Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Martin Case? What Martin Case?

The Trayvon Martin case really exposed the liberal media as race-hate hustlers. Not to mention it showed their bias. But now that the facts of the case are going against their desires, they are all but ignoring it. Fortunately, it looks like the public has ignored the MSM all along.

Right out of the gates, the media tried to turn this into a racial controversy. First, we had the NBC producer who maliciously edited the 911 call to make it sound like Zimmerman shot Martin because he was black, when the call actually proved that Zimmerman didn’t raise the issue of race and wasn’t even sure Martin was black. The MSM also tried to turn Zimmerman into a white guy so he would fit the racist narrative by calling him “white Hispanic” when his real ancestry apparently makes him “black Hispanic.” They also ignored all the charity work he did for a local black church. And to show that the only reason they covered this issue was race, consider what Alfonzo Rachel pointed out (about 1:05), that the media has ignored a succession of other Trayvons who were gunned down because they were all killed by blacks.

Once they had their narrative, the MSM set about trying to spin everything to fit that. For example, they ran with biased photos, using an old mugshot of Zimmerman to make him look like a thug while using a childhood photo of Martin to make him look like an innocent child. They kept using these photos even weeks after being criticized for the practice and long after more reputable places like conservative blogs were using better alternatives. They even shamelessly attacked the Daily Caller for “bias” for printing the nasty things Martin said on his Twitter account.

The reporting was skewed too. For example, they reported at face value that Martin had Skittles in one hand and a phone in the other, even though there is no witness who ever said that -- his girlfriend said that to the cops, but she wasn’t there to know.

After that, they kept trying to shoot down Zimmerman’s claims, like his claim that he had been attacked and injured. At first, the MSM just said they saw no evidence of injury. But how could they. . . they hadn’t looked? Then ABC released a grainy video and the media jumped on that as proof: “we don’t see any injuries!” Soon they were pronouncing him guilty because clearly he had lied about being attacked, right? Well, no. A week later, ABC enhanced the video. Now it showed significant injuries and the media actually attacked the practice of enhancing videos. Nobody bothered to read the witnesses statements or check Zimmerman’s medical records. Interestingly, Zimmerman’s lawyer has released his medical records, which show significant injuries, but the media didn’t repudiate their prior attacks. To the contrary, they all but ignored the records. An honest media wouldn’t have done any of this.

Now the blood tests have come back on Martin, and as expected, he had marijuana in his system. Yet, almost no one in the MSM reported this. Why? Because it doesn’t fit their narrative. Also, not one single reporter has pointed out that this fits with Zimmerman’s claim that Martin appeared stoned and was walking around aimlessly.

Now the case is pretty much being ignored since it hasn’t turned out like the MSM hoped. Although, some reporters are still trying. This weekend, for example, ABC attempted to deflect the public’s attention from the marijuana evidence. In this article, ABC ostensibly went through the witness statements. Only, they weren’t quite fair in how they did it. For example, the first couple pages of the article were “witnesses” saying things like “I do honestly feel that he intended for this kid to die,” and “I think the kid was running for help.” These would be damning statements if the person actually witnessed anything, but she hadn’t. These comments came from a woman who first saw Zimmerman after he had killed Martin and was standing over the body. So why repeat this speculation or describe her as a witness? This woman also said that Zimmerman told her to “call the police.” And to make sure the narrative continues, the reporter editorializes and describes this request as “curt,” as if that somehow proves something.

Another witness discussed in the article approached Zimmerman after the cops showed up and was asked by Zimmerman to call Zimmerman’s wife and let her know he was being taken into custody. According to the man, Zimmerman made this request “like it was nothing.” In other words, this “witness” was offended that Zimmerman didn’t act upset enough for his taste. In fact, he notes that Zimmerman didn’t act like: “I can’t believe I just shot someone.” So what? Again, this man witnessed nothing and his speculation that Zimmerman wasn’t shocked enough is utter horsesh*t and shouldn’t have been reported. Yet, the reporter leads off the article with this.

What this reporter has done is a despicable attempt to lynch Zimmerman by presenting as fact the speculation of people who saw nothing. This is deceitful advocacy. And so you know, none of the statements above will be admissible at court because witnesses can only speak to facts they witnessed, not opinions they formed.

So what really happened? Well, way near the bottom of the article, long after most people will have stopped reading, the reporter finally comes to the only person to actually witness something. This man said that he heard a commotion coming from the walk behind his residence. He looked out and witnessed a black male wearing a dark-colored hoodie on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help. He further stated that the black male was mounted on Zimmerman and “throwing punches MMA style” as the man on the ground yelled out for help.

Case closed. Self-defense.

On the positive side, the public seems to get it, even if the media doesn’t. Rasmussen asked people what they thought of the case. 40% thought Zimmerman acted in self-defense (up from 15%). 24% thought it was murder (down from 33%). These are good numbers. This means that only two in ten are going against the evidence of the case and buying into the media spin. Double that number have seen through the media spin. It also means that 34% of the public has kept enough of an open mind to change their opinions in light of new evidence and another four in ten have yet to form an opinion -- the way it should be.

So while the MSM is in the tank and is trying desperately to spin this case into a race war, the public clearly ain’t buying it.


K said...

Marxist morality = Revolutionary "truth".

Judeo-Christian morality = Commandment not to bear false witness.

It seems obvious that the latter would lead to a happier, healthier and more prosperous society. Certainly a more scientific one by definition.

So riddle me this, why does most of our media seem to subscribe to the former?

Libertarian Advocate said...

Seems to me that the MSM outlets are in the willful process of bias reporting themselves out of effective existence. It's kind'a like observing an imminent car crash....

T-Rav said...

Well, thanks, Andrew. You've got me steamed earlier than usual this morning. >:-(

Seriously, though, the media's behavior is loathsome. I really wish that the next conservative figure who goes on the Today Show, GMA, etc., would go on offense and get in their faces about this. These @#$%ers need to be publicly exposed for the frauds they are.

DUQ said...

I'm just glad we have conservative blogs now to discuss this because in the past all you could do was sit there and shake your head as the MSM told you everyone else bought into their crap.

AndrewPrice said...

K, That is a very good question. I don't know if they've just blinded themselves and really believe the spin they put on things, or if they are consciously doing it to promote social change. I suspect a little bit of both.

AndrewPrice said...

Libertarian Advocate, I agree. You see how their credibility keeps crashing year after year and how this has opened the door for conservatives to establish an alternative news media. My guess is that the MSM is slowly killing itself off with its reporting and at some point we will see a sudden shift where the public at large abandons them.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, You're welcome! LOL!

It would be nice if conservatives as a group started to expose these people and smack them down and treat them with contempt. That's probably the missing ingredient in the MSM's downfall at the moment, that conservatives still treat them like they are respectable news sources.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, I agree. Knowing so many conservatives are out there and not buying into this garbage keeps me sane. :)

Writer X said...

This was pathetic. Am waiting for Obama and Biden to invite Zimmerman to the White House for a beer.

Tennessee Jed said...

The sins of the media descend upon the favorite son.This one made the Duke Lecross case look like peanuts.

My fantasy is to have Soledad Obrian, Ed Schultz, that pompous ass Brit from CNN, Chris Matthews, hey even the normally likable Robin Roberts, and the not so likable Brian Williams all trussed up like the girl with the dragon tatoo. I'd get to scream questions about their coverage of this case and as soon as they open their mouth, I'd get to slap them hard and scream "shut up, you've lost your credibility numbnuts!" at them. Oh, don't forget crack journalist/commentator Al the pal Sharpton.

Now normally I would not hold the president accountable except that he loves this crap and had to shoot off his mouth tacitly approving the race card. To see how racially unbiased reporting is when the roles are referse, try googling Christian/Newsom murders in Knoxville, Tn.

StanH said...

The good news, for those willing to look, there has never been a better case - - an object study if you will, of the MSM building a false narrative. There’s nothing new with this, going back to Guttenberg’s press, people have used mass media for other than “informing the public,” …prior to that, due to illiteracy, iconography, and so on. The difference being, that now the normally hypnotized masses (mobs), can be activated with hysterics, possibly lighting a fuse in this case to a race war. Ann Coulter wrote a great book on this subject, “Demonic,” where she goes chapter and verse cataloguing this tried a true technique of leftist for centuries, agitating a mob, or community organizing, to effect an ends. We have much work to be done in this country, the press being one.

AndrewPrice said...

Writer X, Somehow, I don't think they'll be inviting Zimmerman. Now that their attempt to stir a race riot has stalled, it sounds like they're all planning to just quietly drop the matter.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, LOL! That would be fun to watch as you slapped these bozos around. They deserve it. It's amazing to me that they have squandered so much credibility so easily and with so little care.

I put a big chunk of this on Obama as well for encouraging it. He should not be getting involved in local matters and he certainly shouldn't be picking out individual incidents based on race, as he obviously has. He's a disgrace and he needs to go.

It's amazing how easily the MSM ignored black on white and black on black crimes and how obsessed they are with white on black crimes, even when the white guy isn't actually white.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, That's true. This has been a truly instructive case in may ways.

For one thing, we get to see the MSM try to build a race-hate narrative where the facts just don't support it. That shows us their bias and exposes their methods.

For another, we get to see that the conservative media is getting to be as powerful if not more powerful than the MSM.

For another, we get to see that a large majority of the public is no longer buying what the MSM is selling.

These are all key points.

Tennessee Jed said...

normally, I never bother with my mispells or mistakes, but: Britt Hume deserves my making it cyrstal clear I was referring to CNN's extreemely obnoxious "Brit" Piers Morgan, rather than the likable former Fox anchor. And, as long as I am correcting, I sure butchered "lacrosse." :(

Doc Whoa said...

Andrew, I saw the Alfonzo thing before and I laughed. He is so great at striking right at the heart of liberal racist hypocrisy.

I think this case has continued to expose the MSM for what they are and I suspect this will continue to erode their ratings as they slowly make their way to irrelevance.

T-Rav said...

Jed, I would personally rather leave Brian Williams out of your...ahem, "fantasy." I know he can be as big a blowhard as the rest, I just like him for some reason. I would suggest replacing him with Rachel Maddow.

Also, lacrosse is a butchery sport anyway, so I don't think it'll matter. ;-)

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, Nice clarification. I have a lot of respect for Britt Hume, but zero respect for CNN's Piers Morgan.

I had to laugh that CNN's rating are the worst they've ever been under him.

By the way, I agree completely that this case echoes the Duke Lacrosse scandal. That was another one where anybody with a brain should have known what was going on, but the MSM and a crooked prosecutor just kept on spinning.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, Alfonzo is fantastic. He is excellent at spotting the hypocrisies and dissecting them and he's genius at finding ways to then flip them around. Showing all the dead Trayvons the media doesn't care about was brilliant.

And I agree with you, this is yet another nail in the MSM's coffin.

tryanmax said...

K, Andrew, RE: Spin v. Change -- I'm inclined to believe that the MSM has bought the social justice ideology (by one name or another) hook, line, and sinker so their spin is merely reflective of their worldview. Just as they have no problem abdicating their individuality to “the cause” they have no compunctions eradicating other people’s individuality, either. All that matters is that Group A = Good and Group B = Bad (or in currently popular parlance, Oppressed and Oppressor), an equation that could flip in the next second for any number of reasons, but until then must be religiously adhered to. The simplicity of this thinking finds that if two people clash, the superficial attributes of each are different, and one belongs clearly to Group A, then the other must belong to Group B.

George Zimmerman was never an individual to the media. His personal guilt or innocence was never in question. Verily, as far as the MSM is concerned, the question is irrelevant. To the MSM, he is merely a proxy for all “white oppressors” and as such, his guilt--or rather, that of white oppressors--is predetermined. Zimmerman’s individuality only comes into play because, under our rules, he can’t be prosecuted or punished until he commits some act that potentially draws such things. I think none among us has any doubts that the left would prosecute and punish their ideological foes without such formalities if they were permitted.

Of course, since events first transpired to thrust Zimmerman on the world stage, it has become known that he is not the ideological enemy of the left. (Though if he continues to be registered as a Democrat after this episode, fie on him.) Such are the inconveniences that arise when summary judgment is unavailable. But, sticking to the point, I think that the MSM see themselves as “helping justice” in the aggregate with no regard to the specific; as far as they are concerned, there is no specific justice without aggregate justice--think “collective salvation.”

But because they are bound by Constitutional rules, they take their role as damning “whitey” one cracker at a time until the arcane document can be shrugged off or shredded. If everyone else would just shut up, questions about Zimmerman’s ethnicity (which are wholly irrelevant to the media, anyway) would never have come up. I don’t believe any sort of embarrassment compels the MSM to bury the “Treyvon Who?” story, only the sense that this particular ploy isn’t working.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I don't really hate Brian Williams either, but I'm willing to go with it so long as Jed gets to have his fun. ;)

Unknown said...

The MSM hyped this case and the prosecutor overcharged. The only thing they've accomplished is to stir up racial tensions, enhance the careers of race-baiters like Al Sharpton, and give new life to the New Black Panthers. As of this morning, four of the alleged eyewitnesses have modified their statements. Just finding an untainted jury pool could take months. It seems to be turning out that Trayvon Martin may be less like the son Obama never had, and more like Obama himself--a saint who never existed.

AndrewPrice said...


I think you're right that this was never about Zimmerman personally, this was about their belief that whites oppress and murder blacks. Thus, once they had the slightest hint of proof that that was really happening, they jumped on it and treated it as true. Then they ran out and did their usual thing with it.

Unfortunately for them, the evidence didn't come back the way they wanted. So they had to spin and spin and spin. And when it kept coming in against them, they finally decided to drop the issue (without retraction) because too many people realized what they were doing.

Now it will be largely ignored until later when they will hope to use it as an example of white racism again once people forget the details of the case.

I think none among us has any doubts that the left would prosecute and punish their ideological foes without such formalities if they were permitted.

Agreed. The left has show little worry about legal rights when they are given the power to circumvent those rights. And they have shown time and again that people don't matter to them, only achieving an ideological goal matters to them.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I think the effect has actually been to further defuse the racebaiter's power. Al Sharpton looks like a fool and has been scrambling to save a situation that has blown up in his face.

I read about those witnesses. The MSM is spinning this as "they changed their testimony to be worse for Zimmerman" as in they finally got it right. But from what I've read of the statements, they haven't really added anything truly useful. Not to mention, when you change your statement after time, you lose your credibility.

Unknown said...

Andrew: When Al Sharpton is retired and no longer has his own propaganda show, I'll rest a little easier, but I think he's like a cockroach--he skitters around and hides from the light to come back out and tick you off another day.

I agree on the changed testimony, which was really my only reason for bringing it up. The defense will have a field day with it. One of the "witnesses" said he saw Martin raining down martial-arts blows on Zimmerman but now says that maybe Martin was just "bracing himself." I can't wait to hear him explain that 180 degree course reversal on cross-examination.

Doc Whoa said...

OT: A new poll shows Romney leading Obama in Florida by 6%.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, That's interesting news. I haven't seen the poll, but if Romney is starting to pull ahead in Florida, then he will start to pull ahead in the other battleground states too.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I'll be happier too when he's gone. And you right, he is like a cockroach. But this time I really think it blew up on him. He attempts to get people to riot fell through and he spent half his time dodging questions about Spike Lee handing out a home address and the black panthers putting a bounty out on Zimmerman. This has not gone at all according to plan.

I agree. When people start changing their testimony to help on side, they basically lose all their credibility. I think the prosecution seriously needs to rethink it's case.

T-Rav said...

Andrew and Doc, I really want to see the next presidential poll out of Wisconsin. I know a lot of people think that state is just out of reach for us, but with GOP voters there so keyed up about the Walker recall thing, I think we have a very good chance of taking it.

tryanmax said...

Forget Al, I'll be happy when I stop hearing the name Spike Lee. Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson are comic relief compared to Spike Lee's ritual vitriol. The man is so off his nut with his racial persecution complex that he probably takes the cotton in a bottle of aspirin as a personal affront.

Which reminds me: You know why 0bama wants a new tax on aspirin? Because it's white and it works.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I usually count Wisconsin as safely Democratic, but this time might be very different. Walker apparently had as much as a 9% lead the other day and Obama can't break 45% in the state. So Wisconsin may well go Republican this time. If that happens, then all bets are off on the electoral map.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, LOL! Now you're going to be marked as a racist because you told a joke involving Obama and race. Very sad. :(

I don't like any of them, but I'm also glad they are the representatives of the race industry. We couldn't have asked for bigger buffoons to push their idiocy.

rlaWTX said...

Since I tend to avoid MSM, Zimmerman has stayed on my radar - and I have been glad to hear each piece of info that supports the idea of taking it slowly and looking at all of the puzzle instead of cherry0picking the ones that fit your spin.

I agree with tryanmax that "journalists" have bought the social justice narrative and its defenses: "it may be false, but it could be true", "it's still true even though it's false", and oppressed are always right- even when wrong, & oppressors are wrong, even when they are right.

Anonymous said...

I'm going to quote something I posted on The Black Sphere almost 2 months ago. None of the evidence that has come forth has derailed my thesis or raised my opinion of Zimmerman, though it has lowered it of the media.

7 weeks ago @ The Black Sphere - Liberals Love the Hoodie · 4 replies · +1 points

More likely (as has been my thesis from the beginning) Zimmerman confronted Trayvon and wound up taking a beating (not in evidence from the grainy video, but I don't think the police report was a lie) ending that beating with a gunshot.

As I pointed out a couple times in this thread, when a guy in a car follows a pedestrian, then runs after said pedestrian when they try to evade him, most people aren't going to think neighborhood watch (which isn't in the habit of running people down), they are going to think mugger.

Trayvon's last mistake was not beating Zimmerman to the point of unconciousness or death (admittedly a tall order given that Zimmerman was out of Trayvon's weight class).

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, That's the perfect way to explain how the media takes these things -- "it may be false, but it could be true, so let's act like it's true." That's disgraceful, but it's what they do. And it's frustrating and obscene that they do this. Grrr.

In any event, you are right that it is always best to wait until all the evidence comes out before making up your mind. And I'm happy that so many Americans seem to be in that mode.

AndrewPrice said...

Anon, We have no idea what really happened, and that's the point. When you look at the facts of what is known, not opinions people have given, all we know is that one guy followed another. They ended up on the ground in a fight. Apparently, one guy ended up on top and started beating the other guy. The other guy shot him.

That's not murder. It's either self-defense or manslaughter based on putting himself in a dangerous situation.

But the media has tried to turn this into a "white" hate crime from the beginning. They've tried to spin the races and personalities, they've reported one-sided speculation as fact, and they've been very selective about the evidence they've chosen to present. Basically, they are telling a story rather than reporting events. And their purpose is obviously to stir the racial pot and promote the idea that whites are out there hunting blacks.

Also, while Zimmerman may have been out of his weight class, weight is meaningless -- strength is key. If Zimmerman is a marshmallow, which appears likely, and Martin is a football player (as I understand) then Zimmerman was the one at a huge disadvantage -- as proven by his getting the upper hand.

Ed said...

I really hate the MSM. I think half the country's problems would go away if they went away. They are constantly trying to cause problems. If they would just stick to reporting rather than trying to spin, then things would be much better for everyone.

Ed said...

Andrew, That idea about weight classes is right. Weight doesn't matter unless the two fighters are otherwise evenly matched. When you get someone who has experience fighting against someone who doesn't, the person with the experience will win every time. Now I don't know if either of them has experience, but it's wrong to assert that somehow Martin had a disadvantage just because he weighed less. And don't forget, someone who is 6'1" is not a helpless child, even if they weigh less.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, The MSM has become a cancer. Rather than informing people and educating them, they've worked to tell people what to believe. And what they are telling people are the precise things which cause problems.

I think that is changing as people are finding the alternatives, but it is changing only slowly.

On the weight class, that's true. I've done a lot of criminal law and I can tell you for a fact that weight does not matter. Strength, desire and experience matter most.

Anonymous said...


If you force a fight with someone and then kill them when you find yourself on the losing end of it, that isn't self defense.

Zimmerman apparently liked to play cop, but the problem was Zimmerman was the only one who knew he was playing cop.


8 weeks ago @ The Black Sphere - Liberals Love the Hoodie · 4 replies · +1 points

So you're a fan of self defense. So was Trayvon Martin, though unlike you he didn't carry a gun. If a random nutjob followed you in his car, then when you tried to lose him by walking away from the road quickly, got out of his car and ran after you, would you deck him or just raise your hands and ask him to please be gentle?

If you were unarmed and you did deck him would you just naively hope that a single knockdown would end the possibly armed thug's bad intentions ('I touched the ground, mugging over. We'll just go our separate ways. Enjoy your skittles!) or would you stay on the offensive in order to keep him down and yourself alive?

Martin's mistake was going too easy on the nutjob.

BevfromNYC said...

Anon - I am glad you have such a clear view of what happened that evening and an opinion that is unchanges even with the ever-changing eye-witness accounts and other facts coming out daily. But, as Andrew has so deftly pointed out, your opinion of the "facts" is pure speculation, and, of course, you have every right to your opinion. However, this is exactly why we have court system because opinions do not trump the law. So, please put your pitchfork away, and let the courts do what we need them to do.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew - If pictures are worth a thousand words, that photo is priceless. It is the most accurate portrayal of what the MSM is doing as we will ever see!

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I can't claim any credit for it, but when I saw it, I thought it was perfect too. LOL!

AndrewPrice said...

Anon, You have a vivid imagination but you've presented no facts for consideration. All you've offered is your own speculation which is clearly prejudiced by a biased and violent take on human relations which you will find is not well received by courts or juries.

And I hate to tell you this, but it can clearly be self-defense. The mere fact that you approach someone does not take away your right to defend yourself if they attack you. And in Florida and three dozen other states, they have made this even more clear by eliminating the requirement that you try to retreat from a fight.

Sorry, no sale, my friend.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, That is correct -- everyone has a right to an opinion. But that also means we have the right to judge people on their opinions. And when people start injecting their own facts into a situation and then judging others based on those facts, their opinion is flawed. Fortunately, lawyers tend to be very good as smoking out people with prejudices so they don't end up on the jury.

T-Rav said...

Anon, although Andrew and Bev have already pointed the most critical parts out, I would just add that Florida law explicitly states that even if you instigate a fight, if the other party responds with such disproportionate force that you are in reasonable fear for your life, you may use a gun in self-defense.

Whether Zimmermann was "playing cop" or not is unclear, but there's nothing playful about the choice of whether to fire your gun or get your skull shattered.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's correct. For a while, the law held that you could not invoke self-defense if you instigated a fight unless you tried to leave the scene before the killing. But around 30 states have undone that by statute now. And there is a very good chance Zimmerman wins this without trial on that point and gets the case dismissed.

But even if he doesn't, the evidence the jury will hear will leave them with no reason to think it's anything but self-defense because none of the speculation about how these witnesses thought he was acting will get in. All you'll hear is:

1. Martin had marijuana in his system, which is consistent with Zimmerman's claim he was wandering around aimlessly.

2. Zimmerman follows Martin, call cops. Tells cops on the phone Martin is now approaching.

3. Witnesses saw Martin on top of Zimmerman punching him. Corresponding bruises to Zimmerman.

4. Shot was fired consistent with struggle, i.e. not back of the head or other execution-style, didn't empty clip, etc.

5. Zimmerman gets up, told witness to call the cops.

6. Cops came moments later. He leaves peacefully with the cops.

That's all they will hear unless Zimmerman takes the stand. That is a clear case of self-defense under the law.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I'm not so sure. That's all they should hear, sure; but then this prosecutor never should have filed a second-degree murder charge in the first place. I could easily see her doing something underhanded to try and polarize opinion against Zimmermann. I hope not.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, She'll absolutely try to get those statements in because prosecutors are like that. That's why you try to exclude it in advance (motion in limine). In this case, since the witness saw nothing else, I would move to exclude the statement pre-trial, and then move to exclude the witness when the prosecution calls them because they have nothing else to offer. Jury's always get a kick out of witnesses who show up, take the stand and then leave after giving their names -- it makes the prosecution look like fools.

You can't be guaranteed that the judge will agree with you, but the defense actually wins either way. Either the judge agrees or you get a pretty solid basis for appealing. And most often, judges will agree with this because it goes right to the most fundamental point of the rules of evidence -- you can talk about anything you didn't witness.

Plus, in truth, even if the prosecution gets something like this in, it's really easy for the lawyer to tear apart. And when the prosecution starts presenting a couple of these, you get the argument that the prosecution has no real evidence because all they're offering is speculation. That tends to work really well.

Individualist said...


While I respect your legal opinion I don't believe this case will ever be "closed". Trayvon was wrong in attacking Zimmerman but Zimmerman did some stupid things as well like following the kid after 911 told him not to.

I don't believe we know how the fight started. If Zimmerman was an agressor and then lost the fight because he underestimated Trayvon's prowess he may in fact be guilty of some form of manslaughter. I don't beleive this is Murder 2.

While it is likely it was self defence I don't think we will ever know and I truely believe the media hype has so damaged this case that a truely just outcome. One where the court reveiws the evdience and applies the appropriate sentence cannot now be gotten.

This in my mind is the real tragedy.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, We will never know what happened barring a confession or some surprise witness or videotape. But that's true with most incidents like this. The best you can do is piece together what happened (often from contradictory evidence) and come to a rough guess. That's where the law and public opinion differ. The public can find someone guilty based on the guesses, but the law doesn't. The law requires proof. And the rules of evidence are designed to keep out the guesses and only let the jury hear the proof.

(It's also surprisingly easy to find jurors who don't know anything about current events -- even big events. The bigger danger is someone with a hidden bias.)

The problem with trying this case is that there just isn't any evidence to support what happened. It's Zimmerman's word verses nothing, and that means Zimmerman wins. Moreover, the only witnesses to see anything and the bruises to Zimmerman back up his version more than enough to get an acquittal. The prosecutor never should have tried this, especially as murder.

In terms of following Martin, keep this in mind. If you listen to the 911 call. They tell him to stop following Martin and a moment later Zimmerman says "he's coming towards me now." We don't know what happened next, but a fair reading would be that Zimmerman did stop once the cops told him otherwise but by that point Martin was coming at him. I'd make that argument if I were his lawyer.

Again, we'll never know the truth, but we know enough to know he shouldn't be convicted under the law.

tryanmax said...

Indie, if I can correct you on the facts: evidence from the 911 phone call suggests that Zimmerman was following prior to the dispatcher telling him not to ("We don’t need you to do that.") to which he replied "okay" indicating that he had broken off pursuit.

I've listened closely to the audio and about 30 seconds after the dispatcher instructs Zimmerman, "Just let me know if this guy does anything else," Zimmerman announces that "he's running." At this time, one can hear a lot of shuffling and what sounds like an automobile door chime. My interpretation is that Zimmerman understood the instruction from the dispatcher to include following the suspect and in any case provides a reasonable explanation as to why he was following at all.

According to Zimmerman's words on the call, he had lost sight of Martin. Based on the duration and content of the call, it would seem Zimmerman was out of contact with Martin for at least two minutes after the "chase." The best assumption we can make is that Martin came back seeking Zimmerman and not the other way around.

None of this eliminates the fact that there is approximately one minute for which there are no witnesses, but I believe there is enough evidence on either side of this minute to piece together a reasonable sequence of events. It is my opinion that any sequence making Zimmerman the aggressor strains credulity taken with to what we know.

I apologize for the unofficial nature of the sources. As time goes by, it seems fewer and fewer news organizations are continuing to host this information.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Notice that twice early on, Zimmerman says: "Yeah, now he's coming toward me. he's got his hands in his waist band." (1:03) and then moments later, "Something's wrong with him. Yep, he's coming to check me out." (1:20)

This suggests that Martin was indeed coming toward Zimmerman. It doesn't tell us what Zimmerman was doing, i.e. if he was moving toward Martin or standing still, but it does suggest that the idea that Zimmerman stalked Martin while Martin just tried to get away is false.

rlaWTX said...

Totally OT
I saw this and thought of T-Rav - I doubt even he'd be this cruel to the kittens!

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Nice. So now they're trying to drag cats into this election. Well, when nobody else will vote for ya, ya take what you can get!

Here's your link: LINK

T-Rav said...

Awww....poor kittehs.

No, I'm not that cruel. I have, on occasion, seriously threatened those felines who wore such paraphernalia of their own accord, but I was on my meds that day and didn't follow through.

tryanmax said...

Listening to the ambient noise (which I have no idea how relevant that is in court) I would conclude that Zimmerman was either sitting in a parked vehicle or possibly following Martin with the vehicle. However, the latter option doesn't jibe with the telephone conversation as well. One would have to assume Zimmerman had called 911 for the purpose of constructing a defense in advance of committing murder. I don't need to tell anyone here how strained that is.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Here's the interesting bit. If Zimmerman never testifies, the prosecution has no way to any of that into the record except the call itself because there's no one who can testify about what Zimmerman did until he's seen taken a beating.

tryanmax said...

But isn't the ambient noise part of the call? I realize that much speculation is required to make any sense of mere sounds in most cases, and no speculations I can come up with help the prosecution, so I guess I'm asking academically. For example, can the prosecution point out: there is the sound of a door chime; there is the sound of a door closing?

Anonymous said...

If a nutjob can stalk someone, force a fight and then kill the person when they start to lose and that is condoned by Florida law, then as Ann Coulter (a person I rarely fight myself in agreement with) says, the smart thing for blacks in Florida to do is walk around armed and be ready to shoot.

AndrewPrice said...

Yes, they should be able to play the tape and they could even get an expert to clean it up and testify to what he thinks he hears. But it would be expert speculation (which rarely plays well) and it would be a huge stretch before he could claim from an audio tape like this if Zimmerman was in a car or not or if he was moving or not.

I think they would be more likely to just play the tape and then the prosecutor (and the defense) would speculate as to its meaning during the closing argument.

tryanmax said...

Okay, so now I'm the devil's advocate: Why would an expert be required to identify sounds on a tape while none would be required to identify objects in a photograph? Or am I wrong on the second count?

AndrewPrice said...

Anon, You really aren't listening. You've built this scenario in your head which doesn't fit the facts and you're extrapolating from your fantasy and ignoring anything that doesn't work for you keeping your prejudice intact.

If you had offered anything to support your view, people here would listen. But you haven't. You just keep saying, "Zimmerman bad, Trayvon good, ergo outrage." That's nonsense.

And I hate to tell you this, but Florida law is not unique. You will find the same or very similar laws in most states throughout the country.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, You can bring an expert to testify about almost anything. It just needs to be a field which requires study so the expert can explain something the general public could not understand on its own. So an audio expert can be brought in to explain what the various sounds mean, i.e. "that's tires squealing" v. "that's just a distortion in the recording."

In the case of a blurry photo, it depends on who is testifying. The photographer can always testify about what they saw when they snapped the photo and then explain what the blurs are. Other people who were there can explain what they saw and they can confirm that what they see in the photos "looks like" what they saw. But if you don't have either of those, then you need an expert.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Also, it would be similar with an audio tape. If Zimmerman had made it, he could testify to what happened and what he believes the recording shows. If someone just happened to be there, they could confirm that "this sounds like what I heard." Or an expert can testify to what the various noises mean.

The rules of evidence very much segment what people can testify to to keep people from giving opinions as fact.

tryanmax said...

So, if I am understanding correctly and assuming no experts whatsoever, if I have audio of tires squealing, all I can really say in court is that I have audio of squealing, but not of what; and if I have a photo of a ball, all I can say in court is that I have a photo of a round object, but nothing specific.

T-Rav said...

Anon, you're missing the point. It's not that Zimmermann was about to "lose the fight," it's that he was about to "suffer a life-threatening skull fracture" and "be rendered incapable of protecting himself." You apparently didn't read the part where I mentioned a disproportionate response. If Zimmermann was pressing him, and Martin had simply taken a swing or shoved him backwards, that would be a proportionate response. If Martin proceeded to get on top of him and start slamming his head into the ground and beat him about the face (and all the evidence suggests he did), that would be a disproportionate response.

Also, I'm at something of a loss as to how this is relevant to the black community in Florida at all.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That comment about blacks needing to leave Florida only makes sense if you believe that whites (and their Hispanic lackeys) are out there hunting blacks. Which is delusional.

In fact, let me point out, Florida has an extremely high murder rate, but it's black on black and black on white murder, with an emphasis on white tourists and black drug dealers.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Not quite. If you heard it and recorded it or took part in the recording, then you can say that you made an audio recording and at the same time you heard tires squealing. Then you can play the tape and identify the squealing as the squealing you heard and recorded.

If you were just there but didn't make the recording and didn't know it was being made, then you can testify only that the noise on the tape sounds like the squealing you heard at the time, but a court will stop you from saying this is the same squealing -- though a good lawyer will get that out of you.

If you wereN'T there, then you can't speculate to what the sounds on the tape were at all because you didn't witness anything and don't know the circumstances under which the tape was made. In that case, you would need an expert to testify that it is squealing, and someone to explain when the tape was made.

The idea is that non-expert witnesses can only state what they saw or heard, not what they extrapolated from that.

Individualist said...

tyranmax and Andrew

Wow, that does seem to point more to self defence than to Zimmerman being at fault.

Andrew, I agree with you that at this time the case should not have been tried. However, given new evidence or more credible witnesses coming forward that circumstance could change. This is exactly why the police even if they suspected Zimmerman's guilt should have released him without arresting him.

The cops because of the media hype will never be able to search through the bevy of false charges and accusations to build a case. Cold case files is an excellent example of this. There are cold blooded killers that the cops knew committed the crime that were not charged till years afterward when new evidence came up.

We don't know if Zimmerman is really guilty but we do know if he is acquitted of murder charges in a trial trumped up for political expediency that we will never be able to seek justice should something come to light say six months to a year later.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, That's the other side the pitchfork crowd never gets. Sometimes, genuine investigations take time and when you rush them for political reasons, you end up making it impossible to ever convict someone who was guilty.

But that's just one of the many problems associated with a show trial, with the biggest being a loss of respect for the system by all sides.

Individualist said...

"If a nutjob can stalk someone, force a fight and then kill the person when they start to lose and that is condoned by Florida law, then ..... the smart thing for blacks in Florida to do is walk around armed and be ready to shoot."

Two points, first the minor one:

Why just blacks. As I understand it nutjobs are decidingly not discriminatory in who they will shoot be they black, white or purple polka dotted Injun Cheifs. Old lady's are double points by the way.

Second Florida Law only condones people stalking someone and shooting them if and only if they repeatedly play to much Barry Manilow music in public. It's true. There is this incident in the Floirida Keys where someone went deaf. Nasty circumstance. There used to be a link to this story but sorry the Barry Manilow music broke it so you'll just have to take my word for it.

tryanmax said...

Indie, I thought old ladies triggered the bonus round? Or is that baby buggies? I always mix those up.

Anthony said...

This is Anon. I decided to create an account here to avoid confusion.

Anyway T-Rav said:

You apparently didn't read the part where I mentioned a disproportionate response. If Zimmermann was pressing him, and Martin had simply taken a swing or shoved him backwards, that would be a proportionate response.

Also, I'm at something of a loss as to how this is relevant to the black community in Florida at all.
Alone and in the dark of the night against a weird guy who has been stalking you and was unwilling to talk when you approached his car, but then pursued you when you left the road (presumably to avoid the nutjob following you in his car) proportionate response is for corpses.

When an unarmed man goes against an armed lunatic, he can't just give him a gentle shove and hope for the best, he needs to incapacitate the criminal.

Of course, Zimmerman wasn't a criminal, he was just a guy playing cop('There's a guy walking, this cannot be allowed to continue! I can't just call the police like a sane person, I need to detain him myself! ') but Martin had no way of knowing that.

Of course, the killing isn't the reason this case is high profile. The police department's lackluster investigation (for example, it was Martin's father that discovered Martin's girlfriend was on the phone with him during much of the incident despite the fact the police had Martin's cell phone) was the problem.

Couple that with the Sanford PD's recent track record (declining to prosecute the son of a cop that beat a local black homeless guy for a laugh until media coverage convinced them to do so) and there were no only doubts about the investigator's competence, but about their motives.

And if Florida law allows nutjobs to force confrontations and kill the people they were stalking, then either Florida law needs to be changed or more people need to carry guns.

Last and least I live in MD outside of DC, not Florida.

T-Rav said...

Anthony, I hope that if I ever get accused of a high-profile crime, you won't presume to know what was going on in my head.

The fact is, neither you nor I know what Zimmermann (or Martin, for that matter) was thinking when this went down, and it's irresponsible of you to accuse him of playing cop when you don't know what he was doing. Unless you want to accuse every neighborhood watch in the country of trying to do the cops' job. You're assuming that Martin was some innocent kid minding his own who got jumped by someone looking for trouble, when the opposite could very well be the case. Which of these it is, or neither, we'll never know, and that's the point: In the absence of conclusive proof, the accused must be acquitted.

I'm not as well up on the history of Sanford PD (though I do remember reading that they originally recommended Zimmermann be investigated and/or charged); if the things you mention are true, however, then this should be about investigating those abuses. It should not take the form of idiots like Spike Lee making death threats against Zimmermann and tweeting his personal information.

Finally, I don't know why you thought I was treating you as a member of the Florida black community. My comment dealt with the ongoing racialization of the case by yourself and others, by suggesting that blacks are under attack from non-blacks and therefore need to arm themselves. While I am all in favor of lots of people carrying guns, this attempts to create a racial issue where there is none, especially given Zimmerman's partially black ancestry and the fact that he previously agitated for justice on behalf of a local black victim. This race-baiting is idiotic, divisive, and needs to end.

tryanmax said...

Anthony, it would behoove you to avail yourself of more facts before continuing. Much of what you claim is in error and datable to the days just following this story going national. Clearly you have not kept up with any developments.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, The problem with what you're saying is that you're adding lots of facts that just aren't there and you've created a scenario that isn't at all applicable here.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman "stalked" Martin. There is no evidence that Martin approached Zimmerman and Zimmerman then refused to talk to him but then stalked him. There is no evidence Zimmerman was "playing cop." Lots of neighborhood watch people follow at a safe distance and wait for the cops to arrive so they can identify the person. And Zimmerman did just that, he called the cops and asked for instructions. And that is when Martin approached Zimmerman, followed by the fight.

As for the Sanford PD, if that's the problem then go after them, don't try to scapegoat Zimmerman because you're upset about someone else.

An no, Florida law does not allow nutjobs to stalk people, confront them and kill them, but that's not what happened here. That's your unsupported, prejudiced view of what happened here.

Anthony said...

T-Rav, I'm assuming Martin did everything Zimmerman said he did in the 911 tapes. Which is nothing (walking, looking around).

Also, contrary to Andrew's claim, the amount of weed in Martin's system indicated he hadn't smoked it in days, so its presence doesn't buttress Zimmerman's rationale for pursing Martin.

According to documents released this week, Martin's blood showed traces of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. We knew from earlier reports that he'd been disciplined for smoking pot, and the amounts found in his blood sample suggest he hadn't indulged in the days leading up to the incident, experts told The Associated Press.

Martin's autopsy indicated that medical examiners found THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, when they tested Martin's blood and urine. The amount described in the autopsy report is such a low level that it would have played no role in Martin's behavior, said Larry Kobilinsky, a professor of forensic science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

"This kind of level can be seen days after somebody smokes," Kobilinsky said. "If it comes up in the case, I would be surprised. It wouldn't benefit the defense, it wouldn't benefit the prosecution, and if the defense tried to bring it up, the judge would keep it out."

Read more:

Last but not least, Zimmerman is as black as Warren is Cherokee, not that it has anything to do with anything. Zimmerman appears to be a play cop, not a racist.

Anthony said...

AndrewPrice said:

And Zimmerman did just that, he called the cops and asked for instructions. And that is when Martin approached Zimmerman, followed by the fight.

Andrew, the last 911 tape I heard had Martin fleeing and Zimmerman initially telling the dispatcher he would wait in a specific spot, then later telling her to just have the cops call him.

911 dispatcher:

OK, do you just want to meet with them at the mailboxes then? [3:42]


Yeah, that’s fine. [3:43]

911 dispatcher:

Alright, George, I’ll let them know you’ll meet them at …


Could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at? [3:49]

911 dispatcher:

OK, that’s no problem.

*Shrugs* But if you have heard a more recent tape in which Zimmerman was on the phone right before he found Martin (or vice versa as Zimmerman claims), please provide a link.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I see nothing in the above which suggests that Martin was "fleeing" and I think it's a real stretch to suggest that Zimmerman agreed to wait and then changed his minds and told the cops to call him because he decided to go hunt down Martin. As I read the above, he just wants to talk to the cops directly rather than through the dispatcher. I've done the same thing with the pizza guy so they can zero in on me.

Nothing about his tone or his words suggests that he was a nutjob out hunting someone down.

Anthony said...


Below is the passage in which Zimmerman indicates that Martin was heading away from him and towards 'the back gate'.



Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don’t turn and make a left.

He’s running. [2:08]

911 dispatcher:

He’s running? Which way is he running?


Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]

911 dispatcher:

OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?


The back entrance.

[It sounds like Zimmerman says under his breath, ‘F-ing coons’ at 2:22]

■[Listen here at 1:17 for CNN's edited frame]

911 dispatcher:

Are you following him? [2:24]


Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:


We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]


OK. [2:28]

911 dispatcher:

Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]


George. He ran.
As an interesting aside, Zimmerman's working assumption is clearly that Martin (who he believed had come from outside the community to cause trouble/commit crimes) was heading for the exit of the gated community, though given that he was staying with his father and his father's girlfriend in the gated community its far more likely that Martin was merely seeking to get away from Zimmerman and had no interest in the back exit.

T-Rav said...

Yeah. So, basically, like Andrew said, nothing to suggest Zimmermann was a nutjob. And the idea that he said "F-ing coons" has been pretty well debunked; that part of the recording is too inaudible to make out anything definite. If anything, it sounds more like "F-ing punks" or something similar.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I'm not sure what you think this adds. To the contrary, it sounds like Zimmerman is doing exactly what active neighborhood watch/neighborhood patrol people do -- following at a safe distance and trying to lead the police to where they need to be.

As for where Martin is running, we have no idea, but clearly he didn't head for the exit or the encounter would have happened at the exit or outside the property.

tryanmax said...

T-Rav, It looks like you're all referencing the transcript that I linked to. I tried to find a more accurate one, but like I said before, the official news sites are scrapping this content, and all that remains are blogs that just repeat each other.

As for "F-ing whatever," not that anybody cares, but I don't think the second word is even decipherable. To my ear, what has been taken by the media as a voiceless velar plosive (the "ck" sound) sounds like he bumped his phone in the shuffle at an untimely moment.

T-Rav said...

tryanmax, you're right, there's really no way to tell just what he said, the audio there is too garbled. Several people have commented that it sounds more like "punks" than anything else, but even that's very vague.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax and T-Rav, It's like "EVP" when ghost hunters claim to hear words in the static. You can hear whatever you want in that, and there's a very good chance it's not even a word, but is isn't a grunt.

But I would be shocked if a guy who spent his time fighting the police because they ignored the death of a black homeless man would use the word "coons."

Joel Farnham said...


Nice job.

Yes, Zimmerman appears not guilty of murder and is only guilty of committing self defense properly. He used correct gun control and managed to stop his assailant with one bullet. His only mistake was not having the heredity that the RACIST media prefers.

I don't know if he will get off, but I hope he does. I also hope that any riots that happen because of a not guilty verdict are attacked as opportunism and not righteous indignation.

Anthony said...

@ T-rav and trynanmax - I can't make out what Zimmerman said at that point but I agree that he probably didn't say 'coons' (I doubt anyone in this century has) but I figured it would be a bad move to edit the transcript.

Anthony said...

You said before 'I see nothing in the above which suggests that Martin was "fleeing" ' and before that you said 'And Zimmerman did just that, he called the cops and asked for instructions. And that is when Martin approached Zimmerman, followed by the fight.'

My point is that by Zimmerman's own account, Martin was heading away from him when the call ended, not towards him.

NBC said...

Editing a transcript is never a bad idea!

T-Rav said...

Andrew, Chris Matthews is more likely to use the word "coons" than George Zimmermann is.

Joel, I wouldn't bet on it (the riots, that is). If it wasn't because of utter bias, the media would present them as righteous just as a face-saving attempt.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, You are correct that he did run away at one point -- just like he approached Zimmerman at one point. But we don't know what happened after that. And he clearly had to come back or they wouldn't have met where the fight happened.

Nothing I see in the transcripts or their personal histories, or Zimmerman's behavior after the fact, or Zimmerman's demeanor tells me that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Thanks. I thought it was important to point out how they are now trying to create witnesses when the people they are quoting didn't actually see anything and how they are downplaying the one real witness because his statement flies in the face of the MSM meme.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel and T-Rav, As for the riots, if they happen (either with a conviction or acquittal) the MSM won't waste a moment pushing critical race theory, i.e. the idea that American justice is designed to enslave and kill blacks. Guaranteed. That is what they always do.

Anthony said...


There is enough evidence that I don't feel we have to worry about the guy's histories, but if history is a big concern for you, fair enough.

“Usually he was just a cool guy. He liked to drink and hang with the women like the rest of us,” he said. “But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude snapped, he snapped.”

The source said Zimmerman, who made between $50 and $100 a night, was let go in 2005.

“He had a temper and he became a liability,” the man said. “One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted,” he said. “It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out.”

The year 2005 was a bad one for Zimmerman: he was arrested for fighting with a cop trying to arrest his friend for underage drinking, and he and his ex-fiancée took out protective orders against each other.
The ex-wife thing may be meaningless, but the rest...

A guy with a temper crazy enough to fight a cop is a guy crazy enough to fight what he believes to be a criminal.

T-Rav said...

Anthony, seeing as you've already convicted Zimmermann in your head, could you explain your proof that he "snapped" or lost his apparently infamous temper that night? Because despite your many posts, we are still at the conclusions reached hours ago: Zimmermann was not out to "get" Martin. He was not "playing cop." He was not part of some underhanded collective effort to oppress Florida blacks. The physical evidence is that he reasonably believed himself to be in danger of his life when he pulled the trigger, and he was within the boundaries of the law when he did so.

Nothing I've seen in your long excerpts does anything to change that.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, Nothing you've said changes my mind about anything because nothing you've mentioned gets to the facts of this case. It's like arguing over the color of someone's hat. That has nothing to do with their actions.

Anthony said...

T-Rav, I never accused Zimmerman of being a racist, let alone part of a racist conspiracy, nor do I say he was out to get Martin.

My point is he was a guy playing cop who wound up killing a teen who was returning home from buying candy and a soda.

I believe Zimmerman was afraid when he pulled the trigger, but I also believe Martin was afraid of the nutjob who was stalking him (as his girlfriend who was on the phone with him testified). No account (including the one Zimmerman's father gave to Fox News) indicats that Zimmerman ever bothered to explain the game he was playing to Martin.

The problem with playing cop with random strangers is the other guy doesn't know you're playing cop and not say, mugger or serial killer.

Do you remember Entertech guns (toy guns which looked real)? Kids brandishing them were just playing, but a few cops wound up killing them not because play is dangerous, but because the cops weren't in the on the game.

Anthony said...


You've stated that the case should be dismissed:

A) Because Martin was high on drugs so clearly Zimmerman was telling the truth (something multiple experts have stated isn't true).

B) Because according to their backgrounds, you see no reason to believe Zimmerman started the fight (I pointed you towards fights he had started).

C) Because when Zimmerman was last on the phone, Martin was heading towards him (Zimmerman's words indicate the opposite).

D) Because Zimmerman was losing the fight with Martin (I think its insane that one can start a fight and then kill the other guy when you start to lose). According to Zimmerman father, Zimmerman walked up to Martin, failed to identify himself, but merely reached into his pocket. Martin probably feared the guy who had been stalking him for no reason was reaching for a gun.

E) The media's spin was false. On this point I completely agree with you. As my links demonstrate, I never bought into the media spin, but there is a world of difference between the media being liars and Zimmerman being innocent.

Last but not least, do you see no inconsistency between you dismissing the importance of Zimmerman's past violence (I daresay most people go through life without assaulting cops)in the comments section and you defending the Daily's Caller's posting of the Martin tweets hacked by the Neo-Nazi (Klanklannon) in your article or citing Zimmerman's charity work? Why is one valid and the other not?

tryanmax said...

Anthony, I think you misunderstand the structure of Andrew's arguments. The case for dismissal is based on the lack of evidence to suggest a crime. Pure and simple.

All the rest is a case against the media and their biased reporting. Basically, he is making the same argument against them that you are making against him: If you report that A did X, then you should report that B did Y. The only difference is that you are rebutting the rebuttal with items which are being rebutted.

Individualist said...


Is that like the Beatles cartoon where the kid had to get to the last picture on the soup can. The picture had someone holding the can which had the picture on the can of someone holding the can.

So if one side rebuts what the other side rebuts who then rebuts what they have rebutted and so on and so on.........

Individualist said...

All we do know is that someone saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman had wounds that matched this circumstance. Whether Zimmerman is legally right if he was at that point in danger of being critically injured his only choice was shoot Martin or die.

This does not mean he won't have to answer to the law and it does not mean any other actions by him leading up to it are 100%. The prejorative nutjob is highly unfair. What other course of action that was available at that point. The point where someone is on top of you intent on beating you to death and not stopping.

No matter what Zimmerman did wrong the result being shot and killed is 100% Martin's own fault. If you don't want to get killed, don't attempt to physically destroy someone with either your hands or a weapon.

If Martin really felt threatened by Zimmerman stalking him he should have called the police himself and waited.

I understand there is no point in accusing a dead man but if we need to get this anal rententive about every aspect of who did what then yes Martin's actions are equally as important to the discussion.

The fact that Martin was killed is unfortunate and Zimmerman could probably have done things that could have avoided the conflict. However, Martin is the one who engaged it. Even if Zimmerman started the fight (which sounds improbable) Martin proved he was acting as a thug when he did not stop hitting Zimmerman after Zimmerman went down. If you act like this you invite the tragic result that occured. And no you have no right to beat someone to death simply because they threw the first punch. Once you knock someone to the ground and they don't get up you are at fault.

Sorry I have some sympathy for Martin because he was a 17 year old kid and maybe did not no better and I do think Zimmerman should have stayed well clear of him and let the police handle it. However stupid Martin's choice may have been the result is what he did.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, My primary argument here is about media bias. And that argument is about the fact the media has distorted the image of Martin to make him angelic, distorted the image of Zimmerman to make him demonic, bought into "facts" which aren't facts, and dismissed or ignored facts which don't fit their meme.

And most of what I talk about above is pointing out the things the MSM missed or rebutting the fake facts they've established. That has nothing to do with his actual guilt or innocence, which is my point, because the MSM isn't talking about the facts which point to guilt or innocence -- they are building an image to convince the public of who they should feel is guilty.

As to his guilt or innocence, I honestly don't care. Tragedies and murders happen all the time and this is a matter for the prosecutor and the jury to decide which it was. The problem is that the MSM and the race baiters are trying to turn this into something it is not.

Moreover, the evidence here doesn't come anywhere near establishing a crime. Murder requires a showing that Zimmerman set out to kill Martin. There is no such evidence here. The only evidence we know for a fact is:

1. Zimmerman followed Martin. We don't know how close they got before the struggle or what was said at any point.

2. Completely contrary to the idea that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin, Zimmerman called the cops and stayed on the phone with them until the incident happened.

3. Completely contrary to the idea that Zimmerman hunted Martin, Martin was shot after a struggle began, not from a safe distance.

4. Martin came and went and ran at one point, but apparently came back, thereby negating the idea he was actually fleeing.

5. A struggle happened. We don't know who started it.

6. Martin ended up on top and beat Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shot Martin at that point.

All the rest is meaningless, speculative garbage because it tells us nothing about what happened.

Based on the above, there is simply no honest way to convict Zimmerman of murder. The best they could achieve would be manslaughter IF it could be shown that Martin acted recklessly in following Martin in the first place. But even that doesn't work because that is what neighborhood patrols do, because Zimmerman apparently stopped following Martin once 911 told him to, and because we don't know who the aggressor was after that.

That is my point. And the people who are pushing the idea that this was a murder are relying on "evidence" that's not evidence or which isn't relevant. Speculation by people who weren't there about what they think Zimmerman was thinking is not evidence. Trying to decide which one Zimmerman or Martin is the nicer person is not evidence. And there isn't a human alive who doesn't have things in their background which we couldn't spin to make them sound like psychopathic murderers-in-waiting.

AndrewPrice said...

Also, let me point out, you'd be shocked how many people have gotten into fights with cops and how many people (men and women) have domestic arrests. I've represented many normal, happy middle-class law-abiding people who had the cops called on them by neighbors when they were arguing loudly or who got drunk and took a swing at a cop in a bar brawl or shoved a cop when the cop showed up during a domestic argument.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, case in point, my brother was arrested as he was leaving a party at the same time a cop showed up to deliver a noise complaint. The only charge filed against him was resisting arrest. In court, the judge immediately dismissed the charge and read the riot act to the arresting officer, but the fact remains that my brother was arrested for resiting arrest, and anybody who wants to can dig that up.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, So much of it depends on the cops and the judges. I've had clients who should have been locked up sent home and others who should have been sent home locked up. It all depends on the cop and whether they go by the book or if they are more forgiving and whether they like you or dislike you when they meet you, etc. So much of it is a judgment call and it primarily depends on the cops doing what they think is most likely to calm everybody down.

And in a lot of places, they run a no tolerance policy for domestic cases, meaning that if they get called, somebody is going to jail.

tryanmax said...

I think the pivot point for this judge was that the officer had a history of such behavior. Definitely one of those "somebody is going to jail" types.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, I suspect both could and should have done a lot differently here. The problem is that we just don't know what happened. Did Martin attack Zimmerman? Or did Zimmerman attack Martin? We just don't know.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I've seen judges go both ways. I knew a judge who kept everyone in jail 24 hours after a domestic disturbance because he once let a guy out who went home and killed his wife. I knew other judges who let people go home right away on the assumption that the ride in the cop car gave everyone a chance to cool down. I know prosecutors who charge everyone they can with domestic, even when both husband wife insist nothing happened, and I know others who are much more careful about only charging people with a history or strong evidence of violence leading to the arrest.

So much of it is a crap shoot. And I've learned that just being arrested is a pretty meaningless distinction. Real criminals and bad guys get arrested a LOT, not just once or twice in 20 years.

tryanmax said...

Another thing I've run up against--and I don't know how common this is--but around here there is no point in calling in a dom-disturbance if you are a man unless you want yourself arrested. A friend of mine called 911 when his wife was throwing dishes. When the cops arrived, he was still on the phone and the wife was still throwing things, but they took him away and left her with the children. And I know that to be far from isolated.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's generally true, though not always. In my experience, it takes a lot before they will arrest a woman. Excluding drug crimes or prostitution stings, that usually means there needs to be a bleeding injury or evidence of abuse against a child.

tryanmax said...

Well, that just sucks.

Anthony said...


If an unarmed man alone in the night fights an armed criminal and knocks the criminal down, do you honestly believe that the prudent move is for the guy to then back away and hope the criminal won't use his weapon?

Sure, Zimmerman was a guy playing cop, not a criminal and probably wouldn't have shot Martin after being knocked down, but Martin had no way of knowing what Zimmerman's intentions were.

Trayvon's mistake was in not beating Zimmerman to the point of unconciousness or death. What happened to him was the same thing that would happen to a guy that failed to subdue a mugger. If he had had a gun...

But unfortunately for Martin and fortunately for Zimmerman he was merely an unarmed guy carrying merely the candy and tea he had just bought.

Individualist said...


Do you beleive it prudent for an unarmed man to attack an armed one. IF Martin new that Zimmerman was armed and was on top of him with the advantage of beating him to unconsciousness then why did he no take the gun.

The simple answer is that Martin did not know the gun was there. If Zimmerman wanted to harm MArtin why would he not initially use his gun. If he wanted to scare Martin why not pull it from a distance. It is more likely Martin stared an altercation and Zimmerman went for the gun when he felt his life threatened.

The problem with you reasoning is it makes no sence whatsoever. IF I have a gun and want to hurt someone why would I start a fist fight.

Individualist said...


Hate to tell you this but MArtin was a thug. Starting fights and hurting people did not begin with Zimmerman. He was in trouble at school for this more than once and the reason he was not in school at the time was that he was on a 10 day suspension for fighting and beating people up.

In Daytona when I went to school there were race riots because a principal called the cops and this kid got arrested. He beat this kid half to death over lunch money in the bathroom and the assistant principal wanted to teach him a lesson. He was a talented football player and had a scholarship to FSU. Although he only spent a few hours in jail the minisiters and race baiters proclaimed it weeks and started cries of outrage about the school being racist. They proclaimed the French club as discriminatory yet the French teacher who was the advisor to the club was black and so was the student elected president. The whole thing was a circus and ended with two administrators sent to different schools.

The kid was John Parks and he was kicked out of the local Catholic High School were he was on scholarship for beating people up. He had a problem, he thought because he was black and and a good football plaayer that he could hurt anyone he wanted. Well at the high school he got away with this and went to FSU.

As I undertstand it he continued his antics there and lost his scholarship. I heard a rumor he ended up getting shot trying to rob a convenience store about four years after but I am not sure.

Point is this. Instead of looking for a scape goat or an opportunity to stick it to whitey and point fingers and gain publicity. Had those black ministers instead focused their efforts on trying to straighten this kid out maybe later on he would not have thrown it away.

For all the whining Martin's parents state if he was suspended from school why was he not grounded. The fact of the matter is that the amount of melanin in one's skin has nothing to do with this. Period! Heck Zimmerman is half black anyways. This is about Martin's obvious violent character and his parents and the community not really (I believe) trying to correct it. I could be wrong but I see a lot of similarities between Parks back then some 20 years or so ago and Martin now. Balck people want to band together and support a black culture. When they do this they ignore and make excuses for this behavior in order to not have it seem that black kids are the stereotype that racist clansman promoted in the 40's.

Problem is that when strong young black kids engage in this it actually works to justify acting this way. It creates an individual that justifies violence and hides umder then veneer that white people are responsible for it. But acting in this violent manner is one way to get yourself shot in the middle of the night.

Playing into this race baiting stereotype makes these situations worse and the only affect on the "Black" community is to lead more unfortunate young men down this path to ruin.

I beleive Heinlien in Star Ship Troopers to be right about one thing. Morality is ultimately based on self interest. The Moral way to act is not just being "good" but all other things being equal will help one to prosper financially and socialy in life. Refuse to follow it and you lead yourself to potnetial loss. When society tries to convince people that morality is different for people based on skin color, ethnicity or percerved injustice to the majority of a group and that immoral actions are in fact moral for these people then what happens is you convince people to start acting in ways that will cause them potential loss io the future. Character is not about skin pigmentation, good or bad. Sorry but this is how I see this.

Anthony said...


Contrary to your claim, the suspension Martin was serving when Zimmerman killed him was for truancy, not fighting. Though in fairness, your opinion of Martin seems to be shaped more by John Parks than Martin, so perhaps that won't matter to you.

I never said Zimmerman set out to harm Martin. Zimmerman was playing cop, not seeking to become a killer. The problem is Martin didn't know what game Zimmerman was playing.

As for why Zimmerman didn't have the gun drawn, your guess is as good as mine. Overestimation of his physical abilities? Nuttiness?

Given that Zimmerman indicated on the 911 call that he believed Martin was armed and his knowledge that Martin was aware of his presence his decision to pursue him simply wasn't A) rational or B) in keeping with neighborhood watch policy.

Anthony said...


Also, there is a difference between defending criminals and protesting the death of a guy who was guilty of nothing more than walking down the street (by Zimmerman's own account).

He wasn't trying car doors (or for that matter, house windows and doors) to see if they were unlocked, he was simply walking home after having paid for a few items at a convenience store.

But if you want to equate the protests about a guy killing a teen walking home to a defense of criminals such as say, Troy Davis, then I disagree. I'm not in the habit of defending criminals of any color. I think the criminal in this case was Zimmerman.


11 weeks ago @ Big Hollywood - Pro-Fracking Film Laps... · 1 reply · +8 points

Sometimes the justice system makes mistakes (nods towards the Innocence Project) but there is no convincing evidence that Davis's conviction and execution was one of those mistakes.

The world is a better place for Americans of all colors when thugs of any color are dead or behind bars. Ona related note, it should be kept in mind that the face of death for most black murder victims is black.

tryanmax said...

Anthony, I've got to correct facts when I see errors. Zimmerman did not indicate on the 911 call that he thought Martin was armed. He said Martin had "something in his hands."

Also, I've already pointed out that, if one pays attention to the ambient noise in the recording, it sounds as if Zimmerman understood the dispatcher's instruction to "let me know if this guy does anything else" to include following Martin if necessary. There is your rational for his decision to pursue.

In any case, the assertion that Zimmerman was told not to follow Trayvon but did so anyway is a dismissal of the order of events. The only reason to believe Zimmerman continued pursuit after being told not to and responding, "okay," is because one wants to. It has no basis in fact.

Furthermore, we know for a fact that Martin did more than walk down the street. That is another instance of rearranging events. Even if his walk in the rain was not suspicious according to reasonable standards, in the course of the phone call Martin stared down and approached a stranger and then took off running for no reason. Most people would agree that is suspicious and, even if Zimmerman’s 911 call was premature, these events indicate it was justified. And, of course, by the time he was shot Martin had become involved in a physical altercation.

Finally, I find it interesting that you are so willing to theorize about what Zimmerman may have done in the seconds after the phone call ended, but you have provided no speculation as to what Martin was doing in the minute and a half after Zimmerman lost sight of him.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, Indi, tryanmax, et al., I've got nothing to add at the moment, but let me say well done to everyone for disagreeing without name calling. The internet needs more of that! :)

Individualist said...


I had heard that on the radio and I also heard that he had other incidents in school for fighting. This is not new nor is it tied to race. There are a lot of young kids that are larger and stringer than their peers that end up bullying people.

The problem is not race but the culture of race. If the victim is white and the perpetrator is black then the reaction is to blame the victim for the supposed greivances of his race on the cultural collective of black people. Problem is that there is no entity of black people. There are only individuals.

This translates into a notion that is reinforced in the minds of young black kids that they don't have to act the same way. If as an indidual they are caught with drugs it is because white cops don't look for white kids with durgs etc.

Look at the assumptions you are making regarding this case. You act as if Zimmerman and Martin are equals. They are not. Martin is an older adult and MArtin is a young kid. Zimmerman in the parlance of the 19th century is his Elder and as a youth Martin should "show him respect".

If I am an adult and I see a young kid out in the neighborhood past midnight I should follow the kid. I should ask him who he is, what he is doing there, if his parents know he is out. The kid should respect the fact that I am doing this for everyone's good and answer. Not attack people.

We have replaced this ethic which worked for thousands of years in prodcuing law abiding youth with the idea that an Elder can be quesdtioned by a Youth because he has a lack of pigmentation in his skin. The the youth does not ahve to answer to that person, should distrust him and even assault him for questioning him.

This has been ingrained in the culture of the "hood". O had an (now X) girlfriend whose X was black and although she was white her son was black. When I drove her to her old neighborhood she would lecture me that I was not to leave the car because "white" people that did not beleong would be assaulted.

This mind set Anthony is the direct result of liberal affirmative action programs. Liberal despite all their talk of tolerance do mopre to truly segregate by race than anyone even 50's southern rednecks. Sure Bull Connor's generation had separate bathrooms and treated black people terribly but despite that the 50's southerner is much more capable of talking to a black person than a white liberal in Greenich village today.

I audited a HUD housing project and was struck by the fact that the LAndlord told me an eldarly white woman went on subsistance and moved there only to be chased out by the black people there. This despite the fact that a ccleint who owned normal apartments had to hire a firm to handle the placement tenants to ensure that his apartments had a community that embraced allowign other ethnicities to live there.

John Parks is just an example of what I am talking about and the "black culture" lie of the leftist, the culture of the Hood, the welfare culture, the culture of the poor, whatever name we give this set of memes to my mind has a clear role in the MArtin tragedy.

tryanmax said...

Indie, I haven't been confronted with it like you have, but I am familiar with that separate set of norms you talk about. I live in the part of Omaha that is generously referred to as “northwest.” North Omaha is predominantly lower-middle-class and black and West Omaha is predominantly upper-middle-class and white, so you can do the math on my neighborhood.

What this means is that I am constantly navigating two sets of social norms, and the route I take depends largely on the shade of my skin. For example, in a setting like a grocery store where there are narrow walkways that are easily obstructed, it is rare to find a group of white people socializing and blocking passage. On the other hand, it is common to find a group of black people doing so. Different social norms, I get it. I could move on if it were just that.

However, on the rare occasion where I encounter whites blocking the aisle, I can simply say “excuse me” and be let through, usually with a chipper reply of, “excuse me.” But on the much more common occasion where I encounter blacks blocking the aisle, “excuse me” gets a very different response. Generally huffing and grumbling, sometimes refusal to grant passage, and on a couple of occasions I’ve been the target of racial slurs.

A similar pattern occurs when it is just one person blocking the aisle along with their cart. What this has led to is the development of a habit of looking down an aisle before going down it. If I see the aisle is already blocked, I tend to skip it and return later. The irony is that, if someone were to observe that habit with race on their mind, it is my actions that would be called racist.

Individualist said...


In the end it is not black people that act like that but balck individuals. You notice this because the individuals that block the aysle are the ones who want the problem. Who buy into the meme. There are black people that are normal as you or I and they are not the ones purposely blocking the aylse.

What happens is that people get socialized into actions and see that they can get away with things. Many black people put on this front because they know they won't be challenged or that those who do will be challenged by the establishment. They get led into a situation where what they know is immoral behavior becomes justified.

Liberals will talk of cultural differences and understanding but morality is not a fungible psychiatric or sociological norm invented by society. Right and wrong do exist and wrong brings about bad results especially for the person doing wrong.

White southerners were racist and segregated blacks and they remained poorer than the rest of the country.

Blacks today are practicing similar xenophobic memes and they have high unemployment rates, more men in jail.

The liberal elites who applaud the elements of this culture that work to create these circumstances would never allow this for their children. Black people that I know who are successful have abandoned the gangsta culture and the xenophobic attitude to anyone not black, to disrespecting kids that excel in school or get jobs.

As an 19th century british officer is attributed to say in India to tribesman regarding burning widows on a funeral pyre.

"I understand you have a custom of burning widows with their husbands but we British have a custom as well. We take people who burn widows alive and we put a rope around their neck and hang them until you they are dead. So you practice your custom and we will practice ours"

Anthony said...


If a guy following you in the middle of the night wouldn't make you nervous, you are a bolder man than most. If a guy is following you in a car, leaving the road is a sensible option. I've been shadowed (and worse) by security but I've never had random people follow me when walking down the street.

Also, the reason to believe Zimmerman stayed on the move after the 911 call is the fact he first said he would wait by the mailboxes, then just told the operator the cops should call him when they were close.

Its also interesting that Zimmerman complained on the 911 call that 'they always got away' (using more colorful language).


Last but not least, I think Zimmerman calling the police was perfectly reasonable. His going further than that is the problem.

Anthony said...

Individualist said:

You act as if Zimmerman and Martin are equals. They are not. Martin is an older adult and MArtin is a young kid. Zimmerman in the parlance of the 19th century is his Elder and as a youth Martin should "show him respect".


If I am an adult and I see a young kid out in the neighborhood past midnight I should follow the kid. I should ask him who he is, what he is doing there, if his parents know he is out. The kid should respect the fact that I am doing this for everyone's good and answer.

In what universe is 17 a 'young kid'? 'Young kid' is a way I'd describe my 7 year old, not my 11 year old, let alone the 17 year old Martin.

Also, the shooting occured at 7 PM, not after midnight.

And no sane person of any age or color should submit to a random strange of any color. There are more rapists and muggers than neighborhood watchmen.

Also, you say at one point Martin should be viewed as an individual, but you don't seem to be focused on his life or the circumstances of his death. Instead you talk about John Park, O, affirmative action and how how liberals are less comfortable talking to blacks than whites were in the days of Bull Conner.

Setting the case in a larger context is fine and good, but one should make sure one understands the details of the individual lives and deaths of the people in the case we are discussing.

Individualist said...


Martin is a kid. If you had a 17 year old would you let them walk the streets at all hours of the night. Woulod you not demand to know where they are.

If I had a teenager outside at mindnight and an adult stopped him and asked him who he was and why he was there and what he was doing and did his dad know where he was I would expect him to politely answer. Why wouldn't you.

And a parent who does not try to instill this in his child and lets them roam the street at night and gets angry with anyone questioning who they are is only asking for that child to get raped or mugged or worse to become the raper or the mugger.

I am talking aobut the cultural norms that I am seeing on the TV and media that I truly beleive lead to tragedies like this. These norms are promulgated by liberals that act as if a neighborhood watchman has no business questioning a 17 year kid in their neighborhood. This is put out on TV and quite frankly they are wrong.

You are making an assumption that Zimmerman is evil and a murderer but the facts don't in anyway support that. IF I had a 17 year old that ended up in a fight with an adult he would not see the outside world for six months. I don't care what the circumstance was. And if I found out the kid was on top of the individual beating him while he was on the ground and no longer able to defend himself. When he got home I might shoot him myself.

There is simply no excuse whatsoever for Trayvon MArtin's actions. He is dead so the only good thing to come out of this is to try to correct what the media is doing in making false justifications for it.

There is no circumstance where what Trayvon did is not terrible.

tryanmax said...

Indie, you are too right (on your 5:55 comment). You clarified exactly what I was trying to express. It becomes difficult to separate the individual from the group when so many individuals join in a group behavior. I also figured it went without saying (in this forum) that I have encountered exceptions to both patterns--with the somewhat obvious exception of being called racial slurs by other whites.

tryanmax said...

Anthony, you are totally sold on the idea that Zimmerman followed Martin for more than the ~20 seconds that the 911 call supports. That Zimmerman followed Martin for any length of time besides that is pure speculation. I simply won't hear it.

There are a plethora of reasons why Zimmerman would have changed his mind about how and where the cops should find him. Perhaps he thought it imprudent to wait by the mailboxes. He did express nervousness about giving out his address not knowing whether Martin was in earshot, which suggests he was already concerned that Martin might return with ill intent. Turns out...

Is it interesting that Zimmerman used colorful language in describing other individuals committing break-ins in his neighborhood? Relatable, yes, but hardly remarkable.

I've provided you a plausible explanation for why Zimmerman acted as we know he did. I cannot offer any explanation for events you have conjured up yourself.

Anthony said...


7 PM is pretty far from 'all hours of the night' and going to the store and making one's way back home isn't 'roaming'.

You are ignoring your factual errors (I already informed you of the real time of the shooting, but here's a link) and stacking more errors on top of them.

Anthony said...


You say you won't hear speculation, then you speculate. Fair enough.

If Zimmerman was concerned about giving out his address, his fear wasn't that Martin would return to the area in the future (going to a location after words are spoken doesn't allow one to divine the words) but that he had hadn't continued at a dead run after getting out of sight of Zimmerman.

As for the colorful language Zimmerman used, it was in regards to people he called in always getting away. Earlier in the month the police missed a guy he had called in (see the record below and bear in mind that GOA means gone out of area) and it wasn't the first time. Zimmerman had complained (apparently with some justification) about the work ethic of the police in the past (during a ride along a cop showed him his favor nap spots).

A sane man would have waited for the police in his vehicle. Zimmerman did no such thing because he did not think the police would respond in time to detain Martin and he had no intention of letting Martin get away.

As for Martin's mistake, he clearly underestimated Zimmerman's obsession. Leaving the road and getting out of sight of the weird guy stalking him should have ended his problems, but instead Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and went after him.

Individualist said...


The real time of the shooting does not change anything. Martin got into a fight with an adult. He let this fight continue to the point that he was on top of the man (not letting him up) and beating him.

This is the action of a criminal and a lowlife. It is one thing to get into a fight. It is another to attempt to beat on someone who is down. I did not state the time and trying to point out "errors" that are not relevant does not dismiss this point.

My point is still relevant. Martin did not like Zimmerman following him he could have a) walked away or b) told him so of c) called the police himself.

Martin chose option d) beat the S#$% out of the m@#$@#$#@ and teach him a lesson.

By defending this kid's actions the only thing you accomplish is to convince more children they can get away with this behavior. It will only lead to more of such tragedies.

tryanmax said...

Anthony, You say you won't hear speculation, then you speculate. Fair enough.

I will admit to a minor point of speculation. When I said, “…with ill intent,” that was speculation, however reasonable. Zimmerman may just as well have been concerned that Martin might return with balloons. The point about Martin returning is not speculation, though; Zimmerman had already expressed that concern.

Zimmerman said, “I don’t want to give it [the address] out -- I don’t know where this kid [Martin] is.” Juxtaposed as they are, these two statements tell us that Zimmerman did not want Martin to overhear his address, an expression of concern that Martin might be in earshot. This is not speculation, this is English grammar, and it is all in the record.

Besides that, I made no speculation. Rather, I was commenting on the nature of statements Zimmerman made in the 911 call. I suppose Zimmerman may have been engaged in a ruse, but to entertain that would be speculation.

You may have also regarded “Perhaps he thought it imprudent to wait by the mailboxes.” as a speculation. Note that it was merely illustrative of my prior statement and was not part of the case I was making.

As to the rest of your comment, you appear undeterred from making speculation, so you leave me little to respond to. On colorful language: I didn’t refute its usage, but you are in such a fighting mood you must not have noticed. On the generalization that a sane man would wait in his vehicle: not if he didn't believe it to be safe. Everything else in your last comment is speculation.

AndrewPrice said...

Are you folks still arguing about this? Actually, it's been interesting reading what you all are saying. :)

tryanmax said...

Yeah, I should probably let it go. :)

Post a Comment