..An unarmed kid was murdered.

The question of guilt or innocence comes down to the defendant's perception of his life being at risk. That is it.

I know many wish the law was based on their own preferences about how to treat racial prejudice or injustice but that's not what it's about.

If Zimmerman had stabbed Martin or slammed his nose into his brain, it would be the same call as this gun.

running after someone ?

oh, i'm so scared so i'm getting my gun and running after them.

i guess Trayvon had no right to be scared and try to defend himself with some hideous armed thug following him and then running after him.

That's Murder with a capital M.

But witnesses saw one person above and another beneath him so your scenario would seem to be incorrect. The moments immediately prior to the shooting are the more important factors.

Some say Zimmerman was on top.

If Zimmerman is proved to be on top that's also Murder.

I'm perfectly willing to say Zimmerman is guilty given certain evidence. I'm also ready to say he is not guilty based on self defense if the evidence leads that way.

I am ready to understand and apply the law. I wonder if everyone else is willing to do the same.

Forensics can't prove everything. They may be able to prove Zimmerman was punched or hit his head but not the circumstances. Nor can it necessarily prove who was on top. Maybe they both were at one point?

But without forensics we know that 1 man was armed and chased down the other who ended up dead. That in itself is incriminating.

Seems like you're just trying to get on your high horse with the apply the law comment. Let's not pretend like you haven't voiced opinions. And since none of us are on that jury, we can discuss it all we like.

No matter how much people want to ignore that fact...

I hear people often ask, "Why didn't GM remain in his a car and wait for the police to show"? I ask, "Why didn't GM just mind his own fucking business?"

Seriously, why would you even call the police? People (even black men!) have just as much a right to exist in public as he did.

"People (even black men!) have just as much a right to exist in public as he did."

Define 'public'. This was not a public right of way, since it was in a gated community. Now in all likelyhood, the roads in the community are in an easement dedicated to public use...but the sidewalks in back usually aren't. Still, there is a difference between an easement and a ROW...as the underlying property covered by the easement is still private property.

So, in alot of ways, this would not be unlike seeing a stranger in the hallway of your apartment building...and it would generally be acceptable to approach such a person and ask if he's lost, etc....and if that person took off running, it would be reasonable to assume he was up to no good.

...but, there is the racial profiling component. Several years ago, the Dillards department store chain was successfully sued for racial profiling...since their employees were following black people throughout the store. This is private property...but its public use (where the customers are invited in) made it subject to some 'public' rules. And, it could reasonably be argued that this gated community was similar.

So its an open question - but please don't confuse a gated community with a public space, in the most traditional definition. It is a different flavor of public.

He wasn't trespassing and had the right to be there. It wasn't like being in your hallway apartment. He lived there and was headed towards home. He had exactly as much right as Zimmerman to be on that sidewalk front OR back.

Don't mistake your misleading statements suggesting Trayvon was trespassing for the truth.

Why are you defending a man who shot an unarmed kid anyway?

But I can tell that your zeal to attribute some motive to me has made you unable to even comprehend my post.

I'm a facts type of guy.

You obviously aren't.

I am going to enlighten you with some facts...being truisms, they are merely facts and their existence does not color my opinion of the case one way or another...this is really a prevention exercise to keep you from looking so foolish in the future.

1. Tracy Martin did not rent a unit. He was a guest of his fiance.

2. Trayvon Martin did not live in Sanford. He lived in and attended school in the Miami area. He was visiting his dad while he was temporarily expelled from school.

You are welcome.

And I'm truly laughing out loud at your "facts type of guy" comment. You provided rhetoric and bad analogies that have been used repeatedly to justify racist gun violence.

You're making up stuff about strangers in apartment hallways. This would be the equivalent of you seeing a guest of your neighbor, following him and killing him because you suspected he was up to something. What would give you that right? Nothing.

Let me enlighten you. Trayvon Martin had every right to be where he was. He had committed no crime. He had no obligation to answer to George Zimmerman.

Prove otherwise or stop with the Fox News talking points.

You're welcome.

Your rant assigns an opinion to me...but you fail to acknowledge that you are the one who was grossly misinformed about the two items I corrected you on.

Iow, you are too emotional to carry on any type of discussion anout this.

As far as emotions, yours have caused you to skirt board rules by insulting me rather than putting up facts that have any bearing whatsoever on this case.

Your "facts" which you did not prove are meant only to blame the victim for his own murder. Your motives are transparent.

Fact is sir. I called you on your crap and your don't like it.

Tracey Martin really did rent a unit at the complex?

And Trayvon Martin lived in Sanford?

You haven't called me on any 'crap' yet...as everything I have stated is factually accurate. You should try that sometime...its a liberating feeling...and makes me care a little less than zero about heel snipping trolls who make stuff up and post it on the interwebs.

Now lets play a game. Here is a link to an early news story about the case. It describes a remembrance done at Trayvon Martin's high school:

http://stateimpact.npr.org/florida/2012/03/21/miami-high-school-holds-moment-of-silence-for-trayvon-martin-one-month-after-death/

You may notice that this high school is in the Miami area. Pick up a road atlas, and you will discover that Sanford is not anywhere near there.

Have I 'proven' this fact to you? Will you now admit that you were stone cold 100 percent wrong when you stated that Martin lived in the Sanford complex? Or will you continue to impy that I'm a racist to deflect from that question?

The only reason you being up those facts is to imply Trayvon was trespassing which he was NOT! You're entire post is nonsense that has nothing to do with the case.

You're defending a murderer and I think anyone can see why. You aren't hiding it well. We see you.

You still didn't prove who lives in that complex and I never stated Trayvon lived there. Going off on irrelevant tangents is a common practice of those who don't have facts on their side.

Your boy Zimmerman murdered on unarmed kid. Deal with it.

" He lived there and was headed towards home"

Sounds like you said he live there to me.

Quit making crap up on the interwebs.

I would consider where a kid stays with his parents "home" and you're still splitting hairs to try to insinuate Trayvon brought on his own murder.

Stop parroting Fox talking points.

That's not splitting hairs. You were factually wrong.

And I don't have cable, so I have no idea what you are watching on Fox news.

Next item, your contention that Tracy Martin rented a unit in Sanford:

Here is an interview of the girlfriend:

http://celebamnesia.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/an-interview-with-brandy-green-tracy-martins-fiance-video/

Some quotes: It was Brandy’s neighborhood where Trayvon was killed ....It was Brandy’s house that Trayvon was visiting

And here is a news report, in which Tracy Martin was interviewed:

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-03-16/news/mh-trayvon-martin-0317-20120316_1_sanford-shooting-dispute-police-version-press-conference

Quote: Martin, who was from Miami Gardens, was killed in Sanford.... Soon a marked patrol car followed by detectives arrived at Green's rented townhouse.

Looks like you're 0 for 2.

Are you willing to admit that you are completely wrong on your two talking points, and you don't know what you're talking about....or are you going to imply I'm a racist again?

Sure I was wrong that Terry rented the place THAT TRAYVON HAD EVERY RIGHT TO BE IN!

See you're intentionally missing the point because at the end of the day, you're just throwing out bullshit to try to blame a child for his own murder. You keep pressing the same (racist) point to defend a killer. And yes it's racist to imply that a black kid can't walk thru some nuts neighborhood.

I know some people just get off on defending the indefensible.

Now admit that Trayvon had every legal right to walk down that street and to be where he was.

And stop implying otherwise.

Last edited Fri Jun 14, 2013, 06:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Your initial post to me had two claims, predicating the rest of your argument:

1. Trayvon Martin lived in the neighborhood
2. Tracy Martin rented a house there

You were 100% incorrect on both points.

Moving on.

I have no idea who Terry is, so I can't respond.

Now admit that Trayvon had every legal right to walk down that street and to be where he was.

You fail to have comprehended my initial post on this matter. I was trying to educate the ignorant (you) about the nature of a gated community...because, I dunno, I've designed gated communities before, and am not ignorant on the matter.

Your use of the word 'street' is technically incorrect. The word 'street' implies public Right of Way, which is owned by fee title by the governing body. It is indisputably public in every way, and there is a large body of case law which prevents people from impeding other people's ability to traverse public right of way.

The gated community is not public Right of Way. At best, the 'streets' are underlain by an easement granting use to the public. If you look in your local neighborhoods, you will notice that the named streets in some apartment complexes use signs that are reverse polarity. This is a subtle but easily indentifiable way to indicate that a street is privately maintained. This is necessary for the police...as their authorities and how people's interactions with each other are viewed by the law are slightly different on private property...as there are none of the protections and rights to freely move about afforded to you, that would be in a public ROW. An example would be a protest. Protestors could not stand on the 'street' in this apartment complex, and protest the killing, if the complex management did not agree to it. However, protestors could freely stand in the public street, just outside the complex, all day long. You see - they are different. If you can understand that, you are no longer ignorant on the matter.

So, on to this:

Trayvon had every legal right to walk down that street

Sort of. If you would have stopped frothing at the mouth, you would have noticed that my original post on the matter described a case, where department store workers were successfully sued for following minorities around the store...even though the store is clearly private property. So it is a gray area, as I describe in my initial racist, Fox News parroting post. But Martin did not have an inate, constitutional right to be in the complex, like he would in the public right of way.

So, you have to consider the circumstances that put him there. Ms. Green let an unattended minor child, not related to her, stay in her unit. Do all unattended minor children have inate rights to all private property in Florida? No. Do you think her rental agreement prohibits her from housing unattended minor children not related to her, especially during nighttime hours? Most do. I guarantee you this will come up in the wrongful death lawsuit. Just watch.

Back to my apartment analogy. Listen to the 911 tape. Zimmerman is in his truck, talking to the operator, when he says 'He Ran'. So, imagine if you are in the laundry room of an apartment building, and an unattended minor child not related to any of the tenants comes to the door. You make eye contact with him...and he runs. Is it reasonable to poke your head out the door and see which way he went (an analagy for getting out of the truck). Is it reasonable to follow this person down the hall? Put yourself in that situation - would you really just sit and do nothing?...maybe. Would you really be legally obligated to sit and do nothing?...of course not.

And that is the prosecution's biggest problem. They are trying to prove that it was grossly negligent to follow a stranger who is running from you on private property. It will be incredibly difficult to prove...its almost as if the attorney who made up the charging affidavit was just as ignorant as you. However, unlike you, they won't be allowed to wrecklessly lash out with accusations of racism, to try and fix this problem. They are in for an uphill climb, and I predict a mistrial.

You've been a condescending jerk from the jump.

A little education for you.

There are degrees of bad in the world. I misspoke about a few irrelevant facts. Bad? Perhaps, but certainly no excuse to be abused by an anonymous jerk on the Internet. You on the other hand, brought up gated communities and a false analogy of apartment buildings again IMPLYING something false and far more disgusting than a mistake as youre defending a killer by blaming his young, unarmed victim.

I should have stopped when you continued to be insulting and press on points irrelevant to the topic at hand which was whether or not Trayvon was trespassing. My guess is you're a gun person as I've been around long enough to know this is how they roll. (Argue and insult over petty bullshit, ignore the issue.)

I may be ignorant of who rented an apartment in Sanford, Florida but I see you very clearly.

And one more lesson, the best thing about the Internet is being able to block morons whose lives are so pathetic, their biggest thrill is insulting strangers.

Bu-bye!

As to the meaning of ignorant...it isn't a perjorative statement. You are quite factually ignorant on the subject of private communities.

Now your first post and every subsequent one has been extraordinarily rude to me...I push back a little and you start to pout? I challenge you to find a post in which you didn't imply I was a racist, before you climb up on that high horse.

Here is a map where George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/April-2012/George-Zimmerman-Trayvon-Martin-Gated-Communities-and-Fear/

men, including the perception that young black men are dangerous.

The test for self defense is whether a reasonable person in those circumstances would have acted as Zimmerman did. If it was a question of "the defendant's perception," these cases would never go to trial: "Gee, I really thought I was in danger!"

It's a critical distinction.

Racist gun fucks have been supporting Zimmerman financially.

He was an innocent, unarmed kid who was murdered.

They care only slightly less about Trayvon, than they do about the Sandy Hook kids.

as they do in other cases. and it's not just because of his age because i have heard them use that when it comes to some school schootings and how students should be armed.

...legitimately defending himself against them is total cognitive dissonance.

They literally can't imagine a situation where it is right for a n***** to own a gun, let alone legally use one in self defense.

He had the gun and was sitting in his stand (car). His prey entered the area and Zim began the stalk.

The deer did not attack that poor hunter with his gun and mindset.

that is institutionalized and dominates large parts of this nation. Pretending otherwise only serves to delay justice. Does anyone doubt that if these two men's races were reversed that Zimmerman would already be convicted and he would almost certainly get the death penalty? This was a murder, plain and simple.

Some people might consider me a "gun nut" and I fully believe in the right to defend oneself, with a firearm if necessary. But this Zimmerman asshole had NO business running around the neighborhood stalking people like some kind of damn vigilante. Fuck him, he's not the police, he had no right to go after that kid.

in 'Stand Your Ground' areas like Sandford, FL might want to arm themselves with guns to protect themselves if Zimmerman wins.

I can hardly believe I'm thinking this-I am so against guns-but a win will make it open season for racists to make real targets (instead of the sickening Travon paper targets) out of the objects of their hatred, and then simply claim self-defense, with impunity, under the umbrella of a SYG law. If the only witness, a Black victim, is dead, and can't refute a thing the SYGist says, then good grief, what's to stop this from happening at will? These laws are simply heinous.

If the court decides that what Zimmerman did is ok under the law, then the law needs to be changed, period. The law needs to afford everyone the right to self defense, but if it allows vigilantes to run around harassing, assaulting and killing people, then it's gone too far.

We had a vigilante problem in the rural county where I grew up and it came to a head when I was in my early 20s. Some of us stood up to them, armed when necessary. It wasn't how we wanted things to go but it was what we ultimately had to do. Luckily nobody was hurt or killed when it was all over.

First, Zimmerman thought he had to have a gun. Then he thought he was qualified to play cop. Then he profiled an African American male as looking "suspicious" when the kid was just walking home from buying candy, talking to his girlfriend. Then he followed him when he was told not to. Then he shot an unarmed teenager.

People may say something else happened in between my last 2 sentences. But that teenager did nothing leading up to that point to cause any of this. He didn't arm himself. He didn't play cop. He didn't profile and follow some "suspicious" stranger for doing nothing but walking. He didn't disobey police dispatch who told him not to follow.

All he did was live his life, buy candy, walk back towards home, get scared by a stranger following him (as we know because he told his girlfriend that) and then... He's dead.

that is a red herring . . .

It is a legal case based on legal issues. It is important to keep that in mind. The jury will decide on legal issues and evidence only about that very particular incident. Racism is not a legal issue in this case; neither is gun carrying.

Racism and gun control do need to be debated and approached in our society and people may well feel that each of these issues has a bearing on how the trial will play out. But it is a disservice to all citizens to discuss the trial in those terms.

There is a presumption of innocence in our legal system that means not "I'll wait and see whether I think he is guilty of something." It is a positive imperative that the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here is a summary of murder two in Florida as given on the TalkLeft website:

At least one of the following must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt:
1.Zimmerman was committing a forcible felony at the start of the physical conflict with Martin. For example, trying to forcibly detain him.
2.Zimmerman did not have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm at the time he shot Martin.
3.Both a) and b) below must be proven BRD.
a)Zimmerman was the initial provoker of the conflict with Martin.
b)Zimmerman could have safely withdrawn from the fight but chose not to do so.

This website has besides an exposition of the legal issues links to legal documents filed in the case.

You're ignoring the fact that some jurors might see Trayvon as a threat simply because of e color of his skin. You're also ignoring the fact that if an over eager cop wannabe like Z didn't have a gun, a kid might not be dead.

As spectators to the trial, we don't have to presume Z innocent. Only the jury is really obligated to do that. We can and will speculate to our hearts content.

The law is not absolute, infallible or always just.

Because I live in the south, I live in an upper middle class RW area, I know the "you don't belong around here" attitude, I've been stopped and questioned for LWB, I like to take walks, and if I was still in my teens or early 20s, what happened to Martin could have easily happened to me...


This has been a case I've taken personally since day one (anyone who sees my posts in the threads might say I take it too personally)...And why not? Certain DUers have intentionally or unintentionally been propping that "young ghetto thug" talking point a year after I proved them wrong...

claim self defense if you initiate a physical encounter.

It won't be easy to prove.

do you mean that you think Zimmerman laid hands on Martin first or do you mean that he initiated the conversation?

And trayvon told him to fuck off. Then Zimmerman tried to detain him.

Or are you still thinking that it was only verbal?

Do you think Martin initiated physical contact?

Do you think Zimmerman drew his weapon first?

bigot with a gun started the confrontation and Trayvon had right to stand his ground. I hope he was able before being murdered.

... but in the eyes of the law these are critical questions.

There is a world of difference between a calm approach and "Excuse me young man, Could you answer a quick question for me" vs. screaming, running up with gun drawn "Hey you stupid n****, What the fuck are you doing in this neighborhood! You don't belong!"

Guess we will see...

Despite his claims of being a "neighborhood watch captain" he did not follow the protocols of any reputable neighborhood watch organization OR the advice given to the people who attended a HOA sponsored neighborhood watch organization meeting held by a Sanford Police representative. he carried a gun, he pursued a suspect, he did not wait for law enforcement.

He also did not act as a reasonable, rational person, neighborhood watch or not. He pursued someone he claimed was suspicious. If he wanted to reduce crime in his neighborhood, he should have routinely let "suspicious" people know there were eyes out there and he could have done it in a friendly manner.

When he saw Trayvon Martin approaching his vehicle while he was talking to the Sanford PD, GZ could have stuck his head out the window and said something to Trayvon Martin: "Hey, do you need directions?" "Hi, I'm neighborhood watch - do you need a hand?" Since GZ was on the phone with the police, that would have been the perfect time to confront a suspicious person - but to do it in a not accusatory way.

If Trayvon had been a criminal, that would have scared him off. If GZ had given Trayvon an opening to respond, that would have defused the situation. Instead, GZ did everything he could to escalate the situation. GZ acted in an unusual manner, following a teenager, not identifying himself, not responding to Trayvon's questions, even according to GZ's own stories.

According to GZ, when Trayvon asked him what his problem was, GZ didn't say anything about neighborhood watch, or that the police were on the way, or anything to respond appropriate to Trayvon's concern about being followed.

GZ was the adult in the situation but did not act in a mature way. He created the confrontation that led to Trayvon's death. GZ is responsible - that in my book makes him guilty of murder of some degree.

It's not a simple case in any respect.

You have a prime example of someone desperately wanting to be a "good guy with a gun", but without the proper training and discipline, he creates the problem, not solves it. And all these wannabe "good guys" out there are a very real problem, not just something imagined in the heads of gun control advocates as gun enthusiasts want you to believe.

And then you have the racial angle. It's not a simple matter of blatant, hard core bigotry like a lynching. But the race issue is most definitely there and not to be ignored or dismissed. The victim's downfall was that he was a young black man, walking alone in a hooded sweatshirt in an unfamiliar neighborhood. The "good guy with a gun" focused on him not because he believed him to be a specific suspect in a crime, but simply based on his stereotypical view (spoken or unspoken) on young black males. And that view was that in his mind, Trayvon was "up to no good."

It's not an either-or situation.

It's a case about the gun culture.

And it's a case about race.

( is 21st century racism?) murdering a young man for no other reason than the color of his skin.

The only "complications" in this case are that a large number of other racist pieces of shit are anxious to let him walk away Scott-free and so are willing to ignore facts and listen to completely fabricated bullshit.

All I'm saying here is that, with a few exceptions, we've moved on from the days of in-your-face blind hatred racism to a more subtle, "dog whistle" type of racism. And the latter, while far less noticeable, is just as, if not more, disturbing.

For the record, I don't think George Zimmerman was thinking that night, "I'm gonna shoot myself a n______r." That's just not evidence in the record. While some have tried to claim similarities in this case to Emmett Till, it's very much a different case.

What I believe Zimmerman was thinking was that he was the "good guy with the gun," that he believed he was going to be the one to stop any crime in the neighborhood, and he stereotypically associated crime with young, black males, thus any young black male was a perceived threat. The last part is clearly where the racism lies. I don't think he got out of the car with the stated intention of shooting and killing Trayvon (hence no 1st degree charge), but I believe he was a highly volatile and combative personality (as evidenced by his 2005 arrest for battery on a police officer). And you combine highly volatile and combative personalities with guns, and bad things happen. I don't believe for a second he was "ambushed" by Trayvon as he claims. My best guess is that he approached Trayvon on his own accord, angry words were exchanged and it deteriorated into a physical fight, and Zimmerman being volatile and combative pulled out his gun and shot Trayvon. However, by his own reckless behavior and callous disregard for human life, he placed himself in that situation and should not be shielded by the affirmative defense of self-defense. At a very minimum he deserves a manslaughter conviction, and I believe a second-degree murder conviction is warranted as well.

But racism comes in different forms. There's the KKK and Neo-Nazi form, which thankfully I believe is on the wane. And then there's soft bigotry, which is scarier because it draws in people who appear to be less perverse and more "normal." Take for example the people who wanted to deny the permit to build a mosque near Ground Zero in New York because they think it is "insensitive" to the 9-11 victims. That's bigotry right there, disguised as sympathy but attributing the worst in other people just because who they are.

Seeing a young black male walking alone at night and automatically thinking that he is up to no good may be different than seeing a young black male walking at night and wanting to string him from a tree, but as this case shows, it can be just as deadly.

It's from USA Today so take it as you will. Lol.

http://www.usatoday.com/interactives/news/nation/trayvon-martin-zimmerman-case/

I hadn't heard all the audios there, thank you.

but the fact that it is really makes me wonder how the case is being presented. I wonder if we are being manipulated.

You are being manipulated in many ways. My advice is to endeavor to make yourself more aware of it. You are immersed in it.

Doesn't the burden of proof shift from the prosecution to the defense?

Im aware that he is considered innocent until proven guilty; but according to the legal system, don't you have to prove self-defense?

The prosecution has more of a burden inf FL.

Stand your ground is often used to justify murder of people of color.

THANK YOU!!!!

In Florida, Zimmerman had the opportunity to have a seperate SYG hearing, ahead of the regular trial....and the defense has not sought to have this hearing.

And, Zimmerman's initial statement to the police that he was on his back, with Martin on top of him, is a standard self defense claim.

This case has absolutely nothing to do with SYG. It ne-e-e-e-e-e-ver did, except in the minds of mash potato brained media talking heads.

For the record, I don't live in a SYG state, and don't care left right or sideways about it...and you would probably be challenged to find more than a dozen actual SYG cases in the last ten years. Its a law for an incredibly specific situation, that almost never happens.

kid was up to no good. I understand the law and its ramifications, but that doesn't explain his behavior. Admittedly the prosecution will have a tough time proving its case, but again, that doesn't negate the fact that his behavior was motivated by his prejudice. His hate for people of color. Hard to prove in court, but that's where I'm coming from.

"Stand your ground is often used to justify murder of people of color."

I a merely pointing out that SYG has nothing to do with this case. It never did.

But I see it mentioned several times a day on this board.

the impact of race in this case. Please don't do it.

not about SYG. I'm simply arguing that race is the central issue here.

This is the second time you've responded to the same comment.

There are people who will deny it until the cows come home, but that's what is really undergirding this entire ordeal.

with a side of racism.

so Nancy Grace can sell commercials.

Unlike some other recent sensationalist cases, this case actually raises legitimate questions of this nation's gun culture and of racial profiling, questions that ought to be discussed and not hidden away.

This isn't just a case involving a pretty face either as the victim or the accused, and thus having "sex appeal." Those are the cases exploited by Nancy Grace and company.

This is a case that deserves a nationwide discussion.

about the evidence that has been released, what is generally known, and a whole lot of assumptions about what was going on inside of various peoples' heads at various times.

There has been a conscious, intentional, calculated effort to push peoples' hot buttons in order to garner increased advertising sales and ultimately corporate income. The perpetrators of the big sham are not above using, and demonstrably have used, such propaganda devices as persistent repetition of false information, exaggerations, sharp focus on issues that will be seen as minutiae by the legal system (but not by the lay public,) rumors, character assassination, etc.; even as far as the Big Lie.

At the end of the day I believe a lot of people will wake up and realize that they have been emotionally manipulated; some others may remain in denial no matter how the trial turns out. Still others will feel elevated by a false yet convincing sense of vindication that they were right all along. These are not new things in the human experience, they have been made more intense by fast propagation of bad information as well as good.

Either way, there will be a lot of people who feel there has been a terrible miscarriage of justice. That will be the fault largely of the media that I helped to pioneer, I'm afraid.

I am very, very sorry to see some of my creations and ideas used for unsavory purposes.

What are pecific examples as to how the case has been exploited?

Specific examples from this case, the Trayvon Martin case, not an Amazon site for a Communications textbook.

You won't get one from me. That's not why I am here.

But you don't give me examples of how they've done it.

I just want some clarity, that's all.

Ymmot Ittecrac

But that doesn't mean the public shouldn't be interested in this case. It has elements of racism and gun culture. And bottom line is a young, unarmed black man (kid) was shot and killed for no other reason than he was walking down the street and some guy didn't like the look of him.

And for the record, I never watch Nancy Grace and have actually seen very little of the coverage of this case. When I saw threads here I started looking into it myself looking for the actual facts like audio of 911 calls and police reports. As with any other story, I don't take any source's word for it 100%.

While I agree that media coverage can make a fair trial a real challenge and that our media is both lazy and much too concerned with profit over information, I don't see how media coverage necessarily will cause a miscarriage of justice here.

Just look at the white gun humpers. 'Nuff said.

since George Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic.

yes racism
yes guns
yes zimmy guilty
yes sentence him to the max

and a Civil Suit afterwards, so Zimmy cannot make one penny
Apply the NY Son of Sam type law to Zimmy.

GUILTY as charged

If Zimmy had a tennis ball, Mr. Martin would be alive today.
Zimmy made sure NOT to have a tennis ball, but a bullet and gun, and he left his house looking to do what he did.

70 years ago in Sanford Florida, a lynch mob came after Mr. Jackie Robinson.
Nothing has changed in Sanford, and so many other places.
And it's wrong.

Sentence after trial Zim to the max.

sorry, but fewer people would be killed or "chase" others or play like cops if they didn't have a gun. Gun possession should require a serious license and background check and training. Getting a license is too easy in Florida - virtually anyone can get one. That's why we have just about everyone standing in line at the store or driving beside you carrying a gun on their belt. Many are cop wanna-be, immature, warped individuals. Even more crazies are running around with guns and no license at all.

In addition, no one should be allowed to carry a gun around without a specific approved reason to have it with you and after special training/rules to have it. Other than that, guns should be locked up in a secure case until you get to the shooting range or hunting location. That's it!! No guns on your belt with rare exceptions.

Zimmerman would not be patrolling and chasing anyone unless he had a gun, and even if he did it's very unlikely someone would be killed.

I think we need much more serious laws restricting gun possession.

1) Yes, I think race is a major driver here. Most Republicans in their guts, even if they don't think Trayvon was guilty of anything, are able to rationalize it with thoughts like "Well, he could have been up to something... the kid was a pothead after all... and he did attack Zimmerman." This sort of half-thinking would be less of a temptation if Trayvon Martin had been white.

On the flip side, I think many Democrats are inclined to see Republicans as being driven by pure racism on this issue. I think their motives are more nuanced than that; even if race is playing a role in this, it's not the only factor driving opinions in the case. I think from the gitgo, most people's initial reactions--pro and anti-Zimmerman--were responding to racial sympathies.

2) The second big factor in this is guns, and the gun-supporting laws of Florida like "Stand Your Ground." To wit: Zimmerman supporters immediately pounce on the fact that, as it appears now, Martin was the one who initiated actual the physical confrontation. Zimmerman, by that logic, was very much standing his ground.

Only it wasn't his ground to stand. Trayvon Martin was being followed on a mostly empty street at night. Before he could attack anybody, Zimmerman had to get out of his car. In other words, it was Trayvon Martin who was standing his ground. The guy who followed Martin and then provoked the confrontation by getting out of his car logically can't then claim self defense. That makes no more sense than his claim that he was defending his home from several blocks away.

If this is his case, then him getting out of his car without his gun makes no sense at all. So this case is probably going to hinge on where the gun was before the altercation started.

3) This case is really about a guy shooting another guy--and does this case involve murder, manslaughter, or justified homocide. I don't think there's a case for murder here, frankly--or at least not first degree murder. Standards change from state to state. But this is certainly not a justifiable shooting. The three possible justifications are (a) home defense, (b) stand your ground defense, and (c) self defense.

The first two do not apply here. Zimmerman was no where near his home. The 911 operator had told him not to follow Martin, meaning he hand no right to create the "grounds" for confrontation with the teenager. The only remaining argument he has is that, once the confrontation started with Trayvon Martin, he had a right a to protect himself. But there's a big problem with that. In two ways, George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. First, he followed Trayvon in his car, while Trayvon was on foot. This created a reason and a situation for Martin to be fearful.

Second, George Zimmerman then stopped the car and got out of the car to somehow engage Martin, thereby creating the confrontation. Unless we're to believe that an unarmed teenager on foot attacked the car, it could only have been Zimmerman who created this confrontation. He was in pursuit. Any claim that he was only defending himself is absurd.

I don't doubt that, when he actually pulled the trigger, Zimmerman was fearing for his safety. But this fear was the result of tracking down and confronting someone. These were choices that he made, that he, legally speaking, meditated on beforehand. I don't think this was premeditated homocide (had it been planned out as an armed confrontation, Trayvon wouldn't have gotten so close or ended up on top of Zimmerman), but the confrontation was the result of Zimmerman planning something and carring out this plan against the directives of legal authorities. Depending on state standards this might be manslaughter or a lesser class of murder.

My major concern was met the day Zimmerman was indicted. Prior to that indictment, I was afraid that absolutely nothing would happen, a shoddy investigation would stop with the local police, and life would go on unimpeded for everyone but young Mr. Martin.

My opinion is that Zimmerman was looking for a fight and for a target to release a lot of pent up frustrations he was dealing with and saw an opportunity in a black male. Had Martin been white, my guess is that Zimmerman wouldn't have given him a second look, let alone called it in, let alone stalked him.

But that opinion is neither strong, nor relevant to any positions I take on the matter. For my part, Zimmerman's indictment satisfied me, and Zimmerman's actions and statements made after that indictment have merely validated my opinions of the man's lack of character and lack of judgment.

The case against him is a joke.

And unjustified charges of murder are serious too.

in that area of the country, has not arrived (at least in the warped minds of bigots and gun nuts) .

Perhaps you can tell us why you think this armed bigot should not be tried for killing this unarmed kid.

Of course, lynch mobs don't care about evidence.

Than you. I think the evidence can just as easily show that Zimmerman pursued Trayvon, tried to stop him and then shot him when he either faught back or tried to get away.

I don't buy into the armed guy being the one who needed self-defense.

Zimmerman shot the only other person who knows exactly what happened so I'll take his version with a grain of salt. I'll see what evidence comes out at the trial. Unlike Zimmerman, I don't take the law into my own hands.

And again to the Zimmerman fans, "lynch mob" is the worst possible talking point you can use for the case of the murder of a young black kid. It's in extremely poor taste.