home

Orlando Sentinel Readers: 65% Say Zimmerman Can't Get a Fair Trial

The Orlando Sentinel polled its online readers. Only 35% believe Zimmerman can get a fair trial. Most blame the media coverage. The best response is the first one currently showing by Diane Panacek of Altamonte Springs.

The slanted media coverage continues unabated. The most ridiculous question I saw asked today was by an MSNBC interviewer named Tammaron Hall who told her legal guest that Zimmerman's attorney wanted him to appear in civilian clothes instead of an orange jumpsuit, and asked him, "Is that a bizarre request or something you would often hear?" If she's that ignorant of court proceedings, what is she doing interviewing anyone about them? (The commentator says it's a "sensible request" and then compares the request to one made for convicted murderer Scott Peterson.)

Also, apparently neither noticed that Zimmerman wore a gray jumpsuit at his last court appearance. The orange jumpsuit comes from his booking photo in 2005 in Orange County.

[More}

So in a nutshell, here's what MSNBC, Ms. Hall and the legal analyst did: They showed Zimmerman in an orange jumpsuit which everyone associates with wrong-doing, then asked a stupid question implying it's "bizarre" and unusual for Zimmerman to want to wear his own clothes at a televised court hearing, and then compared his case to that of a notorious defendant who maintained his innocence thoughout, was tried and convicted first in the media and then in court, where the jury validated the public's perception he was guilty. And threw in along the way that George Zimmerman's lawyer, like Scott Peterson's lawyer, wants to portray him as "human", as if he is not already and is really a monster.

No wonder readers and viewers think George Zimmerman can't get a fair trial. The media coverage of this case has been abysmal.

Maybe instead of a revision to Stand Your Ground laws, we should have laws preventing the lawyers and PR reps for family members of purported crime victims from going on TV and spreading their biased and inflammatory rhetoric all over the airwaves.

Not every tragedy is a crime. Not every killing is a murder. Not every inter-racial killing is a hate crime. But everyone in this country accused of a crime has the right to the presumption of innocence and right to a trial by an impartial jury.

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect persons accused of crime, not families of crime victims. They have rights under the law to be present at proceedings, to be kept informed by the prosecutor, and to be heard at the appropriate stage of a criminal proceeding. They should not have the right to have their representatives destroy the life of the person responsible for their personal tragedy, send them into hiding, poison any prospective jury pool and fuel the media with allegations to keep the case in the headlines for weeks on end in an attempt to force the state into action.

in this case, the media doesn't even bother to check whether the demands of the Martin family lawyers are legally viable before printing them. Latest case in point: CNN which yesterday reported:

Natalie Jackson, an attorney for Martin's family, on Thursday told CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin that O'Mara called to set up a private meeting between Zimmerman and the Martin family. The family declined, Jackson said, indicating they want Zimmerman, instead, to give a deposition on what happened the evening of February 26.

No one can demand a defendant who is facing criminal charges submit to a deposition about the charged crime. A defendant has an absolute right under the Fifth Amendment to refuse to say anything at all. No civil suit is pending, and if there was one, the defendant would not be compelled to give a deposition while under criminal indictment.

What this case needs is a gag order on extra-judicial comments by lawyers representing the interests of any of the principals in the case, both prosecution and defense, their spokespersons and all persons who might be called as witnesses.

< Two Guantanano Detainees Transferred to El Salvador | The Burden of Proof at George Zimmerman's Bail Hearing >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I don't think anyone thought (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 06:06:20 AM EST
    Casey Anthony could get a fair trial around here either, but she did. The media portrayal of her was a lot worse.

    But I would support a gag order on the extra-judicial comments by the lawyers anyway, if it would help keep a lid on the media attention, which is not helping either side at this point.

    You write (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 08:19:54 AM EST
    "Not every tragedy is a crime. Not every killing is a murder. Not every inter-racial killing is a hate crime. But everyone in this country accused of a crime has the right to the presumption of evidence and if charged and a trial is warranted, the right to a trial by an impartial jury. "

    Some tragedies are crimes.

    Some killings are murders.

    Some interracial killings are hate crimes.

    I do not know of anyone that disagrees with the presumption of innocence.

    I recognize the tension between the right to a fair trial and the First Amendment in these types of cases.

    Finally, I do not understand your disdain for those who think poorly of the Stand Your Ground law. Perhaps you can explain your view on that particular aspect.

    I think one has nothing to do with the other (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 11:18:15 AM EST
    and as I have said repeatedly over the years, laws should not be enacted in response to any singular event, no matter how tragic or horrific. Cooler heads are needed.

    Gun control advocates seize on any killing to further their agenda. This case is another example.

    Parent

    I think it is at least arguable (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 11:21:55 AM EST
    that SYG creates certain attitudes and climates with regard to gun use that is a fair subject of discussion.

    In any event, your brought it up in your post and I am wondering, apart from this case, what you think of SYG laws.

    Lord knows you and I are at complete loggerheads on the 2nd Amendment at gun control.

    Perhaps on SYG too.

    Parent

    I have no problem (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 12:09:16 PM EST
    with SYG laws. Yes, I am a strong supporter of gun rights.

    Parent
    I am interested (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 01:39:41 PM EST
    in BTD and Jeralyn's thoughts on SYG in more detail.

    My primary point is easy:

    We had a common law and statutes that provided centuries of guidance and protections for people who were legitimately in danger and trying to protect themselves or their properties.  There was no rash of unjustified murder convictions that were being addressed by the gun lobby in their SYG efforts.  It was all fairly simple:

    People who like guns tend to be people who want to feel free to use guns (and guns of any size or caliber) in any situation in which they feel threatened, regardless of the nature of the threat.

    SYG seems, to me, to be a solution without a problem and more about encouraging vigilante justice than anything else.

    I have heard of no study or other analysis demonstrating a need for such laws.

    Parent

    Agree mostly (none / 0) (#48)
    by sj on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 01:57:03 PM EST
    As to this:
    SYG seems, to me, to be a solution without a problem and more about encouraging vigilante justice than anything else.
    J doesn't have much use for neighborhood watch groups or Neighborhood Watch groups equating them with potential vigilantism.  It seems inconsistent to me.

    Although I don't think it's simple.

    Parent

    Good point (none / 0) (#52)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 02:12:18 PM EST
    From wiki, fwiw, (none / 0) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 02:06:22 PM EST
    The law's effect on crime rates is disputed between supporters and critics of the law.

    The third edition of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010) by John Lott provides the only published, refereed academic study on these laws.[45]

    The research shows that states adopting "Stand Your Ground"/"Castle doctrine" laws reduced murder rates by 9 percent and overall violent crime by 11 percent, and that occurs even after accounting for a range of other factors such as national crime trends, law enforcement variables (arrest, execution, and imprisonment rates), income and poverty measures (poverty and unemployment rates, per capita real income, as well as income maintenance, retirement, and unemployment payments), demographic changes (broken down by race, gender and age), and the national average changes in crime rates from year-to-year and average differences across states (the fixed year and state effects).

    Florida state representative Dennis Baxley, an author of the law, notes that crime rates in Florida dropped significantly between 2005, when the law was passed, and 2012.

    Critics, however, disagree with Baxley. [...][46]



    Parent
    Also from the Wiki ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 02:54:02 PM EST
    Critics, however, disagree with Baxley. In a 2007 National District Attorneys Association symposium, numerous concerns were voiced that the law could increase crime. This included criminals using the law as a defense for their crimes, more people carrying guns, and that people would not feel safe if they felt that anyone could use deadly force in a conflict. The report also noticed that the misinterpretation of clues could result in use of deadly force when there was, in fact, no danger. The report specifically notes that racial and ethnic minorities would be at greater risk due to negative stereotypes


    Parent
    the commenter's concluding sentence:
    I have heard of no study or other analysis demonstrating a need for such laws.
    I guess one could debate as to whether the quoted text supports a "need" or not, but I think bringing some facts - ie, a "study or other analysis" - to the convo instead of merely personal opinions would be helpful.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 04:56:23 PM EST
    I guess one could debate as to whether the quoted text supports a "need" or not.

    I would argue that a "need" for SYG laws might be demonstrated by a study showing that people are being imprisoned for homicides where they were otherwise justified in using deadly force in self defense, not a purported decrease in crime - particularly one claimed by John Lott.

    It is a subject that needs to be studied, as indicated in the NDAA report.

    Parent

    I can understand their reasoning (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 03:22:36 PM EST
    to a point...must be frustrating being able to carry a weapon when every time you use it you are probably going to get arrested first and prove self defense later, at great cost to yourself.  If the SYG laws were modified to say that the case goes right to a judge without arrest, I might be able to support them. I just don't want the judgement call to be made by the police at the scene, and furthermore have them subject to punishment if they do arrest and it was later determined to be a legitimate SYG.  I think the laws go way to far.

    Parent
    I don't understand this. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 04:08:46 PM EST
    "Stand Your Ground" is not even remotely a gun rights law.

    Parent
    (Although perhaps you're not connecting them... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 04:09:38 PM EST
    ...and the two sentences were meant to be entirely separate thoughts?)

    Parent
    "Singular" (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 04:15:16 PM EST
    If a singular event (more accurately in this case, a representative even that happens to be well known, this is NOT the first or "singular" controversial SYG case) shows a pre-existing law to be unclear, "clumsy", overly broad, and/or damaging to society, I don't see why we need to rack up yet more cases before undoing the harm -- and I don't see how "waiting" in such cases and allowing further harm will engender any coolness of heads.

    Parent
    Fair Trial (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:33:43 AM EST
    Without some sort of control group, that number doesn't mean anything.  IOW, if another self defense or SYG trial without all the press were polled, what portion believe that person could not receive a fair trail.

    I suspect the group of pro-gun people would believe the same, no fair trial can be possible and I suspect, since the state actually has this odd law, that that number would be fairly high in any of these cases.

    Pinning all the nays to your point, 'The press is making it impossible for a fair trial' seems disingenuous at best.

    What high profile cases haven't received fair trails vs the ones that haven't.  Seems to me like that for you is probably going to follow the end result and nothing of trial substance.  If the press has tainted the jury pool, certainly they have tainted the very poll you are using to make your point.  They are not exclusive.

    Right now you seem to be saying if he is found guilty, it's because he wasn't afforded a fair trial and I presume is he isn't, then it will have been a fair trial.

    Substance please.

    Me personally, since the state has this god awful law, I presume the residents of the state with fall more into GZ's camp, then not, and since he really only needs one sympathetic juror, I really don't think GZ will be convicted of murder.  But that is pure speculation.

    I did notice that too (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:58:14 AM EST
    I did not interpret the Martins as making 'demands', just declining to meet. What does Zimmerman want to say to them? I would be leary of hearing anything he had to say when he is not under oath.

    that post was deleted (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 11:12:42 AM EST
    for falsely stating I was criticizing the Martin family, i.e., mother and father. The post is clearly directed at their lawyers, PR reps and spokespersons who are driving the media coverage.

    Parent
    So, this isn't criticism: (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 11:21:36 AM EST
    The Bill of Rights was designed to protect persons accused of crime, not families of crime victims. They have rights under the law to be present at proceedings, to be kept informed by the prosecutor, and to be heard at the appropriate stage of a criminal proceeding. They should not have the right to destroy the life of the person responsible for their personal tragedy, send them into hiding, poison any prospective jury pool and fuel the media with allegations to keep the case in the headlines for weeks on end in an attempt to force the state into action.

    Good to know.

    And with that, I'm done.

    It's your blog, and clearly, rather than discuss what people write, you prefer to summarily delete them.

    So, delete this, too - it won't matter because I won't be checking back to see if you responded.

    Parent

    you are taking it out of context (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 12:11:20 PM EST
    but I'll change it to make it clearer and say "Their representatives should not have the right to...

    Parent
    Jeralyn (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 01:43:29 PM EST
    Martin's family attorneys were hired to assist the family in obtaining a conviction or civil remedy from the man they believe is guilty.

    Given that charge, aren't the Martin lawyers doing exactly what they should be doing:

    Advocating for their client's interest and using the media and other methods to obtain the desired result?

    When Zimmerman's lawyers show up on TV or Zimmerman's brother does the same thing, you don't seem to have an issue.

    Parent

    not true (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 05:23:13 PM EST
    My post advocates a gag order on all parties.

    And Zimmerman's spokespersons/lawyers didn't come out until he had been fully and repeatedly trashed by lawyers for the Martins. In law, it's called the "safe harbor" exception to extradicial judicial comments.

    In advocating for Zimmerman to be charged, they made all sorts of prejudicial allegations. While they may not be covered by the rule, they should have honored its spirit:

    Rule 3.6 of the Professional Rules of Conduct :

    (a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

    Exception:

    a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.

    It's not just the lawyers but the use of PR people. PR people is just what it says "public relations." The lawyers should have advocated for their clients with the authorities, not the public. There was no basis for an arrest that night, the matter was still being investigated. Had the investigation concluded  not to their satisfaction, they could have considered other options.

    Whether its Natalee Holloway's mother, Laci Peterson's mother or  the Martins' lawyers and PR reps, they don't make the decision to charge or decide what's probable cause to arrest.

    Parent

    Good response (none / 0) (#85)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 07:53:55 PM EST
     I dont see the need to honor the spirit if not involved in the litigation but put that aside fo a sec. I guess my issue is that if not for the media and pr, we might never have gotten to this point, which most people think is the correct outcome.

    In this case i see the family lawyers as providing a valuable function: shining light on a shady pd and investigation.  I just can't get too worked up about it because if not for them, the man may never have had to stand for judgment.

    Parent

    as all of this has unfolded (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 10:39:16 AM EST
    I have been kind of sickened by how it became a big dog and pony show with everyone crying racism, labeling Zimmerman a "WHITE" Hispanic, when for years all Latino people have been considered people of color so as to isolate one more group of people in the "we've been victimized by white people" pen.
    Immediately Zimmerman was labeled racist and words were put in to his mouth (indistinguishable word must be "coon") and thoughts ("those people" must mean "black people") in to his head.
    The Martins were indeed all over the news making demands about how the case should be handled and people in the streets as well as pundits and celebrities became their enforcers.  I don't blame them.  I blame the people who handed that power to them.
    The fact is that we do not know what happened, but most people think they do.  Most people on the left are positive that the stand your ground law is at fault and Zimmerman is a racist who decided to be judge and jury and killed Martin in cold blood.
    Is anyone of reason making the case for reserving judgement or giving a rational scenario of how Zimmerman might be innocent, not a racist? It is not like the left is going to be swayed by Fox news pundits.
    I am glad there is one person to give, if not the other side, at least the idea that there might be another side.  
    I learned all about being labeled racist back in 2007/2008.  It used to be there wasn't a race card played that I wouldn't bet my last dollar on.  All that changed for me then.  It is hard to explain to someone who has not been burned by that fire, the unease you feel when you smell the smoke again.
    The Martins have been the face of a bit of a mob movement and that makes me very nervous.  To think that people imagine that is how to best make our legal system work, it's not a good thing.
    Just my opinion.    

    "Face of a bit of a mob movement"? (none / 0) (#34)
    by ks on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 12:09:59 PM EST
    Seriously?  I guess peaceful protests are now a "bit of a mob movement".  Still on the Hillary thing?  She's moved on quite well.  I suppose you will also do so someday.

    Parent
    Speaking of (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 01:14:27 PM EST
    A giant leap in logic and topics.....

    Parent
    No, not at all (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by ks on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 01:19:08 PM EST
    Calling the Martins "the face of a bit of a mob movement" is a giant leap in logic and the mention 2008 Dem. primaries (Hillary thing) is a giant leap in topics.

    Parent
    Wrong (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 01:32:23 PM EST
    The comparison was about outrage over manufactured racism and not "pining for Hillary".

    Parent
    That's fine (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by sj on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 01:41:49 PM EST
    but the emphasis on the "manufactured racism" is taking discussion of the situation back about 3 weeks.  

    Parent
    That was the point (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 02:08:20 PM EST
    Of the comment, IMO.

    Much like the manudactured racism, or rather false charges of racism (because it made good for blogs and MSNBC) is much like some of the characterizations and assumptions made in this case - made devoid of facts.

    And the only reason it was "three weeks ago" is because those yelling the loudest about it realized they have no idea what was really the motivation here and it was better to actually wait for facts to come out.

    Parent

    It seems like a darn good reason to me (none / 0) (#53)
    by sj on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 02:20:08 PM EST
    And the only reason it was "three weeks ago" is because those yelling the loudest about it realized they have no idea what was really the motivation here and it was better to actually wait for facts to come out.
    It seems like this is how it should be.  Any particular reason why you are sneering at common sense prevailing, and someone[s] wanting to wait until the facts come out?  Why would you want to regress three weeks?

    Parent
    1) I' m not "sneering" at anything (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 02:28:09 PM EST
    2) Because it hasn't gone away, but still lurks beneath the surface (or overtly, by some of tbe comments around here).

    BTW - the only ones who are regressing are those who are sure this was racially motivated.  Oh sure, they are much more subtle in the framing of their comments, but it's still there.

    Why are you pretending otherwise?

    Parent

    Race (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 02:39:03 PM EST
    You are lumping all race gripes into one bucket, which is frustratingly common, but let me give you my perspective, which I think is the perspective of some here:

    Race Issue 1: If Trayvon was a white kid, Zimmerman would have been arrested regardless of what his race was.  The racism in our society today is more subtle and often unconscious.  Do I think anyone at the police department thought "I hate black people so let's let this white guy walk"? No. Do I think that they cared less about a did boy because he was black? Definitely.  From the way that they failed to notify the parents to the way in which Zimmerman was released, it definitely feels that way to me.

    Race issue 2: Did Zimmerman racially profile Trayvon?  I think the answer, based on his prior treatment of black kids and his conversations with  dispatch, yes.

    Race issue 3: Did he shoot Trayvon because he was black?  This, to me, is really the more open question and we have no evidence of that at this time.  If you want to gripe with those that Zimmerman specifically shot him because he was black, I can't argue with that criticism.

    You are lumping the three very distinct issues of race above into one, as are those who comment on the "mob"

    I think the mob was entirely right on race issue 1. I'll defend that point until the cows come home.  2 and 3 are less clear.

    Nuance.

    Parent

    FWIW I agree with your (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 03:30:27 PM EST
    distinctions. I have been trying to make them too.  I think if race came into play it was at the stage where Z called 911, and possibly again when the police did not charge him. It is harder for me to imagine that in the heat of the moment of the scuffle that decisions were made based on race.

    Parent
    Going out on a limb there (none / 0) (#58)
    by me only on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 02:46:57 PM EST
    and stating that you will defend your fairly uninformed opinion until the cows come home.  Whadda guy.

    Parent
    (1) (none / 0) (#62)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 03:16:38 PM EST
    Is uniformed?  I happen to know a number of members of the florida bar, practicing on the crim defense side, and they say it was unusual.

    I think that's pretty good information.

    Parent

    Yes. (none / 0) (#66)
    by me only on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 03:25:48 PM EST
    It might have been unusual, but the reasoning behind it remains unknown to the general public.  You inserted your belief about the race of the victim and the accused and deduced your own answer.

    Parent
    Except (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 04:05:57 PM EST
    Race Issue 1 - you may or may not be right

    Race Issue 2 - you may think that, but unfortunately, with at least what we know now, this does not fit the any of the facts of the "prior treatment of black kids" and the black community.

    Race Issue 3 - Maybe.  But why call the cops and have a lengthy discussion and give his name, location, and phone number?

    Parent

    you'll defend a point (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 05:26:57 PM EST
    till the cows come home? Even if evidence continues to develop race was not an issue that night and Zimmerman has no prior history of racial animosity? How unbiased of you.

    Please move on.

    Parent

    I am biased (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 08:00:54 PM EST
    No doubt. This started because a kd was harassed for walking down the street.

    Fundamentally I can't, as a black man with kids, pretend that that is a non event.  Regardless of whether Zimm is found guilty or innocent, the kid would likely be alive if not for a stereotype.

    That matters to me.  There are bigger issues here than the legal one, although I understand your position given the law based focus of your thinking on this.

    As I said in my very first comment on this story, that kid was me.

    Parent

    You can't be sure (none / 0) (#84)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 07:47:50 PM EST
    Please don't forget class. My oldest nephew, a white guy with tattoo sleeves on both arms, might not spark an immediate arrest either.

    Police notified Tracy Martin the next day after he identified Trayvon from a photo. To what delay are you referring?

    Parent

    wow (none / 0) (#95)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 21, 2012 at 01:18:39 AM EST
    you are just making "facts" up out of thin air. There is nothing factual there as to Zimmerman's previous behavior towards black kids, unless you buy the non fact that "these people always get away with it" means "black people always get away with it".

    Stop, for God's sake, there is enough real racism in the world. We don't need to manufacture more, it just gets in the way of solving the real problems we have in this country.

    Parent

    Okay, I apologize for the sneering comment (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by sj on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 02:45:19 PM EST
    Although that is how I hear it no matter how I try.  Anyway.

    Everybody (including you, including me) has a point of view.  Everybody (including you, including me) is analyzing from a combination of confirmed data and speculation.  Some people (including you, not me) also have a legal background and can offer insight from that perspective.  That insight can either be accepted or challenged or a combination of both.  

    But in any case, the whole point of all that analyzing and insight-offering is to attain greater clarity and to discard the useless or disproved.  Why would you want to throw it back into the mix?

    Sure some are going to hold on to their prejudices.  Can't do a thing about that.  But why give them a forum and a microphone?  And it's a pretty broad brush that was used there.  I sure didn't like being painted with it.

    And this is patently false.

    BTW - the only ones who are regressing are those who are sure this was racially motivated.  Oh sure, they are much more subtle in the framing of their comments, but it's still there.
    Teresa's original comment, and your support of it are -- in this instance -- regressing the conversation.

    Parent
    nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 21, 2012 at 01:30:56 AM EST
    I had nothing to regress from.  Besides, just now ABG made some pretty outrageous statements about Zimmerman's assumed racism.
    Please do not tell me it has stopped, it has not.  The race baiting "mobs" have quieted only because they consider themselves victorious at the moment.  What it the court case doesn't go the way they expect? Hopefully cooler heads will prevail, but if Zimmerman is found guilty of a lesser charge or not guilty at all?  I guarantee that at least some people are going to be outraged.


    Parent
    "Maunfactured racism" (3.00 / 2) (#47)
    by ks on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 01:51:34 PM EST
    LOL, yeah sure.  A comparison manufactured in the mind of the poster.  There is no rational comparison between what's going on in this case and the 2008 Dem. primaries.

    Parent
    Grass Roots Racism ? (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 03:19:09 PM EST
    Whatever...

    A lot of the racism in the case comes from the GZ 911 tape that we later leaned was sliced and diced.  Ditto for the punks comment, the press went to far as to beep it out, so we couldn't even hear what he said, a lot of people, myself included, jumped to conclusions.  But that's hardly our fault, they knowingly duped us.

    Now we know it was all BS, but like Teressa mentioned, he's got that stank on him and can't shed it.

    The press literally manufactured that racism.  Now the racism call is nothing more then speculation as to the motive, maybe it was race, maybe it wasn't.  Certainly we will never know.

    Parent

    Twaddle (none / 0) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 11:11:32 PM EST
    Everybody here, and most people in the U.S. had already made up their minds that racism was involved in this days before NBC screwed up their tape editing.

    THat's just a ridiculous thing to say.

    Parent

    not a Hillary thing (none / 0) (#93)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 21, 2012 at 01:03:28 AM EST
    a simple reference to learning what false accusations of racism feel like.  Having my eyes open so that pulling the race card at every opportunity is something I no longer do.  I lost my guilty white liberalism, unfortunately lots of people have not.

    Parent
    huh? (none / 0) (#91)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 21, 2012 at 12:24:23 AM EST
    are you speaking in tongues?

    Parent
    Teresa (none / 0) (#45)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 01:47:04 PM EST
    Trying not to live up to my name today.

    Do we have to go back to that?  I am not going to let someone pretend that racism by Hillary supporters wasn't a big part of the dynamic and you are not going to agree.

    As someone said, Hillary is over it, Obama is over it, let's just get over it.

    Parent

    Becuase (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 01:49:35 PM EST
    I am not going to let someone pretend that racism by Hillary supporters wasn't a big part of the dynamic and you are not going to agree.

    It really was made up?

    Parent

    I really hope (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CST on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 02:01:31 PM EST
    all of these comments are deleted for being off-topic.  Because if we're going back to it, there is a lot to say.  But let's not do it here shall we?

    On that note, if I never have to hear the phrase "playing the race card" again, I'll be pretty happy about it.

    George Zimmerman has nothing to do with the election in 2008.  But likening the reaction to Zimmerman to the reaction to Hillary supporters says more negative things about the supporters than the reactions, IMO.  I'm not saying it's a valid comparison, I'm saying I don't think it makes the argument you want it to/think it makes.

    Parent

    Agree CST (none / 0) (#54)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 02:27:02 PM EST
    I can go on about that topic at length but what else is there new to say.

    I detest the "playing the race card" angle.  For people asserting issues of race, it's not playing any card, it's a legitimate statement on an opinion (that may be wrong or right).

    Race is the only thing that we use that term for.  Do we accuse the fundamentalist of "playing the Christian card" when they speak of gay rights or accuse women of "playing the sexism card" whenever someone is trying to make a point about gender issues.

    Some people have an aversion to any accusation of racism and will use the "playing the race card" gambit in any situation that doesn't involve someone in sheets actually yelling the N word while holding a noose.

    I hate when people like Jesse Jackson blame everything on race, but my view is that race is unfairly "played" in like 10-15% of the situations in which it is invoked.  The "race card" bit is frustrating because it implies that race is unfairly cited in 85% of the situations.

    The default being that most times race isn't a factor when, at least in my experience, it is usually a factor in the issue being discussed.  This is where personal experience and, to some degree, having to live as a minority can have an impact on your perceptions.

    At least once a week a person at my job that is below my pay grade clutches her purse in an elevator, despite the fact that I make more money than they do because of the subtle racism I experience at least once each day.

    Live that for a few years, 24/7, and I think people would be more hesitant to gripe about the "race card".

    Parent

    Aren't you the same guy ... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 03:07:17 PM EST
    ... who was claiming that many of the complaints re: misogyny/sexism (specifically made at Shakesville) were imagined - due to the over-sensitivity of those complaining?

    I detest the "playing the race card" angle.  For people asserting issues of race, it's not playing any card, it's a legitimate statement on an opinion (that may be wrong or right).

    Really?  You're now speaking for all people asserting issues of race?


    I hate when people like Jesse Jackson blame everything on race, but my view is that race is unfairly "played" in like 10-15% of the situations in which it is invoked.  The "race card" bit is frustrating because it implies that race is unfairly cited in 85% of the situations.

    Where do you come up with this stuff?  I guess it is easy just to make figures up.  Not convincing in the slightest, ...

    ... but easy.

    OTOH - If you include the ridiculous accusations against HC/her supporters in that 10-15%, you might be at least partially correct.

    Parent

    Shakesville (none / 0) (#68)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 04:04:22 PM EST
    I was making the claim there (as I do often times here) that it is good to hear from a range of people within a certain wing of thinking.  I consider myself a feminist, strongly, but a third wave feminist that is a bit more comfortable with pornography, for example, than feminists of other wings.

    There is no room for those distinctions there.  You either believe one train of feminist thought or you are part of the patriarchy and they censor you and kick you off.

    Similarly here, the reason I am at odds with many is tied to frustration about the breadth of ideologies that can be considered liberal.  I am fairly liberal, but when moderates are talked about badly, I feel some need to assert their perspective because I think that many of their positions are legitimate, pragmatic or otherwise worth hearing.

    Of course I am making up percentages. Who knows (or could know) what the real numbers are.  I was just using those as a reference point.  Let me restate in a different way:

    • When an issue arises and there are cries of racism, most of the time those assertions are supportable, in my perspective.  Occasionally, there are those who cry wolf, but overall, that is rare.

    • For people who use the term "race card" the assumption is generally that most claims of racism are false and occasionally, every once in a blue moon, Al Sharpton may be right about some racist move or other statement (but even then, they won't give Sharpton credit . . . they'll credit someone else because people who use "race card" tend to think Al Sharpton is the worst person there is).

    Does that make sense. Obviously you probably don't agree, but that's the point I am making.  When someone uses "race card" odds are that they don't think racism is a material issue in society.

    Parent
    "Reference point" = stuff I make up (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 04:34:39 PM EST
    When an issue arises and there are cries of racism, most of the time those assertions are supportable, in my perspective.  Occasionally, there are those who cry wolf, but overall, that is rare.

    I would argue that 1/10 to 1/7 (based on your own, made-up numbers) isn't "rare".  That being said, it's not a question of whether an accusation of racism is "supportable" - it's a question of whether it's true or not.  It's easy to make an accusation of racism and then just say it's "supportable" and "my opinion".

    Happened regularly in 2008.

    For people who use the term "race card" the assumption is generally that most claims of racism are false.

    ... When someone uses "race card" odds are that they don't think racism is a material issue in society.

    Racism is an important issue in our society.  All the more reason that people who make weak/false charges of racism on the flimsiest of evidence (or no evidence other than suspicion) should be called on it.  If you're going to accuse someone of being a racist, particularly someone without a history of racism, you'd better have more than made up statistics or "odds are" arguments.

    Parent

    please don't bring up readers' (none / 0) (#82)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 05:29:18 PM EST
    past comments on other topics. We have never allowed that here. Stick to the issue and what is being said now. This space is for current comments, not dredging up past comments. No one is interested a two commenter spat about what they meant on an unrelated issue. This isn't a game of got-cha.

    Parent
    it reminds me of (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by CST on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 03:18:38 PM EST
    some of BTD's previous writing on the "white man's burden".  I would link to it if I could still find it.

    Basically, while I understand that being called a racist probably isn't fun, especially if you aren't racist, I feel like it's often used as a strawman to counter any example of where race may or may not be a factor.  The truth of the matter is these questions aren't 100% black and white all the time (pun kind of intended), and getting defensive any time it's raised as a posibility is not helpfull.  Also, and I'm not saying this is a valid reaction, but whenever I hear it it brings a feeling of "thou doth protest a bit too much" - which probably isn't fair, but that's just how it comes off.  I often hear that phrase from the right wing, and it's often under circumstances where they probably deserve it.  That certainly doesn't mean that that applies to everyone, but it's not a good association.  Even if you are not the boy who cried wolf, the fact that other people routinely cry wolf means maybe you should find something else to say, even if there is a wolf.

    Parent

    CST (none / 0) (#70)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 04:08:32 PM EST
    put that very, very well.

    Parent
    The very same argument could ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 04:40:19 PM EST
    ... be used against those who make accusations of racism.  That being said, just because some on the right like to use the term "race card" as a defense against legitimate accusation of racism doesn't mean we should use a different term.  Is there even a synonym?  Do I have to invent one just for purposes of this point?

    Parent
    you don't have to do anything (none / 0) (#76)
    by CST on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 04:54:51 PM EST
    that's just my reaction to it.

    Even if you are using it legitimately - the phrase "first world problems" comes to mind.  Like white guys who complain about the unfairness of affirmative action.  Meh.

    Parent

    But it was your suggestion ... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 05:01:15 PM EST
    ... that I come up with a different term for "wolf, even if there is a wolf".

    Sorry, but racism is a real problem and a serious accusation.  Consequently, I take false/unsupported claims of racism very seriously.

    Parent

    yikes (none / 0) (#97)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 21, 2012 at 01:48:00 AM EST
    reel it back in there Moby.  There was no comparison.  I simply said that I realized in 2008 how impossible it was to argue against imagined charges of racism.  They make a great club for the guilty white liberal set (to beat up the rest of us) of which I used to be one.  
    GZ got painted and he hasn't been unpainted yet and indeed, there are still a lot of people in front of the media with their paint brushes going.
    I'd say who those people are but I run the risk of being accused of being racist again and then I would have to explain why that was silly and I am just not up to making the "some of my best friends are members of the human race" argument.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#92)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 21, 2012 at 12:51:59 AM EST
    wow, that didn't take long.  Yes of course, racism was the only reason the majority preferred Hillary.  It couldn't possibly been her experience, knowledge etc...

    But this was not about Hillary or Obama, though he tried to make it so with his remarks a few days ago, it is about a young man being shot and the usual suspects deciding it had to be all about race and acting accordingly.
     My remarks were about Zimmerman being tried in the court of public opinion and found guilty and his motive declared  RACISM.  You don't see that?  That's too bad.  There is no real evidence that Zimmerman is racist.  There is quit a bit of evidence that he is not racist and the truth might actually be a more useful tool to society to keep another such death happening in the future.  That would be the real point wouldn't it?

    Parent

    Also, the on-line readers of the Sentinel (none / 0) (#2)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 06:10:10 AM EST
    is a self-selected sample, hardly representative.  They have instituted a fire-wall, like the NYTimes, where you get a limited number of clicks if you are not a paid subscriber.

    I was able to register for free. (none / 0) (#79)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 05:19:44 PM EST
    ABC News photo (none / 0) (#3)
    by ding7777 on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 06:51:53 AM EST
    That really (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 07:47:59 AM EST
    doesn't tell you much.

    Parent
    Exactly what I thought when I saw it. I cut my (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Angel on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 07:52:02 AM EST
    toe next to the nailbed the other day and it bled all over the place, but it was really only a tiny nick and didn't require a band aid.  Sometimes the amount of blood doesn't really tell the truth of the severity of the injury.  Likewise, no blood doesn't tell you everything either.  Some mortal injuries can come without blood, especially head injuries.  

    Parent
    It tells you (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 08:21:03 AM EST

    he was bleeding from the back of his head,  It tells you his physical injuries are consistent with Z's account of events.

    Actually it tells a quite a bit unless your mind is already made up.

    Parent

    account.

    I think the more interesting story is how was the photo taken and by whom.

    Were the police allowing random people to come up and take pictures of Zimmerman?

    Did the police not take photos of Zimmerman?

    I understand your point and I give it some credence.

    But by golly, what a bunch of Keystone Kops there are in Sanford.

    There may be tons of exonerating evidence for Zimmerman and one wonders if the Sanford police's incompetence may have put him in this position.

    I wonder to what extent Zimmerman's defense will rely on the incompetence of the Sanford police.

    Parent

    Excellent. telephoto lens? (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 08:37:31 AM EST
    It tells you nothing more ... (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 08:46:03 AM EST
    ... than he had two cuts on the back of his head.  Apart from that, it tells you nothing about the severity of his injuries.

    Unless your mind is already made up ...

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#21)
    by ks on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 11:01:04 AM EST
    Also, he was treated at the scene and didn't need further treatment.  When we see him 30 mins. later, he's moving easily (even in handcuffs) and his injuries are not readily apparent.

    Parent
    I smashed my face on the ice once (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 11:30:14 AM EST
    when I was a kid playing whip.  I was the end of the whip.  I broke my nose and had to have it fixed. (I am kind of pissed off now that they didn't give me a better one while they were at it).  Oddly enough my broken nose had no effect on how I walked.
    In another incident I was swinging on a friend's swings set.  It was very tall and built of plumbing pipes.  I reached down to pull up my knee socks. To my surprise I flew off the swing, hit the roof of the church next door, rolled off and landed on the top of my head.  I needed stitches even though there was not much blood.  In that case the only thing that effected my walking was my inability to see through my tears because they had to shave the top of my head.

    It is very possible that Zimmerman was injured, but did not seek treatment until later.  It is possible that he was not severely injured but none the less felt that his life was threatened during the struggle.  These are the things that will come out in court.  I hope the court can find an impartial jury.  

    Parent

    And You are Positive... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:02:42 AM EST
    ...it's GZ.

    My mind isn't made up and since the media has already posed a hacked up 911 call to defame GZ, would it really be out of the realm that they get duped into posting a pic that isn't actually GZ or a doctored photo ?  Doesn't seem likely, but I would have said that a couple weeks ago about the doctored 911 call.

    If this is proof, call me still skeptical.

    It seems incredibly odd that the cops would let people snaps shots of his head, at that range, right after someone was killed.

    You have backed GZ from day one, so you should probably stop with the "unless your mind is already made up" schtick, because it's clear that you have done the same.

    Parent

    GPS coordinates (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Rojas on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:43:32 AM EST
    and time stamp are supposed to be embedded in the pic. I suppose they could be hacked.

    Parent
    Alright (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 11:10:53 AM EST
    Here's were I will be at lunch, see here on how to embed the coordinates into a photo.

    29 44'10.74" N  95 34'02" W    80ft.
    El Palenque in Houston if want to verify.

    I'm not saying it isn't a part of the puzzle, but it's not a smoking gun as others seem to be thinking it is.

    The meta data can only eliminate the photo, but all this is silly because I would be shocked if a local news station would even think to validate evidence, much less actually have the capabilities.  If they are going to alter a 911 call, certainly they aren't going to go out of their way to validate something that is sure to draw a crowd.  Doesn't seem like any off them are too concerned about the truth at this point.

    Note, I recently bought a handheld GPS specifically for tagging photos, so this has been a pet project of mine.  I find it fascinating, a string of about 20 digits that can pin point a place on earth so available and usable to the public.

    Parent

    My point (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 08:49:03 AM EST
    being that Zimmerman stuff that has been put out there in the press makes it sound like it was some sort of severe head wound.

    My point being that words are not going to tell you much. Pictures of this would be a lot better not that I expect to get them. And the only pictures I have seen of his head wound weren't that clear and would be more consistent with a bump on the head not something that came from someone who was really trying to fight back.

    Parent

    What it Tells You? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Richjo on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:48:43 AM EST
    All it tells you is there was a physical altercation.

    That does not tell you who started the altercation, the extent of it, or whether it was still on going at the moment the shot was fired.

    Unless you have already made up your mind, I find it hard to believe that this picture would be confirmation of Zimmerman's claim that his head was being pounded into the ground in a way that would cause him to scream for help up until the second he pulled the trigger.

    It may very well be enough to get him aquitted under Florida's self-defense laws, but that says more about the self-defense laws than about Zimmerman.

    Does anyone know what the laws concerning a civil suit in this manner in Florida would be? Should we expect to see something like what happened with OJ in this case?

    Parent

    SYG (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by lousy1 on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 11:28:02 AM EST
    Other than the gunshot is there any evidence of Trayvon having injuries? If not, doesn't that tend to support the contention that Martin was the aggressor.

    The telling moment was the police detective admitting that he had no evidence directly contradicting Zimmerman's contemporaneous response to the investigators.

    A Stand Your Ground law that requires a high level of proof that the victim (Zimmerman) was not  the initiator is worthless on a dark rainy night.  

    Don't blame the law look to the unjustified attack by Trayvon

    Parent

    Don't know (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 11:48:31 AM EST
    Other than the gunshot is there any evidence of Trayvon having injuries? If not, doesn't that tend to support the contention that Martin was the aggressor.

    The autopsy results haven't been released.  But even if there's no evidence of injuries, it doesn't establish Martin was the aggressor.

    Don't blame the law look to the unjustified attack by Trayvon

    ... and how is it you know that Martin committed an unjustified attack?

    Parent
    If SYG applies (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 10:07:03 AM EST
    Zimmerman is immune from civil suit.

    Parent
    I don't think the pic you linked to is Z.

    Although the video is not absolutely conclusive, as there is no shot from the same POV as the pic you linked to, imo, Z does not seem to have a male-pattern bald spot like the one in the pic you linked to.

    Parent

    Hard to tell ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 12:36:56 PM EST
    ... if that's a bald spot, or simply washed out due to overexposure from the camera/phone flash.  Not unusual in flash photos.

    Parent
    caught in hair follicles in the "bald" areas, so it probably is washed out due to the flash.

    Parent
    Jeralyn: "presumption of evidence" (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 08:38:41 AM EST
       Sould be "innocence."

    thanks I fixed it (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 11:18:47 AM EST
    Standing Ovation.... (none / 0) (#22)
    by ks on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 11:02:38 AM EST


    please tell me this was meant facetiously: (none / 0) (#83)
    by cpinva on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 05:50:22 PM EST
    No wonder readers and viewers think George Zimmerman can't get a fair trial. The media coverage of this case has been abysmal.

    nowhere in the constitution (at least not the one presently in force in these here newnited states) is the media required to afford anyone a "fair trial", it is simply not their job. there is a difference between the media's job and the court's; the two are not mutually inclusive entities. the media has always been the media, they do what they do. as a rigorously trained, licensed professional, you deal with it, that's why you get paid the big bucks. if you can't (and so far, mr. o'mara seems to doing a good job of it), you shouldn't take cases you know will cause a media firestorm, that's part of your professional responsibilities.

    if mr. o'mara seriously believes his client will not be afforded a "fair" trial in sanford, he certainly has the option of requesting a change of venue, something i wondered why he hasn't done already. in fairness to mr. o'mara, absent a cave dwelling community, totally cut off from the outside world, i'm not at all certain he's going to find a venue that will fill the bill. might as well go with the devil you know.

    And the delay in calling the parents, (none / 0) (#89)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 11:41:33 PM EST
    IF there was such a delay, was because, why? Martin was black?

    iow, don't be redonkulous. (none / 0) (#90)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 11:42:28 PM EST
    Based on the wikipedia timeline (none / 0) (#94)
    by rjarnold on Sat Apr 21, 2012 at 01:16:53 AM EST
    the police informed the father at 8:00 am the next day. I know it's not the best source, but I can't find a reliable source either way saying when the police notified the family.

    Thread closed (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 21, 2012 at 03:35:51 AM EST
    Too many comments have nothing to do with the Zimmerman case and I don't have time to clean it.