zimmerman actually has a violent record against him.

but i guess it's ok if you shoot and kill a black kid.

that night?

Code speak for "uppity n****r"

I wonder what they are being paid for their efforts here.

I've been chatting with a few that can't really make up their mind about the case:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022928786#post118

and Fox is looking to start a race war if there is a split jury or bad verdict.

Plays right into the NRA soundbytes

Jeez, these fucking assholes will do anything to justify defending that racist, murdering fuck Zimmerman.

That was yesterday's Fox News analysis:

so I expect that some Fox News expert will now claim that it was a burglary tool:

FOX thinks that is OK because Bush is one of them.

did not look impressed. I don't think he's going to do as well as some think, again IMO..

n.t.

Perhaps, if he would have had a street attitude he would have been "packing" and Zimmerman might have suffered a different fate....just saying.

When I was in grade school, I had some classmates who were little thugs. Didn't you?

On my first day of junior high school, a 9th grader picked me up off the ground and yelled in my face "salute!"

That kid was probably only 14 years old. Was HE an "innocent teenager" or was he a young thug who terrorized smaller kids for fun?

Not every young person is all nice and sweetness.

Trayvon had the option to run home. For whatever reason he chose not to take it. He decided instead to break Zimmerman's nose. That choice is what lead to him getting shot, NOT the mere act of walking while black. It was the punching while black that was the problem.

You are making up the facts out of whole cloth. Where does the evidence show that Martin attacked Zimmerman? None. The broken nose? None.

So you really are parroting the same nonsense as Foxnews...wow, now that is shocking.

Seriously? As far as the broken nose goes, there has been no evidence showing it was broken. None. He had blood on his head, but no evidence of a broken nose.

As why are you assuming that Trayvon was the one responsible for "knocking someone down"? Are you pretending Zimmy was incapable of knocking Trayvon down or that Trayvon had no right to defend himself?

" person should not knock another person down and start beating on him" is true unless they think they are in danger of their life and that is their only choice. You are right, Zimmy should NOT have done that.

How do you know or why do you pretend you know he didn't?

an unarmed child.

In fact, maybe your story applies better to Zimmerman that to Trayvon. Maybe Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck instead of chasing a teenager through the neighborhood and then shooting him dead.

And further what is your point, exactly? Are you really that stupid. So because a teenager may not be "nice and sweetness" his like deserves to be taken by a man with no legal authority whatsoever. Have you met the current teenager most of them are not innocent or nice and sweetness as to you put it. Your pathetic account of some bad behavior exhibited by 14 year old kid is a pathetic analogy to the Trayvon Martin issue. All teenager overstep their bounds and challenge authority its the one of the definitions of being a teenager. You sound like a scared punk who overreacts to situations where you feel threatened because you cant bear for the world to know how spineless you are!

Otherwise the DUer is agreeing with Foxnews and has the same mindset, which I do not believe since he is very anti-gun.

So it is either assume he is a thoughtless dumbass or being somewhat sarcastic.

Nobody said anything about the word "deserves".

People do have the legal authority though, to defend themselves when they are on their back being punched, don't they?

But why listen to me anyway, pathetic, stupid and spineless punk as I am?

Maybe you could try fewer personal attacks in your next argument.

"People do have the legal authority though, to defend themselves when they are on their back being punched, don't they?" Did Trayvon have that right?

I was wondering why his statement was bothering me so much. You hit the nail on the head.

If it's valid to believe that Mr. Martin was not a "young person... all nice and sweetness". I imagine it's also just as valid to believe that you may indeed believe he "deserved it." Six of on, half a dozen of the other, you see.

Not a personal attack mind you-- simply one possibility out of many...

Same thought process.

Why doesn't Martin have any cuts on his hands from pummeling Zimmerman? Are you being sarcastic?

The only two wounds on Martin's body were the gunshot wound, and a cut on his left hand.

I'd be interested to know whether Martin was left-handed. If he was right-handed, it would seem unlikely that he would be punching someone with his left hand.

On both men.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/09/1214336/-DNA-Report-does-NOT-support-Zimmerman-s-claim-that-Trayvon-Martin-caused-his-injuries#

and it is SAD watching DUers pretend to be Foxnews pundits. Sadz and pathetic.

That is very telling, thank you.

Even if Trayvon had beaten up Zimmerman, he would have been within his right to do so in self-defense. It was Trayvon, not Zimmerman, who had the right of self-defense.

However, the evidence discussed at your link indicates that Trayvon didn't beat up Zimmerman at all. Instead, it was Zimmerman who did all the beating and then pulled out his gun and shot the teenager right through the heart.

I just came across this myself. Best part is a lot of it is from Z's mouth!

Anyone in the legal field know if any of his interviews are admissible in court?

When I see this, I think physical evidence (clothes, marks on bodies) doesn't jibe with Z's story at all.

I believe Z tried to stop Trayvon (because the assholes always get away as he told dispatch) and a fight broke out. Injuries were probably from the tussle but Z was bigger (heavier) and armed. It was Trayvon who was defending himself.

The real irony here is that if the police had showed up in my scenario before the murder, it is Zimmerman who would have probably been hauled off for assault and kidnapping. (Holding someone against their will is kidnapping.)

I'm all for a fair trial, but don't get all the Z defenders He killed a child just walking down the street. Is this some lame attempt to justify his having a gun and using it?

is to go into a very ugly racist place, a place where it is ok to run down and murder an unarmed child simply because they are afraid of him.

I've tried to think of another explanation and I can't.

Interesting stuff.

I'm no expert on DNA reports by any means. Is there any place in the DNA report that the article links to, that tells us where the blood stains on the victim's shirt (Exhibit ME-8) are actually located. It seems like the report just calls them stains A,B,D, and E, but doesn't say specifically where on the shirt each stain is.

There are links in the story to actual DNA report.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2012/09/19/case_part_5_Gorgone_FDLE_complete_report_7_26_12_.pdf

I'm sure the prosecution will put these items into evidence and have diagrams and pictures along with the report.

It says stains A,B,D,and E on the shirt are blood stains, but it doesn't appear to tell us where on the shirt those stains are. Where they on the sleeves? the collar? the back? the front? inside?

Is there a diagram like in an autopsy report that I'm overlooking?

I don't work I this field so don't know their code. The article specifically mentions his cuffs- 1 had only Trayvon's and other a mix but not enough to determine.

The report says that "stain A" on the victim's shirt is Zimmerman's blood. It appears to say that "stain D" on the shirt is probably a mix of Zimmerman's and Martin's blood.

This proves that Zimmerman was bleeding at some point during the altercation. The placement of the stains (front vs back) would give us some more info.

Where those samples are from on the shirt. They have the shirt obviously but pics or diagrams aren't included.

We know Z bled just not how he got that way. I'm not sure placement of blood in front vs. back tells us as much as the fact that there wasn't blood on Trayvon's hands or cuffs.

supposedly continues to pummel zimmy (trying to see this in my mind). and then, holding him face down to restrain martin AFTER zimmy shot him. still don't get it.

glad to see this autopsy report--no zimmy dna on martin. clean clothes on zimmy, no grass stains (which quite a few of us pointed out at the time) the man is a dangerous, lying, cold stone killer, and needs to be removed from society.

really?

Zimmerman certainly had the option to not approach in the first place, especially as police had already been dispatched. I think it's highly doubtful that Martin had the option to run home and not be chased, attacked, or even shot by Zimmerman. And if Trayvon had run, the same people would still be defending Zimmerman, saying why did Martin run if he was innocent?

As for "innocent," that's not a character assessment, that's a fact. Martin was innocent of any crime when he was walking home - the very definition of an innocent bystander. Not even the defense has suggested (as far as I know) that Martin was guilty of anything when Zimmerman approached him.

How do you know that Trayvon didn't try to run home?

Zimmerman said on the recorded 911 call that he was following Trayvon. Looks to me like he caught up with Trayvon and tried to "apprehend" him himself. Maybe Trayvon fought back. That's a reasonable thing to do. Wouldn't you fight back if a stranger grabbed you?

Florida's Stand Your Ground law says that we don't have to run away if we feel threatened. We're allowed to fight back. Maybe that's what Trayvon did.

Trayvon was not doing anything illegal. As much as you might want it to still be illegal for a black teenager to walk around in a gated neighborhood in Florida, it is in fact not illegal anymore.

What possible logic is there to support Zimmerman's "double back and ambush" story?

We know that evening that Trayvon was doing nothing illegal. He was doing nothing worse than walking home from the store.

We also know that Zimmerman followed Zimmerman, got out of his car and chased him.

Now you are Trayvon, you are being followed and chased at night by a strange man. That can't be a comfortable situation.

According to Zimmerman, he lost Trayvon. Under this scenario, Trayvon would be out of the zone of perceived danger. At least temporarily.

So Trayvon could continue to head home. Or, if he still felt uneasy just having been chased by a strange man for no apparent reason, he could hide out and wait a little bit until he felt more comfortable that the coast was clear.

Or, according to Zimmerman and Zimmerman alone, he could inexplicably decide to double back, voluntarily take himself back into the zone of danger that he had just managed to escape and try to ambush the strange man he had just managed to escape.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. None. Nada.

Stop taking the man for his word just because he was the only one left alive.

and an absolute shit human being.

Know who else had options? George Zimmerman, the hero of your hour.

He had the option to stay home and watch some TV or listen to music or jack off to pictures of goats, whatever the hell he does in his free time. Instead, he chose to indulge his fantasy of being a neighborhood watchman, which he was not.

He had the option to leave his gun at home while "going on patrol," too. Was he expecting perhaps to fend off a cuban invasion, like Red Dawn? Instead, he brought it along.

He had the option to not bother with some kid strolling down the sidewalk. Instead, he chose to assume that the kid was "suspicious."

George Zimmerman, having made that decision and called the dispatcher, had the option to listen to the dispatcher and let the authorities handle it instead of him. He had the option to say, "Well George, good job," and continue on his way, perhaps to go home to his lovely collection of goat porn. Instead, he chose to tail Trayvon.

With that decision made, he was faced with another option - he can keep following from his truck, or he could get out and confront the stranger in his neighborhood. He opted to get out and make the confrontation.

With that decision made, Zimmerman could have decided to leave his gun in the cab of his truck. Instead he brought it along with him.

And here we are now.

This is the result of a series of options that Zimmerman had, and actions that Zimmerman took. Your racist - and yes, it's fucking racist - victim-blaming is not going to change that. Every bit of this falls on Zimmerman's head. Don't talk to us about what Trayvon "should have done," because his role in this is "kid walking home confronted with an armed man who's made nothing but bad decisions tonight." It's about what Zimmerman did, did not do, and should have done, not Trayvon.

Which is why Zimmerman is the one on trial right now, despite the efforts of you, and a so many others.

He wasn't technically patrolling anything except in his own mind.

How ironic that George Zimmerman turned out to be the most dangerous person in that gated community that night.

He DIDN'T. It's funny how people tend to forget that little fact.

I don't give a fuck if Trayvon Martin was Jesus Christ's younger brother or spawn of Satan. It's immaterial. What IS material is that Zimmerman wanted to play bad-ass security guard and the kid wound up getting killed.

This did NOT have to happen, had Zimmerman just backed off -- AS HE WAS TOLD TO DO.

Wow. So many assumptions and stereotypes in your post that I never thought I'd see on this forum.

In any case it will come down to a what is reasonable....

The prosecution will argue that a reasonable person would think that walking after someone on the street could lead to a violent confrontation.

The defense will argue that a reasonable person would expect that could follow someone they perceive to be suspicious and not have it devolve into a life threatening situation.

It will be interesting to see who comes out on top...

Because a reasonable person would not want to take a chance of getting in over his head -- unless he's like Zimmerman, and has to play Mr. Bad-Ass Cop Wannabe, especially when it involves someone like Trayvon, who just HAS to be up to no good just because of who he is and take matters into his own hands.

If Trayvon perceived a threat, then he had every right to defend himself. And Florida's "stand your ground" law should have no bearing here because Zimmerman clearly -- from what I see -- escalated the situation to a deadly point.

But to conclude that Trayvon, because of societal stereotypes, was in any way responsible for what happened to him is complete and utter bullshit.

I think most of us would agree at least on that. I would **think** so, anyway.

Street attitude = being black and walking down ANY street in ANY state. Gotcha, just what I always knew about Foxnews = racist morans with a superiority complex.

"More dumb fucks get their thoughts and ideas from Foxnews than any other source of vile crap."

that if someone's coming at you in a dark alley, act like you're willing to put up a fight.

Someone was coming at Trayvon in a dark alley. WTF was he supposed to do, say "Sir, I don't want any trouble. Here's my wallet. Have a nice day, sir?"

Trayvon had no idea what Zimmerman's problem was, and acting meek in that situation is not the way to go down.

Let's just cut the bull**** and speak the truth.

if Fox News hadn't arrived so late.

interest operable.

Fuckers.

He wasn't there and he doesn't know what went down between the two men. Neither do the rest of us for that matter. But we do know that Martin was unarmed, while Zimmerman tragically had a weapon that he used to kill Martin with.

Apparently for these pasty-white Fox dudes, walking around while black and wearing (gasp!) a hoodie == copping a "street attitude".

(because they keep everyone in war-supporter mode)

....as if stealing carries the death sentence.

Seriously.

Judges don't issue death sentences for professional jewel thieves and bank robbers. (Assuming nobody gets hurt)

The computer is probably the only thing in the house worth taking, and there is no way I'd kill someone if I caught them. Instead get out of their way and move on. It wouldn't be worth taking a life, even a lowlife.

I don't get it either.

It involves their paranoid gun hero fantasies of blowing away a criminal like a badass and then swaggering away.

They have no concept of reality, or what it's like to actually kill someone.

... that's just you.

The trick is to stay our of other people's homes and property and leave their belongings alone. While a caught thief does most likely not deserve the death sentence, they are taking their chances of being shot by invading other peoples space.

Again though, nothing to do with this case other than Zimmerman's possible suspicion that Martin was a robber.

...and someone screaming, "Yee Haw!!!"

.. I just don't know the reference.

Who was yelling "Yee haw?"

In context I see you are referencing Zimmerman.... At what point did he yell "Yee haw?"

....or when the cops let him go.

I thought we were talking about what actually happened and not the events of imaginationland.

All set...

No one besides Zimmerman knows his actual attitude at the time...

... who argued that he definitively knew the attitude of someone would lose my vote.

Seems intellectually lazy to me...

Subtle but important difference between "I know he was thinking this" vs. "His actions show the following"

Might not matter to you.. meh...

You then believe 'motive' (i.e., 'attitude') is never argued in court or is intellectually lazy? Or would, at the very least "lose your vote?"

"a caught thief does most likely not deserve the death sentence"? "likely does not"? So maybe someone stealing deserves the death penalty? Yeehaw to you.

I'm sure you'll get there...

Type posts to yourself?

... that shows what an intellectual powerhouse you can be.

Perhaps you'd care to take a few pages from the classic "I am rubber you are glue" school of debate?

That's how these people think life really works.

(For those unaware, the protagonist - a neo-nazi named Derek - catches two black hoodlums trying to break into his car - he confronts them, they run, he guns them down and curbstomps one of them, then poses for the police... who unlike the police in the Martin Case, haul his ass to jail)

I hate FOX NEWS... I know it must be unhealthy.. but damn, how can you not help it? Shoganai!!!

"Listen, Trayvon Martin would be alive today if he didn’t have a street attitude. That’s the bottom line.”

Trayvon Martin would be alive today if he wasn't black!

Trayvon Martine would be alive today if Zimmerman wasn't an angry racist scumbag with a gun! That's the bottom line!

Trayvon Martin did not. That is all I need to know.

However, legally, there is a much higher standard....

seriously, I'm just waiting for them to go ahead and say what they really mean. Frankly the racist dog whistles are doubly offensive. One, they are racist and two, the are cowardly because they mask (sometimes not so well) what they really mean to all but the dogs who hear the whistles. Go ahead and say it, Fox News. You know you want to.

Stay classy, Faux News.

To cower appropriately when some wide eyed white guy comes at you with a gun?

Fuck Fox and their propaganda machine!

-p

Racist pigs.