cart before the horse.
Redfox......what I meant by that is that he has a history of drugs and stealing, so I don't consider him an "innocent". He was living with his father in Florida, because he got expelled from school. But all the initial pictures they showed of him were of a much younger boy. What if they had shown young pictures of Zimmerman?
And Martin might not have been "stoned" enough to make him docile. Doesn't it take awhile for THC to leave the body?
So many questions..............so few answers, unfortunately.
I hope this isn't inappropriate...........just a little funny aside. When my son was in Little League, his team was sponsored by T.........Heating and Cooling. So all these little kids were wearing ball caps with THC on them. :)
Mighty Frugal
7-9-13, 4:24pm
I think bae is the only one who answered this honestly enough.
Maybe you would be so cool, calling 911 and all Alan, but I think you probably would more likely turn, say 'Hey, WTF are you doing? Why are you following me?'
Remember, it's night, which means it's dark, and you are minding your own business when this happens. You are going to be surprised, then frightened, then angry. I do believe you would confront the guy. You may not come out swinging, but it's dark, the guy is itching to 'be a cop' or whatever, you really don't know, maybe he's going to rob you, or beat you up, and things get out of hand pretty quick in tense situations.
I ask this question because, most people don't ask themselves this, or answer it honestly. Most women, I think, would run (home or to a neighbors because that is our training from day one, really) and most men, who are fairly sure of themselves (and all 17 year old young men are sure of themselves) would turn and say something like the above. Most would not run away. Or stop to call 911 ( "here, hold on a moment while I ring up 911...that's a good stalker") or identify themselves (why should they, it's their neighborhood, and really, who 'identifies' themselves to would-be robbers?)
I do believe 9 out of 10 men would turn and confront, just like I assume Travon Martin did. Zimmerman confronted, even though he was told not to and actually pursued to confront, with the added emboldening 'id' of a gun.
We do know many facts here. The kid was simply walking home from a store. He did not rob the store, he was not peeking in windows, or smashing lawn ornaments etc..Just walking home. He did not confront, or threaten Zimmerman, or even know he was there until Zimmerman confronted him.
Zimmerman, a cop wanna-be, self appointed neighborhood watch person with a gun (police tell neighborhood watch people to never carry a gun) sees the kid and calls the police. They tell him directly to not follow the kid. He ignores the cops and gets out of this car to follow, then confronts. I suspect the kid realized he was being followed at some point and turned to confront his stalker. Maybe Zimmerman already had his gun drawn, he certainly had the safety off. If the kid did throw a punch then that was his miscalculation, and probably more a symptom of being 17. Wasn't he, in fact, standing his ground? Somebody stalked him, threatened him, and he stood his ground. Isn't this kind of situation, in fact, what stand your ground is for? You are threatened and you use force to stop the threat? Zimmerman wasn't threatened until he forced himself into the situation.
Zimmerman WAS the threat!
Unfortunately he also had the gun. I don't think Stand Your Ground was designed to absolve the winner of a fist fight when it turns fatal. Zimmerman started this fight by simply being there with a gun. He was LOOKING for a fight. Travon Martin wasn't. But he was thrust into one by Zimmermans actions, just as bae, honestly, would be thrust into a confrontation by his stalker.
I don't believe Zimmerman set out that day to kill someone, but he did. It happened, and the person he killed was an innocent kid walking home from the store. He should pay the price.
Frankly I don't understand why the right (on Fox it's practically hysterical) is so adamant about defending this guy. It's either a gun thing or a race thing.
Great post. I completely agree
the defense narrative of him pursuing an older, bigger, unknown person
Trayvon was 5'11" and George is 5'7". So I'll give you older and unknown, but bigger kind of depends on your metric.
Redfox......what I meant by that is that he has a history of drugs and stealing, so I don't consider him an "innocent". He was living with his father in Florida, because he got expelled from school. But all the initial pictures they showed of him were of a much younger boy. What if they had shown young pictures of Zimmerman?
And Martin might not have been "stoned" enough to make him docile. Doesn't it take awhile for THC to leave the body?
So many questions..............so few answers, unfortunately.
I hope this isn't inappropriate...........just a little funny aside. When my son was in Little League, his team was sponsored by T.........Heating and Cooling. So all these little kids were wearing ball caps with THC on them. :)
That IS funny... those inadvertent cultural riffs are the best.
I do drugs. My stepson does drugs. We both use cannabis for pain. WTH does doing drugs & stealing have to do with this case? Only "innocent" people get murdered?
Trayvon was 5'11" and George is 5'7". So I'll give you older and unknown, but bigger kind of depends on your metric.
For sure. The teen was rather gangly, and the adult rather bulky. I imagine that it all figures in how each perceived threat.
Redfox, I was answering your question about why I thought he might not be the innocent you were portraying, since you were using that term for Martin. If you were using "innocent" in reference to him walking home, not planning any crime, then yes, he was innocent. I'm just not sure he had an innocent past and think he had the potential to fight Zimmerman, rather than ask what he wanted.
But you do seem like you've made up your mind (like many of us)........only you have come to a different conclusion.
And you may be a well-mannered drug-user. Not all people are. I haven't a clue how Martin behaved on drugs. I've just read that he got into trouble because of his use.
rodeosweetheart
7-9-13, 4:59pm
I guess I don'[t understand what you are saying, Redfox, since you are now dealing in terms of facts of the case, but you say you are talking about cultural stereotypes, cultural perceptions,etc.
When we were the jury in the admittedly non murder case (thank God) we were told we were to examine the evidence and find the facts.
Those facts have nothing to do with cultural perceptions on the part of spectators. Cultural perceptions, upbringing, internal beliefs may be relevant to what each party to the situation thought, perceived, and brought to the table, but not with what trial spectators and pundits think or say. I would put us all here in the category of spectators and pundits.
So if you are talking about the way the trial is covered, about "conversations about race" in our country, why try to talk about the facts of the case? The conversations about race do not change the facts, do not impact them, are not relevant to what actually happened. In fact, they seem in this case to obscure them. I liked the comment about Justice wearing a blindfold. What a beautiful concept.
So I am confused by what you are trying to say here.
As to what it means to be an American, one of the things I love dearly about our country is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
I also love the fact that those jurors are going to be doing their best to be impartial and follow the judge's rulings.
I guess I would put the justice system up there, the Constitution, things I love about our country.
We are not tried by public opinion, but a court of law.
I guess I don'[t understand what you are saying, Redfox, since you are now dealing in terms of facts of the case, but you say you are talking about cultural stereotypes, cultural perceptions,etc.
When we were the jury in the admittedly non murder case (thank God) we were told we were to examine the evidence and find the facts.
Those facts have nothing to do with cultural perceptions on the part of spectators. Cultural perceptions, upbringing, internal beliefs may be relevant to what each party to the situation thought, perceived, and brought to the table, but not with what trial spectators and pundits think or say. I would put us all here in the category of spectators and pundits.
So if you are talking about the way the trial is covered, about "conversations about race" in our country, why try to talk about the facts of the case? The conversations about race do not change the facts, do not impact them, are not relevant to what actually happened. In fact, they seem in this case to obscure them. I liked the comment about Justice wearing a blindfold. What a beautiful concept.
So I am confused by what you are trying to say here.
As to what it means to be an American, one of the things I love dearly about our country is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
I also love the fact that those jurors are going to be doing their best to be impartial and follow the judge's rulings.
I guess I would put the justice system up there, the Constitution, things I love about our country.
We are not tried by public opinion, but a court of law.
I love your reflections. I am most interested in the larger social picture regarding the changing conversation about race in the US. So much has changed in my lifetime; yet sometimes it seems as if basic prejudices are still so deeply rooted. I too love the jurisprudential concepts of innocent until proven guilty, being judged by a jury of one's peers, of Justice being blind -- I was raised by a constitutional lawyer! And, in such human places as the courtroom, the press room (if that even exists any more), and here, in our humble forum, impartiality does not exist.
I am most interested in how this trail brings light to the dynamic and changing national conversation on race. Does this help?
No, they have named him the defendant. Facts will determine whether or not he is the assailant. Let's not put the cart before the horse.
I am not one to second-guess the grand jury and their charge of second degree murder.
I am not one to second-guess the grand jury and their charge of second degree murder. What grand jury??? If I recall correctly Zimmerman was charged without any grand jury being involved.
What grand jury??? If I recall correctly Zimmerman was charged without any grand jury being involved.That's true, he was charged under a heresay affidavit, which highlights one of the problems with this case. With the available evidence, there was no guarantee a grand jury would return a true bill and the pressure put upon the local prosecutor by those wishing to make this a racial case was intense.
I'm really surprised no one has brought this up yet. I wasn't quite sure where to post this.
Maybe people are afraid to voice their opinions?
There's so much that isn't known about what really happened. Its been in the media that its a cut-and-dried murder, but the more I hear about it, the more confusing it becomes.
I have learned that there's very little I can say about non-whites, so I'm not sure what all I can say here without getting flamed.
I'm having a hard time understanding all these protests and marches being held when we don't have all the facts yet.
I tend to agree with Geraldo Rivera in that wearing a hoodie can get you into trouble, because its the garb of alot of young black criminals.
I also agree that Zimmerman shouldn't have gone after him with a gun.
Its interesting that the picture chosen for the media was of an innocent looking young boy, but not of some of his more recent poses where his pants are half-way down and he's giving the finger.
There's just so much conflicting information coming in. But I am concerned about the violence that may come from this. Even if everything is handled properly and Zimmerman is found innocent (if only because of the "Stand your Ground" law), there will be so much rioting. The new black panthers have put out a bounty on Zimmerman's head. There have also been flyers distributed "Wanted Dead or Alive".
And another thing that concerns me is that no one seems to get upset with the black-on-black violence in their communities. Recently, in the city close to here, a 16 year old back youth shot 5 other young black youths. Where's the outrage there? Where's the protesting there? Seems the only ones concerned are a few of the black ministers (who try to do alot to help the black youths).
I'd like to have a conversation about this case in Florida, hopefully without people calling me a racist.
Any opinions about it? Or is this something everyone wants to avoid?
I haven't said anything about it because I take the radical position that it's none of my business. The judicial system is doing what it does. I'm not on the jury, not a reporter, not acquainted with any of the parties. I have no information about it of my own knowledge. What I think about it (if anything) doesn't actually do anything in the real world. Me saying anything about it wouldn't be worth the bandwidth it would take up.
What grand jury??? If I recall correctly Zimmerman was charged without any grand jury being involved.
How interesting! Yes, upon researching this, I see that the state of FL only requires Grand Juries for capital murder cases. Thanks for mentioning this.
3 hours each for closing arguments? Really? I never knew they could be so long. Seems like they'd start losing the jury's interest.
Now it's come to light that the Department of Justice, Community Relations Service unit, may have been involved in some of the initial protests and helped arrange the resignation of the local police chief. http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/documents-obtained-by-judicial-watch-detail-role-of-justice-department-in-organizing-trayvon-martin-protests/
I wonder what's up with that?
Your source:
"Not to be outdone, Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman dubs Obama a “racist, black-Muslim sympathizer and Jew-and-white hater” who is “the biggest and most evil whore of all”:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/far-right-real-victims-trayvon-martin-case-are-white-people
Not a source that is independent or trustworthy. That's what's up.
"Not to be outdone, Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman dubs Obama a “racist, black-Muslim sympathizer and Jew-and-white hater” who is “the biggest and most evil whore of all”:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/far-right-real-victims-trayvon-martin-case-are-white-people
Three hundred plus pages of documents obtained under FOIA requests detailing the unit's activity should be ignored because you don't like the group requesting them?
Dude, anyone can request a raft of docs under FOIA, and make whatever outlandish claims they wish about them. I cannot take seriously any claims brought by such a disreputable organization. The quotes I found by them is beyond distasteful.
I know that there are über right wing fringe groups that have expressed dislike of the President. The quotes I found by this group are hateful; not a rational critique. For while they have the absolute right to say what they wish, I no more consider them a reputable source than I do the KKK.
I don't understand how its legal for the prosecution to wait until the very end of the trial (and probably fear it's going to lose), and bring up wanting to also add manslaughter as a possible charge. Seems like this isn't fair.
I don't understand how its legal for the prosecution to wait until the very end of the trial (and probably fear it's going to lose), and bring up wanting to also add manslaughter as a possible charge. Seems like this isn't fair.They're grasping at straws, trying to get a conviction on any possible charge. At least the judge threw out the suggestion of child abuse.
Alan..........so is the manslaughter charge out too? I thought that changing your charge to a lesser charge, would be not allowed. If the prosecution would be allowed to do that, wouldn't the defense have to agree to allow that? I thought it had to stay what you initially wanted to charge.
skittles and iced tea.
I guess we all learn something during these trials, but as a parent this one was news to me:
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/tx/TG0F35U9S8LVLTJF5 (http://www.topix.com/forum/state/tx/TG0F35U9S8LVLTJF5)
or
http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2012/05/more-than-bag-of-skittles-trayvon.html (http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2012/05/more-than-bag-of-skittles-trayvon.html)
Or just google "purple drank" or "purple lean"
Is this believable?
I actually heard awhile back that Martin had actually purchased Watermelon Arizona tea, and it was purported that it was changed to "iced tea", so that people wouldn't make watermelon jokes.........but I guess it was more than that.
What bothers me is that some of the various truths aren't allowed in the courtroom. What if Zimmerman is found guilty, then the jury is let out and then they learn about the purple drank? Would that have made them vote differently?
Sure wish we had a working Minority Report thing...........
Any of you guys pre-cogs looking for a job?
I guess we all learn something during these trials, but as a parent this one was news to me:
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/tx/TG0F35U9S8LVLTJF5 (http://www.topix.com/forum/state/tx/TG0F35U9S8LVLTJF5)
or
http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2012/05/more-than-bag-of-skittles-trayvon.html (http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2012/05/more-than-bag-of-skittles-trayvon.html)
Or just google "purple drank" or "purple lean"
If the suggestion is that Mr. Martin was high on this yucky stuff, as the Kansas blog posting suggests, it obviously didn't show up in a tox screen. Suggesting he was doing drugs is pretty stereotyped.
And, I agree with Alan that it was right for the judge to toss out the 3rd degree murder suggestion. That was goofy.
I did read that on his autopsy that his liver was somehow affected......potentially from the purple lean drink.........but if he hadn't had the drink for awhile, it wouldn't show up in his blood.
Maybe I watch too many Law and Order shows......but I still don't understand how the prosecution can change the charge towards the end of a trial, without the defense agreeing to it.
I did read that on his autopsy that his liver was somehow affected......potentially from the purple lean drink.........but if he hadn't had the drink for awhile, it wouldn't show up in his blood.
Maybe I watch too many Law and Order shows......but I still don't understand how the prosecution can change the charge towards the end of a trial, without the defense agreeing to it.
I imagine that if this showed up on a tox report, that the defense would have been all over it. Just a surmise.
I don't know if they even knew about Purple Drank.
Alan..........so is the manslaughter charge out too? I thought that changing your charge to a lesser charge, would be not allowed. If the prosecution would be allowed to do that, wouldn't the defense have to agree to allow that? I thought it had to stay what you initially wanted to charge.
From the New York Times:
"On Thursday, the judge, Debra S. Nelson, said the jury would also be able to consider manslaughter as a lesser charge. This charge is typically included in Florida murder cases if either side requests it. Manslaughter with a firearm carries a sentence of up to 30 years in prison."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/us/zimmerman-jury-will-be-allowed-to-consider-lesser-manslaughter-charge.html?hp
By the way, "purple drank" has been around for 13 years. It's commonly known in law enforcement.
It's commonly known in law enforcement.
But not by me. The skittles and ice tea purchase almost seems like it is used as a badge of innocence when in fact it may have been quite the opposite given his text messages about codeine. I never would have picked up on it and I have teenagers. And that was my point- I have at least learned I have more to learn about teenage drug use.
But not by me. The skittles and ice tea purchase almost seems like it is used as a badge of innocence when in fact it may have been quite the opposite given his text messages about codeine. I never would have picked up on it and I have teenagers. And that was my point- I have at least learned I have more to learn about teenage drug use.
I remember those days! It's a fast changing terrain. I kept up on drug & gang trends and slang by info the Seattle Police Department put out. It was very helpful. Good luck with it all.
rodeosweetheart
7-12-13, 7:44am
So the skittles and snapple he was walking with are ingredients to a drug that rappers use, that he was reported to use? Which made something called "poor man's pcp"?
That most of us did not know about, or schools would not be holding Trayvon days and handing out skittles and watermelon soda, right?
FRom reading I am doing about this, this 17 year old does not sound very child-like, so glad the judge threw out the ludicrous child abuse angle.
It also sounds like the Justice Dept brought this against Zimmerman because it was political grandstanding. And that the stand your ground law means that in Fl, Zimmerman did not have to go back to his car?
And that Zimmerman might have been having his head smashed to the ground by someone onthe equivalent of PCP?
IT will be interestng to see if they get the manslaughter charge to stick. Only the jury, who got to see the evidence, will decide. If I were on that jury, I would feel it was completely unfair, to change3 charge at the last minute like that. The prosecution would not have proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of course, the jury has not seen the photos of him posing with wads of cash, the "gansta" look, the information on alleged drug use, the information on being thrown out of school for drug use. So hard to say if they will hav emuch insight into what might have been going through Zimmerman;'s mind as his head was being smashed against the concrete.
For shame, that the media has presented this image to the public. For shame.
Yossarian
7-12-13, 11:29am
So the skittles and snapple he was walking with are ingredients to a drug that rappers use, that he was reported to use?
That most of us did not know about, or schools would not be holding Trayvon days and handing out skittles and watermelon soda, right?
Kind of ironic, huh?
Yossarian
7-12-13, 12:02pm
What bothers me is that some of the various truths aren't allowed in the courtroom.
I know the legal reasons why they do it but the biggest exclusion to me is Trayvon's history of fighting. We are asked to figure out who likely started the fight. It's common sense you would want to know about things like this:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/why_the_zimmerman_prosecutors_should_be_disbarred. html
And knowing what I know now I do find it funny they keep using the watermelon drink as symbol.
jennipurrr
7-12-13, 12:14pm
I guess we all learn something during these trials, but as a parent this one was news to me:
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/tx/TG0F35U9S8LVLTJF5 (http://www.topix.com/forum/state/tx/TG0F35U9S8LVLTJF5)
or
http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2012/05/more-than-bag-of-skittles-trayvon.html (http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2012/05/more-than-bag-of-skittles-trayvon.html)
Or just google "purple drank" or "purple lean"
I am not a drug expert, but I believe "Purple Drank" usually contains an opiate based cough syrup, not OTC robitussin. They usually mix it with regular Sprite. I think it is kind of silly this is purported as an angle...the opiates are what makes the drug "fun" - it isn't a thing with regular cough syrup from the drug store. It has some hype-y effects from the Dextromethorphan in the cough syrup, but usually the opiates overpower that easily and its more of a relaxing, herionish drug.
Kids can abuse Dextromethorphan based OTC cough syrup, which is I think where some of these articles are mixing up. Dextromethorphan is speedy but it takes A LOT of it and it has bad side effects. This is not what the rappers and famous folks use since they can get their hands on opiate based cough syrup easily and if they wanted a stimulant there are much better choices.. It is rare that teenagers are drinking this type of cough syrup regularly...I worked in mental health for a bit and only encountered one person who abused it. The high is much "better" (less side effects) off adderall or other stimulants, and those are much more easily found in the teenage populace.
rodeosweetheart
7-12-13, 12:25pm
When I was researching the purple lean stuff I read the autopsy report on Trayvon Martin. God that is depressing, as the mother of three sons, may I say, heartbreaking. Such a waste of life.
What struck me was that he had absolutely no injuries whatsoever, save the bullet wound.
Zimmerman, on the other hand, was bleeding with injuries to the nose and head. So the autopsy report does not support a scenario where they were going at it and both hitting the other. To me, it supports Zimmerman's self-defense claims.
Yossarian
7-12-13, 12:40pm
I think it is kind of silly this is purported as an angle
It's not an angle in and of itself, it's just more fodder for the selective nature of the narrative in the press. They show you an old photo of Trayvon as a young boy and tell you he was just carrying candy. But of course he was a lot bigger dude with tattoos and a gold tooth grill, into marijuana and purple lean, had access to illegal guns, and who had been kicked out of school and his mothers house for fighting too much, at least some of it MMA style (giving credence to the witness who said he was pummeling GZ "MMA style"). No one is blaming the incident on the watermelon drink and candy itself, but it is at least as likely that they were for future drug use and not a symbol of his boyish innocence.
Yossarian
7-12-13, 12:51pm
What struck me was that he had absolutely no injuries whatsoever, save the bullet wound.
Didn't he also have damaged knuckles on his hand(s)?
I wonder where the line is drawn, when not being allowed to taint the present case with info about a person's past character. On one hand, I understand it, but on the other, it just doesn't make sense.
And here is what it all comes down to: http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a
defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of
Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you
must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was
used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify
the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably
cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the
danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George
Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any
place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his
ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was
necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent
the commission of a forcible felony.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical
abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the
question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should
find George Zimmerman not guilty.
The problem with jury trials is that many people aren't as impartial as they think they are or try to be. Many hold deep beliefs on things like gun laws, stand your ground laws, etc... (and we see that even in this discussion) that, even though those things are legal in Florida and GZ didn't violate any laws by having a gin on him, people who dislike the idea of a person having a gun or the legality of stand your ground laws, are often colored by that preception when making a judgement about the defendant. And usually a negative judgement just because they dislike the current laws that are in place. Also using words like "murderer", "assailant and victim" etc... rather than defendant (who should be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) shows the slant that many people have - and which I assume many jurors have as well and will lead them to make assumption of guilt or innocence based on that slanted beliefs. Some may dislike GZ solely on the fact that he legally carried a gun and acted in what they precieved was a cowboy-like manner. Neither which is illegal in his case. They may decide he is guilty of the crime based on nothing more than that dislike. If there was no gun involved just a physical altercation and TM had lived, and the issue was to determine who exactly assailed who, then based on the physical evidence alone it would probably seem that TM assulted GZ making GZ the victim in this case.
Personally I have no idea if GZ is guilty or not. I do feel that GZ WAS an overzealous cowboy of sorts and his job as neighborhood watch should mean to "watch" and call the police if there is suspicious activity, not to engage the person, follow them or question them if they were not doing anything criminal. However being a cowboy or overly zealous when there was no need to be (i.e. he doesn't need to confront TM, or anyone, unless perhaps if a crime that would harm another person was being committed) is grounds to convict him. And from what I have seen of the trial from a more informed than the jury position, the state hasn't met the burden of proof (proponderance of proof) that is required to make it's case of murder.
...., the state hasn't met the burden of proof (proponderance of proof) that is required to make it's case of murder. Spartana - You are mistating the State's burden of proof. The lower standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) is used in civil matters. For a criminal matter (such as the Zimmerman case) the state must meet a much higher burden "beyond a reasonable doubt".
The last jury instruction I cited above reads a little funny to me but could be key:
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.
Reasonable doubt means not guilty.
Question for you all. About guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". I don't understand that. Can you give me an example of what a reasonable doubt would be?
rodeosweetheart
7-12-13, 4:21pm
Sorry, Yosarrian, you are quite correct, injured knuckles:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/05/trayvon-martin-autopsy-shows-wound-his-hands/52392/
Question for you all. About guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". I don't understand that. Can you give me an example of what a reasonable doubt would be?
From the Florida Standard Jury Instructions:
3.7 PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT;
AND BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the [information] [indictment] through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.
To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime.
The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything.
Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:
It is recommended that you use this instruction to define reasonable doubt during voir dire. State v. Wilson, 686 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1996).
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.
It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.
A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.
If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.
Comment
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in 1997.
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf
A few years back I was on a jury for a case in which the defendant claimed self-defense. The other party was severely injured.
The predisposition of most of the jury was to convict the defendant, as he was not a likeable fellow, and both parties had been up to no good the evening of the incident. The injuries were pretty horrid, and the prosecutor spent a lot of time showing gory photos and trotting out doctors to explain the hell of the reconstructive surgery involved.
The jury instruction however were quite clear about the burden of proof, reasonable doubt, and all that good stuff. And several members of the jury insisted to the rest of the jury that we go through the instructions and the law, and sort through the evidence to sift out the facts, and try to follow our duty, instead of our emotions.
And so we did. It only takes one person on the jury to demand that you follow the correct process. I think that's a good thing.
A great movie treatment of the subject:
http://www.nndb.com/films/462/000037351/12-angry-men-sized.jpg
rodeosweetheart
7-12-13, 4:36pm
Exactly, Bae. After my jury experience, not as difficult a trial as yours, I went home and watched 12 Angry Men again, and was astonished by how close it came to the jury experience. You really do hold each other to the rules, and we abided by them very closely. And then, together, there is collective wisdom that really does exceed the wisdom of any one individual. That is why I feel that the jury will be able to do a good job.
I was on a jury once and it was a Twelve Angry Men experience because we went from a vote of 7 guilty/2 not guilty (one was me), to a not guilty verdict. I won't go into the details, but it was not a great experience for me. I found all the typical "human" factors at play.. the prosecutor did NOT connect two critical dots for us. We had spent three days deliberating, and one person was missing her kid's graduation, one person was missing a trip to a horse show she was competing in which impacted the course of events, and at the end, we should have had a closed vote (as a market researcher I'm well aware of that) and I was overridden, so I know there was group-think at play as well.
It's taken me a long time to get over it. Thank God it wasn't a murder case. Armed robbery was bad enough.
iris lilies
7-12-13, 8:22pm
Where I live, being on a murder trial isn't unusual.
DH has been on one, as have several of our friends and neighbors. I mean, it's so common that I've got a list of friends and acquaintances who have been jury foremen on murder trials, that's the subset: foremen of murder juries.
In DH's case it was a group of young men in a car who pulled up to an ATM and shot a man in front of his 10 year old daughter (after taking his $12.68.) Then they went to the Get N GO and bought soda and bags of pork rind chips. DH's jury tried one of the riders, not the shooter.They convicted him but on a lesser charge, I think it was 2nd degree murder.
I've been on several juries but the last one was a criminal case, a case of drug posession. The DA didn't prove his case although we were convinced that SOMEONE in the car had the drugs but we did not convict him. The first thing these guys do when stopped by cops is to throw the drugs around. Of course I knew that the perp had been up on these charges before because there was no other reason for him to get all lawyered up and go to trial, but that evidence is inadmissible. And sure enough after the trial we found that he'd had several prior convictions and this one would have sent him away for a long time if not for good. But really, in the end, I didn't mind exonerating him because I really did not know if he had the drugs. It could well have been one of the other three guys in the car.
Spartana - You are mistating the State's burden of proof. The lower standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) is used in civil matters. For a criminal matter (such as the Zimmerman case) the state must meet a much higher burden "beyond a reasonable doubt".Oops! You're right. I think I did say beyond a reasonable doubt somewhere in my post but either way I don't think the state met that burden.
Speaking of 12 angry men - do you think that a jury of 6 females ,some or all of them mothers, represent GZ peers? And not to stereotype, but do you think that the women will be more against his carrying a gun - even legally - then 6 men? I thought the jury overall was wrongly selected and potentially biased.
Question for you all. About guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". I don't understand that. Can you give me an example of what a reasonable doubt would be?
Cathy - Once upon a time, back in ye olde ancient days, when I was in college to get my Criminal Justice degree our basic tenent was "you better be damn sure of their guilt in order to even think about convicting". Not very profession for a criminal law class but the idea was that we would rather let a dozen guilty people walk rather than wrongly convict one innocent person of a crime they didn't commit. Here's a better explanation for "Beyond A reasonable Doubt" from Wikepedia:
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial.
Speaking of 12 angry men - do you think that a jury of 6 females ,some or all of them mothers, represent GZ peers? And not to stereotype, but do you think that the women will be more against his carrying a gun - even legally - then 6 men? I thought the jury overall was wrongly selected and potentially biased.
And why was the jury only SIX people, rather than 12? I've never heard of such a thing. Was this something peculiar to Florida law?
Yes. If Zimmerman had a right to "stand his ground", what about Martin? Did Martin, aware of being stalked by a large man behaving in a suspicious manner, have a right to stand his ground and resort to physical violence to defend himself in a situation in which he considered himself threatened?
Yes. If Zimmerman had a right to "stand his ground", what about Martin? Did Martin, aware of being stalked by a large man behaving in a suspicious manner, have a right to stand his ground and resort to physical violence to defend himself in a situation in which he considered himself threatened?yes - assuming GZ did physically threatened him first. And of course that's the whole crux of the trial - was it self defense or was GZ the aggressor physically. And is there enough evidence to prove it... beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes. If Zimmerman had a right to "stand his ground", what about Martin? Did Martin, aware of being stalked by a large man behaving in a suspicious manner, have a right to stand his ground and resort to physical violence to defend himself in a situation in which he considered himself threatened?
Both parties, assuming they were not up to anything illegal, had the right to be where they were, going about their business. And both were entitled to defend themselves against aggressors.
You don't get to *initiate* violence though - that's not "standing your ground" or "self-defense", that's "assault and battery". Whoever *initiated* the physical combat surrendered their right to claim "self defense".
Both parties, assuming they were not up to anything illegal, had the right to be where they were, going about their business. And both were entitled to defend themselves against aggressors.
You don't get to *initiate* violence though - that's not "standing your ground" or "self-defense", that's "assault and battery". Whoever *initiated* the physical combat surrendered their right to claim "self defense".
I guess that would depend on what "initiated" means - is the threat of imminent violence violence in itself? Is it as simple as saying "I have a gun and I'll use it"? Is pointing a gun or cocking a fist initiating violence?
Based on what I heard, I think something like this happened. Zimmerman threatened in some way, Martin got the upper hand physically, and then Zimmerman shot Martin.
You know, if I were being very obviously stalked through dark streets by a large man, I'd consider that violence against my person was imminent. If I were scared enough for long enough, I might even turn and lash out at the person following me.
Zimmerman's continued following of Martin, after being instructed by the 911 respondent to stop doing so, leads to the question of whether he had the right to be where he was. It was clearly not his business to follow Martin. He's not a policeman or any kind of law enforcement person, so he wasn't doing his job. He had done his duty by reporting his suspicions.
rodeosweetheart
7-13-13, 10:17pm
I guess that would depend on what "initiated" means - is the threat of imminent violence violence in itself? Is it as simple as saying "I have a gun and I'll use it"? Is pointing a gun or cocking a fist initiating violence?
Based on what I heard, I think something like this happened. Zimmerman threatened in some way, Martin got the upper hand physically, and then Zimmerman shot Martin.
Personally, I have come to think that Martin initiated the violence. But like all of us, I am just going on what I read and on what physical evidence we are privvy to. For example, the police found his earbuds in his pocket, and he had been on the phone for 1 1/2 hour straight. I think he put them away in preparation for jumping Zimmerman. If Zimmerman came at him, he would not have had time to put them in his pocket.
Spartana, why in the world could 6 women not deliver an impartial jury decision? (Although they might tend to side with Zimmerman, given the size difference in the two men and the physical evidence of the broken nose and the bashed in head.
Speculation is now moot, the verdict is in...Not Guilty
Based on what I heard, I think something like this happened...
You spoke to witnesses?
Speculation is now moot, the verdict is in...Not Guilty
Racist.
You spoke to witnesses?
I meant based on the testimony I picked up from the media.
Racist.
What do you mean?
goldensmom
7-14-13, 9:13am
I did not read the 173 posts on this thread but I did watch much of the trial on TV. Based solely on the evidence presented, the testimony given and my work experience with the court system, I agree with the verdict. I do not approve of anyone killing another person but it happens and legally speaking, feelings need to be separated from fact but if this were my son, facts be hanged, I’d definitely want a different verdict.
If Zimmerman had a right to "stand his ground"
Despite all the ballyhoo about SYG, I don't really see where it was a factor. This was just a straight self-defense case. I don't see how GZ could have "retreated" when being straddled and pummeled by TM, so there was no need to invoke SYG.
I was sort of surprised that Zimmerman showed absolutely no emotion at the Not Guilty verdict. He really hasn't shown any emotion through the whole thing.
But.....he must have been relieved inside. Still.........life has changed forever for him, even with the verdict.
I heard on the news that one reason Martin's family wasn't there for the verdict is that they were getting threatening emails/calls. That's unfortunate.
I've been hearing from various other lawyers (on TV) that they thought the prosecutors put up a horribly bad case. Any thoughts on that?
iris lilies
7-14-13, 12:58pm
I was sort of surprised that Zimmerman showed absolutely no emotion at the Not Guilty verdict. He really hasn't shown any emotion through the whole thing.
...
I tire of people making judgements about defendants who "don't show emotion." People react to things in different ways. We are not all cryers. Look at the great job of acting that Casey Anthony did, and she is likely guilty.
There was a trial here where a mother was charged with killing her kid because he kept getting sicker and sicker although it was unclear what exactly was his malady. Some kind of poisoning they charged her with. The jury said she showed no emotion during the trial, and in that didn't do herself any favors. She was convicted and sent off to prison.
While in prison her 2nd child got sicker, and then sicker, with what looked to be the same wasting illness. Come to find out her children have a rare genetic metabolic illness.
Doh.
Experts are too seldom experts and juries expect stupid things.
rant over.
oh wait--let me take a moment to comment on the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton and their moment in the spotlight, for now they are calling for civil cahrges to be brought against Zimmerman. Hey fellows, no one takes you guys seriously any more. And that is sad because I remember when Jesse Jackson was real and sincere. I'm not sure that the Reverend Al has ever been anything other than a hustler.
now, rant truly over.
I have to wonder, if he is truly innocent, what the impact of his legal expenses for defense of his innocence will have on his life. I'll bet the cost was huge. It seems like an unfair punishment for someone trying to defend his life and well being.
And why was the jury only SIX people, rather than 12? I've never heard of such a thing. Was this something peculiar to Florida law?
The news said that 12 person juries are only required for trials involved a possible death sentence. I don't know if this is specific for Florida.
Whatever they may have done in the past, Jackson, Sharpton, and here in Chicago Fr. Michael Pflager, are for lack of a better term, media whores.
The prosecution wasn't able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty. Whatever lead up to it, when your head is getting pummeled into the ground, MMA style, per the one witness, you have every reason to be in fear of your life.
I only found out yesterday that the prosecutor was a SPECIAL prosecutor, appointed just for this case. I thought that was very interesting.
The prosecutor didn't put on a very good case. Day after day, the witnesses seemed to make the defense's case for them. That one black young woman who was TM's friend (or girlfriend, I'm not sure which) was just a disaster. She actually told the prosecutor "That's just retarded" when asked a question. She couldn't read (as in, she didn't know how to read) the letter, in longhand (cursive) she had supposedly written, in court when it was shown to her.
The NAACP is apparently pushing for the feds to look into civil rights charges against GZ. I seem to remember that the FBI looked into that very thing early on in the case and couldn't find anything. TM was the one who made this about race with his "creepy a$$ cracker" remark about GZ.
TM's relatives during the press conference afterwards were what you would expect. The sainted martyr bit and all that.
As GZ's defense attorney said during the press conference last night - none of this would have happened if GZ had been black. And all the media going on and on about stand your ground laws, well, that wasn't even a part of this case.
And Angela Corey was just a happy, chipper, cheery, overly made up smarmy mess during the press conference after the verdict last night. HER behavior was totally inappropriate for a big case she lost and did a very poor job on.
Here is the best summation of this case that I've read:
"The choice was Stand Your Ground or Stand for Justice
Yesterday Rick asked on his FB page whether George Zimmerman would be found innocent or guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin. I wrote “not guilty". As an individual who has served on two King County Superior Court juries involving criminal charges the law, the facts, and the beyond a reasonable doubt standard weigh heavily upon a juror. In both cases the jurors probably felt a crime was committed. But in both cases we found the defendant not guilty.
The facts in the Zimmerman prosecution are not in dispute. An armed adult racially profiled and stalked an unarmed black teenager. A shoving or wrestling match ensued. Zimmerman used his weapon. Martin was shot and he died.
In the Zimmerman trial the prosecutors presented a rather weak case with respect to the original charge. The acknowledgement of the weakness of their case was made when they argued that Zimmerman could be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder. It is quite likely that this change affected the jury deliberations.
I am not angry with the jurors, judge, or defense counsel. My antipathy is directed at poorly prepared prosecutors, the legislators who supported the “Stand Your Ground” legislation, and a governor who signed it into law. But it is the law in Florida.
Zimmerman is not a hero and Trayvon Martin was not an angel. But both were entitled to the protections provided by the law. We were seeking justice. But our system of laws, the facts, and the constitution prevailed. The great tragedy is that justice remained elusive."
The facts in the Zimmerman prosecution are not in dispute. An armed adult racially profiled and stalked an unarmed black teenager.
The facts are not in dispute but that summary is wrong, and what a horrible racist summary it is. GZ mentors black kids, has black friends, and is liked by his black neighbors. He even had a black prom date. He never used racial terms except when asked by the dispatcher to describe TM. If he did profile he did a damn good job given TM was basically a thug on suspension for theft. The only people with an apparent racial motive are the media whores who selectively edit transcripts and cowardly public officials who make allegations without evidence. You'd have to be one of peggy's mouth breathing low information viewers to be taken in by this nonsense, yet the crap continues.
I concur with Yossarian's assessment of that "summation".
You'd have to be one of peggy's mouth breathing low information viewers to be taken in by this nonsense, yet the crap continues.
Wow. Time for me to get out of this hostile place.
Yossarian, I think you could still get your viewpoints across without name-calling. And people might listen to them more.
Yossarian, I think you could still get your viewpoints across without name-calling. And people might listen to them more.
If you want to be a racist don't get offended when people call you on it.
Spartana, why in the world could 6 women not deliver an impartial jury decision? (Although they might tend to side with Zimmerman, given the size difference in the two men and the physical evidence of the broken nose and the bashed in head.
I do think they can be impartial - I think anyone can be. However I wouldn't consider 6 females who may all be mothers - and perhaps more sympathtic TM's mother for the loss of her son and less sympathic tto a man carrying a gun (stereotypying I know) - to be GZ peers any more then I would consider 6 black people to be - at least not for this case. Having some males on the jury may have been a better representation. But I agree with the outcome as I didn't think there was enough evidence for a conviction.
The facts are not in dispute but that summary is wrong, and what a horrible racist summary it is. GZ mentors black kids, has black friends, and is liked by his black neighbors. He even had a black prom date. He never used racial terms except when asked by the dispatcher to describe TM. If he did profile he did a damn good job given TM was basically a thug on suspension for theft. The only people with an apparent racial motive are the media whores who selectively edit transcripts and cowardly public officials who make allegations without evidence. You'd have to be one of peggy's mouth breathing low information viewers to be taken in by this nonsense, yet the crap continues.
You are a mouth breathing assh**e and I suspect you will be getting a warning e-mail from the moderators soon. You are evil and despicable. Right Alan? Or is that only for those who disagree with you?
The thug got off. As many thugs get off every day in this country. Doesn't make him any less of a thug, and a coward bully.
FYI- if you start a fist fight, be sure to bring your gun if to your surprise you start losing that fist fight. That'll do it. If you, the coward bully, find that someone doesn't actually cower to your bullying, then shoot them. Florida will find you innocent.
I concur with Yossarian's assessment of that "summation".
Then you are evil and despicable too.
Shame on you.
As to the racist angle - of the other people that GZ called to inform the police about (and perhaps followed as well) during his time on neighborhood watch, how many were black? Also how many of those did he confront or question? If there were as many incidents as reported, I would think that is his MO to question everyone irregardless of race or age or gender he deemed suspicious rather than just this one black teen. And apparently he never had a physical altercation with any of those people either.
You are a mouth breathing assh**e and I suspect you will be getting a warning e-mail from the moderators soon. You are evil and despicable.
LOL, whatever.
iris lilies
7-14-13, 4:27pm
Then you are evil and despicable too.
Shame on you.
Jesus, peggy, it's just an internet discussion. Are you this volatile in real life?
Well, this is quite entertaining. Now I'm off to attend to important stuff in real life for a few hours, but will check in later for some more chuckles.
I wonder how things would have gone if the neighborhood watch person had been a female instead of GZ? Assuming everything else remained the same.
Kumbaya.
Lol.
I've so far tried to avoid this thread like the plague that it is. GZ is/was innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution did not have enough evidence to prove him guilty so he went free. That's how we roll in the US and so in that regard justice was served. There is not a single person here that has even the slightest clue what the detailed events of that night were. But just like everywhere else there are plenty of people here who are willing to fill in a whole lot of blanks with presumptions that mold the story to a point where it satisfies some dark craving to show the rest how horrible we are. Plenty on both sides, btw.
In the past few days I've listened to Sean Hannity, to Democracy Now and to several other sources that fall in between those extremes. Most have been disgusting. The two sources listed above were absolutely gross*. I do not know if GZ was racially motivated or not, none of us do, but I have no doubt that almost all of the reports I heard were. Its sickening. The major media outlets have everything to gain by whipping up a frenzy and the citizens of this country bought into it hook, line and sinker. Calm discourse to address deep issues doesn't sell ad time. Images of molotov cocktails and cops in riot gear does. A possible race angle and all the potential hype that comes with it are the only reason this story got any play at all outside Sanford, FL. General Electric and Rupert Murdoch should have a record quarter thanks to all the folks who couldn't stay away. Mission accomplished. Preview for the next quarter? Keep things whipped up at least until the 50th anniversary of MLK's 'dream' speech. You never want to let a serious {opportunity to totally $*% up the American public in the name of ratings} go to waste. I'll pass, thanks.
* NPR overall was not terribly far from center in presenting different views and really neither was FOX. It was just the two shows listed that were beyond comprehension in their bias which, of course, plays straight to each of their respective audiences.
The major media outlets have everything to gain by whipping up a frenzy and the citizens of this country bought into it hook, line and sinker.
I agree with this, and it is troubling to me because I don't see is any positive way to wrap this up. There doesn't seem to be any basis for a Federal case, so Holder has switched to attacking "stand your ground" self defense laws, most of which are quite popular, wasn't an issue in the trial, and are controlled at a state level and unlikely to change. Florida already had a panel review of the law and decided to keep it unchanged. So you have some parts of the country whipped up over something for which I don't see any remedy. And other parts of the country that see the process as a political abuse, and that just creates ill will or fans the negative feelings that they already have toward the other side. So where do we go from here? Is there any way you get some reconciliation or healing? I don't see it.
This will eventually fall off the front page, but it feels to me the divisiveness created by the poor journalism will linger longer than it does after most of these circuses.
iris lilies
7-17-13, 10:03pm
The ongoing themes of our local newspaper is race baiting in this, one of the most racilaly divided cities in the U.S. It must get them something but I haven't figured out what it gets them, exactly. Our friend who is black pointed this out to me years ago, it never would have occurred to me.
It must get them something but I haven't figured out what it gets them, exactly.
Sales. If it didn't they would try a different tactic.
I see there are protests out there today seeking "justice for Trayvon". Can anyone tell me what that would mean at this point? What is realitic, fair and legal?
It just got the media whores some more attention. Frankly, I think there are some on the left who would be more than happy to see a lynching - of GZ. They pushed for this to go to trial, it did, and they can't stomach that the outcome wasn't in their "favor."
Protestors in Houston earlier in the week, blocking traffic on the freeway, delayed a family getting to the hospital for a 7 year old girl's allergic reaction to medication. http://www.click2houston.com/news/local-familys-emergency-trip-to-hospital-interrupted-by-protestors/-/1735978/21009282/-/xa44gh/-/index.html
All that's happening is these "leaders" are whipping people up into a frenzy. People are going to get hurt as a response, more crimes committed, etc.
When AG Holder spoke earlier in the week, he was going on and on about the SYG laws. These arrgghhh <insert frustration> conveniently ignore that the SYG law was not brought up in the GZ case.
It just get the media whores some more attention. Frankly, I think there are some on the left who would be more than happy to see a lynching - of GZ. They pushed for this to go to trial, it did, and they can't stomach that the outcome wasn't in their "favor."
I agree. At this point, justice has nothing to do with it. I can understand people letting their emotions rule their behavior, but to have that behavior encouraged by the President and Attorney General of the United States is beyond the pale. If they want to inflame racial grievance while simultaneously pushing an agenda, they are doing a great dis-service to their respective offices and the country.
For all those who use race as their preferred basis of reasoning, color me disappointed.
Yes, for the Prez and AG to get into this such as they did - not good.
ApatheticNoMore
7-20-13, 4:45pm
I see there are protests out there today seeking "justice for Trayvon". Can anyone tell me what that would mean at this point? What is realitic, fair and legal?
Well obviously there can be a civil trail, I don't know that that's particularly controversial, yes it was done for OJ. Other than that though, no I don't think anything can and should be done about that particular case. Because it seems to me doing so would be double jeopardy. Yea, the protections against double jeopardy are way too important, much more important than any given case. So nothing can or should be done.
That said there seems to be questions about some (or at least one) of the jurors and whether or not the effort was really made to find an impartial jury. I do not think the case should be thrown out on those grounds because at this point the whole thing is too political to even arrive at the right answer. Hint: the *right* answer is *procedural* - were the proper procedures followed in conducting the trial to impartially decide as best as possible based on the existing law (unless you want to jury nullify an existing law :)). The *right* answer doesn't even exist in terms of results. Well it might, but that's moral or in some's views God's justice, not man's state administered criminal justice system - a system that always gives the morally right result is nothing you can implement in human laws or would even want to.
Sure the media whipped up a bit of a frenzy, covered the case beyond extensively (at least some outlets), but that same media is the one that tells you all the protest are so bad! That is them whipping the horrified newswatchers into a frenzy about protestors (if you believe only minorities can be manipulated better look at those assumptions). It's often a lie. You better double confirm that allergic girl story, it could be true, it could not. The media seems to have OUTRIGHT LIED (or not checked their sources if you are generous) about hotel damage in Hollywood for instance:
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/16/new_trayvon_lie_media_lapd_falsely_report_rowdy_pr otests/
Anyway, I accept that protest will cause some disruption of normal life and I am more than ok with protest in general. Like imperfect jury verdicts it's the price you pay for a living in a (hardly at all at this point but still a little) free society. I'm not sympathetic to never wanting to pay it. The purpose of this particular protests may seem a waste of time (I personally do not view overturning jury verdicts as a road we should even conceive of taking!). But it also may be about much larger issues (overall functioning of the criminal justice system in terms of race etc. etc.).
This whole topic was much too hot and I only dare to get into this thread now - totally get why people wanted no part of this thread and left it! Reports of quite significant (shutting down freeways is not insignificant by any measure) protests to a jury verdict and stuff *scared* me initially! Straight up scared by what I don't understand. The right was jubilant about the trial outcome, the left including many I often agree with seemed to want a criminal system that would delivery perfect result justice (pardon but I think that road leads nowhere good at all). I sat back, shut up, and reflected a bit - through all emotional reactivity - my ideas may not have changed much but just context and stuff.
The purpose of this particular protests may seem a waste of time (I personally do not view overturning jury verdicts as a road we should even conceive of taking!). But it also may be about much larger issues (overall functioning of the criminal justice system in terms of race etc. etc.).
I get that there may be broader social issues. If handled better by our "leaders" there could have been a teachable moment in there somewhere. Just seems to me they have the wrong vehicle for their issues and it is becoming counter productive.
iris lilies
7-20-13, 7:24pm
I see there are protests out there today seeking "justice for Trayvon". Can anyone tell me what that would mean at this point? What is realitic, fair and legal?
I do not know if justice for Trayvon means Zimmerman fries, but as with any event like the Martin case, it means lots of people looking at what they believe to be contributing factors which results in:
*"conversations" about race ad naseum--The President of the U.S. spoke today
* examining laws or lack of them, in this case Florida's "Stand Your Ground" is a whipping boy although as Yosarrian pointed out, it wasn't part of the trial
* easy access to guns always the problems with some people
I think it's fine that people spend their energy looking at these societal issues, better than stringing up white Hispanic George Zimmermann.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.