Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

[lutzj]

Can you really blame him for that? Regardless of the inevitable verdict, he's going to have to stay out of Sanford for the rest of his life. Hell, a not guilty verdict might get some assassination attempts or a few riots.

Not at all, assuming he doesn't try to skip bail. The other option is police protection, which would produce a lot of wasteful costs and controversy without being much safer (if safer at all) than "somewhere in Georgia."

[Ghostbear]

I don't think it's unreasonable either. And even if I did, the court set that bail and the requirements for him, and I don't see any reason to assume that they'd make it easy for him to skip.

Hell, going along with CorruptUser's line of thought, it's possible the "best" scenario for Zimmerman (from his own perspective) would be a guilty verdict attached to a prison sentence not a day longer than needed to make everybody forget his name. Otherwise he runs the risk of being OJ Simpson 2.0, except without being rich.

[HungryHobo]

It's such a pity the case was screwed up from the start. If they'd done their job not only would there be better evidence about what really happened but also if zimmerman had been found not guilty he probably could have gone back to his life at some point. it became a national story because of the abysmal way the police handled the case.

[Lucrece]

It became a national story, but the media as usual exploited racial tensions and angles for the juicy ratings. If anything happens to Zimmerman, it's blood on their hands.

It's one thing to talk about police negligence -- it's another to allow the media to create an environment in which the verdicts of a court of law don't matter because they can try him by public opinion for monetary gain. In most cases where the media is even irresponsible in its reporting (Richard Jewell, for example) they have an army of lawyers to make sure they do a settlement and don't even need to publicly retract or admit wrongdoing.

[CorruptUser]

Is it possible to remove the freedom of the press to make libelous claims based on little evidence, without also removing their ability to be a safeguard against tyrannical politicians? While I tend to agree with Howard Tayler's view of reporters* on most occasions, they do have a purpose.


*

Spoiler:

[Iulus Cofield]

The press has never been free to be libelous and they've, every once in a while, done an admirable job of safeguarding freedoms, kind of, I guess.

[Lucrece]

I think so, so long as you focus on revamping laws on libel and on-going cases. You can report on departmental corruption without singling out an individual to crucify on TV.

I mean, all it takes is a look at cable news like HLN, CNN, MSNBC, and they are addressing the current barrage of death threats against Zimmerman. What do they call "I'm gonna kill this nigga, who else wants to join?" tweets? "Emotions running high". Way to euphemize murderous incitement. There's got to be safeguards against the populism the media partakes in at some level.

[Darryl]

Well, the thing to remember is that the matter was pretty much dropped and probably nothing at all would have happened except for the fact that the media got a hold of the recordings of Zimmerman's 911 calls, which show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Zimmerman had decided Martin was a criminal and chose to follow him and force a confrontation against the advice of the 911 operator.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... erman.html

Are you reading the same transcript I am? Because the transcript doesn't give any hint that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after being asked not to (it implies the opposite), and it ends with Zimmerman stating he doesn't know where Martin is anymore. Besides, whether or not Zimmerman thought Martin was a criminal was irrelevant. The case is about whether Zimmerman had reason to believe his life was in danger when he shot Martin. He is not on trial for being suspicious of people, he's on trial for murder and his claim is that it was in self defense.

Zimmerman's lied multiple times now. In the transcript, he tells the 9-1-1 dispatcher that Trayvon is a teenager. In his "apology" (in quotes because it's not an actual apology, as apologies include an admission that one fucked up), he claimed "I thought he was older, not a teenager" (paraphrase). If he's going to outright lie to a dead kid's family, a kid he killed, I'd mistrust his assertion that the sky is blue.

[CorruptUser]

GZ could've thought TM was 18 or 19, and thus a "young adult", and still technically a teenager. He might not have thought TM was a minor.

[CorruptUser]

Medical report is released, detailing Zimmerman's injuries.

Spoiler:

A medical report compiled by the family physician of accused Trayvon Martin murderer George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.

Zimmerman faces a second degree murder charge for the Feb. 26 shooting that left the unarmed 17-year-old high school junior dead. Zimmerman has claimed self defense in what he described as a life and death struggle that Martin initiated by accosting him, punching him in the face, then repeatedly bashing his head into the pavement.

Also today, a trove of documents are being examined by lawyers for both the defense and prosecution as part of discovery in Zimmerman's trial -- including 67 CDs worth of documents, video of Martin on the night of the shooting, his autopsy report and videos of Zimmerman's questioning by police.

Zimmerman's three-page medical report is included in those documents that the defense could use as evidence.

The morning after the shooting, on Feb. 27, Zimmerman sought treatment at the offices of a general physician at a family practice near Sanford, Fla. The doctor notes Zimmerman sought an appointment to get legal clearance to return to work.

The record shows that Zimmerman also suffered bruising in the upper lip and cheek and lower back pain. The two lacerations on the back of his head, one of them nearly an inch long, the other about a quarter-inch long, were first revealed in photos obtained exclusively by ABC News last month.

But the report also shows Zimmerman declined hospitalization the night of the shooting, and then declined the advice of his doctor to make a follow-up appointment with an ear nose and throat doctor.

In addition to his physical injuries, Zimmerman complained of stress and "occasional nausea when thinking about the violence." But he was not diagnosed with a concussion. The doctor noted that it was "imperative" that Zimmerman "be seen with [sic] his psychologist for evaluation."

According to the report, prior to the shooting Zimmerman had been prescribed Adderall and Temazepam, medications that can cause side effects such as agitation and mood swings, but in fewer than 10 percent of patients.

A neighbor told ABC News that the day after the shooting he saw Zimmerman as he spoke to officers outside his home. He too recalled seeing black eyes and significant swelling -- as well as a bandage over his nose.

Moments after the shooting Zimmerman told eyewitnesses he shot Martin in self defense. He later told officers his head was being pounded into the pavement and that he feared for his life, but that it was only when Martin seemed to reach for the gun wedges in his waistband that Zimmerman drew his weapon and fired directly into Martin's chest -- killing him.

The medical notes may bolster Zimmerman's claim that he acted in self-defense because he was being attacked. However, the prosecution contends that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation after profiling the teen, who was walking home after buying skittles and ice tea. They prosecution says Martin was breaking no laws and was not disturbing anyone as he walked back to his father's girlfriend's home.

Zimmerman was granted a $150,000 bail and has since been in deep hiding since his April 20 bail hearing.

TL;DR, Zimmerman had 2 black eyes, a broken nose, two small lacerations on the back of his head, and a minor back injury. He declined hospitalization though.

[Nordic Einar]

That changes a bit. It leads plausibility to his claims that his life was in dangerous. If this is true, it'll probably mean the case will focus on whether or not Zimmerman waived his right to Stand His Ground by pursuing Martin. Interesting.

[CorruptUser]

AFAIK, it depends on who threw the first punch. Chasing someone isn't the same as starting an altercation, but if Z did start it by tackling TM then I'm not sure that even if 'Life or Limb' is at risk deadly force would be legal. The prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z struck TM first, and I don't think any evidence exists that shows that, let alone sufficient evidence.

The moral of the whole story, since we do love our morals, is "if a crazy man is chasing you and then you deck him out, run away anyway". That or "if you are willing to shoot someone, carry a taser instead".

[HungryHobo]

That or "if you are willing to shoot someone, carry a taser instead".

Hell no, this is the opposite of the moral.

"make sure yours is the only side of the story that gets told, no matter what"

[nitePhyyre]

The prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z struck TM first, and I don't think any evidence exists that shows that, let alone sufficient evidence.

Stand your ground is an affirmative defense, isn't it? Which would mean Z has to prove TM attacked him.

[Save Point]

The prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z struck TM first, and I don't think any evidence exists that shows that, let alone sufficient evidence.

Stand your ground is an affirmative defense, isn't it? Which would mean Z has to prove TM attacked him.

The stand your ground legislation created a pre-trial immunity, which is different from an affirmative defense. An accused's lawyer would file a pre-trial motion. Then, the burden of proof would be on the defendant at the pre-trial hearing to prove by preponderance of the evidence that the immunity applies and thus he should not be prosecuted. Then the judge would weigh the facts to decide if the defendant has met his burden (as opposed to having to prove your case to a jury.) If he doesn't meet the burden, the case goes to trial, where the defendant can still assert the affirmative defense of self-defense i.e., that even if all the elements of the crime have been met, there is a reason why he should not be subjected to a criminal penalty, but the prosecution must still prove all those elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a nutshell, what I know about self-defense as it might be applied to this case, with the obvious caveat that things vary from state-to-state: you don't get to claim self-defense if you created the circumstances that threatened your life (ex. if you insisted someone with a knife come at you with it and then shot him or her.) You can't claim self-defense if the person you allegedly feared retreats. If you get in a fight, the person who turned it deadly has no claim of self-defense.

That said, I am pretty sure the Stand Your Ground immunity doesn't apply to Zimmerman's situation, though he's certainly free to make a self-defense claim. This post is actually a very good overview of common law self-defense.

[Chen]

AFAIK, it depends on who threw the first punch. Chasing someone isn't the same as starting an altercation, but if Z did start it by tackling TM then I'm not sure that even if 'Life or Limb' is at risk deadly force would be legal. The prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z struck TM first, and I don't think any evidence exists that shows that, let alone sufficient evidence.

Even starting the altercation in this case doesn't necessarily mean he loses his justification for using deadly force. From the law:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Even if he started the fight, if he could reasonably believe at some point in the fight he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he couldn't get away (such as if he was on his back on the ground which I'm sure is what he'll argue), he is still justified in his use of deadly force. Which frankly seems like a terrible law to me, but its what is currently on the books it seems.

[Wodashin]

I haven't read the rest of this thread, but from what we now know about the Zimmerman case, it's safe to say that Trayvon would still be alive if he weren't wearing a hoodie.

http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman- ... 35114.html

There had been a rash of break-ins and robberies in the area, by teenage boys, usually black, who were wearing hoodies. If you read the article, you see the atmosphere of the town and Zimmerman's reasons for following Trayvon. The last time he waited for police, a home was broken into. Families were scared. He was the guy who was supposed to help them, now that he was the head of the Neighborhood Watch. He saw Trayvon, and yes profiled him, and thought that these guys "always get away". All the words put into context show that he followed Trayvon, and believed he was there to rob someone, just as had been happening over and over for months. He followed Trayvon, and Trayvon ran, and supposedly hid.

The police told him not to follow, and from the evidence coming out, it doesn't seem like he did pursue him. The scuffle broke out, Trayvon was shot. The police didn't arrive in time.

And yes, if Trayvon had not been wearing a hoodie, where in that neighborhood, the hoodie is synonymous with "criminal" moreso than other places, Zimmerman would not have followed him most likely, meaning Trayvon would not be dead. It's not his fault for wearing a hoodie, but the hoodie influenced his death. So, what Rivera said is true. The hoodie's the thing, in my mind, that pushed it over the edge and made him a suspect in Zimmerman's mind.

[iamspen]

No. Just no. Hoodies, due to their damn near ubiquity, are not associated with crime. Ever. That'd be like saying someone is a criminal for wearing shoes. You're wrong. Go hang out with Geraldo and be wrong in your wrongness together.

[Wodashin]

Specifically, in that area, they were associated with crime. I'm sory if you don't like that fact. There were a rash of break-ins and robberies. All of them by people in hoodies. Ergo, people in that neighborhood will be scared of young men in hoodies, and suspect them of crime. You have to realize that, in this SPECIFIC CASE, the hoodie played a part. If there had been a rash of break-ins by young men wearing large shades and Tap Out T-shirts, and only that, and Trayvon Martin walked in just wearing shades because the sun was out and a T-Shirt he threw on, he'd have died because he wore the wrong thing that day. Not his fault, but an unlucky coincidence. Trayvon was young, had a hoodie, and Zimmerman didn't recognize him as being from the neighborhood. Therefore, it made sense in his mind because he fit all the criteria for being a criminal (though he wasn't). Not to mention the fact that Zimmerman had tried to stop another kid just like Trayvon, was told not to, and someone's stuff got stolen, so he didn't want that to happen again.

Or we can just forego reality, and the article that has all the information, and pretend like the people in that neighborhood weren't having a rash of crimes committed by people all in hoodies, and that Zimmerman hadn't recently failed to catch a different person who ahd been a criminal.

So yes, in this instance, the hoodie influenced Zimmerman, which influenced Trayvon's death. Read the article. He profiled Trayvon. The hoodie played a role. Trayvon was unlucky. It's not his fault. He was just at the wrong place, at the wrong time. The wrong place being a place that was scared of young men in hoodies who weren't living in that area.

[Chen]

No. Just no. Hoodies, due to their damn near ubiquity, are not associated with crime. Ever. That'd be like saying someone is a criminal for wearing shoes. You're wrong. Go hang out with Geraldo and be wrong in your wrongness together.

I don't agree with this. A stereotype of a black criminal in a hoodie is also fairly ubiquitous. Zimmerman was already racially profiling, so if he was one who believed in said stereotype, it certainly could have driven him to act.

Wodashin's statement that without a hoodie he wouldn't have been killed is purely speculative. It's likely the hoodie contributed to Zimmerman's more active profiling, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have done the same if there was no hoodie.

[iamspen]

I'm sorry, but the likelihood is, kids in that very neighborhood wore hoodies. Zimmerman probably wears hoodies. Everyone wears hoodies. Once again, criminals wear shoes, but wearing shoes does not associate one with crime. Hoodies are not specific to any group of people ever, because your grandmother is as likely to own a hoodie as your neighbor's infant child. So if hoodies are an infinitely common piece of clothing that can't logically be applied to any certain groups, no matter how many people in that group wear a hoodie, what else was different about Trayvon?

Shouldn't take that much pondering to figure it out.

[Heisenberg]

I haven't read the rest of this thread, but from what we now know about the Zimmerman case, it's safe to say that Trayvon would still be alive if he were wearing fairy wings.

There had been a rash of break-ins and robberies in the area, by teenage boys, usually black, who were decidedly not wearing fairy wings.

It's not his fault for wearing no fairy wings, but the lack of fairy wings influenced his death. The fairy wings are the thing, in my mind, that pushed it over the edge and made him a suspect in Zimmerman's mind.

[Wodashin]

Yes, it's speculative, but I don't think it's too out-there to revise and say that Trayvon would be less likely to be killed. It's a sad thing, but Trayvon had everything going against him. Young, black, in a hoodie, and not from around the area. Most young, black, hoodie-wearing kids who weren't from around the area were there because it was apparently very easy to rob, and the police had, for months, not been protecting the area. The neighborhood was at the end of its rope. The tension was rising. Zimmerman wanted to protect the neighborhood, and had personally felt responsible for letting a criminal go when the police told him not to follow. He then saw another black, young, male, hoodie-wearing person who he didn't recognize. He pursued him. The cops told him to stop. We don't know what happened between that and the scuffle.

If not Trayvon, it would have been someone else who fit the description of the criminals that had been raiding the neighborhood. It's just sad.

As said before, had the rash of crimes been done with a different set of specific clothing (though hoodies aren't specific, really, it was still a theme within the raids and break-ins), and Trayvon was wearing that instead, that would have contributed as well. You have to see that this was a specific case. If the neighborhood wasn't facing any problems, and the police were doing their job, and Zimmerman just walked up and shot Trayvon, that would be different, and the hoodie would've not really played a part, or as much of a part.

The atmosphere of the neighborhood has to be taken into consideration. The hoodie played a part, just as his not being from around there and other such things. No one would call me crazy if I said that his race or age played a part in his death, but apprently other aesthetic things about him can't play a role in his death? If Trayvon Martin were an elderly black man wearing a hoodie, he wouldn't have died. Trayvon fit the description of all the previous people who had raided that area for weeks.

And good job using fallcies, guys! Great stuf here.

Once again:
http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman- ... 35114.html

[iamspen]

Except that Zimmerman shooting, "a young black man wearing a hoodie," is hardly an indictment against hoodies. Like I said, people wear hoodies, especially on wet, chilly nights. What would you have had him wear, a greatcoat? Would Martin still be alive had he not been wearing a hoodie? Who cares? It's not relevant. Suggesting that young black men shouldn't wear hoodies when it's cold and wet is stupid.

[folkhero]

The scuffle broke out, Trayvon was shot. The police didn't arrive in time.

I love this use of the passive voice, it's like, "hey sometimes people get shot. Trayvon was one of those people. It's not like we can say that it was anyone's fault."

[Chen]

Except that Zimmerman shooting, "a young black man wearing a hoodie," is hardly an indictment against hoodies. Like I said, people wear hoodies, especially on wet, chilly nights. What would you have had him wear, a greatcoat? Would Martin still be alive had he not been wearing a hoodie? Who cares? It's not relevant. Suggesting that young black men shouldn't wear hoodies when it's cold and wet is stupid.

I don't think anyone said they shouldn't wear them (at least not in this thread). Saying that the hoodie contributed to Zimmerman's profiling and as a result Trayvon's death, does not mean he was in any way WRONG for wearing it.

[iamspen]

I don't think anyone said they shouldn't wear them (at least not in this thread). Saying that the hoodie contributed to Zimmerman's profiling and as a result Trayvon's death, does not mean he was in any way WRONG for wearing it.

But the point is, it's hard to profile against something that's near-ubiquitous. I think it's a stretch to assume if Martin weren't wearing a hoodie, he'd be alive today. What isn't a stretch is to assume if Martin were white, he'd be alive today. I think the hoodie offers a convenient excuse in hindight. "The thugs running around the neighborhood are wearing hoodies!" Well, yeah, but, more than likely, so were half the other people running around the neighborhood.

[Chen]

But the point is, it's hard to profile against something that's near-ubiquitous. I think it's a stretch to assume if Martin weren't wearing a hoodie, he'd be alive today. What isn't a stretch is to assume if Martin were white, he'd be alive today. I think the hoodie offers a convenient excuse in hindight. "The thugs running around the neighborhood are wearing hoodies!" Well, yeah, but, more than likely, so were half the other people running around the neighborhood.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Can't it be both? We can have a scale of things where its:

White boy, no hoodie -> white boy with hoodie -> black boy, no hoodie -> black boy with hoodie

with the left being least likely to be profiled and the right most likely. In a neighborhood where there have been recent crimes by people in hoodies I suspect the bias against hoodies will certainly lend itself to more profiling. Again I think saying "if he didn't have a hoodie on he'd be alive" is not justified. Saying the hoodie may have contributed to him being profiled though? I can buy that.

[iamspen]

But it's not relevant. Not at all. the primary causes of the entire debacle that eventually led to a teenager's death was a combination of his blackness and his existance. The hoodie might have been a contributing factor, it might not have been, but it's irrelevant. And even if it weren't, the criminals in question were also wearing shoes, and probably socks, and probably pants. But since all those things are ubiquitous, they're not factors in the act of profiling. Since it was a chilly, rainy night, and anyone outside would be wearing a hoodie (or otherwise a jacket), is it really all that likely that that single article of clothing pushed Zimmerman over the limit?

[Роберт]

But it's not relevant. Not at all. the primary causes of the entire debacle that eventually led to a teenager's death was a combination of his blackness and his existance.

There's a lot of black people that exist whom Zimmerman hasn't killed. Most of them in fact. Perhaps the "primary cause" isn't as primary as you are stating.

[iamspen]

There's a lot of black people that exist whom Zimmerman hasn't killed. Most of them in fact. Perhaps the "primary cause" isn't as primary as you are stating.

There were a lot of blacks living in Mississippi in the 1920s who weren't lynched. What's your point?

[Garm]

There's a lot of black people that exist whom Zimmerman hasn't killed. Most of them in fact. Perhaps the "primary cause" isn't as primary as you are stating.

There were a lot of blacks living in Mississippi in the 1920s who weren't lynched. What's your point?

That the determining factor of Travyon's death had little to do with Travyon other than his misfortune to be where he was when he was. The determining factor has more or less everything to do with Zimmerman cruising through the neighborhood looking for a fight.

trigger analogy:

Spoiler:

Kind of like the determining factor of an incident of rape is the existence of the rapist and not what the girl is wearing at the time or how much she's had to drink.

[Роберт]

There's a lot of black people that exist whom Zimmerman hasn't killed. Most of them in fact. Perhaps the "primary cause" isn't as primary as you are stating.

There were a lot of blacks living in Mississippi in the 1920s who weren't lynched. What's your point?

If you really think that's comparable, more power to you.

Do you really think Zimmerman would have shot the gun if he hadn't injured him at all? Perhaps the primary cause was being near someone who was carrying a gun and recently had his judgement addled by one to many head bonks. It probably would have happened even if Trayvon was a suspicious looking Arab kid.

[Jave D]

But it's not relevant. Not at all. the primary causes of the entire debacle that eventually led to a teenager's death was a combination of his blackness and his existance.

There's a lot of black people that exist whom Zimmerman hasn't killed. Most of them in fact. Perhaps the "primary cause" isn't as primary as you are stating.

To wait for a good opportunity does not mean one has a different motive.

[iamspen]

While I agree with you, I think there was a particular demographic he was looking to start a fight with. And I don't think hoodies accounted for much in his determinations.

If you really think that's comparable, more power to you.

It's not, but it's the same logic you applied in your argument.

Do you really think Zimmerman would have shot the gun if he hadn't injured him at all? Perhaps the primary cause was being near someone who was carrying a gun and recently had his judgement addled by one to many head bonks.

I don't think the situation would have occurred at all had Zimmerman allowed him to walk home in peace.

(For what it's worth, I don't think of Zimmerman as an inhuman monster, but I think his prejudices, whether they were intentional or not, created a tragic circumstance in which a black teenager died, and if he had all the remorse and humanity in the world, nothing can change that.)

[CorruptUser]

It may be blaming the victim a bit, but I'm quite sure Martin struck Zimmerman more than once. Was there anything TM could've reasonably done besides strike out at Z? Because if so, then TM is partially to blame.

[Griffin]

For /his/ actions, not for Zimmerman's. And I think he more than paid the price for any wrongs he managed, so I don't see how its relevant.

[CorruptUser]

The question is not how wrong TM was, or whether the punishment fit the crime, but did he do anything wrong at all. We are talking about things Z could/should have done differently, but it seems we are overlooking things TM could/should have done differently. Usually, it isn't the case that one side is completely or solely to blame.

[Роберт]

(For what it's worth, I don't think of Zimmerman as an inhuman monster, but I think his prejudices, whether they were intentional or not, created a tragic circumstance in which a black teenager died, and if he had all the remorse and humanity in the world, nothing can change that.)

I just don't see compelling evidence that it was "because he was black".

Do I think this would have been less likely to happen of the person Zimmerman saw presented as female? Yes. Do I think that Trayvon got killed solely because he existed and presented as male? No.

[Thesh]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... annel&lite

Florida teenager Trayvon Martin died from a single gunshot wound to the chest fired from “intermediate range,” according to an autopsy report reviewed Wednesday by NBC News.

I don't know how they define intermediate range, but that sounds to me like "not within arms reach." If that's the case, then that's probably going to end up being enough to convict.